Peter,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?
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.
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"?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.