Talk:Josiah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

"was praised for this piety by one of the prophets, Huldah, the only female prophet mentioned in the Bible, who made the prophecy that all involved would die peacefully (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chr. 34:22-28)."


Untitled[edit]

What about Deborah? I'm taking out that bit about her being the only female prophet.

Possible written origins of Jewish scripture[edit]

The following POV contentious paragraph is pure speculation by Bible critics who are creating their own theories and disregarding the plain meaning/s of the texts. They are also disparaging the normative understandings of the texts by classical Judaism and Christianity. IZAK 09:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Several professors of archaeology argue (not without controversy, to be sure) that many stories in the Hebrew Scriptures, including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, David, and others, were first synthesized from pre-existing oral traditions into a written form by scribes under King Josiah. This unified and centralized the state of Judah around the worship of Yahweh based at the Temple in Jerusalem, and also portrayed King Josiah as the legitmate successor to the legendary David and thus the rightful ruler of Judah. According to this interpretation, neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Persia, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC, and the archaeological record of pre-Josiac Israel does not support the existence of a unified state in the time of David. See Dating the Bible and The Bible and history. Such claims are detailed in Who Were the Early Israelites? by William G. Dever (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2003). Another such book is The Bible Unearthed by Neil A. Silberman and Israel Finkelstein (Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001).

Please add your comments. Thank you. IZAK 09:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The dating of the Deuteronomistic history to the time of Josiah is not controversial among Bible scholars.--Rob117 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not, but the article should contain a) why some scholars think these works date to the time of Josiah, and b) citations of some sources for this.74.192.211.225 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
IZAK is actually right about the court narrative of David's and Solomon's reigns: it was likely written down around the time of Solomon's son Rehoboam. The Deuteronomist adapted that record into his history a couple of centuries later. He is also right that arguments for Biblical Minimalism outside the reign of Josiah have no place in an article about Josiah.
But where IZAK could have clarified the statement, he chose instead to slander the scholars by calling their work "pure speculation". His argument boils down to: "I, in the name of the true believers among Jews and Christians, don't like it because it offends me; and I'm going to arrogate to myself the right to speak on their behalf." I do hope that this troll stays under his bridge. In the meantime I'm reinstating the relevant parts of the quoted text. - Zimriel 14:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

JOSIAH WAS A GREAT KING HE DID ALOT OF GREAT THINGS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER KING LIKE HIM71.77.133.100 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)--71.77.133.100 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add the pronunciation for the actual Hebrew name of Yosiyyahu. My name is Josiah and for some reason not a single Hebrew name site lists my name. I became very frustrated. All I want to do is pronounce my name correctly in Hebrew not English.

I do not know how to say it, but my name is also Josiah and I would like to know it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidarkrex (talkcontribs) 09:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a big one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProyousArt (talkcontribs) 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Chronological note" section does not belong in this article[edit]

I'm not sure what would be the best place for it: maybe Deuteronomist? Grover cleveland (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An Assumption in the Article is Contrary to the Evidence[edit]

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)

Article Needs Revamp[edit]

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)

Sources section needs sources![edit]

"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)

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)

political interest and later finishing of the torah[edit]

"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 (talkcontribs) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Critical theories on how King Josiah's leadership changed after reading the book of the law[edit]

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.[1]

Let me know what you think! I'm open to any feedback.

Grahamcrackered (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that meant to be The Biblical Archaeologist? StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
    • ^ Mendenhall, George (September 1954). "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition". The Biblical Archaeologists. Vol. 17 (3): 73–76.