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 (Trimm, 2021), 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) 04:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Did God command genocide or not? on YouTube tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Kiernan

@Cdjp1: Kiernan (2014) does not have to agree. It just has to say that that is a mainstream academic view.

I.e. sometimes scholars are WP:CITED, but not for their own views. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The issue is it is extremely vague and doesn't specify this case, which is how the sentence was using it. some have considered it anachronistic to apply the term to ancient or early modern mass killings even when they fit the mid-twentieth-century definition. While this article is that Other scholars counter that calling what the book of Joshua relates a "genocide" is anachronistic. when no such evidence is presented in the paper. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It could be used as a footnote stating how some scholars disagree with using the term genocide for events that occurred in ancient history. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: I have WP:CITED three pages from that source. I cannot quote everything for copyright reasons. I can expand the quote, though. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem is not the quotes, the problem persists as I laid them out, they are not specific to support the specificity of the sentence. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

As I stated It could be used as a footnote stating how some scholars disagree with using the term genocide for events that occurred in ancient history.. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Context

Okay the more and more I being reading the sources the more I realize the issue with this article.

This article is making all these claims but fails to provide any proper context to what the sources are saying.

For example one of the sources cited here saying this: “None of this means that an Israelite conquest of Canaan did not happen.” this source.

So in order to fix this I am going to get the books and read through the sources to get better context.

(Typing this on phone, forgive issues.) CycoMa2 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@CycoMa2: See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/ tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Look we discussed years ago and you’re still missing my point. I kindly ask you to stop that. CycoMa2 (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@CycoMa2: Could you be more specific: discussed what, and where?

In other words, modern Jews from Israel speak a Canaanite language, use a Canaanite alphabet, and have Canaanite DNA.

"Most Israelites were actually of Canaanite stock; their ancestors did not participate in an Exodus from Egypt; Israelites did not build the pyramids!!!" http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf https://courses.biblicalarchaeology.org/hebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu In all honesty I don’t know what specifically needs fixing.

That is why I am planning n getting the books. CycoMa2 (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu & @CycoMa2: This recent source defends the historicity of an Israelite conquest of Canaan in light of recent archaeological evidence and rejects the unproven theory that the Israelites came from the Canaanites. I think it should be included in the article. What do you think? Potatín5 (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Unproven? Preposterous. Jews from the modern state of Israel speak a Canaanite language, write using a Canaanite alphabet, and have Canaanite DNA.

Hawkins teaches at a Baptist university, so he probably writes apologetics. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

When the Visigoths conquered the Iberian Peninsula, they adopted the local Latin language, the local Latin alphabet and intermixed with the local population (Iberian DNA), yet they were not of Iberian origin. Potatín5 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have more trust in Shaye J. D. Cohen than in a professor from a Baptist university. WP:UNDUE. See https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/how-israel-became-a-people/ (the gist: what Hawkins claims is not well accepted).

Googling "Ralph K. Hawkins Joshua" (without the quote marks, only results from the past year), there aren't any responses to Hawkins, with the exception of WP:FRINGE outlets.

Even performing that search for all years: there is not much mainstream response to Hawkins.

Which Bible scholars are contractually obligated to arrive at certain conclusion? on YouTube In other words, the conclusion that the Bible is historically accurate is dictated by his employment. And he does not seem to complain about it.

Could critical Bible scholarship be erased? on YouTube tgeorgescu (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

References