Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Book of Joshua" in English language version.
In sum, the biblical conquest of Canaan, though employing more ancient forms, motifs, and traditions, originated as such as a reflex of the revanchist reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. The episodes of Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon which form the bulk of the Conquest account [...] are complex narratives which address numerous issues, but their main purpose is to intimidate potential opponents of Davidic centralization.
Besides the rejection of the Albrightian 'conquest' model, the general consensus among OT scholars is that the Book of Joshua has no value in the historical reconstruction. They see the book as an ideological retrojection from a later period—either as early as the reign of Josiah or as late as the Hasmonean period.
It behooves us to ask, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship is that Joshua is a pious fiction composed by the deuteronomistic school, how does and how has the Jewish community dealt with these foundational narratives, saturated as they are with acts of violence against others?
Recent decades, for example, have seen a remarkable reevaluation of evidence concerning the conquest of the land of Canaan by Joshua. As more sites have been excavated, there has been a growing consensus that the main story of Joshua, that of a speedy and complete conquest (e.g. Josh. 11.23: 'Thus Joshua conquered the whole country, just as the LORD had promised Moses') is contradicted by the archaeological record, though there are indications of some destruction and conquest at the appropriate time.
