Talk:Nativity of Jesus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Content Split Off

I have split some content off from the section The Nativity as myth into a new article called Contradictions in the Gospels, partly to make the article easier to read, and partly because it seems that the material is reproduced in other Jesus-related articles and the range of articles could thus all be improved by centralising the content. Wdford (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion/restoration of text

There's some room for compromise on this, but there are large portions of content which you deleted and did not move into Contradictions in the Gospels. The longer, better-sourced version of the article ought to be our starting point, with rather less-drastic deletions than you undertook. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not everything was appropriate to move to Contradictions in the Gospels. However a lot of the material I pruned out already exists in separate articles dedicated to those particular topics, so I have tried to eliminate the duplication with existing Main Articles. I don't see anything wrong with that - surely the project is not well served by having thirty-odd Jesus-related articles which substantially regurgitate the same material? If you think my summaries are undersourced then by all means add back the extra references, and sorry for the shortfall, but do you really think its necessary or appropriate to duplicate the content of existing Main Articles? Wdford (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think its necessary to duplicate the content of existing Main Articles, but I just haven't been through the main articles to verify that information is included in them which was removed from here. When there isn't a "Main" fork under a section header, which was directly forked out of this articles (eg, the article you made), I just find it too hard to verify that everything does exist in other articles. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if "fork" is the right word here. Apart from the one article I created, the other stuff already existed long ago, and I don't know which way around they were created. I will ensure the links are all present in the Nativity article, and if you want to add extra detail then please add it to the "specialised" article in question, as other Jesus-articles are also being linked to those articles too. Please note that the "Contradictions" article is still under development, and could use your help too. Thanks Wdford (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm... reading through this thread, it appears that material has been removed from this article on the understanding that it has been taken to a new article in summary form. But the link to that article is still red, which means the new article does not even exist. I think either the new article should be created, or the removed material should be come back.Civilizededucation (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Significance

The lead section says "The remembrance and re-enactment of the Nativity in the Christian celebration of Christmas signifies their belief that Jesus is the "Christ" or Messiah promised by the Old Testament." Would it not be more accurate to say that it celebrates the belief that Jesus is the incarnate Word (as in John Chapter 1, widely read in churches at this time) or to put it another way the incarnate second person of the Trinity? I would suspect that for many (most?) believing Christians, especially perhaps from the Cathoic tradition, Christmas is really about the "mystery of the incarnation", rather than looking back to messianic prophecies (although admittedly several of the Gospel stories were constructed to reflect the supposed fulfilment of such prophecies) --rossb (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Added a bit - it's not either/or. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Herod

Herod is first mentioned in the "Gospel of Matthew" section: "Herod understands the phrase ..." I have the feeling something got removed here because there is no context. This is explained later under "Date of birth" where it talks about the prophecy relayed to Herod by the magi. The explanation should be moved or copied to the earlier section so it makes more sense. I'll take a stab at it. Rees11 (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

majority view, per WP:WEIGHT

The majority viewpoint needs to be treated as such, and the minority viewpoints likewise. Leadwind (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, but was there an opinion poll, or scholarly reference as to Metzger being the majority view. And no Vermes, Sanders & Co. this time? I am beginning to miss those guys... I guess I do need to mention WP:BRD as a formality... Cheers. 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:Weight, especially about the use of commonly accepted reference texts to determine majority viewpoints. Leadwind (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff that History and I disagree about. Key point: the article should identify which viewpoint is the majority viewpoint and then treat it as such. Leadwind (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. I know WP:WEIGHt but I do not know how we go about determining if Metzger is the majority opinion. How do we know that? How do you know that? How do I know that? Are we guessing? Do we have proof? If so, let us see the proof, beyond our own guesses, either way. History2007 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you know WP:WEIGHT, you already know that we determine the majority view by finding out what the commonly accepted reference texts say. Specifically it says:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

The conclusion that the narratives in Matthew and Luke are two different narratives is majority viewpoint, as we can see because the citation is to a highly-regarded reference. Please turn to your commonly accepted reference texts and tell us what they say about the historical/non-historical debate. Once we see what the majority opinion is (what we see in the references), we can easily tell who agrees with it and who doesn't. Leadwind (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is one suggested algorithm yet totally dependent on purely objective assessments the way you presented it. I mentioned Vermes and Sanders, I forgot to mention Ehrman, as well because we have been here before a few times my friend. We have the three of them plus the Jesus seminar positioned as the ultimate in scholarship. Yet the main issue I have is the way references to them are used to modify the text to present a tone that suggests "total contradiction" in the Gospels. I think everyone who reads knows that the Gospels are not identical and do differ on their accounts. I see no problem in stating that. Yet I feel that the tone of the edits are just too aggressive (one might even say angry) about the Gospels. And the tone does not directly call the other scholars uninformed, but comes close to doing it "between the lines". And the burden here is not on yours truly to turn to my commonly accepted text and present an entire argument, but on the editor making the new edit, namely yourself. And please let things rest while we discuss the presentation of the fact that the Gospels are not identical and do differ, but not state it in an angry tone and mention the other scholars 12 miles down the road. That is not encyclopedic. It is the question of agreeing on the wording really, and avoiding reverts while we discuss it. History2007 (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

History, you say, "Yes, that is one suggested algorithm." I've never heard WP policy called merely "a suggested algorithm" before, but OK. When you look at commonly accepted reference texts, what do they say about this issue? When I look at them, they say that there are two different narratives, and that historians don't credit them as historical. What do your commonly accepted reference texts say? It's not fair for you to delete the majority view and then not offer your version of what you think the majority view is. Leadwind (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We can talk about this issue, of course, but having looked at the article and the context, I think there are so many issues that this will be just one of them, and it is best discussed with all the others. I have self-reverted to your earliest change, without accepting it, until the other issues are addressed. Long and short of it: This article is a long way from WP:TPA and this change is just a small issue, so we need to come back to it later.

Yes, there are a lot of issues with the article. Thanks for self-reverting. Leadwind (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but let us remember that I did so just to suspend the discussion. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly controversial to say that the majority of scholars regard the birth narratives as different, contradictory, and unhistorical. The classic assessment is Raymond Brown's Birth of the Messiah, which though a little dated is still the most comprehensive analysis. Brown cleary supports this view and he is hardly an extremist. It's pretty much the mainstream view. Rbreen (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

On the way to WP:TPA

Having looked at this article, I think it is a long way from TPA. There are a number of interesting and important issues associated with the birth of Jesus which are not even mentioned. A partial list is as follows:

• Theological issues: The theological issues of Mary giving birth to Jesus had significant impact on Christianity and some of the key issues in Christology such as the monophysitism, miaphysitism, hyposthasis, etc. sprang from those. These need to be addressed.

• Schisms: Said debates were the starting point for schisms within the Church, and that issue needs to be mentioned.

• Image and perception: The presentation of the nativity, its depictions and the construction of the Nativity scenes had a key impact on transforming the image of Jesus away from the Kyrios perception towards the "tender image of Jesus". That impacted how Christians view Jesus and how they approach him in prayer, etc. as Rowan Williams discussed at length.

• Impact on Christianity: The above elements just give a starting glimpse of the impact of Nativity on Christianity over the centuries. The impact has been significant and needs to be addressed.

And there are several other issues, and I will try to address them over the next 20 days. Biblical narratives and historicity are of course two elements that need to be discussed, but they are not the only elements, given that the impact of Nativity on Christianity goes far beyond them. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There's lots to be done here, and we shouldn't let the legendary nature of the narratives dominate the article. Leadwind (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologetic point of view

This used to be a relatively good article, which explained the different nativity stories contained in the canonical Gospels and discussed various interesting aspects of the subject. More recently it seems to have taken on a heavily apologetic bias. The small reference in the lede to the fact that most Biblical scholars do not regard the accounts as historical fact is compromised by the addition of a reference to scholars who 'suggest solutions' to this. It is not the function of scholars to suggest 'solutions' as this is a problem only for those who require scripture to be literally true. Plenty of believers have no difficulty in accepting the majority view without considering their faith at risk.

The section on the Canonical Gospels now features a detailed and unnecessary 'Gospel Harmony' which appears to be original research. There is no need for a Gospel Harmony - itself a fictional construct with no scriptural basis - except for apologetic purposes. The section which originally featured near the beginning and reflected the modern scholarly consensus seems to have been buried further down. We have a lovely but unnecessary collection of images of related events - I know of no other article which features these so prominently.

Even the section on historical analysis, which ought at least to feature prominently the work of Raymond Brown, according to Yale University Press "internationally regarded as a dean of New Testament scholars" and whose Birth of the Messiah is still the classic study of the Nativity accounts - and a very mainstream scholar as well as being a Catholic priest - attempts to 'balance' this view, supported also by major figures such as Geza Vermes (described in the Guardian as 'the greatest Jesus scholar of his generation') and EP Sanders another very prominent scholar, by describing the views of some minor scholars as if there were two equal sides to be presented. This presents a very unbalanced view and does not give readers a fair picture of real scholarship on this fascinating topic. --Rbreen (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see things that way. Indeed, there were many unreferenced items before. As is the view of Brown is discussed, and not a single reference has been deleted. Just new references were added. I saw that you added a NPOV tag, and I have no problem in discussing that issue. But please let us discuss it without starting a revert cycle.

Now, we can either continue applying adjectives to different scholars, or help the reader understand things. Given that it is Christmas and a time of charity, please help educate me on your viewpoint. That would also help other readers. Beyond the census date, exactly where are these main "inconsistencies"? It would be good to have a list of these to the reader. As I stated above, the accounts of Luke and Matthew may be considered to lack completeness, but that is different from consistency. How does the fact that Luke does not mention a flight to Egypt make it inconsistent with Matthew?

James Hastings has stated the view that there is no real inconsistency in the Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus and that its being mentioned in two of the Gospels is perhaps due to the fact that the birth of Jesus was for long a closely guarded secret among the few people who knew it (A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels: Volume II by James Hastings 2004 ISBN 1410217884 page 805). And that should also be mentioned in the article.

And Dwight Pentecost (A Harmony of the Words and Works of Jesus Christ by J. Dwight Pentecost 1981 ISBN 0310309514 pages 6-10) and Edward Robinson (A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English by Edward Robinson 2009 ISBN 1110103395) are just two scholars that support the Hastings/Cox/Easley view. John Gresham Machen also stated that the Lukan account of the birth of Jesus has a high level of consistency with the rest of the Gospels.(Virgin Birth of Christ by John Gresham Machen 1987 edition, ISBN 0227676300 pages 133-135) and other books (e.g.Jesus the Virgin-Born by Edgar Alan Nutt 2007 ISBN 1602662282 page 82) support that view.

So it seems that to call Cox, Easley, Roberts, Summers, Vardeman, Pentecost, Robinson, Machen, etc. a minority would be making a very long list of the "minority". These are all PhD level people who teach this topic and have written books on it. So there are multiple scholars on different sides of this issue. The views of the last 7 scholars I mentioned can not be discounted in Wikipedia. So, again, beyond the census date, exactly where are these glaring "inconsistencies" that we are debating? Your help in clarifying them in a logical manner will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"The views of the last 7 scholars I mentioned can not be discounted in Wikipedia." Well Machen is outdated and I'm sure you can fine the same amount of scholars that believe the gospels were written pre-60 AD. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the Helmut Koester reference you added Jerry is pretty good in that context. That is exactly how that section needs to give coverage to different perspectives. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This table may well not be apologetic, because it shows too the inconsistency of the gospels. What do You think about just link to Gospel harmony without table? --Wiggles007 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem in discussing different strategies. But it is best to have a discussion before we start making edits back and forth. Let us discuss the issues calmly before we make any edits. However, I do think that the NPOV flag at the top should be moved to the "Historicity section". There is a section on Music. Is that NPOV? There is a section on Christology. Is that NPOV? No those have not even been accused. So before anything else, I suggest that the NPOV flag should apply to the Historicity section rather than the entire article. That is just one of the 5 sections in the article. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Mt Breen's flag, one can not flag the whole article, leave for 10 days and then say I want the flag there. So Mr Breen, please provide answers to the questions posed above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

History 2007, I looked at this and wish I knew more about the subject but just looking at how the lead has changed I would like to echo some of the concerns of Mr Breen. I dont get why the mention of the theological? differences between Matthew and Lukes accounts has been ditched, how the clear focus of the old lead has got diffused somehow, how, and this may be just paranoid of me an 'apologetic' tone has crept into the very first sentences, -instead of a straightforward, 'the Nativity refers to the accounts of the birth of J. in 2 of the canonical gospels and in various apocryphal texts' it is now that 'the traditional accounts appear in ..' and there next to it is a 'traditional' kitsch saccharine painting with ox and ass, animals which appear in apocryphal texts I believe , not in 'traditional' accounts anyhow. It has an apologetic look and feel, somehow, thats my feeling and the flag could serve a purpose to get more people to look at it and express an opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok Sayerslle, so let us talk specifics. As for the image, that is easy to change, and you may be correct about the animals - that is no big deal. That image was lower in the article before, by the way. I changed that, but as a side note, most of the high quality art actually has animals in it, except those with the Magi - and even Magi art also often includes animals, but in any case, we have one now without animals. Now, there are 3 paragraphs, before the discussion of the theology, etc. that are separate issues. As is there is a paragraph about each section, so let us look at them:

The Nativity of Jesus, or simply The Nativity, refers to the accounts of the birth of Jesus. The traditional accounts appear in the Canonical gospels. Various apocryphal texts also mention it. The Nativity is the basis of Christmas, which is an important Holy day celebrated by Christians worldwide.

What do you consider problematic here? Please list the issues for this paragraph here:

The accounts of the Nativity of Jesus in the New Testament appear in only two of the four Canonical Gospels, namely the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew. Events preceding the birth of Jesus, e.g. The Annunciation to Mary and the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth appear almost entirely in the Gospel of Luke. The account of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem appears in both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke - which also includes the Adoration of the Shepherds by itself. The follow on events such as the Adoration of the Magi and the Flight into Egypt appear mostly in the Gospel of Matthew. The Quran, like the Gospels, places the virgin birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

What do you consider problematic here? Please list the issues for this paragraph here:

Modern scholars have questioned the historicity of the Gospel texts, their completeness and consistency, e.g. the references to dates in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke with respect to the death of Herod the Great and the Census of Quirinius, the text's prophecy that "He will be called a Nazorean" and the reference to Isaiah.[7][8] Scholars have also suggested solutions for the resolution of these issues

What do you consider problematic here? Please list the issues for this paragraph here:

So let us discuss that and address the issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

why did you change the first 2 paragraphs at all. what was wrong with them? 'the N of j refers to the accounts of the birth of j in 2of the canonical gospels and in various apocrypahal texts.' if it aint broke, don't fix it. you totally axed the bit about 'matthews narrative emphasises kingly ..prophesied messiah etc' - Lukes more humble emphasis' if I got the drift...of the earlier version..it was suggestive of the rifts within judaism at the time, the dead sea scrolls sect are evidence that judaism was full of different groups with different emphases, - I just prefer that, instead of that controversy about dates are mentioned and the Quran - when was that written, how many centuries after?, why mention that here? Sayerslle (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Are these the 2 paragraphs you are referring to

The Nativity of Jesus, or simply The Nativity, refers to the accounts of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth in two of the Canonical gospels and in various apocryphal texts. It is the basis of Christmas, which is an important Holy day celebrated by Christians.

The New Testament provides two accounts of the birth of Jesus: one in the Gospel of Matthew and the other in the Gospel of Luke.[1][2] In Matthew, Jesus is born in Bethlehem to a virgin, hailed as the king of the Jews by Magi, and feared by King Herod. To escape from Herod, the holy family flees to Egypt. They later settle in Nazareth rather than returning home to Bethlehem. In Luke, Joseph and Mary, a virgin, travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census, and Jesus is born in a manger, where shepherds come to adore him.

Let us see if that is what you mean. In any case, I see no big deal about the Quran, so that can go out and I added the King of the Jews part etc. if you think that was significant. What the previous paragraphs missed was the mention of the order of the events in Luke and Matthew, so that is important to mention. Now all those elements are there. But now the lead is pretty long. Any more will go beyond the lead length limit bounds. The issue is that given taht teh article grew and that there are new sections, the lead must summarize those too, so now we have a pretty long lead, but probably just within limits of length. History2007 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You axed the bit about the gospel of matthew seeming to appeal to those sections of the audience that were obsessed with seeing various KinglyMessianic prophetic utterances being fulfilled - that is interesting, it was expressed o.k, you have changed the way it was put, - you don't say why that went. Sayerslle (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is really no big deal and I do not even know which part it is. Do you just want to put that sentence back and let us be done. By the way, is there a good reference for that statement anyway? It would be good to add that too. History2007 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this the sentence: "...in Isaiah 4:3, meant to identify Jesus with the Nazoreans, a Jewish sect who differed from the Pharisees only in regarding Jesus as the Messiah."... or this one: "According to authors Barton and Muddiman, Matthew's Nativity narrative paints Jesus as a second Moses...." These are in the article, just were grouped together because before they were all spread out all over. History2007 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

speaking of good refs - looking on amazon it looks like someone called Ulrich Luz has written interestingly on the Gospel of matthews theological concerns, and discusses the birth narrative, but the book is expensive i'll have to order it from the library - meanwhile the refs you supply for 'the resolution of these issues' - steve l.cox, asst prof of NT at the mid american Baptist theological seminary , - and then a ref to pages in a book of essays 'in honour of Summers', so we don't know who is 'resolving these issues' (it isnt summers or vardeman by the look of it) and we dont know how this writer we dont know, is 'resolving these issues'. it looks like authorities in the field, Vermes, Sanders are being balanced with apologists and writers who it isn't even made clear who they are. Sayerslle (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, one thing at a time. Is the issue with the sentence you mentioned about "audience that were obsessed with seeing various KinglyMessianic prophetic utterances" over? Let us see if that was what you mentioned. History2007 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical and scholarly analysis

Sayerslle, assuming that the issue with the sentence "audience that were obsessed with seeing various KinglyMessianic prophetic utterances" above has been resolved (else please reply to it above until we figure out which sentence it is) let us move on to the issue of the references about historicity and scholarly analysis.

I assume that you refer to the lede in saying that Vermes is being balanced with Cox & Easley etc. The lede does not actually need references and must just "summarize" an appropriate section of the article. So that discussion is really about the historicity and scholarly analysis section rather than the lede. So we need to discuss that section. After the section has been agreed upon, we can summarize it in the lede. In general, regardless of this article, one can not let a lede wag a section, so to speak and the section must be done first, then the lede. Let us do that section in detail, and let us provide the reader with more details of that, for I think that section is at times too telegraphic and needs expansion.

So what are the problems you see in the section "Historical and scholarly analysis". Let us discuss those. As a start, let us not just telegraph the "inconsistencies" that bother Vermes and Sanders, but let us provide a detailed list of them. Then we will see what other references address the issues, etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't refs in the lead have to be clear about who is writing. I'm going away to read Ulrich on the gospel of Matthew, an authority in the field, , not published by 'Good News Gospel books' or such like. Sayerslle (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can ask at WP:Help desk about the lede refs, but my understanding from Wikipedia:Lede#Citations is that the lede does not require that many references itself, and must just be representative of the article, which will include most of the references. The lede just gives an overview of the sections. In any case, common sense also suggests that we should work on the section first, then summarize it in the lede, to maintain consistency between the lede and the section. So when you get Ulrich's book we can see what he views as the inconsistencies, and list them for the reader, then discuss them one by one. Gradually a more detailed analysis will appear. History2007 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

the thing about the ref in the lead is that it is to pages 121 -126 of a book in honour of Summers, Baylor University, motto 'pro ecclesia' ( not bothered about disguising its non-NPOV status)- and I just wondered who wrote those pages. Doesnt need a help desk just needs a writers name. I think Ulrich from looking on Amazon is more concerned with looking at the theological/ideological background of the gospel than at inconsistencies - which groups within judaism were obsessed with apocalyptic and certain prophetic texts and were hostile to the ruling groups within the judaism of the time, the Sadducees and pharisees, that kind of thing. Sayerslle (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not understand that is what you meant. It is there now. It was written by Nikos Kokkinos, who is a historian. History2007 (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm off to the library and, seriously, I will read the Ulrich and put here any quotes from his work on Gospel of Matthew birth of Jesus narrative,I think deserve consideration for inclusion in this article. (still not happy with the fourth paragraph though starting 'modrn scholars..' it isn't very clear what is being said, with regard the 'he shall be called a nazarene' and isaiah - which gospel is this in ? what do 'modern scholars' question here? ...it gets very unclear - and even 'modern scholars' - who? all of them? etc its a dodgy paargraph in my opinion - but enough.) Sayerslle (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let us see what Ulrich will teach us. I keep learning these things as I play with Wikipedia, discuss etc. Now the 4th paragraph is a reflection of the section on historicity & scholarly issues. So we really need to fix that section first. I am not really sure what all these "inconsistencies" are beyond the Census of Quirinius and the death of Herod. The sentences about Isaiah etc. were all there for long and may need clarification anyway. So let us do this: first see of we can get a list of these inconsistencies beyond the date of Quirinius and inform the reader about them, then address why Nazarene and Isaiah are problems. One may say that the audiences for which Matthew and Luke wrote are different, but that is already there, and is not a logical inconsistency in the events. So we need a better clarification of the list. After the section has been fixed, the lede should reflect the section in a clear way. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The main inconsistencies that are basically unreconcilible are as follows:

1. the known date of the census is at least ten years after the known date of the death of Herod;
2. the two genealogies of Joseph are completely different;
3. Matthew alone mentions the Massacre of the Innocents, and the related flight into Egypt, while Luke describes the family going directly to Jerusalem and then straight home to Nazareth;
4. Matthew mentions the magi in detail, with abnormal stars and audiences with the king, but makes no mention at all of shepherds. Luke mentions the shepherds in detail, complete with angelic messengers and songs of praise, but makes no mention at all of any magi.

Other issues include would the shepherds have had their flocks in the fields overnight in the middle of winter, would the Romans expect Joseph to register to pay taxes in Bethlehem if he was a citizen of a separate country (Gallilee), why did Josephus not mention the massacre of the innocents either, would any sane husband load a heavily pregnant girl onto a donkey and schlepp her around hundreds of miles in the middle of winter etc etc, but these are inconsistent with reality, not with each other. BTW, the lead section is way too long - surely we can trim this down and leave the detail for the body of the article? Wdford (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, good. Now we are getting details. So what I understand is that there are two separate issues of consistency here, one is "inter-Gospel" consistency between Luke and Matthew, the other is the internal consistency of each Gospel, e.g. Luke vs Luke. Now first the inter-Gospel issues:

• The census date item and the death of Herod 10 year difference is mentioned by many sources.

• The genealogies of Joseph are also clearly different but are those part of the Nativity story? I guess that needs to be discussed somewhere, but I wonder if that is usually about Nativity. There is actually a long article called Genealogy of Jesus and we should just refer to that rather than restate all the issues here.

• But how is the lack of the mention of Joseph's dream and flight to Egypt etc. by Luke an "inconsistency" as such? That is what is not clear to me, in that even when it comes to the last supper, some Gospels mention some things others do not. That seems to be an issue of completeness not of consistency. The way the Gospels are written they always narrate separate pieces, e.g. some parables are reported in some Gospels and not others. Is that not so?

Now regarding the consistency of Luke with itself:

• Regarding the shepherds having had their flocks in the fields overnight in the middle of winter, how do we know the season? Is there a reference to the month? The way I understand it, Luke mentions no December 25th date and that date came about much later.

• Regarding the Romans expecting Joseph to register to pay taxes in Bethlehem if he was a citizen of a separate country (Gallilee), how do we know his citizenship, etc.?

Regarding the consistency of Matthew with itself:

• As to why Josephus did not mention the massacre of the innocents, that would suggest a lack of historicity for the Gospel of Matthew, not a lack of consistency. Right?

• As to why any sane husband load a heavily pregnant girl onto a donkey, that again suggests a lack of historicity or "lack of reality" in the story of Matthew, but not a lack of consistency.

However, I think you did very well to point out that there are 3 completely separate issues here:

• Conflicts between Luke and Matthew.

• Internal historicity issues about Luke itself.

• Lack of historicity in parts of Matthew, such a the Massacre not being reported elsewhere. By the way, is the Massacre reported nowhere in history? The issue of the historicity of the Massacre itself is a standalone issue that needs to be discussed in the Massacre page, then summarized here.

I think we should really work these into the historicity section of the article. The part that I am least comfortable about is questioning the sanity of Joseph about the trip, because we are talking about a situation in which angels appear right and left, and in the middle of that type of story reasoning about the mindset of Joseph seems off topic. In a story in which angels have major roles, modern psych-analysis of Joseph seems somewhat secondary, if he believes in angels telling him things, etc. But in any case, this categorization needs to get good references and worked into the historicity section.

I think you correctly pointed out that there are 3 separate issues: conflicts between Luke and Matthew (e.g. the census date), "realism" in the stories (e.g. sheep in winter) and historicity of each account (e.g. Massacre not reported in history), and they need to clarified as such. But let us get the details in good shape first. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that there are two separate issues here, but I would suggest that one issue is inconsistency between Luke and Matthew, the other is the individual historicity of each gospel.

I feel that the genealogies of Joseph are definitely part of the Nativity story. They are mentioned specifically in connection with the parentage of Jesus, and are directly linked to the birth of Jesus in both gospels that bother to mention the birth of Jesus at all. I agree that we should just mention it in a sentence, with a blue-link to the main article.

It’s true that some incidents are often mentioned in some gospels but not in the other gospels, and that this is merely selective incompleteness. However the issue of the flight to Egypt in the nativity stories is more than that. Matthew makes a huge fuss about this, and it’s clearly a long-term event in the life of the holy family, involving mass murder, angelic intervention and a lengthy exile in a foreign land. However Luke clearly says that the family went within days of the birth to Jerusalem (Herod’s capital), presented the newborn infant at the Temple (Herod’s temple) and then went calmly back to Nazareth – no mass murder, no angelic warnings, and no lengthy detours through distant Egypt. They either fled immediately from Bethlehem to Egypt, as per Matthew, or they went to Jerusalem and on to Nazareth, as per Luke, but they could not have done both.

Re Joseph’s citizenship, its made clear in Luke that he lived in Nazareth, journeyed to Bethlehem for the census and then returned to Nazareth. In those days taxes were paid where you lived, not where your grandfather was born, so its inexplicable that Roman authorities would have required everyone to go to the home of their distant ancestor in order to pay taxes. In Roman times people from Turkey lived in Britain and vice versa, so this story is not credible. However it is certainly an issue of historicity rather than consistency, and I agree that it should be discussed as an historicity issue.

An extra issue – Luke dates the nativity of Jesus to the time of the census – 10 years after the time of King Herod etc etc. However Luke starts the gospel by telling that John the Baptist was conceived in the time “when Herod was king” – and Jesus was conceived before John was born – so Luke is inconsistent even in his own gospel. Some have argued that the “Herod” mentioned here is not King Herod but rather his son – however the son wasn’t a king, and this theory directly contradicts Matthew as well. Interesting stuff.

Wdford (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let us put geneaology in then, if it is generally considered part of Nativity. Now, do you have a reference for Joseph's citizenship? Can you please state that just one paragraph with a reference. We just need a nice clean paragraph that says it has been said that this trip was deemed non-realistic. I guess we should also see if someone said it was otherwise. But as a start, we should just get a reference for that anyway. That would help as the next step. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Readers's view

As I was looking into the details of the scholarly discussions about whether it makes sense for sheep to be outside in winter, etc. I thought some readers, such as myself will question the intelligence of the scholars who even debate these things in this context. I do not know how to convey this is the section but some common sense comments may need to be added and I am not sure how.

As a reader, I would observe that we are talking about a story in which the laws of physics and biology as we know them today are bypassed by angels and supernatural forces at will. If that is the context for the story, then the application of other physical/biological constraints such as winter temperatures for sheep is totally redundant. If the angels wanted to, they could have created a heat wave that winter, and I wonder why the angels did not use one of the lambs there to make a nice barbecue for everyone that night, etc. And why is it necessary for an angel to say anything to the shepherds? Can thought not just get implanted in minds from above by supernatural forces? Why do we need angels to appear, use sound waves in the air to speak to shepherds? Does the story imply the lack of telepathy? And why appear in Joseph's dream and not appear when Joseph is awake, etc. etc. etc. So if that is the context of the story, why even debate these details using heavy historical research, logical analysis, etc.

As a reader, I would say that the great scholars who debate the details of rabbinic laws that affect sheep in winter, or why Joseph did X versus Y etc. are having pointless discussions. The discussions may go a long way in getting tenure or selling books, but are entirely pointless from a common sense perspective. Believing the nativity story from the Annunciation onwards requires so much faith as a start that the rest of the "logical analysis" is a negligible fraction of the issue.

The other question that I would ask as a reader is: where did Luke and Matthew get their story? Are we assuming that they received it via supernatural forces, or did they hear it from others over the years? If we assume they heard it supernaturally, again there is no reason to debate things, for the supernatural forces may have a logic of their own. If they heard it through oral traditions, then it would be surprising if they coincided, because stories change as they get told again and again. That is a well known fact of verbal communication: stories change. And given that at the time of the birth there were no Apostles around and Joseph probably died long before the Baptism in the Jordan etc. the main source of the story must be Mary, who was the only person present throughout the events. So she must have recounted things to various people who recounted them to others, etc. From a non-supernatural perspective, is there any other way for Luke and Matthew to get the story?

Anyway, as a reader, I would say that I find much of the scholarly analysis pointless from a common sense perspective. If they believe the Annunciation, then logical analysis should be put aside for the story takes place is in the realm of supernatural forces. If they do not believe the Annunciation, then the rest of the story cannot be believed either. That point should probably be made somehow. History2007 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

prominent scholars?

The article says: "A minority of significant scholars defend the historicity of both birth narratives, attributing differences to the authors' different perspectives.[10][11]"

I don't think this is true. I don't think that there are any prominent scholars who consider both accounts historical. It's true the Christian evangelicals think the Bible is inerrant and are willing to thumb their noses at scholarship, but that's hardly notable. Can anyone find an account in a disinterested source that says that any prominent scholars believe that either account is historical? We're supposed to look to commonly accepted references and to disinterested secondary and tertiary sources to strike the right balance among opposing views. Unless someone can find a disinterested source that agrees with the above statement, we should strike it. Leadwind (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Lacking any defender of this statement, I'll remove it as not notable. Leadwind (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think we are both ready to have discussion on that via WP:BRD. I did restore the Cox & Easley reference, given that it discussed the exact issues. I would like to point out the key issue of logical "consistency" versus "completeness". The word inconsistent means that assertions are made that have different truth values. However, the main difference, as pointed out in I think in 4 references in the article (and I can get 4, 8 or 16 more if needed) is that Matthew talks mostly about events after birth, while Luke talks about events before birth. Hence if the dream of Joseph does not appear in Luke that is not an inconsistency as pointed out by various sources. Neither account is complete, but that is the nature of all Gospel accounts. The idea of Gospel harmony is that of merging descriptions of events narrated by different people. If there is a traffic accident, 3 people have separate stories on that and usually each sees different things - the insurance company merges those accounts. Secondly the blanket assertion "the majority viewpoint" is not in any way supported, given that there are scholars on both sides. I am open to hearing your viewpoints, but I think the trio of "Vermes, Sanders and Company" do not necessarily establish blanket truth. The main point of contention among all scholars is the 10 year gap between the dates regarding Herod's death and the census, and as stated there are 4 lines of reasoning regarding solutions by at least 10 scholars. So having looked into this, I see no blanket facts here at all, and no declaration by the united nations regarding a final majority. There are multiple scholars on both sides and the article section has clearly aired the views on both sides. Moreover, as is there are 4 sections beside the Biblical narrative and each has a paragraph of almost equal length in the lead, so they are given equal real-estate there. History2007 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cox and Easley represent a minority view among scholars and are in no way equivalent to Raymond Brown, Geza Vermes or E P Sanders - or a multitude of major scholars on the subject, all of whom are entirely comfortable with the idea that the Nativity accounts are inconsistent. It is false equivalence to suggest that there are two equal sides to this. --Rbreen (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How do we establish that Cox and Easley are a minority view? Your personal assessment? In fact they review the works of several other authors. I think as an editor you need to use caution not to perform any specific form of stratified sampling as you survey the literature. Please provide specific evidence as to why Cox and Easley are not a WP:reliable source. History2007 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

History, it's pretty simple. First, we see what the majority viewpoint is, as represented by the top experts in the field, such as Brown. They say that these accounts aren't historical. There, now we have the majority viewpoint. It might be hard to take that the historical-critical viewpoint is the predominant viewpoint throughout nonsectarian academia, but it's true. Next, we see what other viewpoints are prominent enough to include. Find some evidence that Cox and Easley are prominent or that their view is prominent. General, nonsectarian sources will refer to Brown, Vermes, Sanders, et al, as top scholars. Who says that Cox and Easley are top scholars? Who says that their viewpoint is a prominent viewpoint? If you can't find anyone who says we should take them seriously, and if they disagree with the majority viewpoint, why include them? For example, you could look up Jesus Christ in the Encyclopedia Britannica and see what authors and sources are listed for the article. If Cox and Easley are listed as important sources, or if the idea that we should combine contradictory accounts from different books of the Bible into single accounts is given a lot of play, then we should include C & E. Leadwind (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

two narratives

I know that this suggestion might ruffle some feathers, but the majority viewpoint is that there are two birth narratives with separate sources, not one narrative told from two different perspectives. This whole article was structured as if there were one narrative told in two compatible accounts. We should structure the article as if there were two narratives, which are sometimes conflated. That's the majority viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to suggest a reason why we shouldn't start treating the nativity accounts as two narratives, like in the majority viewpoint? Leadwind (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion but I think it would be good to go to the secondary sources and describe what they say. A search in Google Books for Nativity+Jesus+"two narratives" yields a number of results that specifically reference the existence of two narratives.

• "

In the first place it must be noted that the two narratives are not only independent, they are really conceived on different lines." (Joseph Estlin Carpenter, 1903)

• "

The two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus, it has been shown, are on the one hand completely independent, but on the other hand, not at all contradictory." (J Gresham Machen, 1987)

• The problems of forcing the two narratives together extend beyond the place of birth. For example, recall that Matthew has the annunciation of Jesus' birth given to Joseph while Luke has it given to Mary. ( Joseph F. Kelly, 2008)
• But from this point the two narratives begin to diverge widely. In Luke all proceeds happily ; ...In Matthew, on the contrary, things take a tragic turn." (David Friedrich Strauss, 1846)

I haven't had a chance to do more than skim these four sources but I think it makes clear that the existence of two different narratives is a given. The question that seems a little less clear is how different the two narratives are. J Gresham Machen says that they are "not at all contradictory". The other three sources seem to suggest that there are some very significant differences. In summary, I agree with Leadwind that we should treat the two narratives as different accounts but use the secondary sources to back up this assertion. Then, we should explain the differences between the two narratives, again backing up our assertions with citations to secondary sources.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the introduction to the gospel accounts says that the best way to categorize the events in the birth narratives is to divide them among before the birth, at the birth, and after the birth, as if Matthew and Luke compose a single narrative. But if they're two narratives, then the better way to categorize the events is to divide them between the events in Matthew and the events in Luke. Typically, one would put Matthew first because it was written first. The same goes for the gallery, which now intermingles scenes from the two narratives to support that idea that it's really one narrative told twice. The gallery should put the Matthew scenes together and the Luke scenes together, right? Leadwind (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

date according to Luke

The text says: The Gospel of Luke dates the birth ten years after Herod's death during the census of Quirinius, described by the historian Josephus.[47] Some scholars consider the Gospel of Luke to be mistaken,[48] but other scholars have attempted to reconcile its account with the details given by Josephus.[49][50] For instance, Steven Cox and Kendell Easley list four separate approaches to a solution, ranging from a grammatical approach to the translation of the Greek word prote used in Luke to be read as "registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria" to archeological arguments and references to Tertullian that indicate that a "two step census" was performed, involving an early registration.[35][51][52][53].

First, nobody uses the census of Quirinius to date Jesus' birth. The skeptics don't use it because they think it's just a literary device designed to explain how a man from Nazareth could have been born in Bethlehem. The literalists don't use it because it contradicts Matthew. Literalists, instead, try to date the census according to Jesus' birth, rather than the other way around. So the census of Quirinius has basically nothing to do with dating Jesus' birth. In any event, the text above provides undue weight to a minority viewpoint. The majority viewpoint is that J&M didn't travel to Bethlehem during any census. The minority viewpoint is the Bible is all true despite the apparent contradictions. Above, the minority view gets way more ink than the majority view, which is against WP policy. Leadwind (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you document via a secondary source that this is the minority view? Why can't you insert a summary of the paragraph that you wrote above into the article? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

E P Sanders, perhaps the number one expert on historical Jesus in the world, represents the mainstream viewpoint, and he points out that the very idea of this census is preposterous, let alone trying to figure out how it might have occurred before Herod died. I'm not sure what to do with the "Luke's date" issue. The only people who really care about the date of the census are Bible literalists who try to find a way (or four ways), for the census to have occurred c 5 BC. Leadwind (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet the effort of the Bible literalists to make the Gospel accounts work is a significant POV and should be documented along side Sanders' assertion that the "very idea of the census is preposterous". Let's start by citing Sanders and then we can see what to do about the POV of the Bible literalists. Perhaps someone else can provide a suitable citation for that POV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Machen's view

Leadwind removed the text I wrote about Machen's view that the two accounts were "not at all contradictory", asserting in the edit summary that "Machen died in 1937". I knew that Machen's writing was a century old. It may be a minority view among scholars that the accounts can be reconciled but, if it is a substantial view, it should be presented. If it is completely outdated and now rejected by almost all scholars, then we should present it that way. However, I suspect that many preachers coming out of seminary school have a view closer to Machen. Are we sure that there are no contemporary scholars or theologians who hold Machen's view? Note that I am not asserting that Machen is right. I'm just asserting that lots of people today believe what Machen asserted. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Richard and support your edits. As I said above I think your comments and edits were very constructive. In order not to start an edit war I did not revert LeadWind, but I think he should self revert out of respect for your edit and comments. History2007 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, History2007. I just want to clarify... I'm not insisting on using the citation to Machen. He just came up on the first page of results in my Google Books search. It was late at night and I didn't want to go plowing through all the results to find a more recent source. What I'd like to hear from Leadwind is whether his major objection is to the age of the source. Does he accept that there are scholars who still agree with Machen or does he assert that Machen's view is totally antiquated and nobody today believes that the two accounts can be reconciled? If Leadwind asserts the latter, does he accept that there may be a difference between what scholars believe and what the faithful believe? I'm sure you can find lots of Christian apologetics that try to reconcile the two. I don't think you can just summarily dismiss them and ignore them completely. NB: I'm not saying that the apologetics are right. I'm just saying they should be mentioned as an alternate POV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The open secret about "preachers coming out of seminary" is that mainstream seminaries are notorious for challenging the students' belief in the accuracy of the Biblical texts. In mainstream, historical-critical scholarship, there is no support for the idea that these narratives are true. To find proponents of the narratives being true, you need to step outside mainstream scholarship to everyday piety of lay people or to conservative Christian scholarship of a type not found in mainstream academia. If we include Machen or anyone like that, we need to label theirs as a minority sectarian view rather than as another scholarly opinion. Leadwind (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you at all. My point is that I don't often hear preachers say "Now, we know that the gospel narratives of Matthew and Luke are bogus but...". So, the disconnect between Bible scholarship and the "everyday piety of preachers and lay people" is significant and should be documented. If we could find a source that said what you say above, that would be excellent. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Need better attribution in the "Historicity" section

There are a couple of assertions which are stated as fact rather than the opinion of scholars (it may be the mainstream opinion but it is still an opinion).

• "Matthew's Massacre of the Innocents is mentioned nowhere else and seems unlikely." - Who says it is "unlikely"?
• "Luke's census, in which everyone was expected to return to his ancestral home, is implausible and nowhere corroborated." - This is not a fact; it is an opinion. The sentence should say something like "Bart Ehrman asserts that Luke's census..." or "Some scholars such as Bart Ehrman....". Besides as much as I like Ehrman's POV on a lot of things, he is a controversial scholar and not a mainstream scholar of Christianity. If you want to assert that these views are mainstream, I think we need to cite a less controversial source.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was casual with citations because these are established opinions of the majority, not the individual opinions of this scholar or that one. It's policy to give the majority viewpoint preferential treatment, and "it didn't happen" is the majority viewpoint. As it happens, one of the top Jesus scholars in the world, E. P. Sanders, treats both birth narratives in Historical Figure of Jesus (highly recommended). Leadwind (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be contentious here. I'm not disputing that the skeptical view is the majority view and I acknowledge that it is often hard to find a citable source that asserts that the majority view is, in fact, the majority view. However, in a situation where lots of people (mostly Christians) would want to question this view, I think it is incumbent on us to provide very substantial support for the assertion. I think it's not sufficient to say "it didn't happen the way Matthew and Luke said it did". I think we need to provide some quotes to that effect. In particular, I think we need to know what the mainstream thinks did happen. I suspect the answer is "the mainstream opinion is that Jesus was a historical preacher but that few facts are known about his birth and childhood except that he was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth". If you can find a source that says that, we should put it in the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and I appreciate your input. I've got my Sanders out now, so that will help. Honestly, I'm paraphrasing what a lot of sources say, often what all of them say, so finding sources is trivial. The first issue, for me, is figuring out what to say. Leadwind (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A general comment about mainstream POVs

A recurring theme in the discussions above is the opposition of the "mainstream scholarly POV" and the "mainstream Bible literalist POV". It is natural to assume that the only thing that matters is the mainstream of Bible scholarship. However, when discussing religion-related topics, I think it is important to present what is written, preached and believed by the faithful. I'm not in any way asserting that the faithful are right in their belief. However, to ignore what they believe is to miss a major part of the picture. If modern Bible scholarship claims to refute what the faithful believe, that disconnect should be part of what we are documenting. All I can say is that the scholarship is recent (past couple of hundred years) and the faith is ancient (couple of millennia). We don't know which side will win a century from now. Let's not presume that the debate is over just because we think it should be over. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and in fact would generally like these articles to be more explicit about traditional Christian beliefs. As long as we differentiate between majority viewpoint and traditional viewpoint, and give each side the weight they deserve, it's all good. Some minority-viewpoint editors will tell you that both sides should get equal treatment, but WP policy is to give predominant treatment to the majority viewpoint. Bear in mind that this article is a special case because it's not even a live issue any more. On some issues, like whether Paul wrote this or that letter, there's honest debate. One other issues, such as the birth narratives, the verdict is in. Leadwind (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Readability and flow

Please do not worry about feathers Leadwind, let us talk about helping the reader understand. I had to do a BRD revert on the many subsections introduced into Matthew just because subsections with one paragraph do not help. And the Main articles were all listed on the top of that section anyway. I do not have huge problems with many of the historicity edits you performed, except for the deletion of referenced text etc. bit we can get to those one by one.

Now, please clarify these issues one by one:

• Where do we read in Matthew that "his home was in Bethlehem". I have read Matthew and I do not see that there. I checked again. Is that an inference of some type? Matthew 2.1 starts by saying "when he was born in Bethlehem", but does not mention the home. Does it?

• It is clear and is well referenced that Luke includes the Annunciation and the "events before the birth". So having the section on the Gospel of Luke first is more logical and helps the flow of the article. I see no reason to mention the Annunciation after the birth and flight to Egypt.

These are just for starters an d there are many other points. But one at a time. Now, the item about sheep in winter was instructive to me, I see no reason for deleting it, although I complained about it above. So it is important not to delete referenced information that states that the Gospels give no season, else the reader may think the December date came from there, etc. Overall I think although there are debates about historicity etc. there is no reason to delete this type of information. Let us go through the rest tomorrow. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For those of you following along, here's the diff showing History deleting my subsections under Matthew and putting Luke before Matthew. Defenders of Christian POV don't like it to be clear that these two narratives are two different narratives.

In Matthew, is there any reference to Joseph's home being anywhere but Jerusalem? He and his family are living in Jerusalem a year after Jesus' birth when the wise men show up, and they don't relocate to Nazareth until after Egypt.

Matthew was written before Luke. Matthew and Luke both record events before Jesus' birth and both record events after. Find a commonly accepted reference text that says we should put Luke first.

Please respond to my assertion (above) that this article should represent the majority view, that is, that Matthew's account and Luke's account amount to two different accounts. Leadwind (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually we have no issue at all about "scholarship" in much of that edit, as there are no views among scholars about why 5 sections with one sentence each should be better than one section. In most of Wikipedia one does not see single sentence sections. We do have differences elsewhere, but not in that edit. The questions seems to be:

• Are there differences between the accounts of the Luke and Matthew? Of course there are. I do not think that is even being debated. There are differences and from a historicity point of view dates of Herod's death etc. have been viewed as conflicting with the census etc. I think the article says that many times, as do the sub articles.

• Does the fact that Gospel A has been written before Gospel B imply that the story events stated in that Gospel A should be assumed to have taken place before those of Gospel B? Of course not. So the fact that one Gospel is dated before another has no bearing on the temporal events in the story.

So I see no scholarship differences in that edit, but I do otherwise. So let us address them one by one:

Please clarify for me, and my education, as to how by reading the Gospel of Matthew we know that Joseph's home was in Bethlehem prior to the Nativity? I really see no such statement in Matthew 1, and Matthew 2.1 says nothing about his home, just says the birth was in Bethlehem. So it seems to me that the Gospel of Matthew gives no information whether prior to the birth Joseph's home was in Bethlehem, Bethsaida, Boston or Beverly Hills. One may try to make inferences from later events and apply them deductively, but that would be deductive reasoning, and not a re-statement of the biblical text. If there is a passage that says "Joseph's home was location X prior to the birth" then please provide it.

Let us clarify this issue of "Joseph's home was in Bethlehem prior to the birth" and then discuss the rest. I would really like to understand this, for my own education anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The gospel of Matthew only says that the birth took place in Bethlehem, in Judea. However, it is also clear in Matt2:21 that Joseph's home was somewhere in Judea, and that the family only went to Nazareth after the exile in Egypt because they were afraid to return to Judea (and in order to fulfil yet another of Matthew's beloved prophecies). If Joseph lived elsewhere in Judea then one could question why he dragged his heavily pregnant wife off to Bethlehem, but that is common sense not scriptural "record". Luke is more clear that the family lived in Nazareth before the birth, returned to Nazareth afterwards after going to Bethlehem for the census, and Luke makes no mention at all of any exile. Wdford (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now we can have a more specific discussion. Is Matthew 2:19–21 the part that may state that Joseph lived in Bethlehem prior to the birth? The passage seems to say:

"But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead." And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel."

So how do we know where they lived prior to the birth? The passage says that when they were in Egypt Joseph is told to pack up and go to Israel, but nothing about where they lived before. I am sorry, I am really trying to figure this out, just for myself anyway, but I do not see where it says that they lived "anywhere specific" prior to the birth. Are we assuming that Joseph owned real-estate that he had to go back to claim? Again, I see the reasoning about Joseph's intentions as part of our own deductive conclusion and not "scriptural record" as you stated. So am I right in saying that so far, apart from reasoning based on our assumed intentions of Joseph, we have not found a reference to a "scriptural record" that states that: "Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem prior to the birth"? If we do have a reference to scriptural record that states it please provide it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

History, in Matthew 2, whose house in Bethlehem does the star direct the wise men to? Presumably it's Joseph's house. Try reading Matthew's story without thinking about Luke's, the way Matthew's story was originally written, to stand on its own. It's pretty clear that Joseph lived in Bethlehem. But I think where we're having real problems is with this question of yours, "Does the fact that Gospel A has been written before Gospel B imply that the story events stated in that Gospel A should be assumed to have taken place before those of Gospel B?" Your questions are beside the point. I never said that the events in Matthew took place before the events in Luke. In fact, historians basically don't think they took place at all. You put Luke first because you're trying to mash up two narratives into a single story, but that's not accepted scholarly practice. I put Matthew first because it's standard to treat earlier sources before later ones. Each story makes more sense as a complete story serving its authors purposes, and they make less sense woven together as if they told a single story. Leadwind (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, so you have now provided a somewhat specific reason for that specific statement. Do I understand that you state that the basis for "Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem prior to the birth of Jesus" is the Star of Bethlehem? I am guessing that you mean Matthew 2:9 or perhaps Matthew 2:11? Are these the two specific passages you may refer to?

Matthew 2:9 says:

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.

Matthew 2:11 says:

On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

These two passages do not refer to the "house of Joseph". They just say "where the child was" and the house. Interestingly, these passages do not even state that the Magi ever met Joseph. Do they? There is much art that depicts Joseph with the Magi. Did they get it wrong? Is there any basis to assume that Joseph met the Magi at all?

You stated that "Presumably it's Joseph's house." I am sorry, what I do not know is if there is any "scriptural record" that Joseph lived in Bethlehem prior to the birth. What I do know is that we can not use "Presumably".

We have many differences with respect to the wide-ranging edits you performed. We need to proceed on them systematically, one by one, to achieve accuracy. So we first need to determine what the Gospel of Matthew says on its own, before we can proceed to the wider ranging issues. Please clarify which star of Bethlehem passages you were referring to, as a basis for "Joseph living in Bethlehm prior to the birth" given that the two passages I guessed about do not seem to apply at all. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The only way to read Matthew as saying that Joseph didn't live in Bethlehem is to rely on Luke. Scholars who use the historical-critical method don't read Matthew and Luke together that way. The only people who read the New Testament that way are Christians with minority views about the verbal inspiration of the Bible. But more to the point, what exactly do you want changed about the article? Leadwind (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have asked for a clarification of that statement (without any reference to Luke) just above. So please let me try again. Let us assume that the Gospel of Luke does not exist. So assuming that we have not even seen the Gospel of Luke, which passage in the Gospel of Matthew states that "Joseph was living in Bethlehem prior to the birth of Jesus?" You stated that the "Star of Bethlehem" determines that. I made a guess about what you may have meant, but I have received no confirmation from you, apart from the restatement of the same assertion. So again, please clarify which star of Bethlehem passages you were referring to, as a basis for "Joseph living in Bethlehm prior to the birth" given that the two passages I guessed about do not seem to apply at all. Please note that we are not making any assumptions about Luke in this discussion and simply relying on Matthew. And as I said above, the only thing I know for sure is that we can not use "Presumably". Your help in clarifying your assertions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A comment from an outside observer: While my reading of the above discussion inclines me to favor History2007's argument, I just wanted to comment that this entire discussion is original research. There is a reason that secondary sources are preferred over primary sources; it's to keep editors from engaging in this kind of original research. You guys can argue until you are blue in the face about what Matthew, Luke and Mark say about where Joseph and Mary lived before Jesus was born. Even if you issued an RFC and got 100 Wikipedians to agree that it was Bethlehem, it would still be original research. Yes, even if it was 1000 Wikipedians. Stop wasting your time analyzing the primary sources and go look at what the secondary sources say. If you can find a secondary source that says it was Bethlehem, then you can assert that and cite the source. If you can find a secondary source that says it wasn't Bethlehem but somewhere else or even that the location of the home is indeterminable, you can cite that. But stop assuming that there is any usable result that can come out of arguing about how to interpret primary sources. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Geza Vermes is an expert, and he says that Matthew's account places Joseph in Bethlehem before Jesus' birth. I don't know exactly what's up with History. History, could you please just tell us what change you want to see made to the page? Leadwind (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richard, Yes, I am aware of the issues with respect to the primary and secondary sources. And of course, original research will not be used. However, it is important to know that the secondary sources we quote are actually consistent with the primary source, so I needed to be sure that the Gospel of Matthew that does not explicitly state that Joseph lived in Bethlehem. Now, after the discussion, I am about 99% sure that the Gospel of Matthew does not state that. However, scholars have used various forms of reasoning to infer and suggest that. Therefore I think we can use a reference such as Virgin Birth of Chris by J Gresham Machen ISBN 0227676300 page 193 to say that "The Gospel of Matthew does not explicitly state that Joseph lived in Bethlehem, however modern scholars have reasoned that he did". That would state the fact that the explicit statement is not present, but that modern scholars have reasoned about it.

Once that issue is resolved we can move on to the many other items/edits that remain to be discussed. However, I would like to do this systematically, in a logical and organized manner rather than discussion 12 issues at once. I think order will achieve accuracy.

In time, I will also look for a secondary source for the statement that the "Gospel of Matthew does not explicitly state that the Magi met Joseph" and add that to the Nativity in art article.

Now, regarding the other issue about the two Gospels/stories/narratives, etc. we could have taken a number of different paths to discuss those. However, I think the situation was "overcome by events" based on your arrival, and I view your suggestions and edits to reflect the need to discuss the relationship between the two Gospel accounts as very constructive. I would therefore suggest that we continue on the path that you started once the minor issues have been addressed one by one. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that there has been silence with respect to this issue, I am hereby assuming that the statement: "The Gospel of Matthew does not explicitly state that Joseph lived in Bethlehem, however modern scholars have reasoned that he did" has no errors and will later add it with the secondary supporting source Virgin Birth of Chris by J Gresham Machen ISBN 0227676300 page 193. I do not want to add these piecemeal, in order not to create a patchwork quilt of additions, but will add it at the appropriate place later. I will add the fact that Joseph did not meet the Magi in Matthew to the Nativity in art article at a later date.

The next issue is the deletion of the statement that the circumstances of the birth of Jesus were not public knowledge during his lifetime. This was double referenced text that was deleted, and a simple look up shows that it is also supported by "The Mercer dictionary of the Bible, 1998 ISBN 0865543739 page 445". I see no reason for not informing the reader about this fact. And I would like an explanation as to why unilateral determinations are made at will for deleting double referenced statements like this. In any case, this is the next item to clarify and put on the list of additions.

After that we will discuss another item. History2007 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

History, this business about what Matthew explicitly says about Joseph's house is only of interest to someone trying to defend the authenticity of Matthew's account, but it's well established that Matthew's account is not authentic, so the explicit reference issue is beside the point. As for the reference to the events of Jesus' birth being public or not, can you tell us what information exactly you'd like to have added back into the page? If it's a proposed explanation for why the two narratives are different, we already have the generally accepted explanation: two different people invented them. But we can put Christian apology in the Christian apology section, if you can show that it's notable. Please let us know what you'd like to put in the article on this topic. Leadwind (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I am sorry that is not how Wikipedia works. Not at all. By WP:TPA the article's multiple aspects can (and indeed must) be explored. Therefore, information can not be excluded by just unilaterally deciding what fits in based on one aspect. Now, let us separate the two issues. I will address the first issue first, so we discuss them separately. The first item is the fact that Matthew's book does not explicitly state where Joseph lived, but that scholars reason that it was Bethlehem. This statement is: a) True and referenced b) a fact "about the contents" of the book being discussed, not an endorsement of said content. After all the discussion above, you have (correctly) not disputed the validity of the statement, but have objected based on a guess about the audience who might be interested in that statement. The attempt at forming a hypothesis as to "who might be interested in a piece of correct information" then attempt to exclude the information because of that guess is not part of Wikipedia policy and runs counter to WP:TPA, as well as the overall spirit of catering to the widest audience possible. If there is a book about the earth being flat and the book says: "the earth is flat" one can not suppress the fact that the book says that because it is a description of the content of the book not an endorsement of the book. If there is an article about the flat earth book, a description of its content cannot be suppressed. Else Wikipedia could not even begin to describe the content of books, without decisions as to the validity of the contents of each book. Wikipedia does not work that way. Not at all. Moreover, guessing that "Information A" is only of interest to "Group B" and hence must be excluded runs against the general Wikipedia philosophy of providing information to wide range of users. One can not decide that "information A" is only of interest to left handed people and must hence be excluded. If one is writing an article about the flat earth book and reasons that the statement that "the book says X" only appeals to people who may think the earth is flat and hence can not be mentioned will put a halt to the description of the contents of book in Wikipedia. I am sorry, but your statement that information about the contents of books can not be included is flatly incorrect - pun intended. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty common to think that a Wp article is supposed to cover "all sides" of an issue. Minority-view editors are especially keen on promoting this idea. But it turns out not to actually be true. Please read WP:WEIGHT. We are only to cover a side of an issue if there are prominent supporters of that side, and we are to give each side weight corresponding to the weight it carries in our sources. With some Bible questions, such as whether Paul wrote Colossians, there are mainstream scholars on each side of the issue. With others, such as whether the birth narratives are history, there are no mainstream scholars on the Yes side. The test of whether to include your point about Joseph's house is not whether you and I think that our audience wants to read it. The test is whether some prominent scholar makes that point. And the only one who might care about it is someone who's trying to defend the verbal inspiration of the narratives, which isn't a mainstream scholarly project. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can find a prominent scholar who makes your point about Joseph's house. Leadwind (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I can not agree at all. Not at all. This is just one sentence and not a major weight/real-estate item. There is no barrier to your adding other statements that counter-balance that. That is the way to manage presentation: if fact A is added and there is fact B that needs to refer to it, then fact B can be added. Hence not a single valid, objective argument against this sentence describing the contents of the book of Matthew has been presented. This is not a question of majority or minority view, it is direct and simple re-statement of what a book says. There is no need to get permission to include a referenced statement that is known to be true and directly related to the topic. It can be counter-balanced by other referenced statements. And this is just one sentence, just one sentence, not a major discussion and not a lengthy presentation of a perspective. It is one sentence that says: "The book says X". That is all. This information can not be suppressed, and not presented to the reader. History2007 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's a violation of policy (WP:OR) to use a primary source (Matthew) to question a secondary source (Vermes, Sanders), but in the spirit of compromise, let's see if we can agree on a treatment. "In Matthew, Joseph and Mary apparently live in Bethlehem before Jesus' birth,(cite Sanders, Vermes), though the text doesn't explicitly say so." The second half of the sentence needs a citation, too, but I'd be willing to let it slide for the same of compromise. Leadwind (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I addressed the WP:OR issue above. The fact that Matthew does not explicitly state it is itself stated by Malchen, and given that it is a straightforward fact, that reference is sufficient. It is not a question of "letting it slide", because someone else may complain in a year or two. You are not the "slide authority", since there will be other editors in the years to come. I want to make it clear that there is "no case" of the primary source questioning the secondary source at all. It is the case of stating the exact statement of the content of the primary with Malchen as a source and a general inference from that from another, namely Vermes, or whoever, etc. History2007 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, now that this seems resolved, given that other topics are being discussed below, let us finalize it with: "Matthew does not explicitly state that Joseph lived in Bethlehem prior to the birth of Jesus, (ref= Virgin Birth of Chris by J Gresham Machen 1987 ISBN 0227676300 page 193), however scholars have concluded that in Matthew, Joseph and Mary apparently live in Bethlehem before the birth.(ref=Jesus and the Gospels by Clive Marsh, Steve Moyise 2006 ISBN 0567040739 page 37). I think we can then move on to the next issue. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Machen is not an RS. He's outdated. Using a source from "1987" makes the citation look current, but Machen died in 1937. If you don't have an RS, don't use any citation at all. Also, we can dispense with "scholars have concluded that" because everything we say on Wp is what the experts have concluded. If there's no RS that says that in Matthew Joseph didn't live in B before J was born, then we should stick with what our RSs tell us: according the Matthew, Joseph lived in B before J was born (without "scholars have concluded that"). Thus: "Though the text doesn't explicitly say so, in Matthew, Joseph and Mary apparently live in Bethlehem before Jesus' birth,(cite Sanders, Vermes, ref=Jesus and the Gospels by Clive Marsh, Steve Moyise 2006 ISBN 0567040739 page 37)." That's a lot shorter. Leadwind (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I put your sentence in verbatim. I added Vermes and Sanders as citations. I was wrongly accusing you of trying to use an uncited primary source to synthesize an argument, but you were planning on using a source all along. I don't think it's a legitimate source, but still I'm sorry, I was wrong. As a sign of contrition, I put the sentence in as you wrote it. That said, I'd prefer that we simply said, "Matthew does not explicitly state that Joseph lived in Bethlehem prior to the birth of Jesus, but that's what the text implies." Seems like saying the same thing only smoother Leadwind (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Matthew and Luke

Since the majority sees these narratives as two separate narratives, we should treat them that way. We should put the Matthew subsection before the Luke subsection because Matthew was written first. We should put Matthew's gallery images together under a Matthew subhead and Luke's images together under a Luke subhead. I did this already once, but History reverted me. Leadwind (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment we are still discussing what items about Matthew and Luke to present, and we are not agreeing, as above. Once we have resolved that, then this issue will become much more clear. I have a number of points to make here, but they are dependent on the previous issue. Please address the issues about the contents of Matthew first before this issue can be addressed. History2007 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue is pretty straightforward and we can conclude it before we agree on what to say about Joseph's house. Anyone else want to chime in on my proposal to re-arrange the Matthew and Luke material? Leadwind (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not just Joseph's house. I have several, really several other items to discuss which directly impact this, e.g. the relationship between the two books, etc. which relies on which content from the books is included. Hence we need to discuss them one by one in an ordered and logical manner. Let us address these systematically and logically and proceed through the items. This is not a stand-alone issue at all. History2007 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the problem correctly, there are two separate narratives with a few common elements but also with a lot of elements that are unique to one narrative or the other. Many of these elements have relevant discussion and often the discussion involves the relationship of the two books (e.g. given the synoptic problem, did one book borrow from the other, from an unknown source Q, or are there two completely independent nativity narratives each come to Matthew and Luke from entirely different sources with some common elements).

OK... having written the above paragraph, my sense is that there should be a section on each of the two gospel narratives followed by a section that analyzes the relationship of the two narratives and discusses the questions of sourcing, consistency/contradiction, etc. Does this make sense? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with your approach which was actually what you had said above too. Now the question of the "one sentence" about Joseph's house is about to resolve. After that there are 3 or 4 other items that need discussion and once they have been clarified they will make this issue much easier to discuss. So as soon as the discussion on the content of what is said about each book has been concluded, this issue will become much easier to handle and may just emerge byitself. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

remove historicity section

The historicity section is a bad idea. For POV editors who are here either to tear the Bible down or defend the Bible, it makes sense to have a section devoted to their special interest: whether the accounts are true. But mainstream scholars don't come to a narrative like this with the simple question of whether it's true. They ask who wrote it, when, based on what sources, and toward what ends. Historicity is part of this overall picture, but historicity per se doesn't deserve such prominent placement. Instead, the Historical-Critical section should be all about what scholars know about these narratives, without such emphasis placed on historicity. Leadwind (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean the removal of the material or the section heading? I do not see a reason to remove material that is fully referenced. As for not having a section heading, it will make a long section without a subsection. But in any case, historicity needs to be discussed because it is a topic that is directly related to the article. History2007 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand Leadwind's point and it's not completely wrong but I think the debate over historicity is salient enough to warrant a section unto itself. It's not just the editors that are POV. This is a real POV controversy in the real world and deserves to be acknowledged even if scholars don't view it this way. There's a reason that WP:RS doesn't limit reliable sources to scholarly sources. The view from the ivory tower is not the only view that exists and those on the muddy fields even denigrate the view from the tower. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both points made by Richard. First that historicity needs to be discussed. Secondly that one can not make a list of "The 7 Officially Approved Authors" and only include references to those in all Wikipedia articles on a topic. The richness of Wikipedia content is based on applying WP:RS and determining sources that way. History2007 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should keep the material, but historicity should get no more central a role than it gets in our sources. Yes, we should accept sources from all sides of the debate, provided they are prominent sources and provided the sources get the weight they deserve. The "scholarly analysis" section should have two subsections, one for Matthew and one for Luke. Historicity should be a subhead under each narrative section. Then there would be two subsections: 1) what experts say about Matthew (including historicity), and 2) what experts say about Luke (including historicity). Leadwind (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can not see any benefit from that since it will fragment and spread the historicity discussions and makes it harder to see "all in one place". Fragmentation of a topic is just an invitation to the duplication of the arguments. Hence historicity deserves its own section, and is a "salient item" in Richard's words. History2007 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Humph... and I was just about to indicate by willingness to go with Leadwind's proposal.

I'm not as committed to having a separate historicity section as History2007 is unless there is a tendency to lump historicity of the two gospel narratives together (i.e. one side asserts they are both fairly reliable historical accounts and the other side asserts they are both almost completely ahistorical and the two gospel narratives are almost always discussed together whenever the question of historicity arises.)

On the other hand, if there is a tendency for the two gospel narratives to be discussed separately and if there is a tendency to say... well, this part of Matthew is historical and that part of Luke is historical and it's really a mixed bag as to how much is historical in Matthew and how much is historical in Luke, then I can see more of an argument for Leadwind's approach.

So... all that having been said, I think I tend to side with History2007 because my perception is that it's pretty much a TRUE/FALSE proposition unless Leadwind can convince me that the debate is more complex than just one side saying "yes, it's all historical" and the other side saying "no, almost none of it is historical".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly in my view fragmentation of the historicity discussion will not help at all. The historicity discussion refers to both books and hence its fragmentation will certainly need repetition. A reader who wants to understand historicity should be given that information neatly in one place. There are multiple scholars that need to be compared and contrasted with respect to historicity. Indeed, there is no point in even discussing this issue now until we have finished discussing what goes into the historicity section. There are several items up for discussion there (some were recently deleted) and they are on the discussion path. History2007 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the issue of what to do with the gallery is a bigger one anyway. This issue is organization and not content, and I figure I've said my piece. Let's talk about the gallery. Leadwind (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is "directly" impacted by the content, so why not just discuss those issues which directly relate to this? Organization is often dependent on the content presented and should resonate with it. Now, assuming that we have finished the Joseph's house item, I will start a new section below about the other "content" issues about the two books, because the discussion above is too long. So let me start that section below, let us discuss it and the gallery as part of it for it will emerge from it. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

undue weight

Here's an example of a minority viewpoint (Cox and Easly) being given too much space, far more than the majority viewpoint (Vermes):

Some scholars consider the Gospel of Luke to be mistaken,[47] but other scholars have attempted to reconcile its account with the details given by Josephus.[48][49] For instance, Steven Cox and Kendell Easley list four separate approaches to a solution, ranging from a grammatical approach to the translation of the Greek word prote used in Luke to be read as "registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria" to archeological arguments and references to Tertullian that indicate that a "two step census" was performed, involving an early registration.

The majority view gets half a line. The minority view gets four and a half lines. The minority viewpoint should get substantially less coverage than the majority viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the Vermes/Sanders viewpoint is just being telegraphed, and deserves expansion. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, based on my observation above about the need for order and focus, let us deal with these issues first. One item to mention as well is that the Star of Bethlehem item was discussed in dates etc. I think the historicity part has not done justice to that. That is probably the least scientific of all items in Matthew, and it should probably be discussed as such. Even its own article does not do it right. A star that can be observed with the naked eye and can be correlated to a location on earth within a 2 block radius? What was its orbit? Were the Magi using Google maps? So that type of item needs to be counted in. History2007 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When I find a problem in the article, I document it here, but I don't insist that we jump on every thread I make. Let's figure out easier or earlier stuff first. That said, one reason it's hard to edit this Date and Place section is that it includes both legendary material (the cave) and historical material (Jesus born when King Herod was alive). This section should be split up, with the historical stuff moved to the history section and the legendary stuff moved the traditional stories section. Leadwind (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)