A. The Vision of Daniel and Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl

The vision of the future that begins with a list of rulers constitutes a return to the pattern established in the visions of the biblical Book of Daniel chapters 7 and 11.^{Footnote 9} Our Vision of Daniel is easier to read than most other visions, because its author details each ruler by number, name, years of activity, and deeds. It stands to reason that this level of detail was provided by a later redactor-interpreter who incorporated the identifications and made explicit what the earlier writer left vague. This can be seen from the description of the reign of the Abbāsid Caliph Abu Ḏj̲aʿfar al-Manṣūr, a description that appears twice in the Vision of Daniel, one after another, with the second interpreting the first:

Both versions include the same details, using almost identical terminology; the author interpreted one text by means of a similar variant. Perhaps the text from which the copyist worked contained the other variant in the margins or between the lines, and the copyist of our manuscript then incorporated it, with all its mistakes, into the main flow of the text. Alternatively, perhaps he was not careful and simply copied these sections twice.

Among the details copied is the number XVII, which originally designated the next ruler (XIV), or the fourth ruler after Abu Ḏj̲aʿfar (XVII). Either way, this interpolation and the consequent disruption of the text’s linear flow caused the omission of the rulers’ ordinal numbering. This narrow window into the modus operandi of the author or copyist of the Vision indicates later stages of correction and redaction of the original text, including the apposition of ordinal numbers to the names of rulers. Abu Ḏj̲aʿfar al-Manṣūr indeed ruled for twenty-two years. He founded Baghdad and built the new official residence of the caliph, Madīnat as-Salām, around which the city developed. He did much to cultivate the city as the capital of the Islamic empire. The historian al-Ya‘qubi describes Abu Ḏj̲aʿfar’s accumulation of gold and silver.^{Footnote 10} As for the ring mentioned in the Vision, it may allude to his naming of a successor before his death. Abu Ḏj̲aʿfar died in 775 while making a religious pilgrimage to Mecca. He was buried at an unknown site on the road to Mecca.

Not all the descriptions of rulers in the Vision of Daniel fit the known historical facts about the duration and features of their reigns. Sulaymān ibn ‘Abd al-Malik was the seventh Umayyad caliph and the eleventh caliph after Muḥammad. He reigned for two years (715–717), not ten. Here he is listed as the tenth caliph, and there are several ways to account for this discrepancy. For one, some Syrian and Syrian-influenced apocalypses and histories do not list Ali as even having been a caliph. Another possibility to consider is that Sulaymān is called the tenth because Mu‘awiya II, who died as a child, is omitted from this list, though included in other official lists.

The brief description in the Vision of Daniel can fit with his reign, which is characterized by military campaigns in the east and west, against various powers, including the Byzantine Empire, Djurdjān, and Ṭabaristān, which were then part of the Persian sphere. The number of years and the description of his deeds fit better with the tenth caliph, Sulaymān’s brother, Al-Walid I, and “head to the sages” is a more apt description of their father, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān (685–705), who was considered a learned ruler.

The two sources, Vision of Daniel and Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl, are juxtaposed below according to the order of rulers, so as to clarify the connection between them.

A close study of the two traditions about the order of Ishmaelite kings whose reigns precede the redemption indicates that they both derive from a single tradition. The Vision of Daniel is more polished and orderly, not only because it gives names and ordinal numbers for each ruler, but because it provides details about the reigns of most of the rulers.

B. Time, Place, and Language of the Vision

In both traditions, the lists of Muslim rulers do not end with the heirs of Hārūn al-Ras̲h̲īd in the ninth century. They continue to other rulers, though their identification is not as obvious, and the contents of the two traditions are not as similar. Likewise, the contents of the last, apocalyptic sections of the two traditions differ. The differences with respect to later Muslim rulers and the apocalyptic section indicate that the war of the three brothers and their reigns marked the endpoint of the tradition. The works were written soon after those events, and the events and rulers that appear afterward, in both works, are the updates of authors-copyists. They updated the time of the beginning of the eschaton to their own days.

Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl stops in the middle of the period of strife between the three sons of Hārūn al-Ras̲h̲īd. It gives a brief description of the reign of al-Amin (809–813) and adds a sentence that summarizes the brothers’ struggle. From there it goes on to describe a Shia revolution in the caliphate.^{Footnote 12}

The Vision of Daniel goes on to describe, with a continuity and clarity that are similar to the earlier descriptions, another brief period: the reigns of al-Maʾmūn (813–833) and his brother al-Muʿtaṣim (833–842). Al-Maʾmūn ruled the caliphate for twenty turbulent years. The Vision of Daniel describes them thus:

The reign of Abu al-ʿAbbās Abdallah al-Maʾmūn, the eldest son of Hārūn al-Ras̲h̲īd, is characterized by a flourishing of science and culture. During his reign, many places of study and learning were established, including the Bayt al-Hikmah, a center for scientific study that included a large library. Shortly before his death (October 8, 833), he named his brother Ḳāsim as his successor, under the name al-Muʿtaṣim.

Al-Muʿtaṣim first ruled the eastern regions of the caliphate, and afterwards he mounted a successful military campaign against Egypt even while al-Maʾmūn still reigned. Al-Muʿtaṣim’s entire nine-year reign (833–842) was filled with revolts and wars, in the east and the west: Hamadan, Khurasan, Iraq (against the Khwarezmians and against the Zutt, who, after their defeat, were paraded through Baghdad and then sent to fight against the Byzantines). The description of the nineteenth ruler in the Vision of Daniel fits the career of al-Muʿtaṣim:

The “He-Goat” is the description given to the king of Greece in the biblical Book of Daniel (8:5, 8). Indeed, al-Muʿtaṣim and his army waged a series of battles against the Byzantine Emperor Theophilos (829–842). The war began with the Byzantine attack on several ʿAbbāsid fortresses along the border between the two realms. The ʿAbbāsid army defeated Theophilos at the Battle of Anzen on July 21, 838. Ankara fell to the ʿAbbāsids, who went on to conquer other Byzantine territories, including Amorium, the cradle of the dynasty to which Theophilos belonged. The battles between al-Muʿtaṣim and Theophilos involved vast territories due to the alliances that Theophilos had made with regions abutting the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate and because the outcome of the battles varied each time.

Life in the battle zones was prone to both Christian and Muslim propaganda, which accompanied the battles that seemed as though they would determine the fate of the world. Such a historical setting is liable to become an incubator of eschatological visions for each warring party and for minorities in the war-torn regions. Some of them, like the northern Danube and Bulgaria, were forcibly dragged into military campaigns. It is easy to see the appearance of a Byzantine king and the recurrent battles against the ʿAbbāsid Empire as the realization of the vision of the beasts in the biblical Book of Daniel and the requisite defeat of the king of Greece as a stage that heralds the end of days. This is likely the reason for calling the king of Greece in the Vision of Daniel by the moniker by which he is called in the biblical book, “the He-Goat,” and this is the “historical” endpoint of the Vision of Daniel’s composition—after the winter of 842, when Theophilos died.^{Footnote 13}

To the military and political tension in the ʿAbbāsid realms during the reign of al-Muʿtaṣim we may add an episode of revolt that occurred in the margins of the main events in the caliphate, in Transjordan and Palestine. This episode bothered the caliph and generated a great deal of interest among residents of the area near the revolt, and especially the residents of Jerusalem, Ramle, and Nablus. In 841, the revolt of Abū Ḥarb Tamīm broke out in those regions, the latter known as al-Mubarḳaʿ (“the Veiled One”; he covered his face so he would not be recognized). It was said that al-Mubarḳaʿ was from a Yemeni tribe (al-Yamānī), and according to some sources he went up to Jerusalem and put its population—Muslims, Christians, and Jews—to flight. Those same sources say that he burnt down mosques and churches, was about to burn down the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and dealt a terrible blow to the Samaritan community in Nablus. Abū Ḥarb attracted a group of adherents through his preaching and moralizing; his band of believers found refuge in the highlands of Urdunn (around the Sea of Galilee). His charismatic leadership earned him renown, and some ascribed to him the authority of a messiah-rebel against the ʿAbbāsids, who would restore the throne of the caliphate to the Umayyads. Indeed, his conquests reached as far as Damascus, which he flooded with the blood of his victims.

A messianic figure to whom are attributed designs to restore the Umayyad caliphate was known in Muslim tradition as “al-Sufyānī.” The demonic characteristics of an enemy of the messiah and the world were ascribed to him; this sometimes included an unnatural, fearsome visage.

Perhaps the author of the Vision of Daniel refers to al-Sufyānī among the enemies of al-Muʿtaṣim when he writes, “the He-Goat (Ẓefir ‘Izim) whose name is Ẓafini,” for the Hebrew “Ẓafini” (צפיני) can be vocalized as Ẓ/Sufyānī (צֻפְיַנִי/סֻפְיַנִי). Abū Ḥarb, like Theophilos, waged war against al-Muʿtaṣim, and eschatological feelings could have developed around his campaign, particularly in connection with the devastation that occurred in Jerusalem and Nablus. It follows that the combination of the He-Goat and al-Sufyānī could have become a generic name for all of al-Muʿtaṣim’s enemies.^{Footnote 14}

The information that we have accumulated thus far demonstrates the writer of the Vision of Daniel’s familiarity with Muslim history. The time of its composition and the events that underlie the determination that the time of redemption had arrived indicate that the work may have been composed in the area where al-Muʿtaṣim battled Theophilos: the areas of northern Syria and Anatolia bound by Aleppo, Antioch, Tarsus, and Edessa. Alternatively, it could have been composed in the region where the agents of al-Muʿtaṣim battled Abū Ḥarb Tamīm, known as al-Mubarḳaʿ, namely, in Palestine. Both took place in the year 842.

We can also determine the language in which this tradition was written and the stages of revision it underwent before arriving at the extant versions. The fluency of the text of the Vision of Daniel and its integration of certain turns of phrase attest to its composition in Hebrew. Aharon Maman of Hebrew University’s Department of Hebrew Language confirmed this conclusion after a meticulous reading of the text. He concluded his note: “On balance, the work is of a high Biblical stylistic register, riven with quite a few Rabbinic expressions and a few medieval ones. The work seems to have been composed in Hebrew originally, though there are a few instances where foreign influence, like Arabic, might be detectable. In general, the language is clear and typical of medieval literary Hebrew.” The prophetic style of the Vision draws on the biblical Book of Daniel to present itself as prophecy and cites Scripture passim as a proof to its direct revelation, even if by means of an angel.^{Footnote 15}

Shapira proposes that the middle part of Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl, which describes the gentile kingdoms, is an independent work based on the Vision of Daniel. Shapira maintains that Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl is not an original composition. He further proposes that there is a connection between the middle part of the work and Shia Iranian apocalypses of the type known as “malāḥim, Malḥamat Dāniyāl.”^{Footnote 16}

C. “Updating” the Vision

At the endpoint of the Vision of Daniel, after the winter of 842, when Theophilos died, the author goes on to describe the massive battles that portend the eschaton, marking them with a new introduction: “After all of these.”

At some point between the 840s and the late-tenth century, someone attempted to “revive” the Vision and add another bit of prophecy around the year 1000, a century-and-a-half after the age of al-Muʿtaṣim and Theophilos. The addition of a short passage foretells the rise of the Fāṭimids:

Thus, the author concludes the list of twenty rulers who will reign before the eschatological vision transpires. Al-Mahdī, ʿUbayd Allāh, 909–934, was indeed the founder of the Fāṭimid dynasty, but he reigned for 24 years, not 3, as recorded in the Vision. Of the first five Fāṭimid kings, none ruled only three years, bringing the eschatological moment of the Vision to the proximity of year 995. We could hypothesize that this addendum was written in that time, when the confluence of world events could have led the one who updated the Vision to the conclusion that he was witnessing both the end of the Fāṭimid dynasty and the imminent unfolding of the eschatological moment. The events, dates and acute messianic expectations that the author of the addendum probably had in mind or could be influenced by include:

1. 1. The death of the fifth Fāṭimid king al-‘Aziz in 996 bringing the five Fāṭimid kings scenario to a close.

2. 2. A series of major revolts; the Tyre revolts, aided by a number of Byzantine attacks against Egypt and Syria, led by Emperor Basil II, took place in 996.^{Footnote 17}

3. 3. A major earthquake in the Damascus area and the Ba‘lbak region, where a village got swallowed up by the earth in 991.

4. 4. A plague of locusts in 993 and a major famine in Egypt in 997.^{Footnote 18}

5. 5. The easterner, “the king from the east,” could hypothetically have been seen (by that time) as the Qarmatians, since they did come from the east, shed plenty of blood, waged multiple battles in Syria, and terrorized Syrians all the way through the third part of the tenth century.^{Footnote 19}

6. 6. This time was just before the year 400 AH and close to the end of the millennium CE, thus producing messianic fervor among Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.^{Footnote 20}

7. 7. Another apocalyptical text, found in the Cairo Genizah and reconstructed and edited by Moshe Gil, refers, according to Gil’s reconstruction, to the 990s. This text is an updated version of the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel.^{Footnote 21}

8. 8. In historical and apocalyptical writings of these years one can find, again, al-Sufyānī.^{Footnote 22}

With regard to the dating and the relationship of the Sufyānī snippet at the end of the earlier section of the apocalypse, and then to the Fāṭimid update, one might consider that while the identification of Al-Sufyānī in the original apocalypse was with al-Mubarqa‘, the fact is that there was a whole series of Sufyānī appearances in Syria, all the way up to the 1400s. Perhaps the removal of such a key figure was taken as a sign that the dynasty was at a close. The writer of the Fāṭimid section was living in greater Syria (because it does not seem likely that many outside of Syria would know about Al-Sufyānī or care about him by the late 990s), and there was another Sufyānī appearance at that time, just as there were a whole series of revolts against the Fāṭimids. Someone in Syria looking for the apocalypse at that point might note the bloodshed, followed by Al-Sufyānī’s appearance and the end of the Fāṭimids. Although one could say that such disasters are always occurring somewhere, apocalyptic predictions are so often sparked by a confluence of events where each confirms the others as being significant. During the last decade of the tenth century, the apocalypse might very well have seemed to be coming to pass, so the visions predicting it were worth updating. Thus, contrary to the statement of the Vision, the dynasty was not destroyed after five rulers. Another nine Fāṭimids reigned in Egypt until 1171. The abbreviated, mistaken, and deficient update indicates that it was a late addition to the text. The author of the updated part of the Vision estimated that the dynasty would have five rulers in order to keep to the pattern from chapter 7 and the beginning of chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel: There will be three kings in Persia, the fourth will have great wealth, and the fifth will be a warrior. After the fifth king, the eschaton will come to fruition.^{Footnote 23} If the Vision of Daniel was indeed before the author of Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl, then the latter described the Fāṭimids as conquerors who arrived to remove the most identifiable sign of the ʿAbbāsids—black clothes—and replace them with white garments.^{Footnote 24}

The descriptions of the end of days in the Vision of Daniel and Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl are also similar in most of their details, and both resemble a collection from the descriptive tradition of the apocalyptic literature. This has been described and discussed at length in the scholarly literature. Its components, many already detailed in Sefer Zerubbabel, are: the appearance of a terrible giant with clearly physical features, named Armilus; Armilus kills those among the gentiles and Israel; Gog and Magog arrive, and the people of Israel are persecuted; the nations of the north, south, and west gather together; decrees against religion are propagated, and Armilus claims to be the messiah; Armilus is tested in the performance of signs and wonders, and he partially succeeds; Messiah ben Joseph, arrives, wages war against Armilus, and is killed; the remnants of Israel flee to the desert; Daniel prays for Israel in its distress; the angel appears and foretells a turning of the tides for Israel—they will prevail; Messiah ben Joseph will be resurrected and will successfully battle Armilus; the dead will be resurrected; Israel’s diaspora will be gathered to Jerusalem; Jerusalem and the Temple will be rebuilt; the Temple will function once again.^{Footnote 25}

These details do not appear in every work, nor do they appear in the same order. The order of events, the names of the people associated with the messiah and the process of redemption, the details of the redemption of the people, the redemption and rebuilding of Jerusalem—these all vary from vision to vision. However, with respect to all of these elements, the Vision of Daniel and Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl are almost completely identical.^{Footnote 26} Nevertheless, the Vision of Daniel has several singular details that do not appear in Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl. They primarily relate to the two enemies of the messiah: the Son of the Daughter of Levi and Armilus.

In two apocalyptic sources, apparently written in Syria, the Son of the Daughter of Levi appears as a figure preceding the advent of the savior-enemy, the antichrist or Dajjāl. The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel and the Syriac Apocalypse of Small Daniel (first third of the seventh century) state:

A similar Syrian Muslim tradition, the apocalyptic work of Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād al-Marwazī (pre-844), reported that before the appearance of the Dajjāl it is said that a son will be “born in Baysan from a tribe belonging to Levi ibn Yaʿqub. In his body are the signs of a sword, a shield, a lance and a knife.”

In a separate discussion, dedicated to the enemies of the redeemer, I propose that the Vision of Daniel is a Jewish inversion of the Christian and Muslim anti-messianic concept. Jesus will reveal himself again in the future, but not as a messiah (christos), rather, as an “anti-messiah” (antichrist). This procedure, in which one group’s messiah is deemed the antichrist by another group, is common in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim apocalyptic literature. The Vision of Daniel internalizes both the Qur’anic view that identifies the first Moses with the second Moses and the Christian concept of Jesus’s second coming at the end of days, thus turning it on its head. To the description of the two figures of the messiah’s enemies in the Vision of Daniel, based on the two principles that are most fitting for inverting the description of the figure of Jesus in Islam and Christianity—miracle-working and the messiahship—demonic elements are added. These demonic elements are found in ancient Christian and Jewish traditions that describe Gog and Magog and Armilus.

The uniqueness of the Vision of Daniel lies in the image of the Son of the Daughter of Levi. The combination of these two figures in the Vision reflects the shifting of the identities of those who are considered messiahs who will reveal themselves once again (Parousia) in Christian and Muslim literature; they become demonic antichrists in the eyes of the author of the Vision. In the Vision of Daniel, one of the two is the inversion of the Christian image of Moses/Jesus, whereas the second antichrist is the canonic Armilus, charged with significance.^{Footnote 27}

A. The Burning of the Wicked

Towards its end, the Vision describes the ultimate punishment of the enemies of the redeemer:

This tradition, based on Ezekiel 39:9, the third prophecy about Gog and Magog, is discussed in the Book of Elijah,^{Footnote 31} which states:

The Vision of Daniel specifies that the kindling will be stakes made of broom-wood due to a tradition about how long they burn; this traces back to another Jewish tradition, from the sixth century:

B. Heavenly Jerusalem

The full redemption detailed in the Vision describes the miraculous rebuilding of Jerusalem and resumption of the Temple service: “And the Living God will lower Jerusalem already built, from heaven, with chains of iron, and He will set it upon four [mountains]: Tabor, Carmel, Hermon, and the Mount of Olives: And the heavens and the earth will be renewed and they will build Jerusalem with precious stones and gems.” (3b)

These lines reflect several biblical passages from Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel that describe the greatness of the future Jerusalem. “Heavenly Jerusalem” was a dominant motif in the scenery of the redemption and is mentioned in other apocalyptical works. The tradition about the descent of the Temple from heaven and the links between this tradition and Christian traditions have been discussed in their historical context. The tradition intensified after the Muslim conquest in response to the development of Muslim traditions about Muḥammad’s ascent to the heavens from the site of the Temple. Thus, the same description is found also in the Syriac Vision of Daniel: “Then the New Jerusalem will be built, and Zion will be completely inhabited. The mighty Lord will build Zion, and his holy Christ will shine in Jerusalem. Mighty men will build her walls, and holy angels will complete her towers.”^{Footnote 32} In commenting on this passage, Henze states that, “in the Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel … no connection is made between the earthly and the New Jerusalem. The Heavenly Jerusalem is not like a model of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon but is the locus of intense angelic activity.” As with other motifs, we find a similar description in the Vision, following other examples of Jewish and Christian apocalypses.

C. The Flight to the Wilderness and “Flexible Time”

Part of the eschatological portrait in several apocalyptic works is a flight into the wilderness from the antichrist. In the Vision of Daniel, there are three flights from the antichrist into the wilderness: 1) The flight of the Ishmaelites from the Son of the Daughter of Levi into the wilderness of Paran (where the biblical Ishmael grew up); 2) the flight of Israel, together with Messiah ben Joseph, into the wilderness from Armilus; 3) the flight of Israel into the wilderness of Judah after the killing of Messiah ben Joseph.

The last flight, into the wilderness of Judah, is unique in that it is specified by a different, flexible time period of forty days and forty nights. They represent a different temporal rhythm. The way that the stay in the wilderness is described is unique to the Vision of Daniel and Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl:

A flight into the wilderness is also mentioned in one of the two aforementioned Syriac apocalypses of Daniel from the seventh century:

The wilderness is the locus of an interim stay during messianic pangs as well as a target for rebuilding normal civilization in redemption times in all four visions of Daniel. There is, however, a unique calculation of the time, a “Flexible Time,” in these works:

Other apocalypses, like the Book of Elijah, have a tradition about the fixed dates of the future redemption. The Book of Elijah concludes: “Then will come the last day, which is as long as forty days.” Like other time periods in the Book of Elijah, this, too, is a fixed time period, the source of which may be a tradition that relates to the day on which humankind is judged.^{Footnote 33}

The different and unique temporal rhythm of the end of days was already written about in Daniel 9:25–27, where several figures of weeks (7, 62, 1, ½) are mentioned and left for readers to decipher.^{Footnote 34}

“Flexible time,” like “encrypted time,” is a vital component of apocalyptic visions. The damage caused to the faithful upon the dashing of hopes connected to a concrete time can bring about the denial of future redemption. Indicating the possibility that the times of redemption will be “flexible” creates an opening for the hope that the times will not only extend but also be shortened, compressed. “Flexible time” is a moderate expression of the cosmic changes found in eschatological works. Prima facie, its use does not require the upheaval of nature and the world order. Therefore, the redemptive processes can appear suddenly, with an abbreviation of the bad years, like those described in connection with the flight to the wilderness. The description of “return” appears in apocalyptic visions, in the sense of a return to the mythic time after the exodus from Egypt, with all its formative components, including: redemption, lawgiving, and the formation of a people. The joining of “mythic time” with “apocalyptic time” is expected, for in both cases, rules prevail that are different from the rules that govern normal times: They are concrete times with a beginning and end, which entail events; they need not be consecutive or develop according to the normal course of our world. They are dramatic, dangerous times; they contain enchantment and are pregnant with possibility; when such times flow, their heroes are not subject to any temporal influence. Rather, they control time by giving direction to regular events.^{Footnote 35}

In the four visions of Daniel as well, up until the time of redemption, processes unfold within the normal temporal and world order. The “prophesied” events that happened and were still happening, traumatic as they may have been, occurred within a normal natural and temporal framework. It was therefore sufficient for the author to include them as part of the divine plan. Transitional, liminal “flexible time” is deployed for the transition to the eschatological era, the age of redemption. At the beginning of the eschatological era, the mythic figures of messiahs and their enemies become active, and they, too, will perform deeds that conform to the normal functioning of the world order. They will wage large-scale wars and perform great acts of artifice that seem miraculous. The true miracle—the resurrection of the dead—remains to signify the truth of the ultimate redeemer, Messiah ben David.

D. The Conclusion of the Vision

Immediately following the forty days and nights in the wilderness comes the conclusion of the main part of these visions, even though redemption and vengeance are not complete even after the disappearance of the Son of the Daughter of Levi and the killing of Armilus by Messiah ben Joseph. Alongside the extermination of the remaining evildoers, this final redemptive process also lays the (positive) foundation for renewal and rebuilding, including: the resurrection of the dead, the ingathering of the dispersed of Israel, the construction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the restoration of the prescribed service of God in the Temple. These tasks are assigned, in part, to Messiah ben David. The final sequence of the ultimate salvation is initiated by God, independent of Israel’s cries or conduct.

The conclusion of the Vision seeks to imbue its author, Daniel, with the authority of the vanguard of the new world. It returns to the conclusion in the twelfth chapter of the biblical Book of Daniel and uses its methods and terminology to conceal the time of redemption.^{Footnote 36} Yet Daniel’s encounter with Jeremiah, Elijah, and Zerubbabel, and his report to Ezra about the salvation of Israel, Messiah ben David, and the secrets of the Vision offer some slight indication about the contents of the lost beginning of the text. Jeremiah, Ezra, and Zerubbabel are mentioned several times at the beginning of Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl. The Judeo-Persian version of the vision opens with Jeremiah: “I am Daniel, of the sons of King Jeconia of Judah, who was in Jerusalem, in the Temple. There was a man with us named Jeremiah ben Hilkiah who was always obedient to the Lord.” Jeremiah is the authority figure who initiates Daniel on his path, just before the destruction of the Temple, just as Ezra and Zerubbabel appear a bit later, after the Jews were permitted to return and rebuild the Temple. Concluding the Vision with Jeremiah, Zerubbabel, and a report to Ezra returns the reader to figures familiar from the beginning of the Vision. Thus, it stands to reason that the Vision of Daniel’s opening was similar to that of Qiṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl.