Shelton wishes to unravel the fundamental import of Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel as an exhortation to martyrdom (chapters i and v). By careful reference to both Jewish and Christian patristic exegesis, he seeks to show the methodology of scriptural interpretation to be found in this first ‘orthodox’ commentary on a whole biblical book (chapter iv). He rightly emphasises the typological approach of Justin Martyr and of Irenaeus to be witnessed in Hippolytus' commentary as opposed to the extreme Gnostic allegorism to be found in Heracleon's Valentinian commentary on John (pp. 113–14). Shelton then attempts to incorporate his account of the exegesis of martyrdom into Hippolytus' historical profile. His formation was in the persecution of Septimius Severus, and his controversy with Callistus was over the latter's willingness to engage in a too easy and ready absolution of the fallen in persecution (pp. 27–30). He will even set out the distinction between Sacrificati, Thurificati, and Libellatici and claim that such apostates had figured generally in persecutions from Nero onwards (pp. 37–9). And it is here that emerges a major flaw in Shelton's account. Such profiles of apostates are only evident from the time of Decius Trajan (ad 249–51) onwards, as is a policy of general persecution organised systematically throughout the empire; it is quite anachronistic to read this situation back into earlier times. Shelton is aware of Barnes's well-argued view that there was no general persecution in the time of Septimius Severus (p. 3), rather than possibly an edict against conversions, which he does little to refute other than to claim in somewhat circular fashion that this is needed to provide a background to the Daniel Commentary (p. 146). The claim that it was Septimius who as early as ad 202 sought to universalise the cult of Sol Invictus is particularly questionable: the numismatic evidence is more for Caracalla and, of course, Elagabalus, and more in connection with the policy of the former's Constitutio Antoniniana for the incorporation of all cultures and religions within the imperial whole through a general grant of citizenship. Also questionable is the attempt to connect Callistus' policy of freely granting absolution with apostasy in persecution for which there is no evidence. Pseudo-Hippolytus' Refutatio ix.7 only mentions sensual pleasures and the alleged encouragement of drug-produced abortions because of allowing patrician women to cohabit with slaves and freedmen (cf. p. 28). Shelton might wish to appeal to Traditio apostolica x (p. 39), but such an appeal raises a further serious issue. Shelton claims that his account stands without regard to how many writers are to be found in the Hippolytan corpus (pp. 13–19), yet he needs a tight connection between Refutatio and the Traditio apostolica for references to ordination through confessorship to service his tenuous argument for the sins of Callistus having any relationship to absolving apostates. Shelton draws very clearly the antecedents for a theology of martyrdom expressed in the Daniel commentary from the Maccabean literature through the Gospels, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr and Tertullian (pp. 54–66). But he is aware of Sten Hidal's claim that martyrdom is often a ‘tool of rhetoric’ in the church Fathers (p. 19). Given the state of the developing tradition by the turn of the third century, can we really be sure that it has to be a definite historical situation that inspires a commentary on Daniel? As Shelton is aware, Hippolytus does not identify directly any Roman empire as AntiChrist, but according to his chronology rather the final end is some centuries hence (pp. 101–12). Compare this with Cyprian and Valerian: usually persecution that inspires the apocalyptic imagination leads to the imminent expectation of Christ's second coming. The book of Revelation itself is testimony to the perceived threat of persecution under Domitian rather than an actual, worldwide one producing an apocalypse without an actual persecution taking place. Shelton's analysis of the exegetical method of the commentary is therefore interesting but his construction of an adequate historical background leaves much to be desired.