jakejonesiv

Link

Sheshbazzar

The Scriptures and Moses are emphatically clear that there would come an Anointed PRIEST, KING, and PROPHET of whose rule there would be no end.

Moses himself prophesied;
Thus Stephan, if you or the Samaritans, refuse to accept the words of Moses; "a Prophet like unto me",

or of Almighty Yahweh; "A Prophet....like unto you",

or of The Prophets; "The Spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon Him"...

Yahweh, Moses, or The Prophets -never-ever- say; 'Moses is superior to Joshua'.
Only false prophets who neglect the Testimony say such things, things which neither Moses nor Yahweh ever spoke. Moses perished on the other side of the flood.....

..That is your problem Stephan, not mine.





.

jakejonesiv

"Go forth didst thou to save thy people, (plural, Joshua and his followers, Hab 3:11 cf Joshua 10:12)
To save thine anointed: (singular, Joshua himself)
Thou didst smite the head from the house of the wicked,
Emptying out the foundation unto the neck." Hab. 3:13 Septuagint

stephan huller

Hey guys

None of these citations (subsequent and of lower authority to the Pentateuch no less) do absolutely nothing to change the fact that Joshua is clearly portrayed as subordinate to Moses. This is the accepted understanding of all monotheistic traditions and it is the plain meaning of the original references in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. That the one to come will be like Moses has no bearing.on the question of whether Joshua was equal to Moses. He wasn't.

This is why Marcionitism's wholly divine Jesus is so important. Jesus can't be Joshua the man. There is a mystical typology somewhere in the narrative but the interest of the original gospel writer is not in the pre-existence of the understanding that Joshua was superior to Moses. We have to be careful.

stephan huller

The only way to reconcile these things IMO is to assume that the original Christian theology assumed that the Apostle was the one better than Moses not Jesus.

John I: 11 reads ΕΙΣ ΤΑ ΙΔΙΑ ΗΛΘΕΝ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΙΔΙΟΙ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΟΥ ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ. We should disregard the prevalent commentaries, which drone on about the Jews not accepting Jesus, and then Paul trying for the second prize by preaching to everyone except Jews.

The translation in the King James Version or Authorised Version renders “ta idia” as “his own ”. This could equally well be rendered as “what was his”. Notice that the noun this time is neuter plural. A neuter plural can refer to what in English would be a singular. Some translations render it as “his own home”, which is certainly a possible use of the term, but I would much prefer the rendering of the Authorised Version because it allows for the whole range of meanings. The same translation has “his own” for “hoi idioi”. This time the Greek word is masculine plural, and is clearly connected with the word “hosoi” meaning “whoever (plural)” at the start of the next verse.

In the Peshitta the rendering in both places in verse 11 is simply ܕܝܠܞ . In itself this is neither personal nor impersonal, neither singular nor plural. In the second instance the Peshitta uses a plural verb. The avoidance of a distinction between neuter and personal in the first instance of DYLH in the Peshitta is useful.

Perhaps the Greek translators made the right choice, but at the cost of the intended ambiguity AND AT THE COST OF THE REFERENCE TO THE TORAH. Genesis 49: 10 says “till he whose it is comes”. The phrase in John is “He came to what was his”. If you put these phrases into Aramaic the phrases “whose it is” and “to what was his” will be DYLH (= Peshitta in Genesis) and LDYLH A reference to Genesis 49: 10 would be absolutely unmistakable. (This assumes of course that you accept the etymology of the word Shiloh accepted by all the ancient witnesses except the Vulgate; though even the translation in the Vulgate is compatible).

But look what happens if you translate into Hebrew. You could render “to what is his” as לשלו but in poetic style you could leave the lamed out. בא שלו ושלו לא קבלוהו This is not, however, very natural usage, even in poetic style, because the prepositional prefix would normally only be left out before a noun.

Suppose the original had been this: בא שילה ושלו לא קבלוהו This means “Shilo came and those that were his didn’t accept him”. Alternatively, with deliberately archaic spelling: בא שילה ושלה לא קבלוהו This could be read in two ways, either as above, or as “Shiloh came, and [shin-lamed-he, numerical value ten less, because no yod] did not receive him”. I have suggested before that the spelling of Shiloh without a yod in Jewish and Samaritan MSS of the Torah originated in the claim that the Prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18 was Joshua, no more than that, thus denying the concept of a future Moses or someone greater than Moses.

This is now getting very speculative, but what is certain is that this Hebrew sentence could be read as “Shiloh came, but those that denied the authority of the Torah for the coming of a second and greater Moses didn’t receive him”. The next verse would then fit perfectly. Now we see a possible reason for the Samaritan-sounding term “Power” here. This is a Samaritan Christian Dosithean manifesto. (I have already shown unmistakeable Dosithean Christian passages in the epistles attributed to Paul, but in the epistles that modern scholars have guessed might not be by Paul himself).

Skyler

The title of the OP is "Jesus = Joshua?" and I am answering that question in the affirmative. Sheshbazzar's argument's seem strong. You posted absolutely nothing to challenge that. You are off on your own agenda that doesn't interest me. As far as I am concerned, Moses may not have even existed.

This is one of my pet projects that I have studied.

Skyler

Skyler

That makes sense. Thanks.


Saw your profile, sorry abut the Moses not existing thing... I am still new.

stephan huller

Of course Jesus is the Greek name used to render the Hebrew Joshua. Nevertheless avi - I mean skyler - the claim that Joshua might have been considered to be equal to oe greater than Moses and was subsequently disproved

Sheshbazzar

To clarify what I presented, it was not that 'Joshua' -the son of Nun, nor that 'Joshua' -the son of Josedech, of whom Moses and Yahweh were prophesying.
But a much greater 'Joshua' who was yet to come; That blessed KING who would come 'in the Name of Yahweh'.

The writers of the NT picked up on this theme. But something happened in the translation, and in the conveyance along the way.
A king of thieves, liars, and murderers came in another name, one which Moses nor Yahweh ever spoke, nor was it heard out of their mouths, nor written in the Prophets;
And the world as was appointed, received this one unto themselves, as he was of their own, and they did his works 'in his name' even as they still do.
You all have heard, and know well his name. Every tree is known by its fruits. It is why we are here.



.

semiopen

This is an interesting but ambitious reading of this.

Jewish Exegesis generally considers this to be a reference to generic prophets as opposed to a single guy.

Look at the verses surrounding this.

This seems to be saying that these guys use nasty soothsayers, I'll give you nice kosher prophets.

As we go a little further from 18:19 the subject of a false prophet is brought up. While we might wonder about the intelligence of a prophet who is stupid enough to make specific testable predictions, the context seems to suggest that the verse is talking about prophets in general as opposed to the big boss.