Talk:Joshua

Bias?

excuse me and this is probably silly, BUT why would i continue to read an article on someone that quite near the start says that he probably didn't exist. okay so i know you have to put both points of view across, but a secular kick off to a article on a great figure in the Abrahamic faiths, man! shouldn't this comment at least be lower in the article? 30/07/2009 @20:18 GMT dava4444

No, absolutely not. Should the article 'Harry Potter' focus on his magic abilities and mention that he is not a real person in the small print? GTFO, religious freaks. Do something else, but don't disturb the ways of science. --2A01:C22:A4B4:5600:6D94:3F77:C9B:E2E2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"GTFO, religious freaks" You can explain that without resorting to discriminatory terms. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in 'Hebrew Name' Section

In the section it says that the Vav is often missing _after_ the Shin. However, as Hebrew is read right to left, it should say that the Vav is often missing _before_ the Shin. The name is read (in Hebrew) as Yud-Het-Vav-Shin-Ayin (approx. Y-H-O-SH-A) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdigittl (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article is quite right. There's at least three ways of writing Joshua in Hebrew: 1. Yod, Hey, Vav, Shin, Vav, Ayin (Deut 3:21), 2. Yod, hey, vav, shin, ayin (Ex 17:9) and 3. Yod, shin, vav, ayin (Neh 8:17). The second way of writing the name is the most popular in the Hebrew Tanakh, appearing a good 216 times altogether. I actually think the third way of writing Joshua in Hebrew should also be mentioned. --Stephen 17:48, 22 Dec 2007 (GMT)

I found the article edited as Jdigittl suggests, but that edit was incorrect and misleading, so I deleted it. Now I can see that the intent was that the second waw (the U in Y-H-O-SH-U-A) is what is often missing, more often than not in fact. Will restore accordingly (i.e., as saying the second waw is often added to the base Y-H-O-SH-A). Already added "Yeshua". JJB 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As per Stephen's suggestion I have added the Neh. 8.17 reference.Cpsoper (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical figure?

On what grounds is he claimed to be a historical figure? I think that requires some sort of historical record of his existance, no?

---

There is no physical or documentary evidence for anything or anybody "Israelite" until perhaps 1212 BCE (Merneptah Stele), including Abraham at one end and "King David" at the other. Compare it with what we're told that "we know"...

Josh can also mean "Josh Malihabadi" so a disambiguation page should be put up for the term

-- Amit 181 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Amit

Lets be more exact - "Captured" Jericho ??

The traditional text of Joshua concerning Jericho is no 'capture'. Capturing something implies that the captured is still living and there was strictly speaking nothing left alive in the city. The only capture was that of the precisious metals, if this is all the contributer of this article means by capture then they should be more explicit, e.g. "Jericho is the first city where precious metals were captured..." If someone is ashamed of the orginal text then they should not be contributing to the article, after all the book of Joshua is the primary resource in these matters.Paul diffenderfer 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How? First they captured the city then they killed the inhabitants. Still a capture. Frikle 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree; what Joshua did at Jericho can hardly be called "capture", since the connotation of "capture" clearly differs from what is described in the biblical story, which is the deliberate genocide of the population of Jericho. Angry seraph

Not everyone in Jericho was massacred. The page omits Joshua's army did spare Rahab and her family (possibly parents and siblings, no indication whether or not she was single), who vacated the destroyed city. I would consider Jericho was captured, then destroyed.Cloptonson (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeshua?

I have seen the name "Yeshua" used to denote "Jesus". And yet, this variant of the name is not mentioned in either the Jesus or the Joshua article. Why?

--Richard 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned the form "YESHUA" and other "forms" of the authentic Name, Yahushua. Wikipedia deletes articles that contain more pertinent information, as they have recently deleted the article "YAHUSHUA", which anyone can see is in the Hebrew, yod-hay-waw-shin-ayin. Your observation that this variant of the Name is not mentioned in the article "JOSHUA" reveals that there is a conspiracy to conceal information; this information and more has been mentioned under the banned article, "YAHUSHUA", which wikipedia has deleted numerous times. If you would like to read the original article which wikepedia banned, google the words "Yahushua, blotted out". They may not like it if a direct link were place here! Lew White 11-29-06 USA

I've read Mr. White's book Fossilized Customs (http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/). Personally I feel conspiracy theories aren't exactly the place for Wikipedia. Plus, the Yahushua article isn't "blotted out", it was redirected to here. Drumpler 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article mentioned why, at some point. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Accurate?

This entire article is simply a repetition of the Biblical account. What's worse is that it doesn't state so. It presents all this as simple fact. What does the scholarly historical literature say about all this? What is the archaelogical or other independent evidence? I'm not disputing the overall account. But let's just say that hagiography is not unknown in sympathetic accounts, such as the biblical one. 150.203.2.85 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken off the 'disputed' tag. I think the third paragraph gives adequate warning not to take this as historical fact. --Spondoolicks 11:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I have moved the disclaimer to the first paragraph. However, that is not sufficient. The question is not whether the user is _warned_ about inaccuracies. The question is whether the article _contains_ inaccuracies. The latter is unacceptable, so I have replaced the tag. At a minimum, the writing should be made explicit throughout that this is simply a summary of the biblical account. Then, neutrality requires a presentation of critical or historical evidence on that account. Wikipedia is not the place for an article which simply summarizes the Bible. The tag indicates there is a problem with the article meeting Wikipedia standards, and I think that is beyond question. Derex 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion was that no intelligent reader could possibly miss the fact that it is by no means an established historical fact. I don't know what you want from this article. Maybe a big warning every other sentence saying "At least that's what it says in the bible but it might not have happened like that." The article was fine as it was. Joshua is a significant figure in the bible and the bible story is pretty much all there is to say about him so there's nothing wrong with the article being mostly a summary of the story. --Spondoolicks 12:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that armies of scholars over centuries have nothing at all to say about Joshua besides summarizing the biblical account. Derex 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said! There is ample scholarly discussion of the historicity of the Biblical accounts of Joshua and there is solid archaeological evidence for many of the events and locations (admittedly, not all events - and not all scholars concur - but enough to make clear that this article's POV regarding historicity and archaeology is severely biased).208.191.39.25 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To imply that most historians look on the biblical accounts of the exodous as false is misleading; most often it is considered a record of events which may well have transpired and is treated like any single primary source. Like most single sources, it is in places at odds with others, but this does not separate it from the histories of herodotus, sir thomas more, or others who wrote according to what was considered common knowledge. To simply say that it is an unverified account without implying falsehood is probably the best course of action.

Keep in mind that archaeologists don't have all of the evidence and probably never will...so using that alone as a basis for some sort of disputing is not the best way to go. My opinion of course. 70.119.231.92 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

We also have a Book of Joshua. Editors there have taken the effort to actually add some historical and critical content. The top of the article makes the distinction that this article is about the Hebrew Bible character whereas the other is about the Biblical Book. I don't know how to parse that. Does Biblical Book mean Christian Bible, and is that distinct from the Hebrew Bible in the Old Testament? Or is the distinction simply character versus book? If it's the latter then there is an extraordinary amount of repetition between the two articles, and the other article is far superior. In that case, I would suggest a merge. Derex 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I don't see any reason to have two articles and it seems much more sensible to have them merged. --Spondoolicks 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll ask the editors over there what they think. Derex 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The "character" should be merged over to here. However the "biblical book" should stay there. --Haldrik 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My issue is that the majority of this article basically says "Joshua led his followers in X", particularly in Conquest and part of the introduction. That X is generally covered in the Book article. If we are to have a distinct article, at least the redundancy should be removed. That would satisfy some of my objections about the historicity as well, as there would be fewer claims about historical events. Derex 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this article needs to reinvent the wheel. I think it's enough to say the info on Joshua is problematic because much of the information about the Exodus is problematic. And then give a link to the Exodus article that already describes the difficulties in detail. By the way, most archeologists do believe the Exodus happened for logical reasons. They doubt any nation would celebrate having been a slave unless it was true. The problem is that no reconstruction of the biblical descriptions have matched the archeological evidence (yet) and there is no consensus. --Haldrik 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine. I have no axe to grind here. But that ought to be said and cited. This article is to a great extent simply a copy of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article. Surely we can do better than that, given the benefit of another full century of scholarship. Derex 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at the Book of Joshua article, I oppose merger. That article is about the book. This article is about the person called Joshua. Regarding the historicity of Joshua, it's a separate problem. It resembles all the legends about Alexander the Great, which the historians must sift thru for claims that seem historically plausible. --Haldrik 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel about greatly shortening Conquest with a pointer to the Book article? It covers the material in greater detail, and has links to existing or proposed subarticles about battles. A great many of my historical neutrality and accuracy objections center on that section. Derex 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I just boldly did it. It could use a bit more about his specific role as leader, as distinct from the general conquest and activities of the Hebrews. But, it's easier to start fresh than to edit down that mass. Tags removed everywhere. Derex 07:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

The vandalism/nonsense on this page is almost daily. Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply semi-protect it? --Shuki 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Joshua in Islam

I've read that Muslims say it was alright that Muhammad did what he did because Joshua did it too. Maybe we should have a section on the Muslim view of Joshua? They claim all Old Testament prophets as Muslims don't they? KittyHawker 23:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you ask over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. Derex 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

re: O.T.Prophets as Muslim: the definition of a Muslim is someone that submits to God's will. Living in the pre-Christian and pre-Islamic era, Joshua (a.s.) was submitting to God's will by being an observant Jew and therefore by this definition he was a 'Muslim' too. --72.72.107.253 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Joshua is regarded as a Prophet of Islam...He is referred to as Yusha Ibn Nun and is also referred to in the Qur'an (although not by name)in the 18th chapter of the Qur'an Al-Kahf (The Cave). He is the boy who Musa (Moses) takes along in his quest for Al-Khidr.

Yes true why cant that be mentioned in the main page .. when Joshua and Moses met Al Khidr!Highdeeboy (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw his name is Yusha nor Yasha i corrected the Arabic translationHighdeeboy (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Joshua is never mentioned by name in the koran.....that says it all. Islam claims EVERYTHING even that everyone is born 'muslim'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin262 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Mythology

There is no proof that the Torah is mythological. It should say "In the Jewish Bible, In the Torah, In the Hebrew Bible, etc", not "In Jewish Mythology". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.19.102 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Yahushua?

I'm interested as to why the search phrase Yahushua redirects to this article. If one wants to include it, it would probably be best to make a disambiguation article so that one can link it equally to Yeshua (name), Yahshua and Joshua. Likewise, make the Joshua article linkable to other people who may use the name (with this article on another page, such as Joshua (saint). It just seems that "Yahushua" is more of the pet child of the Sacred Name Movement and not the OT hero. Drumpler 08:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, why is this on WikiSaints? Joshua is common to quite a few religions, not just Christianity (or in this case, Catholic Christianity). Drumpler 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

CRITICISM OF JOSHUA

I wonder why there's no CRITICISM OF JOSHUA like there's Criticism of Muhammad even though Joshua unlike Muhammad committed genocide and slaughtered both women and children in the name of "god"

-Amro Gaber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.50.176 (talk • contribs)

• A good question. Possibly because Joshua was not the sole direct founder of Judaism, like Muhammad was of Islam, and is thus in a sense less important? However, I can see how a section could be added. John Carter 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Criticism of Joshua should be mentioned in the article.Joshua genocided Canaan people according to Bible.YODAFON 05:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a "Criticism of Joshua" section needs to be added. Angry seraph —Preceding comment was added at 07:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, I was reading through the Bible and found the Book of Joshua to be nothing short of shocking, as it depicts God in a truly barbaric, bloodthirsty light, moreso even than Exodus or Genesis for some reason. I found it to be a major stumbling block in my life as a believer, and I hardly think I'm the only one. PenitentWhaler (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Joshua 10 'sun stood still'

perhaps we could include the reference Joshua 10 to the big picture of 'Joshua praying God to stop the Sun' and link that miracle to the first mention of Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuo (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi joshua Emanuel rogers (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yehoshua bin Nun vs. ben Nun

Which of these is correct? This should be added to the page with a citation and explanation. -- Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pritchard's ANET

Pritchard's ANET (which is what I presume is meant by ANE) is simply an anthology. It thus does not directly back up the statements referenced to it in the article. Unless someone can show that I am wrong, I'll delete the relevant claims. dougweller (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the above

There are a number of criticisms of this article above that I feel have some justification; other criticisms have been made in edit summaries that have validity too. I believe I can re-write some sections of this article to meet some of these concerns. I shall be bold and go ahead, making changes a paragraph at a time so that they can readily be undone. If anyone dislikes what I am about to do, revert if necessary, but please leave a note here as to why.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• The paragraph on the second half of the book of Joshua was a long list of the division of Israel. That is far more appropriate in any of several other articles and not in one on the person of Joshua. Suffice to say that Joshua was the one who divided the land.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Enslavement" is disputed (in many different ways) and lacks neutrality. Have changed it read "before The Exodus". Also Joshua is only occasionally associated with Caleb (in the Bible).--FimusTauri (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• I have re-written the second paragraph to reinforce the fact that his historicity is questioned, plus generally tidied up the following sentence.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• General tidy up of the paragraph on the period prior to Moses' death. Also, referenced the significance of Joshua and Caleb giving a positive report.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Attempted to trim the "conquest" section, and also included the reason why the sun and moon standing still is seen as a significant event.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Will pause for now and let people examine what I've done. Later I will add the appropriate cites to the biblical text. --FimusTauri (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, a ruthless general, was a Canaanite himself. Mose's Jews went to Ethiopia

The article stinks because it lacks balance between the biblical and empirical point of views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.43.193 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd comment, given the utter lack of "empirical" information on Joshua. If you have any further information from reliable sources, please feel free to edit the article. Other editors will judge your changes on their merits.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We should have a warning like they put on beaches where there's a rip: "Danger: Strong Opinions: Enter At Your Own Risk" :) PiCo (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No Evidence that Joshua Ever Existed?

"There is not archeological evidence that Joshua ever existed..." Is the existence of Joshua seriously in question in the first section of this article? Is the fact that he is mentioned in the Bible not sufficient? Remember that the Bible is a historical document as well as a religious one. The Bible has just as much historical credibility than any other texts of this era. As for the usage of the word "archeological" what kind of archeological evidence is needed to prove that an individual existed? A grave with their tombstone on it? --Guero828 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What era do you mean? Are you suggesting that the first section needs to make it clearer that he is not a historical personage clearer? Or assert that he is? There is also no contemporary evidence for his existence, perhaps we should add that? Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, delete that clause from the lead, the Dead Sea Scrolls are archeological evidence. JJB 13:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious about the DSS? How could they be archaeological evidence? Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

They're prima facie evidence. They should be taken in good faith until proven otherwise. What source states there's "no archeological evidence"? JJB 13:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A document from that time, well over a thousand years past the time Joshua supposedly lived[1], is not evidence. And we don't assume good faith in history or archaeology. There's a considerable literature on Jericho, for instance, and the lack of archaeological evidence for its destruction by Joshuah. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well we may disagree on more than a few things. Just for my edification, what were those sources again, the ones that stated definitively that Jericho was not ever destroyed by Joshua, or by someone named "Joshuah" (not a scholarly transliteration)? JJB 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are arguing anymore. Are you saying that if Jericho was ever destroyed, at any time, it might have been by someone named Joshua, who therefore becomes the Joshuia of this article? And that you've never heard of Kathleen Kenyon, or William Dever? Or that there actually is archaeological evidence for someone named Joshua who took part in an Exodus and destroyed Jericho?

Course I haven't heard of them, I'm a YEC, right? Or maybe not! What I'm saying is, why do you doubt one historical record that you have, as if there is some other evidence of equal weight that contradicts it (besides the negligible fact that that record includes an astronomical event of uncertain meaning, or is that your whole rationale)? That's what prima facie means. Thanks. JJB 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer a statement like "there is no definite extrabiblical evidence for Joshua's existence." (my emphasis) as being more accurate. From what I can see there is definitely disagreement over the historicity of the corresponding biblical narrative. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My take on this is that there is non-contemporaneous historical evidence, but no archaeological evidence (as in contemporaneous artifacts or documents). If this is correct, then that may be a good way to phrase this, and is similar to what Mangoe said above. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, JJB, maybe your signature and your talk page are a clue as to your edits above, but wouldn't it have been more helpful if you'd been less cryptic? You know, it's a bit odd that our Book of Joshua article has a bit more to say about Joshua than this article. And even odder, I think, is that neither actually say anything about the extant actual texts. You've mentioned the DSS, which of course isn't evidence for his historicity, but it isn't mentioned in the BoJ article. It would be easy for readers to think that the actual texts date back that far (and then there's the issue of when the original was probably compiled. What we have in this article is not that much more than a plot summary. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see with talking about archaeological evidence is that absent something like the Black Obelisk we don't have such evidence of any but a couple of OT biblical figures. That level of verification is pretty cut-and-dried, and the level of controversy is low; there's no problem at all with making that sort of statement. The quote from Dever, however, is wandering far out into interpretation of of evidence, and there is quite a bit of controversy there (though of course most parties deny this). He is not so much saying that there was no Joshua as he is saying that the evidence doesn't support the biblical story, an interpretation that is more appropriate to the article on the biblical book.

There is something to be said for merging the two articles together. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bible is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a citation to support facts. Fences and windows (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I beg to (somewhat) differ: the Bible is a historical primary source. It may be used, but with all due caution advised for primary historical sources. As such, I feel that secondary scholarly sources about the Bible are generally better for Wikipedia. I believe that this is the reason for the "mentioned in Bible, but no archaeological evidence". Awickert (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The OT is a primary source. We want an academic secondary source arguing historicity. The primary source is valuable to those writing secondary literature, but it is worthless to us, since we build on secondary literature exclusively. Sure, the book of Josha is a historical document. It documents the legends among the Hebrews in the 7th century BC. It documents the existence of the Joshua narrative in the 7th to 6th c. BC, just like the White Book of Sarnen documents the existence of the William Tell narrative in the 15th century. The book of Joshua doesn't "prove" the historicity of Joshua any more than the White Book of Sarnen proves the historicity of William Tell. It proves there were certain legends about certain folk heroes at a certain point of time, that's all. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dab's right. The presence of religious documents at a site of adherents of that faith simply means that the documents were used by individuals at that time, and nothing more. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion has nothing to do with it, Joshua isn't a deity, he is a legendary war hero, just like William Tell. It doesn't matter whether the text was made part of a canon of religious "scripture" 500 years after its composition. Some people seem to think a 6th century BC text is somehow made 'different' by being included in the Bible. Interestingly this doesn't just affect believers, but also the atheist crowd who seem to argue "religious, therefore unreliable". This is irrational. It is just a 6th century BC text. The idea of a "Bible" is much younger. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hashem (not Yahweh)

I don't have a problem with someone substituting "YHVH" for "Hashem," but please do not write "Yahweh." This is not a word that exists in Hebrew. I know people love to give a name to the ineffable 4-letter name of G-d in the old testament, but this is not the best approach. "Hashem" literally means "the name," as the yud-hei-vav-hei (the actually Hebrew letters) is not pronounceable. We will never know for sure how this name was originally pronounced by the High Priests in the Temple. I understand it exists in many Christian translations of the bible as "Yahweh," but the root of this word is guesswork that was adopted by the publishers for whatever reason. It can give the article the POV of religious groups which promote this name. In any case, it is not an appropriate translation. If you don't like Hashem, then at least use YHVH. To be honest, "Yahweh" can be offensive to certain groups who feel this name should remain unpronounced. It also represents an academic bias to those who think they have discovered something which is truly unprovable. This is not directed towards anyone and I mean no offense to prior editors. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No sources use "Hashem is salvation", but plenty use "Yahweh is salvation". So contrary to your assertions, I've reverted to the latter. I also see no need to use YHVH; English Wikipedia is meant to be read by English-speaking editors, not adhere to Jewish religious law. Fences&Windows 20:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fences & Windows. It's acceptable for us to use a well-sourced pronunciation of "YHVH", though it might be worth linking to Tetragrammaton nearby so that there's an explanation for it. It's not acceptable to substitute "Hashem", "Adonai", or similar euphemisms, because that would violate our neutral point of view by giving deference to a particular religious practice. I should point out that "Yahweh" does exist as a term in English, and is being used in an English translation, so the precise pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew is beside the point. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just so I'm clear, what are the sources to which you are referring? And what if I can source "Hashem" for the translation? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And you can't change it to "Hashem", because this is not the term used in English, and even one source saying that Joshua means "Hashem is salvation" (as some websites do) would be outweighed by all the sources that say it means "Yahweh is salvation". Fences&Windows 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. I'm asking you for for the specific sources that translate it as "Yahweh is salvation." If it's as common as you say, then please list a few. Thanks. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Try any one of the hundreds of sources: [2][3] Fences&Windows 01:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

YHVH is no more appropriate in Wikipedia than is {PBUH} when associated with Mohammed. This is not a religious tract. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Joshua in Islam

Ive decided to add some extra narrative of Joshua and his role with Moses when they met al Khidr

sources: 018.060 YUSUFALI: Behold, Moses said to his attendant, "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel."

018.061 YUSUFALI: But when they reached the Junction, they forgot (about) their Fish, which took its course through the sea (straight) as in a tunnel.

018.062 YUSUFALI: When they had passed on (some distance), Moses said to his attendant: "Bring us our early meal; truly we have suffered much fatigue at this (stage of) our journey."

018.063 YUSUFALI: He replied: "Sawest thou (what happened) when we betook ourselves to the rock? I did indeed forget (about) the Fish: none but Satan made me forget to tell (you) about it: it took its course through the sea in a marvellous way!"

018.064 YUSUFALI: Moses said: "That was what we were seeking after:" So they went back on their footsteps, following (the path they had come).

018.065 YUSUFALI: So they found one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught knowledge from Our own Presence.

Now the name of this servant isnt addressed but the Islamic Hadiths state it was Joshua and the servant was an angel called AlKhidr

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 613: Narrated Said bin Jubair:

I said to Ibn Abbas, "Nauf Al-Bukah claims that Moses, the companion of Al-Khadir was not Moses (the prophet) of the children of Israel, but some other Moses." Ibn 'Abbas said, "Allah's enemy (i.e. Nauf) has told a lie. Ubai bin Ka'b told us that the Prophet said, 'Once Moses stood up and addressed Bani Israel. He was asked who was the most learned man amongst the people. He said, 'I.' Allah admonished him as he did not attribute absolute knowledge to Him (Allah). So, Allah said to him, 'Yes, at the junction of the two seas there is a Slave of Mine who is more learned than you.' Moses said, 'O my Lord! How can I meet him?' Allah said, 'Take a fish and put it in a large basket and you will find him at the place where you will lose the fish.' Moses took a fish and put it in a basket and proceeded along with his (servant) boy, Yusha 'bin Nun....

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/055.sbt.html

Moodswingster (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:12 staemme israels cs.png

Since File:12 staemme israels cs.png is not in English, it isn't very useful for the English language Wikipedia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes to make article balanced

I am making some changes to this article to make it more balanced. It seems issues pertaining to Joshua cause more trouble than many other biblical issues.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep them coming, as the more sources from the whole spectrum of research, the better. JJB 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Conquered 'versus' no conquest

Modern scholarship suggests that Judaism and Israel developed as part of Canaanite society, and that there was no conquest. This article portrays that scholarship as suggesting that there was a partial conquest - that's not a compromise, that's a misunderstanding. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Doug, I made it say that they say that the evidence doesn't show it instead. JJB 20:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've extended the archaeological section - I'll do more on the literary section (i.e. where the material in the book of Joshua came from) tomorrow. PiCo (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, you know, you deleted several sources and sourced comments, removed a whole book list and replaced it with another whole list, and your text not only has some one-sided language (words to avoid) but also seems on first glance to be a WP:COATRACK for (sometimes contradictory) information not really about Joshua. Maybe you should slow down a bit, that all takes a long time for WP to assimilate. JJB 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I must add that I'm disappointed in your sources (those I've had time to read) not actually saying what the liberal viewpoint would say. If you review the edit comments, you'll see where the presentation of all POVs was ignored, the earlier ("elite") exile of 606 was misread as the later, Eerdmans and Ann Killebrew were misspelled, presentation problems were introduced, sweeping statements were decontextualized, Biblical texts about Philistines and Phoenicians were ignored, and the larger archaeology problem remains, viz., lack of commentary or sourced synthesis about how the 13th-to-10th-century history relates to either the proto-Israel period c. 1400 or the Jeremiah-compilation period c. 550. Accordingly, I've commented out the unreviewed sources you inserted on the reasonable theory that they may also contain errors. Please try to use more source quotations rather than glosses and provide single page numbers rather than ranges and book covers, as a basic WP:V courtesy. Thanks for the fun reads, though! JJB 20:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put them back. I don't think this commenting out sources wholesale is a good idea. And although I use quotations, they need to be used sparingly. And it's easier to check sources when you can see them in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I don't do wholesale. I read about half the sources and enfolded them for source conformity, and thought that there was enough evidence to hold off on vetting the others for now, but I have no problem with WP:AGF either. JJB 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I couldn't undo that edit so had to revert to the previous one. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. I have now read all the other sources and (as I predicted) they all appeared to be misrepresented except for the Canaanite-language one, which is vanishingly tangential to Joshua. And with good reason: these came so fast because they were mostly cribbed from history of Israel and its subarticle. Well and good, I can use the improvements over there too, after this article simmers a bit, and then I can summarize or nuke the data over here, as it really really doesn't have anything to do with this article unless additional info or WP:SYN is applied. Hope this helps. JJB 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

JJB, I've reverted to my own earlier version, not because I think I'm infallible, but because the text as you left it was almost unreadable - it looked as if it was written by someone who used English as a second language. This is odd, since your comments here are clearly from someone who is quite articulate and well-read in the subject. Let me say that your comments in this thread make some good sense - yes, the text as I left it is certainly in need of refinement. Let's treat it as a base draft. Let's also try to avoid making that section on historicity too long - as you say, we have to avoid the WP:COATRACK temptation. I think just two paragraphs should be enough, one on the origins of the Book of Joshua (meaning a brief overview of its place in the DtrH) and a second on the archaeology of the origins of Israel (meaning a note that Israel emerged from Canaanite culture, but without all the detail that's there now). PiCo (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was in a hurry, and this array of citations has apparently been sitting on WP awhile, slowly getting tweaked away from what their sources actually say. So when one removes the superstructure of WP:SYN there is not much cohesiveness left. I may have read too fast, but I didn't see one of them saying Israel emerged from Canaanite culture without qualification, in part because nobody knows about Israel in the 15th and earlier except that pesky Hexateuch.

Anyway, I'd still hold out for WP:V by saying that unreadability is better than the many source conformity and other errors I pointed out with your proposed base draft (which I'm glad I can blame on the "history of Israel" editors rather than yourself). Why don't I try a bold 2-3-graf version that holds together a hair better? (It's possible that we would then have little need for the liberal/conservative graf.) JJB 03:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. But I do think I'm right about one thing: restrict it to 2 paragraphs, otherwise it will grow and grow. PiCo (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Book of Joshua sub-section

Fine, read the new material. I'll take the first subsection first - Origins of the Book of Joshua. I have some problems. They are: — PiCo — continues after insertion below

I'll just interleave below, thanks. JJB 05:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The Book of Joshua has been traditionally ascribed to Joshua himself by Talmudic tradition (Bava Batra 15a), by medieval Jewish writers, and by the early church fathers." This is longer than it needs to be - you're just trying to establish that Joshua was the traditional author, and it would be adequate to just say that. (No need to mention the Talmud or the Church fathers etc, just "tradition"). Also it's slightly misleading - as written it makes it look as if the medieval Jewish writers and the Church fathers had investigated the question of authorship for themselves and come to the same conclusion as the Talmud, but in fact what happened was simply that they relied on the Talmud, either directly (the Jewsish theologians) or indirectly (the Christian ones). So shorten it.
  • Key POV; but shortening.
• "It was not until 1943 that Martin Noth published..." Makes it look as if he'd been thinking about it for a while and only got around to publishing in 1943. Just say "In 1943 Martin Noth published..."
  • From source; but fine.
• "...an argument that behind Joshua and other books was a unified tradition (the "Deuteronomistic history"), composed in the early part of the Babylonian captivity (not long after 606 BCE); ..." Not a unified tradition, a unified history (that's the word your source uses). And Noth talked about it being composed in the decades after 587, he ignores 606. The sentence is about Noth's theory, so we have to be accurate.
  • Not my source; but "history" is fine. The source refers to the exile of elites, which was 606, so if it misquotes Noth, please provide a better source.
• "Noth's approach of reconstructing a prior nonextant tradition had drawbacks in practice, in that "no two scholars ever propose the same tradition history for the stories of the Pentateuch". This amounts to editorial comment, i.e., an intrusive pov. Whose is it? It's not from the source you're quoting in fn.9. Better to leave it out, on both those grounds. (As an aside, the issue of tradition-history isn't really relevant here - everyone (or almost) agrees that a DtrH exists, even if they can't quite agree on how it came into being).
  • It's right there on p. 11 like I said. I'll gloss the source a little closer.
• "William Dever states most documentary hypothesis scholars today believe in some such composite, containing the epic history of the premonarchical period, which he calls "largely 'propaganda,' designed to give theological legitimacy to a party of nationalist ultra-orthodox reformers." Several problems. First, we don't have to have a note to the effect that Dever is saying this - anyone who wants to find out who said it can follow the footnote. Second, it's wrong in any case, in that it gives the impression that Dever came up with this idea, which he did not. Third, there's no such thing as "documentary hypothesis scholar" - what on earth would such a creature look like? I think you mean scholars who follow the documentary hypothesis, but the DH is irrelevant here, it's a theory to explain the Torah, not the DtrH (I think you're confusing the DH, which is a theory, with source criticism, which is the method used to arrive at the theory). Otherwise, this is a pretty good precis of the DtrH - but is it really relevant? Our article is just about Joshua, not the whole thing - but maybe it can be kept if it's sharpened a little (i.e., made shorter and the relevance more obvious).
  • Done, I think.
• "Gerhard von Rad, father of the hypothesis, ... Kenneth Kitchen states that nearly all treaties in this period follow the pattern of Deuteronomy closely, while first-millennium treaties contrarily but consistently place "witnesses" earlier and omit prologue and blessing sections, requiring classification of the Sinai covenant and its renewals in Joshua with the fourteenth or thirteenth century rather than the sixth." You've lost me here. Since when was Von Rad the father of the DtrH? Noth, surely. And covenant treaties? I guess your point is that if a covenant is dated to the 2nd millenium then the whole book must be - but that's not the argument of the DtrH, which merely says that the present book of Joshua was put together in the 6th century - it doesn't exclude the possibility that the authors had raw materials to work with. Also, and this is very important, we're dealing here with Joshua the man, not actually with the book that bears his name. The relevance of the origin of the book is that the majority of scholars believe that Joshua is an integral part of the DtrH, which reached it's current form about 550 BCE, and that the "Joshua" who figures in it is at least in part a fictionalised character. This is an important viewpoint, in fact the generally accepted one, and we should simply explain it, not give arguments for or against. PiCo (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I confused von Rad with Wellhausen (documentary hypothesis), too many names. Kitchen's point is that the whole book of Deuteronomy is a Bronze-Age covenant, renewed in Joshua, but I didn't want to overweight that POV too much. I thought I got the "propagandized" character in already, but feel free to add as long as all POVs are listed (pro and con arguments generally tend to follow those to a degree). JJB 05:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Some sources

This [4] is a well-referenced paper although 1989 on "The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent Theories". I like it's structure (not for this article obviously) and it mentions Lemche, which we don't seem to use that much. Then there's this [5] and this recent book Jonathan Golden's Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction [http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Canaan-Israel-Jonathan-Golden/dp/0195379853] - Amazon says "'Golden presents a 4,000-year history of the Holy Land that incorporates new findings from excavations and shifts in the field's theoretical underpinnings. After introducing the ancient cultures of the southern Levant and resources for their study, he situates these cultures in geographic, economic, social, political, religious, material culture, and intellectual contexts. The author discusses current controversies, including 'biblical archeology' as supporting modern political agendas. The well-illustrated volume includes a chronology, glossary, and an extensive reference list for further study by nonspecialists" and "Where did the Israelites originate? What was the fate of the Canaanites? In this revealing introduction, Jonathan M. Golden tackles these and other hotly debated questions. Drawing on the extensive and often surprising archeological record, he looks at daily life in antiquity, providing rich portraits of the role of women, craft production, metallurgy, technology, political and social organization, trade, and religious practices. Golden traces the great religious traditions that emerged in this region back to their most ancient roots, drawing on the evidence of scriptures and other texts as well as the archeological record. Though the scriptures stress the primacy of Israel, the author considers the Canaanites and Philistines as well, examining the differences between highland and coastal cultures and the cross-fertilization between societies. He offers a clear, objective look at the evidence for the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative, based on the latest thinking among archeologists worldwide." It's OUP although I don't know the author. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

An earlier edition of Golden's book (1994) is available online. There's also this book by Nadav Naaman - it has a chapter on Joshua (the book). PiCo (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Haley

Dougweller reverts with "this is a Creationist publishing house, the book was originally published in 1874, why is it being used instead of modern sources?". Because not only does it specifically name the perceived conflicts and passages (I don't know about the 5 generic modern references), it demonstrates that the idea that Joshua does not contradict itself goes way back in scholarly opinion. In other words, it's a nonissue. The age of a POV about an unequivocal plaintext reading is significant. Now if you have a modern editor that specifically says "Joshua explicitly says Canaan was both completely and not completely conquered" (your language, much less exact than mine), that's a bit different, although what Joshua explicitly says is rather hard to convert into such a one-sided condemnation. But I'll (work, work, work) go back and read any internet versions of the 5 sources to see if they have anything more specific than Haley, and then edit accordingly. JJB 21:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary

The quote from biblical minimalist Bill Dever in the historicity section is unnecessarily incendiary: "largely 'propaganda,' designed to give theological legitimacy to a party of nationalist ultra-orthodox reformers." Judging by his quote from Battle of Jericho ("[I]f you want a miracle, here's your miracle: Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there.") it seems he has a tendency to make bombastic statements. I think this should be replaced by a quote that doesn't use weasel words like 'propaganda' or 'nationalist ultra-orthodox'. I find it ironic that my sources have been dismissed as fringe and yet such an incendiary and un-representative scholarly quote is retained. This should be replaced by something less incendiary by Dever or someone else. Since all of my edits are reverted I will let someone else do it.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

PiCo agrees; deleting. BTW, please feel free to be WP:BOLD under WP:BRD, because if you get reverted the other party has the burden of discussion, and failing that burden can be read as abandoning the reversion. JJB 20:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at BRD and it's just an essay, not a rule. It's also a terrible idea here. If you do this, you will be reverted again and again. When you've made one change at a time, some of them were allowed while others were reverted. That's the way to do it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, your suggestion that BRD is terrible is not WP style and your "will" statement can be taken by admins as a threat of WP:EDITWAR. Would you mind telling me what has been allowed, because I am not aware of any edits I've made in a couple weeks on these topics that has not been objected to and reverted in one article or another? You're saying I actually made significant edits that were allowed? JJB 11:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued BRD is not a good idea, nor is a pattern of BRD. Nor do I agree with your understanding of BRD (which as Dylan says, is not an essay and as it says "is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." The problem is when you make a number of changes at once, some major, some minor, it's difficult to revert only some of them and not all, and even harder to discuss them all. There are times when it is a useful method of editing, and many times when it is not. I've used BRD before, but generally when I edit I try to separate out different types of edits. Dylan's advice is good. I doubt that it would be taken as a threat of edit war. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Historicity

The text behind this section has been long debated and discussed at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah and a consensus version had stood for about a week, so I copied it here. To Dylan's cold-reversion to less specific text, I state the following points, sentence-by-sentence.

1. More accurate phrasing re Merneptah, citing Coogan, seems like nothing for Dylan to quibble over, but an artifact of his cold-revert style.
2. Replacing Lemche's generic statement with Dever's specific statement about highland Israel also seems a clear improvement.
3. Expanding on McNutt's statements and citing specific page numbers rather than ranges also seems a clear improvement.
4. Expanding on the highland distinctives from one source to three also seems a clear improvement.
5. The slight expansion of the sentence about village population also seems to be less than a quibble.

Naturally the source list would follow the text. Review of the diff shows nothing worth preserving in "Dylan's" text that has not been retained. Accordingly, Dylan should state, specifically and point-by-point, why he prefers the old version as not being a consensus on this page. JJB 04:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call BRD a "cold" reversion, and I certainly wouldn't call that the consensus. Moving the discussion here, away from its source, seems tantamount to forum-shopping. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Declining to discuss the topic, as you have just done, is a default. Also, it's "cold" because you've watched this text develop at that page for a month without caring a whit. You are free to discuss the merits of the same text in either article, of course, but that's not what you did in this comment. (Incidentally, in addition to forgetting how to do the D part, you seem to have forgotten in the section just above when you said, "I looked at BRD and it's just an essay, not a rule. It's also a terrible idea here. If you do this, you will be reverted again and again.") JJB 04:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I decline to discuss it over and over again as you shop for yet another forum. Refusal to discuss it in one place is a default. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You continue to default here and make accusations of forum-shopping; there is no shopping, this was a consensus text for a week. You have also defaulted at the other article because your reversion there moves the discussion to two sentences that were never part of this article, so you are not discussing it there either. You could bring my diff to WP:3O but you don't get to stall indefinitely without presenting any case anywhere. JJB 05:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of default, by default, the place to discuss content from an article is the talk page for that article, not the talk pages of two other articles. If you go to WP:3O, at least point them to the right talk page. Which isn't this one. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd do the 3O. According to your advice, "If you do this, you will be reverted again and again," because you have defaulted yet again by not interacting with my points. Reverting without willingness to discuss reasons becomes disruption after a point. JJB 06:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a blatantly false characterization and I believe you owe me an apology now. 07:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, you did not say exactly that, I am refactoring with your exact words. Now, you have again defaulted by neither discussing here nor at the ancient history page. If your next comment again says nothing to defend your revert, "discussion" is over and I will "bold again". JJB 07:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Dylan claims nonconsensus on this page, but it is just us two. Since Dylan is not providing any reasons for his revert, I will restore the improvements. The failure to discuss is particularly pointed on this page, with four successive comments that never attack the improved text itself, and without discussion on any other page either even though it is implied above: "nonconsensus" is not a license to forbid text and never discuss it. Improvements march on. JJB 02:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Venerated

If venerated means Venerated it is clearly inappropriately used at the moment. And if it doesn't, it's confusing and shouldn't be used in any case. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Joshua's Tomb in Istanbul

There is also one tomb of Joshua in Istanbul just have a look at this:Joshua's Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpolat (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Benjamin West - Joshua passing the River Jordan with the Ark of the Covenant - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Benjamin West - Joshua passing the River Jordan with the Ark of the Covenant - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 10, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Joshua passing the River Jordan with the Ark of the Covenant, an oil painting on wood completed by the American artist Benjamin West in 1800. It depicts a scene from the Biblical Book of Joshua in which Joshua, leader of the Israelite tribes after the death of Moses, leads them across the River Jordan. In the Biblical narrative, God (shown here as a Pillar of Cloud) parts the river at Gilgal to offer the Children of Israel safe passage into Canaan.Painting: Benjamin West

Why I removed some dates.

In the lead, this sentence used to appear: "According to Biblical chronology, Joshua lived between 1355 and 1245 BCE, or sometime in the late Bronze Age." I removed the specific dates (1355 and 1245) because they were unsourced and dubious. Here's why. The footnote given

"Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, V.1.28, says that Joshua died twenty years after the conquest of Canaan."

does not suffice to give us the dates 1355 and 1245 BCE.

Let's start with Josephus. So, Josephus has Joshua dying 20 years after the conquest. But Josephus doesn't give a specific "BCE" date for the conquest. But we can kind of work out an implicit date from Josephus. Moses dies right before the conquest, and the period from the death of Moses to the death of Eli is 476 years ([6]). With some simple math, this means Eli dies 456 years after Joshua dies. From the death of Eli to the death of Saul is 32 years ([7]), so Saul dies 488 years after Joshua dies. From Saul's death to David's is 40 years ([8]), so David dies 528 years after Joshua. From the death of David to the death of Ahab is 163 years([9]), so Ahab dies 691 after Joshua's death. From the death of Ahab to the captivity of the ten tribes is 157 years ([10]), so the ten tribes are taken captive 848 years after Joshua dies. From the captivity of the ten tribes to the accession of Cyrus is 183 years ([11]), to Cyrus takes the throne 1031 years after Joshua dies. From the accession of Cyrus to the death of Alexander the Great is 253 years ([12]), so Alexander dies 1284 years after Joshua dies. From the death of Alexander to the death of Judas Maccabee is 170 years, so Judas Maccabee dies 1454 years after Alexander dies ([13]). Judas Maccabee died in 160 BCE, so the chronology of Josephus puts Joshua's death in 1454+160 = 1604 BCE. So the Josephus reference can't support the claim.

The internal chronology of the Bible can't support the claim either. The sentence "According to Biblical chronology, Joshua lived between 1355 and 1245 BCE, or sometime in the late Bronze Age." leads the reader to Chronology of the Bible, which claims a date of creation at 4164 BCE, and the Exodus at 2666 years later, or 1498 BCE. Since Joshua's born prior to the Exodus, the Bible internal chronology doesn't work either.

So, in the absence of a reliable source cited, the dates 1355 and 1245 had to go. Alephb (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Value of Procopius's account of Inscriptions on Columns in Numidia

Procopius's account is dealt with rigorously in two articles by Anthony J. Frendo, an expert in the field who has written numerous scholarly articles and published a book on pre-exilic Israel and archeological records. Frendo's assessment leans towards giving Procopius credibility. German linguist Paul Schroder came to a similar conclusion over a hundred years earlier (Die Phönizische Sprache, 1869), albeit with far less rigour.

There may be scholars who have examined the issue and come to the opposite opinion -- if so, in the interest of balance, I hope that information will emerge here. Yrstruly (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you know of any other scholars who agree with Frendo in his assessment of Procopius? Alephb (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I already gave one.... which makes two... and no dissenting views as of yet.Yrstruly (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you have a new username, I'll assume you are a new editor. Here's the policy that governs cases like this: WP:UNDUE. In short, the views of tiny minorities are not supposed to be given equal treatment with majority views on Wikipedia. We have oodles of citations which confirm that the majority opinion sees Joshua as essentially not historical.

What you've done is added a bit which adds a statement that Frendo's work overturns that majority view: Nevertheless, Anthony Frendo's research confirms the existence of ancient extra-Biblical evidence for conquest by Joshua. In favor of that very bold statement, you've cited one living guy (Frendo) and one dead guy. In contrast, WP:UNDUE, a policy which editors of Wikipedia are expected to follow, says that tiny minority opinions should either not be mentioned at all, or mentioned in a manner which makes clear that they are tiny minority opinions.

Among mainstream scholarship, only one scholar has even bothered to reply to Frendo, and he has done so in a negative fashion. This means that, unless you can show us a reliable scholarly work that supports Frendo's work, by someone who is still breathing, Frendo is completely alone in his creative theory about Procopius. Furthermore, your edit (I assume unintentionally) misrepresents Frendo. Frendo does not, in fact, accept the Bible's stories about Joshua at face value. Frendo in fact thinks that the Israelites were already in the promised land prior to the invasion by Joshua. For Frendo, the Joshua invasion is not the invasion described in the book of Joshua. So even if Frendo were cited on this issue -- and he shouldn't be, because he is all alone on Procopius -- the fact is that he should be cited in a manner that makes it clear that he is not a supporter of the historicity of the biblical account.

In other words, you have cherry-picked here. (Again, I assume you have only the best intentions.) You've taken a lone scholar, who does not support the historicity of the book of Joshua, and taken a fringe theory of his and then written it up as if it were a "confirmation" that the consensus on Joshua is wrong. That's outside of the bounds of how Wikipedia is designed to operate. Alephb (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the Procopius inscription, not whether the Book of Joshua is generally historical. You are correct in saying that Fendo is not a supporter of the general historicity of the book, but this does not preclude there being a snippet of historical basis here and there, and that's in fact what Frendo's conclusions imply. Between black and white there exists lots of gray.

You claim to know of a source which contradicts Frendo's conclusions -- why don't you present it? Simply claiming that there exists a vast academic consensus against historicity doesn't cut it. I have identified sources, and I have offered what I believe is a fair statement indicating the gist of their claims. If you don't like it, fine -- rewrite it to better reflect the way you think it should be, or find some other sources that present an alternative view.

In the absence of any solid information that might support your claims, I am returning the posted information re Procopius so that others may also read and judge for themselves. I am here to build knowledge, not to suppress it. Yrstruly (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

At the very least it should be mentioned as a minority view; however, simply shouting that it is a minority view, without bringing any sources, is not really going to do the job. High Leader (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not that it is a minority view. It's that it is a view held only by Frendo. No other reputable scholar believes that Procopius's mention of this supposed inscription is valid evidence for the history of Joshua. Note the authoritative way that the newly-restored passage speaks as though Frendo's work outweighs the majority opinion: Nevertheless, Anthony Frendo's research confirms the existence of ancient extra-Biblical evidence for conquest by Joshua. The article is not just mentioning Frendo -- it is presenting the correctness of his one-man theory as if it were established fact, overturning the academic consensus on Frendo. This is outside the bounds of normal Wikipedia practice and it is classic WP:UNDUE. Alephb (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If the problem is how it is presented, than edit it. That is not a reason to delete it completely. I think it is quite important and relevant that 2 ancient historians refer to a still older inscription about Joshua. This is not about Frendos research per se. Rather, it is about the supposed existence of historical evidence. I have not seen in any of your multiple posts a reason that this should not be included. Zeke921 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

One problem is presentation. The other problem is that Frendo is completely and utterly alone in his theory on Procopius. That matters. The relevant policy page here is WP:UNDUE, which states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. A minority of one scholar is the tiniest minority of all. The reason that Wikipedia policy mandates that views be written up in proportion to their prominence in the published, reliable sources is that, if Wikipedia were to give a paragraph to every single person who held a view that no other living person agreed with, the result would be chaos.

If the paragraph about Frendo is not WP:UNDUE, nothing is undue. Alephb (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I will try to be clearer. Frendos research matters not an iota. However the fact that Procopius and other early historians mention it does. It's not a view that is argued upon, it is a historian reporting in something he believed to be true. If you would like to add in research that shows Procopius to be unreliable, go ahead. That, however, has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE or any other Wikipedia rules Zeke921 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Frendo is the only living scholar who thinks Procopius is relevant to the historicity of Joshua. A view held by one scholar is the view of a tiny minority. Wikipedia has a policy about how articles are supposed to treat the views of tiny minorities. Therefore that policy applies to the opinion that Procopius is relevant to the historicity of Joshua. There's four sentences -- in which one have I made an illogical leap? Alephb (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Historicity

This sentence doesn't make sense: "The spy story of Numbers 13–14; Deut. 1:34–7, in an earlier form only mentioned Caleb. E. Meyer and G. Hoelscher deny Joshua's existence as a historical reality and conclude that he is the legendary hero of a Josephite clan.[22]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I see two sentences. Which one doesn't make sense? Alephb (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I was tired and read "Caleb E. Meyer". Sorry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. No need to apologize for asking a question! Alephb (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Verification

I meant that or may be a legend created by the Israelites to explain the presence of ruined cities in the area does not pass WP:V. Is that what the source says? Yes or no? tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What's the matter now?

@Tgeorgescu: What exactly is the problem now? I simply copied the text in the page Book of Joshua and pasted here. --Karma1998 (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Inventing (creating) stuff which does not pass WP:V is serious offense. You're making it up, and according to WP:NORN#Yahweh, it isn't your first time at making it up. I told Editshmedt that I smell a rat, and I was proven right in their respect.

You have repeatedly violated copyright since being blocked in 2016, including this year. That alone should be more than enough to leave you blocked indefinitely. Add on top of that, your personal attacks (which continued after you were blocked) and your long-term tendentious editing. And to top it off, fabricating sources? I've never seen anyone come back from that. You've gone out of your way to destroy the community's trust in you. You are correct, what you did was inexcusable. Yamla (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you were fabricating sources, but definitely you were fabricating unverifiable sentences, and you were attributing them to already cited sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The three "tombs" in Kifl Haris: fishy

I have started a discussion here. Arminden (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph enhancement

This should include the general time in which these events take place as well as when the texts are thought to be written. Either here or in the infoblock that follows.

Looking far, far down the article I finally find references to early versions being written perhaps 8th Century BC, but that's information that would be helpful as one begins to read the article from the beginning. 2600:4040:A6C7:C900:65A2:4C8F:AC9C:DB01 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the lead says "According to biblical chronology, Joshua lived some time in the Bronze Age." Added "(6th - 5th centuries BCE)" to first lead-sentence per your suggestion (took the years from the WP-articles of the books, hopefully right enough). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

Hello all, Shabbat Shalom, I am a Biblical scholar and believer/disciple of Yahusha Messiah and I would like to add a small section to the name section of this article. It is not necessarily complete. Luke 1:31 and Matthew 1:21 should be cited here. In addition, there should be a section about how people like myself who are what might be called "Hebrew Roots Christians" or "Torah-Keepers" use this name to refer to our Messiah. 1536TyndaleD.S.S. (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

Change "Legend has it" to "According to legend" in first sentence of 'In science' section. Add [[14]] to the term pioneer in the same sentence. Cheesmanjc (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done:

1. Done.

2. Not done - that page doesn't exist, and even if it did, WP:CIRCULAR applies. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Category for Joshua article

Please add the article to Category:Book of Deuteronomy people —-W2024 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

Since the name Jehoshua redirects here, there should be a note at the top of the article, like disambiguous links, to Jehoshua_Rozenman. 2604:3D09:C47B:6B30:50B:B6FE:E2EC:16A3 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To this article I've added Jehoshua per Wikipedia:REDIRECT. If you want Jehoshua Rozenman to appear in a list of Jesoshuas, then maybe the place to list him is Yehoshua (given name)? Mgnbar (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Etymology: none yet, really

Should be more carefully written and get its own section.

Which part relates to thr divine name, which to salvation? (See yasha).

Which form of the divine name is used, maybe Yahu? How did it take the final form, and is that Ye, Yeh or Yeho? YHWH it's not, not in full for sure.

Evolution into various Greek, Latin and English forms.

All this is actually missing.

Useful: Yehoshua, Yoshua. Arminden (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Error regarding the Greek rendering of the name "Yehoshua" in the Septuagint

The article states: ""Jesus" is the English derivative of the Greek transliteration of "Yehoshua" via Latin. In the Septuagint, all instances of the word "Yehoshua" are rendered as "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsoūs), the closest Greek pronunciation of the Imperial Aramaic: יֵשׁוּעַ Yēšūaʿ. Thus, in modern Greek, Joshua is called "Jesus son of Naue" (τοῦ Ναυή, toũ Nauḗ) to differentiate him from Jesus." This is incorrect. 1 Paralipomenon 7,27 (Septuagint), corresponding to 1 Chronicles 7:27 (Masoretic text), translates "Yehoshua" as "ΙΗΣΟΥΕ" or "Ἰησουὲ", if we use minuscule (ancient Greek is commonly written in minuscule nowadays, but minuscule was non-existent during biblical times, as well as long after them). So there's at least one instance I'm aware of where the Septuagint doesn't use "Ἰησοῦς" to render "Yehoshua". Plus, as already stated, Greek did not have minuscule until much later than the Second Temple Period, so using it when you're supposed to accurately represent a biblical text (where authenticity is supposedly the main goal, not teachability etc) is somewhat misleading, at least without some sort of clarification or disclaimer. 2A02:85F:E02C:BB01:2870:C44B:578A:5DC3 (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)