Phillip R. Davies, “The Scribal School of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; 2 vols.; vtSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1:247-65, here 251.

Phillip R. Davies, “The Scribal School of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; 2 vols.; vtSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1:247-65, here 251.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

In 1898, George A. Barton, “The Composition of the Book of Daniel,” jbl 17 (1898): 62-86 stated (p. 76): “I rather suspect that the author’s style was here influenced by some historical notes of which he made use, and which were already in a written form, perhaps in some language other than Hebrew. At all events, the author of this apocalypse has a knowledge of the history of the Greek kingdoms unique in the book of Daniel.”

Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 122.

Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 122.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Lora Holland, “Plutarch’s Aemilius Paullus and the Model of the Philosopher Statesman,” in The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works: Volume II: The Statesman in Plutarch’s Greek and Roman Lives (ed. L. de Blois et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 269-79 and William Reiter, Aemilius Paullus: Conqueror of Greece (London: Croom Helm, 1988), passim.

See Lora Holland, “Plutarch’s Aemilius Paullus and the Model of the Philosopher Statesman,” in The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works: Volume II: The Statesman in Plutarch’s Greek and Roman Lives (ed. L. de Blois et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 269-79 and William Reiter, Aemilius Paullus: Conqueror of Greece (London: Croom Helm, 1988), passim.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Philo, Moses 2.278; cf. Elias Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible:Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther (New York: Schocken, 1968), 118.

Philo, Moses 2.278; cf. Elias Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther (New York: Schocken, 1968), 118.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 118.

Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 118.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

H. Gese, “Das Geschichtsbild des Danielbuches und Ägypten,” in Fontes atque Pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner (ed. Manfred Görg; Ägypten und Altes Testament 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983), 139-54, esp. 151.

H. Gese, “Das Geschichtsbild des Danielbuches und Ägypten,” in Fontes atque Pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner (ed. Manfred Görg; Ägypten und Altes Testament 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983), 139-54, esp. 151.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Redditt, Daniel, 174.

Redditt, Daniel, 174.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Stephen B. Reid, Enoch and Daniel: A Form Critical and Sociological Study of the Historical Apocalypses (Berkeley: Bibal, 1989), 135.

Stephen B. Reid, Enoch and Daniel: A Form Critical and Sociological Study of the Historical Apocalypses (Berkeley: Bibal, 1989), 135.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Many scholars, e.g., Samuel R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press, 1900), 171-72, agree that the failure of the lawless Judaeans is the defeat of the pro-Seleucid faction who opposed Scopas’s campaign to retake Judaea in 201/200; cf. A.J. 12.135 and Polyb. 16.39.1.

Many scholars, e.g., Samuel R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press, 1900), 171-72, agree that the failure of the lawless Judaeans is the defeat of the pro-Seleucid faction who opposed Scopas’s campaign to retake Judaea in 201/200; cf. A.J. 12.135 and Polyb. 16.39.1.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Redditt, “Daniel 11,” 467.

Redditt, “Daniel 11,” 467.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lebram, Das Buch Daniel, 20.

Lebram, Das Buch Daniel, 20.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lebram, “The Piety,” 187.

Lebram, “The Piety,” 187.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lebram, Das Buch Daniel, 99.

Lebram, Das Buch Daniel, 99.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lebram, “König Antiochus,” 760-61.

Lebram, “König Antiochus,” 760-61.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Visions of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 1:91-113, here 108.

Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Visions of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 1:91-113, here 108.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lebram, “Konig Antiochus,” 737-72.

Lebram, “Konig Antiochus,” 737-72.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lebram, “The Piety,” 183.

Lebram, “The Piety,” 183.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 86.

R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 86.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Redditt, Daniel, 176.

Redditt, Daniel, 176.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lester L. Grabbe, “A Dan(iel) for All Seasons: For Whom was Daniel Important?” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 1:229-46 (here 234, n. 13) states that the division into four “does not of course correspond to historical reality, where the final division was between the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Antigonids.” But then he does find “four” where the others do: “The treaty of 301 after the battle of Ipsus provided for a four-fold division, but this was soon overtaken by events.”

Lester L. Grabbe, “A Dan(iel) for All Seasons: For Whom was Daniel Important?” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 1:229-46 (here 234, n. 13) states that the division into four “does not of course correspond to historical reality, where the final division was between the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Antigonids.” But then he does find “four” where the others do: “The treaty of 301 after the battle of Ipsus provided for a four-fold division, but this was soon overtaken by events.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Paul G. Mosca, “Ugarit and Daniel 7: A Missing Link,” Bib 67 (1986): 496-517, esp. 500, n. 19.

See Paul G. Mosca, “Ugarit and Daniel 7: A Missing Link,” Bib 67 (1986): 496-517, esp. 500, n. 19.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

So according to Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 18.3 (hereafter Bib. Hist.) and Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, 13.4 (hereafter Philip. Hist.), respectively.

So according to Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 18.3 (hereafter Bib. Hist.) and Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, 13.4 (hereafter Philip. Hist.), respectively.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lebram, Das Buch Daniel, 118.

Lebram, Das Buch Daniel, 118.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander (trans. John Yardley; London: Penguin, 2001), 255.

Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander (trans. John Yardley; London: Penguin, 2001), 255.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Justin, Philip. Hist., 13.4.10.

Justin, Philip. Hist., 13.4.10.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Robin Waterfield, Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great’s Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 16.

See Robin Waterfield, Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great’s Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 16.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Edwyn Robert Bevan, The House of Seleucus (2 vols.; London: Edward Arnold, 1902), 1:322.

Edwyn Robert Bevan, The House of Seleucus (2 vols.; London: Edward Arnold, 1902), 1:322.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 1:34-35.

Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 1:34-35.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

John D. Grainger, Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom (London: Routledge, 1990), 53.

John D. Grainger, Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom (London: Routledge, 1990), 53.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 50-51.

Ibid., 60.

Ibid., 55.

Ibid., 52-55.

Cf. Appian, Syr. 9.54, who says 1000 foot and 300 horse.

Cf. Appian, Syr. 9.54, who says 1000 foot and 300 horse.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 1:53.

Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 1:53.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

So Anathea Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 237, who notes that חזק appears 292 times in the Hebrew Bible, 13 of which are in Daniel.

So Anathea Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 237, who notes that חזק appears 292 times in the Hebrew Bible, 13 of which are in Daniel.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Richard Hunter, Theocritus: Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus: Text and Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 85.

Richard Hunter, Theocritus: Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus: Text and Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 85.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

R. M. Errington, “Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander,” Classical Quarterly 19 (1969): 233-42, esp. 234. While some have suggested that Ptolemy knowingly suppressed information about Seleucus’s military career (as seems to be reflected in Appian’s Syrian Wars, who based his narrative at least partly on Ptolemy’s now lost work), Errington thinks that Seleucus simply was not important at that time. Joseph Roisman, “Ptolemy and his Rivals in his History of Alexander the Great,” Classical Quarterly 34 (1984): 373-85 demurs from the judgment that Ptolemy wrote with any bias. See also A. E. Samuel, “Alexander’s Royal Journals,” Historia 14 (1965): 1-12; N. L. Collins, “The Various Fathers of Ptolemy I,” Mnemosyne 50 (1997): 436-76; and R. A. Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000).

R. M. Errington, “Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander,” Classical Quarterly 19 (1969): 233-42, esp. 234. While some have suggested that Ptolemy knowingly suppressed information about Seleucus’s military career (as seems to be reflected in Appian’s Syrian Wars, who based his narrative at least partly on Ptolemy’s now lost work), Errington thinks that Seleucus simply was not important at that time. Joseph Roisman, “Ptolemy and his Rivals in his History of Alexander the Great,” Classical Quarterly 34 (1984): 373-85 demurs from the judgment that Ptolemy wrote with any bias. See also A. E. Samuel, “Alexander’s Royal Journals,” Historia 14 (1965): 1-12; N. L. Collins, “The Various Fathers of Ptolemy I,” Mnemosyne 50 (1997): 436-76; and R. A. Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Frank W. Walbank, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 125.

Frank W. Walbank, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 125.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 258; Collins, Daniel (fotl), 365; and André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (trans. David Pellauer; Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), 219. The Vulgate renders opibus “resources.”

See Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 258; Collins, Daniel (fotl), 365; and André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (trans. David Pellauer; Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), 219. The Vulgate renders opibus “resources.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Goldingay, Daniel, 273.

Goldingay, Daniel, 273.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Charles, Daniel, 123. Theodotion has ἐν ὑπάρξει πολλῇ, “with much substance”; og has ἐν χρήµασι πολλοῖς, “with much property.”

Charles, Daniel, 123. Theodotion has ἐν ὑπάρξει πολλῇ, “with much substance”; og has ἐν χρήµασι πολλοῖς, “with much property.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Montgomery, Daniel, 438.

Montgomery, Daniel, 438.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Driver, Book of Daniel, 171. Driver says that רְכוּשׁ “denotes especially such possessions as stores, furniture, implements,” and he lists 1 Chr 27:31, 2 Chr 20:25, and 21:14 as parallels.

Driver, Book of Daniel, 171. Driver says that רְכוּשׁ “denotes especially such possessions as stores, furniture, implements,” and he lists 1 Chr 27:31, 2 Chr 20:25, and 21:14 as parallels.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Thiel, “רכושׁ,” 495.

Thiel, “רכושׁ,” 495.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

John D. Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazeteer (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 16-17.

John D. Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazeteer (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 16-17.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

M. M. Austin, “Hellenistic Kings, War, and the Economy,” Classical Quarterly 36 (1986): 450-66, esp. 463-65.

M. M. Austin, “Hellenistic Kings, War, and the Economy,” Classical Quarterly 36 (1986): 450-66, esp. 463-65.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation