Talk:Book of Ezra

message: Read the end of the first bullet point in the introduction...
: "This 60 year gap was inserted into the natural chronological flow of Ezra in order to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Daniel chapter 9."
This commentary does not belong here--in the introduction/historical breakup section--, as it does not follow NPOV guidelines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.33.77 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I noticed the link to the Samaritans sent people to the Samaria page, so I tried to redirect it to something more immediately appropriate. However, the Samaritan page begins with a lot of information on the present day Samaritans rather than on the community at the time of Ezra, so I sent the link to Samaria#Samaritans instead, thinking this is a more practical link to people reading the synopsis. Which link do you think is better? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to send link to Samaritans? 

message: If I'm reading the article correctly, it contradicts itself about which Artaxerxes is involved in the last section of the book. The top of the article claims it is Artaxerxes I but the "origin" section lists Artaxerxes II. I also note that the top divides the book into two sections, but the "origin" section lists three sections. I recognize that there are conflicting interpretations of which King, and different ways to analyze the structure of the book, but is there a way to make the article clearer and more internally consistent? Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  It is Artaxerxes I each time.  I fixed it by referring to I Esdras in the Septuagint.  Wyeson 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd return: which Artaxerxes? 

message: The reference to Ezra's   struggle to purify the Jews from  the sin of marriage with non-Jews is clearly point of view.  Either the word sin needs quote marks, or it should be changed to something like struggle to purify the Jews from what he describes as the sin of marriage with non-Jews.
Without this it appears to be in the neutral Wikipedia voice.  Religious concepts such as sin are POV, and need to be ascribed to religious sources.Helloworldhellosky (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The sin part you can change, which I did further reading in the article. The part that concerns me is the sentence you changed to common era. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Helloworldhellosky Your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Ezra&diff=617501349&oldid=617351490 you stated "until the common era" is a violation of (WP:ERAS). You can't change the ear-style of an article. Because the article's era-style in set to AD/BC, you can't use terms such as "common era". It will simply ruin the consistency of the article's era-style. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "Common Era" to "time of Christ", since this is a Jewish topic and since WP is not a Christian site. The entire article should be BCE style. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (WP:ERAS) still applies. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Ezra&diff=617506329&oldid=617501527JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the dating should be consistent throughout the article -- I just think we should change the entire article to BCE/CE. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer BCE also, but that is not up to us. I take (WP:ERAS) as my foundation for equality for biblical articles on Wikipedia of high importance. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything in the ERAS MOS page that says Bible articles need to use BC/AD. What passage are you referring to? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Do not change the established era style in an article" JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but that's not what you said about keeping Bible articles consistent: "as my foundation for equality for biblical articles on Wikipedia of high importance". Where is that guideline? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant leaving the era-style in biblical articles alone if it be BC or BCE. Once an era-style has been established, it should be left alone. JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The Hebrew title of this work, according to the Hebrew Wikipedia, is ספר עזרא, which translates to The Book of Ezra in English.But, this work wasn't composed entirely in Hebrew.  As the article itself states, portions of it were in Aramaic.  Yet, there is no mention here of how the work is referred to commonly in Aramaic, nor whether said title also translates to The Book of Ezra in English.  For that matter, there is not even a mention of this work on the Aramaic Wikipedia.allixpeeke (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title (Aramaic) 

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

message: Hi,
I read the section of "Date, structure and composition", and would like to have someone change the tenor of statement in it that Cyrus never referred to himself as "king of Persia".  This statement is used to support a much later date for the possibility of the book of Ezra being written than at the time of Cyrus the Great(559 BC-530 BC) and Darius I (522 BC -486 BC).  It is being used to support the date of Ezra arriving in Jerusalem in 458 BC.
Here is the statement in the article:  
"Koresh of Ezra 1:1 is called "king of Persia", which title was introduced not by Cyrus the Great but by his grandson and probable namesake Xerxes (486–465 BC).[15]"
While I cannot verify that Cyrus himself did not take the title "King of Persia", there is evidence that the Babylonians referred to him as "King of Parsu" (which is very likely meaning "King of Persia") on the ABC 7 Nabonidus Chronicle. 
Cyrus first appears on the ABC 7 in Nabonidus' year 6.  He is referred to as "King of Ansan."  This was the event that united the Medes and Persians under his control, when he took the controlling power away from his grandfather, Astyages.  See  http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc7/abc7_nabonidus2.html , column ii, line 1.  
The next time Cyrus is mentioned on the ABC 7, he is listed as "King of Parsu".  This is in Nabonidus' ninth year, which was 547-546.  See http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc7/abc7_nabonidus2.html line 15.  
So, when Ezra and Nehemiah (who were in Babylon at the time of Cyrus taking over) wrote about Cyrus, they were accustomed to referring to him as the "King of Persia".  He had been called that by the Babylonians at least 8 years before he took over Babylon.  (17-9 = 8)
Therefore, the statement listed above which is in the article should not be used to support a date of 100 years later for the writing of the Book of Ezra than what Cyrus was documented in primary sources to be known as to the inhabitants of Babylon prior to his taking over Babylon.
I have been burned several times in trying to make edits to Wikipedia pages, because I quote primary sources to make changes in articles.  So, I am bringing this information to the editor of this article, in the hopes he or she will remove this misleading statement.
If I need to quote someone else that agrees with me, that Cyrus is listed as the King of Persia on the ABC 7, for Nabonidus' year 9, then please see Jona Lendering's comment in the preface to the text of the ABC 7 Nabonidus Chronicle:  
"The tablet also describes the rise of Cyrus the Great, who is first presented as the ruler of Anšan who subdued the Median leader Astyages (550; ii.1); we also learn that Cyrus -now called king of Persia- conquered Urartu in 547 (ii.16); and on the reverse, we read how -in October 539- he outmaneuvered the Babylonians in a battle at Opis (iii.12), which was followed by the killing of citizens (iii.14)."  From: www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc7/abc7_nabonidus1.html 
Jona Lendering is a well-recognized scholar in ancient history.
The statement above in the Ezra article is also in direct conflict with the article about Cyrus the Great in Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great, which states he held the title "King of Persia" in the side column.
Thank you so much,
ChemistmomChemistmom (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the belated answer: Lendering can be cited for his own views, but please stick to what he did affirm and shortly describe his POV, do not engage in demonstrating or refuting it based upon your own analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources. tgeorgescu (talk)  23:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

text: True. The article's claim that Cyrus never hold the title of King of Persia is based on a source that is almost seventy years old and which contradicts the historical evidence and modern scholarly consensus. I will correct that false claim using more recent, academic sources. Potatín5 (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrus was referred to as "King of Persia" by the Babylonians in the ABC 7 Nabonidus Chronicle. 

message: I note that this article uses BC, rather than BCE, even though its content primarily deals material of non-Christian origin. Might it be acceptable to update this to BCE, in keeping with current scholarship? BibleScholar (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections. TomHennell (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/BCE