This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Book of Joshua article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Early Israelite campaigns page were merged into Book of Joshua. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wendy072310.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I have an issue with this article regarding the historicity of the Book of Joshua. Yes I know the sources directly said most scholars think the book is ahistorical however there is some issues when I read further through the sources.
Also
this book on page 152 says scholars think it’s ahistorical but the events might reflect a later period.
Like there is this book cited within this article says this on page 5. None of this means that a Israelite conquest of Canaan did not happen.
Keep in mind this book was published five years later after the earlier book I just mentioned. I didn’t read through the entire books so do forgive me if I missed something.
Also I checked this book and I couldn’t see any mention of the page directly saying it never happening. Also I don’t know if I misread the source but I didn’t see a mention of it directly saying the Book of Joshua was nationalist propaganda.
I don’t have any issue with Wikipedia going by what mainstream scholars say on a certain topic but it’s kind of original research to just cherry pick a certain sentence to come to an conclusion, when a text does more in depth on a topic.
Also the section of historicity uses some sources from the 1930s which is kind of problematic since more updated sources are preferred.
I’m not saying this all to be some kind of POV pusher, I’m saying because I have an issue with sources being cherry-picked. CycoMa ( talk) 16:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Busted!
Most scholars today accept that the majority of the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua are devoid of historical reality; ...
tgeorgescu if that’s the case then remove the sources that claim that the book likely reflects a later period.
Look man I don’t care if Joshua existed or not, I don’t care if the Isaelities were aliens or not, I don’t care if Canaan was conquered or not.
The sources that are cited in this article literally say the things I just quoted.
I feel like you keep missing my point. Must I present the quote again?
(Almost without exception, scholars agree that the account in Joshua holds little historical value vis-à-vis early Israel and most likely reflects much later historical times.)
In that sentence it straight up states it most likely reflects a later period. If that’s false there should be no reason for that source to be here in the first place. CycoMa ( talk) 08:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh I see the quote you mentioned. CycoMa ( talk) 08:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
But anyway the historicity section still needs some expansion upon it. CycoMa ( talk) 08:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I categorized the Book of Joshua in Category:History books about genocide. The categorization was reverted with the following comment:
'Anachronistic, absurd extrapolation. By that standard, all ancient books are about "genocide".' Duponieux
A passage from the Book for example:
"They totally destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed... For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy..." (Joshua 11:11, 20).
"By that standard, all ancient books are about genocide"? You mean Analects, Antigona, Kama Sutra...?
Does not the chapter "Moral and political interpretation" in the article list reliable scholars who found in the Book genocide and ethnic cleansing? Can you edit your "anachronistic, absurd extrapolation" in the chapter itself?
Israel those days was chiefdom of 12 tribes. Genocide was norm of the chiefdom-level warfare worldwide. [1]
Did you decisively demonstrate that all this anthropological research is "absurd extrapolation"? Can you refer to your research in the field and positive reviews?
Or the concensus cancels all pre-modern genocides as "anachronistic"?-- Maxaxa ( talk) 07:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Book of Joshua article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Early Israelite campaigns page were merged into Book of Joshua. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wendy072310.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I have an issue with this article regarding the historicity of the Book of Joshua. Yes I know the sources directly said most scholars think the book is ahistorical however there is some issues when I read further through the sources.
Also
this book on page 152 says scholars think it’s ahistorical but the events might reflect a later period.
Like there is this book cited within this article says this on page 5. None of this means that a Israelite conquest of Canaan did not happen.
Keep in mind this book was published five years later after the earlier book I just mentioned. I didn’t read through the entire books so do forgive me if I missed something.
Also I checked this book and I couldn’t see any mention of the page directly saying it never happening. Also I don’t know if I misread the source but I didn’t see a mention of it directly saying the Book of Joshua was nationalist propaganda.
I don’t have any issue with Wikipedia going by what mainstream scholars say on a certain topic but it’s kind of original research to just cherry pick a certain sentence to come to an conclusion, when a text does more in depth on a topic.
Also the section of historicity uses some sources from the 1930s which is kind of problematic since more updated sources are preferred.
I’m not saying this all to be some kind of POV pusher, I’m saying because I have an issue with sources being cherry-picked. CycoMa ( talk) 16:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Busted!
Most scholars today accept that the majority of the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua are devoid of historical reality; ...
tgeorgescu if that’s the case then remove the sources that claim that the book likely reflects a later period.
Look man I don’t care if Joshua existed or not, I don’t care if the Isaelities were aliens or not, I don’t care if Canaan was conquered or not.
The sources that are cited in this article literally say the things I just quoted.
I feel like you keep missing my point. Must I present the quote again?
(Almost without exception, scholars agree that the account in Joshua holds little historical value vis-à-vis early Israel and most likely reflects much later historical times.)
In that sentence it straight up states it most likely reflects a later period. If that’s false there should be no reason for that source to be here in the first place. CycoMa ( talk) 08:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh I see the quote you mentioned. CycoMa ( talk) 08:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
But anyway the historicity section still needs some expansion upon it. CycoMa ( talk) 08:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I categorized the Book of Joshua in Category:History books about genocide. The categorization was reverted with the following comment:
'Anachronistic, absurd extrapolation. By that standard, all ancient books are about "genocide".' Duponieux
A passage from the Book for example:
"They totally destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed... For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy..." (Joshua 11:11, 20).
"By that standard, all ancient books are about genocide"? You mean Analects, Antigona, Kama Sutra...?
Does not the chapter "Moral and political interpretation" in the article list reliable scholars who found in the Book genocide and ethnic cleansing? Can you edit your "anachronistic, absurd extrapolation" in the chapter itself?
Israel those days was chiefdom of 12 tribes. Genocide was norm of the chiefdom-level warfare worldwide. [1]
Did you decisively demonstrate that all this anthropological research is "absurd extrapolation"? Can you refer to your research in the field and positive reviews?
Or the concensus cancels all pre-modern genocides as "anachronistic"?-- Maxaxa ( talk) 07:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
References