James Seung-Hyun Lee. <i>Reimagining Exile in Daniel: A Literary-Historical Study</i>

The volume under review is a revision of James Lee’s 2012 dissertation at Union Presbyterian Seminary (Richmond, Virgina). In this book, Lee utilizes historical and literary evidence in the book of Daniel to demonstrate (1) its view of exile and (2) the identity of the group who was responsible for the final editing of the book. Combined with the historical and literary evidence, Lee draws on exile theorists to develop a framework based on exile, worldview (Weltanshauung), and identity. The book has a preface followed by six chapters, a bibliography, and indexes for sources, modern authors, and subjects.Chapter 1 develops a theory or hermeneutics of exile. Lee argues that the book of Daniel is not interested in historicity. Taking a late date for the book, Lee argues that the seventy-year exile (of Jeremiah) is still in effect three and a half centuries later. He postulates that since the book of Daniel reflects a coherent view of exile that is ideological in nature, then there must have been an authorial group that espoused this view. Thus, Lee understands that the editors of Daniel constructed an ideology/theology of exile, and they probably used the function of exile to distance themselves from their Israelite ethnicity. In its place, they developed a new identity with their colleagues, as shown by the use of the term maśkilim, which probably reflects the final redactors’ view of themselves and their desire to influence their followers or community.Chapter 2 deals with the seventy-year prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer 25, 29) and how they are interpreted by the Danielic editors in Dan 9. To facilitate this, Lee provides a translation of Dan 9, complete with text critical notes, something that he also does in chapters 3–5. He then treats issues of context, allusions, and hermeneutics. Lee concludes that the prayer is original, essential, and penitential, based on similarities with the penitential prayers in Ezra 9 and Neh 9. Lee argues that the Danielic editors see themselves as a group that stands in the line of Israel’s prophets and are particularly interested in the (re-)interpretation of Scripture using dreams.Chapter 3 deals with the presentation of Babylon in Dan 4–5. Lee draws on Jer 27–28 to argue that Nebuchadnezzar is presented as the ideal penitent gentile in Dan 4. In Dan 5, Lee argues that a banquet of death with Yhwh’s cultic vessels in Jer 50–51 is the basis for Daniel’s interpretation of the death of Belshazzar. The editors present Daniel as the ideal Jew, and they likely viewed the Torah and prophets as open (rather than closed) sections of the “canon.” The writing on the wall is like God writing on the Mosaic tablets, except this writing needs an interpreter.Chapter 4 compares the views of the Danielic editors with those found in Chronicles using Dan 1, 4, and 5. Here, Lee principally compares King Jehoiakim’s exile, as seen in Chronicles and Daniel, as well as the gentile kings Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar (in Daniel) with those of Manasseh and Amon (in Chronicles). Lee concludes that, like chapter 3, the editors espouse an a-cultic piety for gentiles. Lee also examines the Deuteronomic background of Dan 4 in an excursus.Chapter 5 treats the social setting of the Danielic group, including their conception of exile, scribal characteristics, and sociohistorical location. Lee develops his conception of social location by “triangulation” with three known late Hellenistic groups—Ben Sira, the Hasmoneans, and Enochic groups.Chapter 6 provides a summary and short conclusion. Lee posits that the Danielic group sees exile as a place of privilege, and of God’s revelation and presence. Any evaluation must first commend Lee for bringing the book to publication after an extended delay since graduation. That he did so is a tribute to his tenacity. Second, Lee consistently works to link his theory to the text, including providing translations of Daniel with text critical comments. I think it is fair to say that Lee has written the book he proposed.The biggest difficulty for Lee’s project is that the historical issues for interpretation of Daniel are themselves so significant, that using a social science method (which necessitates further hypotheses) runs the risk of building multiple levels of questionable postulates on each other. Lee has not been able to fully avoid this criticism.A couple of closing observations may be noted. The bibliography contains a few recent titles but is understandably tilted toward Lee’s actual time of writing (Jack Lundblom’s three-volume Anchor Bible commentary on Jeremiah is an unfortunate lacuna). However, the presentation was almost entirely free from errors, aside from a few minor instances of missing font (p. 164 bottom line; p. 128, 6th line from bottom).