Talk:Book of Ezekiel

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

Introduction referring to Ezekiel as a "protagonist"[edit]

In the introduction, Ezekiel is referred to as a protagonist, yet Wikipedia also claims a protagonist is "the main character in any story, such as a literary work or drama". Surely it is not the job of this article introduction to state whether the book is factual or fictitious? Using such terminology can bias the reader of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshun (talkcontribs) 16:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-Write Tag[edit]

I have tagged this article as potentially needing a re-write. I have been trying to read through it and I found that section breaks were misleading, sub-sections appeared where section breaks should be and there is far more attention given to Ezekiel 20 than it deserves. There is a complete lack of citations. The Ezekiel 20 section reads like Original Research. The "Views of modern, academic commentators" is an attempt to explain the term and nothing about their views - any 'term' that has to explain itself mid-article is completely out of place. The section on the vision of the temple 'floats' in mid-air with no attempt to explain its significance.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No one can re-write this article on Ychezkal because almost no one understands what he's talking about at any point in time. It takes people years to get a glimpse at what it's about. Most of those who understand it, don't use wikipedia. --CheskiChips (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I feel subsequent changes have only shown the wisdom of this view.Coxparra (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
lol. it's easy to criticize when you aren't the one doing the work. the amazing thing about wikipedia is that if you don't like it, you can put some effort into fixing it. SAE (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't mean to attack anyone or their hard work. The general standard of articles on religious topics tends to be pretty grim (as you've identified with Ezekiel) and this happens too often to be accidental. There is no shortage of articles which have been made much worse over time by competitive editing. Perhaps it's because visitors seem unsettled when they discover that subjects they hold dear are seen in an entirely different way by others from different backgrounds. I'm not slow to tackle topics to which I feel I can contribute but Ezekiel is definitely not one of these. On the evidence so far, this is a viewpoint others might do well, at least, to consider. That's why I'm entirely with the views of CheskiChips.Coxparra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree. This article needs so work. I will begin. Cheers, Swift as an Eagle (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're serious about re-writing, you'll find some resources at iTanakh. PiCo (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I will contineu to remove the dates for the events in Ezekiel as they are speculative and not published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yad Vashem quotation[edit]

There appears to be an error under Themes with a picture of the holocaust museum with this subtitle: Monument to Holocaust survivors at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem; the quote is Ezekiel 37:14. The proper reference should be Isaiah 56:5. I don't know how to make the changes myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The photograph is clear - the quotation on the memorial, in Hebrew and English, is definitely and explicitly Ezekiel 37:14. The IP's reference to Isaiah 56:5 relates rather to the name of the museum, Yad Vashem 'a place/sign/memorial and a name'. Hope this clarifies. John M Brear (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The name of G-d in the Book of Ezekiel[edit]

Sadly there is an edit-'debate' in progress over whether to use the English noun 'God' or the (transliterated) name 'Yahweh' in this article. (Apologies to my Jewish friends who might wish us to be more cautious in writing either, but this is an encyclopedia for everyone.) I can see arguments both ways, reflecting normal non-specialist English usage on one hand and fidelity to Ezekiel's text on the other. The editors in question may have other reasons besides.

Might I humbly invite the participants to sheath their pens and instead develop on this page a section for the article addressing the, to my mind at least, interesting way in which the book refers to the Divinity. The noun 'God' (Elohim) is seldom used; ordinarily the prophet uses the tetragrammaton, traditionally rendered 'LORD' in our English translations, sometimes transliterated 'Yahweh' (formerly 'Jehovah'). Often he uses the composite 'Lord (Adonai) + the tetragrammaton', rendered 'Lord GOD'. I believe it would be a valuable addition to this page to summarise the understandings that have arisen in traditional Judaism and in conservative and higher-critical Christianity as to the significance of this useage.

Pax editoribus bonae voluntatis! .John M Brear (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Going by precedent, other articles referring specifically to YHWH are allowed to use a form of that name, rather than the generic / Germanic name 'God' that is actually applied to many other concepts of deity as well, and the question has already been raised that is bigger than just this one article. The objection may come from some sects that insist on using a non-Hebrew name for the Hebrew God, for some doctrinal reasons. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
John Brear, thanks for suggesting this discussion. And I wasn't really trying to edit war, but to "vote." Better to discuss, as it turns out.
My point is readability. I would rather, unless there's some underlying point to be made, local Yahweh vs universal God, to use the word "God" in a normal Biblical or theological discussion.
Disclosure: I am Catholic.
I generally use the KJV for citations, unless (again) there's some point to make about a specific translation or religion which uses another translation. KJ uses "God" Ezekiel 1. My Catholic Reference Bible does as well. I'm sure there are dozens of versions that don't. But "God" is, IMO, "common usage" for most books of the Bible. Student7 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a special case because while it is a commonly accepted usage, it is also commonly accepted usage for a host of other concepts of divinity, that often differ dramatically from the YHWH of the Hebrew Bible and Ezekiel. Specifying YHWH as per the text is surely an improvement over the generic term, being more precise. And if I'm not mistaken, the Vatican is the major significant party to restrict usage of the Hebrew term among themselves, in favor of non-Hebrew names, for some doctrine of theirs of papal infallibility. I don't see that as an overriding reason not to use the more specific Hebrew name where it is more appropriate. However I agree with John that use of the name YHWH for God in Ezekiel can be more fully explained in a section of text. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out: I have no problem mentioning that the tetragrammaton is the name used here, but I think there is no need to constantly repeat the name. As Student7 said, using "God" improves readability. Keep in mind, we are not translating the text but simply explaining it. If as you said, the Hebrew word "Elohim" is not used in Ezekiel, then there is no point in repeating the tetragrammaton when it is enough to simply say that that is the name that is used for G-d in this text. If you mention that the tetragrammaton is the name used throughout the book, then it is clear that any reference to "God" was the tetragrammaton in the original Hebrew. If you still disagree and want to be that "true to the text", then you're better off just replacing the article with the original Hebrew. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 19:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I count 3 for "God", one against. For an article that seems to be "consensus." I was not aware of having been inspired by the "Vatican." I also attend Protestant services where "God" is almost always used, except in a manner to try to keep the audience's attention (awake?). Was the King James Version "Vatican inspired"? Seems doubtful. While the current Pope does happen to speak German as his first language, he's the first German in 400 years. Most of the rest spoke Italian. Dio?
I'm sure the editors, being well-educated, are also well aware that English has Anglo-Saxon (ancient German) as it's basis, with a few tens of thousands of French words thrown in. We don't generally use Hebrew except for some deliberate purpose. Better readability. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It seemed we were coming to a compromise solution, but John Brear's opening remarks should not be interpreted or oversimplified as "3 for God, one against" (!) to just start edit warring again. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with Wikitiki89, and he expressed it better than I would have. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Well now it's 3-1. John Brear does not express a strong opinion in either direction based on his one and only post here. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 02:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Wikitiki89, this started out as a promising and respectful discussion, but your agressive edit warring during the discission is uncalled for and will be followed up with an RFC if it continues. I see you claiming in an edit summary that your reasons are "better than" mine. But other than this premature chest thumping assertion that you won the debate, I don't see where any of your actual responses ARE "better than" the points I raised, or where you have bothered to address any of them, other than wait for another respondent to say "me too" without giving any valid argument. This is not a vote, this began and still remains a discussion to find a way to tweak the wording that would hopefully be acceptable to everyone. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood my edit summary. I did not mean my reasons were better than yours but that my newer reasons were better than my original reason. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, sorry for my misperceiving that ambiguity, but anyway since representations of the more specific deity name is in common usage in English alongside a more generic term, I still haven't seen what the prevailing argument against using the more specific name is. It makes sense to specify "Yahweh", "Marduk" etc. otherwise one might try to argue that we should use "God" instead of "Marduk" as well for the same reasons you give. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is all the fuss for? I suggest that most readers won't understand this word Yahweh; therefore, if you must use it, it needs explaining, at least the first time it's used. I suppose there's a case to be made for using Yahweh wherever the text of Ezekiel uses it - but checking up all the instances would tax my patience beyond breaking point. Or else, where Professor Bloggs (our hypothetical source) uses Yaheh, we use Yahweh, and where he says God we say God. (We should of course be basing all our edits on Professor Bloggs and his colleagues, never directly on Ezekiel himself, since Bloggs, not we, is the expert and reliable source). PiCo (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (Just to clarify, I'm pretty much agreeing with the merry Til Eul. - not something you see every day). PiCo (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that our article should NOT use the word "God" where Ezekiel uses "YHWH". The reason is to do with the theology of the book itself: Ezekiel is an intensely patriotic work, written to rally the exiled Jews and remind them of the glory of their kingdom and the promise made to them by their God. That god, whose name was Yahweh, was not anyone else's god - NOT, unlike the Christian God, the sole deity of the entire world. Ezekiel was quite happy to see the Babylonians worshiping Marduk; he might have regarded Marduk as a wicked and evil god, but or he might even have regarded him as a delusion, but he certainly didn't think that the Babylonians needed to start worshiping YHWH. YHWH was the God of Israel alone - that's a major theological difference from what we mean when we say "God". PiCo (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what this "difference" is. "God" in this context can also refer to the G-d of Israel alone, since that is the way Israelites view him. Just like it needs no explanation that "God" does not refer to Vishnu, it's not misleading to use "God" to mean the tetragrammaton as long as we explain that in this book that is who it refers to. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that the word God (with a capital) means, for us, a single supernatural entity, albeit with three "persons" (if we're Christians - not if we're Jews or Muslims). That entity has certain qualities: he's all-powerful, he's the sole god of all the world, he created the universe from nothing, etc etc. The YHWH of Ezekiel wasn't like that at all. He was one of many gods, including Marduk and others. He was more powerful than those gods, but he wasn't the god of all the world (he helped only Israel),and he hadn't created the world from nothing (he formed it for human habitation, but he didn't create it out of nothing). I imagine this difference is the reason so many commentators use Yahweh instead.
Incidentally, please stop reverting Til - you were the one who introduced a change to the article, then it got reverted, so the next step is to discuss, not to get into a reversion competition. Heed the wise words of Mr Brear, who started this thread. (Even more incidentally, in case you think I'm a mate of Til's, I'm not - he can't stand me. But sometimes we agree).PiCo (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah or Yahweh, Yahwah, Yahawah, Yahovah, Yaheveh, Yehaweh, Yehowah, Yehowih, Yehwih, Yahuweh, Yahueh, Yahuah[edit]

In the Hebrew language, God's personal name is written יְהוָ֑ה. These four letters, called the Tetragrammaton, are read from right to left in Hebrew and can be represented in many modern languages as YHWH or JHVH. God's name, represented by these four consonants, appears almost seven thousand times in the original "Old Testament," or Hebrew Scriptures.

In English, the Tetragrammaton is translated “Jehovah”. Here's how it's translated in many other languages -

Arabic - Yahwa Awabakal - Yehóa Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah Danish - Jehova Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah Fijian - Jiova Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah Futuna - Ihova German – Jehova
Greek - Iechová Hungarian – Jehova Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova Japanese - Ehoba Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova Mwala-Malu - Jihova Narrinyeri – Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova Petats - Jihouva Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová Romanian – Iehova Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova Spanish - Jehová Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova Tahitian – Iehova Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova Venda - Yehova Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah Zulu - uJehova

As such, I propose that, especially in articles written in English, as is this article, "Jehovah" be used as God's proper name. —Maxximiliann talk 14:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Despite what you've provided here (from the Jehovah's Witnesses' brochure, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, page 6), Yahweh is more common in scholarly literature..--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying the facts presented are erroneous, how exactly? —Maxximiliann talk 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This is entirely inappropriate here as a Wikipedia-wide change is being requested. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
What specific Wikipedia policy is such a suggestion in violation of? —Maxximiliann talk 02:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This Talk page is for discussion about changes to this article. It isn't for suggesting changes to all articles that use a particular word. You should direct your request to the relevant WikiProject. Dougweller already started a section at the Bible WikiProject for you, but you just kept responding with irrelevant rhetoric there, which won't help your argument one bit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Better "rhetoric" than the vitriolic ravings of a renowned bigot, hey Jeffro? Given how quickly your notoriety is spreading I guess your ousting is just a question of when :) —Maxximiliann talk 05:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Your latest personal attack has been reported. You really should read WP:CONCENSUS and WP:TALK.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
(I've moved this back to the bottom of the page. Maxximiliann, please read WP:TOPPOST regarding this change.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
After a discussion at WP:ANI Maxximiliann was blocked as WP:NOTHERE and WP:DE. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Two versions of this work?[edit]

So, if I am reading this correctly, there are two versions of this work, the longer version being the one that appears in the Masoretic text, and the shorter being the version that appears in the Septuagint.

I think much more needs to be said of this.

For one thing, is the Septuagint version simply shorter, or is it shorter and different?  In other words, would it be accurate to say that everything that is in the Septuagint version is also in the Masoretic version, but that not everything that is in the Masoretic version is in the Septuagint?  Or, are there some portions that are completely unique from one another?

For another thing, what about English translations of this work?  Do English translations tend to follow the Masoretic version or the version from the Septuagint?  Might English translations have tended toward being of one version in the past while changing to being of the other later?  Or, might different denominations perhaps prefer one over the other?  (E.g., might Protestants prefer translations from the Masoretic version, and might Catholics prefer translations from the Septuagint?)

So many questions.  This article could definitely be improved with some added information.

allixpeeke (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)