Talk:2 Esdras

message: 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)
thread_title: Ethiopian Orthodox Bible 

message: What exactly is the problem with BenEsq's edits? They strike me as conventional and uncontroversial. Rwflammang (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: 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:
*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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ambrose and 'the third book of Esdras'