This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Isn’t this book important not only for the history of Judaism but also for the history of Egypt, for the complex relationships between Jews and Egyptians, and for the links between both these nations with others such as Phoenicians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks/Macedonians and finally Romans? Shouldn’t the article recognise and explore these much wider contexts? Also, doesn’t the closing eulogy of Jewish theology and ethics illumine some of the diversity of beliefs flourishing in the first century CE? --Hors-la-loi (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Not sure that much can be said of relations between Jews and Egyptians in general during that period. Probably it was mostly Hellenized or semi-Hellenized Egyptians in the major northern cities who would have been likely to have sustained contact with Jews. After the translation of the Septuagint Pentateuch into Greek during the second century B.C., some Greek-literate Egyptians would have become aware of the Exodus narrative, and might have been annoyed by its portrayal of their ancestors, or been motivated by the fact that they were aligned with the Greek side in Greek-Jewish tensions in Alexandria, and so came up with a counter-narrative... AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
To my layman's ear, the two quotes are more likely by Whiston than a twentieth or twenty-first century translator. Why? Why not use the most recent -- and hence, the most widely comprehended -- one? (There are three haths in one sentence!) It could be justified if it were widely agreed to be more accurate than any other, but not, I would say, for the pleasure eighteenth century English brings, or the elegance. Is there any reason to believe the original was elegant, rather than comprehensible? If one is seeking elegance or pleasure from eighteenth century English, there is a place for that, but not in an article about a first century work from the Levant. Nick Barnett (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that there's any more recent complete translation of Josephus which is out of copyright than William Whiston's... AnonMoos (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
