![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Prophets Hosea and Isaiah were (near) contemporaries. Moreover, the High Priest at this time was Hoshaiah. (See Wikipedia's List of the High Priests of Israel entry.) Could Hoshaiah the High Priest, Hosea the Prophet, and Isaiah the Prophet all have been the same person???
Hi All, I have just made some major additions to this page of Isaiah and have preserved some original material as well. Comments are welcome! - Nathan Hill
This page seems to overlap badly with Book of Isaiah. I think the idea of this page was to be mainly about the prophet, not about the book.
Our intentions were to talk about both the book and the prophet. Perhaps this page would be better incorporated into "book or Isaiah" and this page reverted to its previous content? -Nathan Hill
I don't think "Christianity" regards Isaiah as a Saint. Prophet yes, saint no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.139.204 ( talk) 06:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have completed the revision and switch-Nathan Hill
Nathan,
Rastafari, the Jamaican sect which believes Blacks are the chosen people, has many roots within this chapter. I would suggest bridging the two pages to facilitate an easier guide.
Hey! Isn't the main reason for Isaiah's importance his prophesies of the Messiah? Why isn't that mentioned??? Brutannica 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wondered that. Certainly for Christians that's his chief importance, although the Jews might take issue with that. I would like to know where to find Isaiah's prophecies to do with the Messiah are to be found. Can anyone help? ThePeg 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
ThePeg, there are numerous parts within Isaiah which deal directly with haMoshiach. Isaiah 53, for example, is entirely about haMoshiach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.80.69 ( talk) 04:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
In reference to Isaiah's reference to the Messiah (otherwise known as Jesus Christ), I have only scratched the surface to find Isaiah 9:1 - 7; Isaiah 7:13 - 14; and Isaiah 52:13 - 53 (whole chapter). These are simply a few of the overt prophecies of the Christ; their are many more subtle references. I'm unsure of the qualifications needed to edit/comment, so I'll leave it there. I'm no professor; just a Minister. Hope this at least gets someone on the track. As for Jews being offended by these references, I fail to see how this could be. Surely the Jewish understanding of these references would be quite plausible... hence the debate about whether or not they are reference to Christ Himself or someone else entirely.
144.135.136.210 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Neil. 144.135.136.210 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.135.136.210 ( talk) 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Moved from Fayenatic_london talk page
I'm sure your intentions for your recent edits of Isaiah were good but...
WikiJonathanpeter 18:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph says that the prophet Isaiah is "commonly considered" to be the author of the entire book. In fact, he is not so considered by the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars.
Shouldn't this be changed? Jhobson1 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that virtually the entire "Critical Scholarship" section was removed on September 19th in an unexplained deletion by an anonymous user with a track record of vandalism (see here for another example of this user's "contribution"). I see no reason to suppose that this edit was made in good faith, and what's left has since been tagged as "confusing", so I'm restoring the section. -- Robert Stevens 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The 12 May, 2008 version was fine. It could use some touch ups, but I don't see why the whole thing was deleted and turned into a stub without any explanation.. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.108.0.190 (
talk)
21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This article needs a serious haircut. The request for citations is almost a year old. I think it's time to start trimming out the unreferenced speculations. All in favor? Opposed?-- Nowa ( talk) 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This section adds nothing whatsoever to the article. Most of it appears to be an attempt by Mormons to engage in self-promotion. For this reason I propose deletion. Darkman101 ( talk) 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I will delete it as it doesn't belong on this page. It could be removed to the article on the book of Isaiah if it's author so desired. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It currently says "The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title, "Mrs. Prophet" as it were, is likely." and cites Coogan's textbook. I'm reading Coogan right now, and I found the exact sentence, except that Coogan actually says "less likely." I'm not by any means an expert, however, so I'm hesitant to rework a section on the likelihood of different theories. Sir Akroy ( talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
More research should be cited from The Works of Josephus. Isaiah, the Prophet is mentioned in Josephus in Antiq. 9.13.3; 10.1.3; 10.2.1, 2; his eulogium, 10.2.2; his prophecy concerning the Assyrians 10.14.1ff; concerning Cyprus 210 years before his reign 11.1.2; the same read by Cyrus, ibid.; his prophcy concerning the temple of Onias, War. 7.10.3 The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, Translated by William Whiston, A.M., Hendricson Publishers, 1987. easeltine Easeltine ( talk) 15:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The tone of this article is problematic with regards to the biographical aspect as it suggests that Isaiah can be accurately pinpointed to one date in history. In fact, he can't. There is no evidence that he existed as a person, was born, married or died. The only source for Isaiah is the Bible - and that is not in itself a reliable historical source. Can we amend the article please to make clear that there is no evidence that Isaiah was a real historical person? His only purpose is religious. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "Isaiah is not mentioned except in the Bible" is confusing inasmuch as a few lines later mentioned is made of The Martyrdom of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets. Should the sentence be re-worked to indicate either (1) not mentioned in contemporary extra-Biblical sources; or 2) Only mentioned in material that is related or dependent on 2 Kings / 2 Chronicles / Isaiah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.228.233 ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is also relevant to the birthplace orf Isaiah that has cropped up in a few recent edits. Mtpaley ( talk) 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyone know who Isiah means by "the virgin" in this passage (quoted in our article)? "The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee." (God is telling Senacherib off - but who is this virgin?) PiCo ( talk) 03:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment, the section is a mess, but I don't have time to fix it. I can however provide several references to start with for someone who wants to take this on. There's the Jewish Encyclopedia's entry for Isaiah here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8235-isaiah; the Catholic Encyclopedia entry here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08179b.htm (with the Latin spelling "Isaias"; Britannica Online here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/295133/Isaiah; the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Isaiah.html.
YoMenashe ( talk) 13:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
"The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title is likely"
And WHY is that, pray tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.113.41 ( talk) 15:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have an article on this name? There's currently a few abysmally minimal stubs/disambig pages— Isaias (given name), Izaiaš—that would probably do better to be merged into such a page. We should probably also make note of people named Yeshaya(h(u)) somewhere. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D935:CCD3:910B:1262 ( talk) 01:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
See https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/prophet-isaiah-jerusalem-seal-archaeology-bible/ Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
References
This seal impression of Isaiah, therefore, is unique, and questions still remain about what it actually says. However, the close relationship between Isaiah and King Hezekiah, as described in the Bible, and the fact the bulla was found next to one bearing the name of Hezekiah seem to leave open the possibility that, despite the difficulties presented by the bulla's damaged area, this may have been a seal impression of Isaiah the prophet, adviser to King Hezekiah.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
There's also some criticism of the claim at Eilat Mazar. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
In any case, the National Geographic article above is mostly quoting Eilat Mazar concerning her discoveries. Mazar is quite famous, but has repeatedly been accused of jumping into conclusions when it comes to evaluating her findings. When she discovered the Large Stone Structure, she proclaimed it to be the palace of David. Despite the fact that there is no reliable dating method for this building, nothing connects it to David or mentions his name, and that the pottery and iron objects found indicate that it was built in the 1st millennium BC, but do not even confirm whether it predates the Hellenistic period. Dimadick ( talk) 15:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted at [1]. It is original research: the source does not even mention Sennacherib, so it does not verify the claim made. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
What do we think about the idea of writing something about the supposed Isaiah seal in the article?
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2018/february/isaiah-seal-more-evidence-of-biblical-narrative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieflagfan ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone I recently added a small line that shows that Isaiah existed around 700 years before Jesus Christ under the Christianity section. I think we can also focus more on Isaiah's relation/context historically to help people get a better understanding of his place in history.
If my edit is incorrect or if you find a more accurate year please do change it. I am a new editor and I'm still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia.
Best Wishes. Sabaybayin ( talk) 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The established era style on this page was 'BC'. It was changed to 'BCE' without discussion in November 2019. Therefore, the era style should be 'BC' unless and until there is consensus for the change to 'BCE'. Sweet6970 ( talk) 23:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweet6970: it's not clear what sort of argument would be acceptable if you think that the era style shouldn't relate in any way to the religion in an article, could you please give some examples? Since I've asked at the guideline page you can use the same reply at both places. The idea that there's any ownership of articles is an odd one that I've never accepted. I don't know where you got the word "substantial" from either, the guideline says "reasons specific to its content". But you seem to be rejecting the idea that religious content of the article is a specific reason. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this is continuing at MOS. The current discussion is based on the premise that the existing style for this article is BC and that it was changed to BCE in November 2019. Examining the history at Isaiah shows that is incorrect. I looked at old versions of the article every few months, starting at 13:26, 6 January 2016. At that date, there were two BC and six BCE. In later revisions I found all BCE meaning that someone had made them consistent by changing the two BC. On the principle of WP:SILENCE, given that the article has used BCE from early 2016 to late 2019, the WP:RETAIN argument is that BCE should be used unless there is a compelling reason to change it to BC. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears this article was BC from 2001 to June 2015, then BCE from 2016 to late 2019, then BC for the last two months. For me, the reasonable interpretation of RETAIN is that the four-year period 2016–2019 is the established style, and people are now reacting to the change two months ago. Of course that argument can be used to suit whichever side one favors but it would be very undesirable if people could hunt for articles which have used a certain style for four years and switch them because originally the style was different. If there is no consensus on that point, an RfC will be required. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Yeshayahu. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Yeshayahu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hildeoc (
talk)
02:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
When I was researching about prophets of Judaism, I saw that the same image (Russian icon of the Prophet Ezekiel holding a scroll with his prophecy and pointing to the "closed gate" (18th century, Iconostasis of Kizhi monastery, Russia)) is placed on both the pages for Ezekiel and Isaiah.
I am new in editing Wikipedia pages. So instead of correcting I decided to open a talk about this confusing information. Check /info/en/?search=File:Isaiah.jpg and /info/en/?search=File:Ezekiel-icon.jpg Fatih Keçelioğlu ( talk) 01:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Prophets Hosea and Isaiah were (near) contemporaries. Moreover, the High Priest at this time was Hoshaiah. (See Wikipedia's List of the High Priests of Israel entry.) Could Hoshaiah the High Priest, Hosea the Prophet, and Isaiah the Prophet all have been the same person???
Hi All, I have just made some major additions to this page of Isaiah and have preserved some original material as well. Comments are welcome! - Nathan Hill
This page seems to overlap badly with Book of Isaiah. I think the idea of this page was to be mainly about the prophet, not about the book.
Our intentions were to talk about both the book and the prophet. Perhaps this page would be better incorporated into "book or Isaiah" and this page reverted to its previous content? -Nathan Hill
I don't think "Christianity" regards Isaiah as a Saint. Prophet yes, saint no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.139.204 ( talk) 06:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have completed the revision and switch-Nathan Hill
Nathan,
Rastafari, the Jamaican sect which believes Blacks are the chosen people, has many roots within this chapter. I would suggest bridging the two pages to facilitate an easier guide.
Hey! Isn't the main reason for Isaiah's importance his prophesies of the Messiah? Why isn't that mentioned??? Brutannica 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wondered that. Certainly for Christians that's his chief importance, although the Jews might take issue with that. I would like to know where to find Isaiah's prophecies to do with the Messiah are to be found. Can anyone help? ThePeg 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
ThePeg, there are numerous parts within Isaiah which deal directly with haMoshiach. Isaiah 53, for example, is entirely about haMoshiach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.80.69 ( talk) 04:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
In reference to Isaiah's reference to the Messiah (otherwise known as Jesus Christ), I have only scratched the surface to find Isaiah 9:1 - 7; Isaiah 7:13 - 14; and Isaiah 52:13 - 53 (whole chapter). These are simply a few of the overt prophecies of the Christ; their are many more subtle references. I'm unsure of the qualifications needed to edit/comment, so I'll leave it there. I'm no professor; just a Minister. Hope this at least gets someone on the track. As for Jews being offended by these references, I fail to see how this could be. Surely the Jewish understanding of these references would be quite plausible... hence the debate about whether or not they are reference to Christ Himself or someone else entirely.
144.135.136.210 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Neil. 144.135.136.210 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.135.136.210 ( talk) 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Moved from Fayenatic_london talk page
I'm sure your intentions for your recent edits of Isaiah were good but...
WikiJonathanpeter 18:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph says that the prophet Isaiah is "commonly considered" to be the author of the entire book. In fact, he is not so considered by the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars.
Shouldn't this be changed? Jhobson1 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that virtually the entire "Critical Scholarship" section was removed on September 19th in an unexplained deletion by an anonymous user with a track record of vandalism (see here for another example of this user's "contribution"). I see no reason to suppose that this edit was made in good faith, and what's left has since been tagged as "confusing", so I'm restoring the section. -- Robert Stevens 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The 12 May, 2008 version was fine. It could use some touch ups, but I don't see why the whole thing was deleted and turned into a stub without any explanation.. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.108.0.190 (
talk)
21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This article needs a serious haircut. The request for citations is almost a year old. I think it's time to start trimming out the unreferenced speculations. All in favor? Opposed?-- Nowa ( talk) 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This section adds nothing whatsoever to the article. Most of it appears to be an attempt by Mormons to engage in self-promotion. For this reason I propose deletion. Darkman101 ( talk) 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I will delete it as it doesn't belong on this page. It could be removed to the article on the book of Isaiah if it's author so desired. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It currently says "The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title, "Mrs. Prophet" as it were, is likely." and cites Coogan's textbook. I'm reading Coogan right now, and I found the exact sentence, except that Coogan actually says "less likely." I'm not by any means an expert, however, so I'm hesitant to rework a section on the likelihood of different theories. Sir Akroy ( talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
More research should be cited from The Works of Josephus. Isaiah, the Prophet is mentioned in Josephus in Antiq. 9.13.3; 10.1.3; 10.2.1, 2; his eulogium, 10.2.2; his prophecy concerning the Assyrians 10.14.1ff; concerning Cyprus 210 years before his reign 11.1.2; the same read by Cyrus, ibid.; his prophcy concerning the temple of Onias, War. 7.10.3 The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, Translated by William Whiston, A.M., Hendricson Publishers, 1987. easeltine Easeltine ( talk) 15:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The tone of this article is problematic with regards to the biographical aspect as it suggests that Isaiah can be accurately pinpointed to one date in history. In fact, he can't. There is no evidence that he existed as a person, was born, married or died. The only source for Isaiah is the Bible - and that is not in itself a reliable historical source. Can we amend the article please to make clear that there is no evidence that Isaiah was a real historical person? His only purpose is religious. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "Isaiah is not mentioned except in the Bible" is confusing inasmuch as a few lines later mentioned is made of The Martyrdom of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets. Should the sentence be re-worked to indicate either (1) not mentioned in contemporary extra-Biblical sources; or 2) Only mentioned in material that is related or dependent on 2 Kings / 2 Chronicles / Isaiah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.228.233 ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is also relevant to the birthplace orf Isaiah that has cropped up in a few recent edits. Mtpaley ( talk) 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyone know who Isiah means by "the virgin" in this passage (quoted in our article)? "The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee." (God is telling Senacherib off - but who is this virgin?) PiCo ( talk) 03:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment, the section is a mess, but I don't have time to fix it. I can however provide several references to start with for someone who wants to take this on. There's the Jewish Encyclopedia's entry for Isaiah here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8235-isaiah; the Catholic Encyclopedia entry here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08179b.htm (with the Latin spelling "Isaias"; Britannica Online here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/295133/Isaiah; the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Isaiah.html.
YoMenashe ( talk) 13:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
"The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title is likely"
And WHY is that, pray tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.113.41 ( talk) 15:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have an article on this name? There's currently a few abysmally minimal stubs/disambig pages— Isaias (given name), Izaiaš—that would probably do better to be merged into such a page. We should probably also make note of people named Yeshaya(h(u)) somewhere. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D935:CCD3:910B:1262 ( talk) 01:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
See https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/prophet-isaiah-jerusalem-seal-archaeology-bible/ Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
References
This seal impression of Isaiah, therefore, is unique, and questions still remain about what it actually says. However, the close relationship between Isaiah and King Hezekiah, as described in the Bible, and the fact the bulla was found next to one bearing the name of Hezekiah seem to leave open the possibility that, despite the difficulties presented by the bulla's damaged area, this may have been a seal impression of Isaiah the prophet, adviser to King Hezekiah.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
There's also some criticism of the claim at Eilat Mazar. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
In any case, the National Geographic article above is mostly quoting Eilat Mazar concerning her discoveries. Mazar is quite famous, but has repeatedly been accused of jumping into conclusions when it comes to evaluating her findings. When she discovered the Large Stone Structure, she proclaimed it to be the palace of David. Despite the fact that there is no reliable dating method for this building, nothing connects it to David or mentions his name, and that the pottery and iron objects found indicate that it was built in the 1st millennium BC, but do not even confirm whether it predates the Hellenistic period. Dimadick ( talk) 15:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted at [1]. It is original research: the source does not even mention Sennacherib, so it does not verify the claim made. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
What do we think about the idea of writing something about the supposed Isaiah seal in the article?
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2018/february/isaiah-seal-more-evidence-of-biblical-narrative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieflagfan ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone I recently added a small line that shows that Isaiah existed around 700 years before Jesus Christ under the Christianity section. I think we can also focus more on Isaiah's relation/context historically to help people get a better understanding of his place in history.
If my edit is incorrect or if you find a more accurate year please do change it. I am a new editor and I'm still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia.
Best Wishes. Sabaybayin ( talk) 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The established era style on this page was 'BC'. It was changed to 'BCE' without discussion in November 2019. Therefore, the era style should be 'BC' unless and until there is consensus for the change to 'BCE'. Sweet6970 ( talk) 23:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweet6970: it's not clear what sort of argument would be acceptable if you think that the era style shouldn't relate in any way to the religion in an article, could you please give some examples? Since I've asked at the guideline page you can use the same reply at both places. The idea that there's any ownership of articles is an odd one that I've never accepted. I don't know where you got the word "substantial" from either, the guideline says "reasons specific to its content". But you seem to be rejecting the idea that religious content of the article is a specific reason. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this is continuing at MOS. The current discussion is based on the premise that the existing style for this article is BC and that it was changed to BCE in November 2019. Examining the history at Isaiah shows that is incorrect. I looked at old versions of the article every few months, starting at 13:26, 6 January 2016. At that date, there were two BC and six BCE. In later revisions I found all BCE meaning that someone had made them consistent by changing the two BC. On the principle of WP:SILENCE, given that the article has used BCE from early 2016 to late 2019, the WP:RETAIN argument is that BCE should be used unless there is a compelling reason to change it to BC. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears this article was BC from 2001 to June 2015, then BCE from 2016 to late 2019, then BC for the last two months. For me, the reasonable interpretation of RETAIN is that the four-year period 2016–2019 is the established style, and people are now reacting to the change two months ago. Of course that argument can be used to suit whichever side one favors but it would be very undesirable if people could hunt for articles which have used a certain style for four years and switch them because originally the style was different. If there is no consensus on that point, an RfC will be required. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Yeshayahu. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Yeshayahu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hildeoc (
talk)
02:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
When I was researching about prophets of Judaism, I saw that the same image (Russian icon of the Prophet Ezekiel holding a scroll with his prophecy and pointing to the "closed gate" (18th century, Iconostasis of Kizhi monastery, Russia)) is placed on both the pages for Ezekiel and Isaiah.
I am new in editing Wikipedia pages. So instead of correcting I decided to open a talk about this confusing information. Check /info/en/?search=File:Isaiah.jpg and /info/en/?search=File:Ezekiel-icon.jpg Fatih Keçelioğlu ( talk) 01:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)