[1] Heb. _Jehoshua_; later _Jeshua_; Gr. [Greek: Iêsous], whence
"Jesus" in the A.V. of Heb. iv. 8; another form of the name is Hoshea
(Num. xiii. 8, 16). The name may mean "Yah(weh) is wealth, _or_ is
(our) war-cry, _or_ saves." The only extra-biblical notice of Joshua
is the inscription of more than doubtful genuineness given by
Procopius (_Vand._ ii. 20), and mentioned also by Moses of Chorene
(_Hist. Arm._ i. 18). It is said to have stood at Tingis in
Mauretania, and to have borne that those who erected it had fled
before [Greek: Iêsous ho lêstês]. For the medieval Samaritan Book of
Joshua, see T. Juynboll, _Chronicum Samaritanum_ (1846); J. A.
Montgomery, _The Samaritans_ (1907), pp. 301 sqq.
[2] Traces of composite material may be recognized--(a) where, in
place of boundaries, P has given lists of cities which appear to be
taken from other sources (cf. the instructions in xviii. 9), and (b)
in the double headings (see Addis, _The Hexateuch_, i. 230, note 1,
and the commentaries).
[3] The close relation between what may be called the Deuteronomic
history (Joshua-Kings) and its introduction (the legal book of
Deuteronomy) independently show the difficulty of supporting the
traditional date ascribed to the latter.
[4] G. F. Moore (_Ency. Bib._, col. 2608, note 2) draws attention to
the instructive parallel furnished by the Greek legends of the Dorian
invasion of the Peloponnesus (the "return" of the Heracleidae, the
partition of the land by lot, &c.).
[5] The historical problems are noticed in all biblical histories,
and in the commentaries on Joshua and Judges. Against the ordinary
critical view, see J. Orr, _Problem of the O.T._ (1905) pp. 240 seq.
This writer (on whom see A. S. Peake, _The Interpreter_, 1908, pp.
252 seq.) takes the book as a whole, allowance being made for "the
generalizing tendency peculiar to all summaries." His argument that
"the circumstantiality, local knowledge and evidently full
recollection of the narratives (in Joshua) give confidence in the
truth of their statements" is one which historical criticism in no
field would regard as conclusive, and his contention that a redactor
would hardly incorporate conflicting traditions in his narrative "if
he believed they contradicted it" begs the question and ignores
Oriental literature.
[6] E.g. the vicissitudes of Levitical families, other migrations
into Palestine, &c. The story of Joseph has probably been used as a
link (see Luther, _op. cit._ pp. 142 seq.).
JOSHUA THE STYLITE, the reputed author of a chronicle which narrates the
history of the war between the Greeks and Persians in 502-506, and which
is one of the earliest and best historical documents preserved to us in
Syriac. The work owes its preservation to having been incorporated in
the third part of the history of pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, and may
probably have had a place in the second part of the _Ecclesiastical
History_ of John of Asia, from whom (as Nau has shown) pseudo-Dionysius
copied all or most of the matter contained in his third part. The
chronicle in question is anonymous, and Nau has shown that the note of a
copyist, which was thought to assign it to the monk Joshua of Zuknin
near Amid, more probably refers to the compiler of the whole work in
which it was incorporated. Anyhow the author was an eye-witness of many
of the events which he describes, and must have been living at Edessa
during the years when it suffered so severely from the Persian War. His
view of events is everywhere characterized by his belief in overruling
Providence; and as he eulogizes Flavian II., the Chalcedonian patriarch
of Antioch, in warmer terms than those in which he praises his great
Monophysite contemporaries, Jacob of Serugh and Philoxenus of Mabbog, he
was probably an orthodox Catholic.
The chronicle was first made known by Assemani's abridged Latin
version (_B. O._ i. 260-283) and was edited in 1876 by the abbé Martin
and (with an English translation) by W. Wright in 1882. After an
elaborate dedication to a friend--the "priest and abbot" Sergius--a
brief recapitulation of events from the death of Julian in 363 and a
fuller account of the reigns of the Persian kings Peroz (457-484) and
Balash (484-488), the writer enters upon his main theme--the history
of the disturbed relations between the Persian and Greek Empires from
the beginning of the reign of Kawad I. (489-531), which culminated in
the great war of 502-506. From October 494 to the conclusion of peace
near the end of 506, the author gives an annalistic account, with
careful specification of dates, of the main events in Mesopotamia, the
theatre of conflict--such as the siege and capture of Amid by the
Persians (502-503), their unsuccessful siege of Edessa (503), and the
abortive attempt of the Greeks to recover Amid (504-505). The work was
probably written a few years after the conclusion of the war. The
style is graphic and straightforward, and the author was evidently a
man of good education and of a simple, honest mind. (N. M.)
JOSIAH (Heb. _yo' shiyyahu_, perhaps "Yah[weh] supports"), in the Bible,
the grandson of Manasseh, and king of Judah. He came to the throne at
the age of eight, after the murder of his predecessor Amon. The
circumstances of his minority are not recorded, nor is anything related
of the Scythian inroads which occurred in the latter half of the 7th
century B.C., although some passages in the books of Jeremiah and
Zephaniah are supposed to refer to the events. The storm which shook the
external states was favourable to the peace of Judah; the Assyrian power
was practically broken, and that of the Chaldeans had scarcely developed
into an aggressive form. Samaria thus lay within the grasp of Josiah,
who may have entertained hopes of forming an independent power of his
own. Otherwise, it is not clear why we find him opposing himself to the
Egyptian king Necho, since the assumption that he fought as an Assyrian
vassal scarcely agrees with the profound reforming policy ascribed to
him. At all events, at the battle of Megiddo[1] he lost both his kingdom
and his life (608 B.C.), and for a few years Judah was in the hands of
Egypt (2 Kings xxiii. 29 seq.). The chronicler gives a rather different
account of the battle, and his allusion to the dirge uttered by Jeremiah
over his death (2 Chron. xxxv. 20-25; 1 Esd. i. 32) represents the
tradition which makes this prophet the author of the book of
Lamentations.
The reign of Josiah is important for the biblical account of the great
religious reforms which began in his eighteenth year, when he manifested
interest in the repair of the Temple at Jerusalem. In the course of this
work the high priest Hilkiah discovered a "law-book" which gave rise to
the liveliest concern. The reasons for believing that this roll was
substantially identical with the book of Deuteronomy were already
appreciated by Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret and others,[2] and a
careful examination shows that the character of the reformation which
followed agrees in all its essential features with the prescriptions and
exhortations of that book. (See DEUTERONOMY.) But the detailed records
in 2 Kings xxii. seq. are evidently written under the influence of the
reforms themselves, and are not contemporary (see KINGS, BOOK OF). They
are further expanded, to agree with still later ideals, in 2 Chron.
xxxiv. seq. The original roll was short enough to be read at least twice
in a day (xxii. 8, 10), and hence only some portions of Deuteronomy (or
of an allied production) may be intended. Although the character of the
reforms throws remarkable light upon the condition of religion in Judah
in the time of Josiah, it is to be observed that the writings of the
contemporary prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel) make it very questionable
whether the narratives are thoroughly trustworthy for the history of the
king's measures. (See further JEWS, § 16.) (S. A. C.)