Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loomis · 09-08-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

There's no "dissing" here. The chapter is about the death of Moses and just says Moses was the greatest prophet of Israel who passed the torch onto Joshua.

No way!

Please reconsider. In Deuteronomy 18:15 the author describes Joshua/ Jesus as a prophet like Moses.

Quote:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.

But the author of Deuteronomy 34:10 cut him off at the pass.

Quote:

Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses

It looks like biblical in fighting to me. The same idea is preserved in Hebrews 3:3

Quote:

For he has come to deserve greater glory than Moses …

Loomis · 09-08-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

As I understand it, Joshua was a very common name. Might as well make a big deal out of a string of Johns in American history.

People were naming their kid 'Jesus' because they thought of their kid as a savior.

They were naming their kid after the messiah in Jewish folklore.

The popularity of the name ‘Jesus’ is evidence that a messianic Jesus tradition was in place before the ‘historical Jesus’ allegedly existed.

Petergdi · 09-08-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Joshua was originally named Hoshea but Moses gave him the name Jesus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=31;

Quote:

These are the names of the men Moses sent to explore the land. (Moses gave Hoshea son of Nun the name Joshua.)

The same motif is found in Philippians 2:8-9

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0;&version=31;

Quote:

God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth

You are seriously missing the point of the Philippians hymn. God gave Jesus the name Kurios because he took the form of a doulos and humbled himself and became obedient unto death on the cross.

Peter.

Loomis · 09-08-2009, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

Zerubbabel evidently flopped, so his name was taken out of the crowning part which gave the impression Joshua son of Jehozadak was supposed to be the special Messiah.

I agree that Zerubbabel was supposed to be a messiah. But that doesn’t get Joshua off the hook. He was supposed to be a messiah too. It looks to me like the story was originally about two messiahs: Zerubbabel and Joshua. The branch metaphor is reminiscent of the cross. (A messiah on each side to keep it balanced.)

There is a hint of a two messiah tradition in Matthew 1:21-23

Quote:

She will give birth to a son and you will call his name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.

…they will call his name Emmanuel, which means “God with us.”

The author treats the names 'Jesus' and 'Emmanuel' as honorary titles that the baby would earn later in life. Each name could corresponded to each messiah. Maybe the author's point was that the baby was so cool that it was both messiahs rolled into one. Or maybe the author was just trying to snuff the two messiah tradition.

Read this:

Qumran's two Messiahs.

mountainman · 09-08-2009, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

The translation you quoted obscured things a bit. Both passages are definitely speaking of Joshua son of Nun.

I think Loomis is making the point that "Joshua" or "Yehoshua" or "Yeshua" cannot be rendered in Greek so it is transliterated as "Jesus".

There is no "Joshua" in the LXX. Only Jesus.

The earliest Greek manuscripts of the new testament canon,
the earliest coptic manuscripts of the new testament apocrypha,
and the earliest Greek manuscripts of the LXX share one fact.

The name of Joshua in the LXX and the name of Jebus in the NT
are not explicit, and instead an abbreviated scribal form is evident.
The abbreviation for Joshua and the abbreviation for Jesus
are one and the same symbolic form of two letters over-barred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

It would nice if English Bibles would use the same transliteration of the name throughout the whole Bible. I can get behind that!

The English bible is a package of two different series of books
which were authored for different reasons in different centuries.

The original greek bibles use the same nomina sacra throughout.
That the very same abbreviated overbarred two letters are to
be "transliterated" as "Joshua" in the LXX and "Jesus" in the NT
represents some form of "poetic license".

bacht · 09-09-2009, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I agree the Joshua/Jesus connection is interesting, but Zechariah was apparently referring to a real priest (mentioned also by Haggai) at the time of the establishment of the new foundation for the temple (ca 520 bce). These prophets were optimistically predicting a new age of renewal in Israel under two "anointed" leaders, secular (governor Zerubbabel) and spiritual (Joshua). Neither were heard of again afaik.

Yep. Zerubbabel and Joshua son of Jehozadak were both crowned in Zech 6 with the expectation Zerubbabel would be the special Branch of David -- what we call the Messiah -- who would continue the dynasty.

Zerubbabel evidently flopped, so his name was taken out of the crowning part which gave the impression Joshua son of Jehozadak was supposed to be the special Messiah. Funny how most apologists don't even bother claiming this prophecy.

As I understand it, Joshua was a very common name. Might as well make a big deal out of a string of Johns in American history.

Right, Zechariah and Haggai seem to represent the idealists of the returnees from Babylon, maybe from the same circle as Deutero-Isaiah.

Apparently there are a couple of unconfirmed traditions about Zerubbabel, one that he took the crown and was killed by the Persians, another that he returned to Babylon.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...rch=zerubbabel

show_no_mercy · 09-09-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

It would nice if English Bibles would use the same transliteration of the name throughout the whole Bible. I can get behind that!

Not only are there multiple people named "Jesus" in the LXX, but there are also multiple "christs". But the translators of your modern Bible simply translated the LXX "christ" as "anointed" in the OT. However, they still leave the Greek (LXX) book names like "deuteronomy", "exodus", "genesis", "psalms", etc.

An obvious agenda.

Loomis · 09-09-2009, 11:04 AM

Consider Matthew 13:5-6.

Watch out that no one misleads you. Many will come in my name, saying, “I am he”…

Traditionally we have assumed that this prophecy was targeted for the distant future.

But is that what the author really meant?

Maybe it was more like the prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem: Maybe it was supposed to occur in the near future. Maybe the author was aware of the popularity of the name ‘Jesus’ and so he built it into his story.

Do you see what I mean?

Think backwards: Maybe the author was exploiting the popularity of the name. Maybe he was trying to say that the popularity of the name somehow attested to the truthfulness of his messiah story.

Loomis · 09-09-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

As I understand it, Joshua was a very common name. Might as well make a big deal out of a string of Johns in American history.

If the name John became extremely popular then we should expect urban legends to pop up that attempt to explain its popularity.

Right?

Well … maybe that’s a contributing factor for Mark’s gospel. Maybe Mark wrote his story as folklore to explain the popularity of the name 'Jesus'.

Do you see what I mean?

Loomis · 09-09-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

Zerubbabel evidently flopped, so his name was taken out of the crowning part which gave the impression Joshua son of Jehozadak was supposed to be the special Messiah.

There were originally two messiahs. Joshua and Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel got the chopping block.

Zechariah 4:11-14 LXX

Quote:

And I answered, and said to him, What are these two olive-trees, which are on the right and left hand of the candlestick? And I asked the second time, and said to him, What are the two branches of the olive-trees that are by the side of the two golden pipes that pour into and communicate with the golden oil funnels? And he said to me, Knowest thou not what these are? and I said, No, my lord. And he said, These are the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

Zechariah 6:12-13 LXX

Quote:

Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord. And he shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between them both.

Qumran's two Messiahs

09-09-2009, 11:04 AM	#18
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Consider Matthew 13:5-6. Watch out that no one misleads you. Many will come in my name, saying, “I am he”… Traditionally we have assumed that this prophecy was targeted for the distant future. But is that what the author really meant? Maybe it was more like the prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem: Maybe it was supposed to occur in the near future. Maybe the author was aware of the popularity of the name ‘Jesus’ and so he built it into his story. Do you see what I mean? Think backwards: Maybe the author was exploiting the popularity of the name. Maybe he was trying to say that the popularity of the name somehow attested to the truthfulness of his messiah story.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.