Misplaced Pages

Talk:Book of Joshua: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:47, 23 December 2024 editTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,202 editsm →Removing the odd sentence-paragraph at the end of the introduction: typo← Previous edit Revision as of 14:07, 23 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,309,958 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Book of Joshua/Archive 2) (botNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:
| archive = Talk:Book of Joshua/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Talk:Book of Joshua/Archive %(counter)d
| algo = old(90d) | algo = old(90d)
| counter = 1 | counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 200K | maxarchivesize = 200K
| minthreadsleft = 3 | minthreadsleft = 3
Line 62: Line 62:


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 16:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} {{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 16:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Suspecting some cherry-picking ==

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 on page 152 says scholars think it’s ahistorical but the events might reflect a later period.

Like there is cited within this article says this on page 5.
{{Font color|Green|text=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 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 Misplaced Pages 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.] (]) 16:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

:The academic consensus (]) is that the Israelites were the offspring of Canaanites. So they did not conquer Canaan, they were born in Canaan. Canaanites became Israelites by a process of othering. ] (]) 07:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|Tgeorgescu}} Okay buddy but the sources say this, I’m gonna bold some to help you see my point.
::{{Font color|Green|text=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.'''}}
::Reflects a later period, don’t you think this article should explain why the source said it reflects a later period.

::Also one of the sources cited in this article straight up says this. {{Font color|Green|text=N'''one of this means that a Israelite conquest of Canaan did not happen'''.}} This statement is from Published 5 years later after the earlier book I mentioned.

::Also I don’t know if I misread but I don’t see any mention of it directly say it was nationalist propaganda.

::Buddy this is literally what the sources cited in the article say. I don’t care what you think on the subject I care what the sources say on the subject. Also I never once denied that the sources said there was a consensus on this.

::Dude all I’m asking for this article to explain further in detail on why these sources are saying things like reflects a later period or says this doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.] (]) 07:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

::Fixed my comment, all I’m asking is for this article to be edited to explain further in detail why the sources are saying things like this.] (]) 08:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

:::{{re|CycoMa}} Was it ever conquered? How would I know? I am no expert in history. But it certainly wasn't conquered by Joshua. ] (]) 08:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

::::{{u|tgeorgescu}} and I’m no expert on this topic either but, I know that here on Misplaced Pages we shouldn’t just cherry-pick some sentences to push our narratives.] (]) 08:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

:::::{{re|CycoMa}} See ]. The idea that the Israelites were an alien, outside population which has invaded Canaan has already been debunked. Or as the MythBusters say {{tq|Busted!}}
:::::{{cite book|first=Ann E.|last=Killebrew|title=Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E.|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VtAmmwapfVAC&pg=PA186+|year=2005|publisher=Society of Biblical Lit|isbn=978-1-58983-097-4|pages=186|quote=Most scholars today accept that the majority of the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua are devoid of historical reality; ...}}
:::::"D'une façon générale, aucun archéologue sérieux ne croit plus aujourd'hui que les événements rapportés dans le livre de Josué ont un fondement historique précis. Des prospections archéologiques, au début des années 1990, en particulier, ont révélé que la culture israélite a émergé dans les collines du centre du pays, en continuité avec la culture cananéenne de l'époque précédente." ], revue ''La Recherche'' nr. 391, 01-11-2005, dossier ''Les archéologues réécrivent la ]'', p. 32. ] (]) 08:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

{{u|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.] (]) 08:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see the quote you mentioned.] (]) 08:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

But anyway the historicity section still needs some expansion upon it.] (]) 08:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

:{{re|CycoMa}} I don't understand your point. The point is: it wasn't conquered by Joshua maybe was conquered at a later time, by another guy, who maybe wasn't even an Israelite. ] (]) 08:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|tgeorgescu}} all I am asking is for it to explain further in depth on the topic.
::I mean it directly said it most likely reflects a later period and another source said it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

::I’m not arguing that every detail in the book of Joshua is historically accurate.

::My point is for the article to explain why the source says.
::Most likely reflects a later period. That’s it.

::Also I believe I read something about Bronze Age collapse around that time. I haven’t done much research on this so I can’t say much.] (]) 08:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

::Like I haven’t read through much of the sources to explain my this is the case. The sources cited here probably explain why they say all that.] (]) 08:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

::As a matter of fact fact I’m not even arguing it’s historical.] (]) 17:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

== Genocide of the Canaanites == == Genocide of the Canaanites ==
I categorized the '''Book of Joshua''' in ]. The categorization was reverted with the following comment: I categorized the '''Book of Joshua''' in ]. The categorization was reverted with the following comment:

Revision as of 14:07, 23 December 2024

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: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReligious texts (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts
WikiProject iconReligion Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBible Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJudaism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
WikiProject iconAncient Near East Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhoenicia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBooks
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Genocide of the Canaanites

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.

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)

A review of Daniel Hawk's book The Violence of the Biblical God says:
"But is the book of Joshua about genocide? In light of the many internal contradictions within the text and the highly stylized ways killing is described, Hawk concludes that rhetoric about mass killing “contains more style than substance.” Like other recent scholars, he appeals to Deuteronomy 7. If God really wants the Israelites to “wipe out” the inhabitants of the land completely (7:1–2), then why does God immediately follow up with a commandment not to intermarry with them (7:3)? The Israelites presumably will not marry nations they have already slaughtered. The command to kill the nations of the land, then, “does not appear to be concerned with eliminating them so much as keeping Israel at a distance from them.”
The hyperbolic rhetoric of Deuteronomy and Joshua ultimately underscore Israel’s commitment to radical separation from the land’s native inhabitants. The rhetoric is about mass killing, but the actual commitment is to something different—unadulterated commitment to God. The fact that indigenous people who embrace the God of Israel are incorporated into the community without a protest from God would also seem to show that the rhetorical flourishes of the book of Joshua are not meant to be taken literally. The text does present a story of comprehensive military triumph, but it also pokes abundant holes in that very story."
It's clear they weren't totally destroyed. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The error in the review (and maybe in what it is reviewing; I didn't check) is that "wipe out completely" in ancient times generally didn't include killing women who were considered more suitable for capture. Those women became part of the conquering tribe and so the vanquished tribe thereby became extinct. A command to not intermarry could even be a euphemistic way of saying that the women should be killed too; it certainly does not negate the genocidal aspect. Zero 12:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Robert Carneiro, "Chiefdom-level warfare," The Anthropology of War, Camridge University Press, 1990

Removing the odd sentence-paragraph at the end of the introduction

The sole source for, "Many scholars interpret the book of Joshua as referring to what would now be considered genocide," is a chapter in the book "Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible: New Perspectives." The chapter was written by a Dr. Tracy Lemos; I think it would be easy to make a case for Dr. Lemos's work to be highly ideological, but this is at present immaterial. What is material is the fact that even in the book in which the chapter appears, it is the only one making claims of genocide. (It is possible that Dr. Lemos provides an extensive list of other scholars who concur, but the book is expensive and no digital copy seems available.)

This is not the first time that someone has tried to shoehorn the anachronism* of genocide into the Book of Joshua (see above, for example). I am reverting this. If someone can find another source or two for this idea that "many scholars interpret the ook of Joshua to what would now be considered genocide," have at it. It would be nice if they were coming from experts who do not obviously have an axe to grind, as well.

(*Yes, I am aware of the "what would now be considered" disclaimer given. I think it's clear why it was written this way.) Psithurismos (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It's from Oxford University Press. That is, barring some extraordinary evidence which became later apparent, a highly reliable source. The opinion of one editor does not trump OUP.
And by "evidence" I mean evidence, not gibberish.
And now Cambridge University Press is WP:CITED to the same effect. That is a hard to match sourcing.
We don't take polls of how many scholars endorse this view. See the condition stipulated at WP:RS/AC. If OUP says that "many scholars" endorse it, and CUP also says that "many scholars" endorse it, then Misplaced Pages writes "many scholars". As simple as that—and not open for negotiation.
Briefly: the issue is both well-known and clear-cut. No way to dodge it. We're grownups, not little children.
Results:
  • I don't have access to Lemos (OUP) right now, so I don't know what it says; if I remember well I accessed it via Google Books some years ago, but it is no longer there; later edit: found it, offered a quote for WP:V purposes;
  • Lemos (CUP) kind of says it, but not explicitly;
  • Fortunately, Olyan (OUP) does say that the Book of Joshua fits any narrow definition of genocide. Upon whether he actually says explicitly that many scholars endorse it, I'm not sure;
  • Footnote 5 from Lemos (OUP) gives a brief list of scholars who endorse it.
  • Even if WP:RS/AC would not be applicable, I have personally WP:CITED many scholars who either endorse it, or at least recognize it is a highly troubling matter, for themselves and for other scholars. E.g. in the middle of one paper, the author argues that genocide scholars frequently endorse it, while at the end of the paper that author seeks to refute their point. I don't think that the latter refutation invalidates the point that genocide scholars frequently endorse it. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Book of Joshua: Difference between revisions Add topic