The Hebrew phrase that matches the Cana statement and the adversarial occurrences in the OT (Judges 11:1, 1 Kings 17:18, 2 Kings 3:13, 2 Chronicles 35:21) is: מַה־לִּ֥י וָלָ֖ךְ
The phrase in Joshua 15 is not the same. Close, but no cigar: מַה־לָּֽךְ
So Heiser is just factually wrong. The expression in Joshua 15 doesn't express the two-party contrast. It's simply "What to you?" in raw form. Could probably be thought of as "What [is of interest] to you?" And this is what I said in my previous post. Heisner gets his result by comparing apples to oranges. In the other four passages mentioned above, the full "what to you to me"
contrast is established. Munging those different things together as if they were the same would be like saying 2 = 2 therefore 2 + 3 = 2. No, a new wrinkle has been added and it makes the expression different. Again, just the way it is.
Also, consider these passages, based again on the Greek which maps to the full expression as it does in the Cana statement:
Mark_1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
Mark_5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Luke_4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
Luke_8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
These again are direct reflections of the Hebrew idiom that doesn't translate well at all if you try to read it as pure Greek. In each and every case where there is an exact match on the full expression, it sets up a contrast in interests. And as I have shown, the case in Joshua 15 falls short. It isn't the same expression. One could surely expect different results.
And this is perhaps the most troubling thing about Heiser's comments. Anybody can check this out. It seem to be a very unserious approach to interpretation. And that is why the whole of who he is interests me. Yes there can be brilliant language experts who do not believe in traditional Christianity. But there can be less stellar players too. On both sides. If one wants to go expert shopping on a challenging passage, I do not recommend someone who doesn't take Paul or Jesus seriously about things as basic as the existence of Adam. Nor do I recommend lone wolf interpretations. There are plenty of well qualified and knowledgeable scholars you can go to who are also solid believers, and a pattern of understanding will show up if you look for it in a "multitude of counselors."
I submit that an even more loving response is entirely possible ...
And here we have the core of the problem. What Jesus did say to her was as loving as the heart of God Himself, and God is love. How can I stand in judgment of what would be "more" loving? I'd have to know what He did and said first, before I could even know what true love looked like in that situation. Mary didn't always key in on Jesus' priorities as Messiah. She and Joseph didn't even understand what He was saying in the Temple incident when he was a child. It's not a crime to have limited understanding of what God is up to. Look at God and Job, a good and godly man, but the Lord needed to set him straight on a few misconceptions. That's the norm for Christian living. Love is about doing what is right for the other person, not enabling their errors or misunderstandings. Jesus always did what was right, and that involved reminding Mary, on this occasion and others, that He was on His own timetable. In that situation, that's what perfect love did. Tell the truth.
Peace,
SR