Talk:Esdras

Older

There can't be any such thing as Εσδρας Γ′ in the LXX, because the book is not even extant in Greek and doesn't exist in the LXX anyway.

Source: http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Apocalyptic%20Esdras

Neither does it exist even in the oldest copies of the LXX

Source: http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/sp_books.html

Pre-tridentine Vulgate

I disagree with the article's assertion that the Vulgate had only 3 books of Esdras. The Gutenberg bible had 4: [1]. Rwflammang 17:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't like about this article

Unsourced statements about how catholics and protestants number books, which seem to me to be inaccurate. Unsourced generalizations about what greek fathers do. And an overloaded table. And two tables when one would be sufficient.

Last time I checked this was en.wikipedia.org and not el.wikipedia.org, so the English names should come first in the table, like so:

Many English versions^[1]	DR and Vulgate	Septuagint	Slavonic Bibles
Enumeration of the books of Ezra
Ezra	1 Esdras	First half of Εσδρας B′	1 Esdras
Nehemiah	2 Esdras or Nehemias	Second half of Εσδρας B′	Nehemiah
1 Esdras	3 Esdras	Εσδρας Α′	2 Esdras
2 Esdras	4 Esdras	not present	3 Esdras

^ Including KJB, RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, and GNB

I'm also not sure I like the Greek font; why isn't the Slavonic in Cyrillic?

Rwflammang 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth your proposal sounds good to me. 75.15.194.28 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between Bible and Canon

I think it is important to keep the distinction between Bible and Canon. Canons are issued by religious authorities and are irrespective of language. There is no such thing as a Latin canon, for instance. You probably mean the Catholic canon, but of course the Catholic canon goes for all Catholics regardless of what language their bible is in. I'll accept the term Hebrew canon, but only because "Hebrew" can be a synonym for "Jewish". Bibles, on the other hand, by their nature must be written in some language or other, so it makes sense to talk of a Latin or Hebrew bible.

Another distinction to be made is that Bibles often contain scriptures that are not necessarily considered canonical by the publishers. Many bibles (e.g. KJV, Vulgate) contain apocrypha sections, for instance. Gutenberg's bible does not contain an apocrypha section, but never-the-less contains 3 and 4 Esdras in its Old Testament, along with prefaces that say that 3 and 4 Esdras are not canonical. This reflects a fairly common practice in the Latin manuscripts.

In short, "biblical" and "canonical" are not synonyms.

Rwflammang (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies across articles

This article is inconsistent with Books_of_the_Bible#Table. That article says that for the Catholics, Ezra = 1 Esdras, which is part of what the Eastern Orthodox call 2 Esdras. Please modify these articles so they're consistent. - 72.184.128.205 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That table you link to is silly and inaccurate. I'd certainly be opposed to any changes in this article to make it accord to that one. Rwflammang (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata

For some reason, Α΄ Έσδρας (Greek) is attached through Wikidata to Book of Ezra (English), when it seems to me that it should be attached through Wikidata to 1 Esdras (English). My operating system is too old to fix this; can anyone else do so? allixpeeke (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; I don't see how this is a matter of operating system, though—the same tech that can edit this page can edit that. I just went to the Ezra Wikidata page and deleted the EL entry from the "Wikipedia" list, then went to the 1 Esdras Wikidata page and added it to the equivalent list. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esdras. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234523/http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Apocalyptic%20Esdras to http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Apocalyptic%20Esdras

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article even about?

I fail to see what this article is about. If it is about an alternative spelling of Ezra, then it should simply redirect there. If it is about the books considered as sacred scriptures attributed to Ezra (as the "Historical development" and "Canonicity" sections seem to indicate), then the article should be renamed or its content be merged into Biblical canon. Veverve (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article is books attributed to Ezra which are not included in the Hebrew Bible. Since there are several different numbering schemes, and various of the books are accepted or semi-accepted or considered purely apocryphal by various Christian denominations, the situation can be confusing, so it's nice to have a little overview, in addition to individual articles on each of the separate books. That's what this article is for. AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Then the article is redundant with Biblical canon. Veverve (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that. Why can't we have a limited discussion of the confusing (to the uninitiated) variant numbering schemes and degrees of acceptance of books called "Esdras" in English, without plunging into the general overall deep topic of Biblical canonicity? AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed AnonMoos; and moreover there are differences in numbering and nomenclature amongst Ezra texts in particular entirely unrelated to different traditions of canonicity. As for example, between the Jerome's Vulgate and that of the Clementine edition; or again between the Clementine edition and the King James Version. TomHennell (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article says Jerome's Vulgate had just Ezra?

Jerome himself speaks of 4 books of Esdras, where he mentions that 3 and 4 Esdras are apocryphal. Perhaps he did not have them in the Vulgate because he considered them apocryphal? I refer to 3 and 4 Esdras.Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it only goes to demonstrate the value of having setting out current scholarly opinions in this article. The terms 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras are late medieval, and Jerome uses neither. Jerome refers to "apocriforum tertii et quarti libri .. Ezrae", but we have no reason to believe that his use corresponds to medieval 3 Esdras and 4 Esdas; any more than we have any reason to believe that Augustine's reference to canonical 'two books of Ezra' correspond to medieval 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, rather than to 5th century Greek Ezra A and Ezra B. TomHennell (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have reverted your edits again; as they are wholly inconsistent with the Bogaert citations that remain in the text. If you feel that I am misreprenting, or underexplaining Bogaert's presentation of the evidence, then it would be better for us to agree a form of words here first. Jerome is by no means consistent or rigorous in his use of the term 'apocrypha'; but, by any definition, he does not categorise Greek Esdras (Esdras A) or Greek Ezra-Nehemiah (Esdras B) as 'apocrypha'. He says of the two books of Ezra in the Septuagint that they are 'exemplaria varietas ipsa lacerata et eversa' - so, 'torn and perverted' - whose corruptions are remedied in his Vulgate translation of Hebrew Ezra as a single book. The Latin Ezra books he considers 'apocrypha' are those with no corresponding text in the Septuagint - hence those later gathered into 'Latin Esdras'. This is my reading of Bogaert; can you suggest where I may be wrong? TomHennell (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bogaert on Jerome's prologue

I'm afraid we have been going round in circles a bit on this; so it might help to set out what Bogaert interpets Jerome as saying in his prologue.

Jerome has observed that the Septuagint Greek presents "variant versions" (exemplaria varietas) of Ezra, where the Hebrew has only the one. These Septuagint variants Jerome clearly understands as the two separate books of Esdras A and Esdras B; and as these are (for Jerome) simply two different translations of the same Ezra-Nehemiah, so Jerome's Vulgate Book of Ezra from the Hebrew serves for them both. Bogaert consequently concludes that Jerome applies the term 'third book of Ezra' as Ambrose does, to the text within Latin Esdras referred to by modern scholarship as 4 Ezra - i.e. chapters 3-14. That leaves the question unresolved as to whether Jerome's 'fourth book of Ezra' refers to 5 Ezra (chapters 1-2), or 6 Ezra (chapters 15 - 16), or both. Bogaert prefers the third possibility; "As for the fourth book of Ezra according to Jerome, one can only take guesses. One could see 5 Ezra or 6 Ezra. I prefer the hypothesis according to which it is both 6 Ezra and 5 Ezra in that order, for in one part of the tradition of 4 Ezra they follow the Jewish apocalypse (= 4 Ezra 3–14,) and they are not distinguished (chap. 15–16 + 1+2)". So Jerome's 'third and fourth books of Ezra' together comprise the whole of later 'Latin Esdras'; while Jerome would consider the two Greek variant versions in Septaugint as the 'first and second books of Ezra'; i.e. Greek Esdras and Greek Ezra-Nehemiah in that order.

So for Jerome:

the first book of Ezra = Esdras A = Greek Esdras - an early, corrupted, translation of Hebrew Ezra

the seconod book of Ezra = Esdras B = Ezra-Nehemiah - a later, also corrupted, translation of Hebrew Ezra, though not as bad as Esdras A

the third book of Ezra = Latin Esdras (chapters 3-14) - apocryphal

the fourth book of Ezra = Latin Esdras (chapters 15,16,1,2) - also apocryphal

TomHennell (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canonicity

The information in the section "Canonicity" could perhaps be better set out in a table. Just a suggestion. Nice article, by the way. Achar Sva (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Including KJB, RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, and GNB

[1]