WAS THERE A "MESSIAH-JOSHUA" TRADITION AT THE TURN OF THE ERA? by Robert A. Kraft [originally 1961/62, Manchester England] copyright Robert Kraft (long version, IOUDAIOS, June 1992) copyright Robert Kraft (short version, 09 July 1992) [coding: ... = Greek ... = Hebrew ... = Latin ... = other foreign language ... = ancient source ... = modern source ... = emphasis ... = indented block] Short Version: for International Melbourne Congress, July 1992 I would like to summarize for you here the tentative results of a rather long and involved search that I embarked upon over three decades ago, with special focus not only on the specific items of data but also on the complex methodological issues involved. The question that intrigued me is indicated by the title of this presentation: was there a pre-Christian Jewish expectation of a "messiah-Joshua" figure? The methodological conundrum presented by such a query should be fairly obvious: once we have Christians proclaiming that their Joshua/Jesus is Messiah and defending the claim in part with reference to Jewish traditions it is difficult to determine from the data that has survived by means of the Christian transmission filters whether such a picture of a Joshua/Jesus Messiah is a Christian creation or not. And most of the data has come to us by means of the Christian filtering process. Thus many of the clearest pieces of evidence are among the most suspect. It is not surprising that Christian interpreters should rather quickly capitalize on the name identity between their Joshua/Jesus Messiah and the successor of Moses in "Jewish" tradition, broadly defined so as to include Samaritan. They also picked up on other Joshua/Jesus figures, especially the high priestly personage in the Zechariah materials. Our earliest extensive witness to these developments is Justin, a non- circumcized Greek speaking native of the Palestinian Samaritan area. Later authors including Clement and Origen "of Alexandria" developed the theme in their own ways. I find these materials fascinating, but will not detail them here. The conceptual and terminological context that emerges from such a study includes references to the "prophet like Moses," to the "angel" who arises to lead God's children out of the desert and into their promised terminus and who somehow bears God's "name," to the victor in the visible and "hidden" battle with the diabolic Amalek, and to the high priestly anointed partner with Zerubbabel (Zech 4.14), among others. The pre-Christian data that relate, or might be made to relate, to this picture are of both a general and a specific sort, and include: --evidence of a relatively old depiction of Joshua/Jesus as the expected successor and "prophet like Moses" (Dt 18.15; see LAB) mentioned in the deuteronomic tradition, a picture already somewhat neutralized by the deutoronomist in the closing passages of the preserved Pentateuch ("no prophet like Moses has arisen" Dt 34.10). There may also be some relationship here to the protecting and guiding "angel" of Exodus 13.20ff, in whom is God's name; --evidence that Joshua/Jesus somehow fits into the developing pattern or patterns of "two messiahs," one a military (later royal) savior and the other priestly, like Moses and Aaron. A Samaritan tradition designates Joshua/Jesus as the "scepter" that "arises" and the priest Phineas as the "star" in the "star and scepter" dyad of Balaam's oracle in Num 24.17. This material is complicated all the more by the appearance later in Jewish biblical tradition (Zech 1-6) of a high priestly Joshua/Jesus, side by side with a royal "messianic" counterpart (Zech 4.14), opposed by Satan (3.1) and somehow connected or identified with the figure of one called "branch" or (in Greek) "rising" = A)NATOLH (3.8, 6.12); --evidence of connections between the Joshua/Jesus conflict with Amalek and the development of the idea of a dying Messiah son of Ephraim and/or Joseph, where in the last days God's agent finally and completely overcomes Amalek/Satan and then dies. Note that the Joshua/Jesus who first confronted Amalek in the pentateuchal tradition is described as an Ephraimite (Nm 13.8), and the Joshua/Jesus of Zechariah's vision(s) is introduced as in conflict with Satan; --evidence of apocalyptic associations between a future heroic figure and heavenly portents (sun and moon motionless) or connections (the east = the arising one) similar to those noted in some of the Joshua/Jesus traditions in the Hexateuch (Josh 10.12ff), in Zechariah (3.8, 6.12) and perhaps eleswhere. At the specific level, we have such tantalizing passages as: --Sirach 45.1ff, where the name of Joshua/Jesus is explicitly connected to his role as "savior" of God's elect. --Samaritan Asatir 10.45, on Num 24.17, where Phineas is the "star to arise from Jacob" and Joshua/Jesus is the "scepter," in a tradition not sympathetic to Davidic messianic expectations; --Sibylline Oracles 5.256ff, with its reference to the "noblest of the Hebrews who caused the sun to stand still" and who will "come from the sky" in the last times; --Habakkuk 3.13 in some ancient interpretations including the anonymous Greek "sexta" version, which reads "you went out to save your people, by Joshua/Jesus your Messiah" (in the context of a reference to the staying of the sun and moon -- Hab 3.11); --4 Ezra 7.28f in some Latin MSS, where the victorius Messiah Joshua/Jesus dies at the transition to the new world. This rapid survey does not cover all the pieces of evidence from early Jewish sources that might be interpreted as pointing to the existence of some sort of second IHSOUS messianology. One might, for example, interrogate closely the background to the Philonic LOGOS doctrine, which at many points seems to be a reinterpretation of Jewish scriptural passages that often carried eschatological significance within ancient Judaism; notice that Philo sees the LOGOS in the AGGELOS of Ex 23.21 (Qu Ex II.13, MigrAbr 174, Agric 51), in Melchizedek who is both king and priest in Gen 14.18 (LegAlleg 3.79ff), in the A)NATOLH/ of Zech 6.12 (the eldest son and firstborn of the father, Conf 62f.), and even in Phineas (Conf. 57), among others. [See also SpecLeg 1.64f on Dt 18.15ff.] Throughout the writings of Philo, eschatology is conspicuous by its almost complete absence. Is it possible that in the presumed de- eschatolization of Judaism, Philo and/or his tradition has used some exegetical materials that once were connected with our proposed Joshua/Jesus messianology? It might also prove interesting to test the possibility of such a Joshua/Jesus messianology hovering somewhere in the background of certain Qumran passages. "4Q Testimonia" in particular is intriguing with its juxtaposition of the Mosaic prophet passage from Dt 18.15 (and in a "Samaritan" text form -- cf. Ex 20.21), the star & scepter oracle from Nu 24.15ff, a portion from the Blessing on Levi in Dt 33.8ff, and a passage from the "4Q Psalms of Joshua" material dealing with Joshua's curse on Jericho (= Jerusalem ?; compare Cyril of Jerusalem). Similarly, the "star & scepter" testimony is given in the War Scroll in the context of the final battle between the forces of God and the evil world dominion (cf 1QM 11.6ff). It may well be that the similarities suggested above are purely coincidental, but one can only determine this by a serious grappling with the available evidence. Finally, there are some passages in the NT anthology which seem to take on fresh significance if one is allowed to presuppose a conscious second IHSOUS messianology in their background. When the author of Acts pictures Peter referring to "the before appointed Messiah, IHSOUS," followed by the "prophet like Moses" quotation (3.20-23), one wonders whether there might not have been more than a "Christus designatus" Christology in the source behind the speech. The reference to the Mosaic prophet in Stephen's speech (7.37) is perhaps less suspicious if only because it is by no means chrystal clear throughout the speech what Stephen is getting at -- the repeated reference to an "angel" who shared in Moses' ministry (7.30, 35, 38, cp 53) is probably not significant in this context. Again, there is the very difficult passage in Acts 18.24-28 concerning the Alexandrian Apollos, who is said to have been "well versed in the scriptures... and taught accurately the things concerning IHSOUS, though he knew only the baptism of John." Could there be any connection here? One might also consider the hints and ambiguities contained in such references as the hymn of Zechariah in Lk 1.67ff ("horn of salvation...saved from our enemies...prophet...go before the Lord," etc., applied to John the baptizer) or in the "another IHSOUS" reference by Paul in 2 Cor 11.4. The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews, however, is perhaps the most fertile NT field for investigation along these lines. Not only does it draw an explicit negative parallel between Joshua the successor of Moses and IHSOUS XRISTOS ("for if IHSOUS had given them rest, [God] would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for God's people" 4.8f), but it sandwiches this Joshua reference and its context into an extensive high priestly christology. Furthermore, although this high priestly interpretation of IHSOUS XRISTOS (see Heb 4.14, 10.21, cp 13.20) never refers to the Jewish scriptural high priestly IHSOUS figure, it has some interesting parallels to the Zechariah visions and to the other materials noted above -- e.g., in Heb 2.14, IHSOUS defeats Death = the devil; in 2.9, IHSOUS is crowned (but, in fairness, the primary reference is to a Psalm quote); in 7.14, IHSOUS is said to have risen (A)NATETA/LKEN) from Judah, and is thus not of Levitic descent but is still high priestly after the order of Melchizedek; in 9.12, IHSOUS removes sin/unrighteousness in one stroke. Coincidences, perhaps. But possibly further evidence of a very early, if not pre- Christian, developed Joshua messianology in which both Moses' successor IHSOUS and IHSOUS the high priest from Babylonian Jewry played a role. In conclusion, I feel that I owe you some kind of summary and tentative synthesis of the above materials. Yet I give it with a great deal of hesitation because of the incomplete state of my research at this point, and the rather involved problems with which the above quest has been forced to grapple. (1) It seems likely to me that in one or more schools of pre- Christian Jewish eschatological speculation, the idea had been entertained and developed that God's expected Messiah would fulfil or at least reflect the role of Moses' successor Joshua. (2) This Joshua messianology was primarily based on the eschatological exegesis of passages such as Ex. 23.20f (the Angel), Num. 24.17 (the Star & Scepter), and Dt. 18.15ff (the Prophet like Moses). (3) Because of the expectation of a priestly as well as a military/royal Messiah, later Greek interpretation could also integrate the high priestly Joshua figure into this Joshua messianology by means of the A)NATOLH/-A)NATE/LLEIN similarities between Zech 3-6 and Num 24.17 ("a scepter shall arise..."). Probably the royal and priestly figure of Melchizedek also influenced this development, especially through the use of Ps 110(109) in messianic speculation. (4) As to its origins, if indeed it had any one place of origin, the Northern Kingdom and particularly Samaria is the most likely candidate with its reverence for Joseph-Ephraim and its antipathy to any suggestions of a Davidic Messiah. From Samaria, and perhaps by means of diaspora Samaritan communities such as we encounter [@@ evid??] in Alexandria, the rudimentary Joshua messianology came to influence Greek as well as Semitic Judaism. (5) When emerging Christianity, in the early stages of development, came into contact with this Joshua messianology, it applied and adopted it with respect to Joshua/Jesus of Nazareth, its resurrected Lord and Messiah. At first, this influence is most noticeable in early Christian traditions associated with Alexandria, central Palestine, and perhaps Eastern Syria -- this may explain why the NT is relatively silent -- but in the second, third and fourth centuries, the use of this Joshua/Jesus Christology spread throughout the Christian world as we know it. //end of short form, 9 July 1992 revision// ===== Longer Version [slight update of the original] I. As is common knowledge to students of Christian origins, the Greek name IHSOUS was the traditional transliteration equivalent of YeHOWUJ or YeWUJ, and was already employed throughout the Old Greek ("LXX") versions of the Jewish Scriptures. This fact in itself is sufficient to explain why typology-conscious Christians of the early centuries, depending on the Greek forms of Jewish sacred scriptures which were at their disposal, frequently found parallels to the life and ministry of IHSOUS XRISTOS in the stories associated with those men named IHSOUS (=Joshua) mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures. The IHSOUS figures in the Jewish Scriptures include an otherwise unknown "city governor" (2 Ki 23.8), and the Bethshemite into whose field the cows draw the cart which carries the Ark of the Covenant in its recovery from Philistine captivity (1 Sam 6.14ff). Most familiar, however, is Joshua son of Nun, or, as the Old Greek calls him, I)HSOU=S TOU= NAUH/. This ancient IHSOUS is mentioned in several Pentateuchal episodes before he finally becomes Moses' successor and conducts Israel into the promised land. We first see him in Ex 17.8, leading the Israelite army against Amalek and the Amalekites. Moses, Aaron, and Hur watch the battle from a nearby hill, and whenever Moses' arms are raised, the battle favors Israel, but otherwise, Amalek gains the advantage. Finally IHSOUS & his forces defeat Amalek, but it is only a temporary victory, and Moses rehearses to IHSOUS YHWH's promise that Amalek will ultimately be blotted out forever. Later in Exodus, we find IHSOUS on Sinai with Moses (24.13, 32.17) and ministering in the "Tent of Meeting" after YHWH speaks to Moses (33.11). In Numbers-Deuteronomy, the story is told how Moses had changed IHSOUS's name from Hoshea (AUSH/) to IHSOUS (13.16 ff), how of the twenty spies he and Caleb alone encouraged the conquest of Canaan (14.6 ff), and how he was divinely chosen and dedicated for the task of leading Israel into the land and distributing the land to the tribes (Nu 27.18 ff; 34.17). For this latter role, he received the "spirit of wisdom," like Moses (Dt 34.9), and the commission of YHWH (Nu 27.18 ff; 34.17). Thus IHSOUS and Eleazer (or Phineas, in some traditions) replace Moses and Aaron as the civil and priestly leaders of Israel. As E.M. Good notes his encyclopedia article on "Joshua Son of Nun" (). "In the book of Joshua, he is almost a second Moses..." 2. Also significant for the present discussion is a lesser- known IHSOUS figure who is frequently mentioned in the later books of the Jewish Scriptures, Joshua the son of Jehozadak, and the high priestly associate of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah during the return of the Jews from Babylon and the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra-Neh; Zach; Hagg). It may well be that this IHSOUS was a member of the rather extensive division of the priesthood which was also know as "the house of IHSOUS" (cp. 1 Chr 24.11, Ezra 2.36, 40; Neh 7.39, 1 Esd 5.24). In any case, IHSOUS the high priest is thrust into the apocalyptic floodlights in Zech 3-6, where he is pictured in a court scene standing before the Angel of the Lord, with the adversary Satan opposing him. Satan is rebuked by the Lord, and IHSOUS is called "a brand plucked from the fire" -- and is commanded to remove his filthy clothing and to put on apparel prepared for him by the Lord. After the Angel challenges IHSOUS to walk in the way of YHWH, as a condition for fulfilling the role of judge and leader in the reconstructed Jerusalem, the following promise is given: "Hear now, O IHSOUS the high priest,...for behold, I will bring forth my servant the "Branch" [Old Greek A)NATOLH/ = rising/sprouting]...." In the following context, the "Branch" seems to refer to Zerubbabel, and in 4.14, the seer receives a vision of "two olive branches" which symbolize "the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth" -- apparently IHSOUS and Zerubbabel. A little later, the seer is told to make a crown and set it on the head of IHSOUS the high priest, and to say to him "Behold a man whose name is Branch [A)NATOLH/ = rising] -- he shall rise out of his place and he shall build the temple of YHWH... and shall sit and rule on his throne, and the council of peace shall be between them both...." As the critics point out, the present form of this last passage is somewhat corrupted. Apparently it originally spoke of crowns for both IHSOUS and Zerubbabel, the two anointed leaders [Messiahs], whereas now it only speaks of IHSOUS. How this corruption came about is impossible to say with any assurance. In any event, it exists in all known Jewish Scriptures versions, including MT and Old Greek, and thus is clearly of pre-Christian origin. The texts known to the Church Fathers and Rabbis alike probably all identified IHSOUS most closely with the "Branch" of Zech. 6. Already by the middle of the second century, Christian literature exhibits a highly developed Christological- typological use of the Jesus-Joshua figures, as is most clear from the writings of the apologist Justin. Justin is familiar with the traditional etymological connection between YHWSJ/YSJ and the verb YSJ, "to save." Thus "the Hebrew name IHSOUS signifies `Savior' in Greek" (Ap. 33.7, cp. App. 6.4). This same awareness can also be documented from the Judaism of previous centuries; Sirach 46.1ff. for example, eulogizes "IHSOUS who became, in accordance with his name, a great savior of God's elect," while Philo comments on the changing of the name of the son of Naue from W)SHE/, which signifies a particular individual, to IHSOUS, which means "salvation of the Lord" (Mut Nom. 121). The same tradition, of course, lies behind Mt. 1.23 -- "you shall call his name IHSOUS, for he shall save his people from their sins." Further, Justin finds that IHSOUS is a name used by God as a self-designation already in Moses' time: And in the Book of the Exodus, it was similarly proclaimed through Moses and we have understood that the name of God himself was also IHSOUS, which it says had not been revealed either to Abraham or to Jacob. And thus it is said: "The Lord said to Moses, tell this people `Behold I am sending my ANGEL before you, to guard you in the way that he might lead you into the land which I have prepared for you [Ex 23.20f.]. Heed him and obey him, don't disobey him, for he won't forsake you, for my NAME is on him.' 2. Who, then, led your fathers into the land? You already knew that it was he who previously was called AUSH (but) was renamed by this very name IHSOUS. For if you know this, also you should realize that the name of him who said to Moses `For my name is on him' was IHSOUS.... 3. And that the prophets who were sent to proclaim divine matters were called ANGELS and APOSTLES was made manifest in Isaiah, where he says `Send me [make me an apostle / apostelize me]'; and that he who was renamed with the name IHSOUS became a PROPHET mighty and great [Isa 6.8] is clear to all! [cp. Dt 18.15ff -- "a prophet like Moses"...] (Dial 75.1-3) After Justin has introduced other arguments to the discussion, Trypho responds (Dial 89.1): It is true, we confess, both that our entire race awaits/expects the Messiah and that all the scriptures which you have cited refer to him; and (as for myself) I am disturbed that the name IHSOUS, which was given to the son of NAUH, has reference also to him. 2. But we bolt at the suggestion that the Messiah was crucified in such dishonor.... On the one hand, it is clear that the scriptures preach that Messiah suffers, but we wish to learn if you have proof also that it was by suffering which is cursed in the Torah! In his answers, Justin first refers to certain signs made by Moses which "... exhibited this apparent curse" (Dial 90-91): (1) He held up hands like a cross while Jesus-Joshua fought against Amalek; (2) the reference to the `horns of a unicorn' in the Blessing on Joseph, Dt 33.13ff (which, incidentally, is referred to Joshua in Sifre Deut 33.17); (3) a `cross' which Moses raised in the wilderness to counter the serpent plague. Later, in a midrash on Ps 22(21), Justin returns to a discussion of the name itself (Dial 106.2): The Psalm says `I will declare your name to my brethren...' [So when IHSOUS XRISTOS changed the name of Simon to Peter and sons of Zebedee to Boanerges] 3 This symbolized that he was that one through whom also the one called Jacob was renamed Israel and AUSH was renamed IHSOUS, through which name the remnant of those who came out of Egypt were brought/ushered/conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. 4 And that he should rise like a star as/from/by the race of Abraham Moses indicated when he spoke thus, `a star will rise (A)NATELEI=) from Jacob and a ruler from Israel.' And also another scripture says `Behold a man, RISING (A)NATOLH/) is his name' (Zech 6. ) [so a star rose at the birth of IHSOUS XRISTOS] This conjunction of the reference to IHSOUS who led into the promised land and the man whose name is A)NATOLH/ is surely not coincidental. As we have seen, the latter passage is from the Jewish scriptural Apocalypse of Zechariah, where it is closely connected to, if not identified with, the name of IHSOUS the high priest. That Justin was conscious of the role of this Preistly IHSOUS will become clear from the following passages in the Dialogue, in which Justin first refers to Moses' successor (Dial 113.3, 115-120): 1) [Just as] that (IHSOUS), not Moses, conducted the people into the holy land, and that (IHSOUS) apportioned it to those who came in with him; so also IHSOUS XRISTOS will reassemble the diaspora and will allot the good land to each, but not in the same way! ... 2) [Just as] that (IHSOUS) stayed the sun ..., so (IHSOUS XRISTOS) is he from whom [A)F' OU(] and through whom the father is about to make both heaven and earth new, he is the one who will shine in Jerusalem an everlasting light, he is the King of Salem after the order of Melchizedek and the eternal priest of the most high. 3) [Just as] that (IHSOUS) is said to have circumcised the people a second circumcision with stony knives [so IHSOUS XRISTOS by his words circumcised us from idols of stone, etc.]. ... And now I say that, just as by the name of IHSOUS (given) to the son of Naue, certain miracles and mighty deeds were done which heralded/proclaimed beforehand the things about to be done by our Lord, so also I come now to show that the revelation concerning the priest IHSOUS who was in Babylon among your people was a proclaiming/heralding beforehand of the things about to be done by our priest and God and XRISTOS, son of the father of All. In his subsequent interpretation of the vision in Zach 3, Justin manages to confine himself to discussing the meaning of such details as the filthy garments (the sins of believers which IHSOUS removes) and the rebuke of Satan (signifying IHSOUS victory on the cross). Unfortunately, Justin never does get around to making specific comments on the A)NATOLH/ references, although elsewhere he lists this among the titles of IHSOUS XRISTOS (Dial {??}), and there is no doubt that he was well acquainted with those passages. Our summary of Justin's Joshua-Jesus Christology would not be complte without a closer look at his interpretation of the battle with Amalek, which he mentions at several places in the Dialogue. Not only does Moses foreshadow the cross by stretching out his hands as he watched the contest, but the battle itself is a salvation-history preview of the struggle which will take place between IHSOUS XRISTOS and the demonic forces on the cross -- where IHSOUS will conquer `with a hidden hand' -- as well as a preview of the ultimate eschatological battle in which God, through IHSOUS XRISTOS, will `blot out the memory of Amalek' (=symbol of God's opponents) forever. So, quite clearly, the Joshua-Jesus parallels had made a profound impact on Justin's second-century Christian apologetic. Not only does he spell out in detail relevant episodes from the career of IHSOUS NAUH, not only does he explicitly and implicitly provide a related Pesher on the high priest IHSOUS, but he even refers once to the Bethshemite named Joshua (AUSH) into whose field the cows pulled the Ark -- "having been led along by the name of POWER" (Dial 132.3)! Perhaps Justin's remarks about the famous Blessing on Judah in Gen 49.10 provide the best summary of his treatment of the Joshua-Jesus typology (Dial 120.3): `A ruler shall not fail from Judah and a governor from his thighs until he comes for whom it is kept. And he shall be the expectation of the Gentiles.' And this is clear that it was not said concerning Judah but concerning the Messiah. For all of us from all the Gentiles do not expect Judah, but IHSOUS, the one who also led your fathers from Egypt! Here,indeed, Messiah is clearly pictured as a second Joshua. III. [[summary paragraph option, to end presentation here]] From the end of the second century and onwards, the Joshua/Jesus typology became commonplace throughout the Christian world, although few fresh details are added to the picture already given by Justin. Representing Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul, Irenaeas writes about the power of the name IHSOUS in Jewish history, and draws a clear contrast between Moses and his successor IHSOUS, who typifies IHSOUS XRISTOS. Writing about the same time, Clement of Alexandria explicitly identifies IHSOUS Naue with the expected "prophet like Moses," something only hinted at in Justin. Meanwhile, the North African writer Tertullian shows a knowledge of many of the parallels between IHSOUS NAUH and IHSOUS XRISTOS which we found in Justin, including the identification of Moses' successor with the "angel" of Ex 23.20f. [[end of summary paragraph]] Numerous other Christian authors of the second and third centuries show an awareness of the IHSOUS typology, although it is only in the writings of Origen that one finds anything which parallels in extent and emphasis the treatment by Justin. Near the end of the second century, Irenaeus refers (1) to God's revelation of the saving NAME, IHSOUS, (2) to the sending forth of the spies of Caanan in the power of this NAME, (3) to IHSOUS dividing the Jordan and conquering and apportioning the land. Elsewhere, Irenaeus draws a clear contrast between Moses and IHSOUS -- it is not Moses, but IHSOUS who brings victory over Amalek and leads God's people into the inheritance; Moses gave Torah, but IHSOUS was a type of the divine Logos; Moses gave the manna, but IHSOUS provided the firstfruits of life from the grain of the promised land (a type of the Lord's body). At the beginning of the third century, Tertullian speaks similarly from North Africa. Moses gave Ause the "pristine Name" IHSOUS, and this IHSOUS is to be identified with the "Angel" which preceded Israel in the wilderness (as Justin also had claimed), Similarly, the contrast between Moses' Torah and IHSOUS' new law, the Gospel, is found in Tertullian, along with a midrash on the Amalek episode and comments on IHSOUS' role in leading Israel into the promised land and in administering the "second circumcision" with knives of stone. Meanwhile, Clement of Alexandria (following Philo) identifies the "Angel" of Ex 23.21 with the divine Logos rather than with the leader IHSOUS, but also adds to the IHSOUS testimonia a passage already hinted at by Justin when he referred to IHSOUS as a great Prophet -- the promise of a prophet like Moses in Dt 18.15-19. According to Clement, the reference to God raising such a prophet signifies IHSOUS the Son of Naue and, ultimately, IHSOUS the Son of God. "For the name of IHSOUS was heard/proclaimed beforehand in the Law in shadowy reference (SKIAGRAFI/A).... [Thus] it prophesied the name of Salvation." IV A further listing of such IHSOUS passages from the writings of subsequent authors such as Origen, Cyprian, Novatian, and Eusebius -- interesting though it might be -- would add little to the image of the IHSOUS figure, drawn from Jewish scriptural references, which we have already uncovered in the Christian thought of the second century. Besides, our interest is not so much in how far this "Joshua Christology," if I may call it that, was later worked out in detail, but rather, where did such a Christology-typology originate? Is it exclusively the theologizing construction of Christians searching the Jewish scriptures to find precedents for what they believed had come to pass in the person and work of IHSOUS their XRISTOS? Certaintly this motive is at work, and may be traced in some of the further developments and refinements of the Joshua-Jesus typology -- for example, Cyril of Jerusalem's reference to the fall of Jericho as a foreshadowing of the destruction of the Jewish Temple, or when Origen claims that Paul might easily have written in 1 Cor 10.2 "our fathers all were baptized into IHSOUS in the Jordan" instead of referring rather to "...Moses in the sea" [get ref. @@] Nevertheless, the a priori option also remains -- until it can be rendered either as likely or unlikely ("proved" or "disproved," if you like) -- that somewhere in the confused and confusing religious phenomena that we call early Judaism there was an expectaton that the coming Messiah would in some ways fulfil the IHSOUS role known from Jewish history. It is this option which we hope to test in the remainder of this essay. The road will not be easy; in fact, historical method virtually precludes the possibility of finding clear-cut and irrefutable evidence! If I were to present a passage, say, from Philo or Josephus, which spoke of the expected Messiah IHSOUS, I would be forced by the canons of historical criticism, to which I willingly submit, to bracket it as very probably a "Christian interpolation." As a matter of fact, there are a few passages which support the idea of a pre-Christian second IHSOUS messianology, but which have been so bracketed and, therefore, can only be used with great caution. The best of these occurs in the Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra = 2 Esdras), which seems to have been compiled around the end of the first Christian century by a Jew who was somewhat disillusioned by the harshness with which the Lord had allowed Israel to be treated in the recent past -- especially the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The book probably was written in Semitic, and early translated into Greek, and from Greek into a variety of languages. The Semitic original has perished, along with the Greek translation (except for a few lines from 15.57-59, which in any event originally was not part of 4 Ezra; see below), so that present editions rest primarily on the ancient Latin version. In its present Latin form, 4 Ezra contains what is usually called a Christian framework (chs 1-2 = "5 Ezra" and 15- 16 = "6 Ezra") between which the Apocalypse proper is sandwiched. If, indeed, these added materials are Christian in origin (the other versions of 4 Ezra lack them), their Christianity does not announce itself in any obvious manner apart from certain close parallels in wording to some synoptic sayings of the Lord and a reference to Messiah as `Son of God' (2. ). Similarly, there is even less in the admittedly Jewish Apocalypse to suggest Christian redaction -- with the obvious exception of 4 Ezra 7.28f: "For my son IHSOUS shall be revealed...and after these (400) years my son the Messiah will die,...and the world will be turned back to primordial silence for seven days." Instead of "my son IHSOUS," the other versions make reference to Messiah -- either "my son XRISTOS" or "my XRISTOS" or "the XRISTOS" or "the XRISTOS of God" -- it is only the Latin which refers to IHSOUS. Thus, we are told, the Latin contains a Christian interpolation here. Perhaps. Nevertheless, it is strange that a Christian should insert the name IHSOUS into such a reference to the "dying Messiah" (of whom we learn more from Rabbinic Judaism, cf. below) without rearranging the other details such as the 400 year reign between Messiah's advent and death! It should also be noted that 4 Ezra 12.31ff knows also of another Messiah figure, from the house of David, who is the agent of divine judgment in the last times. It is exceedingly difficult to believe that this is the same figure as was presented in ch. 7 under the name IHSOUS, for in ch 7 the judgment follows the "primeval silence" and seems to be conducted by the Most high himself. Could it be, then, that the identification of the dying Messiah with a IHSOUS figure is indeed original and reflects a detail of Messianic speculation which originated in pre-Christian Judaism? We shall return to this possibility later. Another possible supporting passage for an early Jewish second IHSOUS messianology, but surrounded with similar problems, is found in the "Psalm of Habakkuk" which at one time circulated both separately (Ode 4) and, as we now have it, appended to the prophecy of Habakkuk. For the most part, the Psalm rehearses the glory of Yahweh in his mastery over nature, and his mighty deeds on behalf of his people. As it now stands, 3.13a of the MT reads: You came forth to save (LeYeSaJ) your people, To save your anointed (LeYeSaJ AeT-MeSiYXehK). In an unpointed text, however, you may well imagaine the potential which the words (YSJ) and (MSYX) would offer to an eschatologically oriented community! It is unfortunate that the Qumran pesher on Habakkuk does not include an interpretation of the Psalm. Most Old Greek MSS translate Hab 3.13a as follows: "You went out for the salvation of your people, to save your anointed ones," although a few MSS read the singular, "your anointed" at the end. The Aquila tradition -- which, remember, is Jewish -- reads "You went out for the salvation of your people, for salvation with your Messiah." This reading becomes less striking, however, when it is realized that "Aquila" habitually represents the Hebrew sign of the object (AeT) with the classical Greek preposition SUN (= with). The versions attributed to "Symmachus" and "Theodotion" both speak of "saving your anointed" (singular), but the anonymous "sexta" translation has "You went out to save your people by IHSOUS your Messiah." Swete, in his Introduction to the OT in Greek (1902\2) 56, comments: "Jerome attributes...[Sexta] to `Jewish translators', but the Christian origin of Sexta betrays itself at Hab. 3.13." Perhaps. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in 3.11a, the Psalm refers to the sun and moon standing still, which an interpreter (Jewish or Christian)might well take to refer to Joshua! But at best, historical method allows us to use such a passage as evidence only with extreme caution and suspicion. Again, there is a tantalizingly ambiguous passage in Sib.Or. 5.256ff, which Charles dates from c. 130 CE. Then there shall come from the sky a certain exalted man whose hands he spread out upon the fruitful tree, The noblest of the Hebrews who caused the sun to stand still When he cries with fair speech and pure lips. The context in which these lines occur (247-85) presents a "Jewish eulogy" (Pfeiffer) over the perfect eschatological land. Charles thinks our passage is Christian interpolation, referring to the failure of sunlight at the crucifixion (Lk 23.44), and emends the words "he spread out" (H(/PLWSEN) to "they nailed" (H(/LWSAN), thus clinching his view! Other commentators accept most of the passage as Jewish. Billerbeck (to Mt 1.1), for example, sees Joshua here designated as a future Messiah, although he thinks the reference to the hands spread out on the fruitful tree is a Christian addition. Volz, writing on the Eschatology of Judaism in NT times (1934\2), tends to agree. If, indeed, this is a Jewish reference to a second IHSOUS messianology, may I suggest that the reference to the "fruitful tree" also may be original, referring to Moses' miraculous rod which, according to Samaritan eschatology, will be carried by the eschatological Messianic figure as proof of his office! But more of Samaritan eschatology below. It is somewhat futile to discuss certain other ambiguous pieces of potential evidence such as Isa 19.20 and its interpretations: "YHWH will send them a savior (MOSiYJ..."; or again, Isa 63.8f, with its possible reference to the "angel of his presence" who "saved them"; or the allusion to "the God of the Hebrews, IHSU, JABA, JAC," etc., in a third century magical papyrus which claims to be of Hebrew background and which shows no other clearly Christian elements. Too many ifs and possiblys surround this material. There are, however, a few remaining solid pieces of evidence which tend to suggest that, in fact, somewhere in Judaism a IHSOUS messianic hope had been considered in pre-Christian days. The midrash on the battle beteen IHSOUS and Amalek, for example, was certainly not a de novo idea of Justin's. Already the Epistle of Barnabas, which cannot be dated later than 135 CE in its present form, makes extensive use of this typology -- referring first to the sign of the cross which Moses made while Israel fought (IHSOUS is not mentioned by name in this proof) and, after a short interval, to Moses conferring the name IHSOUS on one of the selected spies and commissioning this IHSOUS to "Take a book and write what the Lord says, that IHSOUS the son of God will cut off at the roots all the house of Amalek in the last days." This precise wording of Moses' commission, although ultimately based on Exod. 17.14, probably comes from an early Jewish apocalyptic source adopted by early Christianity. The motif of Moses leaving in Joshua's care books containing information about the last times is paralleled in pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic writings. Similarly, the continual warfare between Israel and Amalek and its anticipated eschatological consummation, which we noted already in Justin, are frequent themes in Jewish literature. In fact, it is in connection with this final confrontation between the demonic world (represented by Amalek) and YHWH's anointed agent that we sometimes find the Rabbinic sources speaking of the "dying Messiah" = Messiah ben- Joseph or Messiah ben-Ephraim! Thus Messiah ben Ephraim fights Amalek, gains the victory, and dies. Who is this mysterious suffering and/or dying Messiah? What is the origin of the concept? This question has troubled scholars for decades. Apparently, speculation concerning Zech 12.10 -- "they will look on him/me whom they have pierced" -- had something to do with it, as the Targum to that passage indicates; also reference to the sufferings endured by the patriach Joseph surely lies in the background of the designation Messiah ben Joseph. May we also suggest that the connection between this Messiah figure and the apocalyptic warfare against Amalek is not coincidental, but is partially a product of Jewish midrash on the Amalek episode in which IHSOUS, from the tribe of Ephraim, both fought the foe and was told to remember that in a future battle, God would finish the job there begun. It would certainly be rash to suppose that the Rabbinic sources had created their Messiah-ben-Ephraim figure in answer to Christianity, or that the above materials were adopted by the Rabbis from Christianity! An even more exciting clue to a late Jewish second IHSOUS messianology comes from Samaritan literature. In 1927, Moses Gaster published a translation and commentary on the Samaritan book of the "Secrets of Moses" or "The ASATIR." According to Gaster, the ASATIR was compiled around the end of the third century BCE, and has close affinities with the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, and with some of Josephus' extra-canonical traditions. In its comments on the Oracles of Balaam, we find the following passage (10.45 to Nu 24.17). "A star shall arise from Jacob" this refers to Phineas, "and a scepter shall come from Israel" this refers to Joshua. Now Phineas was the young priest hero, the grandson of Aaron, who had applied preventative measures against the plague sent upon Israel for immoral conduct by impaling on his spear a young Israelite and his Midianite sexual partner. In Rabbinic thought, one sometimes meets with the idea that Phineas will return in the form of Elijah in the last days for the battle with the false messiah (has Phineas been substituted for an original IHSOUS here?) and once in commentary on the Jewish scriptural statement that Phineas "made atonement for the children of Israel," the Rabbinic sources apply Isa 53.12a to him -- "I will divide him a portion with the great" (Sifre Num @@). (Note that God calls IHSOUS "servant" in Josh 24.29 = ??? as Yalk. Josh 1 also recalls.) In ASATIR, it seems that Phineas (not his father, Eleazar) and Joshua are pictured respectively as the priestly and royal successors to Aaron and Moses -- the priestly and kingly Messiahs, if you will (cf Qumran!). The usual application of the "star and scepter" passage in later Samaritan literature, however, is not to Phineas and Joshua but to the expected "Restorer," the Ta'eb, who fulfills the role of the "Prophet like Moses" promised in Dt 18.15ff. The Ta'eb is, indeed, a second Moses. He will rebuild the Gerizim Temple and give his Law to the world; he will be of the house of LEVI (or, according to Volz, will be accompanied by a high priest from the order of Phineas) and will restore the favor of God to his people. The stages in the development of this Ta'eb concept are not clear, but it is quite possible that earlier, more historically based interpretations of eschatological texts came to be projected and harmonized into a fairly consistent picture of one future Ta'eb figure, on the model of Moses. The place of Phineas in the Asatir and in Rabbinic comments is one clue to such a development; similarly, the early identification of Joshua with the promised scepter may be a further clue. That is to say, perhaps the earlier stages of speculation about the eschatological restoration looked to figures like Phineas-Joshua as typical of what was to come. But as the future hopes became more streamlined and idealized, the more general comprehensive concept of the Ta'eb emerged and replaced the earlier figures. Thus Phineas and Joshua fulfil the star-scepter image, but soon it is applied in general to the Moses-reflecting Ta'eb. Possibly the interpretation of the "star and scepter" passage in the Zadokite fragment (= CDC) bears further witness to the kind of background from which the Samaritan Ta'eb messianology was forged, for in CDC the "star" is the (priestly) interpreter of the Law while the "scepter" is the prince of the congregation (who exercises military power) -- a striking parallel. Interestinly enough, by the time of the second revolt the distinction of star=priestly Messiah and scepter=military/royal Messiah either had broken down or had been reversed, for Bar- Kochba received the Messianic title "star" (cp 1QM 11.4-6; etc. @@) and we know that the name of the priest Eleazer was associated with his in the revolt (including coinage). Another possible indication of similar development behind the Samaritan Ta'eb concept is the idea found elsewhere in early Judaism that IHSOUS was, in fact, the expected "prophet like Moses." As we have already noted, Clement of Alexandria explicitly made this identification and Justin had hinted at it. The later Christian author of the "Disputation between Archelaeus and Mani" feels he must defend the position that IHSOUS XRISTOS, and not IHSOUS NAUH, was the Mosaic prophet - - which implies that his opponent held the latter interpretation (43). Barnabas refers to IHSOUS NAUH as "a prophet" as do Josephus and Sirach. Philo's position is somewhat ambiguous; in discussing Dt 18.15ff he seems to interpret it as a reference to a true, future unnamed eschatological figure (Special Laws 1.64f); on the other hand, he elsewhere recognizes that IHSOUS is a prophet of like mind with Moses (Questions on Exodus 2.43, to Ex @@). Most clear, however, is the witness of the ps-Philonic Biblical Antiquities (= LAB) which probably dates from before the end of the first Christian century. At the death of Moses, IHSOUS puts on the garments of his predecessors' wisdom and knowledge, and at the death of IHSOUS, the people mourn the passing "of this swift eagle; ... of this lion's whelp. Who now will go and report to Moses the righteous that we have had for fourty years a LEADER LIKE UNTO HIM?" The implication here is quite clear, at least in the Latin form of LAB that has come down to us, that IHSOUS fulfills the role of the Mosaic prophet -- and in addition, notice the reference to IHSOUS as "lion's whelp," which may or may not be similarly suggestive as an allusion to @@ (earlier, however, the IHSOUS of LAB refers to the future expectation of a Prince of Judah [21.5] -- is the present passage an earlier or variant tradition from the more dominant Davidic orientation of LAB?). Although I have no real desire to do so in the light of the involved and only partial investigation presented above, I feel that I should try to offer some kind of tentative concluding synthesis as my token of appreciation for your patience. (1) The clear-cut evidence is slim; but enough to suggest the possibility -- I think it a clear probability -- that some section of pre-Christian Judaism (but apparently not the "main line" Judaism that survived) had developed something like what I have called a second Joshua messianology -- or perhaps scraps of second Joshua messianologies? (2) The most probable environment for the development of this messianological thought would seem to be the Northern Kingdom (Ephraim-Joseph) mediated by primitive Samaritan eschatology and perhaps filtered into hellenistic Judaism by means of the sizeable Samaritan element at Alexandria. {evidence??} (3) When, in its early stages of development, the Christian community absorbed members who were familiar with aspects of such a IHSOUS messianology, with its suffering/dying Messiah and its priestly Messiah (originally of the Phineas type, but in later development identified with IHSOUS the high priest), it could not help but influence Christian interpretations of IHSOUS XRISTOS. This influence was rather limited with respect to most of the NT literature, which originated mainly in North and Western Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and the West; in the literature influenced by Alexandria and possibly Central Palestine and Eastern Syria, however, the second Joshua messianology is more apparent and from such beginnings it came to cast its shadow over the whole of the Christian world through the second, third, and fourth centuries. //end//