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)