Talk:Joshua the High Priest

message: #the spelling יהושע בן יהוצדק is found 7 times.
#the spelling "יהושע בן יהוצדק הכהן הגדול" is found three times.
#the spelling יהושע  found twice
#the spelling ישוע בן יוצדק is found twice.
Total of Yehoshua spelling =12 times vs. total of Yaishua spelling =2 times
Gentleman, do we have a consensus? is there a miscount?--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the name יהושע is the name in Hebrew, as per Hebrew wikipedia. But this is English wikipedia, and the consensus in English יהושע is Joshua not Yehoshua. Please search "Joshua/Yehoshua the high priest" on Google Books and result is 11,200 to 28. Sorry English name restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Yehoshua as per majority

message: Sorry, it is Jeshua not Yehoshua. See:http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezra-3-2/
--Alexander Tendler (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The spellings Jeshua and Joshua are both used in the King James Version (and in most other English versions too), it's because the Hebrew name in Ezra and Nehemiah is spelled differently than the name in Haggai and Zechariah. I've tried to clarify the lead section to reflect this. The name Yehoshua is a direct transliteration of the name found e.g. in Haggai 1:1, but this form is not normally used in English translations. - Lindert (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeshua according to official sources

message: It sounds like he's a historical figure, although the years of his tenure are invented. What details of his life, if any, are considered historical? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no help for the reader who wants to know whether this person is an historical figure. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to think he wasn't. And why do you think "the years of his tenure are invented"? Str1977 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  historicity? 

message: The article makes reference to a link between Zechariah's vision and Nehemiah's cleansing of the temple (by itself a misnomer):
 Facts concerning the later part of Joshua's life are in part dependent upon whether Joshua was still alive at the time of his appearance in a vision seen by Zechariah. If the vision relates to Nehemiah's cleansing of the temple in  then the engagement of Joshua's great-great-grandson to the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite would place Joshua in his late 90s if he were still alive.< ref >Carol L. Meyers Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 Vol. 25B The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries 1987</ref>
 ...
 Alternatively, if Joshua had in fact died before the events of Nehemiah 13, then it is possible that the vision intended to depict a heavenly throneroom scene of Satan and the angel disputing over the soul of Joshua, and the intended target of the allegory is the then serving high priest, his grandson, Eliashib.< ref >Meyers, op.cit.</ref>
However, the article doesn't bother to point out why this connection is drawn. The article notes that Joshua would be pretty old. Zecharaiah did not live in Nehemia's time either (but actually in Joshua's time), so why would a thronroom vision refer to Eliashib?
I move to this here until somebody can make something useful out of it. Str1977 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Vision and Nehemia