Daniel, by J. Paul Tanner. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020. xxii + 803 pp. $49.99.
J. Paul Tanner has provided a noteworthy addition to the corpus of Daniel studies with his recent commentary in the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (EEC) series. Tanner serves as the Middle East director for BEE World and has taught in seminaries throughout the Middle East. He interprets Daniel with traditional dispensational hermeneutics and with a conservative view of biblical dating and prophecy. This places him squarely against the grain of recent trends in evangelical commentaries, which have evidenced a growing shift toward late dating for biblical books (e.g., the Maccabean period for Daniel [Goldingay; Longman admits the possibility]; Ptolemaic period for Ecclesiastes [Athas, Heim]) and critical views of prophecy (e.g., Goldingay views much of Daniel’s prophecy as ex eventu, while Longman is unsure).
Tanner’s volume is the first major evangelical commentary on Daniel in nearly fifteen years (since Steinmann, 2008) and the first new commentary on the book from a dispensational perspective in over thirty-five years, since the various 1985 volumes by Archer (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), Whitcomb (Daniel), and Pentecost (Bible Knowledge Commentary). The commentary follows in each section the typical EEC format, which includes introduction, textual notes, translation, commentary, biblical theology comments, and applicational and devotional implications. The commentary is technical in its scholarship when addressing interpretive issues but at once pastoral in its application and theology.
Some of Tanner’s notable interpretations include the following. He dates the book to the sixth century B.C., not much later than 536 B.C., the final recorded date (37). He correlates the structure of the book with its linguistic profile of Hebrew and Aramaic sections (22–30). In this view chapter 7 serves as a hinge or pivot between the major parts of the book, as its vision of the four beasts harks back to the dream account of chapter 2 with its attendant narratives (chaps. 3–6) while also setting up the vision sequence of world empires in chapters 8–12. Tanner argues that Nebuchadnezzar becomes a genuine believer following his divine judgment of exile among the beasts of the field in chapter 4 (a disease he identifies as boanthropy) (310–11). He understands Darius the Mede (Dan 5:31; 6:1–28; 9:1; 11:1) to be Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages and uncle of Cyrus the Great (54–60). This view privileges Xenophon’s Cyropedia over Herodotus’s history and carries significant evidence in its favor. He interprets Daniel 8 as finding its literal fulfillment in Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who typifies the future antichrist (477).
Tanner sees Daniel’s intercessory prayer of chapter 9 as linked through intertextuality to the blessing/curse provisions of the Mosaic Law (Lev 26; Deut 28) and thus not a model for confessing corporate solidarity in generational sins outside a covenant context such as this (534). He dates the commencement of the 69 weeks of Daniel 9:25 from the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 B.C.; using “prophetic years” of 360 days this period ends in A.D. 33 at Christ’s crucifixion (584–86). The covenant enforced by the antichrist in Daniel 9:27 relates to the implementation of the Mosaic covenant in Israel for the first half of the Tribulation period (592–93). Tanner champions Daniel 11:36–45 as predicting not the actions ofAntiochus IV Epiphanes but those of the future antichrist, whom he understands to be ethnically Jewish (685–703). The awakening in Daniel 12:2 refers to a physical resurrection rather than the restoration of Israel (736–37). The period of 1,290 days in Daniel 12:11 refers to the second half of the Tribulation (the 70th week) plus an additional 30 days, with the figure of 1,335 days (12:12) adding 45 more days. This period, suggests Tanner, allows for the judgment seat of Christ—which he places after the Second Coming—as well as preparation for the wedding celebration of the Lamb at the advent of the millennial kingdom (Rev 19:9) (765–66).
Two strengths of the commentary merit mention. First, in the introduction Tanner ably addresses objections—historical, linguistic, theological, and literary—to the traditional date and authorship of Daniel, a section comprising thirty pages. Tanner defends Daniel from a dozen alleged historical inaccuracies, including the following: (1) Daniel 1:1 mentions the third year of Jehoiakim vis-à-vis Jeremiah’s fourth year (Jer 25:1; 46:2); (2) supposed confusion of Darius the Mede (5:31) with Darius I; (3) Belshazzar rather than Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon; (4) Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar rather than grandfather (5:2); (5) the identity of Darius the Mede as a historical person; (6) the lack of extrabiblical confirmation of Nebuchadnezzar’s disease; (7) the term Chaldean used in a non-ethnic sense; (8) the brevity of reference to Persian rulers in Daniel 11:2; (9) the placement of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his second year (Dan 2:1) even though Daniel trains three years to enter his service (1:5); (10) the identity of the father of Darius the Mede as Ahasuerus (9:1), evidently distinct from the Ahasuerus (=Xerxes I) of Esther; (11) the title “King of Kings” in Daniel 2:37 as anachronistic; and (12) the alleged issue of Jehoiakim’s removal to Babylon in Daniel 1:2. For each objection Tanner mounts convincing counterarguments. Further, he addresses linguist objections (Persian and Greek loanwords), theological arguments (alleged advanced theology and absence of the name YHWH), and literary difficulties (use of apocalyptic literature and no mention by Ben Sira). Tanner then defends the traditional date and authorship, marshalling evidence from the New Testament, Qumran, second Temple Jewish literature, and ancient Near Eastern literature to make a compelling case for sixth-century Danielic authorship.
Second, Tanner thoroughly treats the manifold interpretive issues surrounding Daniel 9:24–27, in a section spanning seventy-two pages. He investigates the meaning of “week,” the views of early and modern interpreters, the Messianic interpretation of “anointed one,” the chronology as relating to Christ’s first advent, the variety of views on what the seventy weeks encompass, the case for a literal time period for the seventy weeks, issues with the Masoretic punctuation, and the meaning of “destroy” in 9:26. Cumulatively, this treatment provides the interpreter with a robust grasp of the interpretive issues arising from one of the most exegetically significant passages of the Old Testament.
There are few weaknesses in the commentary, relating mostly to format rather than content: an unfortunate typesetting problem obscures a chart on p. 764. The textual criticism notes are keyed to terms in the original text, but the original text has been left out, making it difficult to follow the argument. The lack of indentation in the footnotes makes them hard to distinguish. Some readers will quibble over Tanner’s non-Reformed soteriology that shows through at times. Additionally, some might wish for an expansion of his biblical theology correlations. On the whole, however, this reviewer highly commends the volume to readers. Tanner’s commentary notches first place in the recently updated (2022) DBTS recommended booklist for commentaries on Daniel and warrants a place on the bookshelf of every pastor, seminary student, or other believer who desires to enhance his grasp of this highly significant prophetical book.
