Talk:Ezra/Archive 1

Archive 1

---

Securehope's "copyedit"

A user named Securehope has deleted the better part of a paragraph that describes the redaction of the Hebrew Bible and marked this edit as "copyedit, mostly punctuation." If this is an accident, then Securehope should remember to use the sandbox page, which lets users see how their edits will affect an article before executing the changes they have made. If this is not an accident, then Securehope should read the article "NPOV" to learn more about how and why Wikipedia strives to cultivate a neutral point of view, rather than a point of view that assumes the direct receipt of the Hebrew Bible from God.

130.132.231.50 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Jason.Green-Lowe@yale.edu

Arabic

In the intro sentence, the Arabic script for Ezra is given, and lacks an /r/, or the Arqabic equivalent thereof. Is this correct, the Arabic equivalent for Azriel really is something like Azeel? Someone who knows more than me might check this out. PiCo 06:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (Slightly later: yep, it's Uzair. We live and learn.)

Just removed a minor inconvenience of mild vandalism. Perhaps it needed to be added to another article. 142.150.142.76 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ruth and acceptance of converts

According to the second paragraph under Relation to the Book of Ruth, that book may have been written in response to Ezra in defense of marrying converts. Yet it's only stated that Ezra opposed Jews marrying gentiles who did NOT convert. Where's the conflict? And what is meant by "Ezra's reform"? The prohibiton against marrying non-Jews is mentioned already in the Torah and in the prophets and neither is it presented as an innovation in the book of Ezra itself. It seems all Ezra does is enforce the law, which had been ignored by many for some time. Shajats Itel 08:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Son of God in Judaism

"Talmudic Judaism holds the idea of any person being God, or a part of God, or a mediator to God, to be heresy, and no branch of Judaism is known to make Ezra a son of God."

The reason we need to specify "Talmudic" Judaism to be NPOV is because there have also been other Jews such as Messianic Judaism that have not held themselves to be bound by Talmudic writings, especially that one.Til Eulenspiegel 13:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is considered christian by all scholars no scholars consider it a Jewish movement, Most christians see them also as a cult--Java7837 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some editors seem to have a definite tendency to make Wikipedia resemble governments such as the People's Republic of China in this regard, and have the authority to officially "declare" which certain religions are "favoured", and which ones are to be disfavoured, declared "cults", and generally persecuted. Other editors hold that acting this way is a breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

Since the neutrality policy is a wikipedia cornerstone policy, I'm going to have to side with WP:NPOV on this one. We can't just take an uncited assertion that "most Christians" see Messianic Judaism as a "cult" as in any way determinative for us. I also find this hard to believe, as I have never once heard of any Christian group specifically calling Messianic Judaism a "cult", and I challenge anyone to find even one cite proving this claim.

If you find "Talmudic Judaism" insulting (again, I suspect no cite could be found published anywhere claiming that it is an pejorative term), then I suggest instead a more neutral clarifying phrase to say that it is "Mainstream Judaism" which denies that God can be any Father. There have most demonstrably been non-mainstream groups within Judaism at all times in history that have felt differently, and there have been many groups within Judaism around the world that utterly reject the Talmud or never even heard of the Talmud, or who consider it merely the words of man, not at all superceding what they consider the words of God. If the Talmud-followers cast aspersions on their Judaism, that is just a skewed POV, since the groups themselves self-identify as Jews or Hebrews. Til Eulenspiegel 13:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us try to find some compromise wording that is neutral for everyone, ie one that takes all significant views into account and does not side with one POV against another. Til Eulenspiegel 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no branch of Judaism that holds that there can be any human aspect of G-d. The only one that may confuse you is Messianic Judaism, and that is not considered Judaism. Whether it is its own religion or a branch of Christianity that is trying to resemble Pre-Paulian Christianity is another question. Trying to create the impression that theremay exist a branch of Judaism that allows for this is at best a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and most likely a original research/soapbox violation. -- Avi 14:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of Wikipedia siding with one POV against another POV, and labelling it my own "original research" when everyone's viewpoint is well etablished and published, is the height of hypocrisy. There is no Christian body anywhere that has ever labelled Messianic Judaism a "cult", that is your OR that cannot be substantiated. I feel an RFC coming on this soon, if you cannot compromise and accept that there are other views existing beside your own firm beliefs. Til Eulenspiegel 15:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See Messianic Judaism. WP:NPOV#Undue weight makes it clear that “Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.” Messianic Judaism may well be a tiny-minority, and even if it is considered larger than "tiny", it is so underwhelmingly small and fringe vis-a-vis Judaism that placing the "Mainstream" tag is, in-and-of-itself, a NPOV violation. While there are opposing points of view on wikipedia, forcing a minority point of view on an article is as much a violation of NPOV as anything. If you feel the need for an RFC, so be it, but NPOV discussions must be based on merit, and according to current wiki policy, it appears that your argument has no merit. Please attempt to refute my points if you can, so that we can have a logical debate as opposed to your saying "my POV is right" and my pointing out that according to all current data and sources it is not. Thank you. -- Avi 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ezra (Uzair) in Islam

reorganized and retitled the section, also removed duplications. Separated Jewish take on Islamic view of Uzair. Removed answering-islam.org quote as it has been nominated as extremist site on Wikipedia. Read extremist websites ~atif ^Talk 15:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I only used the online version of Abraham's Geiger "Judaism and Islam" book which was on their site unedited--Java7837 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the content/format

• Organization
  • 1. 1st part talks about Reference in Quran and scholar's view of the Islamic view.
    2. 2nd part debates from the Jewish perspective
    3. 3rd part again quote Quranic reference (no citation though).
  • I have organized as:
    • 1st part talks about Islamic view of Ezra, supported by scholars.
    • 2nd part includes the Jewish perspective

• The Title should say "Ezra (Uzair) in Islam" as he is considered as prophet through Islamic traditions (not Quran).

• Cannot use Abraham's book if it is posted on extremist site. You can refer to other WP:RS.

• The 2 paras are saying the same thing, hence removed duplication:
  • "Of note is that Judaism believes that God, as the creator of time, space, and matter, is beyond them, and will not be born, die, or have a son. Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son of God."
  • However, no known Jewish text makes the claim that Ezra is the son of God. Ezra 7:1 states that Ezra is the son of Seraiah. Judaism holds the idea of any person being God, or a part of God, or a mediator to God, to be heresy, and no branch of Judaism is known to make Ezra a son of God.

~atif ^Talk 06:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

citation for Resurrection

Can somebody get citation for resurrection verse. ~atif ^Talk 07:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no non-muslim historians of the time of Muhammad or or a couple hundred years before or after that claimed any Jews believed Ezra to be the son of God as such the Islamic section is using only muslim historians and works based off their records to claim there indeed was Jews who believed such the problem is that the book of Ezra which all Jews accepted at the time of Muhammad clearly Ezra in chapter 7 says Ezra is the son of Seriaiah as such no Jew would believe Ezra was the son of God it disagrees with the bible. Finally historians believe Muhammad made the claim simply to associate Judaism with shirk, he said the Jews not some Jews. Thus it is evident that Muhammad knew the facts but simply was trying to associate Judaism with shirk.--129.115.102.13 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

see Messianic Judaism While Messianic Jews practice their faith in a way that they consider to be authentically Torah-observant and culturally Jewish, their Jewish identity is attacked by [2][3][4][5] Jews,[6][7][8] Jewish denominations,[9][10][11][12] and many Christians.[13][14][15][16] do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism. Messianic Jews are also not considered Jewish under the State of Israel's Law of Return. [17]

alsos see Jews for Jesus

Jews for Jesus is a Christian[1] evangelistic organization that focuses specifically on the conversion of Jews to Christianity.

Identification of Jews for Jesus as a Jewish organization is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations,[4] [5] secular groups[6][7] and the State of Israel[8]

Some Christian churches see Jewish religious practice as valid in and of itself and thus object to evangelizing Jews.[54][55]

The Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, an umbrella organization that includes Muslims, Jews, and church groups from the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, has condemned Jews for Jesus as promoting activities "harmful to the spirit of interreligious respect and tolerance."

The Rev. Clark Lobenstine, a Presbyterian (PCUSA) minister and executive director of the Conference, has stated that his group condemns Jews for Jesus and other messianic Jewish groups by name because they "go beyond the bounds of appropriate and ethically based religious outreach."[56]

The Board of Governors of The Long Island Council of Churches, a group that is opposed to proselytizing of Jews in general, voiced similar sentiments in a statement that "noted with alarm" the "subterfuge and dishonesty" inherent in the "mixing [of] religious symbols in ways which distort their essential meaning", and named Jews for Jesus as one of the three groups about whom such behavior was alleged.[54]

Roman Catholic leaders have also spoken out against singling out Jews for conversion. In August 2002, the U. S. Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious affairs declared that the "evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history. Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also believes that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. "... The distinctive Jewish witness must be sustained if Catholics and Jews are truly to be, as Pope John Paul II has envisioned, “a blessing to one another.”"[57]

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, stated in November 2002: "This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God’s plan, which for us came to its historical completion in Jesus Christ."[58]

Christian denominations that have issued statements criticizing evangelism of Jews include the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA, which said in 1988 that Jews have their own covenant with God. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said Jews shouldn't be targeted for conversion.[59]

Jews for Jesus is a member of numerous evangelical Christian groups

In 1993 the Supreme Court of Israel, in a case involving a couple affiliated with Jews for Jesus, ruled that Jews who adhere to the Christian beliefs are regarded by Israeli law as "members of a different faith," and are not eligible for the automatic citizenship that Israel grants Jews.

"During my time with the mission, I found Jews for Jesus to be a Christian ministry (or Messianic, if you prefer) with a passion for the good news about Jesus..." Pastor Lev Leigh. Hope Baptist Church. Richmond, CA (Letters From JFJ Alumni)

"... Jews for Jesus and other Christian groups who hold to the uniqueness of Christ." (Jews for Jesus Leader Contradicts American Catholic Bishops. Jews for Jesus, Press Release. August 19, 2002) "Clothed in colorful shirts with large writing identifying their Christian group, Jews for Jesus has been keeping up with the 24-hour-running city, handing out tens of thousands of literature and promoting their evangelistic campaign – Behold Your God – through media outlets." (Christian Post.[1])

"There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." (Kaplan, Dana Evan. The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism, Cambridge University Press, August 15, 2005, pp. 139-140).

"Thirdly, there is Jews for Jesus or, more generally, Messianic Judaism. This is a movement of people often of Jewish background who have come to believe Jesus is the expected Jewish messiah... They often have congregations independent of other churches and specifically target Jews for conversion to their form of Christianity." (Harries, Richard. After the Evil: Christianity and Judaism in the Shadow of the Holocaust, Oxford University Press, August 2003, p. 119.)

"Jews for Jesus, the leading organization dedicated to converting Jews to Christianity, has long been a concern because of its aggressive proselytizing with a deceptive message: that Jews who accept Jesus as the son of God and their savior remain Jewish." Jews for Jesus: Targeting Jews for Conversion with Subterfuge and Deception, Anti-Defamation League, August 27, 2004, retrieved September 11, 2006.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm says"http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm "Today, Jewish counter-missionary movements like "Jews for Judaism" seek to educate Jews about why belief in the Trinity is incompatible with Judaism."

Jews for Jesus" is a primarily Baptist missionary group whose sole focus is converting Jews to Christianity.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud.htm, "Baruch Maoz, "Judaism is not Jewish: A friendly critique of the Messianic Movement," Christian Focus Publications, (2002)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.102.13 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 75.43.79.38

pls use consensus on Talk page, before removing sourced material. references are taken from Encyclopaedia Judaica and A History Of The Jews Of Arabia, which also happened to be published on islamic-awareness.org. Moreover, Encyclopaedia Judaica and Newby are reliable sources, read WP:RS for more info which you need. If you think otherwise, try to get a consensus without disruptive editing. thanks ~atif ^Talk 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is Islamicawareness (an extremist site) used these sources supposedly but they may have taken them out of context or not exist in the text itself.--Java7837 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some independent witness--Java7837 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The source cited is not any extremist site but a book which you should be able to verify. We do not remove sourced material just because someone else who may be unreliable has used it also. → AA ^(talk) — 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

exactly ~atif ^Talk 02:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Uzair

AA, since you removed my inference from Quran (edit), reference directly from Jewish text (first para from "Jewish perspective" section) is also Original research and hence should be removed. Should get Primary source to quote. No Jewish text makes the claim that Ezra is the son of God. Book of Ezra, ...(Ta'anit 2:1) : "if a man claims to be God, he is a liar." ~atif ^Talk 03:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Talmud, another Jewish text predating the time of Muhammad states explicitly in (Ta'anit 2:1):"if a man claims to be God, he is a liar."

The sentence quoting Ta'anit 2:1, is just stating what is said in the Talmud. It is valid to provide quotations (as has been done from the Qur'an also) but if we don't provide the full quote but summarise it's meaning in our own words, then that is OR. I didn't lookup the verse from the Qur'an, but if the actual quote is relevant, you could add it in verbatim. → AA ^(talk) — 09:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How about interpretation from Emunoth ve-Deoth and Exod. Rabba, its a summary too? ~atif ^Talk 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Judaism holds the idea of any person being God, or a part of God, or a mediator to God, to be heresy, and no branch of Judaism makes Ezra a son of God..

I am not familiar with the Jewish texts, but assume that among the refs there is a secondary source that supports the claim. → AA ^(talk) — 09:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote is not summarized--75.43.79.38 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Exodus Rabba 29 has been restored and is not summarized--75.43.79.38 16:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

References

extremist sites

just like islamic-awareness.org, rim.org is also extremist site and cannot be used for reference. ~atif ^Talk 13:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Apparently the Talmud, much as does the Quran, asserts that God is not in any way a father, cannot have children, and is incapable of taking part in his Creation by assuming human form.

My point is that before these rabbinic writings were ever penned, there was definitely a historic disparity of thought on this question within Judaism, that can clearly be demonstrated by documents from Judaism that predate the Talmud. These include the Dead Sea Scrolls, among others. The term "Son of God" if you read that article, can refer to many historically Jewish concepts, including the idea that God is the Heavenly Father of all beings, thus making all humans the sons and daughters of God. If these concepts are no longer present in mainstream Judaism, that is a recent development and does not seem to be the case at all in pre-Talmudic Judaism. Therefore to ensure a compromise and NPOV wording that is historically backed up, instead of blanket declaring that "Judaism holds the idea of any person being God, or a part of God, or a mediator to God, to be heresy", which is inaccurate, I suggest we write more accurately "Modern Judaism holds the idea..." or, perhaps "Beginning with the Talmud, Judaism has held the idea..." Til Eulenspiegel 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

These concepts existed way before the Talmud was penned. The Talmud is merely a written recording of the Oral tradition that dates from the revelation at Sinai. There is no branch of Judaism that believes that G-d can have a physical form, father children, etc. Interpretation of the meaning "children of G-d" in any way other than the completely allegorical according to all branches of Judaism is 1) false, not that we care about that, as our mantra is "Verifiability, not Truth", 2) Unverifiable original research, 3) an NPOV violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and 4) completely inappropriate in this article.

As an aside, if you were to study the history of Judaism, you will see that there is no such thing as "Pre-Talmudic" Judaism. Rather, it was a time when the Oral Law remained an oral tradition handed from Moses to Joshua to the Sages to the Prophets etc. (See Ethics of the Fathers, 1:1).

Regardless, you seem to have some fundemental gaps in your understanding of Judaism and its history, which is easily remedied by reading about it studying it. Once you do so, you will see how this is a gross violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, original research, and a lack of reliable sourcing. Thank you. -- Avi 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You fail to realize Jews do not literally believe people are the children of god nor do we believe in literally that people have circumcised hearts you are totally manipulating a phrase Judaism has never believed Ezra to be the son of God.

Also the Talmud predates the time of Muhammad and the Jews of the Middle East of Muhammad's time are known to have the Talmud --75.43.79.38 18:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And Abraham do not be suprised I've talked to muslims they've told me Jews believe Solomon is the messiah, that Judaism is named after an individual, suprised to learn Judaism is matralineal, and suprised to learn the quran based partly off the Talmud. Muslims know less than the average buddhist about Judaism. --75.43.79.38 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your claimed expertise, I can assure you there are numerous Jewish primary sources far older than the Talmud that do not adhere to the position laid down by whomever in the Talmud. The position you have outlined is a recent development that cannot be shown to be any older than the 1st century. A little before this, the 3 largest sects of Judaism were Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The last of these three had very different doctrines regarding the Messiah / Son of God, that may well be heretical according to the Talmud, but presumably the Essene adherents did not consider themselves to be bound by a doctrine that had not been written yet.

And there was indeed an individual for whom "Judaism" is named, at least according to the Torah: his name was Judah, son of Jacob. Til Eulenspiegel 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Judaism was named after the country Judea--66.143.245.129 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless the Talmud carries within it the traditions that predate the split of the currently extinct branches of Judaism that you bring. As for claimed expertise, I have spent decades studying of Jewish law and tradition, so I do lay claim to an expertise that you seem to lack. Regardless, trying to take a position held by a minor, and extinct for over 1000 years, branch of Judaism and making that an integral part of this, or any article, is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, I am afraid. -- Avi 14:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Islamic view of Ezra

The above article, Islamic view of Ezra, is the proper place to discuss Islamic views of Judaism's perspective. It is too far out of scope in this article. Using summary style, the {{main}} tag at the top of the section points the reader to the proper place, so I have removed the tangential discussion. -- Avi 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is Islamic view, irrespective of what it talks about. In this case,if it talks about Jewish exaltation, does not mean you remove the Islamic view because it talked about Jewish exaltation. I will recommend creating a new article Jewish view of Ezra, rather than disrupting here. ~atif ^Talk 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This is the main article. Since we have a valid child article called Islamic view of Ezra, most of the discussions should be there. The Islamic view of the Jewish view of Ezra is something that belongs in the child article, not the parent article. Please see WP:SUMMARY. Thank you. -- Avi 13:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I'm not sure that the addition of this single sentence "The Quran mentions his resurrection (Qur'an 2:259) and asserts the Jews exalted him as a "Son of God," (Qur'an 9:30, Qur'an 9:31) a statement that, read literally, contradicts Judaism's fundamental belief in an indivisible and single diety. This has been interpreted in different ways.[5]" really violates WP:SUMMARY, whether or not there is a subarticle. Kaisershatner 19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is Islamic view and summary should highlight the view.It does not violate the WP:SUMMARY ~atif ^Talk 02:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the sense that it is not fundamental to the main points of Ezra in Islam, but to a sub-discussion of Islam's view of the Jewish view of Ezra, it seems a POV violation to specifically single that element out for reference here, and not in its proper article, at least in my opinion. It is not as if it is not discussed in detail with sources for all points-of-view in the proper place. -- Avi 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Atif, I think what Avi is saying is that mentioning Islam's reverence of Ezra is sufficient without including the specific detail about Jews "worshipping" Ezra. That specific point is discussed in the main article "Islamic view." I am also open to this viewpoint, because in my opinion, if we include the specific text references that allege the Jews revere Ezra as the son of God, then I think we need to include the explanation that this is not typical of Jewish practice, and then we are driving toward a much longer discussion than we might want in this article. On the other hand, I think the simple two sentence version we had before might work. I'm a bit undecided on it. Kaisershatner 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaiser, I agree with you that you are still "undecided" and agree with your edit before as it DOES include that it contradicts typical Jewish views.Moreover, the typical Jewish view is a small part of the article "Islamic view of Ezra", hence 2 sentences in summary will definitely suffice. Avi is pushing to remove it, which is definitely POV pushing ~atif ^Talk 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is discussed in great detail in its proper place, as a sub-discussion under Islamic view of Ezra. It is too tangential here. It is not Islam's view of Ezra. It actually Islam's view of an aspect of Judaism's treatment of Judaism's prophets. Which is why it does not belong in the main Ezra article. We should have Judaism's view of Ezra, Islam's view of Ezra, Christianity's view of Ezra, the Bahaii view, the non-demoninational historic view, etc. We should not be having Christianity's view of Islam's interpretation, the scholarly critique of the Bahaii interpretation, or Islam's view of the Jewish interpretation if the proper article already exists! -- -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about your POVs all the while, you are talking about an article called "Islamic View of Ezra" and you are asserting it is not Islam's view of Ezra - what are you saying?? It is Islamic view about him - be it an aspect of Judaism's treatment of Judaism's prophets or Christ is not a Son of God or anything else - at the end it is Islam's view! Secondly, if main article has this content, then summary should have the highlight of what is in the article - and that's what Kaiser's edits had. Sorry, your views are paradoxical and I do not agree ~atif ^Talk 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Syed, what does Islam believe about Ezra? Does the Qur'an state that Ezra is divine? When the Qur'an discusses how it interpreted Jews felt about Ezra, that belongs in Islamic view of Ezra, not here. -- Avi (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(My comment is not regarding the arguments made above). The Qur'an's assertion, that Jews beleived Ezra is the son of God is a very notable part of the Islamic view. Infact, the Qur'an has very little to say about Ezra except that he isn't the son of God, as, according to the Qur'an, the Jews believed.Bless sins (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think some may be treating the Qur'an's opinions as a polemic. It is not. Muslims derive much spiritual guidance from Qur'anic verses. Most scholars would agree that the stories told in the Qur'an (or the Bible for that matter) have far more spiritual value than political or historical value.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If Uzair is mentioned once in the Quran then how do you know that Uzair isn't somebody other than Ezra there isn't enough said about him to actually try to identify him with Ezra or anybody in the bible thus Uzair may not have been Ezra--Java7837 (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Translators of the Qur'an as well as Qur'anic exegesis (see [tafsir]]) identifies him as such.Bless sins (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point some people may identify him with Ezra but the Quran never says anything about him to know for sure that he is Ezra he could be someone else also translators may identify him with Ezra but that is only because translators of the quran are trying to identify an unknown figure with a biblical figure which they often do such as claiming Idris is Enoch when there is nothing said about him that would make one think such--129.115.181.10 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I think once the "Hebrew Bible" section is sourced, the article can be nominated for GA. Any comments? --Aminz (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

From my limited experience at reviewing GA nominated articles, I'd say this article is rather short. Ofcourse, since I've contributed to this article, I can't review it (though I'd love to). other than that this article is well-written and sourced.Bless sins (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

*Note: the above should not be interpreted as my opposition to this article being a GA. It was a comment that observed certain aspects of the article, and was not meant to influence the final decision on the topic.Bless sins (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is at least longer and more informative than its Britannica's version :) --Aminz (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Britannica

Hi Avi,

Here is the quotation from Britannica:

Hebrew 'ezra' religious leader of the Jews who returned from exile in Babylon, reformer who reconstituted the Jewish community on the basis of the Torah (Law, or the regulations of the first five books of the Old Testament). His work helped make Judaism a religion in which law was central, enabling the Jews to survive as a community when they were dispersed all over the world. Since his efforts did much to give Jewish religion the form that was to characterize it for centuries after, Ezra has with some justice been called the father of Judaism; i.e., the specific form the Jewish religion took after the Babylonian Exile. So important was he in the eyes of his people that later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses.

--Aminz (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Avi, would you please let me know why you think Britannica's statement is not appropriate. Are there any sources that disagree with it? If not, I'd like to restore the original formulation while somehow keeping yours at the same time. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that it is explicitly sourced to the Britannica I agree it should remain. By the way, nice work fleshing out the article. -- Avi (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I don't have any strong opinion on this. We don't have to necessarily follow Britannica if you can find another source showing/explaining why the statement is not appropriate. In the very least, we can move that from intro to another place in the article. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing sources

In this edit[1] a user removes the sources Aminz provided and I asked for. May I know why this user prefers to make content unsourced, esp. after other users have made the efforts of sourcing them? While this action would seem appropriate if the source quoted was unreliable, this doesn't seem to be the case. This action seems all the more ridiculous in the context of the fact that this article has been nominated for GA, and needs to be as sourced as possible.Bless sins (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess it should be an accidental mistake. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume this is true.Bless sins (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. I did not remove sources but merely shortened the bibliographical information of the Liwak/Schwemer one. I see that a couple of changes appear in the diff (Hebrew stuff, link to bible verses ... ah ... and yes, one ref) but I have no clue how they got in there. Must be the software bug. All I did was to improve the Artaxerxes passages, correct extremely annoying spelling mistakes and removed the false claim that Ezra was involved in the building of the temple.

Thanks, Aminz, for your restoring my valid edits. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Just want to point out that Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy prohibits removal of a significant, reliably sourced claim because an editor happens to believe it is false. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, thanks for informing me but I must say that I did not remove anything that was reliably sourced, at least not intentionally. As for the Ezra help rebuilding the temple: Ezra came to Jerusalem in 458 (or 398) under Artaxerxes while the rebuilding of the temple was begun under Cyrus and essentially finished under Darius I. Ipso facto, Ezra could have no part in this. At least the Biblical accounts do not state such a thing (as the article claimed). True, some extrabiblical books equate Ezra with other figures that did play a part in the rebuilding but a) that's not what the article claimed, b) such equations are not undisputed and cannot be included into the article like that. I therefore will remove the disputed passage again. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Britannica Again

Hi Shirahadasha,

Some points:

1. The Britannica article used is not 1911. It is the most recent one. The article on Ezra is written by "John Bright, Professor of Hebrew and the Interpretation of the Old Testament, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, 1940–43; 1946–75. Author of A History of Israel and others. " The article further is at least post 1965 (please see the additional reading section).

2.Britannica says:"Since his efforts did much to give Jewish religion the form that was to characterize it for centuries after, Ezra has with some justice been called the father of Judaism; i.e., the specific form the Jewish religion took after the Babylonian Exile. So important was he in the eyes of his people that later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses." Britannica says the later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses. That he is called the father of Judaism (and that there is some justice in it).

Cheers,--Aminz (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

May I suggest that instead of quotes we should paraphrase the various views? Specifically I'm talking about Ezra#Historicity, but this would apply to some other sections as well.Bless sins (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion.--Aminz (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Gender of the Name

Did you ever think Ezra was a girl's name? I did until I found out it was the name of a biblical priest. ~~formerly Cbsteffen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.115.61 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick fail

Unfortunately the POV tag on the article shows it Hasn't reached GA criteria yet. Therefor I failed it on the basis of the Quick fail process.(See number 2) --Seyyed(t-c) 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is quite disappointing that an article as good as this should fail the GA criteria (esp. since Islamic view of Ezra is a GA). This article should be renominated for GA once the POV and relevancy issues have been resolved.Bless sins (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Enyclopedia Britannica is hardly acceptable as a source?

What? --Aminz (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a source that might be useful: Gosta Werner Ahlstrom, late professor of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at University of Chicago[2], in The History of Ancient Palestine says:"Although the inconsistencies of biblical tradition about Ezra make the doubting of Ezra's historicity understandable, his central position as the 'father of Judaism' in Jewish tradition makes it hard to see him as a literary invention..."

The New Encyclopedia of Judaism says" Rabannical tradition holds Ezra in great respect. He is considered to have been on a level with Moses in his knowledge of the Torah...."

So, would you please let me know what part of the quote you think is unbalanced. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above on the Encyclopedia Britannica issue. Beit Or 12:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Esdras

Beit Or, "Our knowledge of Ezra comes from the Book of Ezra, Book of Nehemiah and Apocryphal Book of I Esdras" - I believe it is perfectly reasonable to explain these books and mention what they say of Ezra --Aminz (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be perfectly reasonable to mention what this apocryph says on Ezra. It is entirely unreasonable to dwell on the book itself, which happens to have its own Wikipedia entry. Beit Or 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be summarized further. The reason I added some details was to clarify who considers its content regarding Ezra as apocryph and who considers it authentic. But as you mentioned, the paragraph can be significantly shortened. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Removal of historicity section by Java

Hi Java,

Please do not remove this section. If it is difficult for you to find sources, I and some other editors can do that and I sincerely assure you that I will not remove the tag before making a good effort to present the range of the views. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Historicity of Ezra

Beit Or, the view of majority is that the arguments of minority are not convincing. As the source says: "The Ezra narrative has obviously been carefully shaped, but this does not mean that Ezra is a fictional character. The "historical Ezra" has simply been given a theological buildup, ancient "star treatment." It is impossible to state conclusively when he operated and what he did for the twelve month covered in the biblical account, but attempts to reject Ezra's historicity has been unsuccessful."

I have kept the whole quote and attributed it to the original source. It seems that summarizing it creates causes new problems. So, I've left it as it was. --Aminz (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It then overwhelmed the entire section, so I moved the full quote into the footnote and paraphrased it in the text. This made Historicity almost a copy of the second (of two) sentences in genealogy, so I combined those two sections. I think it is more streamlined this way. What do you think? -- Avi (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I think the content of the statement should be kept within the article, but not necessary its language. As such in my original summary I avoided using terms like "fictional" and "ancient star treatment", "mislead",... and I still think we should use "soften" the terms. But I insist that we should keep the basic content of the quote "inside" the article. This was my summary:

According to the professor of religous studies, Mary Joan Winn Leith, "Ezra's very existence has been doubted." This is because the presentation style of Ezra as a leader and lawgiver resembles that of Moses. There are also similarities between Ezra the priest-scribe (but not high priest) and Nehemiah the secular governor on the one hand and Joshua and Zerubbabel on the other hand. The early second century BCE Jewish author Jesus ben Sirach praises Nehemiah, but makes no mention of Ezra. According to the professor of religous studies, Mary Joan Winn Leith, although the narrative of Ezra has been carefully shaped and is given a theological buildup, but this does not imply that Ezra did not exist. Although the details of what the historical Ezra did during the twelve month covered in the biblical account can be doubted, but the attempts to question his historicity has been unsuccessful.

I am of course open to suggestions. --Aminz (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Avi, meanwhile, I'd appreciate if you can do some research on the "historicity of Ezra" and shed more light on this topic. We can do probably better with several quotes rather than one (even though I'd guess the Oxford dictionary of Biblical World should present the major view points). Thanks --Aminz (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to present an academic view of Ezdra's historicity on merely one secondary source. Either provide the full range of opinions, or do not provide any. Beit Or 13:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'll find more sources. Based on my research so far, it appears that it is not the case that a small minority of scholars reject the historicity of Ezra. This issue seems to divide the scholars. --Aminz (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your research so far covers exactly one book. Please do not raise the issue again until you have at least 10-15 sources. Biblical studies are a crowded field. Beit Or 23:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look up several sources and I think that would be enough. Can you show me where you used 10-15 sources to write a section of an article? I am right now consulting "The Oxford Companaian to the Bible", "Encyclopedia Judaica", "The Cambridge Companion to the Bible" and I'll probably look up three or four other sources and I think that should be enough. --Aminz (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Aminz, I think that we should try and keep in-text quotations to a minimum, if possible. Do you think that the current paraphrase of Winn Leith is insufficient? -- Avi (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avi, I agree with you that we should keep in-text quotations to a minimum but I'd like to see its content summarized and at the same time harsh terms like "fictional" and "ancient star treatment", "mislead" be softened; please take a look at my summary above(dated at 05:09, 14 December). Beit Or says we should use more sources and I found that reasonable but I find it inappropriate to request for adding 10-15 sources to that section in order to remove the tag, or to say that Britannica is not a reliable source(please see the section below). GA nomination failed because of that and it doesn't really matter as long as we get higher quality articles (if we hopefully get). --Be happy!! (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica may be a reasonably good source for some straightforward material. It's not an acceptable source for opinions on ancient history, for example, that Ezra was the father of Judaism. Writing an encyclopedia entry on a topic in biblical studies requires a lot of research, since interpretations an opinions are a legion, representing just one or two of them would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Beit Or 12:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But this is not a matter of opinion; it is mostly a matter of reporting facts (Britannica says he has been called ...). In any case, this information is something that can be easily found in other sources too (e.g. the quote from Gosta W. Ahlstrom below saying 'the father of Judaism'; or that Ezra was on the same level with Moses in terms of his knowledge of the Torah). So, we can add those sources as well. If your comment however means that we have to double source wherever Britannica is used, then I'd guess we should discuss this on somewhere on the Reliable Source Noticeboard so that if you are correct, a new policy would be added to that effect. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And funnily, the section on the Jewish tradition does not support Britannica's claim. Jews would be very much surprised to find out they call Ezra the father of Judaism. As an opinion of some scholars, the claim is acceptable if clearly attributed to the scholars who make it, but not otherwise. Beit Or 17:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point! We can add it to the Jewish tradition section as well. If you can find another source saying that the modern Judaism rejects this tradition (if this is true), the article will be even more informative. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a tradition, how can Judaism reject it? Beit Or 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand that both you and Avi are not aware of such traditions makes me doubt it, and on the other hand some sources do seem to support it. So, I'll would not add it to the Jewish tradition section before I find out the missing piece of information. If you or Avi can find a source that says this is not a Jewish tradition or sheds some light on this issue, I would appreciate it. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources must be improved

The article relies to a significant extent on unreliable or oudated sources like Encyclopaedia of Holy Prophet and Companions (Muslim religious source of questionable notability), Jewish Encyclopedia (more than 100 years old), Catholic Encyclopedia (100 years old), Arnold Toynbee (not a specialist in Biblical studies). Many more high-quality specialist sources are needed. Beit Or 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Toynbee should be probably replaced(somebody else added it). Jewish Encyclopedia and Catholic Encyclopedia when used for sourcing the biblical narrative in Ezra#Hebrew_Bible I believe are fine.

I think Jewish Encyclopedia is also find for a report on the Rabannic traditions but I have not used it anywhere for its scholarship as far as I remember. So, I believe they should be all fine!--Be happy!! (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple scholarly books that I can use, which sections need more sources? --Java7837 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We need more sources on the historicity of Ezra. Also, the Jewish tradition section can be potentially expanded. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

the historicity of Ezra section looks very difficult to improve, as for Ezra in Jewish tradition I am currently checking my books--Java7837 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I already worked on part of the article, and found out the material I added was already covered so I deleted it--Java7837 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference to the chronological section--Java7837 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

None of my books have much information on critical views of Ezra--Java7837 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources, Encyclopaedia of Holy Prophet and Companions, Jewish Encyclopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia, are appropriate for Muslim, Jewish and Catholic views, respectively. I think the age here can be ignored, since Ezra isn't exactly cutting edge research.Bless sins (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish and Catholic encyclopedia were used for the biblical narrative (like Ezra did so and so) & the traditional Jewish view but not for their scholarly views. So, as you mentioned, I think that should be fine. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezra in Islam

The Ezra in Islam section (including all its subsections) is now 7275 bytes more than half of the Ezra article --Java7837 13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we create a new article on "Ezra in Islam"? I will be adding more info soon anyways. ~atif ^Talk 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps but information about Ezra in Islamic tradition would be better there is more than enough on the whole issue if Jews ever thought Ezra was the son of G-d or not --Java7837 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add some material on the islamic view of Ezra--Java7837 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's work to make this section stand for its title, that is "Islamic view of Ezra". That's all. Adding and repeating Jewish perspective make it look like a rebuttal site, which is not the section about. Read other Islamic views of prophets (below), I did not find any Jewish/Christian rebuttal on those. If Jewish perspective to be there, than better place is in the main article. ~atif ^Talk 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the comments on Non-muslims concerning the said statement is important to be kept on the soon to be made Ezra article for Islam also can we name it Ezra (Islam) it looks better this way and the discussion about the issue will not be on seperate articles and thus consistency--Java7837 05:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing this for the other Islamic view of (Prophet) articles so that Islamic view of Abraham->Abraham (Islam) Islamic view of Adam->Adam (Islam) --Java7837 05:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

wats the diff: Ezra in Islam or Ezra (Islam)? ~atif ^Talk 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking since most prophet articles are called Islamic view of (Prophet) that this article might end being called Islamic view of Ezra if not ok but we should call it Ezra (Islam) incase a disambiguation for so much reason is needed to be made for ezra--Java7837 05:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to rename them when they are all already and consistently named as Islamic view of (prophet)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atif nazir (talk • contribs)

The articles are currently consistently named and facilitate searching. I'd say any new articles should adhere to the existing mechanism unless there is wide consensus to rename them all. → AA ^(talk) — 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

agree too ~atif ^Talk 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish view about the Islamic claim that the Jews believed Ezra is the son of God is important enough to be included.132.72.71.149 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have to agree with the anonip on that. I drifted in via Babylonian Captivity. The statement about Jews and Ezra in the Qu'ran is very interesting and bears some exposition. I basically agree with Atif nazir that it shouldn't be a huge thing, but some mention has to be made of the curious fact that what is alleged is just manifestly not mainstream Jewish practice. Thus I included a short sentence and footnote with link to a well-researched Islamic view of this and also a link to the main article. I hope it is a good edit. Kaisershatner 15:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't put only Islamic view point.Or you copy the Jewish response from the Islamic article or you put none of them.To put only one opinion is against NPOW.Next time you will put only one side I will move all the Jewish response.If you will remove it I will complain to moderator.KEEP NPOW.132.72.151.98 (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamic view and Jewish response

Personally, I prefer that just the first paragraph is brought here, without reference to Islams's view of the Jewish view, and both are discussed in more detail in the proper article. However, if Islam's view of the Jewish view is mentioned here, then the explanation of how it is a fundamental misunderstanding must also be brought here, to keep the article WP:NPOV. -- Avi 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

its a "fundamental misunderstanding" from Jewish view, the article is about Islamic View of Ezra . So summary talks about the main content, not Jewish views ~atif ^Talk 04:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You are incorrect on at least three counts, Syed. This article is about "Ezra". There is a separate article about the Islamic view of Ezra. Secondly, what you are bringing is not the Islamic view of Ezra, but the Islamic view of the Jewish view of Ezra. Thirdly, bringing one point of view about an issue without bringing other significant points of view in the body of the article is a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Avi 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Atif, I think that if we include such an interesting statement from the Koran regarding the practices of Jews then at minimum it should be pointed out that this is patently opposite from the practice of mainstream Judaism. I agree with you that the paragraph should not focus on this, since it is about Islam's view of Ezra, but if "Islam's view" is that Ezra was worshipped as the son of God by Jews, a comment about the accuracy of this should be made, in my view. Kaisershatner 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I wanted to add that as it currently stands I think this is sufficient: "The Quran mentions his resurrection (Qur'an 2:259) and asserts the Jews exalted him as a "Son of God," (Qur'an 9:30, Qur'an 9:31) a statement that, read literally, contradicts Judaism's fundamental belief in an indivisible and single diety. This has been interpreted in different ways.[5]" Kaisershatner 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, I agree with you and your earlier edit. thanks ~atif ^Talk 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Avi point is important.We must keep NPOW.There should be both opinion or none.I think that all this issue should be in the Islamic section anyway.Oren.tal (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of time lines in Hebrew Bible section

The Hebrew Bible section appears to include text written from the perspective of two differnt time lines. The second paragraph references Artaxerxes I, which corresponds with a view that Ezra arrived earlier than Nehemiah, but then includes the line "No record exists of Ezra until we find him at the reading of the Law which took place after the rebuilding of the wall of the city by Nehemiah" in the third paragraph, corresponding with a view of Nehemiah arriving in Jerusalem prior to Ezra. As the discussion between differing time lines is documented later in the article, it would appear to me that the Hebrew Bible section would benefit from clearly identifying the time line perspective from which it is written and maintaining a single perspecitve throughout, then directing the reader to the time line discussion below. Giving an extensive discussion of Ezra's journey to Jerusalem and then saying that "no record exists of Ezra..." is potentially confusing to many readers who do not already have some detailed knowledge of Ezra. Thoughts? Thank you.Civilengtiger (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very intresting topic for me s well, Just want to remind you that in Qur'an [2:259] there is a Jew prophet that died for hundred years when he was pass from a destroyed city and back to life again.

It is claimed by many that the town is Jerusalem after destroying by abylonians and Ezra is the Prophet.

Just maybe a clue! --Sepehr.mohamadi (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Elliott Friedman

In Chapter 8 page 159 "Who Wrote The Bible?" ISBN 978-0-06-063035-5 he states- In the Bible only Moses and Ezra are known as lawgivers Ezra returned to Judah in 458BCE He was an Aaronid priest and a scribe He brought the Torah of Moses (probably the full Torah -the 5 books of Moses- as we know it) AND a letter from Artaxerxes giving him authority in Judah His authority was to teach and enforce the law His authority was shared with Nehemiah the governor. At this time Judah was a province of the Persian empire and Ezra and Nehemiah were the emperor's designated authorities.

Should any of this information be added to the Academic View section. or elsewhere?96.227.80.48 (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Son of God"/angel claims must be better sourced

The most recent incarnation regarding the Islamic viewpoint continued to violate NPOV. It stated that "current" Jewish sources do not support the view that Jews believed that Ezra was the "Son of God." To be honest, there is no historical documentation that Jews ever believed that Ezra was the "son of God." Further, the references to a theory about Jews believing that Ezra was an angel are unsupported by citations to quotes from the primary sources for easy verification of their accuracy and veracity. If one desires to make radical claims about Jewish sources, please provide citations to the sources, not to unknown, possibly biased writers of questionable scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosefsimcha (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 August 2009

According to Jewish tradition, the phrase "B'nei Elohim" means "sons of rulers". The attempt to imply that Jews believed in divinity apart from God is inappropriate and does not reflect historical, normative Judaism. If you wish to leave the untranslated Hebrew transliteration "elohim" to suggest the possibility of varing interpretations without endorsing one, this seems to be a neutral point of view editorial choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosefsimcha (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)