Talk:2 Esdras/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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

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)

Category:Christian texts

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 [1]. 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)