For me the passover and flood narratives aren’t the biggest problems. I get that the OT sees God as responsible for all life and death. I think many accounts of God taking life are exaggerated, but they’re based on a conviction that for every “act of God,” whether a flood, earthquake, famine or plague, the buck ultimately stops with God. Since I believe God created this world and set up and sustains its natural processes, I agree with that. I would put more distance between God and those processes than the OT typically does, but not a separation.
My point was that such attributions directly to God can be challenged. I do think biblical authors put words into God’s mouth. There wasn’t a stenographer present to take down actual conversations. Different biblical authors have different ideas on whether God spoke certain things (most famously, with who incited David to take a census).
The Exodus 20 version of the Ten Commandments states that God spoke “all these words” (:1), which include how Sabbath is based on God’s work and rest in creation (:8–11). But the Deuteronomy 5 version ties the Sabbath to the exodus with no mention of creation (:12–15); “These words” are what God said, “and he added no more” (:22). So did God speak Exodus 20:11? The Law says both yes and no.
Jesus also challenged whether God was directly speaking in some texts. He took the divorce legislation that Deuteronomy presents as God’s command (24:1–4; 26:16–19) and presents it as Moses’ allowance to human sinfulness. He also overturned direct commands in the OT about oaths and the requirement (not just option) to enact “eye-for-eye” justice in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus did so without dragging the OT through the mud, partly by how he didn’t emphasize how these commands were from there and by avoiding direct quotes. But even so, he still showed a different approach than accepting everything in the OT as one monolithic, unassailable whole.
Jesus saw the OT as extremely valuable and said it would last until heaven and earth pass away and all was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18–20). But he also claimed to fulfill it (5:17) and that “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (24:35). Jesus declares himself and his words more authoritative and enduring than the OT. I think Jesus (especially in Matthew’s gospel) calls us to read past Scripture through him, allowing it to flex and stretch like a wineskin around Jesus’ new wine. He shows how to read it, how to distill it to its essence, and how to set some of its themes aside.
Yes. Hebrews claims Joshua didn’t actually give the people rest, and Jesus said it’s the meek who will inherit the land. And even though “Joshua” and “Jesus” are identical names in Greek, no NT author takes advantage of this connection. The hero drawn out of the book of Joshua in the NT is Rahab, not Joshua!
I don’t have the bandwidth right now to get into a detailed discussion of conquest texts, but I have done that here before, particularly in this thread. And back in seminary, I wrote a dialogue-format paper about it that I’ve shared here a few times, When God Sees Red. I certainly accept that these are complex issues and they do get hairy, but I also think there are faithful ways forward that don’t include flat continuity between Moses/Joshua and Jesus.