Daniel (New American Commentary, 18) (Hardcover)

~ Stephen B. Miller (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 348 pages
• Publisher: Holman Reference (August 31, 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0805401180
• ISBN-13: 978-0805401189
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 5.9 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #324,547 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #62 in

  Books > Religion & Spirituality > Bible & Other Sacred Texts > Bibles > Translations > New American

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

40 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The must have commentary on Daniel, December 28, 2004

By	revwec "revwec" (Lenoir City, TN) - See all my reviews

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.

25 of 32 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Good refutation of critics' Maccabean authorship theory, July 24, 1999

By A Customer

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.

19 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Its very ok., November 12, 2007

By	Jeff Tell (Greenwood, SC USA) - See all my reviews

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.