Hope in Joshua redivivus versus Davidic hope

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Hope in Joshua redivivus versus Davidic hope

Post by Giuseppe »

All we know that recently Neil has put in doubt the presence of a general davidic hope in the pre-70 times.

For example (but there are other links):

http://vridar.org/2010/11/26/the-myth-o ... esus-time/

Now I see that at least a Mythicist author preceded him in this skeptical operation.

He is Harold Leidner.

He writes:
Josephus reports these events accurately - as usual, he is our sole
witness for very important events. However, he failed to notice their
linkage and significance: all were concerned with reenacting events in
the careers of Moses and Joshua, with faith that this reenactment
would bring salvation.
(The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, p. 24)

When I read the following denial (by Leidner) of a davidic hope in pre-70 times, it seems for me as if I was reading Neil Godfrey:
We had thought that Moses and Joshua were figures of remote antiquity,
as far as popular awareness at that period went. Now we find
these figures propelled to the forefront. And we are told many times
by the scholars that there was a widespread Messianic Hope centered
on the advent of the Son of David. Prior to this there would be a
Forerunner symbolizing Elijah to proclaim this Advent. But the
frenzied emphasis on Moses and Joshua plainly means that this was the
only Messianic hope at that period. There was no Davidic Hope and
there was no "Elijah Forerunner. " The only saviors would be Moses
and Joshua.

Josephus has been accused by one and all of concealing the
Messianic Hope. He has received stern reprimands for his dishonesty.
But here he is shouting from the housetops that he knows all about the
Hope, and that it has been going on for thirty years. Only it is the
wrong Hope and the wrong Savior - that is the offense of Josephus.
As if in a Kafka novel, he is guilty because he doesn't confess to what
he doesn't know.
(ibid., p. 31, my bold)


What do you think?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply