Talk:Josephus

Should his full Jewish name Yosef ben Matityahu be mentioned in lead sentence?

In the lead sentence, his Roman name (Flavius Josephus) is recited, which he adopted in A.D. 69. Before then he had a Jewish name, which I think also ought to be given in the lead sentence, so that the lead sentence would read as follows:

“ Flavius Josephus (/dʒoʊˈsiːfəs/; Greek: Ἰώσηπος, Iṓsēpos; c. AD 37 – c. 100), earlier known as Yosef ben Matityahu, was a 1st-century Roman–Jewish historian and military leader.

References

”

The full Jewish name is not as well known as the Roman Josephus (or Flavius Josephus), but it is standard practice for Wikipedia to include birth name in lead sentence, see e.g. Cher. This matter was discussed in the preceding talk page section, but that section started before the proposed version was developed (i.e. before the Goodman source was added, and before another version of Josephus’s name was removed). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, “The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that were abbreviated or omitted in the article's title. For example, the article on Calvin Coolidge gives his name as John Calvin Coolidge Jr. If a person changed their full name at some point after birth, the birth name may be given as well, if relevant.” It is relevant because he was a Jew who became a Roman so both the Jewish and Roman names are correct and provide a fuller picture of the subject. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• He never changed his name of birth aside from adding a Latin name. Patronymics were common at the time, but virtually no Wikipedia article includes them in the lede unless it's part of an official naming convention. It should not be added in the present article either. The proposed addition is not his "full Jewish name", and is only mentioned by a statistically meaningless number of English sources. Avilich (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, we should make sure the lead paragraph never mentions the Jewish name “Yosef” that he was born with, but only the Roman name he used later in life? Should we also delete the following footnote from the article?

“ Ben-Ari, Nitsa (2003). "The double conversion of Ben-Hur: a case of manipulative translation" (PDF). Target. 14 (2): 263–301. doi:10.1075/target.14.2.05ben. Retrieved 28 November 2011. The converts themselves were banned from society as outcasts and so was their historiographic work or, in the more popular historical novels, their literary counterparts. Josephus Flavius, formerly Yosef Ben Matityahu (34–95), had been shunned, then banned as a traitor. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I would put ‘Jewish traitor” in the lead. Agree? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

An IP added the full Jewish name with patronymic in the lead,[1] so I restored just the Jewish name without the patronymic,[2] because the patronymic seems to be the point of contention. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This needs an honest clean up.

The Josephus references to "Jesus" etc. are known later edited forgery. Sparky (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Literary Influence and Translations

The opening of this section asserts common non facts about Josephus. There is no evidence of Josephus being considered a traitor in any Rabbinic or Jewish texts until the nineteenth century. Though the author of this section notes “parallel tales “ of Josephus in rabbinic texts, they fail to mention that it is Josephus’ tale of his supposed treachery, that becomes the founding story of the first yeshiva. In other words, the Rabbis identify with Josephus, and take his story and his evaluation of the Zealots as thugs as their point of view. Josephus’ encounter w Vespasian is recounted with Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai filling in for Josephus. And it is this rabbinic homage to Josephus, praising rabbis who escaped death in the seige of Jerusalem, that ultimately makes it difficult for rabbinic Jews in our own day, to talk about Josephus, not because Josephus is considered a traitor. We know the tale is taken from Josephus because the Babylonian Talmud used Vespasian as the general who met Rabbi Yochanan. But if Rabbi Yochanan had really met a Roman general, it would have been Titus since Vespasian had returned to Rome to become emperor by that time. So the author of this article has covered up the significance of “parallel tales” of Josephus in rabbinic texts. Moreover when Rashi misidentifies the author of the Yosipon as Josephus, there seems to be no problem at all for Jews to embrace this text and it becomes one of their most beloved collections for centuries. There is no evidence of widespread dislike of Josephus among Rabbinic Jews in the ancient or medieval period. The author of this article has to fabricate “a softening” to explain this acceptance of the Yosipon. Josephus only becomes labeled a traitor among some Zionistic and anti rabbinic Jews beginning in the late nineteenth century. The truth is that Josephus resembles Jeremiah in many ways. Ask this author to provide one shred of evidence that Josephus was considered a traitor to his own people from anywhere from 70ce to 1800ce. He’s not mentioned in the Talmud because his story becomes the story of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai! HaggaiZechariah (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have discovered that Jewish commentary on Josephus goes back to at least the 1500’s and not the late nineteenth century as I earlier maintained. This is found in work of Isaac Abravanel. However, I still maintain that the use of Josephus’ personal narrative in the depiction of the life of Ben Zakkai must be taken as an indication of rabbinic support for Josephus’ choice to remain alive and for acceptance of support from the Emperor. The Babylonian Talmud tells tales of Zealot treachery like Josephus and labels them as “biryonim” or thugs as does Josephus. There decidedly at least two streams of rabbinic tradition, one pacifist and one warlike. One which does not recount the battles of the Maccabean warriors and another which lionizes the rabbinic martyrs killed by Romans after the Bar Kochba Revolt. But there is no question that Josephus’ story has been taken up by the pacifists who dominated Jewish life until the Holocaust. HaggaiZechariah (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Though there have been some edits in response to my first post, the author(s) persist in several ways of maintaining a completely non factual notion that Jews in the ancient and early Middle Ages widely considered Josephus a traitor. Stated in this article: “ On the Jewish side, Josephus was far more obscure as he was perceived as a traitor.” I ask the author(s)to provide one shred of evidence that this is the case from 70-1400 ce. Moreover in the following sentence, they fail to exemplify their second claim : “Rabbinical writings for a millennium after his death (e.g. the Mishnah) almost never call Josephus by name although they sometimes tell parallel tales of the events Josephus narrated.” The author(s) fail to produce these narratives because they prove that not only was Josephus not considered a traitor by the rabbis but rather his personal story becomes the story of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai’s founding of Yavneh in the Babylonian Talmud Gittin 56a-b. Ben Zakkai sneaks out of the Jerusalem seige, meets with Vespasian, tells he will be king, and in exchange for the prophesy gets a yeshiva in Yavne. We know this narrative comes from Josephus not only because it follows the same story but also because by the time the Jerusalem seige began (years after Josephus’ Jotapata event) Vespasian had already become emperor and Titus was the general. Yet Ben Zakkai is described as meeting Vespasian just like Josephus did. So Ben Zakkai could not have met Vespasian. The rabbis who compiled the Babylonian Talmud are certainly importing Josephus whole narrative proudly and are not ashamed at all of Ben Zakkai being sneaked out of besieged Jerusalem in a coffin ( an original addition to what is Josephus story). Unfortunately, proponents of rabbis cannot be too supportive of Josephus because then they have to acknowledge that the narrative of Ben Zakkai has been lifted from Josephus. So many Orthodox Jews then maintain that Josephus took the story from the Talmud! So Josephus can’t get too much support from Rabbinic Jews even though their fundamental beliefs in seeking life over suicide dovetail. When the authors of this article write that/ “ Josephus’ critics were never satisfied as to why he failed to commit suicide in Galilee and after his capture accepted patronage by the Romans” they are talking about folks in our time because we have no statements from the Zealots or any of Josephus’ critics from his time or even a thousand years later! Nor are they referring to the authors of the Babylonian Talmud. Rather they are referring to certain ideologues from the late nineteenth century and much more commonly people in the twentieth century who subscribe to nationalist inspired suicide. The author(s) cite a ban on reading Josephus from Nitsa Ben Ari but I am sceptical about this or when such a ban existed. If Josephus had been a maligned figure there is no way that the Yosippon would have become as popular as it was with Rashi giving it a seal of approval and affirming its Josephus authorship. I am waiting for the author(s) to acknowledge that the narrative of the traitorous Josephus is a late one and that in fact his story of supposed treachery is the basis of the story of the founding of Yavneh. Moreover the famed prophet Jeremiah who also forthrightly condemned the rebellion of Jerusalem against the Babylonians and who met a Babylonian general and was granted a role in the administration of a new Babylonian province, is never considered a traitor. Although there are many fine summaries of facts in this article it continues to be very out of touch basic traditional Jewish notions of accommodation, non rebelliousness, and life affirming pragmatism. If the authors wish to be factual they are going to have be accurate about the period in which Josephus became a figure of great contention. In truth, this does not happen until recent times. Wikipedia deserves a truthful assessment of Josephus’ critics. Statements like attitudes “softened “ towards Josephus in the twentieth century are pure bosh. Quite the opposite happened. Hardly any Jews even knew the real works of Josephus until the late nineteenth century. And in one place the authors acknowledge this. Until that time, Josephus was known as the author as one of the popular Jewish books of all time beside the TaNAK and Talmud: the Yossifon. HaggaiZechariah (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Spurious source in this article

This article quotes Nitsa Ben Ari as a source for claiming that Josephus’ works were banned because he was considered a traitor. Ben Ari’s piece has almost nothing to do w Josephus but is rather focused on translation in Hebrew literature. She herself would make no claims to expertise in the subject of Josephus and merely quotes another secondary (if not tertiary) source regarding these bannings giving no dates names or places. Ben Ari is so oblivious to the history of Josephus and his reception that the two lines she gives to mentioning Josephus she mistakenly believes that his work was written in Latin. Ben Ari writes “His Latin historical reports of rebellion against the Romans…had been banned by those scholars who dealt with Jewish history for many generations and in spite of its more or less legitimate place in world history, hundreds of years passed before it could be accepted by early Jewish historiography as anything but the biased, fraudulent testimony of a traitor, let alone be translated into Hebrew.” Not only does Ben Ari not realize that Josephus wrote first in Aramaic and then in Greek but she fails to realize that the translation of Josephus into Hebrew was only an issue in the 20th century! And if Josephus’ traitorous nature had been such a popular notion in centuries after his death it truly is a wonder how the Yosippon commonly attributed to Josephus became one of the most popular Jewish book from the Middke ages well into the modern period. How Ben Artsi’s article on Hebrew translation became a valid source for the history of Jewish attitude to Josephus is beyond me. The author of this article is heavily clouded by negative attitudes to Josephus which were developed among Zionists living in British Palestine and then Israel. Although Josephus was a controversial figure in earlier Jewish scholarship, I have not yet seen evidence of even awareness of Josephus until the very late Middle Ages nor am I aware of widespread bans on his works HaggaiZechariah (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ben Ari is a scholar. I don't see anything wrong with the source. Of course, if she has received rebuttals, those can be put in the article to contrast. It seems you are new. Please note that wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page is not a place to discuss the truth of the matter from scholarship, but to present what sources have to say on the topic. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ben Ari has not done any work directly related to Josephus nor has she written directly on the reception of his work. She does not reveal any of her sources as to the banning of reading Josephus. her only footnote is about the reception go the work of Jost in the early1800s. Most translation into Hebrew began in the 20th century, and yet she conflates controversy about translating Josephus into Hebrew with "centuries". That being said, I am new here and I am very frustrated with what is being presented as fact and do not know how to challenge these here. 2601:644:401:5640:3C8E:B6BF:9B17:3E31 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

excuse me . I made Ramos' error in quoting the "scholar". her name is Ben Artsi 2601:644:401:5640:3C8E:B6BF:9B17:3E31 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

sorry. It was my error 2601:644:401:5640:3C8E:B6BF:9B17:3E31 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I hear you. In wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say. She is an academic the paper in question is from a peer-reviewed journal so it meets the criteria of WP:RS. Reliable sources are not about if what a source says is true, it has to do with publication oversight. If she is very wrong, I am sure she would have been challenged by another scholar on it. Do you have another reliable source that challenges her view? Say a book or research paper? That would help. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)