Talk:Joshua

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe the article is quite right. There's at least three ways of writing Joshua in Hebrew: 1. Yod, Hey, Vav, Shin, Vav, Ayin (Deut 3:21), 2. Yod, hey, vav, shin, ayin (Ex 17:9) and 3. Yod, shin, vav, ayin (Neh 8:17). The second way of writing the name is the most popular in the Hebrew Tanakh, appearing a good 216 times altogether. I actually think the third way of writing Joshua in Hebrew should also be mentioned. --Stephen 17:48, 22 Dec 2007 (GMT)
I found the article edited as Jdigittl suggests, but that edit was incorrect and misleading, so I deleted it. Now I can see that the intent was that the second waw (the U in Y-H-O-SH-U-A) is what is often missing, more often than not in fact. Will restore accordingly (i.e., as saying the second waw is often added to the base Y-H-O-SH-A). Already added "Yeshua". JJB 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Stephen's suggestion I have added the Neh. 8.17 reference.Cpsoper (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in 'Hebrew Name' Section 

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I've read Mr. White's book Fossilized Customs (http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/). Personally I feel conspiracy theories aren't exactly the place for Wikipedia. Plus, the Yahushua article isn't "blotted out", it was redirected to here. Drumpler 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if the article mentioned why, at some point.  The Jade Knight (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeshua? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've taken off the 'disputed' tag. I think the third paragraph gives adequate warning not to take this as historical fact. --Spondoolicks 11:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I have moved the disclaimer to the first paragraph. However, that is not sufficient. The question is not whether the user is _warned_ about inaccuracies. The question is whether the article _contains_ inaccuracies. The latter is unacceptable, so I have replaced the tag. At a minimum, the writing should be made explicit throughout that this is simply a summary of the biblical account. Then, neutrality requires a presentation of critical or historical evidence on that account. Wikipedia is not the place for an article which simply summarizes the Bible. The tag indicates there is a problem with the article meeting Wikipedia standards, and I think that is beyond question. Derex 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion was that no intelligent reader could possibly miss the fact that it is by no means an established historical fact. I don't know what you want from this article. Maybe a big warning every other sentence saying "At least that's what it says in the bible but it might not have happened like that."  The article was fine as it was. Joshua is a significant figure in the bible and the bible story is pretty much all there is to say about him so there's nothing wrong with the article being mostly a summary of the story. --Spondoolicks 12:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it  difficult to believe that armies of scholars over centuries have nothing at all to say about Joshua besides summarizing the biblical account. Derex 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said!  There is ample scholarly discussion of the historicity of the Biblical accounts of Joshua and there is solid archaeological evidence for many of the events and locations (admittedly, not all events - and not all scholars concur - but enough to make clear that this article's POV regarding historicity and archaeology is severely biased).208.191.39.25 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To imply that most historians look on the biblical accounts of the exodous as false is misleading; most often it is considered a record of events which may well have transpired and is treated like any single primary source.  Like most single sources, it is in places at odds with others, but this does not separate it from the histories of herodotus, sir thomas more, or others who wrote according to what was considered common knowledge.  To simply say that it is an unverified account without implying falsehood is probably the best course of action.
Keep in mind that archaeologists don't have all of the evidence and probably never will...so using that alone as a basis for some sort of disputing is not the best way to go. My opinion of course. 70.119.231.92 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fine by me. I don't see any reason to have two articles and it seems much more sensible to have them merged. --Spondoolicks 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I'll ask the editors over there what they think. Derex 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "character" should be merged over to here. However the "biblical book" should stay there. --Haldrik 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue is that the majority of this article basically says "Joshua led his followers in X", particularly in Conquest and part of the introduction. That X is generally covered in the Book article. If we are to have a distinct article, at least the redundancy should be removed. That would satisfy some of my objections about the historicity as well, as there would be fewer claims about historical events. Derex 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think this article needs to reinvent the wheel. I think it's enough to say the info on Joshua is problematic because much of the information about the Exodus is problematic. And then give a link to the Exodus article that already describes the difficulties in detail. By the way, most archeologists do believe the Exodus happened for logical reasons. They doubt any nation would celebrate having been a slave unless it was true. The problem is that no reconstruction of the biblical descriptions have matched the archeological evidence (yet) and there is no consensus. --Haldrik 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's fine. I have no axe to grind here. But that ought to be said and cited. This article is to a great extent simply a copy of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article.   Surely we can do better than that, given the benefit of another full century of scholarship. Derex 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you feel about greatly shortening Conquest with a pointer to the Book article? It covers the material in greater detail, and has links to existing or proposed subarticles about battles. A great many of my historical neutrality and accuracy objections center on that section. Derex 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I just boldly did it. It could use a bit more about his specific role as leader, as distinct from the general conquest and activities of the Hebrews. But, it's easier to start fresh than to edit down that mass. Tags removed everywhere. Derex 07:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: I suggest you ask over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. Derex 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua in Islam 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mythology 

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

message: I wonder why there's no CRITICISM OF JOSHUA like there's Criticism of Muhammad even though Joshua unlike Muhammad committed genocide and slaughtered both women and children in the name of "god"
-Amro Gaber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.50.176 (talk • contribs) 
*A good question. Possibly because Joshua was not the sole direct founder of Judaism, like Muhammad was of Islam, and is thus in a sense less important? However, I can see how a section could be added. John Carter 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CRITICISM OF JOSHUA 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reference to Joshua 10 'sun stood still'

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yehoshua bin Nun vs. ben Nun 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pritchard's ANET 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Considering the above 

message: 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)
replies: text: Odd comment, given the utter lack of "empirical" information on Joshua. If you have any further information from reliable sources, please feel free to edit the article. Other editors will judge your changes on their merits.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We should have a warning like they put on beaches where there's a rip: "Danger: Strong Opinions: Enter At Your Own Risk" :) PiCo (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua, a ruthless general, was a Canaanite himself.  Mose's Jews went to Ethiopia 

message: 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)
replies: text: No sources use "Hashem is salvation", but plenty use "Yahweh is salvation". So contrary to your assertions, I've reverted to the latter. I also see no need to use YHVH; English Wikipedia is meant to be read by English-speaking editors, not adhere to Jewish religious law. Fences&Windows 20:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fences & Windows. It's acceptable for us to use a well-sourced pronunciation of "YHVH", though it might be worth linking to Tetragrammaton nearby so that there's an explanation for it. It's not acceptable to substitute "Hashem", "Adonai", or similar euphemisms, because that would violate our neutral point of view by giving deference to a particular religious practice. I should point out that "Yahweh" does exist as a term in English, and is being used in an English translation, so the precise pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew is beside the point. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And you can't change it to "Hashem", because this is not the term used in English, and even one source saying that Joshua means "Hashem is salvation" (as some websites do) would be outweighed by all the sources that say it means "Yahweh is salvation". Fences&Windows 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misunderstand me.  I'm asking you for for the specific sources that translate it as "Yahweh is salvation."  If it's as common as you say, then please list a few.  Thanks.  Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Try any one of the hundreds of sources:  Fences&Windows 01:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

message: Ive decided to add some extra narrative of Joshua and his role with Moses when they met al Khidr  
sources:
018.060 
YUSUFALI: Behold, Moses said to his attendant, "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel."
018.061 
YUSUFALI: But when they reached the Junction, they forgot (about) their Fish, which took its course through the sea (straight) as in a tunnel.
018.062 
YUSUFALI: When they had passed on (some distance), Moses said to his attendant: "Bring us our early meal; truly we have suffered much fatigue at this (stage of) our journey."
018.063 
YUSUFALI: He replied: "Sawest thou (what happened) when we betook ourselves to the rock? I did indeed forget (about) the Fish: none but Satan made me forget to tell (you) about it: it took its course through the sea in a marvellous way!"
018.064 
YUSUFALI: Moses said: "That was what we were seeking after:" So they went back on their footsteps, following (the path they had come).
018.065 
YUSUFALI: So they found one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught knowledge from Our own Presence.
Now the name of this servant isnt addressed but the Islamic Hadiths state it was Joshua and the servant was an angel called AlKhidr
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 613: 
Narrated Said bin Jubair: 
I said to Ibn Abbas, "Nauf Al-Bukah claims that Moses, the companion of Al-Khadir was not Moses (the prophet) of the children of Israel, but some other Moses." Ibn 'Abbas said, "Allah's enemy (i.e. Nauf) has told a lie. Ubai bin Ka'b told us that the Prophet said, 'Once Moses stood up and addressed Bani Israel. He was asked who was the most learned man amongst the people. He said, 'I.' Allah admonished him as he did not attribute absolute knowledge to Him (Allah). So, Allah said to him, 'Yes, at the junction of the two seas there is a Slave of Mine who is more learned than you.' Moses said, 'O my Lord! How can I meet him?' Allah said, 'Take a fish and put it in a large basket and you will find him at the place where you will lose the fish.' Moses took a fish and put it in a basket and proceeded along with his (servant) boy, Yusha 'bin Nun....
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/055.sbt.html
Moodswingster (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Joshua in Islam

message: 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)
thread_title: File:12 staemme israels cs.png

message: 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)
replies: text: Keep them coming, as the more sources from the whole spectrum of research, the better. JJB 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to make article balanced

message: Fine, read the new material. I'll take the first subsection first - Origins of the Book of Joshua. I have some problems. They are:
:::I'll just interleave below, thanks. JJB 05:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of Book of Joshua sub-section

message: This  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   and this recent book Jonathan Golden's Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction   - 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)
replies: text: An earlier edition of Golden's book (1994) is available online. There's also this book by Nadav Naaman - it has a chapter on Joshua (the book). PiCo (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Haley 

message: 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)
replies: text: PiCo agrees; deleting. BTW, please feel free to be WP:BOLD under WP:BRD, because if you get reverted the other party has the burden of discussion, and failing that burden can be read as abandoning the reversion. JJB 20:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at BRD and it's just an essay, not a rule. It's also a terrible idea here. If you do this, you will be reverted again and again. When you've made one change at a time, some of them were allowed while others were reverted. That's the way to do it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Dylan, your suggestion that BRD is terrible is not WP style and your "will" statement can be taken by admins as a threat of WP:EDITWAR. Would you mind telling me what has been allowed, because I am not aware of any edits I've made in a couple weeks on these topics that has not been objected to and reverted in one article or another? You're saying I actually made significant edits that were allowed? JJB 11:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Continued BRD is not a good idea, nor is a pattern of BRD. Nor do I agree with your understanding of BRD (which as Dylan says, is not an essay and as it says "is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." The problem is when you make a number of changes at once, some major, some minor, it's difficult to revert only some of them and not all, and even harder to discuss them all. There are times when it is a useful method of editing, and many times when it is not. I've used BRD before, but generally when I edit I try to separate out different types of edits. Dylan's advice is good. I doubt that it would be taken as a threat of edit war. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary

message: 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.
#More accurate phrasing re Merneptah, citing Coogan, seems like nothing for Dylan to quibble over, but an artifact of his cold-revert style.
#Replacing Lemche's generic statement with Dever's specific statement about highland Israel also seems a clear improvement.
#Expanding on McNutt's statements and citing specific page numbers rather than ranges also seems a clear improvement.
#Expanding on the highland distinctives from one source to three also seems a clear improvement.
#The slight expansion of the sentence about village population also seems to be less than a quibble.
Naturally the source list would follow the text. Review of the diff shows nothing worth preserving in "Dylan's" text that has not been retained. Accordingly, Dylan should state, specifically and point-by-point, why he prefers the old version as not being a consensus on this page. JJB 04:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call BRD a "cold" reversion, and I certainly wouldn't call that the consensus. Moving the discussion here, away from its source, seems tantamount to forum-shopping. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Venerated 

message: 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)
thread_title: Joshua's Tomb in Istanbul

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

message: 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 (). 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 (), so Saul dies 488 years after Joshua dies. From Saul's death to David's is 40 years (), so David dies 528 years after Joshua. From the death of David to the death of Ahab is 163 years(), so Ahab dies 691 after Joshua's death. From the death of Ahab to the captivity of the ten tribes is 157 years (), 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 (), 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 (), 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 (). 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)
thread_title:  Why I removed some dates. 

message: 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)
replies: text: I see two sentences. Which one doesn't make sense? Alephb (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I was tired and read "Caleb E. Meyer". Sorry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that makes sense. No need to apologize for asking a question! Alephb (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: I have started a discussion here. Arminden (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The three "tombs" in Kifl Haris: fishy 

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

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

message: Change "Legend has it" to "According to legend" in first sentence of 'In science' section.
Add [] to the term pioneer in the same sentence. Cheesmanjc (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: </br>
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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023 

message: Please add the article to :Category:Book of Deuteronomy people —-W2024 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Category for Joshua article

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology: none yet, really