This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 translation Highdeeboy ( 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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 (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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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....
Moodswingster ( talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
@ 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)
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 have started a discussion here. Arminden ( talk) 19:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Please add the article to Category:Book of Deuteronomy people —- W2024 ( talk) 03:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 translation Highdeeboy ( 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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 (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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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....
Moodswingster ( talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
@ 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)
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 have started a discussion here. Arminden ( talk) 19:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Please add the article to Category:Book of Deuteronomy people —- W2024 ( talk) 03:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)