Talk:Book of Malachi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Content

Appears written almost entirely from a Christian POV and sourcing, needs more content on role in Judaism. Will attempt to work on it. --Shirahadasha 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what LDS say?

The whole part about what the LDS say or feel about this book is rather pointless. All apocalyptic groups have their own self-serving views and thoughts on everything. It would be better left to real Bible scholars and theologians, than 19th centuries scrams and hoaxes. --User:don't have one 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.29.105 (talk)

Authorship of the article

I'm moving this remark from the "Further reading" section of the article, as signatures and signature-like comments are inappropriate in mainspace articles:

The original version of this article was prepared in 2005 for the course BIBL5023 at Acadia Divinity College

— Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Check Easton's

We say:

According to the editors of the 1897 Easton's Bible Dictionary, the name is not a "nomen proprium" and is assumed to be an abbreviation of ("messenger of Yhwh"),

But Easton's says:

Some have supposed that the name is simply a title descriptive of his character as a messenger of Jehovah, and not a proper name. There is reason, however, to conclude that Malachi was the ordinary name of the prophet.

So we are saying that Easton's is saying the contrary of what it says. Are we quoting a different edition? Is the quote misattributed? --84.20.17.84 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this up!! Without naming any names, we've had difficulties with some editors in the past who haven't been careful about sourcing. --Shirahadasha 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the attribution should have been to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article Book of Malachi, which resolutely does take this view.

The best way forward, of course, would be to report what is said by contemporary mainstream 21st century academic scholarship. Jheald (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference to nothing

Just FYI to the editors of this section--it says to see the LDS Church's interpretation below, but that was removed, so it makes no sense now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.13.100 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)