Was already Joshua a result of euhemerization?

[Giuseppe]

Reading Dujardin, I find that the more strong argument (and frankly: the only argument that is not speculative) in support of the existence of a pre-Christian cult of Joshua was the fact that already the biblical hero Joshua is considered by the majority of the scholars of the OT as the euhemerization of a previous Cananite God, later humanized and put in service of YHWH.

In essentia: Joshua would be like Samson, a deity later euhemerized in the OT.

Do the scholars of OT argue still this view?

According to Dujarding, it was already a stabilished consensus in his times.

[Secret Alias]

No. It is difficult to believe that 'Joshua' appears after Moses and is a god. Moses lives 120 years, Joshua 110. Joshua has a lower status than Moses.

[Giuseppe]

It is your opinion, ok, but I have asked which is the opinion of the consensus of the scholars of the OT (who surely are not apologists like those of the NT).

[Giuseppe]

And frankly, I don't realize why all this your obsession for a comparison Joshua versus Moses. Joshua could be even the lowest god of the Jewish pre-biblical pantheon, IF he was then it follows naturally that the Christianity is only the historical prosecution of an obscure Joshua cult.

[Giuseppe]

After all, no person claims here that the early Christianity had to draw attention necessarily by the writers of the time. Think about some obscure Thracian god named by Celsus en passant.

[Stuart]

Giuseppe,

There might actually be something to this idea. I am not at all saying Joshua/Jesus (same name in the Greek) is euhemerized Canaanite God, as that was Baal, and their is no association between Joshua and Baal.

But the relationship of Moses, the first prophet (Song of Moses in mind here), dying before the mission is complete, but passing the torch to Joshua very much parallels John, the last prophet (Malachi 3:1 + 4:5), dying before the mission is complete, but passing the torch to Jesus. At least in the proto-Orthodox interpretation (Deuteronomy 32:5, Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 3:1 + 4:5 motifs) all circulating around the concept of a wicked and perverse generation. (I am writing a paper on this parallel). The proto-Orthodox emphasized strongly that Jesus was a human being.

[wandering digression] Of course we are dealing with literature rather than true history. Euhermization is the concept of Gods becoming humans in people''s understanding. There needs to be a literary word that means the equivalent, where a fictional character become human in people's minds. We sort of have that with certain historical events where movies imprint in people's minds characters made up from whole cloth, or even movie characters that we all now think are part of the fictional story, such as Tauriel (the she-elf in the Hobbit movies is an invention of Peter Jackson not J.R.R. Tolkien). Of course at some point an apocryphal character becomes so familiar that they are absorbed in the original legend, such as Rudolph to Santa Claus, Robin to Batman, and most of what we think of the tale of Robin Hood. Anyway if there is a word for when a fictional character from literature becomes 'human' I'd like to know it -- using it would sound so educated and everything. [/wandering digression]

Anyway I just think it's an interesting parallel worth discussion if focused on the usage of passages by the NT writers such as those I mentioned.

[Giuseppe]

Ok, you are interested to the meaning of Joshua in literature. But about what happened before, since the scholars say the Abraham, Noah, etc were gods later euhemerized, why couldn't Joshua be also?
Which is the difference between Samson and Joshua from this pov ? Could previous cananite Baals be made heroes in the service of yhwh ?

[Giuseppe]

Is Joshua who crucifies 5 kings the euhemerized story of demons who crucify the god Joshua?

[Giuseppe]

And why does the fish/nun mean also serpent? The Naassenes adored Jesus as serpent.

The serpent was before a fish, later cursed by God after the fall of Adam and moved to be an animal of earth, i.e. exiled from its previous habitat. This is the Gnostic Myth.

[Secret Alias]

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 and Marcionism was a mutation of this original understanding. 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.'