FocusMyView said
“You really need to go get that parallelomania checked out.”

Its my greatest fear. I have argued for the historicity for years, not wanting atheists to look dumb by following the Ceasar’s Messiah trope. I learned their are dumb atheists as their are dumb people in every belief (or non belief?) system. 

So here I am, presenting you with what I see and hoping you can correct me. 

  

Well, lets start by looking at some critical theory.

(1) Parallels are not valid simply by surface level similarities, mostly because these kind of surface similarities are nearly impossible to tell from coincidence.

(2) The greater the differences, the less likely the items are parallel. This is why nuance and differences are largely more important to emphasize.

(3) Parallels are invalid if one cannot geographically and chronologically justify them (i.e. if you cannot show that the texts were likely used by person X, and show a chronological cohesion, then it is just not a valid parallel).

Now let’s look at Zechariah:

Joshua is the high priest of Israel after the Exile, and was a historical figure

Jesus is symbolically called a high priest

Joshua is sinful and needing forgiveness

Jesus was not

Joshua’s role is to be subservient to the king who will rule (according to LXX Zech 6:13)

Jesus is the king, not subservient to the king

The name Joshua was exceptionally common.

In short, there is no close parallel, all the nuances eliminate them. Furthermore, the fact that the name Jesus/Joshua, makes this probably coincidence. Your problem is that you just look at decontextualized passages, and cherry picked pieces. And that’s it.

Robert said

Chris_Hansen said  

 

Yeah. Jesus in the NT is not forgiven. Joshua is sinful. Jesus is not… there is no parallel.

I agree there is no significant parallel with Joshua the high priest, but don’t forget that Jesus does seek out a baptism for the forgiveness of sins in the gospel of Mark.

True, though I also see this as more important from the Imperial cult, since this is the scene of his adoption (“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” Mk. 1:11).

My suggestion to @FocusMyView would be to read Jonathan Z. Smith and Russell McCutcheon.

FocusMyView said
Joshua is the high priest of Israel after the Exile, and was a historical figure

1) I know of no extrabiblical evidence that this Joshua was real. Probably taken from another Jesus story even earlier that never made it to the bible and was converted to this first high priest story. 2) this is the first high priest of the same temple that Jesus became the embodiment of. Alpha and Omega of Yeho-saves. 

Jesus is symbolically called a high priest. 1) he is argued to be the intercessor now that the Temple is destroyed. Thus the “first” and only high priest of this new Temple. 

Joshua is sinful and needing forgiveness. 1) I am not sure we have evidence that he was sinful. What we have is a dream where his dirty rags represent the sins of the nation. 

Jesus was not 1) by what standard was Jesus not sinful? Only by the standard of “He is God therefore his actions are holy.” He transgresses the Law and is called out for it. So I am failing to understand what “sin” is (something I also failed at as a conservative christian, lol). 2) number 1) is a distraction but I had to say it. 3) Jesus supposedly did take on the sins, thus had to have them taken away by his death (I am out of my depths here, gurgle, gurgle).

Joshua’s role is to be subservient to the king who will rule (according to LXX ** you do not have permission to see this link **)

Jesus is the king, not subservient to the king 1) Yeah because this is a rewrite, at least 200 years later, with different politics and different realities at hand. 

The name Joshua was exceptionally common. Yes, but that does not mean that a Jesus of Nazareth or a Jesus of Bethlehem were anything but ordinary people. Considering the overwhelming amount of borrowing from Old Testament sources done to create the Markan Jesus, and with some of those hero motifs being named Jesus as well, there is nothing left to think of anyone preaching (mostly from the OT), there is no reason to think there was a single guy behind Jesus Christ. (Nor a single myth) 

His name was Joshua ben Jehozadak!!! (Jesus son of Yhwh the righteous)

  

(1) We have multiple attestation of Joshua (in Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra). Extrabiblical sources aren’t needed. Multiple attestation is enough here.

(2) Jesus as an intercessor and symbolic priest is not the same or remotely comparable to Joshua’s role as an actual high priest who helped raise up the Second Temple.

(3) No, the dream has Joshua in dirty rags AS Israel. Joshua is not taking anything on. He sits there as a sinner accused by Satan, and his sins and Israel’s sins are the same. You not being able to read the text does not make it vague.

(4) The entire Gospels emphasize he is without sin. So your point is moot.

(5) The Hebrew original has Joshua as subservient too, as every major commentary notes. Furthermore, the Gospels and Paul use the LXX. Hence, your point is once again moot.

(6) You’ve failed to show any of the parallels with the OT are convincing that you select… mostly because you can’t even competently interpret them.

(7) Jehozadak means “Yahweh is righteous” not “Yahweh the righteous”. Again, you have no idea what you are saying. Furthermore, virtually everyone in ancient Israel had a theophoric name. Elijah, Ezekiel, Michael, Jehozadak, Joshua, etc. Literally any name with the word “El” in the Bible is probably theophoric. So, your case is once again a reliance on coincidence and basic realities. Nothing you say is convincing.