|
|
AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW
ISSN 0045-0308 |
BOOK REVIEW Published in Volume 51, 2003
E. C. LUCAS, Daniel. Apollos OT Commentary. (Apollos, 2002). Pp.359.
In the Author’s Preface, Ernest Lucas states that his commentary “is written
primarily for those who have the responsibility of teaching and preaching
the Bible, particularly those who do it in a Christian context”. It has to
be said, however, to Lucas’s credit, that Christian tradition does not influence
his interpretation of the book of Daniel. It is only after noting linguistic
matters, delineating the form and structure of the book and commenting upon
it that he distils from it matters of perennial interest for humankind in
general and for Christian communities in particular. As such, it contains
much of value for the reader who is not a Christian as well as for the one
who is.
Lucas deals with the twelve canonical chapters of Daniel as well as providing
a translation of, and brief introduction to, the apocryphal or deutero-canonical
chapters. He professes his indebtedness to the two recent major commentaries
on Daniel (J. E. Goldingay, Word Biblical Commentary, 1989; J. J. Collins,
Hermeneia, 1993). While he does not replicate their exhaustive examination
of all secondary literature, he does mention all the main views on Daniel
and considers literature that had not been published when Goldingay and Collins
were writing.
Lucas’s Introduction to his work covers the texts and versions; the problems
of translating from one language to another; the genre and patterns of Daniel
1–6 and Daniel 7–12 as well as giving a five page summary of the historical
context of the book of Daniel. In addition, students should find useful the
list of the dates of the reigns of the monarchs of the Babylonian, Median,
Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms.
In the Commentary section, views about the unity/disunity of Daniel are stated,
but not dealt with in depth. In most cases, Lucas sees theories concerning
redaction of the text as erroneous. To be fair, Lucas states in his Preface
that it is the final version of the text upon which he concentrates, partly
because it should be studied in its own right and partly because it was included
in the Canon in that form. The traditions behind the stories or behind the
imagery of the apocalyptic chapters are considered in a comprehensive and
scholarly fashion with new insight being given now and again. For example,
Lucas debates the origin of the four metal schema that appears in the statue
in Daniel 2. He argues that it is likely to derive from a tradition that
appears in Hesiod (eight century BCE) and Ovid, rather than
from Zoroastrianism. Others have suggested Hesiod as a source but tend to
see Zoroastrianism as involved in some way because one of its texts, like
Daniel, mentions “iron mixed with clay”. Lucas points out the lack of certainty
about the date of the Zoroastrian text and suggests that the metaphor of
iron and clay is original to Daniel and reflects a historical situation known
to him.
Overall, Lucas’s commentary is eminently readable and should appeal to the
student as well as the preacher. The academic teacher too should find aspects
of interest where new views are advanced and older ones debated with clarity
and skill.
Review by
Dr. Anne E. Gardner
La Trobe University
Bundoora, Victoria
|
|
