318 Joel White Dan 7 recounts a vision from the first year of Belshazzar’s reign that closely corresponds to Nebuchadnezer’s dream. Four beasts come up out of the sea. The first three resemble a lion, a bear, and a leopard, respectively. The fourth one defies description, except for the fact that it was dreadful and strong and possessed huge iron teeth and ten horns. Among the horns, one in particular is singled out for attention. At this juncture the Ancient of Days appears, and the fourth beast is destroyed. The dominion of all the beasts is taken away and given to “one like the Son of Man” (v. 13). Daniel asks an angelus interpres to explain to him the meaning of the vision, and it is revealed to him that the four beasts represent four kingdoms. The analogy to Dan 2, readily apparent in its own right, is thus made explicit. Daniel asks more about the fourth beast, which he finds especially terrifying. He is told that the fourth beast represents a kingdom that will bring the whole earth under its dominion. Dan 8 describes a vision assigned to the third year of Belshazzar’s reign of a ram with two horns that is overpowered by a male goat with one great horn. The large horn breaks and is replaced by four horns, one of which defiles the temple. The angel Gabriel interprets the vision for Daniel: The ram with two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. The male goat is Greece (or more precisely, the Macedonian empire; the great horn is clearly Alexander). Though Gabriel does not say so explicitly, the four horns undoubtedly represent the Diadochi. The little horn, which grows up and ultimately defiles the temple, obviously symbolizes the Seleucid kingdom, more specifically Antiochus Epiphanes IV. Within the book of Daniel, at least in its canonical form, the following correspondences are thus obtained (52): (52) There has been, of course, a great deal of discussion as to which kingdoms are actually meant in the original context of Dan 2 and 7, and different authors have arrived at very different conclusions, depending upon their theories of the unity and dating of the book of Daniel. Generally, it is held that Dan 2, 7, and 8 were written by different authors, each using the work of his predecessor or predecessors as a model but contemporizing the historical referents to fit their own context. Cf. I. FRÖHLICH, ‘Time and Times and Half a Time’. Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras (JSPSup 19; Sheffield 1999) 13, 77. For our purposes the discussion is inconsequential, since we are interested only in the way in which Daniel’s prophecies were understood in early Judaism, and the canonical form of Daniel is presumed from its earliest traceable point of reception in the period. Cf. G.W.E. NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Minneapolis, MN 22005) 17.