The Book of Daniel (Anchor Bible)

Rating:
Summary: Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die- the Apostle Paul
Review: I am shocked at modern scholarly commentary. First the dating was amazing, dating this book to be from around the time of 180 B.C., some three hundred to four hundred years later than previous believed. Then I quickly realized why, for the prophecies to be true in Daniel 11, one must have faith and realize how awesome and perfect and holy the Bible is for history to be predicted so precisely, or one can simply say the propecies were written after, making void the gorgeous genius of the Author and Savior Jesus Christ. Also there are many more things shocking about the edition, saying that the Son of Man written about wasn't referring to the Lord Jesus Christ at all. What? My question is summed up in the opening title. If you believe that the Bible is just some loose collection of historical annotations by pious man, then why bother reading it? If this book is not the infallible and Holy and Perfect Word of the One and Only God Almighty then why waste the energy? If the truth isn't the truth then I want nothing to do with it; I'll quit all things to do with the faith and and spend every waking minute finding earthly pleasure and committing crimes. Why not? As Paul said, if we believe these things in vain, we are most to be pitied above all men. It's crazy to follow a religion you don't believe in, but if you do believe, Aristotle's law of contradiction applies; i.e., the Word of God cannot not be the Word of God, and if it is the Word of God, then it must be treated as such, and to question every prophecy, dumb-down and pragmatize every allegory and mysterious thing, to give some scientific explanation for anything awe-inspiring, is to assert that a finite man knows more about the book then the One and Only God knows, the very One who created trees, ink, the universe, Daniel the man, Daniel the book, heaven, and hell. Jesus the Saviour said call no one on earth father, for one is your father (God), no one on earth leader, for one is your leader (Jesus), and no one your teacher, for one is your teacher (the Holy Spirit, and the Three are One). John said in 1 John that the annointing you received (i.e., the Holy Spirit) causes you to have need to be taught by no one. Forget scholarship, commentary, priests, pastors, popes, and the like, buy an interlinear copy of the Greek New Testament (such as George Berry's with strong's numbering and two Greek dictionaries in the back), have faith that Jesus wrote every word, and be taught from the great and Eternal Spirit of Truth and Love and Knowledge and Wisdom; for you are to answer to Him on the day of Judgment, and not to earthly scribes. The Pope claims to be infallible [also note in the book of Matthew at the ordaining of the first pope, i.e., Jesus calling Peter the Rock and giving him the keys of the kingdom(if you believe that to be the interpretation), that a few verses later He called Him Satan- Matt. 16:23, showing that even if there was such a thing as a Pope, we wouldn't be infallible], but the Bible isn't? As Paul said, they wish to shut you out, so that you will seek them. Do not seek them, seek Jesus, "for whoever cofesses with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believes in their heart that God raised Him from the dead, shall be saved" (Romans 10:9). And again, "everyone, whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Joel 3:5). I love you all very much in Jesus; sincerely, a concerned brother -Col. 1:9

Rating:
Summary: One of the Most Famous Commentaries on Daniel
Review: This is one of the most often quoted commentaries on the Book of Daniel. It has less information than Montgomery's commentary, but is more readable. Hartman and DiLella are often quoted in Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other commentaries.

They include an unusual new translation of Daniel influenced by H. L. Ginsberg. Ginsberg believed strongly that Daniel was originally written entirely in Aramaic, and that this fact is betrayed by confused translation from Aramaic to Hebrew in the Hebrew portions of the book. Hartman and DiLella try to reconstruct the original Aramaic meaning by stripping away errors in translation.

The commentary has a lot of discussion of the "son of man" (or "one in human likeness.") It comes to the conclusion that the "son of man" originally referred to faithful Israel and didn't have a messianic meaning. The authors believe the messianic connotation derived from later apocalyptic literature (the Parables of Enoch and II Esdras.)

The commentary frequently cites Jerome's Commentary and Porphyry. They seem to be at ease with Latin, which isn't surprising for Catholic scholars.

Aside from the examples above, most of the explanations in the commentary are reminiscent of earlier commentaries like Driver's and Montgomery's.

Besides the fact that it's respected among scholars and frequently quoted, I think this is a good deal for the price.

I like it more that Di Lella's more recent commentary.