
I recently read an article on academia.com where a writer explored the possibility that Joshua son of Nun was a Josiah. Evidently there are texts that use the name Josiah.
In such a case the Dtr. historian would have begun and ended his story with a Josiah. Then of course Dtr2 and others rewrote the history to explain the fall of Jerusalem.
Another option is that some later scribes tried to adjust the name of Joshua to Josiah to create the inclusio.
Thomas Brodie thinks the Dtr. history was encapsulated by the Elijah-Elisha narrative (EEN). It is hard to visualize because the EEN itself is within the overall Dtr. history. In this theory the young king Joash is a rewrite of Josiah, despite being generations earlier than Josiah. per usual with Brodie, you have to throw out dates, and think only in terms of storytelling.

lol, no, this was someone else, not me, looking at various ancient source texts, from what I remember. IT would fit in nicely with my idea that messiah stories were a basic structure of the Hebrew Bible and the natural basis for the Jesus of Nazareth storyline.
This differs markedly with the “standard” view that the historical Jesus, even the Triumphalist version, was not expected, was an embarrassment to Judean expectations, and had to be explained by “grasping at straws” like Isaiah 53.

I want to know why Paul had to be of Benjamin, of which Saul is the only major character of that tribe, despite the tribe’s close connection to Jerusalem.
I have been watching so many “Paul’s letters are not written”: “…by Paul”; “… in the early first century;” and also Paul was purely fictitious. I still think Paul was completely real, so far. But I find it odd that the NT Saul and the OT Saul have these parallels of being major leaders, and both being of Benjamin.
I wonder if other tribes were even claimed as far as lineage, other than Benjamin and Judah.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)

