Daniel

Collins’s Daniel is the indispensable historical-critical commentary on the book and remains foundational for serious academic study. It is exceptionally strong on textual criticism, the ancient versions, apocalyptic genre, Second Temple Judaism, comparative literature, historical setting, reception history, and especially Daniel 7. His analysis shows how Daniel 7 develops earlier biblical dream and vision traditions into a much more elaborate symbolic apocalypse whose influence extends through later Jewish apocalyptic literature, Revelation, and the Gospel Son of Man traditions. His Maccabean dating, pseudonymity, and treatment of predictive prophecy will be unacceptable to many conservative readers, but the scholarship is sufficiently detailed and influential that serious interpreters need to engage it rather than ignore it. Best used alongside a strong evangelical commentary such as Lucas or Widder.

Building on his work in the Forms series, Collins provides one of the most thorough scholarly treatments of Daniel. Longman notes that despite Collins’ critical leanings, “evangelicals can learn much from this volume. . . The lengthy and extremely informative introduction includes an essay by A. Y. Collins, ‘The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament.’” This essay especially may interest readers. [Full Review]

For heavy lifting in critical, textual and background material on the book of Daniel.

Collins is an expert in apocalyptic literature, so his analysis of the apocalyptic sections along with the introduction is the strength of the commentary' (that does not suggest that the rest of the commentary isn't good). What makes Collins work so helpful is that it's extremely detailed on background issues (more so than Goldingay). The only annoyance for me is that he doesn't always comment on every single verse. As an additional bonus, you get a commentary on the additions to Daniel that are found in the Apocrypha (I think that spending a little time on the additions to Daniel is a helpful exercise when studying Daniel 1-6). As this volume is in the Hermeneia series there isn't nearly as much theological reflection as there is in Goldingay, but it's still a must read. [Full Review]

The liberal nature of the commentary makes one wonder about the author and his views on Scripture as a whole. Granted it is far more readable than Montgomery's commentary, but that still does not make it a good commentary. If one wants a critical study of the text, then this will help. But that is all one will receive, because of the presuppositions that he approaches the text with.

Best available critical study of the text with full interaction with intertestamental literature. [Full Review]