This commentary is a trip. I’m not sure where we went, but it was quite a ride. Mr. Cook took a few curves too fast, but occasionally the scenery was spectacular. I know I saw the blue lights behind us on several occasions, but he would just smile and press the gas pedal a little harder. I’m sure he didn’t fully know where he was going either, but his outward confidence never wavered. I know it’s easy to be trite and say a commentary is different, but this one IS different. In fact, this is the very commentary that makes many others seem exactly alike.
Perhaps the aspect that makes this commentary unique is his views of how to process apocalyptic literature. Be sure to read his Preface as he lays it out. He also attacks approaches that moralize the stories of Daniel. Many do that and say to keep the Gospel primary, but that’s not exactly his angle. He has a very precise view of Wisdom. To my mind, his definition is not as different as the traditional one as he thinks. I liked how his views made him dig a bit deeper in places even if I couldn’t especially agree with him. His historical conclusions didn’t hold up for me either.
He is for sure an interesting writer. He quotes from so many unusual sources. I mean when was the last time Alice from her Wonderland was quoted in a commentary you were reading. Crazy? Yes. Interesting? Yes.
He also draws from unexpected disciplines. I saw philosophy and psychology often and several others. I kept expecting physics at any point.
Even if he travels in his own lanes, his work is well researched. There are footnotes galore throughout. I would not make this commentary my first choice on Daniel, but it is one that I will likely check going forward. If you are looking for a work that is captivating in new ways, I suspect this is the one for you.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
The Reagan Review 
Jimmy Reagan’s review is engaging and well written, but it never grapples with the scholarly contribution Stephen Cook is actually making. Instead of evaluating Cook’s methodology, Reagan largely offers personal impressions about the book’s originality, style, and historical conclusions without demonstrating why those conclusions fail. Reagan clearly it’s not qualified to write such a review. His repeated reference to “Mr. Cook,” despite Cook’s earned Yale doctorate, strikes an unnecessarily dismissive tone toward one of the leading scholars of the Hebrew Bible. This also strikes me of one who only uses the word Dr to describe those who confirm his own biases, but not to those With whom he disagrees Is he one of these evangelicals who is insecure and needs to find a way to dominate scholars? More importantly, the review never shows an understanding of the canonical approach that stands at the heart of Cook’s work. Cook is not abandoning critical scholarship; he is integrating historical criticisms and a wide range of literary and contextual methodologies into a comprehensive canonical approach that allows the biblical text to speak with its own voice. Reagan notices the use of psychology, philosophy, and other disciplines, but he never explains how they function within Cook’s larger hermeneutical framework of employing any methods possible for illuminating scripture. Nor does he seriously engage Cook’s central thesis that Daniel’s apocalyptic imagination emerges organically from Israel’s wisdom traditions. In the end, the review reads less like an evaluation of a major scholarly contribution and more like the reaction of a well-read evangelical reviewer encountering a methodology outside his training and scope of bias. Readers deserve a review that engages Cook’s arguments on their own terms rather than one that substitutes personal impressions for methodological analysis. This kind of analysis is why I can’t call these people, brothers and sisters.
Dr. Randall Heskett
The only thing I want to comment on is the use of “Mr.” rather than “Dr.” I absolutely was not in a dismissive tone. That is still a respectful way to address someone. I never question his credentials in any way. It never crossed my mind to disrespect him. Of course he is accomplished. Remember I’m reviewing the book from the pastor’s perspective. That series does profess that is one of the target audiences. I do not claim to be a scholar, nor do I write a review for other scholars. I would know I am not qualified for that task. Perhaps you could write a scholarly review to offer the scholar’s perspective.