Talk:1 Esdras

message: 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.
203.32.87.174 15:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Josephus makes use of the book and some scholars believe that the composition is likely to have taken place in the first century BC or the first century AD. Many Protestant and Catholic scholars assign no historical value to the "original" sections of the book. The citations of the other books of the Bible, however, provide a pre-Septuagint translation of those texts, which increases its value to scholars.
How does a 1st century BC/1st century AD text pre-date the Septuagint?  Perhaps the author meant the existing manuscripts of 1 Esdras pre-date the existing manuscripts of other biblical texts cited within 1 Esdras?  As it stands this paragraph is quite confusing. Timotheos 01:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: The last sentence of this paragraph doesn't make sense to me:
:Josephus makes use of the book and some scholars believe that the composition is likely to have taken place in the first century BC or the first century AD. Many Protestant and Catholic scholars assign no historical value to the "original" sections of the book. The citations of the other books of the Bible, however, provide a pre-Septuagint translation of those texts, which increases its value to scholars.
How does a 1st century BC/1st century AD text pre-date the Septuagint?  Perhaps the author meant the existing manuscripts of 1 Esdras pre-date the existing manuscripts of other biblical texts cited within 1 Esdras?  As it stands this paragraph is quite confusing. Timotheos 01:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation of 1 Esdras to Septuagint

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) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethiopian Orthodox Bible 

message: This article seems to be a bit unclear as to the original language of the book.  Books of the Bible shows it to be Greek, but as I read this article it would appear to me that the original would be Hebrew, but with the first inclusion in a canonical form being the Greek Septuagint. Is there any clear understanding of what the original language was? Dbiel (Talk) 01:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Language 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/042.htm
** In 1 Esdras on 2011-05-25 06:49:22, 404 Not Found
** In 1 Esdras on 2011-06-09 12:24:39, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1 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/20070928122338/http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/042.htm to http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/042.htm
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) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have reverted the following edit for the second time; so I owe an explanation:  "Jerome states that this book is apocryphal along with 2 Esdras. "
In his prologue to Ezra, Jerome discusses  four 'books of Esdras' known in Latin; and explains why his translation (from the Hebrew) contains only one.  As usual his argument in't entirely easy to follow; as he is purusing disputes of which we only have his half of the story.  But it is clear that he criticises the Seputagint Greek for presenting two books of Ezra that are in fact a 'variety of versions' of the same Hebrew original.  Clearly he understands Esdras A (first Esdras) and Esdras B (second Esdras) here.  Then he says that the third and fourth books of Esdras are apocryphal.  Bogaert discusses which are these two books; and proposes that Jerome's third Esdras is to be identified with Slavonic 'third Esdras' - which also appears to be Ambrose's 'third Esdras'.  Jerome's 'fourth Esdras' could then be our 5 Esdras, or 6 Esdras (or conceivably both).  But either way, Jerome is not saying that our 1 Esdras is apocryphal, only that it is a secondary (and inferior) translation. Which indeed it is. TomHennell (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly there is a confusion here; but Bogaert's findings are now defintive; 1 Esdras is never called 3 Esdras before the 13th century, so Jerome cannot have been referring to it as 'third Esdras' in his prologue to Ezra.  On the other hand, 2 Esdras (= Clementive 4 Esdras) is referred to by Ambrose and "the third book of Esdras" in 'De Spiritu Sancto 2.6'.  Again following Bogaert. TomHennell (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerome and Ezra 

message: I have reverted the attached from the lede.
"1 Esdras (), also First Esdras, Greek Esdras, Greek Ezra, or 3 Esdras, is an ancient Greek version of the biblical Book of Ezra in use among the early church, and many modern Christians with varying degrees of canonicity.  The core of First Esdras (chapters 2 and 5-9) is hypothesised to be a surviving earlier variant of the Masoretic Ezra-Nehemiah, with the passages specific to the career of Nehemiah having been inserted into Ezra-Nehemiah, as well as passages attributed to Ezra changed to Nehemiah. First Esdras also contains a Prologue (Chapter 1) largely similar to 2 Chronicles 35-36, as well as a later addition of a Persian court tale, the Tale of the Three Guardsmen (chapters 3-4).David M. Carr, "The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction", Oxford University Press, 2011, pp168-169."
It looks like this ought to be in the body of the article; but not in the lede as it is not a consensus view.  But also, unless I read it wrong, the wording is arsey-versey.  Nehemiah does not feature in 1 Esdras; that is the point. TomHennell (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  theories of David Carr 

message: "An additional difficulty with the text appears to readers who are unfamiliar with chiastic structures common in Semitic literature. If the text is assumed to be a Western-style, purely linear narrative, then Artaxerxes seems to be mentioned before Darius, who is mentioned before Cyrus."
As far as I can tell, Cyrus is mentioned before  Artaxerxes, and Darius is mentioned next.  Cyrus did come before both, but Darius I came before Artaxerxes I, so if it were Darius I mentioned, it would be non-chronological - however, if it means Darius II, this would be chronological, since he reigned after Artaxerxes I (And Artxerxes II reigned directly after Darius II, with Esdras being said to have been born after the reign of 'Darius' and during the reign of 'Artaxerxes', so this chronology would make much sense, but I digress).  But point being, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the claim about the text quoted from the Wikipedia article at the beginning of this post is incorrect, and should be revised or deleted.
Secondarily, criticism claiming deeds of Nehemiah to have been translated over to Esdras in 'Esdras A' should be noted in the 'Criticism' section, if it exists - and if it does not, the mention of such criticism should be expunged from the introductory text of the article. Zusty001 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim about chronological recount? (Et. More needed for 'Criticism' section)