Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:09 pm Of course IF Jesus is based on the Jewish understanding of Joshua it necessarily follows that the tradition that invented this 'euhemerized Joshua' was Jewish1 and Marcionism was a mutation of this original understanding1 . It should also be noted that the Syriac Marcionite term for Jesus (= Esu) consistently cited in Ephrem seems to be distinguished from the normal name 'Ishu' which = 'Jesus.'
1 It is possible that notions of Joshua were shaped [evolved] into a personified/anthropomorphised [euhemerized] Jesus after Marcionism, or even started or fully occurred during the time of Marcionism.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Secret Alias »

'Possible' yes like something productive is going to come out of spending so much time at this forum but 'probable' - no IMHO.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Giuseppe »

Of course IF Jesus is based on the Jewish understanding of Joshua it necessarily follows that the tradition that invented this 'euhemerized Joshua' was Jewish
I am not discussing this. THe theory of Dujardin is that Jesus was a pre-cananite god later conquered and judaized and euhemerized as the biblical Joshua.
The first Christians didn't euhemerize the biblical Joshua (it is not possible to euhemerize who is already been euhemerized in the past), but rather they euhemerized a second time the god Joshua still adored by the descendants of the his old worshippers, and this time by making him a kind of anti-Joshua (and hence you have Marcionism, etc).

Therefore, under this theory, the early Christians were hated also by the Jews just in virtue of their prohibited ancient cult of the god Joshua.

Joshua son of Nun = Joshua the Fish = Joshua the Serpent of the Naassenes.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Secret Alias »

A clear Joshua/Jesus parallel:

For the whole exodus of the people out of Egypt, which took place under divine guidance, was a type and image of the exodus of the Church which should take place from among the Gentiles; and for this cause He leads it out at last from this world into His own inheritance, which Moses the servant of God did not [bestow], but which Jesus the Son of God shall give for an inheritance. [Irenaeus AH 4.30.4]
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Giuseppe »

You continue to ignore my point: that the Christian Jesus (both mythical and later euhemerized) was a continuation NOT of the biblical Joshua, but of the god Joshua who was independently euhemerized in the biblical Joshua. And this since none invented biblical heroes ex nihilo, but always as euhemerization of a previous god.

X was a god later euhemerized.

X = Noah, Abraham, Samson, Isaac, Adam, etc.

Therefore very probably there was a god Joshua whoose the biblical Joshua is only one particular euhemerization. The other (particular euhemerization) is Jesus Christ.

EDIT: the hero Joshua is the brother, not the father, of Jesus Christ, as both sons of the god Joshua, in their evolution.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Secret Alias »

Remind me of the actual evidence for any of this
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Giuseppe »

Remind me of the actual evidence for any of this
I should be able to attach the pdf of Dujardin's book Ancient History of the God Jesus, where there is a list of arguments for the thesis that before the biblical hero Joshua there was a (Cananite) god with the same name.

See in particular p. 61-64 and p. 93-107 (of the pdf format) about the link 'Nun/fish/Serpent'.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Giuseppe »

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Secret Alias »

Right but just throwing out a fucking link and saying 'he said it' doesn't help anyone. I know you WANT something like this (i.e. 'euhemerization') to be true because it would explain away the idea that the easiest explanation to the gospel viz. that there was a man named Jesus or Joshua (a very common name) who was crucified at the center of the Christian religion. We all know you want this. You write and post about every day. But just to throw out a link and say 'here is another way to frame this' doesn't advance your thinking or anyone else's at the forum.

Why not try to summarize the author's main points and comment on the general plausibility of each point. I for one have never heard of a god named 'Joshua' anywhere in ancient history. It would correct a fundamental misconception if such a thing ever existed. But I am a busy man and am dubious of the claim right from the outset. Please convince me of the relative merits of such a claim so that I might want to take time away from my busy schedule and read this article.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

Post by Giuseppe »

Ok, It is better to consider any single point of the theory in a future thread.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply