Daniel

Sharon Pace’s Daniel in the Smyth & Helwys series is readable, pastorally warm, and often helpful in presenting Daniel as a book of hope for faithful sufferers under violent empires, but when read alongside the major Daniel commentators its weaknesses become clear. Pace largely follows the Collins-Goldingay-Newsom-Seow historical-critical line: Collins gives the classic second-century/Maccabean framework, Goldingay offers a more literary and theologically sensitive version, Newsom gives a sophisticated account of Daniel’s gradual composition and “epiphanic rhetoric,” and Seow similarly reads Daniel through legendary court tales and Antiochene crisis; these scholars help explain Pace’s approach, but also show its limitations, because Daniel’s own rhetoric claims that God reveals and governs history, not merely that later writers imaginatively reframe history as revelation. Lucas shows that a late-date or Antiochus-centred reading can be held in a more evangelical and theologically reverent way, yet his nuance also exposes Pace’s problem: Daniel’s visions still need to function as trustworthy divine disclosure, not merely encouragement through pseudonymous literary strategy. Tanner, Baldwin, Miller, Hill, House, and Davis press the strongest historical and theological objections: Daniel’s Hebrew and Aramaic, Persian loanwords, Qumran evidence, court traditions, and detailed knowledge of Babylonian-Persian realities make a purely second-century explanation much less secure than Pace implies; Miller and Baldwin especially stress that treating Daniel’s prophecy as after-the-fact risks making the book’s revelation claims morally and theologically hollow, while House warns against circularly reasoning from “apocalyptic” to “pseudonymous.” Sprinkle, Longman, Widder, Duguid, Hill, House, and Davis also challenge Pace’s narrow Antiochus-only reading of Daniel 11: Antiochus IV is certainly important, but the prophecy can telescope beyond him to a final eschatological enemy, so the mismatch in Daniel 11:40–45 need not be “failed prophecy.” Widder’s mediating approach is especially valuable here, since she allows Antiochus as a genuine near fulfilment without exhausting the text’s canonical horizon. Walton/Buster, though not conservative in the Tanner/Miller sense, still expose Pace’s overstatements by showing that ancient narrative shaping does not automatically mean fabricated events, and that difficulties surrounding Darius the Mede do not justify simply dismissing him as fictional or composite. Duguid and Davis further show that Daniel’s centre is not merely anti-imperial resistance but the triumph of God’s kingdom, the Son of Man, resurrection hope, and Christological fulfilment. Pace’s problem is therefore not lack of pastoral sensitivity or theological seriousness, but a subtler and more serious tension: she eloquently affirms God’s sovereignty, justice, and compassion, yet her framework can make Daniel’s claimed revelations function as literary-theological reassurance rather than truthful divine disclosure. Useful for reception history, theological reflection, and exposure to mainstream critical scholarship, but not reliable as a primary commentary for readers who want Daniel treated as historically grounded, prophetically trustworthy, and canonically fulfilled in the larger biblical hope.

Pace's commentary is extensive in its use of Jewish history, which makes sense when one is academically exploring this text. For preaching purposes, I did not garner a tremendous amount of insight. However, Pace does a fine job of getting past the modern and ridiculous fascination with apocalyptic imagery, and paints Daniel as a subversive text written to encourage an oppressed people. She writes: "The author shows that Daniel believed it was possible to stay true to God's commandments despite Babylonian captivity" (42). She also appropriately applies their situation to a modern context: "The book of Daniel encourages all readers to stand up against injustice and to find courage when confronting evil" (186). Overall, this should probably not be your only commentary on Daniel, but it serves as a welcome and helpful companion.