Talk:2 Esdras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

Is is accepted that in the first para "sect" is the appropriate term?

Portress 23:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

203.32.87.174 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC) It didn't make much sense to me that the 1 Esdras Article was according to the Septuagint, 2 Esdras was according to the Protestants, 3 Esdras & 4 Esdras was according to Jerome. So I organized them somewhat according to who had the oldest claim to the name (except Jerome has to cede 3 Esdras to the LXX name of 1 Esdras), leaving 3 Esdras to the Russians. And of course it's all sorted out in the Esdras article. Not everyone is going to be pleased but at least it's more consistent now, even if a bit Orthodox centric.

This should have been discussed for consesnsus, not done unilaterally. Why should it be Russian-Orthodox Centric? Reverting to consensus until new consensus established. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

203.32.87.174 13:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC) The reference to Russian Orthodoxy was more in reference to 3 Esdras. For 2 Esdras, the Eastern Orthodox title is the ORIGINAL LXX title dating back 2000 years of constant practice. (How does 2000 years of "consensus" grab you?)

And I redirected ALL the different interpretations of "2 Esdras" off to the other approprate locations, instead of the previous misleading article, which is totally at odds with history. The idea that "2 Esdras" refers to the apocolypse of Esra is a 1500 years younger idea.

Nevertheless, it is the most common usage in English, per Wikipedia rules, as well as the consensus of previous editors here. Please do not move the page again until there is a clear consensus of wikipedia editors to do so. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

203.32.87.174 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Ok well there is a need to at least redirect people to the other uses of 2 Esdras, not just give alternative names for the book under discussion, and I am making that change.

But I have been opposing this change and continue to oppose it, and will continue to oppose it. I think you need to learn a bit about the way wikipedia "works". It operates by consensus on things like this, not by single-handedly running roughshod over it. When you have consensus of the previous editors, you may move. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me, I thought you had just made the same change again. I see now that you have merely added some additional information at the top. I should have looked more carefully before shooting my mouth off. I apologize. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

203.32.87.174 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC) See discussion on 3 Esdras re merging.

Text Dump from Jewish Encyclopedia[edit]

The following may be useful:

David A. deSilva writes: "One important textual problem concerns the omision of 7:36-105 (as enumerated in NRSV and TEV) in the Vulgate manuscripts. It has been suggested that this omission may be due to the impression given in the last of these verses that prayers on behalf of the dead are prohibited (see Longenecker 1995: 111). Indeed, the passage was used to oppose the practice in the early church, and one could readily see how it would have been advantageous to excise the passage. Nevertheless, if doctrinal censorship did stand behind the omission, then it would have been necessary also to excise 7:106-15, which remains in the Vulgate. Moreover, the text itself speaks not of prayers on behalf of the dead but intercession on the day of judgment. . . . It is more likely that the omission was accidental. Johann Gildemeister found a ninth-century Vulgate codex with the stub of a page that had been torn out. The missing text corresponded exactly with 7:36-105. Gildemeister concluded that the other Latin manuscripts of 4 Ezra lacking this passage were dependent on this particular codex (Stone 1990: 3-4). The theory of accidental omission is further strengthened by the randomness of the boundaries of the omission, interrupting a perfectly unobjectionable paragraph at 7:35 and omitting only half of the potentially objectionable discussion of intercession on behalf of those facing the judgment. These verses were not available to the translators of the KJV, for example, but had been restored to the text of 2 Esdras in several German translations from the eighteenth century (Bensly 1895) and have appeared in English translations ever since." (Introducing the Apocrypha, pp. 329-330)

Rwflammang 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopian Orthodox Bible[edit]

An anonymous editor has mentioned an Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. What edition is this Bible exactly? Do you have an ISBN? Some other reference, perhaps? Rwflammang (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting links may provide some references: [1] [2]. Rwflammang (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually 2 Esdras is not in the Ethiopian canon, but the Apocalypse of Ezra is which is 4 Esdras or 2 Esdras 3-14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.88.83 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christian texts[edit]

I agree with Til Eulenspiegel that 2 Esdras shall stay in Category:Christian texts. By first because chapters 1-2 15-16 have Christian origin. The consensus among scholars is almost unanimous from the XIX century: Friesche, Weinel, Beer ... I've never read a scholar who consider such chapters as Jewish. Moreover because "Christian texts" does NOT mean "texts that were written by Christian" but primary sources for Christianity - see the category Article. And 2 Esdras was printed in the Vulgate, read at Mass in the Middles-Ages, it is a widely used source for liturgies, it is canonical for the EOTC, and this without considering the strong and important theological importance that this text had in developing the doctrine of the Original Sin. So for sure we shall list it in the primary sources for Chritianity, and so in Category:Christian texts. A ntv (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay-- lets say that "Christian texts" does NOT mean "texts that were written by Christian" but primary sources for Christianity - they why are all the other Deuterocanonical books in Category:Deuterocanonical books and not Category:Christian texts also? Why are all the other Old Testament Apocrypha books in Category:Old Testament Apocrypha and not Category:Christian texts also? The reason is that there are to many for this to be the best system. So we put them in Category:Deuterocanonical books and then put that category in Category:Ancient Christian texts.
I am not trying to be POV, but just cleaning up this Category.
PS-- Eulenspiegel objected to it being "3rd century AD" -- your claim.--Carlaude (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Category:Deuterocanonical books shall be placed in Category:Christian texts, considering their importance in Christianity. (I object that 2 Esdras is in Deuterocanonical books, but I've already spoken of this in Til talk page: 2 Esdras should stay in Category:Christian texts directly). Most texts in Category:Old Testament Apocrypha have been re-discovered in the XIX century, so I think that these newly-discovered texts shall not be considered as primary sources for Christianity. A ntv (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way please check 2 Esdras 2:43-47 KJV: there was a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and upon every one of their heads he set crowns, and was more exalted...It is the Son of God, whom they have confessed in the world [3]. How can you consider it not-Christian? The scholar consider it Christian (see for example the introduction of 4 Ezra in Charlesworth ISBN 038509630). Please show me a reference of some scholar who say that these chapters (1-2 15-16) are not Christian. A ntv (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well Isaiah wrote about Jesus also. It is called prophesy.
Look, I am not saying it is not a Christian text. It is in "Category:Christian apocalyptic writings" for example. I just do not think it should be in the top level Category:Christian texts.--Carlaude (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
A text should not be in both a category and a subcategory of the same. It should appear in the lowest subcategory applicable, and in that subcategory only. Rwflammang (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
ok, you are right. (2 Esdras is in Category:Old Testament Apocrypha that is in Category:Ancient Christian texts that is in Category:Christian texts). I consider this point closed. Thanks for the answer. A ntv (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholic name?[edit]

A parenthetical clause was added to the article just recently regarding the name 4 Esdras, "which is the name still used for it in the Catholic Church." I find this sort of thing (the indentifying of biblical nomenclature with specific religions) to be unhelpful and inaccurate. Do Greek Catholics call this book 4 Esdras in their bibles? Do Slavonic Catholics? What about Canadian Catholics who use the RSV? What is this book called in the Nova Vulgata, the official Latin bible of the Holy See? What do Protestant Vulgate scholars call it? The name of this book is specific to each bible version, not to each religion. If you replace the words "in the Catholic Church" with the words "by some (not all) Catholics," then they at least won't be inaccurate, but they will still be unhelpful, IMHO. Rwflammang (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

Well, as you know some terms have different meanings in the Protestant area of influence and in the Catholic area of influence: for example the term apocripha has a very different meaning. The same for the 2Esdras/4Esdras. I added a sentence to this Article because it looked like that only Jerome used the term 4 Esdras, which is wrong.
This importance of this text comes from its use in the pre-reform Church, and the Latin manuscripts called it "Esdrae Liber IV" (ref: Metzger, the Fourth Book of Ezra in J. Charlesworth the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha vol 1 pag 517ss [4]). For this reason also the main critical edition use the same title: Bensley, R The Fourth Book of Ezra, the Latin Edition edited form the MSS Cambridge 1895 [5]. Also Protestant scholars, as Bruce M. Metzger identify it with the number Fourth (see the ref above).
As you know, after the Council of Trent the Catholic Church does not consider it as inspired, thus in the early Bible it was placed in appendix (with the number IV: in the official Clementine Vulgate 1592 as well as in the Douay-Rheims Bible), but modern Catholic editions do no more include it (nor the Nova Vulgata). When referred to, it is anyway named in the Catholic area of influence with the number 4, as in the referred 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia or on the Vatican web site ..."quartus Esdrae inscripti"...
Anyway due to your remarks, I've edited the line in "which is the name still used for it in the Catholic area of influence", because actually the name is a custom in a cultural area, not a doctrine. Be free to find a better wording. A ntv (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
How about something like this: ... which to this day is the name used for it in modern critical editions, which are typically in Latin, the language of its most complete exemplars. We can cite Bensly and Metzger and the Stuttgart Vulgate. Rwflammang (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

What exactly is the problem with BenEsq's edits? They strike me as conventional and uncontroversial. Rwflammang (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

They are controversial because not all points of view agree when this book of the Bible was written. There is no convincing evidence whatsoever for these scholars to say when the book was written, just bald assertions, conjecturing and hypotheses. I don't mind the information about when these scholars think it was written being added to the appropriate section (where it does not now already appear, contradicting Ben's edit summary assertion) PROVIDED it is not endorsed, but impartially attributed to which scholars said it was written when. There is no reason to put this one-sided language in the lead, since there is no such one-sided language in the body at all. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion, Rwflammang. The interesting thing is that the body of the article had already reflected that 2 Esdras was a combined work according to scholars before I edited the intro to reflect what was already there. The intro as it was stated that 2 Esdras was a Second Temple work (i.e., pre-70 CE), which to my knowledge is not disputed from any perspective. The intro also did not mention the scholarly view that this is a tripartite work. I merely attempted to reconcile the intro with the body, relying on the Oxford Annotated Apocrypha and other supposedly non-controversial works. None of this is my own perspective and I'm not trying to advance any particular point of view, but I have not yet seen any academic work that takes a different perspective. If there is one, then Til Eulenspiegel is welcome to add to the discussion by citing alternative points of view, but my guess is that he has no authority except his religious convictions, which he is entitled to, but not at the expense of the integrity of Wikipedia. Please advise how this should be handled. Thanks. BenEsq (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I make no statements whatsoever about my personal beliefs; they are irrelevant to policy and best checked at the door. You however have already played your hand by stating your personal opinion / point of view perspective as follows: "Wikipedia is no place for Christian fundamentalists." It may surprise you to learn that contrary to your belief, wikipedia has no such policy excluding readership, contributing editors, or reliable sources representing any major religious viewpoint, particularly on an article about that religion's holy book. On the contrary, the reason we were given a "NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW" policy as our "prime directive" over a decade ago, is to ensure that ALL points of view are given their day. Even the ones that you are hostile and polemical to, such as those you wrongly label "Christian fundamentalists" are entitled to their view. This book may be considered "apocryphal" from the Protestant point of view and from the Roman Catholic point of view. They may have had their scholars go into a closed smoking room, come out without any proof whatsoever and announce "We have all agreed with each other that it was written around 70 AD, there is a consensus!" But that isn't any scientific method, buddy. There isn't any smoking gun in the text proving it was written then - it's based 100% on some strained interpretations made in the halls of Europe, that they just want you to swallow on a "leap of faith" on their say-so. This book is considered a holy and important part of the Bible in the Oriental Orthodox Church. Scholars in Oriental Orthodox nations have no problem accepting that it was written during the Babylonian Captivity, and neither have I, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary. But when you burst in spewing things like "Wikipedia is no place for Christian fundamentalists" I can only consider you a polemic / hostile editor with an agenda, not a level-headed, even-handed or impartial editor whom I feel comfortable with working on this Oriental Orthodox Bible article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Til: No one is "excluding" anyone. You are welcome to edit the page just like anyone else and cite to sources that have different perspectives. The problem is that you have chosen to delete what you don't like instead of contributing to the page through addition. As you are fond of referring to Wikipedia's policies, you must be aware of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution, which says: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you adbiased then feel free to try your hand on making them more neutral. Or add to the discussion as suggested. By simply deleting what you personally disagree with, you are not engaging in constructive discourse. This is not about me or you; it is about improving the website. If you do not agree, then we can escald. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." I don't know how my edits could be made more neutral; but if you feel they are ate this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am more than happy for a third party to review the edits and reach a decision. Is this what you would prefer? BenEsq (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with this viewpoint appearing impartially worded in the appropriate section, but it is not correct to say it belongs in the lead, endorsed, as a summary of what is already in the body - what there is in the body currently is impartially worded and is a good example of npov. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)