Talk:Book of Joshua

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 [B]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 Wikipedia 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; later edit: it's not Olyan, it's Lemos;
• 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) 20:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit

@tgeorgescu Regarding this, I believe this may have been a good edit. The citation lists many sources which talk about genocide, but do not link Joshua to it (so essentially it is uncited and is original research). It also does not belong in the lead of all segments. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman: I don't understand what you mean by do not link Joshua to it (so essentially it is uncited and is original research). Have you read the sources? It doesn't look like you did. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

More precisely: do you mean the mythological character of Joshua (as far as scholars can tell, he wasn't a historical person), or do you mean the Book of Joshua? This is an article about the Book of Joshua. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

hmm. Nevermind, I jumped the gun here. Apologies 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Scholars who disagree

Hi, Zero0000. Scholars who disagree state that the term "genocide" is an anachronism. It's not WP:V to all those sources, just to some of them. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@IP: Use of the word 'genocide' is anachronistic— yup, some scholars do say that. and interpretation pertaining to Book of Joshua is not a debated idea by significant majority of biblical scholars or historians—see how many mainstream WP:RS I have WP:CITED. I could double or triple their number quite easily.

In other words: it's a commonplace in Bible scholarship, so your claim that it wouldn't be a widespread POV is ridiculous. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)