Talk:2 Esdras

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The article says: " It is reckoned among the apocrypha by Roman Catholics, Protestants, and most Eastern Orthodox Christians." That's "most Eastern Orthodox" --- can we please be told of the minority of Eastern Orthodox and any other groups that regard it as canonical. please please?? Are the Ethiopians the one and only group that regards any of it as canonical. And, since the Ethiopic versions seems to start at chapter 3, some comment on how the Ethiopic version numbers its chapters. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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 [3]). 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 [4]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose and 'the third book of Esdras'[edit]

Ambrose makes by far the most extensive use of 2 Esdras of any patristic writer. For the most part, he simply calls it "the book of Esdras"; but where he needs to differentiate it from canonical First Ezra (1 Esdras) and second Ezra, (Ezra-Nehemiah) he calls it 'the third book of Esdras'. All this is in the cited source, Karina Martin Hogan; "Curiously, Ambrose refers to 4 Ezra as the third book of Esdras (elsewhere he cites it simply as 'the book of Esdras'". This point is also made by Bogaert. There is, though, a potential for confusion, as on-line editions of Ambrose works have been silently 'adjusted' to read 'fourth book of Esdras' an this point - presumably to bring them into consistency with the Clementine Vulgate. Bogaert and Hogan follow the manuscript witnesses, as should we. TomHennell (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Ezra, it's Ezra![edit]

The opening paragraph contains the following error:

"Its authorship is ascribed to Ezra, a scribe and priest of the 5th century BCE"

This is absolutely not correct. If you read the text, it is attributed to Ezra the prophet, who lived during the Babylonian captivity. Ezra the scribe is a different person entirely who lived much later. The Ethiopian Church claims Ezra the prophet was the second Exarch of the Jews in Babylon.

I'm not arguing that either Ezra existed, just that they are not the same person/character. I have no interest in starting a edit war, so I'll leave it to others to fix the article. But, as it is now, it's wrong.

J.Stornoway (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Ezra the scribe". The book ascribes itself to the Ezra (the only one), whom it also identifies with Shealtiel, the father of Serubbabel. Of course, this is chronologically impossible as E. and S. lived a hundred years apart. The author around the year 100 AD failed to realise that.
As for "I'm not arguing that either Ezra existed" let's not delve into hyperskeptic obscurantism here. There is no reason to think that the 5th century Ezra did not exist and there is no reason that a second Ezra existed. Str1977 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2_Esdras&oldid=1215610229"