Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 01/09/2006 14:06, Yigal Levin wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Whether the man Daniel was or was not a "prophet" depends on your definition 
> of the word. However it is clear, that the rabbis did not consider the book 
> of Daniel to have prophetic status (just like they considered Jeremiah, 
> author of Lamentations, to have been a prophet, but did not consider the 
> book of Lamentations to be a work of prophecy). The early followers of 
> Jesus, however, felt that Jesus fulfilled many of Daniel's "prophecies", and 
> it was thus critical that the book be considered authoritative.
>
>   
Indeed, but are you able to prove that the early followers of Jesus were 
the first to consider Daniel a prophet? For example, what opinions of 
Daniel were held at Qumran and by Josephus and Philo?

In Christian thinking there is no difference between the authority of 
the different books of the Hebrew Bible, and so there was no reason on 
that basis to transfer the book of Daniel from one place to another.

> As far as Malachi, it was the "re-orderers" who placed the prophetic books 
> last in the OT, making them lead directly into the New. As I wrote, this was 
> not by chance.
>
>   
What is your evidence for such a confident (and inflammatory) statement 
"this was not by chance"? Or would you care to qualify it to "this may 
not have been by chance"?

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/