Charting a New Reformation, Part XXXI– The Ninth Thesis, Ethics (continued)

Column by Bishop John Shelby Spong on 18 August 2016 11 Comments
Please login with your account to read this essay.
 

Question

Your lectures at Bay View, Michigan, in 2004 and 2008 were life changing for my wife and me. Instead of joining the church alumni association, we are now members of the local Universal Unitarian Church. We have read nearly all of your books and look forward to your weekly emails. I have two questions about biblical names that my local theological mentors haven’t been able to help me with.

1. Why has the English-speaking church stuck with the Greek translation of Jesus’ name rather than the English translation of Joshua?

2. Joshua, Jesus’ namesake from the scriptures, was the epitome of obedience; further there is no mention of Joshua having a wife, nor is there any parental information. Wouldn’t this make Joshua the perfect name for the messiah and perhaps explain the lack of information on the marital state of Jesus?

Answer

Dear Don,

Thank you for your letter. Our time at Bay View, Michigan, still ranks high in our memories and we still run across friends we met there. I appreciate your bringing that time back to our consciousness.

To get to your question the names for Jesus are written in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. As you correctly state, Jesus is the English translation of the Greek name for Joshua, which is used in the gospels. I think we continue to use it because it is the direct translation from the gospels. Joshua was the Aramaic spelling of the same name. Yeshuah was the Hebrew spelling; the name, which literally means: “God saves.”

There are, however, two Joshua-Jesus figures, not just one, in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first is the well-known successor to Moses to whom you are referring. This Joshua was supposedly the author of the book that bears his name and the military leader for the Hebrew people during the conquest of Canaan. He is probably best known as the one who led the battle of Jericho when the walls came tumbling down. The second Joshua was a high priest, who is referred to in I Zechariah (Chapters 1-8) and who has an experience in which his tattered clothes are replaced with resplendent new vestments, a story that is in the background of the account of Jesus’ transfiguration. This Joshua is also mentioned in Haggai (1:1).

There is no doubt that early followers of Jesus saw prototypes of Jesus in both of these Joshuas. I don’t think you can draw any inference, however, from the fact that there is no mention of either of these two Joshuas having a wife. In a patriarchal world, wives were seldom mentioned. I don’t believe that the fact that a wife for Jesus is never mentioned proves that he was not married. Indeed, I believe a case can be made for the fact that Mary Magdalene was his wife, but it is not a conclusive case, only a speculative one. I sought to lay this case out in my book, Born of a woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Place of women in a Male Dominated Church.

It is also not true that the Joshua who succeeded Moses reveals no parental information. This Joshua introduces himself as “the son of Nun.” “Nun” is a person’s name and does not mean “the son of none!” So he appears to have had a father. I would also question your suggestion that he was the “epitome of obedience.”

I think for us to recognize that the names Joshua and Jesus were identical to the Jews does, however, offer us some new interpretive doors through which to walk. I doubt, however, if this will mean that the name Joshua will replace the name Jesus in our usage.

My best,

John Shelby Spong

 

Comments

 

11 thoughts on “Charting a New Reformation, Part XXXI– The Ninth Thesis, Ethics (continued)

  1. WordPress › Error

    There has been a critical error on this website.

    Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.