Talk:Josephus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Josephus is part of WikiProject Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Josephus is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

See the archive Talk:Josephus A1


Contents

[edit] Testimonium Flavianum

I'd like the article to include the "slavonic josephus texts". i've read about them when used as a reference in a book. the text describes Jesus and James, it chronicled the events before, during and after the crucifixition, and it even says (as claimed by the book) that Josephus described Jesus' physical features based on the wanted poster by the roman authorities. Also, i'd like the article include details on "early christian censorship" (if there are any) and to which extent (if any) the works of Josephus censored or edited which might explain (if any exists) why the mention of Jesus by Josephus in his works to be scarce. thx a lot. --Rebskii 17:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) rebskii

See Josephus on Jesus. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conflict?

Can Doc Glasgow explain why there is even a need for compromise? I didn't know there was a conflict. I thought my changes were fairly simple and obvious but I will explain them. It is anachronistic to call the Hebrew Bible "Old Testament" (which is a part of the Christian Bible) here for two reasons. First, the Old Testament did not even exist back then -- the Christian Bible was not canonized unbtil much later. Second, Josephus himself certainly did not consider any of the books of the Bible he was referring to as "Old Testament." Finally, it should be obvious and uncontentious that Josephus is much more important to Jewish history than to Christian history. Most scholars do not think he says much at all about Jesus and Christians, period. I am not denying that scholars of Christianity may read Josephus and certainly didn't make any edit that leaves this out, but it is certainly secondary to the importance to Jewish history. --Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into an argument here (much less an edit war)- but I can respond to some of this.

Firstly, granted 'Old Testament' is an anachronism, but then so too is 'Hebrew Bible' (which is a modern scholarly construct). Josephus in fact largely uses the LXX and not the Masoritic text. If we are pedantic about this, the article becomes unintelligible to the non-expert. The 'great figures' he speaks of are those we currently find in both the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament (which are related but not identical) - that is why I suggested that both designations should be used.

Certainly, Josephus is a Jew - and barely gives Jesus and his movement a mention. He, himself, would have had no interest in Christian history. However, the decisive factor in the survival of his work was the Christian church's appropriation of his writings - which were cited and copied by early Christian scholars. Further, precisely because he writes at the time, in from the places, that Christianity was formed (first-century Palestine), scholars of Christianity today (whether Christian or not) make particular use of him. He is, in fact, the most important source for scholarship of early Christianity (which is what I had to make clear in the article). Of course he is of interest to understanding first-century Judaism, but reconstructing such Judaism is often, although not always, done precisely in order to understand Christian origins. Further, he is not generally regarded as a reliable source for events much earlier than his own life time - and thus is rarely cited in discussions of the 'Hebrew Bible'. He has, factually, been used more by Christian than Jewish scholars throughout history. --Doc Glasgow 00:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
You say that Josephus was using LXX instead of the Masoretic text, but if my memory serves, Josephus' idea was to translate what might best be called the Bible (although as you said, improperly so). In any case, if the Septuagint was around, why would Josephus write everything that he wrote? And in the end (and somewhat off topic), how did he know that Moses was a great general and of all his exploits? D. F. Schmidt 08:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I think your most recent changes are fine, although I do take exception to your claim that "but reconstructing such Judaism is often, although not always, done precisely in order to understand Christian origins" — this is of course true for Christian scholars, and not true for Jewish scholars; it is a Christo-centric claim. I have no objection to saying Josephus is important to the study of early Christianity, but I do object to "more" or "less" comparisons. By the way, Josephus is not so clearly linked to the Septuagint. He is the first source to use the tripartite division of Hebrew scripture; he did not include all of the books of the Hebrew Bible, but neither did he seem to include all of the books of the Septuagint. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] AD/CE and avoiding edit wars

User:Humus sapiens has changed some of the AD/BC terminology to BCE/CE with the edit comment "please use BCE/CE at least in Jewish-related articles". I was tempted to revert these changes on the grounds:

  1. There is no consensus that AD should be changed to CE, indeed it appears that it is a minority view. I don't even see a consensus for Jewish related articles
  2. There was no attempt to discuss the matter here
  3. Although this is a 'Jewish-related article', it is not a special interest Jewish article - and is likely to be of interest to historians, classicists and students of early Christianity
  4. Some non-specialist users may not be familiar with CE
  5. The original article was in BC/AD notation
  6. As it now stands the notation is inconsistent

However, in a spirit of generosity – and to avoid dispute, I am going to change all notation to a double notation of BCE/BC and CE/AD – I place the ‘Common era’ notation first in sensitivity to the ‘Jewish’ interest nature of the article. I hope this can be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered. --Doc (?) 19:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

IMO no date modifier is needed as all years are AD and the natural assumption where there is no date modifier is that the year is AD rather than BC. If there were a need, assuming we are going for a general worldwide audience "AD" would be most appropriate (as the only notation generally understood worldwide by non-academics). "CE/AD" is just confusing to all accept the historian, who'd understand "AD" anyway. However, as noted, I think the point is moot, neither "AD" nor "CE/AD" need be used, jguk 20:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
That may be your opinion, but conventionally date modifiers are used in articles pertaining to antiquity, for the avoidance of doubt. I'm an AD man myself, and that was the original notation in this article - but the clumsy double notation was put in to avoid edit wars here. Frankly, to jump in here and change the notations, without any discussion is, IMHO, unnecessarily provocative, given the sensitivities on this issue. I'm restoring the original - if you want to change, then debate here and seek a consensus. If you get one, then fair enough. --Doc (?) 11:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Dual symbols just look bad - and confusing. I'm sure that before I ever ventured onto Wikipedia, if I saw such a thing, I'd just not know what it meant and give up reading an article because I'd reason it wasn't written with me in mind. I'm not really sure what the motivation of dual notation was, but it seems unlikely to have been with the reader in mind - which I'd have thought should be the only deciding factor. With readers in mind, I'd have thought we'd have gone for terminology understood by everyone worldwide (ie "AD").

Incidentally, I have been told that the MoS currently supports removing all date modifiers where there are no BC years in an article (although I must admit that as I'm unfamiliar with American academic-speak, I just can't follow what it says at present anyway). I still prefer this approach, as I believe people would read a date without a modifier as being AD, jguk 18:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I agree - that AD etc should not be used when it is clearly needed. 1492 AD is unnecessary. But it is conventional, when the subject is in antiquity to use modifiers at least at first mention, for the avoidance of doubt. Here, I think one entry would be sufficient. Personally, I don't care for the double entry CE/AD - most academic works use a single style - but Wikipedia seems unable to agree one. Since AD was used here first, I am happy with a single AD - but, as others came and changed that, I sought a compromise. --Doc (?) 18:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that CE/AD is worse than either alone, and so, even though I much prefer BCE/CE to BC/AD, I think this article should use AD, given that User:Doc glasgow is a major contributor to this article, I, for one, would be more than happy to respect his wishes. Sortan 05:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I feel that AD is unnecessary here and would much prefer neutral CE, perfectly accepted across the world. Hope I don't need to repeat his contributions in relation to Jewish history. As for "a major contributor", this is a collaborative project, let's not get too possessive. Thanks for understanding other cultures' sensitivities, especially in articles directly related to them. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree about AD and CE, but I feel that CE/AD looks just horrible, and even just AD is preferable. Sortan 09:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Why such insistence on marking that may be offensive to other cultures, esp. in articles directly related to them? I think that for the "students of early Christianity" (as for any other students) it would be doubly beneficial to learn tolerance. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not being possessive, and I'm not claiming my POV should triumph. This article was originaly AD (and I am not the creator). The was an attempt to change it to CE - but there is no consensus for such a change - and I think we can agree that attempts to find a consensus on a preferred system are doomed. I substituted the dual system as an attempt to avoid an unresolvable edit war. Yes, it is unsatisfactory - but then most compromises are. I suggest we leave it alone and go and do something useful. If anyone has a proposal, for which they think they can get a consensus, then I'm happy to support them. But otherwise, let us depart from this futile debate. --Doc (?) 11:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what Humus sapiens means by "marking that may be offensive to other cultures". It doesn't really make sense. If he means BC/AD notation, then I truly doubt it is offensive except to someone who is quite simply unwilling to accept that Christianity exists and who wants to wipe all signs of it away - and quite frankly, I don't care what happens to them - but maybe Humus, unlike me, is lucky to live where they don't have suicide bombers trying to do just that. As for the "may", who cares about "may". "May" means "let's go looking for trouble", jguk 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Let us not have this talk page filled with arguments that have been rehearsed elsewhere ad nauseum. Unless anyone is making a genuine attempt to reach a new consensus – then please stop adding to the troll food! --Doc (?) 12:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to be concise and polite. I called for tolerance and neutrality and in return was gratuitously branded as "someone who is quite simply unwilling to accept that Christianity exists and who wants to wipe all signs of it away". I also strongly resent the comparison to "suicide bombers": all this clearly shows that some editors try to wage some kind of religious wars here. In case I wasn't clear earlier: yes, Before Christ and Anno Domini may be offensive to some Jews in articles related to Jewish history, while Before/Common Era are neutral and commonly accepted. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I can see no new comments despite the recent edit, so I will add that I don't think either AD nor CE add anything new to the article, and as they also have the potential to confuse, should be omitted. AD/CE is particularly silly, and certainly should not be used, jguk 11:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As I have said, dates in the first century commonly do use date modifiers - a reader coming here from another link (say Roman Empire or an ancient Jewish History link) may have been reading BC(E) dates - and thus the first metion of a date here should have a qualifier. That is standard academic practice! If you're not happy with the AD/CE compromise, fine - let's just use CE. If you want to change this article from the status-qu on a contravetial issue like this, then try to establish a consensus. I'm opposing you - and no-one so far is supporting you - so the status-quo should stand. Incidently, I (with others) have been working on this article for some time, whilst you see to have arrived here only to pick a fight on this one issue - I suggest that doesn't give you too much moral authority here. --Doc (?) 12:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To avoid further editing waring between us - I have filled an RfC on the issue. I suggest we both wait and accept what the consensus of others. --Doc (?) 12:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC:are date qualifiers confusing or helpful in an early first century article? (see above dicussion)

In response to the request for comment:

In my opinion, the terms BCE and CE have certain advantages, such as being theologically neutral, but they are not well known amongst the vast majority of English speakers, who this encyclopaedia is and will be read by. In the absence of a Wikipedia policy or guideline, which dictates whether we should BCE/CE or BC/AD, I would strongly recommend that we do what other well known and credible English language encyclopaedias do. According to Official Wikipedia Policy, quote: Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. With this in mind, given that Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta and the Oxford English Dictionary qualify as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidlenes, and they use the terms BC and AD, I believe that BC and AD should be used in this case also. I have not been able to find any dictionary, encyclopaedia or other source which uses BCE and CE or omits a designation altogether yet. As the vast majority of people and most well-known encyclopaedias and dictionaries use BC and AD, I would strongly recommend the usage of these terms here as well. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the issue here is not simply whether AD or CE should prevail, but whether a qualifier (of whatever type) is desirable when the article deals with the first century. Would you care to give a view on that? --Doc (?) 14:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As I have said, most well-known dictionaries and encyclopaedias use BC and AD. I cannot find any encyclopaedias which use BCE and CE, or no designation at all. Wikipedia policies seem to indicate that Wikipedia should follow their example. Therefore, a designation is needed and I believe that it should be BC and AD as they are the ones used by most reliable sources, even on articles on events which occur in the first century. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you check the relevant Britannica article, you will see that designations are used and they are of the BC/AD variety. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think some sort of qualifier is needed for dates in antiquity. I can see the argument for using either BC/AD or BCE/CE. Since the latter is less well-known, I would suggest spelling it out the first time it is used, if that is the system settled upon. Brandon39 06:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

All dates need qualifiers, unless the meaning is obvious. They should be BC/AD as this is the usage. The exceptsion (that makes the rule) is the year 0. :-) Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 19:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The dates in the first paragraph make it clear to anybody who is smart enough to read Wikipedia that Josephus lived AD or CE, whichever one suits you. They go from c. 37-c. 100; therefore, they must be CE/AD. And, as has been said, with no qualifier, it can be assumed that they refer to AD/CE. By the way, it's silly to fight over letters of the alphabet. They only reflect somebody's notion of reality--they don't create reality. Logophile 13:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, this should be a user preference thing. One's own preferences/stylesheet should render things as either AD or CE, and there should be markup that would generate it according to the preferences. I also believe that the whole date support is a bit lame without proper markup that would allow rendering into different calendar systems for readers with different native calendar backgrounds. I once suggested something in that vein, but this didn't generate a lot of feedback. Since I don't have time to improve the WP software to support that myself at this moment, I am not too angry that this doesn't exist, and thus perceive the BC/BCE kludges as just a reminder about weak technology. BACbKA 09:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The AD CE thing (again)

CE is a neutral term, "AD" is not. Use of "AD" violates NPOV.--Lance talk 03:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care which we use. But as you can see from this page, there have been endless discussions and even and RfC on this issue. Please do not make unilateral changes to the status-quo. All that will happen is another edit war. You opinion is valid, but disputed, and after numerous debates, here and elsewhere, there is simply no consensus that CE is more nPOV that AD (whatever I personally might think). You want to change this, discuss it here. But we'll only end up with the same circular debate.--Doc 08:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The style as it stands now should be retained, as required by WP policy, unless there is a substantial reason and consensus to change it. Any claim calling one or the other POV is not based on WP policy and hence insubstantial and invalid. Str1977 (smile back) 08:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I also find "A.D." inappropriate here. Could someone point me to that RfC, I can't seem to find it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the RfC was on whether we needed a date qualifier at all. It concluded we did - and I agree with that. First century dates always have qualifiers in accademic works. Look, I've no strong feelings here either way. But repeated attempts to settle this, on this article and elsewhere (straw polls, attempted policies etc.) have always always failed - and for the momemnt always will. There is no consensus here. We can rehash the arguments, but it will not change that. I proposed using AD/CE or CE/AD as a compromise (yes, unsatisfactory to both sides - but then compromises generally are) but it was reverted. AD was original term in this article (thus with a lack on consensus it is the 'satus-quo), and it is the unversally commonly used one. Yes, it is, IMO not entirely neutral - but other disagree. But CE is not univerally known, and (again IMO) is not entirely neutral either. I know your views, and I strongly respect them, as I do the other side's. But please, rather than arguing this again, can someone on one side suggest a compromise that the other side might actually buy?--Doc 11:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No compromise is acceptable. To quote George Washington: "To bigotry no sanction." CE is the only acceptable reference for dates in academic writing; and in North America, it is also used in newspapers and magazines. There is no dabate here, Christology doesn't belong in a Jewish history article; therefore, there is nothing to compromise about. And, your comments here are profoundly disturbing.--Lance talk 11:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Lance, your view is not sanctioned by WP policies. And as long as people are pushing their POV by claiming that one sytyle is neutral and the other not, it is not only fitting that the article itself uses the other style (which is status-quo anyway). Until you accept this there is no "dabate" on this. Str1977 (smile back) 12:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, many people have strong views here. Each arrives on this article blasting their trumpet (on both sides). But we've heard it all before. The choice is we either respect the fact that this is an intractable problem and that both sides genuinely and in good faith hold theior opinions - and from that starting point we try to improve the article. Or we shout at one another, the same repetative things that have been shouted in this again and again, and we will make no progress. Lance, if you want to come back as stridently as you did (minus the personal attacks please - for which you may get blocked if you continue) - you are welcome to. But I won't reply to stridency on either side - I'm fed up with it. There is no consensus here. Shouting will not create one. So suggest a way forward, or go do something else.--Doc 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I am glad to notice that lately these passions subsided, and practically every article directly related to Jewish history and religion use denominationally-neutral and commonly accepted CE notation (which may be interpreted also as Christian Era if you are unable to tolerate anything else). Like it or not, the time of coercing Anno Domini onto Jewish history has gone. BTW, this is not solely a Jewish issue. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
My own opinion is that neither system is neutral, and both are problematic. 'Anno Domini' and 'Christ' are professions of faith, that non-Christians should not have to use. But, OTOH, the callander is Christian in origin just as the Alphabet is latin and numerals are arabic. Further, 'Common Era' raises the quesion of 'Common to whom?' There is no neutral designator, so, unless we invent a new one, we're stuck. Because I think neither are neutral, I won't argue the case here either way. I just call for everyone to recognise the the other side has a point, and may not neccesarily be pushing a POV any more than your side (some on both sides undoubtably are grinding axes). However, edit wars are unacceptable. The status-quo here is AD. I'm not opposed to changing it (I abstain), providing a solid consensus can be generated for that change. Personally, I'd rather compromise and use CE with AD in brackets (or CE/AD). That will please no-one, but at least it will be stable, and a help to any reader who has never encountered CE before (and there are a lot of them).--Doc 23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Changing calendar, alphabet, or resolving the question 'Common to whom?' is not on the agenda (if some consider it "common to Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christianity", fine with me). Given that we are all aware that the alternative date notation is denominationally-neutral, increasingly commonly accepted, and already happily used in many other articles, the insistence to have what amounts to Christian profession of faith in an article on Jewish history strikes as an example of insensitivity or intolerance. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't accept that CE is neutral either. So where to now? --Doc 00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections re: Josephus's life, esp. his name

I have made a few adjustments to the section on Josephus's life by way of correction. Crucially, what was described as his praenomen (Flavius) was actually a nomen, and this has implications for the representation of Vespasian's and Titus's names as well (both TItus Flavius Vespasianus). I note that the nomen is attested in Origen, which tends to confirm that Josephus followed the general practice of taking the patron's praenomen and nomen upon becoming a citizen. It is Josephus himself (not modern scholars) who claims that the special ceremony at his liberation from chains was meant to restore his never-chained status (in the passage given). I adjusted a few other phrases to reflect these changes. Smason 07:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

For Origen's wording in his Comm in Matt 10:17 (Engl. trsl.) cf. [1] (scroll down to "17. The Brethren of Jesus", middle of second para). Whether or not Josephus followed the general practice and took the name of his patron is not recorded in the texts available to us (see also Rengstorf's/Schalit's Namenswörterbuch); but there is nothing in Origen's passage that suggests that he had reason to know that Josephus referred to himself as "Flavius Josephus". Origen is simply the first known authority referring to him by this name. This is an important distinction, if an unbiased attempt at understanding Josephus the man is intended. 86.136.128.34 23:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of this article

Shouldn't this article be moved to Flavius Josephus, as that was more or less his legal name, and the name he is most commonly called (in encyclopedic matters)? I saw an article link to Josephus Flavius! As a matter of course, there should still be a redirect from Josephus to Flavius Josephus. D. F. Schmidt 08:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

NO. the extent to which Flavius was his legal name is disputed. Further, he is more often known simply as Josephus - and since there is no other prominent person (AFAIK) commonly known by this name, there is no need to further specify. --Doc ask? 10:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Hebrew name

Of course his Hebrew name belongs in the intro. Does the fact that later he wrote in Greek negate that he was a Jew and that the Jews in Judea used Hebrew language? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? The problem is that his name has not come down to us in Hebrew. So, to give his name here in Hebrew would mean to give a scholarly reconstruction in Hebrew of his name known to us only in Greek. Incidentally, "the fact that ... the Jews in Judaea used the Hebrew language" is a very bold assertion. For the time in question here scholars some 50-100 years ago were categorically denying this possibility. Only in more recent times have linguists become convinced that around the time in question here the language spoken in "Jerusalem and its environs" (which is a very small area) had indeed been Hebrew. In the parts beyond the vernacular had been Aramaic, and not just Aramaic, but Aramaic of a Western type, to put it crudely. For details see e.g. the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Note also Josephus's own mention of his "paternal tongue" (literal rendering of what tends to be translated with "vernacular", see BJ I.3) – does he mean Hebrew or Aramaic? To start with, what does he mean when he speaks in this context of "paternal"? Also, with my little non-expert knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, may I suggest that the name Joseph son of Matthias differs in Hebrew from that in Aramaic – slightly, but enough not to hazard a reconstruction that would cast it in iron. So, perhaps it is not quite such an "of course"-case? 86.143.87.245 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Josephus is surely a controversial figure, but he was born a Jew and, it seems, died a Jew. Intentionally or not, but efforts to repaint Josephus from a Jewish historian into a Greek or Roman one look as another attempt to strip Jewish heritage of its identity. There was no good reason to remove his Hebrew name יוסף בן מתתיהו Yosef ben Matityahu. What's it gonna be in Aramaic, Yosef bar Matityahu? Why not give both Aramaic and Hebrew spellings, also mention Greek and Latin (both seem relevant) - as we do in other articles, plus a disclaimer. Nothing in Wiki is set in stone or cast in iron, let's assume good faith and accomodate relevant cultures. For AD, see Talk:Jesus, Common Era, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a ludicrous argument. Of course his name was Yosef ben Matityahu. The Book of Maccabees, written during the Hellenistic period, gives the name Matityahu which was transliterated into the Greek Septuagint as Matthias. Josephus was a priest so he would have spoken Hebrew as well as Aramaic. Both should be included.
Saying that we shouldn't include Josephus' Hebrew name because we're not 100% sure about pronunciation is like saying we should only give Greek names for the PHaraohs because we're not 100% sure of the pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian. I am trying to assume good faith here but I am finding it difficult to belive that reasonable people would feel so strongly about excluding Josephus' Jewish roots. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Josephus was a Jew (and one may argue that it speaks volumes that in his extant writings he does not refer to himself as Flavius Josephus, though this is an argument from silence) is not being questioned by expressly admitting, if one or other point concerning his Jewish descent has been inferred, quite reasonably, from other available information. It should always be remembered that Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia! Let any editor write anything he can justify, but if it is purely conjectural, please say so/argue the point, and do not make dogmatic assertions (same methodological problem as with the name "Flavius", cf. above) – and especially not when, as the discussion here suggests, the editor apparently lacks the necessary in-depth expert knowledge of the subject in question. Now, on the argument that his name should be reconstructed in the Semitic languages, because Josephus would have spoken both Hebrew and Aramaic, if someone then argues that he may also have picked up some Latin, should this article therefore give his Jewish name also Latinized?? 86.143.87.245 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"Matthias" in Classical-period Hebrew is "Matityahu". "Joseph" is "Yosef". "Son of" is "ben" in Hebrew and "bar" in Aramaic. These are not conjecture. These are names are clear from coins, inscriptions, and writings of the period. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, and by all means vever the anon, but don't use admin roll back. That was a content dispute, not vandalism. At any rate, do we have any contemporary record of what Josphus was called in Aramaic or Hebrew. If not, then all we have is a name by which he was known in Greek, anything else is conjecture and reconstruction. If we have something contemporary with his name in Hebrew or Greek, fine, if not, then either we should remove this, or at best put it is a footnote. --Doc ask? 15:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Hope that settles this quite unnecessary argument. The point has been throughout that no contemporary texts in Aramaic or Hebrew are known to refer to him – so what purpose is being served in Wikipedia by reconstructing his name in Aramaic and Hebrew, and for doing so in the intro of all places?! All that is extant is his own "mini CV" in BJ I.3 which is in Greek. (Whatever the language and contents had been of the BJ's earlier version to which he also refers in this context, i.e. in BJ I.3 – a question that has attracted a certain amount of scholarly discussion, see e.g. Tessa Rajak – , the BJ's earlier version is not known to be extant.) – So, who is now going to edit the intro in accordance with Doc's counsel please? 86.136.132.210 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
A footnote is fine with me, but I am against the removal of his Hebrew name from the intro. His name in Greek would be very good to have as well.
I would like to turn AD into CE. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
On the first point, that looks like an acceptable compromise. We can have a note in the intro - linking to a footnote. And yes, it would be good to have the Greek (first, since it is the only one we have an historical recored of, the others are suposition - although quite probably supositions as far as I can tell).
On the second note, there certainly will be objections, so please don't (see the time wasted discussing this above - a discussion you were involved in I believe). There original form of this article was AD - and there has never been a consensus to chage it. Personally, I have no strong feelings either way, as long as we have some form of date indicator (AD or CE) first century dates need something. I suggested earlier using 'AD (CE)' as a compromise - but that didn't stick either. I strongly suggest we stay away from the subject as we will waste a lot of time and reach no consensus. --Doc ask? 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to repeat it as well and will spare my arguments. In that case we should go with AD/CE as in article Jesus. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. His original Hebrew/Aramaic name was Yosef ben-Matityahu and this has gone down throughout the centuries with Hebrew speakers and is the name by which every Israeli schoolchild knows him. The gentleman was a Jew from Judea, not the virtual creation of a British translator of Greek texts 2000 years later. It is technically accurate that ben is Hebrew and bar is Aramaic - in fact they are interchangeable in both languages - but he was never known as Yosef bar-Matityahu. All this "reconstructing his name" business is totally artificial. It reminds me of Muammar Gaddafi claiming Shakespeare to have been an Arab (Sheikh Speer). Joseph son of Matthias is exactly that, just as William of Prussia is Wilhelm and Charles the Great is Karl. And Moses is Moshe, Isaac is Yitzhak, Jesus is Yeshua and Mary Magdalene is Miriam mi-Magdala. This strange discussion ending in a strange footnote does not do much credit to Wikipedia. Monosig 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that he had a Hebrew/Aramaic name. But there are, to my knowledge, no contempory or near contemporary sources which record. If we suppose 'it must have been' this or that, based on the Greek sources which do record his name, then that is original research. Indeed including it was a reconstruction is generous. No-one is saying he didn't have a Hebrew/Aramic name, only that our only knowledge of it is though a reconstruction from the recorded Greek varient. If you can supply good evidence of a record of Josephus's name, which does not depend on saying 'the Greek must have been tranlating x', then that would be a different matter. Can you? --Doc ask? 02:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew name issue re-opened

  • I first came across the Hebrew name יוסף בן מתתיהו (Yosef ben Matisyahu) in an undergraduate course in Jewish Historiography at McGill University in Montreal. The professor who wrote the course materials for the course always used "Josephus'" Hebrew name. And noted that his writings were effected by Catholic corruption. Encyclopedia Judaica uses יוסף בן מתתיהו and so too should Wikipedia. If any name is subject to question it is "Josephus."--Lance talk 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • whatever. Josephus is the ONLY name in the primary sources. All else is reverse engineered reconstructions. Anyway this issue has been discussed above and a compromise of a footnote to all but the common English name agreed. you want to change it, make you case and wait for a response, DO NOT UNILLATERAL CHANGE IT. We've had enough edit wars on this article.--Doc 08:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Your reference, "Josephus is the ONLY name in the primary sources," is besides the point and irrelevent. It is a non sequitur and doesn't justify "Christianising" this article. Period.--Lance talk 11:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The arguments for the "Christianization" of this article are so weak and transparent that an inference of bigotry is manifest. This is a Jewish history article about a Jewish historian, that should not be relegated to a mere footnote. If any name is open to question it is "Josephus." Christianity, or any reference in respect thereof, manifestly does not belong in this article. There is no debate here, just what is, and what is not, appropriate; any reference to Christianity is anachronistic, and, therefore, inappropriate. That a church, or churches, (mis)appropriated Josephus, is, of course, relevant; and can be included. But stripping Josephus of his Jewish identity is completely unacceptable and unencyclopedic.--Lance talk 11:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Firstly assume good faith. We are (however imperfectly) trying to work towards an NPOV article, accusations of bigotry are unhelpful. Let's talk and not polemicise. There isn't any attempt to 'strip Josephus of his Jewish identity' he was a Jew, period. But the only name that has come down to us is 'Josephus' (a Roman and not a Christian name), the only writings are in Greek and Latin. And that is just history, not Christian history.--Doc 11:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is considerable evidence of a lack of good faith displayed on this page. Your argument here is patently silly, and I will not engage it. Previous contributors on this page have been overly willing to compromise basic principles of logic and history; and you have clearly abused their good nature. I suggest you bring your crusade elsewhere.--Lance talk 12:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling a discussion on a talk page a crusade is a bit much, especially when we're talking about the the potential Christianising of an article. To remain on-topic, however, it seems as if Doc is making a good-faith effort to improve the article. Simply because you don't agree with his opinions does not mean he's acting inappropriately. It'd be a good idea to start respecting others opinions, instead of calling them "patently silly" hoopydinkConas tá tú? 12:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick to our policies. If it is true that Josephus is the only name used in the primary sources, then we use Josephus. There is only one reason to do this: to conform with our NOR policy. If there are secondary sources that claim that Josephus's name in Hebrew was יוסף בן מתתיהו then we should include this information in the body of the article with a proper citation. If there is any debate over Josephus's name we should explain the debate and provide citations, but again this is best defered to the body of the article not the introduction. If anyone has an analysis as to why all the primary sources say "Josephus" rather than his Hebrew name - well, if that person is an editor of Wikipedia their analysis must be kept out of Wikipedia because it would violate NOR and NPOV. If there is a verifiable secondary source that has an analysis as to why all the primary sources say "Josephus" of course then this analysis can be included in the article, with the proper citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. It may well be that this is Josephus' Hebrew name. The question is, what is the status of that contention. I've no doubt that secondary sources name him as such, but what are they claiming. If they are claim that they deduce that this would have been his Hebrew name - given what we know of his self-description in Greek, and the Hebrew of the time, then we should memtion that. Making it clear that it is a scholarly reconstruction (probably in a footnote with appropriate citations). It can't have the same status as the Greek name, not because Hebrew is in any way inferior, but because it is a reconstruction not a self-designation.--Doc 14:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The caption to the portrait of Josephus refers to the translation by "William Winston." The translator's name was in fact Whiston. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opaanderson (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJosephus_cd35.html"