Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 05-13-2012, 09:15 AM

Quote:

It is possible that the original author wrote Jesus meaning Joshua the colleague and successor of Moses.

The author of the article brings up the Joshua/Jesus connection, yet he also points out Justin Martyr's statement to the same effect about the divine Jesus. I think the divine Jesus is more probable.

stephan huller · 05-13-2012, 09:17 AM

Yes but Solo Epiphanius's point is that Christians are only improperly called Nazoraeans and properly called Jesseans (= of Jesse).

sotto voce · 05-13-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Jesus and Joshua are the same word in Greek.

It is possible that the original author wrote Jesus meaning Joshua the colleague and successor of Moses.

Not possible, because this Joshua destroyed unbelievers (in the desert, excluding the other Joshua); and bound disobedient angels in darkness.

That is a good point. The destruction of unbelieving Israelites in the desert probably refers to Numbers 14 and its consequences. (The Israelites lose their nerve, decide not to invade Palestine just yet and are condemned to wander in the wilderness until the current adult generation is mostly dead.) Joshua is involved in this, (the Israelite rejection of him leads to their judgment), but Joshua does not himself judge or punish them.

IF the original author meant Joshua then he must have been referring to the events in which Joshua took part rather than Joshua's exact role in them.

jude-5 suggests that Jesus/Joshua is not original in Jude 5 but was introduced by scribes seeking to connect OT Joshua and NT Jesus.

It's more than possible that 'the Lord' was chosen because of trinitarian leanings. It's notable that (afaik) no printed translation has ever rendered the alternative 'Jesus'.

stephan huller · 05-13-2012, 09:22 AM

When did Joshua the son of Nun kill unbelieving Israelites? Numbers 14 is an incredible stretch. I can't even think of a tradition that Joshua took part in the slayings. Here are the Joshua references:

Quote:

Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had explored the land, tore their clothes 7 and said to the entire Israelite assembly, “The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. 8 If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. 9 Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will devour them. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.” 10 But the whole assembly talked about stoning them.

In this wilderness your bodies will fall —every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. 30 Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.

So the men Moses had sent to explore the land, who returned and made the whole community grumble against him by spreading a bad report about it— 37 these men who were responsible for spreading the bad report about the land were struck down and died of a plague before the Lord. 38 Of the men who went to explore the land, only Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh survived.

This is what bothers me about scholarship. You have a near contemporary of the author of Jude saying:

Quote:

And it is plain that this was spoken not of Judah, but of Christ. For all we out of all nations do expect not Judah, but Jesus, who led your fathers out of Egypt. For the prophecy referred even to the advent of Christ: 'Till He come for whom this is laid up, and He shall be the expectation of nations.' Jesus came, therefore, as we have shown at length, and is expected again to appear above the clouds [Dialogue 120]

But somehow Joshua the son of Nun is really meant? I think the explanation is that ho on (Ex 3:6 [Justin] 14 LXX) = ithay (John 8:58 Peshitta, Old Syriac, Sahidic, Ethiopic etc) = yesh = Yeshu = Gk Iesous = Jesus

sotto voce · 05-13-2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

When did Joshua the son of Nun kill unbelieving Israelites?

Who said that he did?

stephan huller · 05-13-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Jesus at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. [Jude 1:5]

In order to claim this is Joshua the son of Nun you have to find a time when Joshua carried out the highlighted text.

stephan huller · 05-13-2012, 09:44 AM

Indeed the context makes sense only if Jesus Christ is Jesus in Jude 1:5:

Quote:

They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that Jesus at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

I don't see how 'Joshua son of Nun' is the best explanation here.

spin · 05-13-2012, 09:54 AM

Once again, non-titular κυριος. Aland gives κυριος. The insertion of Jesus would reflect later attitudes. It was god who saved his people then destroyed the unbelievers.

stephan huller · 05-13-2012, 09:57 AM

I don't understand. How does non-titular kurios prove that Jesus wasn't there originally? It only makes sense if begin a priori by assuming a human Jesus who wasn't divine.

It's nice to see that you have Aland ready at your finger tips

. Only about a hundred people have access to that kind of information on a Sunday morning. Here is the best that I can do:

παντα οτι κυριος απαξ (all, that the Lord) — א, Ψ
παντα οτι ο κυριος απαξ — C 630 1505 2412 2495
παντα οτι ο θεος απαξ (all, that God) — 2492
απαξ παντα οτι Ιησους (all, that Jesus) — A B 33 81 2344 ar dem div vg eth
απαξ παντα οτι κυριος — Ephraem
απαξ παντα οτι ο θεος — C2
απαξ παντας οτι θεος Χριστος (all, that God Christ) — 72
απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος — L, 049 104 181 326 330 436 451 629 945 1877 2127 Byz Lect
τουτο απαξ οτι ο κυριος — K, 056
απαξ τουτο υμας οτι ο κυριος — 0142
παντα οτι Ιησους απαξ — 322 323 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 itc copbo
παντα οτι ο Ιησους απαξ — 88, 915

stephan huller · 05-13-2012, 10:09 AM

An interesting blog article http://diglotting.com/category/textual-criticism/

Quote:

Jarl Fossum asserts that the subject of απωλεσεν is Ιησους who is acting as the “deputy of God possessing the Divine Name”,[1] and is “an intermediary figure whose basic constituent is the Angel of the Lord.”[2] Whereas, Wikgren and Osburn have proposed that ιησους is actually meant as a referent to Joshua (the same name in Greek),[3] though this theory fails considering that the action of v. 7 is also ascribed to the same subject of v. 5, and so while it could be possible to attribute the saving of the people out of Egypt to Joshua,[4] it is impossible to attribute the imprisonment of the angels to him as well. In fact, Bauckham believes that the popular use of the Joshua-Jesus typology in the early church writings is what led to the introduction of Ιησους in the textual tradition of Jude.[5] That is to say, a scribe replaced κυριος with Ιησους due to seeing the Joshua-Jesus typology in v. 5 but did not notice that the typology failed to work in vv. 6-7. Yet, I think that a scribe who is attentive enough to spot the opportunity to use the Jesus-Joshua typology in v. 5 would certainly notice that it doesn’t work in vv. 6-7.

In Bruce Metzger’s acclaimed textual commentary, he says that the reading of Ιησους “is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel.”[6] Metzger preferred ιησους over κυριος, but the committee of the NA27 ended up choosing [o] κυριος (Metzger and Wikgren voted for ιησους). The uncertainty of the original reading, however, is noted by the D-rating the committee placed upon the variant.

Philip Comfort discusses the variant in his textual commentary. He asserts that ιησους is easier to argue for because “scribes were not known for fabricating difficult readings.”[7] Furthermore, he claims that “Jesus is here being seen as Yahweh the Savior.”[8] While ιησους is undoubtedly the harder reading, I do not think it is merely a matter of whether scribes were in the habit of making the text more difficult; instead, it is whether they were also in the habit of making the text conform to a desired theological view (in this case, to a higher Christology by unambiguously attributing the salvation of the Israelites from Egypt to the pre-existent Jesus).[9]

Charles Landon favored κυριος in his monograph on Jude from a rigorous eclectic method.[10] Likewise, in his magisterial monograph on Jude done from the reasoned eclectic method, Tommy Wasserman also preferred κυριος.[11] One reason as to why Landon believes κυριος to be original is that the author of Jude never uses ιησους as a stand alone name but always adds χριστος and/or κυριος to it (see vv. 1, 4, 17, 21, 25). An original and more compelling internal reason for κυριος is provided by Wasserman. He explains that in quoting 1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14-15, the author of Jude changes the subject of the quotation from θεος to κυριος. This is quite significant considering that no other witness to 1 Enoch 1.9 has κυριος as the subject, thus giving a strong precedent for Jude having used the anarthrous κυριος again in verse 5 which is similarly set in a context of judgment like vv. 14-15.

Alternatively, Klaus Watchel, using the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, analyzed the manuscripts and variants at Jude 5 and determined ιησους to be the original reading.[12] On top of that, two recent articles both argue for ιησους. The first article is by Philipp Bartholomä.[13] He approaches the variant from a reasoned eclectic viewpoint and finds the external evidence favoring Ιησους and that the internal evidence “in no way precludes” it. In the second article, Timo Flink argues that while the internal evidence does favor κυριος, the external evidence “overrules” that and so the reading should be Ιησους.[14] Interestingly, Flink asserts that there is a geographical distinction between κυριος and Ιησους, with the former being an almost exclusive Eastern reading and the latter being a predominantly Western one. For Flink, the widespread geographical occurrence of Ιησους (Egypt, Rome, Ethiopia) is what gives it the “slight edge” over κυριος (Egypt and Syria) as being the better reading (externally speaking).

κυριος or Ιησους

In summary, while the reading of Ιησους does have slightly better external manuscript support, considering that two early and important witnesses to Jude have different readings (01, 03) the corruption to the text must have occurred quite early in the manuscript tradition, thus making internal evidence a more decisive factor. The internal evidence persuasively points towards κυριος. This reading was perhaps ambiguous enough to induce the need for a scribe to elucidate it further, thus the two main variants to it (ιησους and θεος) demonstrate that some scribes believed κυριος to be in reference to God, while others thought it was describing the pre-existent activity of Jesus.[15] How was ιησους introduced into the manuscript tradition? Perhaps its was through a scribe who wanted to use a Joshua-Jesus typology, or it may have been an attempt to unambiguously attribute pre-existence to Jesus; or it may simply have been a case of transcriptional oversight which mistook a nomina sacra KC for IC. Regardless, there are miniscules (e.g. 93, 1501), which have ιησους despite the fact that none of their closest manuscript ancestors contain that reading, thus showing that ιησους could have emerged independently throughout the manuscript tradition.

And most importantly in a footnote the author remarks "Surprisingly, Bart Ehrman only briefly skims over Jude 5 in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 85-86." So clearly Ehrman, like spin, has a strange aversion to this subject. Odd. One would expect spin who lately seems so open to mythicism of late to embrace Jude 5 as the strongest argument in favor of the plausibility of the mythicist position. Doubly odd.

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

05-13-2012, 09:17 AM	#22
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes but Solo Epiphanius's point is that Christians are only improperly called Nazoraeans and properly called Jesseans (= of Jesse).

05-13-2012, 09:54 AM	#28
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Once again, non-titular κυριος. Aland gives κυριος. The insertion of Jesus would reflect later attitudes. It was god who saved his people then destroyed the unbelievers.

05-13-2012, 09:57 AM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't understand. How does non-titular kurios prove that Jesus wasn't there originally? It only makes sense if begin a priori by assuming a human Jesus who wasn't divine. It's nice to see that you have Aland ready at your finger tips . Only about a hundred people have access to that kind of information on a Sunday morning. Here is the best that I can do: παντα οτι κυριος απαξ (all, that the Lord) — א, Ψ παντα οτι ο κυριος απαξ — C 630 1505 2412 2495 παντα οτι ο θεος απαξ (all, that God) — 2492 απαξ παντα οτι Ιησους (all, that Jesus) — A B 33 81 2344 ar dem div vg eth απαξ παντα οτι κυριος — Ephraem απαξ παντα οτι ο θεος — C2 απαξ παντας οτι θεος Χριστος (all, that God Christ) — 72 απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος — L, 049 104 181 326 330 436 451 629 945 1877 2127 Byz Lect τουτο απαξ οτι ο κυριος — K, 056 απαξ τουτο υμας οτι ο κυριος — 0142 παντα οτι Ιησους απαξ — 322 323 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 itc copbo παντα οτι ο Ιησους απαξ — 88, 915

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.