Talk:Nativity of Jesus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bible references

I think this could do with some actual Bible references. I've heard that there are quite a few common misconceptions about the scene and that modern representations are flawed in some ways. Also, how does the represenation differ around the world? violet/riga (t) 14:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jesus' DOB

Though Jesus's birth is celebrated on 25 December, most scholars agree that it is unlikely he was actually born on this date. - Could somebody expand on this? --NicholasJones 19:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- This is because of the whole "shepards watched their flocks by night" bit. No self respecting shepard would have their flocks out in midwinter. To be internally accurate, a more temperate date would work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.20.67 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Caesar Augustus not Herod -- and Three Gifts not Three Wise Men

Just a couple quick references. It was Caesar Augustus not King Herod who decreed the tax census (Luke 2:1). Herod ruled Judea but Caesar ruled all of the Roman Empire (including Judea)

Regarding the wise men: that event has some interchange taking place with Herod (Matthew 2), and likely took place a while after Jesus was born (but while he was still a baby and still in Bethelem). The Bibie never limits the number of wise men to three. The Bible references THREE types of gifts but does not reference how many wise men (Matthew 2:1-13). The Bible indicates they came "from the "east to Jerusalem" but it does not specifically note Persia. Many believe that Persia is the likely location. There are similar references to the birth of Kings and stars from that area. In addition, the term "Magi" may tie to the higher-level ruling members (king makers) of the Persian "parlement" of the time (i.e., to politicians not astrologers as some reference).

Tesseract501; September 30, 2005.

Born in a Stable - No!

The Bible didn't say Jesus was born in a stable. It says he was placed in a manger. One thing doesn't translate to another. Just like most scholars think he wasn't born in an inn. 165.21.154.109 10:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply: I think the conjecture is sound (about Jesus being born in a Stable). The usual place to find a manger is in a stable. Mangers are located in places where animals are fed or kept (hence, a stable of some sort). It is possible, but I think unlikely, that Joseph found and moved a manger to a different location (if he found a portable manger). The reference is clear that there was not enough room for the newborn Jesus to be placed in the Inn keepers beds.

There was no room for them at the Inn, and the newborn Jesus was placed in a manger. Luke 2:7, "And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

The angels referenced it as a sigh for the shepherds: Luke 2:12, "And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Luke 2:15-16, "And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger."

Regardless of where the manger was located, the very humble sorroundings of Jesus' birth is one of the awe inspiring aspects of the Nativity story.

Tesseract501; September 30, 2005

Interesting enough, proper translation suggests that Jesus was born downstairs in a relative's home. Th word "inn" in Greek being "kataluma" also translates to "upstairs." Jesus was born in a manger within a family home, because there was not enough room upstairs.

FYI - the paragraph directly above (unindented) is by another writer (unidentified). Just mentioning that because it is confusing if read under the assumption that it is part of the paragraphs before it. It is not. It is a reply to the statements above it.

That written, the following is a reply to that reply.

I have not found any Ancient Greek translations that indicated "Kataluma" means "upstairs". If you can tell me the source, that would be great. Thanks. As far as the word "inn", it is used in two placed in the New Testament (KJV). The event in question is from Luke 2:7. The Ancient Greek word is indeed, Kataluma - it means desolutions (breaking up of a journey), i.e., (by implication, a lodging-place: - guestchamer, inn). What source are you using for determining the meaning of Kataluma? Maybe the source incorrectly used "Kat" - the root for Kataluma and a host of other Kat-words? That root means "down" as well as quite a few other prepostions that would equally be unsuited or convey an incomplete meaning. Regardless, since the word used was Kataluma insteat of a root preposition, the meaning of Kataluma is what should be used in an accurate translation. Regardless, in all cases - even if the source inappropriately used the root Kat (and selected, among the many pepositional options), the word "down") ... I still see an apparent disconnect. If we took that approach, wouldn't the passage mean that there was no room "downstairs" (not "upstairs")? Which places the likelyhood of manger for fodder (animal feed) being less likely upstairs -- it is unlikely that critters were kept in the top floors. That would cause a cleaning problem, as well as a logictical problem of getting the critters up and down). In most built-over homes, animals are below, because they make a mess, and their bodyheat rises and helps retain heat above.

Regardless of all that, how did the source deduce a meaning that Jesus was born in another room of the same building -- let along a "family home"? Nothing in the passage or in its orginal Greek, indicates that.

As far as the other use of the word "inn" (found in Luke 10:34), was pandocheion - all-receptive, i.e., a public lodging-place (caravanserai or khan) - inn. With the possible allusion that it was a place open to non-Jews as well [but my conjecture, based on the Good Samaritan parable of which this second passage is regarding). That would be pretty special in its own right: the implication being the parable reinforces the image of kindness received from one who was considered an outcast by "society at large." I love those images (Jesus coming via a humble birth - versus the Mac-mansion properity-means-validity mentality of today ... or with the Good Samaritan parable,that a societal outcast or enemy ends up being the one who helped in the time of need. Gotta love how that approach kinda knows us out of our own pesonal mental filters and prejudices! Tesseract501 (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

link to 'sing'

Why do you have a link to the word 'sing'? If you click, what you get has zero to do with the nativity!

References and external links

Hey. What happened to the external links? -- CQ 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also missing are the categories. see here.

Picture is stupid

A medieval depiction of the betrothal of Mary and Joseph from the Nuremberg Chronicle. Why does Mary have yellow hair. She did not get a virgin birth (i.e. no mention exists of her not getting born from the sexual union of two Judeans.) Enda80 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Yellow was the mediaeval way to depict blonde hair. You'll also notice that Mary and Joseph are being anachronistically married by a Christian bishop - people's awareness of how things were was often locked into their own time - much like how people sometimes depict Romeo and Juliet as figures involved in gang war between modern american gangsters, rather than in a late mediaeval continental europe setting. Clinkophonist 17:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The blonde hair a) became common following the vision of StBridget of Sweden of the nativity, which mentions this, b) is much easier for a cheapo woodcut colourist to achieve a good effect with. Contemporaries well understood that the couple were married by a Jewish priest of the Temple, & more careful depictions of the day showed a "mitre" at 90 degrees to that of a Christian bishop, which they believed (not without some reason) to be the authentic headgear of a Jewish priest. But Michael Wolgemut and his workshop had over 600 woodcuts to do (for over 1800 different illustrations), & this one was probably designed to be used for other marriages as well.

Generally the pictures on this article are not well chosen however Johnbod 01:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not NPOV

"A minority of scholars believe that Luke, writing for a Hellenic audience, may have chosen to use the term Bethlehem (Hebrew for house of bread) due to similar terms occurring in a few mystery religions and an alleged syncretistic tendency in Luke's writing. Matthew on the other hand is often suspected by scholars of trying to portray Jesus as a new Moses, though obviously based in Palestine, and would have thus had a strong motive to demonstrate Jesus' claim to the Jewish crown by placing his birth in the city of king David."

Can someone explain how these assertions, being placed as undisputed fact, are NPOV? I have {{npov}} on this article until it can be sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I can get a citation for the "New Moses" bit. That is something I know I've read before. The other part about Luke needs a citation, but saying "a minority of scholars believe" removes the "undisputed fact" aspect, and makes it clear it is just a POV (and a minority one at that).--Andrew c 05:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, if it is really so minor then why are we giving it such prominence? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that this passage adds much insight or meaning to the understanding of the Nativity of Jesus. It ought to be removed. - Icebird 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is Not neutral! Why does it not quote or have any points of view from Christian theologians? IN any case, what the author of this article considers to be 'neutral' is simply not true as the authors he quotes are biased already. Someone please clean up this article. - Verytable —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC).

Hellenistic viewpoint? What substantive historical data would support the conclusion that Luke was attempting a Hellenistic approach in his writings? Luke was an educated Jewish physician, who would likely, as his fellow contemporary Jewish Christians, have a Semitic viewpoint. Not a Hellenistic viewpoint. I realize that there is sometimes confusion regarding the 1st Century church (one predominately Jewish, centered in or around Jerusalem or among the recently dissipated Jewish communities) - versus one of the later 2nd Century, when Hellenistic - and Roman - influences began to dominate. Looking back from today, the difference between a century may seem like a little matter. Yet, there was the beginnings of a rapid and real cultural switch to the Jewish communities, Semitic mindset, and the direction of Church administration and traditions. To say that Luke was Hellenistic warrants more than just noticing a few casual similarities in his writing style. In fact, since the only extant writings we have of the New Testament come to us from the Greek, and almost all scholars through history have interpreted things from their own academia based in Hellenistic philosophy -- it is only understandable. Yet, scholarship would be more accurate if it approached any research into the 1st Century church in its [not the researchers'] contemporary context. The 1st Century church was - culturally - another Jewish sect, the authors were contemporary Jews, with all the traditions and societal upbringings of an Israel that had not yet been dispersed. This was true even though the nature of Christianity was quickly becoming a vehicle to more openness with outside cultures. The church and the Jewish Christians of the First Century were a "very different creation" from what it was becoming by the Second Century. Christianity today is no more like the Abolitionists of the 1800s than the first Disciples were Hellenistic. Remember also that the Apostles were of the generation that was still born and raised in Jewish communities either centered, or closely associated, with a religious center that still existed. I.e., a Jerusalem, with an intact and active Temple, and a traditional and viable religious and political leadership. A very different world existed for the Jews born and raised in the 2nd Century -- as well as for all their religious sects (no longer with free-access to their historic-city, no longer having a temple in existence, and no longer any centralized religious leadership. This decentralization included the Jewish sect of Christianity, but some unique aspects of the teachings most likely helped to sustain the numbers of Jewish Christians right after the dispersion (e.g., the "temple within us" versus "one made with stone", etc.). But, as the rise of Hellenistic culture and Roman influence grew, the identification of Christianity as a Jewish sect, with Semitic roots, dispersed as well. If scholars through the ages had New Testament manuscripts written in the writer's original Aramaic or Hebrew (instead of 2nd Century Greek texts), maybe the concept of Hellenistic Apostles would be less popular.Tesseract501 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Balance

I have restored the paras on Mark and by Zindler. Sourced material, that is plainly relevant, must not be removed without a clear concensus on here. I have amended Zindler to just speak of atheists. These paras are need for balance and without them a NPOV tag would be justified. BlueValour 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The stuff about Zindler basically just says that atheists don't believe in Christianity. Its not like he's an expert this subject. The Markan Priority is a rather technical one for the lead and already dealt under "Relationship among the Gospels"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauffner (talk • contribs)

The nativity is a contentious topic and it is essential that balancing views are included for NPOV. As I said, above, if you are not happy please argue the case here rather than unilaterally removing sourced material. BlueValour 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Any atheist viewpoint is pointless. Everybody knows what atheist believe, what Zindler has to say about the Nativity is is not needed since it is already known what conclusion and atheist would come to. You might as well as say the sky is blue while you are at it. And if we need the atheist view, then we also need the Buddhist view, the Hindu view, the Wiccan view, the Agnostic view and so on. The atheist view on the Nativity belongs in the article on atheism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Exciteops

A contrary opinion on the Nativity of Jesus is relevant in an article headed Nativity of Jesus. It has already been pointed out to you that balance is required, as it is for any article in Wikipedia. Moriori 08:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you - if you can source Buddhist, Hindu and Wiccan views please feel free to add them. BlueValour 16:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Nativity of Jesus is part of Christianity. I don't think we need to explicitly state that non-Christians don't accept Christian dogma, that is generally assumed. I think the only notable issue is that Muslims DO accept parts of the Nativity story. Ashmoo 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ashmoo. I have been thinking about this issue a great deal since reading the article. Then today it especially struck me while reading another Wikipedia article. In the article on semi-automatic pistols, there is NO section for gun-control measures and opponents of semi-automatic pistols. The reason is that such opinions have no place in an article about semi-automatic pistols -- the article is about the weapon, not the politics of the weapon. Same thing with the Nativity of Jesus -- those that want to include information other than Christian dogma should create such an article as part of a larger article on disagreements with Christian belief. This article is not the correct place for an argument in favor of or against the Nativity of Jesus. I strongly recommend deleting such sections unless someone raises a valid point for their inclusion. Hecman111 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have returned the reference to the fact that many modern scholars view the birth narratives as partly or wholly invented to the opening section, since it is a key point of interpretation for the topic. Firstly, these views are common among Christian scholars; Secondly, the Nativity stories are often reported as history, and Jesus is a historical figure as well as a theological one and therefore this article of interest to non-Christians as well. I have removed the section on 'what atheists think' as it hardly seems relevant, this view is widely shared, not just by atheists, and anyway I'm not sure you can say what atheists think as if they all believed the same things. Finally, I have removed the reference to Muslims - it would be interesting to have a detailed reference to Muslim views here, but it needs to be more substantial than this. Anyone? Rbreen 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your changes Rbreen. Somehow they seem much more appropriate for the material and present the scholars' views in an clearly unbiased manner. I believe that the article in its new form is inclusive of multiple perspectives in a way that still respects the sensitive nature of Christian belief. I suggest any potential further changes by others be discussed here first. Hecman111 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

i think alot of people are looking at this the wrong way for example if i went to the Zeus page their would be an objective and historic view, somehow i doubt anyone would be claiming he was real and nobody would even suggest that we should add the ancient Greeks point of view to respect their wishes, that's crap, being sensitive to Christian beliefs has no place in an encyclopedia, which is what wikipedia is supposed to be, if you want to say the jesus story is real go to conservipedia. Myth should really have no place here unless specifically stated as myth. and hecman111 your argument makes no sense there's no anti-jesus group or something no ones after jesus, but if guns didn't exist then it would be portrayed that way on wikipedia. for example look and the unicorns page the first sentence is "A unicorn (from Latin unus 'one' and cornu 'horn') is a mythological creature" straight away the premise of the article is obvious, nobody claims them as real and nobody should claim that jesus is real except that there may or maynot of be a person born of natural means who started a cult and had the name jesus, who didn't perform miracles or did anything divine. thats objectivity anything else is a complete miss-representation of the facts. (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

Nestle

Why on earth is the word "Nestle" in the section Immanuel? It was added by an anonymous user. Does it have some appropriate meaning here? As far as I know it's the name of a food company. Chris Wood 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The New Testament manuscripts we have are not the original autographs. Textual critics, in the field of Textual Criticism, seek to reconstruct the original autographs as accurately as possible and then publish as a "critical edition". Nestle refers to the Nestle-Aland Critical Edition of the New Testament. --megamanXplosion (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When was Jesus born?

"Though Jesus's birth is celebrated on 25 December, there is a feud between christians and scholars wether this is actually true."

This sentence logically implies that no Christians are scholars and that no scholars are Christians. I'm not sure that "feud" is an appropriate way of describing the discussion and I don't know that many Christians believe that Christmas is the anniversary of Jesus' birth. It is rather an annual celebration of the nativity and the doctrine of the incarnation. Stratocastermagic 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I fixed the scholar thing by writing just scholars.-User:Mike Bags

Incarnation is March 25, nine months before Christmas. Because Jesus was considered the "sun of righteousness," he was associated with solar days. December 25 was a solstice celebration in ancient times. There's no feud -- there's only 1/365 chance that Jesus was actually born on December 25. Kauffner 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin POV

If one were to study the immerse data related to finding the stories of Jesus in BCE sources, that scholar would certainly find what (non-Christian) Joseph Campbell did, that every culture has myths of hero who dies and resurrects and that these are manifestations of Jungian archetypes, not one group copying another. Indeed, the virgin mother was a motif in South American before Europe interacted with them! Therefore, a causal link between Osiris appears strong but is really unprovable. --Ephilei 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is actually no relation to Osiris or Horus, mythological beings that were not born of a human virgin mother. In any case, this article is about the "Nativity" in general and not about the "Virgin Birth". Placing the section in question at the top clearly shows the POV pushing intent of it. I removed it therefore. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha

I was expecting to find some accounts of the nativity from the apocrypha here. Don't some of the traditions actually come from them? --JimWae 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There are some references here (location section etc) but not a full acount. Johnbod 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that given the notability of some of the apocrypha which relate to the subject, like the Gospel of James, would justify more substantial content in this article relating to their coverage of the nativity. Anyone want to take a go at adding such information? John Carter (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Location edits

I edited the section on location. Some info was not specifically on the location of the nativity (flight into Egypt), or was already covered in a previous section. There were some bad errors also that I fixed. For example, it stated that "the tradition of the birth location derives from the translation of a Greek term which ambiguously means either gathering room (an upper room in a home) or cave" — kataluma means "inn" or "gathering room", and has nothing to do with the cave. It only is a question of where (inn or guestroom) Mary and Joseph found no room before going to the manger/cave. It also said that the Arabic Infancy Gospel "mentions the ox", but I don't believe that it does. It also stated that the Protoevangelium "introduces the innkeeper" - I don't believe it does. Lostcaesar 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, also, for "τωι" I was unable to add a circumflex to the omega, nor was I able to write the iota as a subscript, even in polytonic, so if someone could do that it would be great. Lostcaesar 11:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick-failed "good article" nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that has large numbers of {{fact}} tags, as this one does, must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Other serious issues present in the article include, but are not limited to: the overuse of primary source material from the Bible (more secondary sources are desirable in order to avoid original research), the use of cquotes for block quoting (something expressly prohibited by WP:MOSQUOTE) and the improper formatting of many of the references; just a named url for the Biblical chapter is not sufficient to verify the reliability of a source - there are many translations of the text. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Year of birth

In brief, Mathew specifically states that Jesus was born while Herod The Great was alive. Luke states that Herod was king when John The Baptist was conceived but does not actually say he was alive when Jesus was born. The chapter in Luke on Jesus' birth mentions the census in 6 ad but does not ever refer to Herod still being king - seeing as he died 10 years before. It does state that Mary conceived before John was born - quite the gestation! Most importantly, however, is that nowhere does Luke mention Herod in connection with Jesus's birth - just in relation to John's. s-slaytor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.80.110 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The year of birth cannot be reconciled between the two biblical texts and what is known of classical history. Two hundred years of trying has not been successful. The now traditional estimate of 4 B.C. is the best effort. (The other challenge is to date the crucifixion. It is too bad that the ancients didn't give and get calendars for Christmas gifts.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

needs a criticism section

this article really needs a criticism section because it does not reflect a fair and unbiased view. mainly it needs a section stating the many inconsistencies between Mathew and Luke's accounts of the birth, the glaring similarities between the nativity story and many earlier myths and creeds, also that December 25 is long venerated in pagan tradition in connection with the winter solstice which was the likely reason that it was chosen as the date of Chirst's birth. not to mention that there were no other historical records of the birth, life or death of Jesus besides what was in Mathew and Luke. most of all the section should be well referenced. some ideas where the information can come from is Robert J. Miller, Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God (Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polestar Press, 1993 Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (Washington, D.C.: Joseph J. Binns/New Republic, 1977), pp. 154, 456 the works of Gerald Massey just to name a few, many historians have problems with the nativity story and their view should be well documented in this article i don't believe that two lines stating that "Many modern scholars consider that the two Gospel accounts present two different and conflicting narratives, and view both stories as "pious fictions".[3] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels" is enough information on the subject, the key word here is "many" we should not fear insulting the Chirstian community by giving a fair and unbiased view on the nativity otherwise we are doing nobody any favors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1NosferatuZodd1 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This viewpoint is actually covered in detail in the body of the article - but perhaps the section heading "Relationship between the Gospels" isn't very informative - I will try giving it a more representative title. --Rbreen (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An important point has been missed by the article. The article largely treats the Nativity of Jesus as an historical event, and hence immediately gives rise to a host of arguments. It is inappropraite to treat the Nativity of Jesus as a historical event because the historicity is highly contentious (including between Christians). What the Nativity of Jesus actually is, is a story, and should be properly represented as such. The Nativity of Jesus can either be said to be a specific example of the general mythological story of a god mates with human female to give birth to a god on Earth, or it can be said to be a development of one of the earlier such stories (eg from ancient Egypt from where some stories for the old testament derived).

Within the article on the Nativity of Jesus (ie the story) there should be a section discussing the story's relevance to Christians, and any special interpretations of the story that various Christians subscribe to.

By separating out the issues about the story, from issues of belief, we hopefully will be able to develop a greater degree of consensus. C Birch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.149.60 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Perhaps we need a more balanced look at this.--Rbreen (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Rbreen here the fact of the matter is that this is an encyclopedia after all and peoples beliefs should not even be taken into account other than documenting those believes in an objective way. they defiantly should not be portrayed as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1NosferatuZodd1 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Useful link perhaps?

Here's something I was just reading; [1] that has a number of references which might be useful to this article, under Scholars, on the subject of Jesus's birthplace, specifically that a number of authoritative sources apparently find it unlikely that it was Bethlehem, for a range of reasons. Also as pointed out in this link, it includes references to the fact that while John doesn't contain any active information about where the birthplace was, it does give an indication that it wasn't Bethlehem, which seems relevant to the subject.Number36 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologetics

"Christian apologists attempt to reconcile the alleged contradictions. For example, some propose that some contradictions can be removed by rejecting the assumption that the Magi's visit to Jesus took place at Bethlehem. Instead, it took place at Nazareth."

This section doesn't belong in the article, because it is about apologetics and not scholarly analysis. The section on the Nativity as Myth represents a widespread view among New Testament scholars and is backed by plentiful citations from academic works. The argument suggested here is not sufficiently notable, is not supported by adequate citation (the link is to a non-scholarly website) and to represent it here would be to give undue weight to a minority viewpoint. If there is a well-founded, notable scholarly dissenting view it could of course be represented in this section. --Rbreen (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight? It's two lines against fifteen! I'm not going to keep pushing this if you feel so strongly about the issue, but I felt it was only right to include one small counter-argument to even out the tone of what appeared to be quite a one-sided paragraph. If consensus is against me I will of course back down - any chance of some more opinions? --Mark J (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to "Nativity as a Myth"

I think we need to change this title again because it's not really NPOV. The title implies that there are serious scholars that believe that the nativity is real as it appeared in the bible (which is not possible because the contradictions within the bible). I would prefer "criticism" or even better something along the lines of "the theory of Jesus's non existence" or something else. something that doesn't imply that the story of Jesus' birth isn't Myth --(1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

The title doesn't make much sense. It suggests that maybe Jesus wasn't really born, which is not what the section is about. The section argues against Biblical inerrancy by pointing out various inconsistencies. And the "Raymond Brown" "Raymond Brown" stuff is annoying. Many authors make the same points, Brown didn't make some scriptural breakthrough. To present the material in this way makes it sound much more significant than it is. Luke and Matthew tell the story differently, and so what? Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The title is not 'Nativity as a myth' - it's "Nativity as Myth" - in other words, it's about the treatment of the nativity as a mythical telling of stories of the birth of Jesus. It does not necessarily imply that this mythic account is false, or based on false information. It does not suggest that Jesus was not really born; it simply explains that the accounts are seen by historians as fulfilling a primarily theological function. As to the differences, they are important, not only because many of the details are completely different from each other but also because they contradict each other on significant points, which is one of the reasons why scholars tend to assume that one or other, or both, accounts are invented. Finally, Raymond Brown is an enormously influential scholar and his Birth of the Messiah is both definitive and mainstream. There has been no other study of the birth narratives on anything like this scale since. --Rbreen (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The choir of angels or the arrival of the magi might suggest a myth. But the fact that the two accounts are different doesn't prove anything. Witnesses often tell courts different versions of the same event. Its just the way the human mind works. It doesn't make the event a myth. I suggest that this section be merged with the previous one, "The two narratives compared," a more descriptive and less provocative heading. Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone with an obvious atheist agenda has been vandalising this article with their crazy conspiracy theories (I'm looking at you, NosferatuZodd1). This article should be immediately locked to prevent such actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey45 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Huey45 but check the history i only made one, three word long edit, that was very important to the NPOV of the article. Don't claim vandalism just because the wiki doesn't support your religious beliefs (assuming you're not a self hating atheist :P). The protection is unnecessary 1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The two narratives compared

• In the table is written that according to Matthew name given by angel is Immanuel. It is not true. Matthew says “She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." (Mt 1,21). Matthew says Immanuel because according to him all what took place is a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (7,14) where we can find the name Immanuel.

True, it's a bit confusing that Matthew says she should name the child Jesus in fulfilment of a prophecy that the child will be named Emmanual - but both narratives certainly have the angel giving the name Jesus; this section was removed from the article, so there's no need to comment further.--Rbreen (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• The census that was mentioned by Luke was not in 6 CE, because he says: In the days of King Herod of Judea (Luke 1,5), so it was before Herod's death in 4 BCE. Luke also says that in the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius (28/29 CE) Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3,1 and 3,23), so he would really be 22/23 years old, if Luke was mentioned 6 CE census.

Luke specifically refers to the census of Quirinius, which took place in 6CE; however he seems to imply that the conception took place under Herod; evidently he was confused about the time frame and thought Quirinius was preceded by King Herod and not his son Herod Archelaus. --Rbreen (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• What means the element “Home” in the table? Home of Mary? Home of Joseph? Luke says that Mary's home was in Nazareth (Luke 1,56 and 1,26) and Joseph's ancestral home was in Bethlehem. Matthew is not saying what was the home of Mary or home of Joseph.
• Matthew is not saying Joseph takes Mary into his house. Even in other wikipedia article (Biblical magi) is written ,,Matthew does not say the house belonged to Joseph and Mary.’’
• It is true that according to Matthew Holy Family immediately fled to Egypt after Angels warning, but it is not true that they flee immediately after Jesus birth. From birth to massacre of innocents pass about 2 years (he [Herod] sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men- Mt 2,16) so Jesus could after 66 days be presented in temple, like Luke is saying. Alorkezas (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The table section seems to violate Wikipedia:Reliable_sources policy: "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

-	Matthew		Luke
Angel	appears to Joseph during pregnancy		appears to Mary before pregnancy
Name given by angel	Immanuel		Jesus
Date	At least a year before Herod's death in 4 BCE, as the innocent babies were up to 2 years old		The Quirinius census 6 CE because of misrule by Archelaus
Home	Bethlehem		Nazareth
Birth	Joseph takes Mary into his house, where she bears Jesus		Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem for census. She bears Jesus in manger
Adoration	Wise men follow star to Bethlehem		Shepherds told by angels to go to Bethlehem
Following birth	Angel says to flee to Egypt because of massacre of innocents. They immediately flee		Circumcised after eight days. After 66 days, Jesus presented in temple
Trip to Nazareth	Return from Egypt & can't go to Judea due to Archelaus, so move to new home, Nazareth		After completing the requirements of the law, they return to Nazareth

Moved here. Demonteddybear (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Alorkezas for correcting some inaccuracies. As to "opinions of reliable authors", there was no aim to supply any opinion, so indications of specific opinions rather than text data please. I appreciate corrections as to accuracy, so if Demonteddybear would like to contribute in that area, I will be happy to listen. --Doktorspin (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your source authority for this material? You're composing it yourself from the bible, aren't you? Don't do this. "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Please read it. Demonteddybear (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing collation with opinion. Leave things alone... and become a member of Wikipedia. --Doktorspin (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you Doktorspin for some chances, but I still want to say something:

• Matthew is not saying in 1.23 that the child of Mary should be named Immanuel. The verse in which is Immanuel refers to a prophecy from the book of Isaiah.

This for me is interpretation. Mt 1 reports an instruction from an angel and a prophecy pointing to a name.

• “Home of Joseph“ and “Birth location” = Matthew does not say the house in Bethlehem belonged to Joseph and Mary (Biblical magi). Mt 1:24 in my polish literal translation of the Bible (I could not find english) is that Joseph somethink like receive Mary, there is no word about that Joseph takes Mary into his home. And Luke only says that Joseph ancestral home was in Bethlehem. If Joseph had a home in Bethlehem in the time of Jesus birth, why they were looking a room for them in the inn and why they placed a newborn son in a manger?

You're asking me something I'm in no position to answer. At the same time I couldn't answer why Luke has that the family going back to Nazareth while Matthew indicates that they went and made their home in Nazareth to fulfill a prophecy.

As to the ownership of the house, I didn't intend to go into that in the table. Joseph lived somewhere, which we would naturally call his home. (Many years ago my home was a tiny room in a big university residence -- which I didn't own!) Joseph takes Mary into his household (1.24), closing the situation given in 1.18 "before they lived together". Some time later, Jesus is born. That was in Bethlehem.

• “Following adoration“ = Just for accuracy - massacre of innocents will be after the Angel warning, not in the same time. I am just not certain if now the sentence is unambiguous. Alorkezas (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This I can fix easily. There is a matter of space in a table that causes difficulties but I can leave out the statement about fleeing and qualify a little more. If I could have had three lines instead of two, I could have dealt better with the sort of precision that people are demanding!

This is helpful, as it shows me that what I understand by what I posted, isn't quite as other people see it. --Doktorspin (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• A woman who gives birth to a son must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. Sixty-six days she must wait if gives birth to a daughter (Leviticus 12.2-5).

OK, now I have no more to add. Maybe with some things I have a different opinion, but nothing new I haven't got to say. Alorkezas (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The two narratives compared, part 2

Once again a tendentious removal of the comparison of the two birth narratives, this time by Roger Pearse, under the bogus claim that it was "original research". This has about about as much sense as removing a list of kings, because putting it in a list is "original research". Although there is nothing new in the table, one can see from the above accuracy has been my major concern. The table has been restored. --spin (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another time Roger Pearse has removed the table and there is no comment here from him. This is one nasty vandal, who is not prepared to enter into dialog. --spin (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would propose removing the table again. The topic is notable, yes. But it is completely based off a reading of the primary sources. A prose section using secondary RS, discussing the differences in the narratives, would be far better. I'd say that while this might not be OR, it would fall under novel synthesis. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Undone. The purpose of information is to inform people. The table makes clear the relationship between the two narratives. By removing it you are merely taking away information from the readership of the page. What have you got against the comparison being laid out clearly? What do you find that is novel synthesis about the table? Are you arguing for some reason that there is no relationship between the two birth narratives or that some unreasonable position is being put forward? Or are you perhaps just trying to abuse the rules as you and your co-conspirator did with the 3RR regarding the dating system?

Is there anything that is incorrect? If so, correct it. If there's something specific that needs improving, try to improve it. If there's nothing incorrect or that needs improving, then leave it alone. As is you too could be indulging in vandalism. Why did you really remove the table? -- spin (control) 12:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The table gives the impression that there are inconsistencies between the gospel narratives. Without any material explaining the matter, people could get the wrong impression from simply looking at the table. Novel synthesis: you're reading primary sources, and making a table up based on them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean there aren't inconsistencies in the two birth narratives? What's that judgment based on? Nearly everything one writes about a given subject is somehow a synthesis. The content of the table is from the two gospel accounts but it takes into consideration secondary sources, such as the paragraph which follows the table. I'll ask again, what's novel about it?? -- spin (control) 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut the bullshit about "co-conspirator". I couldn't even remember having encountered that editor before this matter came up. We have a coincidence in what we believed. He was careful not to break the 3rr, I was not. I was likely in violation of it at some point. I have been here a heck of a lot longer than you, and am by no means a SPA, as you strike me.

You mean you didn't confabulate? And yes you were in violation. Oh, and congratulations on your length of stay here. -- spin (control) 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I plainly indicated that the same information, in prose form, with explanation and real sources, would be very nice. As it is, it does not belong. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Prose form doesn't allow easy comparison -- and easy comparison was the point of the table. One can go from the table back to the prose information directly above it for more data. If you think something needs clarification why don't we discuss that? -- spin (control) 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is another thing that you need consensus for. Multiple persons have called it into question. You can't keep the article the way you want it, just because you want it like that. When multiple other persons call your edits into question, there is probably something wrong with them. And your acting like a prick doesn't help matters, either. Jesse at least has the decency to not be arrogant. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to abuse Wiki any way you can. First you accuse me of "novel synthesis". Now you're talking nonsense about arrogance and consensus. You're willing to break the 3RR without any qualms (and I get reported). Any port in the storm, Carl. And don't try to claim over the internet that you can divine stuff like arrogance: one usually needs a few visual clues. Why don't you try improving a few entries rather than subversive undermining of others' work? If you have problems with the table, why don't you think of ways of improving it? The important issue is that it reflects what the texts actually say. -- spin (control) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is novel synthesis. I am not the only person who has expressed this. The table doesn't need improvement, it needs sources and conversion to prose. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that the two narratives contradict and express different political and theological agendas of the authors. But one of the key points of WP:NOR is that Wikipedia editors cannot add their own views. For this reason we are encouraged to rely on secondary sources for interpretive claims. Now, one can ask whether the chart itself is making an interpretive claim. I will address this in a second. First let me ask: are there no secondary sources that make such comparisons? Spin claims that the purpose of encyclopedias is to inform. Yes! I agree! But right now I do not find this very informative. I would like to know what historians and Bible scholars have compared these two narratives Wouldn't this article be more informative if it provided citations for different scholars who have produced such tables or who have made precisely these comparisons?

This leads me to my next point: if editors did the research (looking at different kinds of commentaries on the two books as well as books by historians and Bible scholars0 they would find that comparisons are used to support certain arguments. Some of those arguments are like my own personal view (these are contradictory because they were written at different times when Christians were concerned with different issues) and the article ought to provide an account of those interpretations. I am sure other commentaries will claim that there is no contradiction and there will be different attempts, I am guessing by thologians or clergy, to reconcile the two producing their own interpretations. Well, wouldn't this article be more informative if it provided an account of those interpretations too? All this starts by providing citations for reliable sources that have made such comparisons.

This leads me to my next point. Under other circumstances I would have no problem with a table that provides a comparison of the two books using only the most literal and direct summaries or even direct quotes. Ordinarily this would not violate NOR. But ordinarily there wouldn't also exist a vast secondary literature interpreting just such passages. This is the crux of the issue: the fact that there is a vast secondary literature (by people who believe that the NT accounts read literally are historically reliable, AND by people who reject this claim) means that no direct account of the passages in question is really "neutral" or innocent. This is a controversial topic, that is a simple fact. It is hinghly uninformative for an article to provide a summary of a couple of passages from some old books, without providing an account of the many different ways these passages (and any differences between them) have been interpreted. The purpose of NOR is to prevent editors from putting their own views into articles, by suggesting what primary sources "mean." The correlary (whcih is spelled out in the NOR policy) is that editors should provide other people's interpretations. SO far this whole debate seems to be having just one main effect - editors are not spending time adding to this article the interpretations and explanations found in notable reliable secondary sources. Why not spend time on that? The resulting article will be much better. I realize this means getting off the computer with its nice and easy to access on-line Bibles, and going to a library and looking at the Anchor Bible and other notable commentaries, as well as books by historians, Bible critics, and theologians, and then going back to the computer to ass information about the different interpretations and explanations. But isn't that what writers of encyclopedias are supposaed to do? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose removal of the table. Many of the items are made to look like contradictions, but can be easily harmonized. Only difficult areas should be shown, as prose with supporting references. ^rossnixon 01:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The table is a quite obvious synthesis, forbidden by policy. If a reliable source has made a table like that, then cite it instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Ultimately by the low standards expressed here, most of the material on Wikipedia is novel synthesis. With that thinking you may as well remove it all.

I just don't get the overburndening desire to remove what is a sound philological effort to clarify text. --spin (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

a proposal, cite your source

• I was asked, by Carl.bunderson, to read over and comment on the state of things and the issues involved. For what it is worth, here is my take on things.
• First off I do not have any opinion on the OR-ness or verifiableness of the table, but I expect that it should not be taken down whole-sale, esp. given the lack of consensus on doing so.
• Those that object to the content of the table should express by flagging the items. I admit I am just wading into to this-- so correct me if I am wrong-- but if the issue is that various statements are may be original interpretations of the Biblical texts, they can be flagged to indicate someone needs to find a published source of such an interpretation.
• If one finds a such a publish interpretation, but it is also an interpretation that is disputed in publications, then it should be removed or noted as such, depending of the level of the dispute. If no one can cite a published source of an interpretation after it has been flagged a while, remove it and do not put it back up until and unless one if cited. Of course it can also be taken down sooner if on can cite a counter-interpretation.
• If the issue is that a statement is unclear then there are other way to flag these too, etc.--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The table, in concept, is certainly more convenient than prose for noting differences in the accounts, though elements of the table as it was are subject to interpretation. The table should only be reinstituted with suitable references demonstrating reliable sources. Also, as Carlaude has suggested, caution should be used if using sources that are disputed, unless they are considered particularly reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I, myself, did not mean that the sources should be "particularly" reliable or such-- since I have seen the (super-)reliability of a source itself open to debate-- but more that Wikipedia must use caution if there are notable sources both for and against a view-- say the view that Joseph was from "A" or "not A", or that Joseph's residence is indicated for us or was not indicated.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that someone is prepared to take a more constructive approach to the comparative table.

In my understanding there is only one issue in the table that is the result of interpretation and that is the place of residence of Joseph before Jesus was born, according to the gospel of Matthew. This is a scholarly view as found in Raymond E. Brown, Paul J. Achtemeier, "Mary in the New Testament", Paulist Press, 1978, p.24; in Clive Marsh, Steve Moyise, "Jesus and the Gospels", Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005, p.39.

What else is interpretation in the table? Whatever it is, I'll find a scholarly publication with it.

If I can't get past something as simple as this table, I can't go on to present the redaction of either birth narrative. -- spin (control) 09:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Treating a primary source like that is WP:SYN. Even if you got reliable sources for each cell, I think it probably would be synthesis. But why not take this to Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard? dougweller (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources."

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C."

There is no conclusion from the table. The claim of synthesis is not appropriate.

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

Where's the problem? -- spin (control) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many contradictory tables we could make by using different sources? Then we could have another table showing the contradictions in all the different tables? No table I say.Adhitthana (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dating should use the neutral scholarly BCE/CE...

... rather than the Christian system BC/AD. Very many other people of varying religions read Wiki. For sake of convenience around the world the vast majority of people, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, use the same year numeral as the western world. It is not appropriate to impose the Christian based system overWiki data meant for everyone. --spin (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

On this of all articles!!! I suspect the irony escapes you. There is a well-established convention that articles on Christian subjects use BC/AD. Johnbod (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you refer to any evidence for this claim? I am not aware of any such convention. On the contrary, dating usage is generally established by consensus for each article. Generally, the approach is to maintain whatever usage was established when the article was begun, but since so many were based on the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia the BC/AD usage tends to predominate. There is absolutely no reason why any article cannot change to the modern inclusive system if a consensus can be established for it. I tend to use BC/AD myself because that was what I learnt in school - but I am increasingly convinced that for an international encyclopedia like Wikipedia, a more neutral and inclusive approach is necessary.--Rbreen (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One more point - the BCE/CE usage is also increasingly the standard in the scholarly world. The Society of Biblical Literature, probably the leading scholarly body for this subject, prefers the BCE/CE usage: [2]. --Rbreen (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed him seeking any concensus before making changes! The convention is so well-established I don't know when or where it became so, but if you ask at the project no doubt someone can tell you. I will revert in the meantime. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If the convention is as well-established as you say, you should have no difficulty citing it. The onus is on you to produce the evidence in support of your assertion. --Rbreen (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Or according to you the onus is on Docktorspin to demonstrate concensus for the change, which given that his initial edit was rapidly reverted by someone else, before he changed the whole article, he has notably failed to do. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If I could be permitted to add my two cents, I don't think the change is worth making. Mark J (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then: the 'convention' is entirely a product of your imagination.--Rbreen (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, but since finding it (unless someone here remembers) would doubtless involve a long search, I'm not going to. Happy Christmas! Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of BCE/CE is in the Wiki manual of style Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 84#BC/BCE in articles on religious figures. --spin (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm pretty sure that's not what I'm thinking of. As one of them said "I get the feeling this talk page has 10 thousand pages of debate on this subject". I agree Isaiah, of Jewish/Christian interest, should use CE/BCE. I note two people there said Jesus should use BC/AD. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when did an archive of an obscure and inconclusive discussion on a talk page become authoritative? BCE/CE is not neutral and inclusive, it's the imposition of supposedly politically-correct terminology that just confuses most ordinary English-speaking people. And as so often it addresses the style not the substance. If we want a truly inclusive and non-christocentric dating system, surely we should abandon the current numbering altogether and go for some other base - as a rationalist myself I'd somewhat favour the French revolutionary calendar! But that's just my opinion, or maybe prejudice. Wikipedia has recognised that we're not all going to agree on this point, and has therefore laid down the procedure to be followed, namely to continue with the style set when the artice was created. On this basis, I propose to revert to BC/AD. --rossb (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"BC AD" gets almost 2 million hits on Google scholar[3] whereas "BCE CE" gets only 31,000.[4] That's a margin of 64 to 1. For all of Google, the margin is 13 to 1. So BC/AD is both scholarly and popular usage by an overwhelming margin. Kauffner (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Naturally there's been at least a century of scholarly work included in Google scholar listings. The need for a neutral dating system is a recent awareness in the scholarly world. That means most of those zillions of hits are irrelevant. Comparing recent publications will show that there has been a rapid increase in the use of BCE/CE. Your inappropriate statistics arrive at inappropriate results. -- spin (control) 12:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy for this is here: Manual_of_Style#Dates. It is quite clear that either style can be used - there is, obviously, no 'convention' about the use of it in relation to Christian subjects - but the existing style should not be changed without discussion. Which I agree with, and I have no intention of reverting this to the original traditional style - instead, I propose that this issue be properly discussed here to see if a consensus for change can be arrived at. However, can I ask people to submit serious arguments in favour of this or against?

1. 'Political correctness' is irrelevant to this. Just because something is politically correct does not mean it is wrong - some 'politically correct' usages are clearly absurd, some are not. I am sure we all agree that there are some terms that were acceptable years ago that none of us would use today. The question is simple: is this terminology appropriate for a worldwide encyclopedia? Is it inclusive, or oriented only to a section of the global community?

2. Can we try and base this on actual evidence, as opposed to subjective opinion? Do we have any evidence whatsoever that BCE/CE 'confuses most ordinary English-speaking people'?

3. Google hits are a very poor form of evidence. Google Scholar hits are better, but simple numbers are not very useful. Adoption of this usage by the scholarly community is fairly recent. Try doing this using Google Scholar's 'Recent Articles' option leads to a very different result: 12,600 hits for BCE/CE, 64,900 for BC/AD - however, in each case only one of the top 10 hits is actually to do with this issue: the rest are unrelated to dating. Which makes this, as a form of evidence, effectively useless. If we can find a way of excluding irrelevant hits, this might fly. Any ideas?

4. There is good evidence that in the Jewish and Muslim communities, BCE/CE is preferred. For instance, the British Jewish Chronicle (example here[5]), the American Jewish Daily Forward (example here [6]) and the Israeli Jerusalem Post (example here: [7]). Equally, Britain's leading Muslim newspaper, the Muslim Weekly specifies BCE/CE in its style guide: [8].--Rbreen (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Those irrelevant hits are mostly authors' initials. You can get rid of those by checking "Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities". That yields 20,000 hits for "BC AD" versus 7,300 for "BCE CE". Kauffner (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The convention is at project level; Jewish and Islamic articles here of course prefer BCE/CE, often in conjunction with their own calendars, and I have seen Jewish articles that only use the Jewish calendar. The MOS talk section was brief and involved few, but it addressed the main issues far more succinctly than the rambling comments, lacking AGF, above. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do something against pages that go against Wiki philosophy such as those that use non-scholarly or tendentious practices and stop marking off turf. --spin (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you cannot see the utterly unscholarliness of using a non-generic reference in a dating system, then you have no trouble with the crazy notion that Jesus was born in 4 Before Christ. The issue is not a matter of the number of hits a form receives, but of good practice and neutrality of terminology. It is both wrongheaded (4BC?!) and tendentious (against people of other persuasions, against the 1st Amendment) to use BC/AD. If you don't mind the institutionalization of errors due to confession, then you may be here for propaganda purposes. --spin (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If, as seems to be the case, the use of either style is acceptable, then surely Nativity of Jesus has a better claim to using BC/AD than almost any other, being the event which provided the inspiration for the system in the first place! Surely it would be better to use the Jewish calendar for articles on Jewish topics, the Christian calendar for articles on Christian topics, and the neutral calendar for others. At any rate, if you are pushing to get BCE/CE used throughout the encyclopedia, then I wouldn't say Nativity of Jesus is the best place to start. Mark J (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You should check the Chronology of Jesus. I don't want to cause those committed to errors to change it, but that page has no problem with BCE/CE. Surely what is at stake is the most useful and most acceptable system possible. I've contributed substantive material to this page and I don't appreciate someone with nothing better to do perverting the neutral dating system I use. --spin (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I prefer BC/AD in all cases. However, given that policy permits AD to be used, this article is among the pre-eminently fitting places to utilize it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you like biased systems that have built in mistakes (such as BC/AD), then I'd guess you aren't particularly interested in producing the most useful resource possible. --spin (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BCE/CE ends up calling each year the same number. It is the same system. It just goes by a PC label. That is the sole difference. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Politically correct" usually means unbiased. Using the christian biased system you end up with the ridiculous fact that Christ was born in the year 4 Before Christ. The first Anno domini was four years after Christ was born. You might like such blundering, but it has nothing to do with accuracy or neutrality. --spin (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a calendar, we use it for convenience.

Naivety is not a serious approach. It is christian institution hegemony. Do you go around nonchalantly using sexist language? If not, why push the bias of religion? --spin (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I could care less whether Christ was born in 4 BC or AD 1.

I know. That is your problem. You will turn a blind eye to the blatant errors. --spin (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. "Politically correct" means whitewashed so as not to offend anyone, making things more complicated than they need to be, to appease liberals. The blundering is totally irrelevant. BCE and BC are the same thing. It's childish to insist on renaming the system for the sake of inoffensiveness. It is the same system. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Politically correct" means "tolerated by all" rather than "prejudiced against some". Numerous language-based matters have been changed because of offensiveness. You don't go around calling people "nigger" any more. You are less likely to use sexist or racist language generally. Offensiveness is a meaningful criterion here as well. --spin (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spin, you need to gain consensus before changing the dating style. You may not single-handedly change it if it is contested. Wait to get consensus before imposing your will on everyone else. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. The material that I wrote was changed without my consent by some "religionist" (parallel with "racist") who insisted that my work fitted into his desires regarding this ludicrous dating issue. Scholarship is in favor of BCE/CE. It's about time people stopped the bias and errors of BC/AD and learnt to be more scholarly. --spin (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Opinions like the first are what make Wikipedia the current joke of the Internet that it is. 'CONSENSUS! CONSENSUS! YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONSENSUS!' Yeah. Because the most popular answer is always the correct one, right? :P -- Kevin R Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.93.92 (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy does not impose CE on articles. It clearly states AD is fine. Your edits are becoming vandalism and my assumption of good faith is waning. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean someone changed your text? Stop the crap about vandalism, when it is my work that has been vandalized. If the person who decided to impose BC/AD had left off there would be no problem. If we must have a unified format of dating, why should religious bias dictate? --spin (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That'll be "persons", since you have now been reverted by several different people. That we do not in fact have to have "a unified format of dating" across articles, but do within them, and how that is decided, has been explained to you above. You seem to be the one with a bias; please take it elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about the initial act of changing dates. I don't need the schoolyard "it's you, not me" style argument. I'd like a rational response to the issue rather than "it's up to the individual", when someone started changing the dates provided by this individual. There are three reasons I've put forward as to why, if we have to unify the dates, we should use BCE/CE:

1. it is the scholarly system;
2. it is not biased against other religious positions; and
3. it doesn't have an inbuilt error (Jesus being born in 4 before himself).

If you want to have expertise working on Wiki, don't try to alienate. --spin (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spin, as it was explained before, within the article, there has to be consistency in which style was used. From what I can gather, your edit used CE, and it was changed to AD, so as to be consistent with the established style of the article. That makes perfect sense, and whoever did it was not wrong in doing so. As to your three reasons: 1) I don't particularly care. The MoS says either style may be used. Until such a time, you may not force CE on this page without consensus. If you want to use the "scholarly system" argument, get the MoS changed. Don't fight that battle here; it is not the place. 2) I don't buy that AD is biased against other religions. Again, CE is a PC version of AD. They are the same thing. The name doesn't change what it actually is. Before I became Christian I had no problem with using AD, and had the same opinion I do now. So I do not think 2 is tenable. 3) It doesn't matter if it is in error. It's a convention. We've been using it a long time, and no-one is going to fix it and then have to worry about converting all the old dates into the new system. That's just freaking silly. You are welcome to argue your case, but when it becomes clear that there is no consensus for your edit, quit edit-warring. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, there it is: "It's a convention." That is the only defense you've got. Who gives two hoots about a convention that is not scholarly, neutral nor accurate (other than thralls to convention)? Deal with the issues and don't just try to sweep them under the carpet. You are basically arguing along the same lines as that, because it was good enough for Truman to call African-Americans "niggers" and people had done so for over a hundred years, it's good enough for you. And you are simply wrong that "CE is a PC version of AD". First you have fooled yourself into thinking that "politically correct" is bad and you don't seem to understand that there are no errors in using BCE/CE. However, the change should be simple enough even for you because you don't have to do any calculations as a Jew might, coming off AM dating, or a Muslim from the Hejira. Turn your back on scholarship and its convents and you end up with rot spread through Wiki. You can still claim that CE = "Christian Era". Are you so Gerald Ford that you can't give a date and use BCE/CE at the same time?

And please don't edit the page again for your tendentious dating system without making a coherent case for it. Bleating about convention doesn't cut it. --spin (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your edits. We work by consensus here, not fiat. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's about time you sought consensus by starting to make the sense part of the consensus, because up to now, you've shown no interest in either sense or consensus. It's just an excuse, because it seems you have no rational reason for clinging to your errors. --spin (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Spin, for what it's worth I agree with you on the dating issue per se. But the way to deal with this is to establish a consensus on the talk page. Please assume good faith here. By all means be bold, but if reverted, discuss. --Rbreen (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been discussing this though. I've given three reasons for the use of BCE/CE. The response comes down to "I can do this, so I will." --spin (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments from convention — Wikipedia convention, scholarly convention, etc.—and allowability seem unfruitful because, regardless of the popularity or unpopularity of a particular dating system and regardless of the allowability of several throughout Wikipedia, the arguments from convention and allowability do not address the core issue of accuracy and neutrality, which I consider as the main characteristics of high encyclopedic quality. All pertinent Wikipedia and scholarly articles on the subject of the birth of Jesus results in a conclusion that the year Mary gave birth to Jesus remains historically unverifiable. Thus, people can hold many views about the specific year that Mary gave birth to Jesus or that, in the case of Jesus Mythicism, Jesus did not exist and therefore Mary did not give birth to Jesus at all. The BC/AD dating system, especially on an article about the birth of Jesus, inherently and implicitly violates NPOV by specifying Jesus as a historical person and a particular year as the date that Mary gave birth to him. In contrast, the BCE/CE dating system does not make such claims and does not violate NPOV. Therefore, we should prefer the use of the BCE/CE dating system over the BC/AD dating system. --megamanXplosion (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are clearly strongly-held views on this on both sides, and agreement is unlikely. However Wikipedia policy has a solution for such cases, namely that where a particular usage is established for a particular article (as the BC/AD usage was established until recently) it should not be altered. --62.49.68.79 (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The global policy Ignore All Rules says that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Following the rule you cite would result in an article that inherently contains implicit falsehood, contradiction, and point of view and prevents editors from improving Wikipedia in those regards. As such, the rule should be ignored. --megamanXplosion (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The IAR policy should be used sparingly. The use of the AD system, which policy expressly allows, is not a case in which you can use IAR as a pretext for switching to CE. Use of AD does not mean that the user believes in Christianity; your supposition is false. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not argue that BC/AD users necessarily accept Christianity. I also did not argue that some of them do, though that certainly agrees with the facts. Your suppositions are false; do not caricature my argument. I argued that the use of BC/AD results in contradiction, inaccuracy, and falsehood; that the cited policy prevents editors from improving the article by increasing its consistency, accuracy, and truthfulness; and that this is sufficient reason to invoke IAR policy. You have not provided a valid counter-argument to show that its use does not entail contradiction, inaccuracy, and falsehood, nor that dating conventions trump accuracy, consistency, and truthfulness, nor that the inconsistency in Wikipedia policy favors dating conventions over accuracy, consistency, and truthfulness. Therefore, I maintain my position on this matter and shall continue to do so until you present some valid arguments against it. --megamanXplosion (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're trying to wikilawyer so that you can ignore that the MoS allows the use of AD. If all your arguments were true/accepted, then they would have been taken into consideration and the MoS would not allow the use of AD. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I did and said nothing ridiculous. Wiki-lawyering consists of an attempt to exploit loopholes in Wikipedia policies; I did no such thing. I appealed to relevant policies—not loopholes—for the purpose of increasing the accuracy, consistency, and truthfulness of this article. The Ignore All Rules policy clearly applies. Further, the Dates and Numbers section of the Manual of Style says that "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." In the Year Numbering Systems subsection, it says, "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason." This is an exception where increasing the accuracy, consistency, and truthfulness of an article may be improved—either inherently or secondarily by preventing problematic interpretations—can occur by converting from one style to another and therefore we have a substantive reason to change from one style to another. The Manual of Style and Ignore All Rules policies allow this and allow it without consensus. The conversion should only not take place if someone can show, with logically valid argument, that changing from one style to another would not improve the accuracy, consistency, or truthfulness of this article, either inherently or secondarily by preventing problematic interpretations. Several people have asked you and anyone else to provide substantive argument on this matter and everyone, including you, has thus far conspicuously failed to do so. --megamanXplosion (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First, thank you from refraining from reverting before there's consensus, even though you think you're justified in doing so. No for the argument: Basically, I don't accept your belief that switching from AD to CE fulfills the bit about "increasing the accuracy, consistency, and truthfulness of an article may be improved—either inherently or secondarily by preventing problematic interpretations—can occur by converting from one style to another". You seem to be saying that using AD is inaccurate and untruthful, inherently or secondarily, because it is based on an event which has a questionable truth value. But again, if that is your argument, I don't think it stands up to the MoS. Again, the point I'm making below: since the MoS allows us to use AD, arguments that would prohibit the use of AD in all circumstances (and saying that AD makes an article inaccurate or untruthful prohibits the use of AD in all circumstances) are not consistent with the spirit or the letter of the MoS on this point. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact the Jesus wasn't really born in the year 1 remains true whether we write it as AD 1 or 1 CE. Which letters are used are just conventional, and Google search will reveal that AD/BC is popular usage by an overwhelming margin. The religious issue is an additional reason to use AD/BC as this article is part of WikiProject Christianity. Kauffner (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It does remain a fact that Mary did not give birth to Jesus in year 1; however, the BC/AD dating system has an inherent, implicit claim that Mary did give birth to Jesus in year 1, so the use of the BC/AD dating system results in an inherent, implicit contradiction. We should not follow any convention, Wikipedian or scholarly or otherwise, that entails inaccuracy, falsehood, contradiction, and point of view. --megamanXplosion (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very strange idea - the BC/AD convention has been used for centuries after it was generally accepted that it was not the actual date of the nativity. In this article in particular, it's all the more relevant to use the BC/AD convention, specifically to point out the historical inaccuracy. --rossb (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections about mentioning the historical inaccuracy of the BC/AD dating system within the article itself. I do object to using the dating system throughout the article, though. The contradiction, inaccuracy, and falsehood entailed by it serves as a good reason to not use it. --megamanXplosion (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• The strange argument is that "AD/BC should have some preference in articles about Jesus". Actually, it is just the reverse - BECAUSE the article is about Jesus, it is all the more inportant that wikipedia be neutral & not use language that declares him to be "the Christ", "the Saviour", "the Messiah", "the Lord", and/or "Our Lord". It is like putting "PBUH" in the Mohammed article after every mention of his name, and saying he IS "the prophet". It is like saying "Shakespeare is the best English author" in teh Shakespeare article. It is like putting "Father of OUR Country" in the George Washington article. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that articles about people should not be hagiographies. In articles NOT about Jesus, using AD & BC does not make a claim about the subject of the article, in articles about Jesus, they do --JimWae (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that AD makes a claim about the subject of the article in the way you suggest it does. Granted, AD, literally, makes a claim. But its use has been largely divested of its meaning. I'd imagine there is a large minority of persons who don't even realize that AD stands for "Anno Domini", or what that means in English. And if it makes a claim about Jesus, it does so in all articles, whether or not they are about him. AD means what it means; if it makes a meaningful claim, as you seem to argue, then it does whenever it is used, not just on articles where he is the subject. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• My point is not that it only makes a claim in some articles. My point is that in Jesus articles it makes a POV claim about the subject of the article, and POV claims about the subject of an article ARE in opposition to wiki-policies. Also1: The intensity with which some defenders of AD/BC oppose CE/BCE makes it apparent the term has NOT been divested of its meaning for them. Also2: intelligent people ARE able to say what the term means --JimWae (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the intensity of the defense of the BC/AD dating system shows that they still associate the religious meanings with the terms. While the terms may have lost most or all of their meaning in most circumstances (a position I do not hold), the context of this article definitely divests them with their original meaning (hence the attempt by arguers to connect its use to Christianity on this talk page), and therefore, following from my line of reasoning, introduces contradiction, inaccuracy, and falsehood. --megamanXplosion (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with editor below that edit-warring is not the way to resolve this issue - though it has brought attention to it.--JimWae (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, if it makes a POV claim, it does so in all articles, not just Jesus article. If you want to say it makes POV claim, then that POV claim is based on what the words Anno Domini mean; and that doesn't change in relation to in which article they are used. Granted, the meaning of AD is retained, but it is only of concern to person on the fringes--of both sides. The militant anti-Christians, and the Christians. And I maintain that a large minority of persons do not know what AD means. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• didn't I already twice agree that it makes a claim in all articles? However, making that claim in a Jesus article raises questions about the NPOV of that entire article. Also: I do not think we should make decisions on wikipedia dependent on an unverified assertion about the ignorance of a large minority. The claim is being made by some that AD&BC especially belong in articles about Jesus. My point is that AD&BC especially do NOT belong in articles about Jesus --JimWae (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The militant anti-Christians, and the Christians? This blinkered view excludes Jews, Muslims and any other religious group that doesn't follow Jesus. They are usually aware of the significance of BC/AD because it is something they have to learn, either because of second language learning or because of cultural translation from a different year number system. You need to include a lot more people in your analysis, Carl. --spin (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Spin, I hope you don't think I am putting up a mindless defence of the AD system. I do personally prefer it and will use it on all articles I create. However, my staunch position here is triggered at least as much, if not more, by a desire to defend consensus and discussion. If consensus goes your way, I won't keep reverting it back to AD. I'll accept CE. My problem is that I do not see here consensus for your change, and despite this, you insist on reverting. I really care more about policy being followed than about which system is used. If you go to Talk:John the Baptist, you'll see that over the course of the past week or so, I managed to keep a new user from switching that page from CE to AD. You'll see I told him that I personally agree with what he was doing, but that the way he did it was unacceptable. He was trying to force AD through, without consensus. Even though I agreed with his position, I fought him every step of the way because he was not willing to concern himself with the rules of how we make decisions around here. I hope this shows you that I am quite willing to use CE, when the circumstances justify it. Now, Spin, given that the MoS allows for use of AD, why shouldn't it be used here? Any arguments that it shouldn't be used at all will not work; if they were valid arguments, the MoS would disallow AD. As it is, AD is allowed, so there are obviously circumstances under which it ought to be used. If it ought not be used, the MoS would disallow it. Please tell me, under your interpretation of the MoS, which articles ought to use AD. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Appealing to the manual of style only demonstrates the popularity of a given opinion. It can only show the validity or invalidity of an argument from popularity. It does not show the validity or invalidity of any argument that does not utilize popularity, as that would require an argument from popularity fallacy. Also, arguing that allowability of a certain practice entails that one ought to follow the practice sometimes employs the non-sequitur fallacy. I believe in allowing people to believe in the existence of Zeus if they so wish, but that does not mean that I think some people ought to believe in Zeus. The allowance of AD by the manual of style no more demonstrates that one should use AD than my allowance of Zeus beliefs demonstrates that one should believe in Zeus. --megamanXplosion (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That the MoS allows it use means it may be used. It was written in such a way that its use is not prohibited. It follows, then, that it should be used somewhere. If it weren't to be used, it would have been disallowed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

God (assuming this for the sake of argument) arranged the world so that people can murder, does it therefore follow that God thinks someone ought to murder another? Of course not. People can murder, but that does not mean anyone ought to murder. People can believe in Zeus, but that does not mean anyone ought to believe in Zeus. Transitioning from "can" to "ought", or "permissibility" to "occasional preference", without any line of reasoning between necessarily commits the non-sequitur fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. --megamanXplosion (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe I'm not wording my argument well. I'm not saying can-->ought. It's that WP editors wrote the policy in such a way that both systems may be used. You seem to be arguing that AD should never be used. I am arguing that your position, as I understand it, is wrong. If your position (AD should never be used) were true, then policy would indicate that AD may not be used. As it is, policy allows for AD. Therefore, the position that AD should never be used, is wrong. I'm not directly saying can-->ought. Rather, my argument starts from your position, not the policy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By doing away with BC/AD we are resolving the problems of error, bias and unscholarliness. This certainly improves Wiki's standards. Ignore All Rules simply and specifically says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." No-one has argued successfully against the three reasons for preferring BCE/CE. The only response has been "aaah, it's a convention" and the rules say you can use it. The typical response is "I know what you mean when you say 'nigger', but who understands 'African-American'?" Ooops, I meant "I know what you mean when you say 'BC/AD', but who understands 'BCE/CE'?" That's a real tough one to understand. It explains why America along with Belize is still using Fahrenheit.

If you don't want to improve Wiki, why are you bothering to interfere with its content? If you want to improve Wiki, why fight against the merits of BCE/CE? --spin (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of error, bias, or unscholarliness. You have a distinct anti-Christian bias, as much as I might have a Christian bias. Switching to CE does not improve the encyclopedia. If that were the case, then the MoS would mandate the use of CE. Ad is not at all comparable to nigger. Nigger is meant to be an insult; it is used for the purpose of offending. AD is not used maliciously. And dare not accuse me of not wanting to improve WP. I have done much more here than you have. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you so bankrupt of ideas that you have to make religious aspersions? Grow up. Who says that AD was deliberately being used "maliciously"? People have long been using various terms that are now considered inappropriate for various reasons. The idea is that you point out the problems and wean the people from them. I didn't accuse you of not wanting to improve Wiki: I gave two alternatives either you do or you don't. You make up your own mind. My reference to "nigger" is to show you that conventions per se aren't good criteria for anything. You can use it to preserve anything that already exists, no matter what its merit is. Belting BC/AD isn't helping Wiki. This convention has nothing positive for it. It isn't scholarly. It isn't neutral. And it has inbuilt error. You still haven't dealt with these issues. I thought you wanted consensus. If so, you have to work for it. --spin (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No he doesn't - or not any more than he already has. More than enough time has been devoted to this, & positions are clearly entrenched. Concensus does not mean unanimity. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked Carl to deal with the reasoning I put forward. He has not done so. Do you want to champion your ailing convention with some logic and reasoning? You haven't done so yet. But don't let me stop you. Why do you want a system that is not scholarly, not neutral nor accurate? It sounds to me like a step backwards rather than trying to improve Wiki. --spin (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I do not think there is good enough reason to switch to CE. I honestly think the whole convention of CE is silly; always have. If there was a non-religious dating system that was in widespread use, that was actually different AD, rather than just naming the same system something else, I would support it. I think CE is silly. It is a wholly arbitrary system. The accuracy, or lack thereof, of AD is unimportant. Changing to CE for that reason does not improve WP. I would say charges of unscholarliness of AD are unfounded; the search results above demonstrate that AD continues to be used plenty among scholars. As for the neutrality, I still think that much of its non-neutrality has disappeared; it is a convention that to those not on the extremes of either side is just the way things are done, and people don't really think about what it means. Moreover, my previous point remains: your arguments apply to its use all over WP. Since the MoS allows for its use, I don't think your arguments which would favour banning AD carry the weight you place on them. If you want to get rid of AD, go to the MoS talk page; fight the fight on the actual policy page, rather than page-by-page of WP. Finally, I would agree with John that we are at an impasse. I'm going to ask outside advice on what to do now. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

---

(Continues directly from above)

You've had every opportunity to deal with the reasoning for supporting BCE/CE.

• Denying the scholarliness of BCE/CE without having consulted indiscutably scholarly sources -- such as peer-group journals (eg JBL, BASOR, NEA, Novum Testamentum, Harvard Theological Review, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, JNES, etc.), recent Westminster John Knox, Eerdmans, Brill, OUP & CUP publications and works of the reputation of the Anchor Bible Dictionary to see what they do -- is rather meaningless.

Is anyone "denying the scholarliness of BCE/CE"? I don't think so. As I've said above, and is generally recognised I think, it is appropriate to use BCE for Old Testament subjects, but this is a solely Christian one. You're surely not denying that there is any shortage of scholarly sources using BC/AD, I hope? Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems you forgot to note many of the sources I mentioned frequently publish on Christian era materials. I suggest you check the publishing standards of today's scholarly publishers, such as those I cited.

Scholarly behavior, such as the use of BCE/CE, is the ideal for quality of Wikipedia material. --spin (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're are also in denial as to the fact that BC/AD is a confrontation of most other consciencious religions on this planet. Why has the constitution been used to remove cribs from public buildings?

WP:WORLDVIEW, please. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The link doesn't function for me. It seems like a means of not dealing with the rationale. --spin (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• You accept the inaccuracy of BC/AD and attempt to wave it away as tolerable error.

Since they use the same numbers, any "inaccuracy of BC/AD" must be shared by BCE/CE, one would think. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You aren't keeping up. Was Christ born at least 4 years Before Christ or not? Did Herod die 4 years Before Christ? Were the first four years or so of Jesus life before the first year of our Lord? These are plain blunders occasioned by poor nomenclature, avoided by using BCE/CE. One tries to use tools that don't run the risk of institutionalizing errors. --spin (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling CE "silly" is simply POV. Calling the system "arbitrary" is not an argument: language issues are frequently arbitrary. I don't think you've addressed why reverting to BC/AD is an improvement of Wikipedia over BCE/CE. --spin (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because then the article follows WP policy again. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --spin (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Spin, I haven't commented on here much lately because I have nothing to add. You and I have differing interpretations of the dating style policy. I maintain that your interpretations are ignorant of the policy itself, and its implications. Your arguments would work to eradicate the use of AD in wikipedia, which is in fact expressly allowed by the MoS. I don't know what more I can say. I will point out that the little extra attention the RfC and the AN/I have garnered, have seemed to indicate support for using AD in this article, as it is a Christian topic. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that you have nothing to add. There seems to be no rational argument to justify the use of BC/AD in this context. It has been maintained on Wiki through convention, without the implications being fully considered. You should wade through the talk page for BCE/CE: some of it contains logic reminiscent of not using daylight savings because the curtains will fade faster. If many countries in Europe can make the change from currencies they'd used for decades to the Euro -- a change which required a large adjustment --, a change from using BC/AD to BCE/CE is a doddle in comparison. We've already seen that BCE/CE is the scholarly practice, that BCE/CE is neutral (for many Jews both BC and AD are offensive, containing secular use of sacred ideas), and that BCE/CE eradicates the errors of BC/AD. It logically has everything going for it, plus a very low learning curve. Why do you have a problem with talking about Christian issues using neutral language, when the foremost scholars of Christianity have been using BCE/CE for a long time? Why isn't using BCE/CE a step in improving Wiki? --spin (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rbreen and Spin are being pretty obtuse and obnoxious in this exchange. Rbreen should WP:AGF on the part of editors here who say, "There is a well-established convention that articles on Christian subjects use BC/AD." Rbreen, you are disingenuous when you write that you are unaware of such a convention because JohnBrod just made you aware. How do you think people at Wikipedia become aware of things like this? They ask, and other people tell them, and you should assume that John is acting in good faith rather than try to escalate a conflict. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see later in this talk you've learnt that the scholarly norm in biblical studies is to use BCE/CE, so my only concern here is that, while I tend to be rather direct and usually deserve whatever verbal abuse comes my way, I find it a little strong that you call Rbreen either obtuse or obnoxious. From what I've seen of Rbreen's actions, they have always been done in moderation, so be nice. -- spin^control 16:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed an agreement at Wikipedia that Christian related articles would use BC/AD, and Jewish articles would use BCE/CE. This agreement was established through community discussion several years ago. It is an informal agreement but anyone who has been working on Wikipedia long enough knows it and it has helped harmonious editing. The facts: our MOS accepts both forms. Generally, whichever form was used first in the article takes precedence. Several years ago I forwarded a policy proposal that BC and AD represent a Christian point of view and that BCE and CE represent a neutral point of view and that Wikipedia policy whoud be to use BCE and CE in all articles. It shouldnt' be hard for you to find my policy proposal and the quite lengthy discussion that followed, and a vote in which a significant percentage of editors participated. My proposal was defeated, and the result was: officially, we stick with current policy which allows BC and AD, as well as BCE and CE, and favors whichever system was used first in any given article, and unofficially, Christian articles would use BC and AD and Jewish articles would use, or if necessary be changed to BCE and CE. Now, if either of you want to make a new policy proposal, by all means go ahead and try. Read over my proposal, and the discussion, and see if you can come up with a more effective proposal and arguments to support it. I promise you if you propose a policy change I will vote to support your proposal.

In the meantime, not only are you obliged to follow our WP:MOS and informal conventions among active and experienced editors. Do you want to change it? Help improve articles - not by changing dates but by reading peer-reviewed journal articles and scholarly books and adding content, and by showing that you can collaborate with a diverse group of editors. When you show you assume good faith on the part of others, and care about building up the content of good articles rather than arguing, then you will also have learned that you can indeed have a civil conversation with others about making significant changes, and sometimes you will persuade others and othher times you won't but here at Wikipedia people work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: CE or AD

Should this page use the AD or CE dating style? Discussion on the talk page has yielded entrenchment rather than consensus.

Given that there is some precedent for each system, might it be appropriate to use both? Perhaps a format like 1 AD/1 CE. (And I do not think it's worth arguing about which comes first and which second.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of both would make the article look sloppy, confused, and unprofessional. It also fails to address the complaints raised by myself and other members. Namely, the subject of the article practically ensures that many people will interpret BC and AD with the religious connotations attached ("Before Christ" and "Year of the Lord"). Any knowledgeable person who interprets the article in such a way will perceive the text as contradictory. For example, saying Jesus was born 4 BC would, if you interpret the initials in their religious sense, mean that Jesus was born 4 years before Jesus was born, which is obviously contradictory. (That is how I initially read the article, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one.) I, and many other editors, have argued that changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE would prevent any confusion, contradiction, and laughter from arising in such cases. Those who oppose the change have not provided any good reason to not switch. They have steadfastly denied the possibility of such interpretive problems without offering any reasoning to support their denial. I cannot imagine any valid reason to resist the change. I can make sense of the opposition only by thinking of it as arising from religious bias. I think the religious bias is the reason for the entrenchment rather than consensus, and hence the request for comments. --megamanXplosion (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This should of course use BC and AD as a religious article. It would be ludicrous to do otherwise. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does the religious nature of the article favor BC/AD over BCE/CE? The subject of the article practically ensures that many people will interpret BC and AD with the religious connotations attached ("Before Christ" and "Year of the Lord"). Any knowledgeable person who interprets the article in such a way will perceive the text as contradictory. For example, saying Jesus was born 4 BC would, if you interpret the initials in their religious sense, mean that Jesus was born 4 years before Jesus was born, which is obviously contradictory. Why does the religious nature of the article mean that we should use a dating style that invites confusion, contradiction, and laughter? --megamanXplosion (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is new scholarship arguing that Herod died in the year 1, so it is possible the calendar is correct after all.[9] Kauffner (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article you cited argues that Herod likely reigned until early 1 BCE. This means Jesus probably began his earthly life, at the latest, in early 1 BCE. The use of the BC/AD dating style in this scenario would give rise to contradiction and possibly confusion, as I argued earlier. --megamanXplosion (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just coming here because there is an RfC, so please understand that I have no agenda about it. About "sloppy, confused, and unprofessional," well, that is true, but I think the editors on this page have to come to terms with the fact that the subject lends itself to confusion, and taking entrenched positions, as appears to have happened just above in response to my suggestion, will only lead to stalemate. WP generally prefers to leave all sides a little dissatisfied, rather than one side happy and the other completely rejected. That's my advice, so do with it what you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming. I hope you appreciate that the issue here I think for those proposing the use of BCE/CE is one of improving the quality of Wiki material. The use of BCE/CE is unbiased and error free. What's half way between biased and unbiased? or between error-full and error-free. And how would that be manifested here on this page? --spin (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This was stimulated by Stifle's comment:

In previous discussion here I listed sources such as the following as users of BCE/CE:

peer-group journals (eg JBL, BASOR, NEA, Novum Testamentum, Harvard Theological Review, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, JNES, etc.), recent Westminster John Knox, Eerdmans, Brill, OUP & CUP publications and works of the reputation of the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

There is nothing ludicrous about using BCE/CE in a religious article. It's what all the top scholarly religious publishers use in recent publications. If we aim at scholarly standards, then we should use BCE/CE. --spin (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wasting my time, but it seems to me that none of the editors here intends to make this article ludicrous or to fill it with errors and bias. I think you can either solve the RfC through a reasonable compromise, or get permanently bogged down. Maybe one side is right and the other is wrong, and if so, that will become clearer over time, and further edits can happen then. But for now, I think both sides should take a deep breath and calm down. Again, that's just a suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't introduce the term "ludicrous" -- you should take that issue up with Stifle --, but from my expertise I see people continually and usually unintentionally involved in error and bias. I'm a linguist and I observe language communication as a lawyer analyzes testimony. I note the way things are expressed, as I might savor the food I'm eating, and it irritates my partner no end. I can feel your temperature rising when you type "I think both sides should take a deep breath and calm down." Intention is not the issue. The result is.

The bias is as transparent in the field of belief as institutionalized racial slurs of Truman's time in the social field. The error is as obvious as Christ being born years Before Christ. In the spirit of your request for compromise I asked above "What's half way between biased and unbiased? or between error-full and error-free. And how would that be manifested here on this page?" What is the compromise here? What would you suggest? I'd like to know.

If we aim at scholarly excellence, we'll certainly fall sort, though I'm sure we'll improve what we do. But, if we choose not to have such a standard, where do you think that leads? --spin (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spin, I don't think your "compromise" will work, Trypto. I see no reason to use two styles; each page should be consistent, and use one style. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't help. Good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest anyway. --spin (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to resolve the conflict. --megamanXplosion (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Archaeology Review uses AD/BC dating,[10] and they certainly have a higher circulation than any of the journals. Their objective is to present "academic study of archaeology to a broad general audience." That's closer to what we are doing than scholars writing for other scholars. Kauffner (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand publications spanning OT & NT subjects using BCE/CE, & (as said above more than once) our OT articles should do the same. But this is just an NT subject. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Archaeology Review doesn't represent scholarship. It isn't a peer-review scholarly publication. It is a Shanks polemical organ for making money, which features mainly owned scholars who wish to get their names known in a wider non-scholarly community. It is not a relevant criterion as compared with the many I have already cited. Shanks doesn't want to tax his readership with the complexities of BCE/CE.

Buy any new Oxford University New Testament publication and try to find BC/AD. Try most Cambridge books. Try Anchor. HarperCollins. All Brill NT publications. Try any of the major scholarly journals. I cited the Harvard Theological Review and the Journal of Biblical Literature amongst others. Try E.P.Sanders or James Charlesworth or any world renowned biblical scholar. Any scholarly works on the Dead Sea Scrolls (including those relating to Christianity). This is indiscutably the scholarly standard. --spin (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to what Spin said, Biblical Archaeology Review uses the BCE/CE dating style too.[11] They do not have any guideline about the dating style to ensure consistency. --megamanXplosion (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What does using the CE style accomplish in this article? Clarity (as megamanXplosion's comment explains convincingly) and consistency with the article's religiously neutral tone. I'm still not sure what using the AD style would accomplish for readers. If CE is actually more useful in this article, then it doesn't seem rational to have AD styles just because it's Christianity-related. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. --megamanXplosion (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water) I'm back! Another idea occurred to me, so if it helps, good, and if not, no problem. My understanding (but please correct me if I'm wrong) is that, chronologically, the history of using the different dating systems (at least as applied to NT subjects such as those here), is that AD was in use earlier, and CE was introduced subsequently. If so, then perhaps it would be useful to write most of the article using the AD system, but to also have a separate section, with its own level-two headline, titled something along the lines of problems with dating. In that section, you could state what the CE-corrected dates would be, and spell out the criticisms of AD. This would appear neater and more professional than my earlier suggestion would have, and would also allow readers to clearly evaluate both sides of the issue for themselves and to see where the inconsistencies in dating arise from. I suppose a case could also be made for doing the page in CE and having a section on AD, but my reasoning is to use the dedicated section for the "new and improved" system. I also realize that an argument could be made that such a discussion belongs in a separate article, but I think the talk here demonstrates that this controversy is rightly a part of the scholarship on this subject. Finally, I also realize that the editors here, on both sides, believe very strongly in their positions and have thoughtful reasons for doing so, but I sincerely urge that everyone just accept the fact that, at WP, you are all going to have to give a little bit and not completely get your way. Again, just a suggestion, and good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, stranger. I think your proposal would not work, though. If we introduce such a section and use the BC/AD dating style throughout the rest of the article, that would implicitly violate NPOV because it would show, in a more pronounced way than now, a preference for the BC/AD dating style because it would, in a manner of speaking, relegate the BCE/CE dates to a small "secular box". Thank you for continuing to think up ways to possibly resolve the problem we have here. --megamanXplosion (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The English language has used BC/AD for centuries. Policy on Wikipedia is that both dating systems are acceptable, but should not use both in an article. I see no reason to change to CE here. There is no "confusion" that is not easily explained. What exactly is the issue...that a few editors think Wikipedia needs to exclusively use CE as a dating system? If that is the case, take it elsewhere so that all of Wikipedia can vote it rather than some minor article. It amazes me how often this silly little issue comese up and in the oddest places rather than where it should properly be handled. If you want to change policy, this is not the article to achieve your ends. Move on. --^StormRider 00:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no confusion--even though English-speaking people have used the AD system for a long time, there is so much misunderstanding about it. A staggering number of people still think AD stands for "after death." Take this sentence for example: "Matthew places Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC." So Jesus was born four years after the death of Herod, whose reign he was born under? Obviously, it takes a lot of explaining for your average person who doesn't understand the fact that this system isn't literal. I think there is a chance here to significantly improve the clarity and tone of the article with the CE system, and it still seems like there haven't been any arguments that explain any benefits of using the AD system. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

wtf is wrong with you morons? CE/BCE means the same thing; it's just for politically-correct wankers. To the OP: Since when was writing "BC/AD" just for Christians? It isn't. If you expect people to take the article seriously, I suggest you write BC/AD. (Huey45 (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

People who are arguing that AD/BC should have preference in articles on Chritianity are arguing that Christian POV be given preference in some articles - that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. People who are arguing that CE is just "political correctness gone amok" seem ignorant of the fact that AD was itself designed as an act of political correctness - and that "political correctness" is not inherently wrong - it has wrought many linguistic changes that have overcome terms of insult, and has helped people get along better together. Furthermore, Current Era terminolgy was begun among Christians in Europe at least as early as 1615. Furthermore2, Anno Domini terminology took many centuries to become widespead, and even in Europe there were other eras used as late as the 15th Century. The use of the abbreviations AD & BC was not widespead until much after that. Finally, some who have commented here seem to think that there is some difference in the year-numbers depending on whether AD or CE is used. The year numbers are the same in both systems--JimWae (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you must behave uncivilly, do so on a different website. --megamanXplosion (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Huey45, glad you could drop by, but why so agro? There were two insults and two errors in two lines. For some reason you're certainly hot under the collar about a change to the neutral BCE/CE. You haven't got any dispute with the facts that BCE/CE is the scholarly norm in writing about Christianity according to the world's top scholars in the field. I doubt that you could claim that the use of the terms "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are not biased towards Christianity and away from other religions and that they are offensive to Jews to whom the use of sacred ideas in secular contexts are abhorrent. And I'm sure you'd agree that Christ being born more than four years Before Christ is ridiculous. If the terminology were BCE/CE there would be none of these problems.

So far I haven't seen one argument in favor of BC/AD. People have only said that it is the convention. We already know that, yet some conventions are highly questionable and should be done away with. Only 60 years ago it was fine for an American president to call African Americans "niggers" and it was the convention. When conventions cause difficulties you get rid of them -- usually with a lot of hue and cry, because there is some irrationality about hanging onto conventions no matter how bad they are. 140 years ago the convention was that women couldn't get a university education. They couldn't vote until a century ago more or less depending on the country.

Conventions can be negative. This one, BC/AD, is biased against other religions and erroneous. A name change could do away with the problems. Should Muslims be forced to use terms about dating that refer to "Christ" and "Lord"? Why have cribs been removed from some courthouses? It is seen as a violation of the First Amendment. Wiki is ecumenical. It is providing resources for everyone. It is attempting to be the highest standards possible, which means here scholarly standards and top scholars require BCE/CE. So what's wrong with using the nomenclature? I have argued that it can only improve Wiki. What have you got to say on the subject? --spin (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This gets progressively more funny. The BC/AD is no more erroneous than any other system; specifically BCE/CE. They both have the same middle period. That reason for changing is false. Trying to mix in people who call others niggers with people who utilize BC/AD is just plain weird. Why have cribs been removed from courthouses has nothing to do with a dating system...except to show how incredibly stupid government is and how ignorant people are about the constitution. No, "top scholars" do not "require" BCE/CE. Do you have any reference for such a requirement or are you just providing your opinion of what you think they do? --^StormRider 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see you checked that out. I guess you didn't look at any of the sources I quoted, of course, otherwise you would have seen a different story from your claims. Do look at recent copies of those journals I cited: there's a good fellow. Look at all the scholarly works on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford University Press. Look... and then talk. Naturally you don't know anything about the top scholars in the field of religious studies, because it isn't your field. And interestingly you cannot for the life of you see that cribs in courthouses is a matter of bias, just as the use of BC/AD is. You're not biased against, so you don't care.

I guess you can't see that using the terms "Lord" and "Christ" in secular situations for Jews would be offensive? Naturally not. They don't share the same values as you, so why should you bother about them? -- spin (control) 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, if you weren't around during fight against lynching, you can make up for it by fighting for "CE" dating. Spin's essay reads like a parody. Some 96 percent of the Web uses BC/AD. It's just a question of putting things in the form the typical reader will understand with the least amount of effort. Kauffner (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do another search of Google Scholar, using "BCE" and "BC" in the title since 2004. BCE = 208. BC = 1390, but includes 1/2 as British Columbia and other initials, so we end up with BC ~ 695. It was hard to see religious studies books in the first hundred I polled for BC. Searching anywhere in the reference and we get BCE = 12,100 and BC = 20,200, but not one of the first 100 for BC was a date.

By not dealing with the issues that have been put forward against BC/AD, you tacitly admit that you have no arguments. You are simply falling back on the convention crutch and, if there were nothing wrong with the convention, there'd be no reason to change it. However, there are three points against it. Deal with them.

A change to BCE/CE would take so much adjustment, wouldn't it? Though the numbers stay the same the letters are different! Consider the currency changes in Europe to the Euro and what that meant. This change is far easier. And obviously your 96% figure seems absurd, as not that many people deal with dates prior to the last few centuries. How did you arrive at it? -- spin (control) 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it that, as there are no arguments offered against using the neutral terminology other than sarcasm, incivility, and an appeal to convention, there are no logical objections to the replacement of BC/AD with BCE/CE in this article. -- spin (control) 15:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument for BCE/CE is what? The connection to lynching? The only issue involved is convention. With Google, you need to narrow the search to something that has to be a date, like BC AND AD vs. BCE AND CE or "100 BC" vs "100 BCE". Kauffner (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the talk page rather than showing you haven't. I've listed three arguments:

1. BCE/CE is the modern scholarly standard as evinced in peer-review journals, world standard RS publishers (OUP, CUP, Brill, HarperCollins, Anchor Bible Dictionary, Westminster John Knox).
2. BCE/CE is not religiously loaded in its significance. No hegemonic imposition of Christian religious terms on non-Christians.
3. BCE/CE contains no inbuilt errors such as Christ being born years Before Christ.

Good conventions have a use. BC/AD has nothing going for, but has three strikes against it. Bad conventions usually end up going (except for fahrenheit, English spelling and Windows -- and the toll from spelling is enormous).

Please produce your Google scholar results that reflect on the issue that are fundamentally different from those I cited. Please also produce examples of world-standard RS publishers who use BC/AD as a rule.

I assure you your curtains won't fade if BCE/CE is introduced. -- spin (control) 18:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think some editors seem to be missing the point of Wikipedia. It's not intended to serve the needs of editors or the academic community, but to be a resource for general readers, most of whom will be very familiar with the BC/AD convention and confused by BCE/CE. --rossb (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You confuse methodology with target audience. Hopefully everyone wants the best information possible for Wiki, which means scholarly methodology. It is good methodology not to inflame readership using terminology which is inappropriate or offensive to them. Wiki is not meant to be a hostile source. -- spin (control) 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Many people looking at the dating section will be interested to know whether the traditional dating is correct as to the actual date of Jesus' birth, and the use of BC/AD is particularly appropriate in this context, to highlight more clearly the fact that the traditional dating is generally considered to be wrong. --rossb (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely where BC/AD is wrong. It simply provides the wrong information. And that's the system you want. That is alien to the aims of Wiki. It is good methodology to use terminology which implies no inherent errors. Explain to someone that Herod died 4 years before Christ, when they know that Herod was alive when Christ was born. This is the sort of blunder that scholarship has to fight against because it has made them in other situations and has to resolve the distorted results. You don't hardwire information into dating nomenclature, as the dates can change leaving the nomenclature in error. This has happened with Qumran palaeography, calling something a Herodian script, which suddenly crops up in the Hasmonean period. It's plain dumb.

If you were really worried about reader difficulties, you'd propose a bot taking care of turning all BCE and CE references to links to a revamped BCE/CE explanation page. You are still back in the convention argument and BC/AD is a bad convention. -- spin (control) 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Following your argument, we should use different names for the months of the year. Explain to someone that December is the twelfth month of the year when the name clearly means it's the 10th month. Calling it December is wrong - it simply provides the wrong information. That is alien to the aims of Wiki. It is good methodology to use terminology which implies no inherent errors.! :) --rossb (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You have used the etymological fallacy by arguing that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily the same or similar to its present-day meaning. If you went to a popular place and asked people what December meanings in a linguistic, noncalendrical sense, probably most of them would shrug their shoulders and say "I don't know" and perhaps "I don't care". The history of the word does include a signification of ten, and hence the tenth month, but it does not signify that today. It signifies the twelfth month today, and accordingly does not result in interpretational error. To argue that it does, you must also argue that "Breath is not Soul" implies an error because they share an etymological origin. The "Before Christ" and "Year of the Lord" phrases of the Anno Domini dating system, however, retain their meaning, unlike December and Soul. Many people do interpret the Anno Domini significations as relating to Jesus, and interpretational errors result. -- Jesse (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BCE/CE is the scholarly norm and despite some people saying it insults Christians, I think it is neutral. I'm in favor of it. dougweller (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If Dougweller is right, then Wikipedia policy should clearly state that we should use BCE/CE to be consistent with our neutrality policy. I would welcome anyone who wishes to propose such a policy; I would vote for it. In the meantime, what do we do? BC/AD was the original dating system used in the article, first put in with this edit, April 9 2006. According to WP:MOS, "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." I am sorry, Dougweller, but "neutrality" cannot be a substantial reason to change for this simple reason: if the Wikipedia community considered BCE/CE to be neutral, NPOV would require our using it exclusively. Since WP allows people to use either BCE or BC. CE or AD, then the Wikipedia community does not consider one to be "more neutral" than the other. Doug, if you are right about it being neutral - and if everyone else is right about it being more scholarly and more neutral - then all articles should use it. However, this is not our policy. It seems to me that to change the dating system that has been in use here since 2006, you guys first have to change Wikipedia policy.Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is correct that the BC/AD convention should not have been changed unless there was a substantial reason. See WP:ERA for the policy. Majoreditor (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

At least three reasons have been provided here for using BCE/CE. It is now the scholarly norm, as evinced by all recent publications from Brill, SBL, Westminster John Knox, most world class scholarly journals in the field of biblical studies. Try and find recent RS stuff published by Sheffield that doesn't use BCE/CE. Changing BCE to BC is certainly not improving the material. It's certainly un-ecumenical. Please try to improve Wikipedia. If you think it is intelligent to say Herod died in 4 Before Christ, when Christ was born while Herod was alive, you're not going to improve Wiki on that score. -- spin^control 16:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IAR may be used when the grounds for maintaining/improving the WP are unquestioanble. Since editors who have been here much longer than have you agree that changing to CE is not right, this is not a case in which you can use IAR. Your obstinate refusal to acknowledge the correct interpretation of policy is most frustrating. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The improvement is obvious: I've cited the major literature -- you can discover that it is the scholarly norm in religious studies by checking the various world-class peer reviewed journals I've already cited, along with the major publishers. It is the neutral form and it is error free. The only complaint that has been grubbed up is that it is not the common form. Hence for those who would have difficulties, the BCE usage was linked to the Common Era page. Three reasons for the improvement. The only drawback dealt with. IAR obviously cancels the failing alternative. -- spin^control 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was obvious, or if IAR "obviously cancelled the failing alternative", people would agree with you. How do you not realize that? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IAR is meaningless - anyone who disagrees with Spin can just "ignore" IAR and revert. That gets us nowhere. The only real argument Spin is providing is that CE and BCE are somehow more scholarly or encyclopedic. If this is true change the MOS so that AD and BC are not allowed and all articles should use BCE and CE!!! Until MOS is changed, then its provision - that we go by the original dating system - should apply here. SPin, if you do not like it, go ahead and argue away but do not waste your time here, do it at WP:MOS which apparently you think should be changed. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Doktorspin, glad you could specify your areas of misunderstanding.

"You haven't got any dispute with the facts that BCE/CE is the scholarly norm in writing about Christianity according to the world's top scholars in the field." w Sure, I bet all serious scholars use CE/BCE.

"I doubt that you could claim that the use of the terms "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are not biased towards Christianity and away from other religions" Who cares?

"...and that they are offensive to Jews to whom the use of sacred ideas in secular contexts are abhorrent." It's not a sacred idea; it's just the standard way of writing dates, as it has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

"And I'm sure you'd agree that Christ being born more than four years Before Christ is ridiculous." The estimate for the birth of Christ was changed after the naming for the years had already started. That original idea is still perfectly logical. It doesn't matter anyway; it's just the time from which everyone measures the years. If Jesus was born 4 years before that, I don't think many people will care. (Huey45 (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Removed reference to AD

I've edited out each use of AD (all referring to the census of Quirinius), replacing them with the fact that the census was ten years after the death of Herod, so that whatever decision is eventually made there will be less needing consideration. -- spin (control) 15:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Implications of the View of Richard T. France

In the Emmanual section, the article says that the view of Richard T. France, and presumably like-minded scholars, imply "that the saviour in question was already conceived when Isaiah was writing". I consider that statement inaccurate because France does not imply that, nor do any like-minded scholars of whom I'm aware, and it does not follow logically from the reasoning presented.

France, in "The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary" (1985) pp 79-80,[12] wrote:

The immediate historical reference [to the reign of Ahaz] is clear in vv. 14-17 [of Isaiah], but it is also clear from the wider context that the prophet's thought is, as often in Old Testament prophecy, not confined to that primary reference. The reintroduction of 'Immanuel' in Isaiah 8:8, 10, and the recurrent theme of a child to be born as deliverer (9:7-6; 11:1ff.), indicate that 7:14 is to be seen as preparing the way for a developing Messianic theme in this section of Isaiah. Clearly the LXX [Septuagint] translators, with their striking use of parthenos, understood it to refer to more than an ordinary birth, and the choice of 'alma in the Hebrew as well as the symbolic name 'Immanuel' suggest that they were right.

Isaiah 7:14 is seen as fulfilled not in the naming of Jesus (v. 21), but in the whole account of his origin and naming in vv 18ff. (all this, v. 22). The point is not that Jesus ever bore Immanuel as an actual name, but that it indicates his role, bringing God's presence to man. This meaning is related to that of his actual name, Jesus, in that it is sin which separates man from God's presence, so that salvation from sin results in 'God with us'. But Matthew's stress on the meaning of the name (he gives explicit translations elsewhere only in 27:33, 46) suggests that he saw in it a clue to Jesus' person as well as his work. Jesus was himself 'God with us'; and the assurance of the continuing presence of Jesus in 28:20 forms with this verse a theological framework for the Gospel.

He does argue that the text can be considered as relating events that already occurred. I hold this view, also—the birth mentioned in Isaiah was to give a sign to Ahaz, who died hundreds of years before Jesus was born, so Jesus could not be the child that Isaiah mentioned because there are no signs for dead men. France does not argue that the child itself is the savior. He argued that translators responsible for the Septuagint saw the child that served as a sign to Ahaz, and Isaiah's recurring reference to it, began a Messianic theme. Matthew, in turn, quoted the Septuagint and argued that the Messianic theme was brought to fruition, or actualized, with the birth of Jesus.

I think we should remove the statement about implications from the relevant sentence to avoid inaccuracy and misrepresentation. Thoughts?

--megamanXplosion (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the article so as to avoid inaccuracy and misrepresentation. If you disagree with the change, please reply with your reasoning.

--megamanXplosion (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Make All Verse Citations Inline

Lately, I have been working on improving the article citations, and I noticed that sometimes verses are cited within the text itself and others are cited at the end of the article. I think this inconsistency looks unprofessional. When I looked at the references list at the bottom of the article, many of the book citations consistent of long strings of text while the verse citations appear awkward and out-of-place. I think the article would be greatly improved if all the verse citations occurred in the text itself and none at the bottom of the article. Thoughts? -- Jesse (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The verse citations generally are linked to ELs. We discourage ELs in the body of articles themselves. Why should we end up making all references to bible verses embedded in the text? It should be consistent, but they should be in the references, as they are, in fact, references. And if they aren't references, we should remove them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I don't care too much about whether they're inline or referenced, as long as we handle them consistently. Referenced it is, then. I'm still working on improving book citations, but once I have finished I will begin referencing the verses, assuming nobody has done that before I have finished. -- Jesse (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of the verse citations, moving them to the refs section. I also took the liberty of removing those statements which had cn tags, most of which where like 14mos old. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The article looks much better now. I thought of removing the uncited material, but wasn't sure. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of doing so. I haven't given the article a thorough read-over yet; I might do that tomorrow. (I've been digging around in this article, Google Books, Amazon, etc. for so long today, I'm sick of looking at it, so I'm calling it a day, I think.) If you intend to work on the article some more, check the notes section of my user page. I have relevant quotes from the Oxford Bible Commentary and citations for them. If you want, feel free to incorporate the material into the article. -- Jesse (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad you think it looks better. I'm not really sure what else to do with it. If you have anything specific you want done, I can work on it. And since it seems you're going to do a lot with this, if you don't have access to JSTOR but find something on there you want, I can get it to you, Jesse. Have a good night. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I don't have any JSTOR articles in mind right now, but I might poke around sometime. -- Jesse (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)