Talk:Ezra–Nehemiah

Scope of this article

This article is about the combined book - the lengthy summary section belongs in the articles about the separate books. Most scholarship treats the books individually (even if they are regarded as a unity), so we ought to follow that. Basically, the issues we should look at here are ones that involve both books - the dates of the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah form a good example. StAnselm (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on the articles for the separate books and I've found it impossible to treat them separately - you keep having to repeat things about composition, theology, background, authorship, everything. I want to make this the main article and the two other articles deal with just those aspects that concern them alone - like the dates of the two men, for example. So the idea is to delete the summaries from the other two articles and direct readers to this one. (The alternative is large repeats in the other two). PiCo (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree - having this as the main article is a good idea. Possibly controversial (a lot of people don't think of Ezra-Nehemiah as a unity) - but it should work. Of course, the summary of the contents is the very thing that will be in the individual articles - it's the background and themes that will need to be here. It sounds like you're thinking of something like the Divine Comedy article(s). Anyway, I'll let you alone to work on it. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd be grateful if you do keep an eye on it - a second opinion is always a good thing to have. (For starters, I might leave the content-summaries out of this article, or else find some other way of summarising the contents).PiCo (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This page on "Facebook"

Hey, I'm not sure who decides how wikipedia pages get categorized on Facebook, but if anyone here has control of it - this page is listed as "public figure" when I think it quite obviously should be listed as a "book" like the other biblical books on wiki are. I don't see a place to change it, so maybe that's something that has to be taken care of on the FB end, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.32.114 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Era-style consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The era-style for this article is inconsistent. There is BC and BCE throughout this article. Now requesting consensus for change. I support era-style BCE/CE. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed on BCE/CE -- my reason is the same as I gave over at the Isaiah discussion. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Be bold". Given the consensus on Isaiah, I think editing first, and discussing on any reversion is the way forward if you find more of these inconsistencies. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please place your choice even though I know your answer in respect for other editors who haven't decided yet -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• • While I offer no particular opposition to BCE/CE, I offer no particular support for it either. I did support it on Talk:Book of Isaiah#Era-style consensus just recently, for practical reasons, because of prior establishment of that era formula per WP:ERA, and a consensus formed quickly in any case. I did make some observations there that I would like to be considered here as well. And I would like to point out that WP:ERA (from the MOS) does not require consistency within an article. It speaks only of making changes to an established choice of era. One proposition at Isaiah was that a consensus was required, but I don't think the policy advances the requirement. We are free to proceed here without encumbrance. Also, if there is an intention of continuing this question on multiple articles, I might suggest that the project talk page might be the place to establish parameters for wider changes and to reduce the efforts of those who would wish to respond to such questions. Retired editor Pi-Co was able to contribute the historical establishment of BCE/CE at Isaiah. It might be useful if someone could offer such knowledge about whatever other articles might come under consideration. Thanks.
  • No, Fiddlersmouth. There's no reason not to await an outcome before editing. Evensteven (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed, and for the record, this is not a big deal. MOS suggests that editing, then discussing on reversion is the preferred procedure. I don't see the point in generating a discussion over a minor edit to correct an inconsistency when the consensus is already apparent. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • According to MOS (WP:ERA), each article is pretty much an application of policy all to itself, affecting only the article in question. So, each article needs discussion on its own merits. Besides, I didn't generate the discussion myself; I contributed to an existing discussion. If the outcome is apparent to you, it may not be to everyone, and isn't to me. I don't see a necessity for establishing an era for this article, and as yet we have seen no indication that one was ever established. So the question is not identical to what we had at Isaiah, at least at present. All of which includes technicalities which, while having a limited inherent significance, can be readily addressed by enough community involvement. After all, consistency does have its uses, and even opinion alone can achieve useful decisions if widely enough held. Evensteven (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So that's two in favour, plus original proposer - no other votes. Article duly amended. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth, I don't object to anything here except this tendency to jump the gun. First, there is no real consensus: not enough participation. Second, five days is not enough time to wait in trying to get more, especially when an additional message was left only a couple of days ago at Project Bible. There is no deadline on WP. Not all editors are as active as we are, and especially in small matters that don't attract a lot of attention and don't have much impact, two weeks is a minimum to allow. I think leaving time for participation is a highly important element of editing activity. Waiting times may be a bit different (even shorter) in highly active discussions because there is greater assurance in a smaller time that all responses have been heard. That's what waiting is about. If we had waited here for two weeks or more, then there would have been a stronger assurance that the community was behind your edits, and a stronger case for consensus, or for a stronger consensus. Moving too fast weakens the result. Evensteven (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• BCE/CE all the way Personal preference aside, this subject is not usually discussed outside of scholarly circles, and if anything is more a "Jewish" topic than a "Christian" one. Using "Anno Domini" in an article of specifically Jewish interest is entirely inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this. I guess consensus has been reached in agreement for BCE/CE. I'll change the era-style, and the discussion is finally being closed after a long time of waiting for more input, thnx Hijiri 88. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The paraphrase of impurity according to Hayes

Hello I am a senior at Miami University and am in a hebrew bible class that we are learning to edit and add to wikipedia.

In Hayes article the way that the term "holy seed" is used is that "seed" itself is very sacred. The intermingling of anything outside of the Judeans means that would make the"seed" then impure. The sources say that any physical interaction outside of the isrealites goes against what god created himself. There is a major mix up and non clarity between intermarriage and physical interaction. In the version of Ezra it was supported that intermarriage with gentiles is prohibited. For the version of Ezra In Hayes the issue is not a holiness of the blood line, but they do not want to see the "seed" be downgraded in any way. They want to keep the status of Israel holy according to Hayes. Adrugby (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Purity and impurity additions

In my Hebrew Bible studies class at Miami University we are studying this portion of the bible and I think this would be a good edition to the article. It's a paraphrase of Christine Hayes's view on the impurity in Ezra.

Deuteronomy discusses certain Gentiles groups that the Israelites should not enter into marriage with. Even though this book says specific groups, the book of Ezra prohibits all exogamy. According to Christine Hayes, Ezra is concerned about the holy seed being profaned since he believes God has chosen his people as being holy. Since anyone that is not inside of the chosen group is considered not holy, it would be sinful to marry and reproduce with them, according to Ezra.TWloveandhonor (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To go along with this, Naomi Koltun-Fromm adds some information on the different and changing views throughout the Bible about what is considered pure or holy.

Naomi Koltun-Fromm points out the difficulty in deciphering who/what is considered "holy". She focuses on purity and holiness and how it changes from one source to another. For example, she discusses in the P source that only the priests, God's name, and anything else related to the name or worship of God is considered holy by God himself. Therefore, only the priests are considered to be the people whom God has chosen to be special and set apart. But in source H, all of Israel is considered to be holy. She comes to the conclusion that there are three types of of holiness: Holiness ascribed, holiness achieved, and holiness from pure genetic lines.Holiness ascribed means that God declared something or someone to be holy and nothing can be holy without his say. Holiness achieved is earned through obeying the holy law and the divine rule. A person can work for their holiness instead of being born into it. The final type of holiness, supererogatory holiness, is achieved through semen purity. TWloveandhonor (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

After reading Christine Hayes article titled "Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources" I found information that would be informative on this website. AL2015 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ezra and Nehemiah appear to promote the ban of intermarriage with all Gentiles. According to Hayes, Ezra is not a racial ideology that is concerned with purity of blood. The logic behind this ban is not the purity of blood, but the religious notion of Israel as a "holy seed". The holy status of the Israelite's is not racially based, but religiously based. With intermarriage the holy seed of Israel becomes mixed with the profane seed. In other words, intermarriage violates the holy seed of Abraham and Israel.</nowiki>

Thanks for the input folks. I'm still unclear about the difference between purity of blood and purity of seed, and unconvinced Ezra or Nehemiah would have seen it either.

Since you're learning to edit, think about using named references, and be aware that refs on a talk page are a pain in the posterior. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fiddlersmouth, thanks! Any help you can give them (us) with references, etc., would be appreciated. We talked in class yesterday about why "racial" purity is an unhelpful term. Maybe student kk_1291 will elaboration on "racial" from Southwood? ProfGray (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Scholar Dispute

Along with Hayes, I would also like to include a disputing scholar, Paul Heger, and show his point of view. AL2015 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Heger, Ezra’s motive for expelling Gentile women and their offspring was because at the time leaders believed that the identity of the Israelites did not depend of the ethnicity of their mothers, but depended on the seed of their fathers. The motive behind prohibiting intermarriage with all Gentile women was due to the danger of assimilation resulting from the influence of social interaction with the surrounding nations. The expulsion of the foreign women and their offspring was directed in order to preserve the purity of the Israelite “holy seed”. Thus, Ezra did not introduce the idea of matrilineal identity.

References

Southward Paraphrase about ethnicity in Ezra 9-10

Katherine Southwood makes some huge points in her article in how the terms, race, ethnicity, and nationalism are used throughout the text of Ezra 9-10. She points out that there are multiple problems not only inside the text but in work of the scholars as well. Although it is evident that the terms ethnicity and race have similarities one is just a secondary term of another. This however does not make the text easily translated and makes the expression of those terms as Southwood puts it not " appropriate" on any level. More of the issue lies with a bigger picture such as people from the land are not really different from those who have the "holy seed" since there are so many similarities that there seems to be a common attraction between the two. The argument there is that the writers of the text focus more on the the difference between the "people of the land" and the "Holy seed" than explaining the physical difference such as skin color, hair color. In the text the term ethnicity may be the best to describe the people in general, but in terms of the intermarriage Southwood feels that nationalism and ethnicity both do justice. Using the term race she claims is not needed and is used in a negative manner. Adrugby (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Olyan and Hayes

ZarathustraSay20, strong addition to the article. A few comments: "these" contemporaries -- not clear to reader, need to name them since only Hayes mentioned above. Also, not clear, what is meant by "familial" implications. Why is ritual impurity in scare quotes? Or moral, for that matter, since not explained to reader? It's possible to elaborate on his argument, but this is a fine contribution. ProfGray (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

ProfGray, ultimately I did delete the "scare quotes" from the words "ritual" and "moral." Initially, I added them because both terms can be ambiguous and defined differently depending on the individual; the quotes, used to denote Olyan's definition in his article. I felt explaining moral and ritual purity in explicit detail was a deviation from the conciseness of my article contribution.

Intermarriage in Ezra and Nehemiah

I am a student at Miami University, also studying the religions of the Hebrew Bible, and I would like to add to the Themes of this page. Katherine Southwood describes how language and the intermarriage views of Ezra and Nehemiah are related. I would like to add significant information regarding these themes, and how language and ethnicity are shown to be related. Slfirme (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Southwood Argument

Katherine Southwood argues that the driving force behind the negation of intermarriage is due to ethnic preservation. Intermarriage would lead to assimilation of other languages not Judean and it would threaten the ethnic identity of the group. Preventing the entering of non-Judeans would maintain a boundary that separated the Judeans and non-Judeans into an "us vs. them" situation. Southwood discusses language as being so important because it's part of the foundation that makes up the identity of a group. The author of Nehemiah insinuates that the non-exilic people assimilated themselves to a local dialect and was not the pure language "belonging" to Nehemiah and those who followed him. The possibility of the Judean identity being threatened by Gentiles was a factor that lead to the wide spread support of endogamy, along with the belief that endogamous relationships would hold off on linguistic assimilation and keep the "us vs. them" boundary intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk 1291 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lau Argument

Peter Lau analyzes how it's possible for Gentiles to be included as part of Israel in Ezra and Nehemiah. Mr. Lau compares and contrasts the events in Ezra and Nehemiah to the events in Exodus after the Israelites escape from Egypt. Both of these books involve the people of Israel returning to their own land. In Exodus, they leave Egypt to go to their promised land. In Ezra and Nehemiah, they are returning to Israel from exile. This is all background to show how the books are related. Lau's main point is how and if Gentiles can be included in the nation of Israel. These questions are directly related to the celebration of Passover. Passover was seen as a way to separate true Israelites from non Israelites. Only true Israelites partook in Passover. If someone wasn't an Israelite they could still become part of the nation of Israel if they devoted themselves to the Israelite God, followed the Torah, and were circumcised. In Exodus this was mainly talking about slaves, and other foreigners who had escaped Egypt with the Israelites. In Ezra and Nehemiah this also related to foreigners who came back to Israel with the Israelites when they returned from exile. Lau also points out that Ezra showed strong beliefs toward the people of Israel not marrying Gentiles. Lau argues that this was to keep the Israelites from turning from God. It was all about keeping the Israelites following God and not turning toward other Gods. So Lau points out that if the Gentiles do what is required and partake in Passover to become part of Israel, they are no longer seen as outsiders. Lau's points show the importance of differentiating Israelites from non Israelites. <ref>Peter H.W. Lau, "Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah?," ''ATLAS'' 356-373.</ref> Dkcincy (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Deny sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evert Wandelaar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever happened to BCE?

Considering the lengthy discussion above, in which it was decided that BC should be changed to BCE, why has the article reverted to BC? PortholePete (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@PortholePete: looks like it was done piecemeal over time. I've fixed it. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)