The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Joshua’s Death and Burial
Judges 2:6–9 — Joshua’s Death and Burial. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
6After Joshua had dismissed the people, the Israelites went out to take possession of the land, each to his own inheritance.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
yə·hō·wō·šu·a‘ ’eṯ- way·šal·laḥ hā·‘ām ḇə·nê- yiś·rā·’êl way·yê·lə·ḵū lā·re·šeṯ ’eṯ- hā·’ā·reṣ ’îš lə·na·ḥă·lā·ṯōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-let-go Joshua ·the-people·, and-went the-sons-of-Israel to-dispossess ·the-land·, a-man to-his-inheritance.”
Where the English smooths the original
This passage strongly tends to support the view that the events of the previous chapter, and the message at Bochim, occurred before Joshua’s death.
The vav consec. attached to וישׁלּח expresses the order of thought and not of time.Keil & Delitzsch's grammatical point is the hinge of the whole chronology question: if the vav is logical rather than temporal, the apparent conflict with Judges 1:1 dissolves without emending anything.
This was done before this time, whilst Joshua lived; but is now repeated in order to the discovery of the time, and cause, or occasion of the people’s defection from God, and of God’s desertion of them.
But the love of this world seduced them. They soon thought only of their private interest, how to extend and aggrandize themselves; and speedily losing sight of the public good, shamefully neglected the sacred duties of religion.Benson is here quoting Dr. Dodd; the moralizing diagnosis is Dodd's inference, not a datum of the text.
7And the people served the LORD throughout the days of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him, who had seen all the great works that the LORD had done for Israel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·‘ām ’eṯ- way·ya·‘aḇ·ḏū Yah·weh kōl yə·mê yə·hō·wō·šu·a‘ wə·ḵōl yə·mê haz·zə·qê·nîm ’ă·šer he·’ĕ·rî·ḵū yā·mîm ’a·ḥă·rê yə·hō·wō·šū·a‘ ’ă·šer rā·’ū ’êṯ kāl- hag·gā·ḏō·wl ma·‘ă·śêh ’ă·šer Yah·weh ‘ā·śāh lə·yiś·rā·’êl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-served the-people ·YHWH· all days-of Joshua, and-all days-of the-elders who prolonged-days after Joshua, who had-seen ·all the-great work which YHWH did for-Israel.”
Where the English smooths the original
lit. ‘that prolonged days after,’ a common expression in Deut.
During the lifetime of the first occupiers, who retained a vivid recollection of all the miracles and judgments which they had witnessed in Egypt and the desert, the national character stood high for faith and piety.
Those who have found God true to his promises, may be sure that he will be as true to his threatenings.Henry's note is written on the whole block 2:6-23, not on this verse alone; the sentence is his summary of the era this verse opens.
This verse is the epitome of the religious history of Israel from the time of the expostulation of the angel till the dying off of all those who had been elders in the time of Joshua.
8And Joshua son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died at the age of 110.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
yə·hō·wō·šu·a‘ bin- nūn ‘e·ḇeḏ Yah·weh way·yā·māṯ ben- šā·nîm mê·’āh wā·‘e·śer
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-died Joshua son-of-Nun, servant-of-YHWH, son-of a-hundred and-ten years.”
Where the English smooths the original
It is applied to Joshua only here and in Joshua 24:29 . It is spoken of David ( Psalm 18 , title), and generally of the prophets;
The same age as Joseph ( Genesis 1:26 ). Moses attained the age of 120Ellicott's parenthetical reference reads “Genesis 1:26”; the age of Joseph is given at Genesis 50:26. Treat the citation as a misprint, not the claim.
Caleb was eighty-five years old, he tells us ( Joshua 14:10 ), when he went to take possession of Hebron, forty-five years after the spies had searched Canaan from Kadesh-Barnea, and consequently some time in the seventh year of the entrance into Canaan.
It is now transferred, with the leadership, to Moses’ successor.
9They buried him in the land of his inheritance, at Timnath-heres in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yiq·bə·rū ’ō·w·ṯōw biḡ·ḇūl na·ḥă·lā·ṯōw bə·ṯim·naṯ- ḥe·res bə·har ’ep̄·rā·yim miṣ·ṣə·p̄ō·wn lə·har- gā·‘aš
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-they-buried him in-the-border-of his-inheritance, in-Timnath-heres, in-the-hill-country-of Ephraim, from-north to-the-hill-of Gaash.”
Where the English smooths the original
This seems to be a mere “slip of the pen” (Ewald)—an accidental transposition of letters for Timnath-serah (“the portion that remains”), which is the reading of Joshua 19:50 , and of the best versions, and of some MSS. here.Ellicott is reporting Ewald's judgement. The Pulpit Commentary, on the same verse, concludes the opposite — that Timnath-heres is probably the original form.
but this is not very probable, since it might have had a tendency to idolatry, the sun being what was the first object of idolatrous worship among the HeathensGill is rejecting the rabbinic tradition that a figure of the sun was carved on Joshua's tomb; the tradition itself he reports faithfully, but his ground for rejecting it is theological probability, not evidence.
Heres, by turning the letters backward is Sereh, as in Jos 24:30.
Timnath-ḥeres, lit. ‘(sacred) territory of the Sun’ (cf. Mount Heres i. 35, Beth-shemesh), is written Timnath-seraḥ in Joshua 19:50 ; Joshua 24:30 , and by Syr.and Vulgate here, perhaps to avoid idolatrous associations
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
⚙ These four verses are not new material. Cambridge states it flatly: “Jdg 2:6-9 = Joshua 24:28; Joshua 24:31; Joshua 24:29-30, with minor alterations to suit the opening of a new book.” JFB says the same in different words — “This passage is a repetition of Jos 24:29-31” — and adds why: “It was inserted here to give the reader the reasons which called forth so strong and severe a rebuke from the angel of the Lord.” Keil & Delitzsch make the sharpest structural claim: the repetition exists “to bring out sharply and clearly the contrast between the age that was past and the period of the Israelitish history that was just about to commence.”
The tension everyone in the brief notices is chronological. Judges 1:1 begins “after the death of Joshua,” yet here Joshua is alive and dismissing the assembly. Ellicott resolves it by moving the events forward — the passage “strongly tends to support the view that the events of the previous chapter, and the message at Bochim, occurred before Joshua's death.” K&D resolves it grammatically instead, at the level of one letter: the vav consecutive on וישׁלּח “expresses the order of thought and not of time.” Poole and Benson take the third road, that the paragraph is simply recapitulation, “repeated in order to the discovery of the time, and cause, or occasion of the people's defection from God.” Cambridge alone concedes an unresolved editorial join: “The words were allowed to stand here in spite of their inconsistency with Jdg 1:1.” ⚙ Four honest solutions, none of which the text itself states.
⚙ The English hides what the Hebrew makes obvious. In v. 7 the people וַיַּעַבְדוּ (ʻâbad, H5647) the LORD; in v. 8 Joshua is עֶבֶד (ʻebed, H5650) of the LORD. One root, two grammatical shapes: what the nation did is what the man was. The unit's whole argument is compressed into that morphology, because in five verses' time the same verb will govern the Baals.
The title itself is weighed by three voices. Barnes: “It is applied to Joshua only here and in Joshua 24:29,” having been “especially given to Moses.” Cambridge draws the succession explicitly — “It is now transferred, with the leadership, to Moses' successor.” Ellicott widens the line forward to David and, via 2 Timothy 2:24, to “ministers in general.” ⚙ So the honorific arrives at Joshua only at his death, and arrives nowhere else in Judges. No judge in this book is ever called ʻebed YHWH.
The clause describing the elders is Deuteronomy's own idiom. Cambridge: “lit. ‘that prolonged days after,’ a common expression in Deut.” The Verifier confirms the vocabulary of “seen all the great work” (râʼâh H7200, gâdôwl H1419, maʻăseh H4639) standing together at Deuteronomy 11:7. ⚙ Judges is describing the last generation of eyewitnesses in the exact words Moses used to make eyewitness memory the ground of obedience — and then reports that the eyewitnesses died.
⚙ The obituary is spare: he died, they buried him, here. But every noun in v. 9 is loaded. He is laid בִּגְבוּל — in the border (gᵉbûwl, H1366, “properly, a cord as twisted”) of his inheritance: the man who apportioned every tribal line by lot is finally located by one. Ellicott notes the ruggedness of the place, quoting Jerome's report of Paula's reaction: “She was much astonished that the distributor of possessions had chosen rough mountain districts for himself.”
The place-name is textually contested and the brief's voices split. Geneva: “Heres, by turning the letters backward is Sereh, as in Jos 24:30.” Ellicott, following Ewald, calls ḥeres “a mere ‘slip of the pen.’” Pulpit judges the reverse: “Timnath-heres is probably the right form.” Cambridge observes that the Syriac and Vulgate render the seraḥ form here “perhaps to avoid idolatrous associations,” comparing Isaiah 19:18. Gill relays the rabbinic legend that a figure of the sun stood on Joshua's monument with the inscription “this is he that caused the sun to stand still,” and rejects it as improbable “since it might have had a tendency to idolatry.” ⚙ The Fallible Machine records all five positions and settles none. What is certain from the lexicon is only this: Timnath Chereç (H8556) occurs in three verses of the whole canon, and this is one of them.
⚙ Read as narrative, nothing happens here: a dismissal, an era, a death, a burial. Read as architecture, this is the load-bearing wall of the book. Pulpit calls v. 7 “the epitome of the religious history of Israel” for the whole span it covers. JFB gives the mechanism — “a new race arose who were strangers to all the hallowed and solemnizing experience of their fathers.” Henry gives the verdict on the era it opens: “Those who have found God true to his promises, may be sure that he will be as true to his threatenings.”
⚙ The unit's own grammar says it more economically than any of them. Verse 6 ends with every man going to his inheritance. Verse 9 ends with Joshua going to his inheritance — the same noun, the same construct, the same suffix — and the difference is that his is a grave. Between those two identical phrases the generation that had seen runs out.
⚙ This is the Fallible Machine's own reading, offered to be tested against Scripture and discarded if it fails. Judges does not blame the collapse on a bad leader. It blames it on a good one dying. The paragraph is scrupulous about Joshua: ʻebed YHWH, a title Judges never grants again; a hundred and ten years, Joseph's number; a recorded burial, which Ellicott notes is the honour of kings and heroes. Nothing failed in him. And yet the covenant nation's fidelity is measured in this text by two men's lifespans — “all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who prolonged days after Joshua.” That is a devastating thing to admit about a people who had been given a law, a land, an ark and a covenant. Their obedience had a mortality rate.
⚙ The unit therefore reads, to this machine, as a deliberately posed problem rather than a lament: what happens to a covenant when its witnesses die? The text's own vocabulary frames the answer as a failure of sight — the elders “had seen” (râʼâh, H7200) the one great work; Cambridge notes that Joshua 24:31 used the broader word known, and that the Judges editor narrowed it to eyewitness. What cannot be inherited by sight must be given another way. Judges will spend twenty-one chapters proving that raised-up deliverers cannot supply it either, since each one dies too, and the cycle restarts at every funeral. The book's implicit demand is for a servant of the LORD whose days do not run out — which is a demand this paragraph raises and cannot answer, since it ends at a grave on the north side of a hill called Quaking.
Their obedience had a mortality rate. (⚙ the machine's line, not Scripture)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
⚙ Judges 2:6-9 reproduces the closing verses of Joshua almost word for word, reordered. Cambridge states the equation outright: “Jdg 2:6-9 = Joshua 24:28; Joshua 24:31; Joshua 24:29-30, with minor alterations to suit the opening of a new book.” JFB and K&D concur that this is repetition, K&D adding that the purpose is contrast between the closed age and the one beginning. The Verifier scores Joshua 24:30 highest of all candidates and records the rare toponym among the shared lexemes.
Joshua 24:28 · Joshua 24:29 · Joshua 24:30 · Joshua 24:31
basis: Verifier, Judges 2:9 ↔ Joshua 24:30 (0.62): shared H8556 Timnath Chereç (in 3 vv — rare), H5159 nachălâh (in 191 vv), H669 ʼEphrayim (in 164 vv); Joshua 24:31 (0.06) shares H3091, H2205 zâqên, H4639 maʻăseh; Joshua 24:29 (0.05) shares H3091 and H5126 Nûwn (in 30 vv). Named attestation of verbal identity: Cambridge, JFB, K&D, Ellicott, Pulpit. Direction of dependence is disputed and not claimed here — Cambridge holds that Joshua 24:31 was adopted from Judges, while K&D treats Judges as repeating Joshua.
⚙ Joshua 19:49-51 records the nation giving Joshua his portion last, after every tribe had been settled; Judges 2:9 records him buried in it. The same rare place-name binds the two scenes, spelled with its consonants reversed. Cambridge gives the ancient location tradition (Eusebius, Jerome, the tomb at Thamna, modern Tibneh); Ellicott reports Paula's astonishment “that the distributor of possessions had chosen rough mountain districts for himself.” ⚙ The link is a shared rare toponym inside a shared motif, not a quotation — the sentences are not the same sentence.
Joshua 19:49 · Joshua 19:50 · Joshua 19:51
basis: Verifier, Joshua 19:50 (0.34): shared H8556 Timnath Chereç (in 3 vv — rare) and H669 ʼEphrayim (in 164 vv); Joshua 19:49 and 19:51 (0.06) share H5159 nachălâh and H3091 Yᵉhôwshûwaʻ. Deliberately not tiered verbal: the rare lexeme is a proper noun and no clause is repeated.
⚙ Gaash appears in four verses of the whole canon. Two of them are this burial notice; the other two are the roll of David's mighty men, where one warrior is identified by “the brooks of Gaash.” Ellicott: “The name means ‘mount earthquake.’” Cambridge and Pulpit both note that the site “has not been identified.” ⚙ The connection is nothing more than a shared rare place-name across two very different registers — an obituary and a muster roll — but it is the only geographical memory the canon preserves of the ground Joshua was buried under.
2 Samuel 23:30 · 1 Chronicles 11:32
basis: Verifier: 2 Samuel 23:30 (0.25) and 1 Chronicles 11:32 (0.25), each on shared H1608 Gaʻash (in 4 vv — rare). Not tiered verbal: the only shared lexeme is a toponym, and the two contexts make no common claim.
⚙ Cambridge cross-references v. 7 to Deuteronomy 11:7 (“your eyes have seen all the great work of the LORD”) and notes that the whole clause “clearly comes from the hand of D.” This machine checked the pair with the Verifier rather than trusting the citation: the three content words do stand together in both verses. ⚙ The force of the link is that Judges applies Moses' appeal to living memory at the exact moment the last eyewitnesses are being buried — the formula survives its witnesses by one verse.
Deuteronomy 11:7
basis: Verifier pair check (Judges 2:7 ↔ Deuteronomy 11:7): shared H4639 maʻăseh (in 232 vv), H1419 gâdôwl (in 495 vv), H7200 râʼâh (in 1200 vv). None is rare, so no verbal/quotation claim is made; the link is the recurrence of a fixed Deuteronomic formula, named independently by Cambridge.
⚙ Joseph and Joshua are both recorded as dying at a hundred and ten — a number this machine has not tried to prove unique in the canon, only shared. Both men are bound to Ephraim, both die with the promise still incomplete, and both burials are narrated with unusual care. Cambridge: “For Joshua's age at his death cf. Genesis 50:26.” Ellicott names the same parallel (his printed reference “Genesis 1:26” is a misprint) and sets it against Moses' 120, Jacob's 130, Isaac's 180. ⚙ This machine checked the pair with the Verifier rather than resting on the commentators.
Genesis 50:26
basis: Verifier pair check (Judges 2:8 ↔ Genesis 50:26): shared H3967 mêʼâh (in 510 vv), H6235 ʻeser (in 157 vv), H8141 shâneh (in 646 vv), H4191 mûwth (in 700 vv) — all common lexemes, so no verbal claim; the link is the identical numeral in an identical death-and-burial formula, plus Cambridge's independent cross-reference.
⚙ The patronymic “son of Nun” is itself a thread: a rare name (30 verses) that reaches back to Joshua's first appearance as Moses' attendant. Exodus 33:11 has him as the young man who would not leave the tent; Numbers 11:28 as the servant jealous for Moses' honour; Numbers 34:17 and Deuteronomy 1:38 as the appointed successor. ⚙ The title ʻebed YHWH that v. 8 confers is the end of that arc, and Cambridge marks the transfer: “It is now transferred, with the leadership, to Moses' successor.”
Exodus 33:11 · Numbers 11:28 · Numbers 34:17 · Deuteronomy 1:38
basis: Verifier (each 0.05): shared H3091 Yᵉhôwshûwaʻ (in 199 vv) and H5126 Nûwn (in 30 vv). The name-pair is the whole of the verbal overlap, so the link is tiered structural, not verbal.
⚙ Ellicott, commenting on v. 7, reads the pattern forward into the New Testament: “The gradual tendency to deteriorate after the removal of a good ruler is but too common (Acts 20:29; Philippians 2:12).” Paul at Miletus warns that after his departure wolves will enter; to the Philippians he presses obedience “much more in my absence.” ⚙ No verbal link is possible or claimed here: these are Greek texts and Judges 2 is Hebrew, so no shared Strong's number can exist between them. The basis is a shared structure — leader removed, community left with only its memory — named by Ellicott, not computed.
Acts 20:29 · Philippians 2:12
basis: Cross-Testament (Hebrew ↔ Greek): shared Strong's numbers are impossible by definition, so no verbal tier is available. Recorded basis is the named cross-reference of Ellicott on Judges 2:7 plus the common structure of post-departure decline. Neither NT text quotes or alludes to Judges.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ The lexicon supplies the datum without comment: H3091 יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yᵉhôwshûwaʻ, “Jehoshua,” the name Greek renders Iēsous. The man buried at Timnath-heres bears the name Jesus bears. Hebrews 4:8 makes the argument this unit's silence invites: “if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later of another day.” ⚙ Judges 2:6-9 is the historical proof of that clause. Joshua completed the allotment, dismissed the people to their inheritance, and was buried inside the border of his own portion — and within a generation the nation he settled had forgotten the LORD. The land was given, and Joshua 21:44 says plainly that the LORD gave them rest from all their enemies; Hebrews 4:8 does not deny that rest but argues from the Psalm that it cannot have been the rest that remains, or no later day would have been spoken of. Judges 2:6-9 is the ground of that argument: a rest that ends at a funeral. Note honestly what the brief's voices do and do not say: none of Ellicott, Barnes, Gill, Cambridge, Pulpit or K&D draws this typology on these verses. The identification of Joshua as a figure of Christ is ancient and widely held in the church, but on this passage it is the Fallible Machine's inference from the name and from Hebrews' own reasoning.
Hebrews 4:8 · Joshua 21:44 · Hebrews 4:9
⚙ ʻebed YHWH (H5650 from H5647) is conferred here on Joshua and, as Barnes documents, “applied to Joshua only here and in Joshua 24:29”; it belongs chiefly to Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5), is spoken of David, and “generally of the prophets.” Cambridge marks its transfer with the leadership from Moses to his successor. Ellicott follows the same title forward to “ministers in general” by way of 2 Timothy 2:24. ⚙ What this unit records is that every bearer of the title dies, and the obedience of the people dies with the last of them. Isaiah's Servant Songs take up the same title and push it to the one place Judges 2 cannot go — a Servant who is cut off and buried and yet “shall prolong his days” (Isaiah 53:9-10), which is the same Hebrew idiom used of the elders in v. 7. This machine checked that claim rather than asserting it: the Verifier pair query (Judges 2:7 ↔ Isaiah 53:10) returns shared ʼârak H748 (in 34 vv), yôwm H3117 and râʼâh H7200 — the elders' prolonged days and the Servant's prolonged days are built from one verb. The reading of the Servant of the LORD as fulfilled in Christ is the ancient and apostolic one (Acts 8:32-35); the specific link this machine draws — the prolonged-days idiom running from the elders of Judges 2:7 to the Servant of Isaiah 53:10 — is offered as its own, to be tested.
Isaiah 53:9-10 · Deuteronomy 34:5 · Acts 8:32-35 · 2 Timothy 2:24
⚙ Cambridge reports that an early tradition recorded by Eusebius and Jerome pointed out Joshua's tomb at Thamna, and that “remarkable tombs are still to be seen” at the modern Tibneh; a later mediaeval tradition places it at Hâris. Whichever is right, the point stands: the grave of Israel's deliverer is a fixed geographical location, and the narrative treats it as permanent — north of Mount Gaash, in the border of his inheritance. ⚙ Peter argues in exactly this register about David: his tomb “is with us to this day,” and therefore the psalm about not seeing corruption must speak of another. Judges 2:9 supplies the same argument about Joshua a millennium earlier without knowing it. The deliverer who brought Israel into the land has an address; the deliverer who brings them into the rest does not. This machine has not found this specific argument made about Joshua's tomb in the voices before it — Peter makes it about David — so it is marked novel and offered for testing, not asserted.
Acts 2:29 · Acts 2:31 · Luke 24:6
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text. Hebrew, four verses, BSB with the Berean interlinear and Strong's. Two readings in the unit are unsettled and the machine does not settle them. (1) חֶרֶס ḥeres in v. 9: the same site is Timnath-seraḥ at Joshua 19:50 and 24:30, the consonants reversed. Ellicott, citing Ewald, calls the Judges form “a mere ‘slip of the pen’” and notes “some MSS. here” read seraḥ; Cambridge reports that Syriac and Vulgate give seraḥ here, “perhaps to avoid idolatrous associations”; Pulpit judges “Timnath-heres is probably the right form.” Geneva, Poole and Gill note the inversion without adjudicating. (2) The location of the site: Cambridge favours the ancient tradition placing it at Tibneh, about 10 miles NW of Bethel; Pulpit gives Tibneh six miles from Jifna; Cambridge also records a mediaeval rival at Hâris. Gaash, all agree, is unidentified.
Chronology. Verses 6-9 sit in tension with Judges 1:1 (“after the death of Joshua”). The brief's voices offer four incompatible resolutions — Ellicott redates the events of ch. 1; K&D reads the vav consecutive as logical rather than temporal; Poole, Benson, JFB and Gill read the whole paragraph as recapitulation; Cambridge concedes an unreconciled editorial seam. The machine reports all four and adopts none. The ages given by Ellicott, Barnes and Pulpit (Joshua about 80 at the conquest, roughly 30 years after it, elders dying some 20 years after Joshua) are the commentators' reconstructions from Caleb's age at Joshua 14:10, not statements of this text.
Sources and their limits. Matthew Henry's note is written on the whole block 2:6-23, not on any single verse here; his sentences quoted at v. 7 are his summary of the era, not exegesis of the clause. Benson's longest paragraph is a quotation of Dr. Dodd, and the moral diagnosis (“the love of this world seduced them”) is Dodd's inference. Ellicott's reference for Joseph's age prints “Genesis 1:26,” a misprint for Genesis 50:26; the parallel is sound, the citation is not. Gill's rejection of the rabbinic sun-monument legend rests on theological probability, not on evidence. Cambridge's source-critical assignments (“clearly comes from the hand of D,” “a later insertion into the narrative of E”) are documentary-hypothesis judgements of the 1880s, reported here as that scholar's position rather than as established fact.
Machine layer. Every ⚙ claim above is fallible. The thread bases are the Verifier's computed shared-lexeme output except for Deuteronomy 11:7, Genesis 50:26 and Isaiah 53:10, which this machine checked by explicit pair query and which each returned “structural / thematic — confirmed”; the Acts/Philippians thread is cross-Testament and therefore carries no lexeme basis at all, only Ellicott's named cross-reference. The christological readings at the name Yehoshua and at the Servant title are ancient and widely held, but no voice in this unit's brief advances them on these verses; the tomb argument is marked novel because Peter makes it of David, not of Joshua.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)