Average Customer Review:
( 11 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
68 of 72 found the following review helpful:
The must have commentary on DanielDec 29, 2004
By W. cornett
Stephen R. Miller's commentary is the must have commentary on Daniel. Stephen Miller writes from a well informed conservative perspective (i.e. he is aware of the criticisms of scholars who attack the authenticity of Daniel and answers them point for point and then some). He deals well with the Hebrew and Aramaic, but the reader does not need to know them to read this commentary. Miller provides a detailed introduction. He holds to a premillennial point of view. Although the strength of the commentary is the scholarly exegesis, Miller also provides some insightful application. This is by far the best commentary on Daniel that I have seen (and that is more than two dozen including Archer, Baldwin, Collins, Walvoord, Wood, and Young). Any student, pastor, layperson, or critic of Daniel has not done their homework if they have not read Miller's commentary.
34 of 41 found the following review helpful:
Good refutation of critics' Maccabean authorship theoryJul 24, 1999
Dr. Stephen Miller of Midamerica Seminary is an expert on the languages used in the Book of Daniel and he is well read on the past commentaries on Daniel (both conservative and critical commentaries). He backs up his views with the latest archaeological findings available. His commentary surpasses the excellent commentary by Gleason Archer on Daniel in the Expositor's Bible Commentary series.
18 of 21 found the following review helpful:
Deserves to be readApr 27, 2009
In 1975 I read a commentary on Daniel. It was my first major reading of a commentary. I have been reading commentaries for fun (and work) ever since. My wife and I recently translated the Aramaic portions (six chapters) of Daniel. I found myself reading through the rest of Daniel written in Hebrew. This led to pulling off the shelf, John Goldingay's commentary and purchasing J.J.Collin's commentary, for further study. These two are the most raved about commentaries in the last 20 years. Goldingay is a master of the literary form and structure of each chapter/section of Daniel, and brings to the reader a vast array of other ancient sources. Surprisingly Goldingay, an evangelical, holds to a late date for the book. While his commentary has much to teach us, at times I found the exegetical comments on the verses a bit slim.
What Goldingay misses in the exegetical sections, Collins gives in abundance over any commentary of recent time. Montgomery's 1927 commentary on Daniel is the foundational work of the original languages and still worthy getting if you can find it. As for Collins he gives a detailed work on Hebrew and Aramaic words and for those interested both translation and commentary on sections of the Greek version of Daniel. He closes out the book with translation and commentary on the extra biblical Bel and the Dragon and Susanna stories. Adding to this a lengthy introduction including the history of the interpretation of Daniel makes Collins the premier work on Daniel.
The main thing I found missing in both of these exceptional commentaries is the lack of interaction with - a) scholars who still hold to an early date and - b) interpretations that have dominated the landscape for centuries. I wondered if there was any recent work that might give at least some balance to the discussion. From reading reviews I found a name unknown to me in Stephen Miller who I hoped might give some balance. His short introduction (only 30 some pages) grabbed me immediately. He continued through out the commentary to give the balance that was missing by interacting at every point with other scholars and interpretations. While Miller is not as thorough in exegetical comments as some, repeatedly he picks up on interpretive matters and insights that are lacking in those works. In Miller's work one will find a rich compendium of the best commentaries. This alone makes it a plus for a beginner. One may not agree with his all his conservative interpretations and will have to smile at his brief Sunday school kinds of sentences inserted for our personal application. Overlooking these it is well worth the buy and read. It has become one of my favorite commentaries. I rarely write reviews on books but this one deserves to be read.
40 of 57 found the following review helpful:
Its very ok.Nov 12, 2007
By Jeff Tell
Miller's commentary is fair. It does have several positive contributions. His discussion of the dating of Daniel is pretty good, and he defends an exilic date. His discussion of the identity of Darius is also better than I found in many other commentaries. On several other issues Miller presents a good discussion, and is a good resource for bringing together other conservative views.
However, as an aid to understanding the meaning of Daniel the commentary is very disappointing. The pre-mil viewpoint is pervasive throughout the comments, and at many points it is assumed rather than argued. The text is often read as being "clearly" or "obviously" pre-mil, when to a non-pre-mil reader it is anything but.
On many passages Miller serves merely as a compilation of other commentor's viewpoints. He will quote three or four opinions on an issue, and then pronounce one of them to be correct. Again, it is not always explained why he favors one over the others, it is simply a given that the one he picks is correct. Often this act of selecting from the views of others replaces any actual comment on the text. For a reader unfamiliar with the literature, it is certainly interesting to read the variety of opinions, but they are not dealt with in such a way as to help the reader make an informed decision between the options.
In general Miller rehashes the traditional debates and lands predictably on the conservative, premillenial side. In this sense the commentary brings almost nothing new to the conversation. I was disappointed by the lack of sensitivity to the many literary nuances of Daniel, and little attempt is made to understand how Daniel might be understood in its own context, without recourse to the rest of scripture (particularly Revelation!). This should not be used as a "primary" Daniel commentary. However, if you are using one or two others already, this can be a good source of information about sticky issues, and a good place to get a sense for the breadth of opinion on a passage.
2 of 3 found the following review helpful:
One of the best commentaries on DanielApr 14, 2012
By J. Garcia
I just finished reading Miller's work and I about ran my highlighter dry! Miller was very informative (including ample footnotes) and was easy to read. He writes from a conservative and premillennial perspective. I disagree with his conclusion that Daniel's "70 weeks" began with the decree to Ezra in 458BC (p263). I contend it began in 444BC with Artaxerxes decree to Nehemiah - largely based on my bias for a 33AD date for Christ's crucifixion. However, this is a relatively small issue. Miller handled the text incredibly well throughout.
Here is a random quote from something I highlighted concerning Dan. 9:27:
"If the sixty-nine sevens conclude with Christ's first coming and the final seven (seven years) is terminated by Christ's return, there must be an interval of time between the end of the sixty-ninth and the beginning of the seventieth seven. The text also indicates that the seventieth seven would not follow the sixty-ninth immediately. For example, Christ's crucifixion ("Anointed One ... cut off," v. 26) and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (v. 26) would occur after the sixty-ninth seven, but not during the seventieth seven (v. 27), revealing a gap between these sevens." (p269)
See all 11 customer reviews on Amazon.com