Steven Carr

No the question is why people choose to deny that the character referenced by Philo's quote of Zechariah 6 was actually called Jesus in the Bible.

We can't psycho-analyse them, but we can ask people of today why they are denying that Zechariah 6:11-12 contains the name 'Jesus/Joshua'.

aa5874

Zechariah 6.11-12 deals specifically with a character called Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest.

The very details supplied about Joshua the son of Josedech the high priest in Hebrew Scripture show that he has nothing whatsoever to with Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost and a virgin.

And further, Philo wrote NOTHING about Jesus, God's own Son.

sotto voce

Is that the right question? Surely the better question is, is it credible that any scholarly Jew did not consider that the messiah might come from Egypt? Why would the messiah, who was to be descended from Judah, to be born in Bethlehem, have cause to be in Egypt? It's not an idea that one would put one's name to on parchment. But that no Jew ever considered that it might occur is an improbability.

Because the question should surely be asked, did Jews who did not accept Jesus as messiah dismiss the claim for relevance of Hos 11:1? It's quite difficult to do so, because of the peculiar hermeneutic context.

'Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, "Let my son go, so that he may worship me."' Ex 4:22-23 NIV

Reference to a whole nation as a single son is remarkable enough, and of course the fact of Jesus being the first-born makes sense of this, because Israel, aka Jacob, was not the first-born of Isaac, yet not so by the narrowest possible margin. Jews must have found this compelling, if perhaps unwelcome.

Sheshbazzar

Are you familiar with the Greek Septuagint (LXX) reading of Zechariah 6:11 aa?

11. καὶ λήψῃ ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον καὶ ποιήσεις στεφάνους καὶ ἐπιθήσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦ μεγάλου


Here is The Greek text of Matthew 1:1;
1. Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ

See that name in red? See how it is spelled in each of these texts?

The LXX Greek speaks of 'Iesu' or 'JESUS' the son of Josedech'. NOT 'Joshua'.

The name Ἰησοῦ in Matthew 1:1 was lifted directly from the Greek text of The LXX.

The name Ἰησοῦ in the New Testament has something to do with Zech 6:11, because it was that text, (along with hundreds of others) with this name, that formed the basis of the NTs saviour figure being named Ἰησοῦ in the Greek text of Matt 1:1

If you are shallow enough to read or place the Greek name over the Hebrew, you might even 'buy' that this was actually the name that is named in Numbers 13:16

The NT writings and leading character display an acute consciousness of this discrepancy, and make pointed prophetic predictions that are based upon it.

The thing is a Hebrew shibboleth. 'Joshua' 'JoSHuah' or 'YaSHua' retain the scriptural SH vocalisation, while Iesu- Jesu- Jesus- do not.

The thing is a shibboleth vs sibboleth 'set up'.

That a man might be identified, judged and either 'pass' as justified, or be condemned by the WORD or name that he speaks. Quite literally. (Judges 12:5-6 > Matt 12:37)

What difference does it make? Those Ephraimites didn't know either in the day that they tried to pass over that Jordan.

.

Diogenes the Cynic

It was a common as dirt name. Why complicate it. Every other bone box belongs to a Yeshu or a Yeshua. Everybody and their brother was named either Jesus or Judas.

If anything it could have been a generic, stand-in male name like "Joe" is in English. "Yeshua the Anointed" could have been something akin to "Joe Cool" or "Joe blow" or "Joe Schmo" or "Joe the Plumber," where the name is really just means "that dude."

aa5874

I do NOT accept the PERSONAL translations of posters. You MUST provide sources.

Even if you claim the name 'Joshua' is the same as the name 'Jesus' it does NOT matter one bit because "Joshua the son of Josedech the high Priest was NOT Joshua of Nazareth, was NOT Joshua the son of Ananias, Not Joshua the Son of Saphhias and was NOT Joshua the son of Damneus.

Joshua of Nazareth has NO known history except as the Son of God born of a Ghost.

srd44

Lookie lookie at the rookie....

Well, here it is. The mythicist position laid bare in all its ridiculousness for all to see. No, no, Jesus of Nazareth is not historical because the ancient writings that speak of him... are to by none acceptable.

Quit contrary to the ancient writings that speak of Joshua of Ananian, Joshua of Saphias, etc... NO, no, these are references to histoorical persons.

Your methodology is flawed from the get go. Anything that follows--- premises, hypothesis, arrogant claims -- have all been deduced from an original methodological fallacy. You cannot use literature to prove or disprove the exitence or non-existence of an individual in antiquity.

stephan huller

I would be interested in any evidence which suggests that Yeshu was used as a name (and specifically a diminutive of Yeshua (which in turn is a shortening of Yehoshua) at the turn of the common era. Would be useful.

Duvduv

I still wonder about the rendering of the name Yesoos for Yehoshua which drops the letter "a" that would otherwise make it "Yesooas" in a way that resembles a rendering of a name like ELIAS for ELIYAH/ELIYAHU or ZACARIAS for Zachariah which do not become ELIS and ZACARIS, or ISAIS instead of ISAIAS. I suppose it must have something to do with the use of certain vowel combinations...........
Unless the name YESOOS did not necessarily refer to the name YESHUA/YEHOSHUA originally but was actually a different name.

Sheshbazzar

"Real Name: Jessie, son of Bessie, -never- Je'sus"

Is my Real Name Jessie? or is it Yesoos? Did not my Father and my mother know? Do not my friends and my children?

Its not like I began thinking and studying about this matter just yesterday.