Talk:Nativity of Jesus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

New section on the contents of the two gospel books and their relationship

Let us discuss here given that the discussion above is somewhat long. I will get the material together soon. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, another discussion front just started below, relating to contents of historicity, weight etc. I am just going to have to hold off on this one until that one is discussed. Else: "How do you spell confusion?" It is best to discuss these items one by one so we keep focus. So, given that Richard opened the door to the historicity and the weight of historicity arguments just started getting discussed below, let us do historicity first, wrap that up and then move on to other issues. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now regarding the contents of the section on the Canonicals, there are a number of issues. A few key statements that relate to that were deleted, although they were referenced text, and another was recently added about the Magnificat - and needs help.

Since the Magnificat has just been brought up, let me discuss that then move on to the others. First I do not know why the Magnificat needs a subsection on its own. It is in Luke and has its article, but does not impact the Nativity events. I just finished a detailed study of hymns a month ow two ago, so I am actually up on this topic. There are three separate hypotheses regarding the relationship between Luke and the Magnificat: One that it was composed by Mary herself, given that she is the speaker in verse 46a; second that it was composed by Luke ; third that it existed as a hymn before Luke. There are a number of authors who support the third hypothesis, namely the pre-lucan origin, but the exact origin of the Magnificat remains unknown and that should certainly pointed out also in the Magnificat article itself. And, as it happens the Magnificat is also relevant to the overall structure, and it should be pointed out that the Magnificat/Annunciation is one of the elements that Luke uses to draw parallels between Jesus and John the Baptist, as discussed below.

Now, speaking of the contents of Luke, that brings about another important point, namely that about 10% of Luke's Gospel is devoted to just to the Nativity, and that the length of what Luke wrote about the Nativity is three times more than what Matthew wrote about the Nativity, and that the length of Luke's text on this topic exceeds some other books of the Bible. The Nativity is one of the key parts of Luke.

This brings about another point about Luke which reflects the length of Nativty in Luke, namely that Luke is the only Gospel to provide an account of the birth of John the Baptist, and he uses it to draw parallels between the births of Jesus and John. Luke draws parallels between to angels visits to Zachariah (1:5-25) about the birth of John and the Annunciation to Mary about the birth of Jesus and to and about the birth of John and between the song of Zachariah (1:57-80) about John and the song of Simeon about Jesus. That aspect about the approach used in Luke should be mentioned.

And these items that are only found in Luke bring about another issue about another piece of referenced text that was deleted, namely that Luke focuses on Mary's perspective (as also shown by the inclusion of many "pre-birth" elements) while Matthew focuses on Joseph's perspective and mostly "post birth" elements such as Magi and the flight to Egypt etc. And it should be stated that the Magi came a few months after the birth, not at the time of the birth as Luke places the shepherds. So the Magi were not "birth visitors" but came much later.

Speaking of deletions, as stated way above, there was also a "double referenced" paragraph that stated that the circumstances of the birth of Jesus were not public knowledge during his life and were kept to a small group of people. And I did ask above for an explanation of why this type of double referenced text was deleted, and received no response. Please provide a response as to why these two separate pieces of referenced text that relate to the topic were deleted. History2007 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As for Magnificat, please take a look at the new wording for the "hymns" section. If you want to request a specific change, please do. The hymns are part of the nativity story in Luke, so they seem relevant. Isn't it interesting that the evangelist incorporated hymns into his gospel? John apparently did, too, his opening "hymn to the Word." Potentially, the "hymns" section could be a subsection of "Sources," but hymns seem to have an appeal to lay people that sources don't.

Frankly, the idea that Mary composed the song on the spot, and that the song got passed verbatim to Luke, is not a historical idea. It's a devotional idea. Historians don't think that way, not even Christian historians. We can describe devotional ideas in the "beliefs" section, not in the "history" section. If you want to find a historical source that says Mary and Simeon composed their hymns, please do.

Yes, please let's point out that Luke's nativity is way longer than Matthew's (not to mention better), and that Luke makes lowly, female Mary his main character, while Matthew makes king-descended, male Joseph his protagonist. Luke was writing to appeal, in part, to Gentile women. Matthew wasn't. But we can't use the Mary/Joseph distinction as a way to reconcile the two narratives because historians don't bother to reconcile the two narratives.

Some people will say that if there's a reference for it, and it's relevant, it needs to go on the page, but that's not true. The less prominent an idea is, the less of that idea should be on the page. I bet I deleted the stuff about the circumstances of Jesus' birth not being well known and the Mary/Joseph stuff because it was supporting a fringe view. Unlike other parts of the Bible, there's no scholarly debate on this issue any more, so those who defend the narratives' historicity are outside the mainstream. Their opinions need to be defined as such, and they should get only an amount of coverage commensurate with the coverage they get in our most mainstream sources (commonly accepted reference texts, disinterested secondary and tertiary sources). If you want the "traditional Christian" section to include these two ways of reconciling the two narratives, okay. Leadwind (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, unfortunately the changes you made to the section on hymns are still less than correct. The section now states that there are two hymns. Actually there is a minimum of three canticles (they should really be called canticles rather than hymns to be more precise) and by some accounts four. The third is the Benedictus which appears directly in Luke 1:68-79 and the fourth is the Gloria in Excelsis based on Luke 2:14. Of course the traditional Gloria is longer than the opening line presented in Luke 2:14 but various accounts consider it as one of the 4 Lucan-inspired items that are widely used as doxologies and incorporated into Christian music.

Regarding the statement that Mary composed the Magnificat "on the spot", the first time I have seen the term "on the spot" has been here. The first theory states that she composed it at some point in her life (without stating when) and it was somehow communicated to Luke. The second theory is that Luke just invented it himself. The third theory is that it was composed by a third (and unknown) person and became part of the early liturgucal services and that is how Luke learned about it. Much has been written about them all, but the final situation is that the "exact origin of the Magnificat remains unknown", as I stated above. It is generally assumed that the three "Gospel Canticles" Benedictus, Nuc Dimittis and the Magnificat, if not originating with Luke himself, may have their roots in the earliest Christian liturgical services in Jerusalem, although the exact origins of all three canticles remain unknown. There are many references for that.

Regarding the deleted items, one of them was deleted with the comment that it has no takers. I am sorry, but I am not aware of an official "taker meter" that was used in that case. In fact, that very statement about the focus of Luke on Mary and Matthew on Joseph was restated by yourself just above, and it is also expressed in several other sources. It is a widely published item and has nothing to do with historicity, but the tone and focus of the text. And it was not in any way used to reconcile anything, but was there as a comparison of the two books.

Regarding your last edit summary, I have a related question. The Wikipedia article on Gautama Buddha states that: "Devadatta, a cousin of Gautama who became a monk but not an arahant, more than once tried to kill him." Is that a majority of minority view? Should all that type of information be deleted from Wikipedia because the Indian equivalents of Vermes/Sanders have not endorsed them? That approach would require the deletion of about 95% of the text in Gautama Buddha and its replacement by a brief statement that "the life story of Gautama Buddha does not meet historicity standards". End of story. If that general viewpoint and approach is valid, please rapidly delete 95% of the Gautama Buddha article. However, it is clear that the contents of a set of books, and "the beliefs" of specific groups of people (say about 1 billion Buddhists) about them can not be excluded from Wikipedia by simply using an adhesive fringe sticker. As stated above, in Wikipedia one can "fully describe the contents" of a book about the flat earth theory without formally endorsing the flat earth theory. I am sorry, but the opinion that the contents of a book and the public's view of the book, can not be described is Wikipedia is not correct. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of the origins of the hymns/canticles, I have also recently encountered a theory that the Magnificat was originally the hymn of old and barren Elizabeth, and that it related to the “miraculous” conception of her own son John the Baptist. This theory holds that Luke ascribed the hymn to Mary/Jesus so as to magnify Jesus and minimise the role and stature of John. Wdford (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wdford. What a rich topic of historical research the canticles are. Leadwind (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

History, you continue to impress me with your knowledge of the gospels. Maybe you should be writing the canticle section. I'll try to get it right. Thanks for your patience. As for the "taker meter," not many editors know about it. Please read WP:WEIGHT, where you will see how we decide how to treat various viewpoints. If you want to find "takers" for one idea or another about how to reconcile the two narratives, find reference to it in a commonly accepted reference or in a disinterested secondary or tertiary source (e.g. textbook). I can find a mainstream source that says the narratives are two, false narratives. You can't find one that says they can be reconciled into one narrative. Or can you? As for your Buddha eample, I'm all for including Christian beliefs about the narratives, I just don't want them mingling with historical conclusions about the narratives. Since all attempts to reconcile the narratives are Christian attempts, they belong in the Christian section of the article. Leadwind (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not a biblical scholar. I am a scientist. But if the little I know impresses you, that means that the article has not informed you about those items, and the information needs to be included. That can happen if a personal "taker meter" is not used to quickly delete referenced text (such as the focus of Luke on Mary) that gets endorsed a few days later. In general, the mantra of WP:WEIGHT has been repeated enough times here I think, and is effectively a circular argument that leads back to the personal taker meter. Moreover, I think a key issue here which needs to be mentioned is an awareness of the difference between scientific facts (which can have a demarcation criterion) and historical opinions that can not have one. Historical opinions, be they about Napoleon, or Dionysius in the end are only subject to the opinions of historians, and are not subject to experimental verification, in the absence of a time machine. It is clear that many items in the narratives (e.g. the virgin birth, the star with a GPS navigator, etc.) are not acceptable to modern science, but those issues are getting lost in blanket reliance on repeatedly quoting the 3 authors Vermes, Sanders and the other as yet another mantra. As for references that refer to harmony, the personal taker meter labeled those as apologists, etc. But we have repeated those issue too many times now, and they are becoming a new long mantra here. In any case, it is clear that various facts such as the relative lengths of Luke vs Matthew, the focus of Luke on Mary and pre-birth items, the parallels to the Baptist, etc. need to be added back, or added anew. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Things are getting a little heated. Maybe we should give the page a rest for a few days. The reason I'm being so obstinate is that you don't cite any policy that supports you. I can cite policy to support my view. It would be better if you could do the same. As long as we both follow policy, we should get along fine. But if only one of us follows Wp policy, then we're liable to have difficulties. When one finds out that the way they've been editing Wp is not in line with policy, it can be a rude surprise, and it's only natural to resist. I know I'm still learning. You accuse me of using a personal taker meter but never cite policy to show me that I'm wrong. You want to treat historical opinion in a special way because of the time travel thing, but you never cite policy to support your interpretation. I'm happy to add the things you say you want to add provided that (in accordance with policy) we can find them represented in scholarship. Alternatively, we could put all the Christian material you like in a section on Christian opinion. Maybe it would be better, however, for us to set this article aside for a little while and let things cool off. Alternatively, you could get a Request for Comment or ask for advice on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, but it would probably be better all around to de-escalate the conflict rather than escalate it. Leadwind (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, compared to other discussions in Wikipedia, I do not see any particular heat here. I think we are having a rather civil discussion, but I do not see some of the issues as entirely logical. And I do not see a reason for not discussing things while they are fresh in my mind. I did cite policy, e.g. WP:TPA and I can cite policy all day in fact. But on the first issues we have discussed there has been progress, and some new material has come to light, e.g. the Canticles, the Baptist, etc. As for specifics, I think we should discuss them "one by one". The next item, therefore is the item that was removed about the focus of Luke being on Mary and the focus of Matthew being on Joseph. I would like to discuss this until it is finalized. Now, is there still a discussion on this, or is it agreed that it is well cited and relevant to the article. This is in fact even more important now that the analogies to the Baptist came to light in view of the canticles. The references for the parallel presentation and the focus of Luke on Mary rather than Joseph are:

• Luke by Robert A. Stein 1993 ISBN 0805401245 page 103
• Jesus and the Gospels by Clive Marsh, Steve Moyise 2006 ISBN 0567040739 page 37
• Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 1998 ISBN 0865543739 page 556
• The Gospel according to Matthew by Leon Morris ISBN 0851113389 page 26
• An Introduction to the Bible by Robert Kugler, Patrick Hartin ISBN 080284636X page 394

So I see no obstacle in stating that Luke focuses more on Mary, the events prior to the birth and draws parallels to the Baptist, etc. Do you? But there is no point in rushing to add this immediately until other items are discussed. Then I will add them myself, I do not need help in editing the article, but will wait until the issues are discussed one by one. Later, I will also correct the section on canticles, etc. History2007 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to add anything that fits Wp policy. Please make a specific suggestion for a change. Leadwind (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to add my text to the article, but I think will add it myself, thank you. I have written a couple of Wikipedia articles in the past and do not need help in editing pages, and I am familiar with the policies. In any case, I think the new material that came to light about the Baptist is directly linked to the item you deleted about the focus of Luke, so I think I will add them together, later when all the issues have been discussed. And here is the text:

The Nativity is a prominent element of the Gospel of Luke, and comprises over 10% of the text. It is three times the length of the Nativity text in the Gospel of Matthew and in itself longer than several of the books of the New Testament.(Ref1) Luke does not rush into the birth of Jesus, but prepares for the event by narrating several episodes prior to the birth of Jesus.(Ref1) Luke is the only Gospel to provide an account of the birth of John the Baptist, and he uses it to draw parallels between the births of John and Jesus.(Ref3)

Luke draws parallels between the angelic visit (1:5-25) to Zachariah about the birth of John and the Annunciation to Mary (1:26-38) about the birth of Jesus. He also draws parallels between the Song of Zechariah (1:57-80) about John and the Song of Simeon (2:1-40) about Jesus.(Ref3) However, while Luke devotes only 2 verses (1:57-58) to the birth of John, the birth of Jesus is narrated in twenty verses (2:1-20).(Ref2) Luke relates the two birth in the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth.(Ref1) He further connects the two births by noting that Mary and Elizabeth are cousins.(Ref 7)

Luke's focus on the episodes prior to the birth of Jesus, also centers his story on Mary, and her perspective, while Matthew tells the story from the standpoint of Joseph, and deals mostly with episodes after the birth of Jesus.(Ref4)(Ref5)(Ref6)

• Ref1= The people's New Testament commentary by M. Eugene Boring, Fred B. Craddock 2004 ISBN 0664227546 page 177 • Ref2 = Luke by Robert A. Stein, Robert H. Stein 1993 ISBN 0805401245 page 103 • Ref3 = An Introduction to the Bible by Robert Kugler, Patrick Hartin ISBN 080284636X page 394 • Ref4 = Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 1998 ISBN 0865543739 page 556 • Ref5 = Jesus and the Gospels by Clive Marsh, Steve Moyise 2006 ISBN 0567040739 page 37 • Ref6 = The Gospel according to Matthew by Leon Morris ISBN 0851113389 page 26 • Ref7 = Recovering Jesus: the witness of the New Testament Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld 2007 ISBN 1587432021 pages 113-114

So if you see errors in the above, we can discuss them. But I see no errors. History2007 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have set you off. I didn't mean that I personally would be adding the material to the page. I meant I would be happy (for us) to add suitable material.

Most of your text looks OK. The last bit, however, makes it sound as though there was a series of actual events, with Luke and Matthew recounting those events from different perspectives. But that's the devotional viewpoint, not the historical one. A version of the same material that would be in line with historical-critical scholarship would go something like this: "Matthew's narrative focuses on Joseph, while Luke's focuses on Mary. Jesus' birth occurs near the beginning of Matthew's story and near the end of Luke's." Since Matthew's narrative was written first, it should go first. The bit about whether the action takes place before or after Jesus' birth doesn't seem to be of any historical import and is probably only relevant to the devotional readers who want to reconcile the two narratives. But if you have a good source that presents this information in a historical context, it's OK.

Now if you have a reliable source that says that these two evangelists are actually telling the same story from two different perspectives, let's see that.

In the future, would you be able to include the publishing houses with references? Some publishers are mainstream and others are sectarian, and it's important to keep them separate. Leadwind (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not see the logic in those statements, or in the approach. And I must point out that I asked for errors, and none can be shown. I have checked my text. I should also say that I do not see why I have to submit material to a "central approval authority" before including text that is fully referenced by WP:RS sources. The sources are clearly WP:RS and the authors are respectable. I have checked. The statement that Luke places Mary at the center of his story was deleted based on the claim of not having "any takers". I think it is now clear that the statement is widely stated in a number of WP:RS sources. And I do not see what that statement has to do with historicity or if any of the episodes took place or not. In any case, I changed event to episode and there no need to even discuss events any more. The statement that Luke mentions Mary many more times in his account does not assume or deny the historicity of the narrative. It just states what the sources say. And they are all WP:RS sources. Again, and again, these are narratives laden with angelic references. They can be discussed regardless of historicity because as far as I know angelic episodes are not historical. Any discussion of the historicity of angels singing is beside the point in stating that the angels sang. Hence I see no reason for any changes to this statement. The same applies to the statement that Matthew places more emphasis on Joseph. As to which statement is made first in that sentence, I see no reason to traverse time in reverse gear. Luke is a longer account and deals with John the Baptist etc. and the focus relates to the pre-birth episodes. There is no assumption of historicity of angels, or lack thereof here at all and no need to drive in reverse gear with respect to the birth episode. I see no reason to change it at all. Compared to much of the content in Wikipedia this statement is very well referenced and well supported. And it should not have been deleted in the first place. History2007 (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This sentence still isn't right: "Luke's focus on the episodes prior to the birth of Jesus." The sentence makes it sound as though there were episodes before and after the birth, and that Luke chose to focus on the one's before the birth. That's the approach of people trying to reconcile the two accounts, as if Luke's story is just one side of a larger narrative. Can we say "Luke's story takes place mostly before the birth of Jesus and centers on Mary, while Matthew's story takes place mostly after Jesus' birth and centers on Joseph"? That's neutral, without the implication that the two stories are two different perspectives on a single series of events. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no difference in substance between the two statements, but given that I see them as equivalent, we can close the discussion on this specific sentence and conclude it as: "Luke's story takes place mostly before the birth of Jesus and centers on Mary, while Matthew's story takes place mostly after the birth of Jesus and centers on Joseph". We can then move on to other issues. The next issue will be the selection of references and I will start a new subsection on that below given that this subsection is hard to read now. History2007 (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, History. Leadwind (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference selection via WP:RS

In terms of references, the two key problems I see are that on one hand the historicity section of this article is performing "Vermes worship" and on the other it is about to achieve the "deification of Sanders". These two authors are used in the text again and again. However, Wikipedia can not exist on 27 references alone, 3 per topic. That way 3 author would dominate all articles on physics, 3 for chemistry and 3 for religion, etc. I keep chuckling that in this process of analyzing the New Testament based just 3 authors, a "new new testament" is getting created as the writings of Vermes and Sanders get regarded as the "new new" gospels that are the only books permitted as Wikipedia references. However, the reality is that there are many other theologians out there and that the unending worship of 3 very specific authors need not take place. Other authors, WP:RS sources and perspectives must be included in Wikipedia articles by WP:TPA. In general keeping a myopic view of references does not help Wikipedia readers.

Part of the reference selection issue hinged on the statement above about the "open secret" of student's mindsets being irreparably shaped in seminaries during their formative years and their future writings not being acceptable in Wikipedia. This suggests that I should get myself an "open secret meter" to determine where these secrets are kept. Is it also the case that anyone who was an undergraduate at the University of Chicago and took classes in economics also is irreparably brainwashed to follow freshwater ideologies? Is there no hope for these people? Should Wikipedia assume that by virtue of their undergraduate studies they should always be labeled as "secterian economists" and viewed as second class citizens who are followers of Milton Friedman? That is clearly not the case. One can not construct a "freshwater ghetto" to separate the ideas of those who studied in Chicago school of economics, nor separate those who have taken classes in seminaries to a "Christian ghetto" of thought.

However, just in case, is there a Wikipedia page where editors can apply for a Wikipedia approved open secret meter after a certain number of edits? If so please point me to that page and I will mail in the coupon to get my own open secret meter so I can verify these statements about the open secrets. I hope I can plug it into the "taker meter" I just ordered. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind is arguing that "scholars" overwhelmingly take the view that the narratives are ahistorical and that only Christian apologists take the view that the narratives are historical. It would be good to find a quote that says exactly that. Even if Leadwind provided 100 scholars who took the view that the narratives were ahistorical, that would not constitute adequate proof that Leadwind's selection was not based on some sort of biased "cherrypicking".

On the flip side, if History2007 wants to assert that some scholars do view the narratives as being historical, then we need to see citations to such scholars. Leadwind can then challenge those scholars as apologists if he wishes but that wouldn't preclude the inclusion of their views according to WP:NPOV. :--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And as stated above, I am not arguing for the historicity of angelic appearances, and my comment was even more general and amounted to the statement that: "three authors an encyclopedia do not make". History2007 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Three authors can support an encyclopedic article if they are the leading proponents of the only three perspectives on the topic (and the topic of the article is sufficiently small that there aren't multiple large subtopics). The question is: which leading sources are being omitted here? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not if the 3 authors state just one perspective, as is the case with Vermes, Sanders and the third one. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So what sources would you offer to contrast the positions of those three? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources that can be added Richard, and there are multiple perspectives that need to be further explored via WP:TPA. But first, I would like to discuss the general use of "open secret meters", etc. just to know where to order my own meter. But since you asked for specifics, I do want an explanation why the "double referenced" statement that circumstances of the birth of Jesus were not public knowledge during his life and were deliberately kept restricted to a small group of early Christians for many years after his death faced summary execution with just a brief comment here. That statement can even be triple referenced, etc. but should not have been deleted in the first place. But before we discuss specifics I would like to address the open secret meter, and point out that such devices can not be used to delete referenced text willy nilly via summary execution. History2007 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:WEIGHT. We give a view coverage commensurate with the coverage that we see it getting in our commonly accepted reference texts and in disinterested secondary and tertiary sources. These mainstream sources treat the narratives as inventions based on scripture, so that's what we should do. History, it's easy to prove me wrong. Just find a good, neutral encyclopedia or college-level textbook that covers a different point of view. For all I know, there really is one out there and I just haven't seen it. From what I can see, however, our best scholars (Brown, Sanders, Vermes, etc.) and our best tertiary sources (my Harris textbook, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Encyclopedia Britannica Online) never lift a finger to defend the historicity of these accounts. They don't even mention scholars who do so. Now that we've established the historical-critical viewpoint ("invention"), we can freely cite any authors that agree with it, and we can identify opposed sources as representing other than the historical-critical viewpoint. If you want to discuss the "Jesus' birth was secret" citation, let's see it and its source. It sounds like a Christian apologetic explanation for why Paul didn't know about the virgin birth, Matthew didn't know about the census, Luke didn't know about the wise men, etc. Historical-critical scholars don't need any explanation for that, so the "secret birth" hypothesis is beside the point for them. Leadwind (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard, "Even if Leadwind provided 100 scholars who took the view that the narratives were ahistorical, that would not constitute adequate proof that Leadwind's selection was not based on some sort of biased "cherrypicking"." But that's not how WP:WEIGHT works. Instead of us as editors trying to tot up scholars on one side or another to derive a balance, we let the experts do that for us. The experts write commonly accepted reference texts that tell us how much weight to give each side in a debate. They're telling us that there is no debate, and that (historically speaking) it's a settled issue. Devotionally speaking, of course, there are other viewpoints. Leadwind (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, yes, tertiary sources can help establish which is the majority view and whether it is overwhelming or not. Failure of multiple tertiary sources to mention a minority view suggest that it is a fringe view. However, if tertiary sources mention more than one view, it really takes an explicit quote to assert that one is the majority view, especially if we are to assert that it is so overwhelmingly in the majority that the minority view is effectively "non-scholarly". The "gold standard" here would be a quote that explicitly dismisses the minority view and asserts that ahistoricity is not just the majority view but the consensus view. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

However Richard I should point out that the issue of historicity does not even apply to the discussion of the public knowledge of the birth stories during the life of Jesus, given that that statement is independent of historicity. So the birth stories may be historical or not, but the issue of how many members of the public knew said stories is independent of their historicity. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh...yes, I understand that but I'm confused, what exactly is your point here? Knowledge of the stories is part of the historicity question is it not? The question is about whether the facts were widely known (and thus not easily fabricated) as opposed to not widely known and therefore susceptible to fabrication, interpolation, etc. It also helps explain things like Paul not writing about these details in his epistles which are understood to have been written before the gospels. I am not taking sides on this question. I think we should present the claim and all significant views about it, both supporting and opposing. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the mantra of WP:WEIGHT again. But none of that forbids the entry of the fact that the circumstances of the birth of Jesus were not common knowledge during his life. What on earth does that have to do with historicity? The nativity could be historical or not and the story could have been secret of not. These are independent statements. It is a different aspect that can be included by WP:TPA. You had, and still have no right for the summary deletion of that referenced statement. Regarding your statement that: "If you want to discuss the "Jesus' birth was secret" citation, let's see it and its source." Its source was in the text before you deleted it. I do not need to provide it to you for approval as though you were the "official approval authority" for my edits. It is fully referenced text and can not be excluded from Wikipedia via the "let us see it before we approve it" attitude. You can not assume approval authority over what text is entered into an article via WP:OWN. You are hereby advised to avoid ownership claims over what referenced text can be used in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Public knowledge of the birth stories

I would like to discuss the summary deletion of the "double referenced" statement that circumstances of the birth of Jesus were not public knowledge during his life. It was deleted with just a brief comment here. It had two references and there are other references too, e.g. Mercer dictionary of the Bible 1998 ISBN 0865543739 page 445. I am hereby requiring an exact, policy based reason why this text can be deleted or blocked from the article, given that by WP:TPA it is an aspect that is ignored in the article, and can and must be explored, for it is supported by WP:RS references. It is just "one sentence" and there is no need to make a huge WP:WEIGHT argument over it, given the long discussions of other topics and aspects. Indeed, it needs to be even expanded as a discussion. By WP:TPA, the discussion of this aspect of the Nativity story can not be blocked from Wikipedia via ownership and censorship claims of authority, given the WP:RS references, and in the absence of solid references that directly refute the statement. History2007 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Even references that refute a sourced assertion are not necessarily sufficient to delete a sourced statement. NPOV requires that we present all significant viewpoints. I suspect the question is whether the assertion is "fringe". If it is then "due weight" applies. Let's see what Leadwind says. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The assertion appears in multiple WP:RS sources. Of course anyone can try to apply an adhesive fringe sticker to any statement that fits WP:I just don't like it, but this statement is not fringe. It appears in multiple respected sources, and there is no competing theory that the birth stories were widely available public knowledge. And again, the issue of historicity does not even apply to the discussion of the public knowledge of the birth stories during the life of Jesus, given that the statement is independent of historicity. How many people knew the story is not an endorsement or denial of the historicity of the story. To go back to the flat earth theory again, the statement that the flat earth theory was known to a few people is not an endorsement or denial of the flat earth theory. It states the number of people who knew it without endorsing or denying the theory itself. Please do excuse me if I feel like I am teaching an introductory course on logic here, but that is what it looks like to me. So the repetition of the mantra about historicity will not amount to a logical argument, given that this statement is independent of historicity. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. On a stray note, both the sources which were used to make that statement appeared to be non mainstream to me. Whatever may be the case, I am not sure if you have considered all the nuances of making this claim. It's not as if there is no play on this issue. There are multiple scholarly RS which throw a differing light around this point. Given this, I would say that had I been in your place, I would prefer not to make this claim in the article, as a way of avoiding the prospect of counterclaims. However, it is up to you to decide what you want to do.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would "prefer not to make this claim" for fear of counterclaims. WP:NPOV suggests that we should present all POVs: claims and counterclaims. We should not avoid controversy; we should document it without taking sides other than to indicate which claims are mainstream, which are minority and with are fringe. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree Richard: let us get the story in the open. We will learn more, and the readers will learn too. History2007 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Civilized, I see no reason why a book by a professor at the University of Waterloo is not acceptable as a WP:RS source. These are clearly WP:RS sources. The measure of mainstreamness can be quite subjective at times, but professors in major universities can not just be ignored. In any case, there is a 3rd source also Mercer dictionary of the Bible 1998 ISBN 0865543739 page 445. As for counter claims, I would like to know what the other theories are. It will be educational for myself and the other reader. In the end many readers with "enquiring minds" will ask: "where did the evangelists get these narratives?" That answer will either be guess work on the part of the reader or the article should provide it. There is no point in avoiding a question that readers such as myself are asking. Where did they get the narratives? Did Luke dream it? Was he told by early church members? Did he read it in the Wailing Wall Street Journal? Enquiring minds will want answers. Wikipidea should try to provide these answers from multiple perspectives. History2007 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The counter claim, obviously, would be that the circumstance of Jesus birth were known to all around him. Some sources take the view that Joseph was the father. But others make some different earthly assertions. And also spell out the social consequences. I wouldn't want to be more specific, unless pressed hard to do so. I still think that you may reconsider making this claim in the article. It's not very hard to do so now.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Like CE says, these are not mainstream sources but Christian sources. The idea that Matthew and Luke are different because the details of Jesus' birth was secret isn't a historical idea but a devotional one. Historians don't need an explanation for why the two narratives are different. Two different people wrote them at different times for different audiences. Only Christian apologists need an explanation for why they're so different. This interpretation never appears in commonly accepted reference texts or in disinterested secondary and tertiary sources. With that in mind, let's put the material in the "traditional views" section and not in the historical views section. That way, we honor TPA but don't let sectarian apology appear as if it's historical scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So I assume you do not object to the inclusion of the statement, but want to include it in the traditional views section. I do not mind expanding the traditional views section, but again this issue of "label application" to authors needs to be resolved. On a separate note, the addition of the L source 'M' source links etc. does address part of the enquiring minds issue, but still the label application issue needs to be addressed. Let us take a world famous scholar and theologian as an example. Let us say Karl Rahner. Is there a Wikipedia policy that prohibits Rahner's writings as being used as a 1st class reference? Should he be relegated to a second class citizen due to his training? I see no reason for not using Rahner as a reference as valid as any other per WP:RS. For instance, when Rahner says on page 731 of his book: "The gospels do not in general provide enough details of dates to satisfy the demands of modern historians." is he viewed as a Christian author or a scholar? He is clearly a first class scholar by any measure, so I see no reason for treating him less than intelligent. So I see the application of these labels as very, very subjective. However, the expansion of teh traditional Christian views section may be in order anyway. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"World famous scholar" is not our criteria. What we see is academic standing. Generally, you can use any source to say what mainstream scholarly sources also say. However, it is very much preferable that we stick to scholars with a good academic standing. If they have a fine academic standing, it does not matter whether they are christian or muslim or whatever. However, if they are not having a good academic standing, all kinds of issues crop up. Their bias would need attribution, etc. My way (supported by WP:RS) of determining academic standing is to look at the publishers of the sources. If the author has got most of his/her books published by well regarded, academic presses, he has a fine academic standing. And more well regarded the publisher, better the academic standing. However, if most of his/her works were published by apologistic/atheistic presses, he is a sectarian source, not academic. Again, if this same source has got some of his works published by academic presses, he would be an academic source for those works, but not for the rest of his/her works. I may add that the works published by, say, the press from a Presbyterian university would not generally count as an academic work.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So 1st question: where is the actual Wiki-policy for this that states that in Wiki-language? 2nd question, does your approach apply to freshwater economists as a category, as secterian and is anything published by the University of Chicago Press a secterian publication due to Freedman's influence? And 3rd question, what is Karl Rahner? History2007 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's in WP:V here. It says a lot of things, but for determining the reliability of authors or books, I prefer to look at the publishers. Looking at publishers as a way of determining reliability is there. As, for your other questions, they would require investigation which I would not do unless I was in some dispute about them. As for Rahner, you may try to determine it yourself to see how many of his books are published by academic publishers, how many by sectarian presses, and how many by some other commercial presses which have no leanings on any side.-Civilizededucation^talk 19:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have in fact read WP:SOURCES, but it does not give the exact algorithm that you suggested. Your algorithm does sound like common sense, but I wish the Wikipage gave an exact algorithm, as you did - yet WP:SOURCES does not give a clear cut algorithm. My real problem is that it is along with knowledge come viewpoints, e.g. if you do look at the top economists they all have viewpoints - indeed it would be an understatement to say that most of the world's top economists are "at each others' throats" most of the time. All they ever do is criticize each other, and label (or shall I say libel) each other. Similarly anyone who has detailed knowledge of the Bible probably did not learn that at a Department of Chemical Engineering anywhere and learned it at some religious oriented institute. And that opens the Pandora's Box. Now regarding publishers, WP:SOURCES does say a few vague things but the word "publisher" only appears twice on that page, once referring to Wikipedia itself. Who publishes a book is in many, many (if not most) cases determined but what the author received as a down payment. But that is another story. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We appear to have some agreement about sourcing issues. In order to form a better idea of reliability, it may be good to keep in mind what is the best, and what is the worst source. Looking at WP:V the best appears to be defined by Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.and the worst by Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional,…. To see why it is important to stick to the better sources, a history professor's views about the quality of material being produced by biblical scholars [1]. -Civilizededucation^talk 10:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you do that deliberately? If so, that was good and funny. The book was published by University of Chicago Press just as we were discussing its being secterian or not. And yes, there is usually (but not always) good quality among university presses, but most of them try to pay little and get fewer authors. They form a very small island in the sea of books that satisfy WP:RS. So just restricting everything to them limits the scope of knowledge in general. If you go to the book fairs, you will see a few academic publishers, but the big names have many more titles. As for the criticism of specific groups of scholars by the historian in that book, it was in fact rather mild, compared to the kind of criticism that Eugene Fama and his cronies in Chicago receive about their work. Just do a few searches and you will see. It is "murder she wrote" when people attack those ideas. So is he secterian? Are his publications 2nd class? Moreover, with the consolidation in the book industry, it is not clear who is who any more. Moreover, I can categorically say that it is not in general true that a statement appearing in book by a well known academic publisher is "more correct" than others. So just being an academic publisher does not always amount to absolute truth. In fact I still do not see a "clean algorithm" based on Wiki-policies for attaching a secterian label to a given author or publisher. That was why I suggested Rahner and the University of Chicago Press as a test case. If there is an algorithm, we need to see how it applies to him/them, as a start. However, said algorithm can not be crafted for religious topics alone and should also apply to physics, chemistry, economics, computers, etc. if it is based on Wiki-policies. If I have to read a book link that you provide to form an opinion about methods of reference selection, I guess that is because there is no Wikilink that states the same. That is why I can not see a clean "label attachment algorithm" in Wikipolicies that can be used in general to label a person or a publisher as secterian. Is there one? History2007 (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not do it deliberately, whatever you have in mind that I did. What did I do? If you do not see any value in the way which I have suggested, perhaps you could show the proper way to determine reliability? I think looking at publishers is the best way to determine reliability. They are experts. Not all are equally well regarded, so I agree with you in a way. But still, this appears to be the best way to me. The book is not about ways to determining reliability. It is saying something about the quality of work being done by biblical scholars. And please keep in mind that, whatever way you suggest, it works both ways. If you come up with a way which would allow all scholarly sources to have equal reliability, many wacky atheistic sources would also become usable. I don't think we need extreme or promotional sources. I think sectarian sources are those which do not have a fine academic standing, and exist only to promote a particular point of view. You also seem to have taken an exception at weight issues being applied to this article. Actually WP:Weight is the policy which controls article content. I don't see why it should not be a consideration. And the new quote which you introduced seems to be like hyperbolic preaching to me. IMO we should stick to current scholarly sources to note the traditional view.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

By deliberately I meant deliberately selecting a book published in Chicago as a pun. It would have been a great pun, given that we were discussing that school. Sorry if it sounded otherwise. It would have made a good pun. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the attachment of labels is highly subjective not juts in religion, but also in economics, etc. and that Wikipedia does not have a clear policy for attaching a secterian label to a given author. The question then becomes "is this author a good scholar?" and my point then is that the publisher may give some indication of that, but is not a determining factor in itself by any measure. And there is no Wikipolicy that states the weight that can be attached to the publisher vs the person. I selected Fama and Winston carefully, I should say. So it seems to me that the secterian label in Wikipedia is rather subjective and can not be applied in a definite manner. In fact is there a Wikipedia page that defines "secterian publisher"? And again, I selected Rahner because he is so well known that even if he gets published by his cousin, he would still be a totally reliable source, and a top scholar. So a publisher does not an author make, I think. Each case needs to be weighed and discussed carefully in its own merit, and in the end there is no specific adhesive label (or even a clear definition) for secterian that I can see in Wikipedia. As I see it, promotional is not the same as secterian the way you are using it. So what is secterian? Is Fama's group a sect of economists? Many would say he is, and some would even say that his group is a cult in the field of economics and make these accusations and worse. So labels are not easy to define I think. And I see no direct Wikipolicy for label application. That was why I asked if there is one apart from the 2 of us defining our own via agreement. For our agreement will last only until a new IP arrives. That is why Wikipolicies need to be used, or an acceptance of the fact that the decisions are subjective. And my questions really go far beyond this page or any specific quote in it. So let us forget that quote. The general question is "does Wikipedia provide adhesive secterian labels in any field"? I do not know of any. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be off on a tangent. Our particular task is to evaluate the Christian sources that say maybe Jesus' birth details were secret. Per WP:WEIGHT, we first determine what the majority, mainstream view is. It is that these are two separate, contradictory, invented narratives. Scholars who agree with the mainstream view (Christian or not) are cited to describe that viewpoint for our readers. Scholars who disagree with the mainstream view are cited to describe their alternate, minority viewpoints. These Christian sources are offering an explanation for how Matthew and Luke could both be right, and that's a Christian devotional project, not a historical one. That's how we differentiate mainstream Christian scholars (Wright, Borg, Crossan, Brown, etc.) from non-mainstream Christian scholars (e.g., Cox and Easely). Now that this is explained, can we put the Christian apology material in the traditional views section? Alternatively, if someone can find a commonly accepted reference text or a disinterested secondary or tertiary source that reports this argument as a legitimate part of the historical field, then we can include it with the historical information.Leadwind (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC) PS: The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible was written exclusively by Baptists; it's not a commonly accepted reference text. Leadwind (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

CE is also right that you can tell a lot by looking at the publisher. Sometimes there's a Christian scholar, such as F. F. Bruce, whose neutral, mainstream work is published by mainstream publishers while his more sectarian work is published by InterVarsity Press. Leadwind (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No actually I do not agree on either point. First, the discussion is essential here, since the "secterian label" may be used again and again. You have used it yourself, and I do not know which type of secterian meter is being used, and where to order my own. Hence we need to clarify exactly, exactly what Wikipolicies are being used to label authors and publishers. This issue is beyond this quote. It is a general issue that needs to be addressed if the "secterian label" is to be used ta all. And I am not sure what "tell a lot" means. As I said Rahner can get published by his cousin and still meet WP:RS and I am still not getting an answer if the University of Chicago press is secterian. I will start that discussion below, regardless of any specific issues for that quote herein. History2007 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

two narratives or one in the gallery?

Currently, the gallery mixes scenes from Matthew's and Luke's stories together, as if they told a single story in three parts. It even labels one of the scenes from Luke as if it's also a scene from Matthew(!). I changed the gallery to reflect the mainstream view that the two narratives are separate, so scenes from Luke's Christmas story are together and scenes from Matthew's "little Moses" story are together. History reverted me. Now that there are a few other editors on the talk page, I'd like feedback on the idea that the gallery should treat the two narratives as two narratives instead of one. Leadwind (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not have a problem in separating the gallery, now that the issue of Luke being mentioned first has been addressed (and no need for driving in reverse on that was discussed) above and both of the deleted text issues have been addressed. I reverted that specifically because it was part of the WP:BRD general revert I had performed and on the section. And I think it needs to be discussed in that context. History2007 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well. I just noticed that you reordered the gallery while I was typing this. In the interest of WP:BRD you should have really waited for me to agree, which I was doing while you were re-arranging. But I will not revert it now since I had agreed in parallel. However, a few more scenes and links in each are needed and I will add those. History2007 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I did wait until you agreed. You said you didn't have a problem with it, so I did it. Thanks for not reverting the edit you agreed to. And thanks for adding more scenes. Do you think you could find one of the Star of Bethlehem? That's a major element of Matthew's narrative. I see you put a Luke scene in the Matthew gallery (with manger and ox). I took that out, since it doesn't reflect Matthew's narrative. Matthew never narrates the scene in which Jesus is born. Leadwind (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you just did it the Nike way. As for the gallery, we should probably not try to overload it. I generally try to keep them 4 to the row, with either 2 or 3 rows. It looks neat that way. The star is probably not a huge element of the story, so I am not thathot on it, given that the Magi are there already. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK... now that you have separated the gallery into two sections, one for Matthew and one for Luke, why not move each gallery into the section for each gospel and get rid of the separate section just for pictures? One might consider expanding the section on each gospel so that there is enough text to just merge the images into the article text in line. But for now, just put the photos at the end of the section for each gospel. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually we separated it to Luke and Matthew, not Matthew and Luke... just kidding. It makes no huge difference if the images go with the text, but if you prefer that, no big deal. History2007 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way Richard, I did what you suggested and it does look better now. History2007 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

History's edits

Thanks for your recent work on the page. Nicely done. I'm a little sore that the canticles are moved to the Art section because I think of them as sources for Luke rather than elaborations on Luke, but we've got other issues to contend with. Leadwind (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia provide adhesive labels for authors and publishers?

Given that the issue of "secterian publisher" came about, I would like to understand and clarify this issue. My reading of WP:RS is that a source either satisfies WP:RS or it does not. I see no caste system that classifies sources as first class, second class, etc. And I see no specific Wikipolicy that uses the label "secterian publisher" or "secterian author". Have I missed these Wikipages? If so, please provide links. Prior to the French Revolution some people with less than a certain amount of annual income were considered half citizens (a page that needs to built and I will get to it later). But I see no such classification in Wikipedia. Am I missing it? Are there half-references?

And what are the exact algorithms to be used for attaching these secterian labels? I have seen a "suggested algorithm" above, but that is mostly a personal algorithm, which amounts to common sense reasoning, but I do not see it as policy by any measure. It would be purely subjective in many cases. I see no secterian label algorithm in Wikipedia. I think an academic author can be measured based on his/her own credentials, and not blocked simply because he selected a publisher that provided a larger royalty rate. I see no Wikialgoritm for attaching secterian labels to authors - and indeed I would say that if such an algorithm existed, many academic publishers such as University of Chicago Press would have to be excluded from Wikipedia. Comments and clarifications with specific policy page references will be appreciated. However, in my view, just saying that "University X is Baptist" so they are not WP:RS does not refer to a specific policy just as saying the University of Chicago is a freshwater university, so it does not meet WP:RS. That is clearly not the case. History2007 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a "caste" system. However, it is not one that is rigidly defined and your efforts to define it are a waste of time. It is unclear exactly what the ranking is but there are clearly prominent people in a field and less prominent ones. Those who have been the dean of the field for decades and those who are brash young PhD's trying to make a name for themselves. There are major articles in big city newspapers with nationwide readership like the New York Times and the Washington Post and there are minor human interest stories in local newspapers. It is difficult if not impossible to specify rules that will apply in all situations. This is the stuff of Talk Page debate. Even the "dean of the field" may become obsoleted by new thinking but it is not always possible to know whether that new thinking has become the mainstream or is simply a fad that will fade away once enough people have given it sufficient critical analysis.

As for the "xyz source is Baptist", the question shouldn't be whether someone is Catholic, Baptist or atheist. The question should be whether they have the credentials and professional/academic stature to be considered with respect vs. being dismissed as an apologist or polemicist.

It would help if you get down to specifics rather than engaging in broad generalizations.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the above defined as a Wikipolicy Richard, or do I need to ask other users to explain it to me again and again? Where can I read a policy to be sure what you just told me is correct? Or is this folklore? I can not rely on folklore. And just hearing "go read WP:WEIGHT" for the 17th time does not help, because this is not defined there. But you did make a statement: namely you stated that the fact that Mercer dictionary of the Bible is published by a Baptist university does not automatically disqualify it as a WP:RS source. What Leadwind said seems to be that in his mind, being a Baptist University is the mark of death for the books published by said University. I do not think so at all. In any case, if we have to argue among ourselves, that means ONLY one thing: "there is no algorithmic policy" that disqualifies publishers based on the type of university, etc. as I had suspected. Hence the Mercer dictionary of the Bible is not on the list of automatically rejected university publishers. In fact, I think there is no such list in Wikipedia. Hence I will freely use the Mercer dictionary of the Bible as a reference as of now, unless a clear, clear, clear Wikipedia page is provided that says it is mucho verboten. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

History2007, please stop your histrionics and wikilawyering. Policy reflects and documents consensus which means that if consensus is at odds with policy then it is policy that has to change. You are not a Wikinewbie. You've been around here long enough to know that this is the way things work. If the consensus is against a particular source, then it is likely to be disregarded even if it is technically a reliable source. WP:NPOV says that we should present all POVs while not giving any of them undue weight. The current argument seems to be that certain sources are not good sources of objective historical analysis because they are apologetical and/or polemical in nature. There is no easy way to resolve such a dispute except to find other sources which make that assertion. I would generally think that you should be able to use the "Mercer dictionary of the Bible" and challenge others to present sources that refute and/or dismiss what is thought to be controversial or false. I myself am a little concerned with the attempt to put the faith-based POV in its own little ghetto for those who believe in myth and fantasy. I think we need to be much more explicit about the opposing viewpoints and provide quotes to back up the assertion that no prominent historian believes that Luke and Matthew's accounts are historical (if that is what you are on about at the moment). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, nope and nope. No histrionics and no wikilawyering. And "how things work" means folklore. I can not follow folklore, because folklore changes as it moves from person to person. That is what policies are for. My main goal was to either refute or establish the "adhesive secterian label" argument regarding Baptist universities, etc. It was being used too freely. Long and short of it, I think the "Mercer dictionary of the Bible" can be used, as I said above. And there is no policy for adhesive label application to publishers if they are based in a specific university. End of discussion. My main problem was the blanket label attachment method being taken for granted, and I think we now know that there is no policy for that type of adhesive label attachment. End of story.

And I think you have totally misread my take on the historical date details. The quote you need is in fact by the person I have been discussing: Karl Rahner: "The gospels do not in general provide enough details of dates to satisfy the demands of modern historians", a concise Sacramentum mundi, page 731. And now that we know Rahner can not have an adhesive label attached to his forehead, his quote can be used. But it is necessary to establish that Rahner is a 1st class scholar regardless of who publishes him, without automatic secterian label attachment to his forehead. History2007 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That he says something like this is not enough to make him above considerations regarding his reliability which would be based on his publishers. We do need to look at his publishers if we need to use this quote. Actually the NT does not provide any exact date, for almost any event. And do you see anything in WP:V which could mean something that would change the way you want to do things.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Rahner was saying what you just said about the events, and he just said they do not satisfy modern historians, thus establishing a "review of the field" rather than any editor here guessing about it by selecting a sampling of books to say: "most authors I have read say ...". And what I wanted to do by discussing labels was clarify the label attachment issue so it does not get invoked at random. History2007 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have got the sense that you do not see any specific meaning in WP:V, WP:weight. There are things that I want to do, but do not because of WP:V etc. I do not go about claiming that it is not saying anything specific. I think it is clear and specific withing reasonable and practical limits.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think WP:V is the very basis of all Wikipedia. But I think different people interpret it very differently. My view of it is that if an author is a professor or a PhD type and has no major published claims of fraud against him, he passed WP:V. So I think Fama, Rahner, etc. etc. all pass WP:V regardless of their publishers. In the case of Rahner there are 5 or 6 books about him and his work, comparing him to Aquinas. So he could get published by Valpak coupons or something like that and still meet WP:V. History2007 (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just having a degree is not enough to get material in article space. WP:V also shows which sources are better and which are worse. Do you see anything like that there?-Civilizededucation^talk 03:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we are getting to specifics now. It says that there are three source types: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. What is not provided is a formula: (A*x + B*y + C*z) for adding these items with three parameters. I think in 5 years the day may come when such parameters will be provided. Hence the author is a source himself. As we have said, there are vague elements in Wikipedia. Now, as an aside, and I do not know how aside is aside, some low level books are now using Wikipedia "verbatim". I happened to recognize some things I had written in Wikipedia used verbatim as a chapter in a printed book. So in 5-7 years the cycle will change and the rules will change. But for now, authors are a source component on their own. And a reliable author can be considered a reliable source. Milton Freedman could publish on the back of a napkin and still meet WP:V. History2007 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that he is a Nobel laureate. So, I could agree. However, could you stick to giving biblical scholars as examples, more specifically, ones which you want to use? That way, it would be meaningful to do an investigation. Otherwise, I don't see the usefulness of investigating guys like Rahner. And how many nobel laureates can we find among biblical scholars? So, do you think looking at publishers is a more reliable way of determining reliability? That way, we would be tagging along with expert opinion and avoid having to make much of a judgment based on our own idiosyncratic ideas.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Schweitzer is one biblical scholar who got a Nobel. How many more?-Civilizededucation^talk 11:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let us take a specific example. The same example I started with. I think Karl Rahner is the best first example. His Wikipedia page lists 5 books about him. So he is clearly well established. And there are even more books about him on Amazon. So I think Rahner is a 1st class scholar and I see no barrier to using quotes from him and no reason for confining his quotes to specific zones of the articles. Do you see concrete reasons why this is not the case? Let us deal with him as a first biblical example. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

History, if what CE and I say makes no sense to you, why not make a request for comment or something? Long, tangential conversations aren't likely to get us toward consensus. Leadwind (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I may yet do that, but first let me see what the topic would be. Rfcs take up time, and there are other routes for determining policy. And I would need to get specific answers from you and show that we could not agree before anything. So please provide answers to the questions below. The way I see it is that both Richard and myself see no barrier to the use of the Mercer bible dictionary. You seem to think that it can be used but its contents need to be confined to what may be called an "intellectual ghetto" because it is by a Baptist university - and I see no Wikipedia policy for zone creation. Is there one? Richard also seems to oppose ghetto creation. So first three questions to you Leadwind are:

• which policy states that text can be relegated to specific corners of an article?

• which policy states that adhesive labels can be attached to Baptist universities, or specific biblical scholars in general?

• Can and should similar labels be attached to anything written at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem? Should their thoughts on Judaism be considered secterian and rejected?

As said before, I do not have a major problem just expanding the Traditional Christian views section, but given that Richard was also opposed to the ghetto, I thing that needs to be discussed. I think you need to answer these questions first. If you are "of the opinion" that Wikipedia works that way, where did you get that opinion? That needs to be clarified first before we go further. Please clarify the policy-basis reasons you are using. On that note you could also address the question about the scholarship of Karl Rahner. Is he not a 1st class scholar? His Wikipedia page itself says that he is in the top 3 theologians of the 20th century. So I see no reason why he can not be treated as a fully quotable scholar. Do you? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You know the french word for a believer 'croyant', - maybe there should be two sections - " The Nativity - (1:'croyant' academics/writers views on, as detailed in luke/mathew/heterodox Xtian texts) / The Nativity (2: non-croyant academic/writers views on, as detailed in etc..). Sayerslle (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not really mind the Berlin wall type separation Sayerslle, as I said above, but we need to know that it does not step over policy. I would prefer not to create a ghetto, but then the question may be: "which side of of the wall is the ghetto?" So if there is enough support for a Berlin wall, and it can be supported by policy that may happen. However, the actual biblical text itself is not being debated, e.g. no one disagrees that the relevant chapters are chapters 1 and 2 and there is nothing in chapter 5 of Matthew on Nativity. It is the historicity and interpretations that may need the wall - if it does not run against policy. But let us see what Richard thinks as well. History2007 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK History, let's start with the merits of the information you want to cite (about Jesus' "secret birth"). Find out how much coverage that concept gets in our commonly accepted reference texts and in our disinterested secondary and tertiary sources. (I've never seen any, but maybe you know where to find such coverage.) Alternatively, demonstrate that prominent scholars hold this viewpoint. If there's no coverage of the idea in our mainstream sources, then we shouldn't cover the idea at all. (I'm willing to go easy on this point and allow the material on the page, provided it's not presented as historical scholarship.) Brown, Vermes and Sanders are recognized authorities whose conclusions are reflected in mainstream coverage, so they warrant lots of coverage here. Just show that "secret birth" ideas are also part of mainstream scholarship, or that the scholars cited are recognized as authorities. Leadwind (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No this is not about the birth secret at all. As for your statement "I'm willing to go easy on this point and allow the material on the page" well, that did generate a chuckle. I did not know you had the special authority to "allow/disallow" things. Let us forget about the birth secret as an issue for now - or forever. The questions I asked were about the general label on Karl Rahner as an author and the general label on the Mercer bible dictionary as a book. I directly asked you specific, policy related questions about them above. I see no answers. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Allow" only means "no one is stopping you", which means "you can go ahead without any worries about being reverted". Now, I see you don't want to. So, it means you have begun to see at least one point. But you don't seem to appreciate it. As for the label thing, things have to be discussed on the talk page and have to be identified somehow. "Sectarian" is generally seen as a soft word for what they actually are. I see no problem with this word. The problem I see is that someone keeps trying to disregard policies by claiming that they are vague. WP:V does show us how to find out which sources are better and which are worse. How do we talk about the quality of sources without using this type of words. You won't have much encounter with these words if you could come up with high quality sources. There are a lot of poor quality sources out there, and Wikipedia does not much like them. So, we have to discuss them when they come up. There is nothing wrong with discussing them on the talk page and using these terms for them.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was just trying not to get too narrow on that point, because I was trying to clarify the general label issue, that was why I started a separate section. Now, regarding Karl Rahner and the Mercer dictionary, can we have a definite answer please? I assume you are not objecting to Rahner or the Mercer dictionary on a blanket basis. Given that it seems that neither you nor Leadwind is objecting to either Rahner or the Mercer dictionary on a label attachment basis, can we conclude this issue as one with a "no objection" conclusion and move on? History2007 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That I don't object to Rahner or Mercer dictionary is because I have not even investigated them till now. However, this does not mean that I could not form a view later. Generally, if I find too poor a source, I delete them. So, if they have too poor an academic standing, and exist only to promote a particular point of view, I could view them as WP:QS and delete them.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but as of this moment, you have no objection to them. Fine. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that this whole discussion has been a little bit confusing to me because of the vagueness of some of the terms and circumlocutions. What precisely is meant by "label attachment"? Is it the idea that some authors and sources should be characterized as "sectarian"? In general, I am opposed to label attachment unless we are presenting a specific POV which is being contrasted with others (especially a minority POV). In general, it should be the POV which is labeled as minority or fringe and not the source although I recognize that there are times when the author needs to be labeled as well. In general, though, I think Wikipedia editors resort to labeling too often when they want to discredit the POV by discrediting the author. History2007, what is it exactly that you want vis-a-vis Karl Rahner and the Mercer dictionary? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What I wanted Richard was effectively the statement that you just made, i.e. no general policy for blanket label attachment to Rahner and the Mercer bible dictionary. I think as I said above, I seem to have received the answer and this issue seems to have concluded now and we should move on. History2007 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

I am becoming concerned about the type of images we have. Wikipedia is not supposed to disseminate false or misleading information. These images seem to be conveying false or misleading information. Joseph and Mary were Jews, and Asians. As such, they would have had darker skins, and Jewish feature. So, Jesus too may likely be sharing similar features. The images that we have presently seems to depict them as westerners and or caucasians. This is removed from reality and seems to reflect wishful thinking, imagination, etc.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Jesus

Ethiopian Jesus

That is a very general point that applies not just to this article, or Wikipedia but to much of art history. As shown here, Wikimedia Commons has images such as the Chinese and Ethiopian images of Jesus as well. There are even long, really long discussions about when Jesus started to have a beard, and when he did not. Art historians have written article after article about the beard of Jesus. And of course the article Black Madonna address such images of Mary. I have not seen Chinese images of Mary, but certainly Our Lady of Guadalupe presents her with south American features and the clothing also reflects an Aztec design. And many of the best known Russian icons of Madonna and Child show darker skin tones. There are, again books and books on those artistic topics.

If you look at sites such as Art cyclopedia or Getty Museum or the Metropolitan Museum of Art, etc. and compare to Wikimedia Commons images, you will see that Commons is actually a representation of the "typical art" out there. That is all, of course a Commons discussion but Commons happens to be a typical repository. Therefore, that is a loooooooooong debate about art and art history that applies to how artists have used such images, and is totally, I mean totally, totally independent of the Nativity of Jesus article.

That discussion should probably take place on a page about art history and not on a specific page about the Nativity or the New Testament. If we start talking about that, then we need to give equal attention to the angels. Why are they depicted so young? Why do they look like they do? Why don't they have beards? We could probably talk about that for a long time and it would be a good idea to do that when drinking a beer or two on a Saturday night in a bar somewhere. But it will be a discussion on art and art history, not about the New Testament itself, and the issue of whether angels have beards or not is certainly not specific to the Nativity. History2007 (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the 'Magi' painting, by Rubens and well, it is absurd isn't it. Is there a contradiction History in your inveighing against 'mind-reading', but have art that is truly fantastical to illustrate the thing. It seems to be , 'we can't have anything to say at this distance about these texts - so if we fling a load of fantastical art at the article, what does it matter?' having said that, again looking at the images on commons for the magi, I couldn't see one that looked very middle-eastern , the magi, persian?- I mean from where I live it's the Middle East. (of the choice available,its o.k. imo- it's got the poor and humble setting for sure - which is more from Luke isnt it, oh well) Sayerslle (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

S, you make a fine point, but I'm not as concerned as you. The birth narratives are legendary, so it seems fine to ahistorical art representing them. Leadwind (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But the material emerged from a particular place at a particular time - like in the Rubens , at least it has Roman soldiers, and that is good because the region was on the fringes of the Roman Empire at that time, the texts emerge from a time of struggle with Rome etc..that is a better than a 100% fantastical painting imo. Sayerslle (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So which one do you think is way off Sayerslle, the Rubens? But they will all have problems for sure, because none of the artists were even trying to be photographic, they were all trying to get paid for the art. And in the case of Rubens he used to "farm them out" to younger painters to no end, then just touch them up himself at the end and get paid... The key was to please the patron. Art always involves the pressures of patronship, or starvation. Of course, Gauguin has a nativity scene set in Tahiti (with a Tahitian angel!) and he will win the prize for the "most imaginative" Nativity. But for what it is worth, however, Giotto usually has less problems than others in all his work, but then it cannot all be Giotto. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That they are legendary is obvious enough. How else do we have angels dropping in? But that is not my point. The proper way to see Jesus is to see him in his jewish setting. As all of us certainly know, the present scholarship is fairly unanimous on this. However, we can't do much if we cannot find the proper images. So, I would try to set the record straight by dropping in a word or two about art depictions being too western. I think I have read something about this, and will try to find it for refs.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Caravaggio

Douffet

I think it is obvious that this discussion is not just "about this page" and is a general discussion on art and art history. So let me briefly say that we must remember the serious constraints imposed on artists (specially the masters). These paintings were often commissioned and the patron had to be pleased, or the artist would soon become a "starving artist". And there were time/era restrictions about what could be depicted. And specific themes were expected by the locations where the art was expected to be displayed.

But sometimes artists would be inaccurate just to show off their talent, and to me Caravaggio's Taking of Christ is a key example. Note how he uses soldier outfits that are centuries out of period. But that enables him to display his unique mastery of light via the reflections on those shiny surfaces. By the way, Caravaggio himself seems present on the top right of the image! Elsewhere Caravaggio would depict fruits that were totally out of season, because the colors looked nice. Douffet's Taking of Christ also plays on the light the same way, but he does not have the same reflective advantage. But again, that is a general artistic discussion and not just about this article. The European representation issue is also a general art discussion, of course. So any of these discussions should really take place within the art history articles, and not be discussed here. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try to avoid criticisms. They too serve a useful informational purpose. Since we have a section on art, a line or two of criticism is justified. Since we have the art stuff here, the criticism should be here too. That is the NPOV way of doing things. You can form a better opinion of it's relevance after I put in the material. Don't worry, I don't intend to overdo it.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

Sometimes it helps to actually read the article text instead of opining about it using abstract principles. So I went and re-read the article and discovered that "Historical and scholarly criticism" actually commingled two different sets of ideas. There's historicity and then there's what I called "textual criticism" but really is about Bible interpretation. So I separated the two sets of ideas. By promoting things up a level, I was able to provide level 3 subsection headings for topics like the Census and the Massacre of the Innocents. History2007 has suggested that there are other topics of this type that should be presented and discussed. Hopefully, this new structure will provide a better outline on which to "hang" those topics. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do see a benefit to your logical grouping the way you did it. But I think having three main sections on that is too many, and some of them such as place of birth are still within the domain of others, etc. And the placing of "Christian apology" above all may be questioned, as well as the section heading which will implicitly "label" some authors. So I would say that "Textual analysis" is a form of "scholarly analysis" because non-scholars do not do textual analysis. So if you could move some of the sections in one level, then there would be just either 1 or at most 2 sections, not so many at the top level, e.g. Jesus as a "second Moses" by itself is probably just one paragraph and not a section etc. But overall, I think you did it right, but we need fewer headings for 1 paragraph items, etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I had misgivings about the title "textual criticism". If you think "scholarly criticism" is better, I can go with that. My problem is that not all Bible interpretation is entirely "scholarly". The major point I wanted to make is that the topics in the "textual criticism" section are not about historicity and cannot be resolved using historical methods. These are entirely about how the text is interpreted and what the theological implications of that interpretation are.

As for putting "Christian apology" up front, I probably didn't spend enough time thinking about it. I just used the section title that was already there. I'm not too thrilled with the subsection title either so I'm open to rearranging the order and the changing the section title. Or even getting rid of the section heading and just merging the text into the intro of the "Historicity" section. I just wanted to put that text somewhere near the beginning of the "Historicity" section before we got into the detailed discussion of individual events in the Nativity narratives.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about not all analysis being "scholarly" and that Textual Analysis is a field onto itself. Now, is Historicity purely scholarly in your view? How about the date and place of birth? Is that a historical discussion? It seems to be? History2007 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way Richard, I do not know which browser you are using but it adds blank lines to the end of your paragraphs in many cases. I know they do not show on your browser, so you can not see them. I removed 3 of them, but I thought I would tell you because there were a few on this talk page too, which I just trimmed, but thought I would just tell you. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I know. I love Google Chrome except for this one nasty feature. I have to figure out how to fix that. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As a joke, the fail-safe solution would be use two browsers, one checking the other! In fact the Space shuttle has 5 computers, and they all check each other. We should call Google and tell them to use the same approach. History2007 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a "Text criticism" section separate from the "historical and scholarly analysis"? And a "historical-critical" section separate from the text criticism section? If we don't put everything that scholars say about the narratives under one section, how do we decide which goes in one section and which in the other? How about we organize it this way: first, everything that the historical-critical method says about the narratives; and then, another section about everything that the traditional Christian method says about the narratives? Leadwind (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the reorg again and was able to change it to my liking very easily. Please take a look at the article, esp. the table of contents, and see if the Historical section looks coherent to you. It does to me (obviously). All I did was remove the "Text criticism" header. Leadwind (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still dissatisfied with the organization of the section titled "Historical and scholarly analysis". This section just mixes together stuff that is, to my mind, different categories of ideas. The subsections on "Traditional view" and "Historical-critical analysis" are good counterpoints to each other. The traditional view accepts the nativity narratives as true, the historical-critical view rejects practically all of it. Put under a "Historicity" section as it used to be, this would work well as a coherent unitary idea. The "Date and place of birth" and "Massacre of the Innocents" sections fit in this set of ideas.

But, as the article is currently organized, we then add "Theme analysis" which isn't about historicity but about what the message of the gospels is. We also have sections on "Jesus as a Nazorean" and "Isaiah and the virgin birth". These are more about theology and Biblical exegesis.

So, I think we could have separate sections on "Historicity" and "Exegesis". I don't think Leadwind's argument above about a "Historicity" section being a POV-magnet is enough of a compelling reason for us to force this mish-mash of ideas into a catch-all section as we currently have.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fact vs. opinion

This article has a POV problem in a number of places where it presents opinion as fact. Now, I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against the "historical-critical analysis" POV. I am assuming good faith and crediting the assertion that the view of the overwhelming majority of scholars is that the gospel narratives are ahistorical. I am just saying that there are places where the article presents that POV as indisputable fact when it is just a POV and should be presented as such even if it is the belief of "the overwhelming majority". Actually, once I went through the text and starting identifying specific problems, I also found examples where the faith-oriented POV is not presented appropriately.

Thus, sentences like "Luke's census, in which everyone was expected to return to his ancestral home, is not credible" are problematic because because it makes an assertion of fact (viz. "Luke's census is not credible"). This needs to be put in the mouths of scholars so that we have something like "Most scholars dismiss Luke's census as ahistorical because of the implausibility of a census requiring massive displacements of population." And then, ideally, we would cite a source that says something pretty close to that. As an example of what we are looking for, there is a citation earlier in the section to a quote from Raymond Brown that says "most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke's part." That is the best kind of support that we can find. Brown isn't just saying "This is what I think." He is saying "this is what most critical scholars think". Even if we are not able to find similar quotes for every assertion, we must at least fix the article text that asserts opinions as fact. I know that it would be horrible to have every sentence start with "Most critical scholars believe..." so we need to find a way around that. However, we cannot keep asserting opinions (even opinions of the overwhelming majority) as fact. For the most part, the article does a pretty good job of presenting opinion as opinion but there are a few places where this discipline breaks down. I will list here the ones that I have found so far:

Date and place of birth

Most of this section does a good job of presenting opinion as opinion with only a couple of breakdowns.

• "The account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative patterned on traditions about the birth of Moses." - Matthew doesn't explicity reference Moses so this is an interpretation; the sentence before this one mentions Vermes, Sanders and Brown. Do they all assert that Matthew is patterned on "traditions about the birth of Moses"?

• The text about the parallels to Moses that is cited to Ulrich Luz should be attributed to Luz in the text unless this is a widely held belief in which case it should be attributed to "most scholars". NB: to attribute the assertion to "most scholars", we would need a citation that says that most scholars believe it.

As I started to look at your comments Richard, it seems that this section has repetition of various items as well, and needs to be less repetitive. And of course Moses is not about dates. This whole "Moses interpretation" thing needs to be mentioned, but probably in the themes section, given that it is an interpretation of what Matthew intended. And again, this is one of the examples of "mind reading" being stated as fact here. This statement is not about Matthew using one Greek word vs another, but "speculation about what Matthew intended", and is just opinion about his state of mind, not fact. Even for living people opinions about states of mind are not treated as facts by psychologists. I think a careful reading of demarcation criterion should be recommended to editors after a number of edits. This issue of mind-reading (a 2,000 years old mind as well) vs textual analysis has been confused in much of the discussion here. But the Moses item needs to be mentioned, but presented as a opinion of what Matthew intended, unless Matthew has been given a PET scan and the activity in his frontal lobes have been recorded. So your comment about opinion vs fact, rings specially true here. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents

This whole section is riddled with the "opinion presented as fact" problem

• "If the Massacre of the Innocents had taken place, it would be strange for Josephus not to mention it, and that the massacre may hence be non-historical."

• "Josephus' writing dwelt on Herod's cruelty, so he likely would have included the event if it had occurred."

• "Faced with little historical information, Matthew apparently based the story in which an infant Moses is endangered by the Pharaoh's order to kill infant Hebrews."

• "Such use of scripture for telling the story of Jesus' birth was considered legitimate by contemporary standards."

How much of what is mentioned above can be attributed to Sanders? Do Vermes and Brown concur in these views?

I clarified "who said what" in that section Richard, so these types of questions would not come up in that section in the future. I also added a few more references, etc. So I think this one is also fixed.  Done History2007 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus as Nazorean

• "The statement in Matthew 2:23 "he will be called a Nazorean" does not refer to a specific prophecy in the Old Testament "

This is interpretation. It assumes that statements in the New Testament should refer to prophecies in the Old Testament. But, even within that exegetical perspective, we need to ground the assertion that this particular scriptural passage "does not refer to a specific prophecy in the Old Testament" by providing a citation to a reliable source. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

why is it 'interpretation' - 'these words spoken thru the prophets can't be traced to a specific prophecy in the Old testament...' Isn't that a statement of fact? It doesn't assume that statements in the NT should refer to prophecies in the OT - it's picking up the point that although matthew says 2:23 "in this way the words spoken thru the prohets were to be fulfilled.." the words have not been traced in the OT. In the first two chapters of matthew that are being looked at in the article , 4 biblical quotations are introduced by the stereoptype formula, - 'this was to fulfil the words spoken thru the prohet..' - 1;22, 2;15, 2:17, 2:23...Ulrich Luz "It was important that the words of the prophet be fulfilled in the man Jesus and in his story. The story of Jesus was for Matthew, an age of fulfilment ordained and singled out by God, much as was the Teacher of Righteousness and the foundation of their own sect for the Qumran group.." Sayerslle (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard, on this point I agree with Sayerslle and this one is easy to cite and fix. This one is not a big issue to fix with a simple citation, and I already added the citation that says exactly that. And added further Menken item. Now there are multiple perspectives on that. Let us go through these, fix them one by one and check them off. This one is fixed now.  Done History2007 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Virgin birth and Jewish prophecy

• "Gabriel himself therefore is not applying Isaiah's prophecy to Joseph, but his purpose is to invite him to assume legal paternity of the son to be born of Mary by naming him. It is the following comment that explains Mary's conception by the Holy Spirit, Joseph's vocation as the child's legal father, and the child's own vocation as the Saviour of his people as indicated by the name Jesus, in the light of Isaiah's prophecy that henceforth "God is with us".

The above text is an interpretation of the Scripture. It's not a "historical-critical" view; it's an exegetical view. Whose view is it?

• "The translators of the Septuagint in Alexandria during the 3rd century BCE understood the Hebrew word "almah" to mean virgin in this context."

How do we know how the translators of the Septuagint understood the word "almah"? This is cited to Brown. What does he actually say? Should we say "According to Brown,..." or "Most scholars believe..."?

That first part was totally unsourced anyway. However, I fixed the main part, and all it really says is that some 5th century documents have Isaiah in them and 4th century documents do not. That may be interesting to some people. However, I must say that I was falling asleep even reading all the yapping about what the 3rd century BCE translation of Almah was, and I think most readers will also fall asleep on it and does not really change anything about the Nativity what the Septuagint translators understood in teh 3rd century. I think it would be enough to say:

"The statement in Matthew 1:22: "All this happened to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet" does not mention the prophet Isaiah in 4th century documents such as the Codex Sinaiticus, but some 5-6th century manuscripts of Matthew, such as Codex Bezae, read "Isaiah the prophet".

and leave it as that. However, I left the Septuagint translation gem in there, as a sleep aid in case a user needs it. For now, this one is done too.  Done. History2007 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish and Gentile themes

• "Matthew's Nativity narrative has also been interpreted as casting Jesus in the role of being a second Moses: like Moses, the infant Jesus is saved from a murderous tyrant; like Moses, he flees the country of his birth until his persecutor is dead and it is safe to return; like Moses, he is the saviour of his people."

This is a great sentence. It should come much closer to the beginning of the section, not as the last sentence of the last subsection where it seems to a minor point. Putting this subsection first before all the others would help to address the problems that I identified in the "Date and place of birth" section. (In fact, I'm going to move this subsection to the beginning of the section now.) There is still the problem of who actually interprets Matthew's narrative as "casting Jesus as a second Moses". I understand that this is a widely accepted interpretation among the faithful. However, the assertion is cited to the "Oxford Bible Commentary" and no one commentary can be considered "authoritative". The sentence should probably read something like "Matthew's Nativity narrative is frequently interpreted as casting Jesus..." and then we need to find a better source than the Oxford Bible Commentary. The problem is that, in this situation, the Oxford Bible Commentary is probably a primary source for the interpretation. The assertion that this interpretation is widely held must come from a secondary source. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps on this question, but Ulrich Luz again , on Jewish/Gentile (Don't get mad if this is just one book some editor is reading, its just trying to add to the discussion..blimey) - "Most writers today believe Matthew was a jewish christian, the Matthean community may have abided by the Torah and upheld the law to the last 'tittle and jot' 5:17-19 ; the community after exile went to the land of Syria, Ulrich suggests that that though the gospel emerges from a Jewish Xtian community it is looking to speak to heathens - the culmination of the gospel where Jesus instructs his disciples to go forth to the Gentiles makes clear what is meant." Ulrich points out the genealogy at the very start of the gospel mentions 4 women, Tamar -Aramaic, Ruth - a Moabite, Rahab - a Canaanite, Bathsheba - a non-isarelite thru marriage to the Hittite Uriah - 3 non-israelites, he doesnt mention the more famous Sarah or Rebecca - Matthew was intent on ensuring 4 gentile women appear in jesus line of descent..he sent a signal, the inclusion of the Gentile world must have been important to him ..the next story contrasts the Magi of the east who become true worshippers of the infant King, with herod and the high priests and the scribes and the whole of jerusalem( 2:3.).the heathen land of egypt a place of refuge for jesus - Matthew hints that herod and the leaders of israel who seek Jesus life are leading Israel to death and perdition - Sayerslle (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Luz's book is not "just one book". It is not the only book, but a key book on Matthew. Ulrich Luz seems to have spent his entire life on Matthew (a truly monotonous endeavor I guess) received 7 doctrotates in the process, and knows Matthew pretty well, let us say. So I think he would be good to include, as you did, but if you could say all that in a shorter form and attribute to Luz, that would be nice. And of course, the other statements also need attribution to specific people, rather than assertions of absolute fact. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case the Themes section has been organized and includes the Rachel item, etc. So I think that section is also fixed.  Done History2007 (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree Richard. There seems to have been a basic algorithm to use opinions as facts:

• Guess on a given opinion as being a majority opinion via some method.

• Assume said opinion as a solid fact, and state it as a such with no direct mention of who said it, and with little mention of the opposition, again perhaps "assuming" that the opposing opinions must all be negligible.

That problems runs through the sections you mentioned. They need to be edited to be stated as opinions and opposing views need to be included as well. And your comment that "to attribute the assertion to 'most scholars', we would need a citation that says that most scholars believe it." is exactly right, it needs such a direct quote and not just assuming that because it is so in the 3-5 books that some editor read, it must be the opinion of most scholars. Overall, I agree with you on the points you have made. History2007 (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard, attribution is a big topic. It may be a big enough deal that we'll need an RfC at some point. For now, let's dig in.

First, can you cite any policy or guideline that is the basis for your call for changes? I tried looking up attribution and opinion, and this is what I found: "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited." (From WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.) So the "opinion" that WP policy says needs attribution is actually a subjective opinion. The scholarly consensus is not an "opinion." If there's some other policy we should be looking at, could you please point to it so we can be on the same page. Policy is so handy for resolving disputes.

Second, take a look at a good encyclopedia entry as an example of what good encyclopedia entries sound like. Take, for example, the section on the Gospel of Matthew found on EBO. Here you will see statements of historical "opinion" stated as fact. For example, "The Gospel grew out of a “school” led by a man with considerable knowledge of Jewish ways of teaching and interpretation." No attribution is given for this or other conclusions that are interpretations rather than bald facts. That's the way encyclopedias work, and presumably it's how WP works (unless there's a policy I don't know about).

Third, when our best mainstream sources describe a historical conclusion, it's not a single scholar's personal opinion. Sanders, in Historical Figure of Jesus, reviews what's real and not real in the accounts of Jesus' life, and only occasionally does he share a personal historical opinion (how many Jews might have been in Jerusalem for Passover, whether Jesus preached repentance). The vast bulk of his book on Jesus carried no such disclaimer. He's speaking for the historical establishment when he says that Luke's story is not credible. In the case of the census, it's been a dead issue in historical circles since the end of the 1800s. Sanders doesn't say "According to most contemporary scholars" over and over again because that's the context of his entire book.

Fourth, just because not everyone agrees with the academics doesn't mean that we need to qualify everything that the academics have concluded. We don't have to qualify everything we say about dinosaurs even though there are plenty of scholars who disagree with the mainstream view that they lived tens of millions of years before people. We look in the commonly accepted reference texts to see which views are prominent enough to warrant coverage. History has never provided any such support for opinions that contradict the mainstream viewpoint. The case of the birth narratives is a special one in Bible studies because it's one of those few places where basically everyone who's taken seriously as a historical-critical scholar thinks they same thing: the narratives are inventions.

I don't see a policy that says "let's attribute everything." I don't see point-by-point attribution in EBO or other encyclopedias. Our best sources are writing to summarize scholarship rather than to promote their own particular ideas. And the historical community is of one mind on the topic of these birth narratives. I will back the proposed changes when I see a policy telling me to do so, an example of a top-notch encyclopedia treating information that way, or some evidence that alternative viewpoints are taken seriously in academia.

Attributing and qualifying all these statements sounds like the fair, reasonable thing to do. Actually, however, it's unfair to the mainstream viewpoint to couch it in uncertain terms. Our best sources don't admit such uncertainty. The "debates" and "disputes" and "uncertainty" arise only from writers who reject the historical-critical viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, I agree that the question of attribution is a difficult problem and that we need not always attribute and cite opinions which are so widely held by the scholarly consensus that they may as well be considered to be effectively indisputable. However, I think you and History2007 are arguing about general principle. History2007 has a somewhat different agenda from mine although I might share some common cause with him from time to time. I went through the article and identified problem areas which I listed above. If you look at the specific instances that I listed, I find that many of them are not clearly of the historical-critical analysis school at least not as I understand it. Just an example are the arguments that "Matthew's Nativity narrative has also been interpreted as casting Jesus in the role of being a second Moses" and the arguments that "Matthew's genealogy makes sure that 4 gentile women are included". Nobody knows for a fact that Matthew intended to cast Jesus as a "second Moses" or that his inclusion of 4 gentile women was part of aiming his gospel at a gentile audience. These are just theories. They are exegetical interpretations of the Gospels and should be identified as such and attributed somewhere.. (BTW, I think I take back what I wrote above about the Oxford Bible Commentary. It's probably an adequate source to support a Biblical interpretation although I imagine better sources could be found if we look for one.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard, if we occasionally say, "According to mainstream scholars," that's harmless and suitable. It sounds as though you and I agree that we only need attribution on assertions that are beyond the core of scholarly consensus. In your examples above, our best sources all agree that M's Jesus is a greater Moses, so that's essentially indisputable. Even the literalists agree that Matthew portrays M as a greater Moses, though they have a different explanation for why. As for the four gentile women, that's a detail not covered repeatedly in the standard sources, so it probably needs attribution. Or it can be left out altogether. If the viewpoint isn't found in our best sources, it's OK to leave it off the page.

In the time since you posted your comment about, someone has changed the text to name scholars repeatedly. Other encyclopedias don't do that, policy doesn't say we should do that, and it wrongly implies that the consensus views we're reporting are actually the view of a few particular scholars. Leadwind (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Right now, I'm on the fence. How do we know that the cited scholars represent the mainstream view? Do we have a quote that establishes that the mainstream consists of the union of these three scholars? We should have some combination of the following kinds of quotes : either a quote that says "the mainstream view consists of assertions X, Y and Z" and/or a quote that says "the mainstream view is represeented by Vermes, Sanders and Brown". Or simply "No serious scholars credit the gospel narratives of the Nativity as historical". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Moses issue is not a historicity issue at all. It is a question of how Matthew portrayed Jesus. It does not address historicity, but deals with parallels to the Old Testament. I do not see the Moses item as a big historicity issue in any way. I do not see a need for mixing this with the historicity issues. The Moses parallel is an interpretation issue, not a historicity issue at all. History2007 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)