Collins's contribution to the Hermeneia series to be more helpful. Those interested in a fuller analysis of such issues will find commentaries such as John J. These conclusions are appropriately cautious and judicious considering the ongoing debate concerning these questions in Daniel studies. Shepherd briefly summarizes the various issues, arguing that the Hebrew sections function as commentary on the Aramaic section and that the issues of dating the book cannot be definitively answered, thus a range of dates between the sixth and second centuries BCE are possible. The book of Daniel has been an interpretive morass throughout the centuries because of the presence of two languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) and two genres (court tales and apocalyptic visions) that do not coincide with each other, as well as internal historical references that raise the issue of dating the book. However, such an approach has a tendency to gloss over the contested history of interpretation of this text. Those interested in identifying such themes will find this analysis interesting and helpful. This type of analysis accords with his emphasis of a unified theme to the biblical texts. Shepherd's commentary on Daniel provides a brief review of each chapter with an emphasis on the intertextual connections between Daniel and other biblical texts. One can agree or disagree with this analysis, but it does set the context for his approach to the text of Daniel. Sailhamer) in his presentation of an overall unified theme of the Bible. Shepherd credits the work of others (for example, John H. Recent biblical scholarship argues for the polyvalence of biblical texts, the presence of multiple voices and viewpoints. The quest for an overarching theological construct of the message of the entire Bible has resulted in massive tomes throughout the centuries. This of course is one of the tasks of biblical theologians and not directly related to writing a commentary on Daniel.
More than half of this slim volume consists of an argument for a unified theological reading of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. It is clear from the structure of the book that the author's purpose is oriented towards his theological perspective, thus the inclusion of analysis concerning the relationship of Daniel and New Testament texts. The stated goal of this book is to "read the book of Daniel within the context of the Hebrew Bible as a whole" (p. The Hebrew Bible is messianic, eschatological, and faith-oriented" (p. This is affirmed in the final chapter: "Jesus and the New Testament authors agree. is messianic, eschatological and faith-oriented (pp. In the introduction, Shepherd notes that "the composition of the Hebrew Bible. The inclusion of brief remarks on the New Testament provided another clue to the author's intention. Thus the reflections on Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles are located after the commentary on Daniel. I was puzzled by the structure of the book until I realized that the author was following the canonical ordering of the Masoretic Text (MT) in his construction of this book. The title of this book suggests a work focused on the place of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). The book concludes with two appendices, a short essay on Hermeneutics, and the author's translation of Daniel. Chapter 4 consists of the commentary on Daniel followed by chapter 5 on Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, and the New Testament.
The structure of the book is both curious and confusing. After a brief introduction that raises the question, "What is the Old Testament?" and explores the process of canonical formation, the first three chapters of the book are devoted to explorations of the Pentateuch (Torah), Prophets (Nevi'im), and a portion of the Writings (Kethuvim).
"This book is not the usual sort of commentary on the book of Daniel." This opening statement in the introduction of this book is certainly true. The Book of Daniel: A Site of Contested Identities