Talk:Josiah

message: I'm not sure what would be the best place for it:  maybe Deuteronomist? Grover cleveland (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Chronological note" section does not belong in this article

message: Much of this article is good: parts of it are utterly horrid. Such as the paragraph that starts out "After the Book of the Torah was found in the Temple....." The book wasn't "found:" it was very clearly written at the time, as it contains a large number of anachronisms that date the writing to the time of Josiah and afterwards, into the time of Darius I. We know the book was written during the time of the tyrant Josiah because it makes many mentions of events at that time, using words and phrases that didn't exist earlier; it also uses Old Persian Cuneiform that dates part of the text to the time of Darius I. Why doesn't the main article go into better detail with these facts? --Desertphile (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Assumption in the Article is Contrary to the Evidence 

message: The article as it stands tends to present the issue from a devotional perspective and subtly denigrates mainstream Bible scholars as "modern critics."  Wellhausen, whose work is foundational, is presented as if his fundamental synthesis has been thoroughly debunked in mainstream scholarship, which it decidedly has not.  The "Chronological Notes" section is original research-- it contains citations, but the synthesis and conclusion are that of the wikipedian who wrote it, so it doesn't belong here.  I request permission to remove it, and to neutralize the the tone of the rest of the article.--76.78.57.66 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Needs Revamp

message: "The chief textual sources of information for Josiah's reign are 2 Kings 22-23 and 2 Chronicles 34-35. Considerable archaeological evidence exists, including a number of "scroll-style" stamps which date to his reign.[citation needed]"
The first part of the above sentence is easily verifiable. But I have found no reliable source for the second part, i.e., archaeological evidence that points to a king named Josiah in that place and period of time. If nobody points to that evidence, I think we should clarify that no archaeological evidence exist to date regarding that name.
Ignacio González (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement in the article that archaeological evidence exists is, in fact, completely wrong. The opposite is true. I will try to fix it.Smeat75 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources section needs sources!

message: "Historical-critical biblical scholarship generally accepts that this scroll — an early predecessor of the Torah — was written by the priests driven by ideological interest to centralize power under Josiah in the Temple in Jerusalem, and that the core narrative from Joshua to 2 Kings up to Josiah's reign comprises a "Deuteronomistic History" (DtrH) written during Josiah's reign.[17] 
On the other hand, recent European theologians posit that most of the Torah and Deuteronomistic History was composed and its form finalized during Persian period, several centuries later.[18]"
Id there some missing information which would mean that the first sentence is contradicted in some way by the second.
Why can both statements not be accurate? If so then delete "On the other hand".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimstutt (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  political interest and later finishing of the torah 

message: Hello! I would like to add the following under the section about the book of the law:
According to George E. Mendenhall, King Josiah then changed his form of leadership entirely, entering into a new form of covenant with the Lord. Because of what was known as the "book of the law" he wiped out all of the pagan cults that had formed within his land. He, along with his people, then entered into this new covenant with the Lord to keep the commandments of the Lord. According to Mendenhall, in this covenant the Lord was merely a witness to the covenant instead of an actual participant. This defines the covenant as a vassal treaty - a treaty in which the suzerain owes something to it's vassals. Because this covenant had just been discovered, it had to be formed into coalition with the covenant that King Josiah's people were already serving under, the Abrahamic covenant.
Let me know what you think! I'm open to any feedback.
Grahamcrackered (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that meant to be The Biblical Archaeologist? StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Grahamcrackered -- I'd change Lord to God, or similar, for a more encyclopedic (non-religious) style. Also, need to say a bit more about vassal treaty and give a hyperlink to Suzerainty I think. In any case, good contribution to this article, good selection. ProfGray (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Grahamcrackered - I don't think that's actually what Mendenhall said. His paper (a very famous one) analyzed the structure of Bibilcal covenants and linked them to Hittite treaty forms. Later scholars have linked Deuteronomy more closely to Assyrian forms. The paper was highly influential, but is now extremely outdated - don't use it.PiCo (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

text:  (Later): Maybe I owe you something more, like a reason for nor relying on Mendenhall and an alternative. The reason is simple: Mendenhall's article is over 60 years old. Scholarship is a conversation, one that continues over decades and even centuries. The revelations of one age are critiqued by the next, and then again and again and again. For this reason, more recent views are always preferable. If I were writing about Josiah, which I'm not, I'd go to a pretty recent general source like Eerdman's commentary on the Bible or the Oxford commentary or whatever - those big-publisher books will always tell you the broadly accepted view. I'd look up Josiah and also Deuteronomy, and maybe covenant, and see what's generally accepted these days. And only then would I write anything. Anyway, cheers :) PiCo (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical theories on how King Josiah's leadership changed after reading the book of the law 

message: In that article, it says that josiah’s death is confirmed with Egyptian records. this article says that Josiah is never mentioned in (non Biblical) records. which is correct? --Comment by  Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. The Amon article means that the military campaign in which Josiah is said to have died in the Bible is confirmed in Egyptian records, which do not specifically mention Josiah. I have clarified the other article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with [[Amon of judah]] article 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malachi-Phree Jasiah. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malachi-Phree Jasiah listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Josiah had two wives of certain genelogies.  Two sons of those wives.
Johanan seems to be the oldest? Where is he in the succession?
The article says the youngest son Shallum was placed on the thrown.  Zedekiah is the youngest son by 15 years!
Zedekiah was the second-born of Hamutal, but the fourth born of everyone.
If I do my maths correctly, Josiah was 12, 14, 15, 30 when he had Johanan, Eliakim, Shallum, Zedekiah. [Jeremiah comes onto the scene when Josiah is 21]
Which mother was the Queen mother and which was the Consort mother?  Which mother had ties to Babylon (if any)?  Which mother had ties to Egypt (if any)?
It seems like Egypt deposing Shallum is and indication of which mother they were aligned with politically? 184.166.55.112 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Tree