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.)
[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.