In a much publicized passage from Daniel 7, the visionary sees four fantastic animals succeeding each other from the sea. The last one, however, was quite different from the others.
After this I saw in the visions by night a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth and was devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns (1).
The animal had indeed nothing in common with the others. Current interpretation among scholars is that the animals refer to the same theme of Dn 2, that is to say, to the succession of the world empires. These are normally identified with Babylon, Media, Persia and Alexander's empire plus the Hellenistic kingdoms. The horns are more difficult to identify, but seem to refer to the Diadochs and also, in the subsequent verses, to Anthiocus Epiphanes, whose notorious lack of political ability gave rise to the Maccabean Revolt (167 a.C.).
The theme of the world monarchies, while particularly important in apocalyptic literature, does appear even in ancient historiography. The fact that David Flusser (1917-2000) identified the possible influence of the Pseudo-Callisthenes' Alexander' Romance (by way of Philostrato's Life of Apollonius of Tyana) on the author of the book of Daniel implies that the "fourth beast" may be a rhinoceros (see "The fourth empire - an Indian rhinoceros?" in: Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988).
And then appeared a beast of an unusual kind, larger than an elephant, armed on its forehead by three horns, which the Indians used to call odontotyrannos, (having a dark colour similar to that of a horse). After having drunk water, it gazed at our camp and attacked us suddenly and was not hindered by the thick flames of fire (3).
That David Flusser may have argued persuasively on the link between Pseudo-Callisthenes and Daniel just as a spring of readings done in his spare time is testimony to his incredible scholarship and incessant dedication. Flusser left this world in September 2000, and the choosing of the rhino is also hommage to him, whose influence on the PEJ's researches is very great.
Being Flusser's rhino of a composite nature - Hellenistic as well as Jewish -, it exemplifies the spirit of the PEJ quite well.
(1) Dn 7:7. The English translation is from the New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
(2) This interpretation is far from unanimous, while being the most common one. Even in Antiquity the forth kingdom was sometimes regarded as Rome (see the Fourth Book of Esdras for instance). For an exhausting survey of the debate until the middle of the 20th century (when it seems that serious attempts to deny the Hellenistic identity of the fourth beast have stopped for good) cf. Harold H. Rowley. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires. Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board, 1959.
(3) Wilhelm Kroll. Historia Alexandri Magni. Berlin: Weidmann, 1926; the Armenian version was edited by Albert M. Wolohjan (The Romance of Alexander the Great by Pseudo-Callisthenes. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969). Other versions of the passage are also available in Flusser's edition of the Josippon (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1980) and in Adolf Ausfeld's edition (Der griechische Alexanderroman. Leipzig: /s.ed./, 1907). Cit. by Flusser, "The fourth empire", p.348.