For Commentary Compass, I use 2020 or later as the working definition of a recent commentary. That excludes several books that still feel relatively new in Daniel studies, including the revised edition of John Goldingay’s Word Biblical Commentary, which appeared just outside the cutoff.

The recent field is interesting rather than overwhelming. No recent complete commentary has displaced Ernest Lucas, Wendy Widder, Goldingay, Collins, Newsom, or Seow in my overall assessment. But several post-2020 works make genuinely important contributions, and one partial commentary—Buster and Walton’s NICOT treatment of Daniel 1–6—is outstanding enough that I would rate it 5/5 within its scope.

I would rank the recent works as follows.

1. Aubrey E. Buster and John H. Walton — The Book of Daniel: Chapters 1–6 — New International Commentary on the Old Testament

Rating: ★★★★★ for Daniel 1–6

Buster and Walton’s recent NICOT volume is, in my judgment, the most important new contribution to the interpretation of Daniel’s court narratives among the works considered here.

Its principal advance lies in sustained contextualization. Ancient Near Eastern background is not treated as a collection of interesting facts placed beside the biblical text. Court culture, imperial ideology, language, historical memory, administration, diaspora identity, and social location are integrated into the interpretation of the narratives.

Daniel 6 provides a particularly good example. The authors note that facing Jerusalem and praying three times daily are not simply straightforward Torah regulations. Within the narrative, these practices help define and preserve diaspora identity. Daniel’s faithfulness is therefore not merely private devotion; it represents a community maintaining a distinct identity while participating deeply in an imperial political order.

The discussion of bilingualism is similarly fresh because language is considered socially rather than merely as evidence for dating. Daniel 2 also benefits from their contextual approach: the stone represents not just the next entry in an imperial sequence but a kingdom of a fundamentally different order, terminating the cycle of human domination.

Their treatment of Nebuchadnezzar is sensitive to historical memory and rhetorical portrayal, asking how an actual imperial figure becomes remembered within Jewish tradition.

Some readers will question aspects of their compositional reconstruction and approach to authorship. The decisive limitation, however, is not methodological but simply coverage: this volume stops at Daniel 6.

For chapters 1–6, I would place it among the very best commentaries available. It does not yet provide a recent replacement for a complete Daniel commentary, but within its half of the book it genuinely advances the discussion.

2. J. Paul Tanner — Daniel — Evangelical Exegetical Commentary

Rating: ★★★★½

Tanner is my highest-ranked recent complete commentary on Daniel.

The volume is particularly valuable because it provides a large, technically serious conservative and futurist interpretation at a level well above popular prophetic literature. Tanner engages Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, lexical evidence, historical problems, and competing scholarly interpretations rather than simply starting with a prophetic system and assigning passages to it.

His treatment of Daniel 9:26 illustrates the strength of the work. Tanner argues grammatically for rendering the relevant verb as “destroy” rather than “corrupt,” using the behaviour of the Hiphil with a concrete object to challenge interpretations that require another sense.

His discussion of the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 likewise surveys major alternatives and considers evidence for messianic interpretation rather than assuming it.

The greatest distinctiveness comes in Daniel 10–12. Tanner understands the figure of 10:5–6 as the preincarnate Christ, sees a transition from Antiochus IV to the future Antichrist in 11:36, and reads 11:40 and the resurrection of chapter 12 as confirmation that the vision has moved into the eschatological future. His interpretation of the seventy weeks likewise belongs to a futurist reading of the book.

I do not find every one of these transitions exegetically necessary. Several major conclusions are most persuasive within a dispensational-futurist framework rather than across interpretive traditions.

Even so, Tanner is important because the arguments are substantial. Readers wanting a current, detailed conservative commentary that takes the original languages and opposing scholarship seriously should place it high on the list.

3. Jerry A. Gladson — Endgame: A New Commentary on the Book of Daniel

Rating: ★★★★½

Gladson’s Endgame is an underappreciated recent commentary with a surprisingly broad range.

He provides his own translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic, extensive historical-critical discussion, ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic background, literary interpretation, theological reflection, and full commentary on the Greek Additions to Daniel. That last feature alone distinguishes it from most Protestant treatments: the Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon are treated as serious parts of the wider Danielic tradition.

Gladson describes his approach as a hermeneutic of retrieval, attempting to recover what Daniel communicated within its earliest historical setting before considering wider theological resonance.

Several discussions are particularly strong. Daniel 4 brings together Nabonidus traditions, “wild man” imagery, curse traditions, and proposed psychiatric diagnoses while wisely warning against confidently diagnosing an ancient figure from a literary text. Daniel 5 explores writing itself as a symbol and exercise of authority. Daniel 7 combines ancient mythic imagery with the relationship between the humanlike figure and the holy ones while still allowing for subsequent messianic development. Daniel 9 offers a serious survey of the principal interpretations before Gladson explains why he prefers the historical-critical reading.

My major reservation is that Gladson sometimes moves from reconstructing the expectation of a second-century apocalyptist to saying in effect that the expected eschatological outcome failed to arrive. I would not follow that theological conclusion. His basic historical reconstruction also depends substantially on the established critical tradition rather than offering a wholly new model.

Nevertheless, Endgame combines technical, historical, literary, and pastoral interests unusually well and deserves considerably more notice than it has received.

4. Joe M. Sprinkle — Daniel — Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary

Rating: ★★★★½

Sprinkle’s commentary makes its strongest contribution by integrating exegesis with biblical theology.

Rather than allowing Daniel’s difficult visions to become a self-contained prophetic puzzle, he traces how kingdom, covenant, exile, restoration, temple, Messiah, resurrection, judgment, and the people of God develop within Daniel and then contribute to the larger canon.

The commentary is conservative and affirms the historical and predictive character of the book, but Sprinkle does not simply reproduce the standard dispensational reading at every point. Most notably, his interpretation of the seventy weeks does not create the familiar future seven-year seventieth week and therefore does not derive a seven-year tribulation from Daniel in the conventional way.

At the same time, he argues that Daniel 11 eventually moves beyond Antiochus IV toward an eschatological antagonist, allowing Antiochus to participate in a larger biblical pattern of opposition to God.

I find Sprinkle strongest when he follows these theological trajectories rather than when he competes with large technical commentaries on individual philological problems. The volume naturally has less room for detailed textual criticism and original-language discussion than Tanner, Lucas, or Goldingay.

For pastors, teachers, and readers asking how Daniel fits into the theological architecture of Scripture, however, it adds something worthwhile to the recent literature and is more interesting than a commentary that merely repeats a traditional prophetic scheme.

5. Patrick Mazani — The Book of Daniel: An Archaeological Commentary

Rating: ★★★★½ as a specialist resource

Mazani’s recent commentary is valuable precisely because it does not attempt to duplicate the standard commentary format.

Its focus is archaeological and historical. Inscriptions, artifacts, geography, administrative practices, ancient texts, material culture, and evidence for contact between Babylonian, Persian, and Greek worlds are brought into conversation with passages in Daniel.

That can be particularly useful in a book whose historical setting has been so heavily disputed. Mazani repeatedly asks what kinds of material and documentary evidence illuminate the world presupposed by a passage rather than relying upon generalized statements that something “fits” antiquity.

The limitation is structural. Verses without significant archaeological relevance receive little or no discussion, so the volume cannot replace a conventional commentary. Archaeology also has limits: demonstrating that a cultural practice or administrative feature is plausible does not by itself settle questions of authorship, composition, or predictive prophecy.

I would also be more cautious about some categorical theological judgments, particularly where the discussion moves beyond archaeological evidence into evaluation of the deuterocanonical material associated with Daniel.

Used as a specialist companion, however, Mazani offers something genuinely different from the standard exegetical literature and can be particularly useful when historical or cultural plausibility is the issue under investigation.

Bottom Line

The most impressive recent work is Buster and Walton’s NICOT commentary on Daniel 1–6. Within the chapters it covers, I would rate it 5/5 and place it among the strongest Daniel commentaries available.

For a complete recent commentary, however, my first choice would be J. Paul Tanner. It is technically substantial, conservative, and willing to argue carefully for its futurist conclusions even where I would ultimately read some passages differently.

Gladson is the recent critical commentary I think deserves more attention, particularly for readers interested in historical context, the Greek Additions, and theological engagement. Sprinkle is the most useful recent choice for biblical theology. Mazani fills a worthwhile archaeological niche.

I would still recommend Ernest Lucas over any recent complete commentary if the question is simply, “What is the best single commentary on Daniel overall?” Recent publication is not itself a virtue. The best new commentaries earn their place by adding something earlier standards did not provide, and the strongest recent Daniel works do exactly that.