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

The {} sign/s[edit]

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning were removed by User:Robert Merkel, with which I agree pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The Elisha mentions in the "In The Bible" seem awkward. It's mentioned twice that he was the successor to Elijah. Elijah leaving his mantle to Elisha is also mentioned twice. Sheik Rattle Enroll 03:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Troubler of Israel[edit]

This linked to Anti-Israel which was redirected to Anti-Zionism. I don't think that Ahab would have called Elijah anti-zionist so I removed the link. Ted BJ 06:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If they were both alive today its that sort of crude totalitarian lingo what King Ahab would use. LamontCranston 19:12, 6 February (UTC)

Other sources?[edit]

Are there other sources about Elijah besides the Torah? When is he thought to have lived? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Elijah is mentioned in the Quran 6.85, 37.123,130 as [Elias] or Ilyas, also 19.56, 21.85 as [Idris].
You mean Tanakh, Elijah does not occurr in the Torah.
There are no sources. The Quran is not a source as its stories are directly lifted from the Tanakh. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ilyas ??? Eliah ???[edit]

There is something seriously wrong in this page. Jesus (In Quran "Isa") says "Eli..Eli".. In the translations "Eli" or "Eliah" means "God"... Jesus says "Oh Allah"... So the corresponding usage of "Eliah" in Quran is "Allah".

"Eliah" is not used as Elyasa !!! Elyasa is the Prophet Ilyas. This mistake should be corrected in this text.

Is Elijah and John the Baptist the same person?[edit]

According to Paramahansa Yogananda, Jesus Christ's last incarnation was Elisha and John the Baptist was Elijah. In the Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogananda also made a claim that Jesus' spiritual teacher was John the Baptist. This is also mentioned in the Bible in a very subtle manner. Thus this makes John the Baptist the guru of Jesus. I am not sure how many Christians are aware of this piece of information but I am sure this revelation is going to stir up some debate. As I personally do not belong to any religious group, my stand is neutral in this respect. But I would like to see some comments about this from a Christian point of view. Self-Realization members and disciples of Yogananda have long embraced this view but I do not see this being mentioned in the other Christian sects. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • as a general rule most Christians don't believe in reincarnation so I wouldn't suggest merging Elijah with John the Baptist. Way too controversial. - Cancellorian 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking soley at Biblical references, I don't think it is controversial at all - Stevetremblay

It would from a Western perspective that John the Baptist could be a sort of mentor to Jesus, however John the Baptist refers to Jesus as "the one who'll come after me, whose shoes I'm not even worthy to tie"(Matthew 3:11). This is important, because many self-appointed messiahs existed at that time in Israel, all claiming to have the power to overthrow Roman rule and destroy Herod, but John is distinguished by being one who not only claims he isn't the messiah, but that the one who'll succeed and supercede him will be. Moreover, if John was Jesus' guru, then John wouldn't have responded to Jesus at the Jordan baptism by saying, "It should be you baptising me instead" (Matthew 3:14). It is more likely the John the Baptist was a member of the sect of the Essenes, who lived in a secret wilderness commune, and who embodied Christian values in pre-Christ times and were a major influence in the non-Pauline Christian communities after Christ's resurrection and ascension. The fact that Jesus went into the wilderness may also be a reference to the proposition that Jesus was familiar with the wilderness, and possibly could've spent some time with the Essenes prior to his recorded ministry, where he may have encountered John the Baptist. However, the idea that John may have been a teacher of him is unlikely since, as a boy, Jesus was found by his mother Mary discussing with temple teachers in Jerusalem who remarked how astonished they were at his questions and understanding of the scriptures he had.(Luke 2:47) - qlj

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure how to add to this discussion correctly, but I would like to point out that in the Gospel of John 1:21, John the Baptist clearly denies being Elijah. Here it is from the King James Version: "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No." Also, I think that the proximity of ages of Jesus and John the Baptist would preclude John being Jesus' teacher, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

merge page?[edit]

should perhaps this entry be merged with the Elias entry as they are one in the same?

  • I'd support it, unlike John the Baptist they are unquestionably the same invidual. - Cancellorian 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Belatedly  Done, following Talk:Elias#Merger. The page Elias is now only about the name, not the person. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


I attempted to correct POV in the tagged section. I used more neutral wording in the first paragraph, and removed the second paragraph, of which I couldn't really make head nor tails. I also removed weasel words in the last paragraph. Unless someone objects, I'll remove the POV tag tomorrow. Carl.bunderson 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Carl.bunderson 16:47, 12 July 2006



I note that the article says it was a juniper he sat under, whilst other English translations use the words furze and broom. Does anyone know the original Hebrew word? Andycjp 13/8/2006

רתם: Rethem - Apparently commentators believe it's the spartium junceum, and is known as both the Juniper and the Spanish Broom. I think both names are valid. Zahakiel 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently how? this botanist (Avinoam Danin) with a special interest in biblical identification points at the sister genus of Retama. The article on Juniper shows a very different scientific classification infobox, and its hebrew name has nothing to do with Rethem/Rothem. So how does anybody know how this identification came about? It seems quite old,[1] which doesn't add to its credibility. trespassers william (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, very old. OED:
c. In the translations of the Bible, used, after the Vulgate, to render Hebrew rethem or rōthem, a white-flowered species of Retama, R. Rætam, a shrub with rush-like branches, which are leafless or bear a few unifoliate leaves.
a1425 (▸c1395) Bible (Wycliffite, L.V.) (Royal) (1850) Job xxx. 4 The roote of iunyperis [1382 iunypere trees] was her mete.
1560 Bible (Geneva) Psalms cxx. 4 It is as the sharpe arrowes of a mightie man, and as the coales of Iuniper.
1608 S. Hieron Helpe vnto Deuotion in Wks. (1620) I. 711 These mine aduersaries, whose tongues are as the coales of iuniper.
1671 Milton Paradise Regain'd ii. 272 He saw the Prophet also how he fled Into the Desert, and how there he slept Under a Juniper.
trespassers william (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
A german translation goes for Genista. trespassers william (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia[2]:
Juniper (Douay Version, 1 Kings 19:4-5; Job 30:4; Psalm 119:4: "That lay waste", a mistranslation), an equivalent of Hebrew rothem, a sort of broom (Retama retem, cf. Arab. ratam).
Encyclopedia Judaica[3]:
Broom plant
Retama roetam
desert shrub
I Kings 19:4–5; Job 30:4, et al.
and then
Juniper (savin high)
Juniperus exelsa
coniferous tree of Lebanon
Isa. 14:8; 37:24, et al.
Song. 1:17
trespassers william (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

POV in question[edit]

Is it possible that the conclusion saying Elijah did not in fact ascend to heaven be considered an argueable POV. There are countless other theories on the subject, and I feel that the proof of "harmony" is still left slightly wanting. Interpretation of the context of that day is not being taken into account from THIS PERSON'S perspective. If anyone did research on the subject an alternate conclusion is just as easily presentable. ciyean 02:17, 06/12/2006

Agreed. I believe the mainstream thought in Christianity is that Elijah did ascend into Heaven, although he did so bodily, so not "invisibly into the spirit realm." This is also the reason why Elisha did not mourn, because his master had not died. It is true that some groups believe the prophet was simply located, so I think the best way to deal with this from a NPOV is to expand the section to include the different theories about his ascension. I can find sources for that if no one else gets to it in a little while. Zahakiel 16:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Elijah was also a man of his word. When God asked him to do something that could cause him his life he did it anyway.

I am new to this. I just made a few minor suggestions concerning readability and grammar. I thought my suggestions would go to a gatekeeper who would make revisions to the actual text. Imagine my supprise to see my changes put immediately into effect! Fortunately, they were small changes--a word deleted, a sentence moved. I have more suggestions, but they are larger and more significant. How do I submit these for COMMENT AND CONSIDERATION before anything drastic is done? ThomasHartman 03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)ThomasHartman


Thank you for you help. I have read the guidelines--honestly, not all of them--about being bold. Well here goes!

I am a Reading/English teacher. What I tried to do was: 1. Use the outline provided. 2. Correct the grammar. 3. Work toward a more readable style. 4. Flesh out the story of Elijah. Some of the content was very confusing otherwise. I now have more questions: 1. How does the reference to Yahweh work? Do I continue to use the Hebrew spelliing? Wouldn't some people even prefer "G_d"? 2. While I think a summary of Elijah's career is important, I don't know if this is too much for an encyclopedia entry? 3. I have tried to keep the tone neutral, HOWEVER, we are talking about a Bible story. Do we capitalize God when referring to the Judeao-Christian-Islamic conception? Thank You. ThomasHartman 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I usually refer to Yahweh by name, as Elijah did (I think). The English equivalent of YHWH is LORD, so you can use that, too. The term "G_d" is not in general use. Add material. If it gets to long, spin off a page as a subsection. I think capitalizing God is fine, like capitalizing the Father or the Christ. I try to use the terms that the people in question used. Such as "Yahweh" for Elijah. Jonathan Tweet 05:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank the person who added the map and the blockquote to the text. It makes the text clearer. It makes a much more professional presentation. Thank you.ThomasHartman 01:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


I was doing a little research on Elijah when I ran across Easton's Bible Dictionary. The article as I found it had a good deal of archaic language. This language, and much of the content, came from Easton's. Because of this I now have my doubts about other sections of this article. I now realize that this is going to take more time than I thought to clean up. If anyone has useful references--please share.

My thought was to continue with a summary of Elijah's career, and then Jewish and Christian view's of Elijah's importance.

Thanks. ThomasHartman

Last time I read it, this page was terrible. I wouldn't be opposed to a do-over. Jonathan Tweet 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Elijah is also a figure in various Christian folk traditions, often identified with earlier pagan thunder or sky gods" has no references and is something I have never heard. I suggest its removal. Ian H 14/02/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's part of the intro, which summarizes the rest of the article. The section "Pagan associations and mountaintops" is thoroughly sourced. You never having heard of it is a bad reason to remove something. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


I am trying to follow the manual of style concerning footnotes. My notation appears in the text but the citation does not appear at the end of the text. Do I need to do this manually also? ThomasHartman 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The footnotes section was probably dropped inadvertantly. I understand that some software programs do that (that's as specific as I can be, I don't know much about it.) In any event, I just created or restored that section and footnotes are now visible. It's something worth knowing how to do and it's easy, so please take a look at that section in edit mode. There's another way of doing it as well, which I'm not familiar with. Best, Noroton 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing in the "Christian controversy over Elijah's assumption into heaven" section[edit]

Although it's good to know what points in the Bible are referred to in the discussion of this topic, to only cite them is totally inadequate to back up the statements made in that section. If there are no sources to be pointed to, then that section amounts to original research (which I doubt is actually the case, but I don't know). I've put {{Fact}} tags on the statements. Noroton 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on this section and have found a number of these "unknown" sources. I am reluctant to delete anyone's work. There have been several sections I have axed, or redone, for lack of sources, plagiarism, or just a lack of coherence. Presently, I have this one in my sights. If no one objects, I would like to just delete it. ThomasHartman 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I know of a few I can find sources for. Let's not cut the whole thing, just cite it. Hartman, could you elaborate a bit on some of your points? I thought I understood, but now I'm not so sure. Wrad 23:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I cited the sources. I still don't feel that it really expresses all points of view well. This is clearly a controversial subject with many facets. I also restored your changes to the New Testament section. Wrad 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at this section long and hard. I am not sanguine about salvaging it. It is not written in an appropriate style. It references its own material. And, I an not certain that this subject is appropriate for a general encyclopedia. (Even searching general Christian encyclopedias and dictionaries, I have yet to find it there.) SO. Can we delete? Would its departure weaken the article?ThomasHartman 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a place where the gospel of John contradicts the Old Testament. It's worth a mention because it's interesting and because otherwise someone else will come by in six months, see that this information is missing, and add it back in. Let's cut this section way back and let the really curious read the links. Jonathan Tweet 14:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep it. It is sourced, and although the sources could be better, they aren't that bad. On my internet searches this is one of the most discussed topics about Elijah, so I think it is very relevant, like Jon said. How would we shorten it? I am interested in seeing how it will be done. Wrad 02:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision ideas[edit]

So, this article used to be pretty sad, but has improved by leaps and bounds recently, and we want it to keep going that way. I was thinking we could take a look at good articles on other biblical characters and follow a similar format. An example would be the article on David. As it is now, compared to David, this article is very fragmentary. Not all aspects of the topic are accurately covered. We need more on the Islamic view, as well as other views within Christianity. Also, although the language of the article is approaching encyclopedic quality, it can still get better. I'm probably stating the obvious, but I just wanted to put these ideas out here even if just as an outline to talk about. Wrad 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Believe it or not, the David article is what I was aiming for. I was concerned with the length this was running to--now, not so much. ThomasHartman 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice coincidence. Thanks for your help. Wrad 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reorganized the article a lot, adding headings and sections. I also fixed some of the tone and took the tag off. It really wasn't too bad, thanks, I think, to Hartman. All in all, the only fact I took out was from the Etymology section. Without a source it just seemed to unencyclopedic:

Given his opposition to any worship save that of Yahweh, the name seems to have been one he took for himself.

If anyone can find a source, feel free to stick it back in. Wrad 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

All in all, very well done. The essay is much more readable. Just a couple of nits: 1. I do have the sources for the name--Encyclopedia Judaica and Anchor Bible: I Kings. 2. Let's be carefull about "the wandering jew", I did find one source that referenced it to the story of Elijah, but two others (which I consider more reliable) source it to a 16th century tradition. 3. While "Elijah's chair" and "Elijah's cup" do have their origins in the Kings' stories, their full explaination come from Talmudic writings. Again, nicely done. ThomasHartman 17:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Data Base Problems, Etc.[edit]

I just tried to add a second paragraph to the introduction and whole sections of the essay dropped away. Anybody know what's going on?

This is the paragraph I tried to add:

Elijah appears on the scene with no fanfare. We know nothing of his origins or background. His name, Elijah, "God is Lord," may be a name applied to him because of his challenge to Baal worship[1]. Even the title of "the Tishbite" is problematical as there is no reference from the period to a town or village of Tishbe.

"Controversy over Elijah's Return" Elijah's Cup and Elijah's Chair are two different traditions and have very different origins. I am presently trying to summarize a great many traditions and legends now.

Good Grief, even this page ins't right!

What the heck is going on?[edit]

Work is vanishing. Edits are incomplete.

Here's what was going on. Someone used <ref> instead of </ref> to close a ref. WP read the whole rest of the text as part of the ref. Jonathan Tweet 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am afraid it was me!ThomasHartman 01:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I wasn't going to name names. Jonathan Tweet 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

use of yaweh[edit]

the name yaweh is not really recognized well i mean i feel that the word g-d should be used instead in refrence to g-d as the other is just a theory on the name of g-d and it just seems odd to use that in all the articles refrencing g-d rather than just within the article refering to itsself or rather just mentioned as a theoretical name wherever it would be applicable but i feel it should not be used here


I deleted a comment that Elijah "called down fire on the heads of idolatrous priests". He did not. The fire consumed the sacrifice. The priests were executed later.

I also deleted a paragraph that got duplicated.

ThomasHartman 02:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS stuff[edit]

I noticed that the LDS section now says that this church believes Elijah was a translated being at the time of his visit to Joseph Smith. I was wondering where the source came from. Couldn't he have been a resurrected being? Wrad 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See Doctrine and Covenants 110:13. It says Elijah "was taken to heaven without tasting death". This indicates that he was translated. See also Guide to the Scriptures: Translated beings.
The LDS thinking goes like this: (1) Elijah appeared with Moses before Jesus Christ at the Mount of Transfiguration and conferred keys upon Christ; (2) only persons with physical bodies can confer keys by the laying on of hands; (3) no one was resurrected before Jesus was; (4) ergo, Elijah and Moses must have been translated beings.
It's actually more controversial with respect to Moses--most Christians believe that Elijah was taken up to heaven because it says so in 2 Kings, but the Bible specifically states that Moses "died". Latter-day Saints don't believe that he did. See Translation (Latter Day Saints) for more info.
Of course, there's always the argument that Elijah has been resurrected since he has been translated (i.e. after the Mount of Transfiguration but before appearing to Joseph Smith), but it's my understanding that those who are translated won't be formally resurrected until the Second Coming of Christ. I don't have a source for that but could probably dig one up if pushed to. SESmith 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
See if you can do that. I think it would help the article. Plus, frankly, I'm interested. Wrad 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of Yahweh, Lord, etc.[edit]

It seems we have a little edit dispute (not quite a war) going on over Yahweh in Elijah's intro in first kings. Editors are changing his name from Yahweh to Hashem to Lord and back again. How do we settle this? Use more than one? Wrad 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a vote--put me down for Yahweh. Yahweh would be appropriate for the period; I don't think Hashem is all that familiar; and Lord is a little more appropriate for a phrase (Lord of Hosts).ThomasHartman 00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My first thought is to use 'God', as we are writing for the average reader, not even the knowledgeable one, but if you are going to use Yahweh, it should be used throughout and there should be an explanation or parenthetical explanation at the earliest usage. Any quotes of biblical text should be, of course, verbatim, and all quotes in the article should be from the same version. --killing sparrows 07:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The historical figure Elijah called his El (mighty one, god) by the name "Yahweh," and this article should, too. The position that this Yahweh is in fact God is only one viewpoint and shouldn't define usage. Jonathan Tweet 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually leaning towards using God rather than Yahweh. I think it would be confusing to most users and I think that it is a relatively mainstream idea. In most Christian Bibles, he is called God, not Yahweh, in these passages, so that is what most people are used to. People who really understand the Yahweh thing can probably read the Hebrew version of the page. Wrad 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Loc~~ I'm not expert on Hebrew or anything, but there is no consensus at all on what the correct transliteration of God's name is. Why not use the actual Hebrew which has no vowels. I have seen אֱלִיָּהו translated as Eliyyahw Eliyyahv Eliyyahu. Could we not instead use the literal translation of Ely YHV/YHW since there is no agreement on what God's name is.

Small edits[edit]

Etymology. "many Jewish scholars" surely this should be just "many scholars." There are additional sources for this if you feel it necessary to document.

The famine. in Phoenicia added after "town of Zarephath."

"might restore the son." changed to "might restore her son." ThomasHartman 01:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, some small edits for continuity and grammar. Also, I corrected some footnotes. Sorry for any inconvenience.ThomasHartman 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

More small edits to improve the readibility. ThomasHartman 00:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was satisfied with the Elijah's cup section, but then I came on more information. I expanded it to make it clearer, which it wasn't in my original sources. Sorry for any inconvenience.ThomasHartman 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

More small edits[edit]

I made a few changes in the St. George story and it occured to me that this is really a St. George story and not an Elijah story.ThomasHartman 23:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if we slimmed it down to reflect his role stronger. It is a story from the country of Georgia in Asia. Wrad 03:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to me that the piviotal character is St. George. As such, the story is designed to illuminate the people's reverence for the dragon slyaer. Let's leave it and see what others think.ThomasHartman 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thought about the George story: Perhaps it would best be placed in a section describing the 'Elijah the Thunderer them in Eastern Europe. There is a lot of scholarly work about this. Wrad 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently consulted my Harbrace Handbook and find that I have made a few errors in the way references and notes are done. There will be a number of Small Edits going on in that area.ThomasHartman 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also tagged some of the statements in the Controversies sections that could use citations. ThomasHartman 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am hoping to add a section here about controversies: the violent nature of Elijah's actions on Mount Carmel are becoming an increasingly large issue in the world of Biblical interpretation, so some recognition of this growing trend seems important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrydwulf (talkcontribs) 10:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please cite sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Archaic usage[edit]

When I see "was wont to dwell" and "goblet of wine" I begin to suspect someone used a source without citing it. Does anyone know where this comes from?ThomasHartman 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Elijah in other traditions[edit]

This is a nice section. However, where are the citations? ThomasHartman 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Maybe put {{fact}} tags on comments needing citations? Wrad 23:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Many of these sections needed sources. I tagged most of the sections that need sources with {{unreferencedsect}} and most of the unsourced paragraphs with {{fact}}--Sefringle 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how some of the sections you marked as unsourced are unsourced. There are plenty of sources in them, biblical and otherwise. I see the point of your smaller {{Fact}} tags, but these others seem overboard to me. Just because there isn't a footnote doesn't mean it isn't sourced. Wrad 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I see how it can be fixed. We just need to list the biblical reference on the synopsis a little better, for one thing. Wrad 23:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the references need marker to the "Elijah in other traditions" section. ThomasHartman 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you put more sources in the "Strategic situation" section? Wrad 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

absolutelyThomasHartman 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We have been cited[edit]

I found this in my ramblings. Go to the references section.ThomasHartman 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

People who have claimed to be Elijah[edit]

There are several who have claimed to be Elijah returned to the earth. We may need a section on this. Just sifting through articles on Rabbis I ran in to several.

  1. Nathan of Gaza

Many Jewish and Catholic traditions have stories about Saints and Rabbis meeting Elijah. Also, the Carmelite monastic group claims to be based on him. Wrad 22:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I also have run across some of these references. Some of them, I believe, are quite sincere. Some are flat out nuts. I have also heard of individuals who believe that they are Elvis, Jesus, and Superman. Would an article on any of these individuals be well served by including those who claim to be them? Nonetheless, if you have any more names, I am game to look into them.

I just included a few stories under the folklore section. I really wasn't kidding when I wrote that his career in legend was far more extensive than that in the canon. What saints have had run-ins with the prophet?

As for the Carmelites, well, I don't know.

I just added several sections I've been working on. Final grades are in, so the semester is officially over. I don't have any classes for the summer and I was hoping to add and/or edit a few more.ThomasHartman 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I can add some Carmelite stuff.

As for people who claim to be Elijah, maybe a sentence or two outlining the most notable (not the guy down the street yelling on the corner). I think it's interesting because of it's connection with his mysterious departure, and with the Jewish hope of his return. Wrad 01:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was a little cranky yesterday. Yes, I do see a value in including some of those who claim to be Elijah. The ones I think would be useful and interesting would:

1. Be over 100 years old. This would include Nathan and several others.

2. Be associated with Messiahs or messianic movements. Again this would include Nathan.

This would get us away from modern day doomsayers. It would place them within a movement (some sort of historical significance). I think this would also place them within Judaism.

As for the Carmelites, I am still leaning toward a "See also" link. But, it is early in the day.ThomasHartman 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The founder of the Bab'i Faith, and the first prophet of the Baha'i faith is believed to be the return of Elijah/John the Baptist. Aeroplane 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. Could you add that in and give it a source? Wrad 17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added it to the contreversy section, and cited it. The citations are Baha'i sources describing the history of the faith, however they are very much Baha'i sources. Is that any sort of conflict of interest? Aeroplane 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope. A Baha'i source is the best place to learn the Baha'i view, and that's what we're looking for. Thanks. Excellent work. Wrad 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See also[edit]

We have an addition to the "Other traditions" section. It concerns Raëlism. The material strikes me as being completely out of character with this article. It also uses "Elohim" in a way very different with Judaism/Christianity. The main article for Raëlism explains the group's special use of the term "Elohim." It also contains the statement added to our article. (I realize "our article" isn't proper usage but I can't think of something more exact.) Also, this has a bad feel about it.

I suggest this paragraph be deleted and a Raëlism connection be added to a "See also" section.ThomasHartman 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it seems quite in line with the section I put it in. See also is usually for more closely related articles, anyway. Raelism only has this one connection to Elijah, which I think is interesting and notable, even if I personally think it is hogwash. Some people believe it. I feel it should be there. I just added a simple definition of their use of Elohim. Wrad 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In palce of Other Jewish folklore, may I suggest this:

The demon Lilith[edit]

Elijah was always seen as deeply pious, it seems only natural that he would be pitted against an equally evil individual. This was found in the person of Lilith. Lilith in legend was the first wife of Adam. She rebelled against Adam, the angels, and even God. She came to be seen as a demon and a witch. [2] [3]

Elijah encountered Lilith and instantly recognized and challenged her, "Unclean one, where are you going?" Unable to avoid or lie to the prophet, she admitted she was on her way to the house of a pregnant woman. Her intertion was to kill the woman and eat the child.

Elijah prounounced his malediction, "I curse you in the Name of the Lord. Be silent as a stone!" But, Lilith was able to make a bargain with Elijah. She promises to "forsake my evil ways" if Elijah will remove his curse. To seal the bargain she gives Elijah her names so that they can be posted in the houses of pregnant women or new born children or used as amulets. Lilith promises, "where I see those names, I shall run away at once. Neither the child nor the mother wil ever be injured by me." [4]

ThomasHartman 16:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Stick this in, it's good. Wrad 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One more citation[edit]

I went through and cited a lot of things. There is only one source left marked as uncited, in the etymology section. Can anyone cite that? Wrad 19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

I'd suggest that after we add that last citation and consolidate the eastern european "Elijah the Thunderer" info, that we put this article up for a Peer review and aim for Good Article status. Wrad 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i views[edit]

As far as I know there is not division of Baha'is. This articles claims we are divided into the groups Nawruz and Ridvan. This is false, Nawruz and Ridvan are our New Year and Most Holy celebrations respectively, and do not denote any division among Baha'is. This article states that some Baha'i see Elijah as a lesser prophet, and some as having returned as the Bab. Both are true at once. Elijah returned as John the Baptist, and later the Bab, return does not refer to reincarnation but to a return of the same holy prefections. The Bab was a Manifestation (Higher Prophet) but Elijah and John the Baptist were Lesser Prophets. This article gets bogus in the Baha'i bit, and I am about to revise it, if anyone objects please mention it. Aeroplane 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. Whoever wrote it didn't cite it, anyway. Wrad 17:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not cited it either, because I am not wholly sure how to. If someone could link me to instructions on that, i will do it, as I have sources. Aeroplane 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have now cited it, i think it is done properly. All sources are Baha'i sources, this is okay, right? Aeroplane 18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A few changes[edit]

Sorry to have been away for so long. I have been a little unwell lately. However, I am very happy to see that Elijah has attracted so much attention. And, so much good work.

Anyway, I've made a few minor edits.

ThomasHartman (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And I restored a link to an Elijah story. The story was moved from its original link.

ThomasHartman (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ascending to heaven[edit]

I may be wrong, but I think that Elijah was actually not taken up in a chariot, but separated from whatshisname by a fire chariot and taken up in a whirlwind. 2 Kings 2:11 says "As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind." G man yo (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether you are right or wrong is neither confirmed or denied by the passage Kings 2:11, "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them both assunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." The clause "... went up by a whirlwind into heaven..." would apply whether or not he was in the chariot because the whirlwind could carry just Elijah and the chariot go alongide, could be the method of locomoton for the chariot, or could be the wake created by the chariot. The third interpretations makes the most sense to me. The second is okay as well. As for the first, I would think it rather odd for a chariot to be sent and then to not actually get in it.

Given the ambiguity, I have changed the parenthetical expression to reflect this. I was thinking to just delete it, but I'll let some others look into the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Arts and literature[edit]

Shouldn't the "arts and literature" section ping back to Twipley (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Template:S-reg[edit]

User:Nate5713 made an edit introducing the use of Template:S-reg, with a similar action for Elisha. I reverted it with the edit summary: "Bad idea. this template is for kings etc, not prophets". He responded on my talk page with

==== Official Prophet of Israel ====
"This template is only used for kings, etc." Is that so? then why is it, at the same time, used for letters of the Alphabet, Periodic elements, Books of the Bible, legendary High Priests, and other such unrelated topics?
In 1 Kings 19:16, God commands Elijah to anoint Elisha as "Prophet in your place" (literally, "in your office"). One could easily estimate other prophets who might have assumed this office as well, but that would be OR so I limited the template, until other users could expand it, to Elijah and Elisha. --Nate5713 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the comments of other editors. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Elias = Eliahu?[edit]

At the Elias page anonymous (Mormon?) editors repeatedly removed any connection between Elijahu and Elias. The origin of "Elias" as the name of the prophet is indeed not a simple matter and needs more scrunity. Most importantly , the Septuagint, the prophet's name is transcribed as Ηλιου (Eliu) and not as Elias. See, s:el:Βασιλειών Γ'#Κεφάλαιον ΙΖ' orΒασιλειών_Γ%27_(Rahlfs)#17 (Kings 1.17 according to Western numbering).  Andreas  (T) 18:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Line 106[edit]

I intend to remove this POV statement. While the final mention of Elijah in the Hebrew Bible is in the Book of Chronicles, the Christian Bible's reversal of the ordering of the books of the Hebrew Bible in order to place the Book of Malachi, which prophesies a messiah, immediately before the Gospels, means that Elijah's final Old Testament appearance is in the Book of Malachi, where it is written, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." That day is described as the burning of a great furnace, "... so that it will leave them neither root nor branch." The Christian ordering follows the Septuagint which was written hundreds of years before the Tanakh was finally agreed. The claim that Christians re-ordered a previous layout is POV, and would need attributable sources before it could be restored.Theredheifer (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Have added a citation required tag pending possible removal as per the preceding.Cspoleta (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sign of the covenant?[edit]

"A midrash tells that they even abolished the sign of the covenant..." -- circumsion? Could perhaps be clarified what this means here in this context (there is no Wikipedia article yet). (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Regarding [4]:

(First paragraph, last line) ... "References to Elijah appear in the New Testament, the Talmud, the Mishnah, the Quran, and The Urantia Book." ...


Meekr46 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

final mention of Elijah in Hebrew Bible[edit]

The present text says "the final mention of Elijah in the Hebrew Bible is in the Book of Chronicles". The context suggests that the Hebrew Bible downplays the line "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the dreadful day of the Lord" at the end of Malachi. In my experience, after 70 years being used to the Christian ordering of the books, I first noticed this line when I read the books in the Hebrew order. This is divided into Law - Prophets - Writings. The line concludes the Prophets and is highlighted. The Writings conclude with the promise of a restored Temple. --Studymore (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elijah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Error: Islam does not view him as the messiah[edit]

Reference 114 is not correct in my view. Islam views Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. However, I am not a scholar on this so someone who knows more should edit this correctly. I assume this is digital vandalism of the page? Cwingrav (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Islam does view Jesus as the Messiah (al-Masih, etymologically parallel to Hebrew Mashiah or Greek Messias). But the word Messiah means somewhat different things in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. So for Islam Jesus is a prophet as well as the Masih, but he is not the son of God, or God himself. Alephb (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • ^ "Elijah." Encyclopedia Judaica. Keter Publishing House: Jerusalam. 1971. p 633.
    • ^ Schwartz, Howard. Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
    • ^ Ginzberg, Lewis. Legends of the Bible. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1956.
    • ^ Schwartz, Howard. Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. p 224-225.
    • ^ The Urantia Book page 514 (The Four and Twenty Counselors)