naturally to the wilderness of Shur, and it associates him with traditions of a movement direct into south Palestine which finds its counterpart when the clan Caleb (q.v.) is artificially treated as possessing its seats with Joshua’s permission. But points of resemblance between Joshua the invader and Saul the founder of the (north) Israelite monarchy gain in weight when the traditions of both recognize the inclusion or possession of Judah, and thus stand upon quite another plane as compared with those of David the founder of the Judaean dynasty. Instead of rejecting the older stories of Joshua’s conquests it may be preferable to infer that there were radical divergences in the historical views of the past. Consequently, the parallels between Joshua and Jacob (see Steuernagel’s Commentary, p. 150) are more significant when the occupation of central Palestine, already implied in the book of Joshua, is viewed in the light of Gen. xlviii. 22, where Jacob as conqueror (cf. the very late form of the tradition in Jubilees xxxiv.) agrees with features in the patriarchal narratives which, in implying a settlement in Palestine, are entirely distinct from those which belong to the descent into Egypt (see especially, Meyer, op. cit. pp. 227 seq., 414 seq., 433; Luther, ib. 108 seq.). The elaborate account of the exodus gives the prevailing views which supersede other traditions of the origin both of the Israelites and of the worship of Yahweh (Gen. iv. 26). Several motives have influenced its growth,[1] and the kernel—the revelation of Yahweh to Moses—has been developed until all the tribes of Israel are included and their history as a people now begins. The old traditions of conquest in central Palestine have similarly been extended, and have been adapted to the now familiar view of Israelite origins. It is this subordination of earlier tradition to other and more predominating representations which probably explains the intricacy of a book whose present text may not have been finally fixed until, as Dillmann held, as late as about 200 B.C.
Bibliography.—See the commentaries of Dillmann, Steuernagel Holzinger (German), or the concise edition by H. W. Robinson in the Century Bible; also articles on “Joshua” by G. A. Smith, Hastings’s D. B., and G. F. Moore, Ency. Bib.; Kittel in Hist. of the Hebrews, i. 262 sqq.; W. H. Bennett, in Haupt’s Sacred Books of the Old Testament; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Comp. of Hexateuch, ch. xvii; S. R. Driver, Lit. of the O. T. (8th ed., 1909). These give further bibliographical information, for which see also the articles on the books of the Pentateuch. (S. A. C.)
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-Maḥrē, 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 Zuḳnīn near Āmid, more probably
refers to the compiler of the whole work in which it was incorporated.
Anyhow the author was an eyewitness 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 Sĕrūgh and Philoxenus of Mabbōg, 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 Pērōz (457–484) and Balāsh (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 Kawād 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 Āmid by the Persians (502–503), their unsuccessful siege of Edessa (503), and the abortive attempt of the Greeks to recover Āmid (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. yō’ shiyyāhū, 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[2] 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,[3] 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.)
JÓSIKA, MIKLOS [NICHOLAS], Baron (1794–1865), Hungarian novelist, was born on the 28th of April 1794 at Torda in Transylvania, of aristocratic and wealthy parents. After finishing the usual course of legal studies at Kolozsvár (Klausenburg), he in 1811 entered the army, joining a cavalry regiment, with which he subsequently took part in the Italian campaign. On the battlefield of Mincio (February 8, 1814) he was promoted to the grade of lieutenant. He served in the campaign against Napoleon, and was present at the entry of the Allied Troops into Paris (March 31, 1814). In 1818 Jósika resigned his commission, returned to Hungary, and married his first wife
- ↑ 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.).
- ↑ Or “Magdolos” (Herod, ii. 159), i.e. some “Migdal” (tower) of Judaea, not the Migdol of Exod. xiv. 2; Jer. xliv. 1.
- ↑ See Zeit. f. Alttest. Wissenschaft (1902), pp. 170 seq., 312 seq.; Journ Bib. Lit. (1903), p. 50.
