I'd go even further: my guess is that the rabbis (or whoever) realized that
Daniel was a late, fictional, composition, which does not preserve the words
of someone who actually acted as a messenger for God. They included it in
the canon nevertheless, because they considered its message about the end of
days to be important, but they did not wish to give its author prophetic
authority. In this way. Daniel is like Job, which the rabbis also considered
to be "a Mashal" rather than a historical text.
As I wrote, just a guess, which I expect some on this list to take exception
to.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.