An affordable, insightful Daniel commentary by a respected conservative scholar. Very readable, but challenging. The 70–page introduction to the Book of Daniel and extensive footnotes may be more than most lay readers would need. OTOH, if you are especially interested in the critical issues regarding the historical background and authenticity of Daniel, Baldwin touches on them all with rigor. The verse-by-verse is very good, but brief at points; if you want something that thrashes through every detail, this won’t fill the bill. While Baldwin is conservative, she is not beholden to any particular interpretation and holds her own admirably, sparring with fellow scholars in the ample footnotes.

Baldwin includes special notes on Nebuchadnezzar's dream statue, the prayer of Nabonidus, the 'son of man,' and interpretations of the seventy sevens. (She holds the seventy weeks of chapter nine to be ‘symbolic rather than arithmetic.’) These serve to deal with interesting issues requiring more discussion than the concise exegesis characteristic of this series would normally allow..

Probably the best deal for the money. A definite recommendation for a beginning to intermediate commentary or especially for a tight budget. A solid investment.

Bargain Price ~ Evangelical ~ Concise Exposition ~ Personal Application

InterVarsity Press, 210 pages, 1978.

Read a few quotes from Baldwin

See other books by Joyce Baldwin

Fair commentary for grasping the meaning of the text from a solid scholar, but a bit dated having been published in 1949. Thorough and very conservative. One of the most thorough conservative commentaries in print. It does touch on every verse in detail. The writing strikes me as somewhat bland, but a solid conservative work by a respected scholar who taught at Westminster Theological Seminary and defended the basic historicity of the Book of Daniel. Young’s strength lies in his knowledge of the Semitic languages, thorough familiarity of the Bible, and devotion to an evangelical perspective. A bit pricey.

Pricey ~ Evangelical ~ Detailed Exposition ~ Personal Application

Banner of Truth. 332 pages. 1949.

See other books by Edward Young

I finally picked up a copy. Actually got it at EBay, as I didn't want to be seen in a bookstore with it. While I may be inept, but don't look to advertise the fact. This book is really designed for the beginner, written at a high school level, and filled with interesting graphics, historical tidbits, and quick sound-bite-style quotes. The presentation is appealing and very user friendly. Daymond uses the NIV text, which is a fine choice, but may not rest well with much of his target audience.

Daniel for the Biblically Inept is really more of an extended Bible study promoting premillenial dispensationalism than a commentary on the Book of Daniel. It force feeds its own fundamentalist views without any hint that there are other views—excepting “the critics” who are depicted as a sad lot of bumbling, godless, hucksters. If you would like a simplistic, hyper-conservative explanation of Daniel and have no interest in what scholars, conservative or critical, are saying, then this is your lucky day.

Many of the quoted sources are misleading or quite dated—is it really accurate to describe Uriah Smith, who died in 1903, as “a former pastor and author of several books?” Nothing against Uriah per se, but where's the beef, where are the real scholars? This book could have been greatly strengthened if it had drawn upon a few solid conservative scholars like Joyce Baldwin, Donald Wiseman, Gleason Archer, Robert Dick Wilson, or Edward J. Young. It's very curious that Daymond Duck makes no attempt to avail himself of this arsenal. Instead he relies on shallow parallels from the headlines finding danger at every turn and all but declaring that the apocalypse is at hand. Certainly this is more than a little disappointing. Duck misleads by drawing comments from the unredoubtable Billy Graham. A check of the footnotes confirms that the Graham quotations aren't really about Daniel at all, but taken from the 1975 work entitled Angels. Billy Graham is even listed on the cover as though he actively contributed to this mess. It is really shameful. Checking other footnotes, one discovers many are “prophecy newsletters,” taped messages, and radio programs—more chatter than actual scholarship! I really wish this book had *not* relied upon self-proclaimed “prophecy experts” like Hal Lindsey for so much of the content of this book. By the way, Duck also declares himself a prophecy expert (see page 8). Well, Mr. Hal Lindsey, move over, a Duck is in the house.

Many of the comments and sidebars are really sound-bite drivel. This is in-group material intended for the most hyper of conservatives. I can't imagine what a non-Christian would think while reading some of this stuff. It's really laughable. Check out this inept advice:

"The Book of Daniel will be helpful to those who miss the Rapture to know how to identify the beginning of the Tribulation Period, what group of nations will rule the world, and who will be their last leader." (p.8)

Many of the silliest quotes are bull and come from Bible in the News:

“A CNN news report estimates that at least 300 of today's Fortune 500 companies use astrologers in one way or another.” (p. 39)

“Ford executives consulted astrologer Joyce Jillson of Sherman Oaks, California, for good dates to introduce their redesigned Taurus, itself named after the second sign of the zodiac.” (p. 41)

Does this junk even belong in a commentary? Is this the stuff of “prophecy experts?” This is the National Enquirer of commentaries. Please reach a bit higher. It's okay to start out inept, but do you really want to remain inept?

Inexpensive ~ Fundamentalist ~ Written for Laymen ~ Personal Application

Starburst Publishers. 304 pages. 1998.

Dr. Gleason Archer provides the ‘Daniel’ portion of this commentary, carrying on in the the tradition of the great Robert Dick Wilson. Likewise, a distinguished Biblical linguist, Archer defends a strong, very conservative view of the Book of Daniel without apology. Never one to waffle on the issues, you’ll appreciate the succinct, straight–forward exposition that characterizes this work. The flip side of this coin is that Archer can be polemic at points, dismissing liberal views with the same disdain they often give to evangelical works.

As an example of his very conservative interpretation, Archer holds the seventy weeks of Daniel chapter nine to be a calculable prophetic date.

Bible Commentary One Volume