Talk:Nativity of Jesus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

My continuing education on links

This is not a big deal, but could you guys help me figure out the case for Template:Bibleref? It is used all over the place, e.g. Isaiah, Book_of_judges, etc. and Book_of_job is just loaded with it. So if it is against policy to use it, why is it all over the place? It makes no difference, in fact absolutely no difference to the meaning of the text, but not using that just makes things harder to read I think. So could it be that the paragraph in WP:CITE is referring to "direct external links" rather than external links shielded by a level of abstraction via the template? The reasoning there in WP:CITE is that the link may go bad, but the template can/will change if the link changes, so I think this template is ok to use. But please explain. By the way, I also noticed that in several articles people use items like Galatians 5:22-23 that link directly to Wikisource, and would probably be the very best approach because those links will never die, unless Wikisource dies, and are not external links anyway. That may be the best way to change if the Template:Bibleref issues are less than clear. And I just realized that there is also Template:Biblesource that is easier to use and jumps directly to Wikisource and is not external, but easy to use and easy to read. I think that will look good and seems like the best direction. History2007 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, there is no need to spend effort to change links to Wikisource by hand. I have been experimenting with anti-vandal bots and now have programs that can just do them all automatically in a second or so. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Continuing education on links. Did I ever say anything about links previously? Why would you describe my edits as "continuing education" ?-Civilizededucation^talk 23:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant I need continuing education on it - hence the questions. I can not figure out what the story is yet. History2007 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not here to teach (nor am I qualified to do so). And, you seem to have been around from before I found WP. Maybe someone else could answer the questions which I don't. The reason I don't like the external links is that the slanted arrow mark thing looks odd to me, and distracts from reading. Secondly, I think it is not proper to use sentences like "In Matthew xx Mary is troubled.....". The proper thing should be to write the sentence, and to quote the secondary source alluded to at the end of the sentence. eg "Mary was troubled....." and then the verses which have been alluded by the secondary source from whom the material have been derived should be mention in the ref along with the rest of the reference. It may sometimes be useful to quote the verse no. etc. in the article too. But this should be done sparingly only. Otherwise, if we quote too many verses, or give verses verbatim, it becomes "preaching". I understand that there are proper platforms for preaching. But WP is not it. So, we should avoid veering into that direction.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But my question was about the WP:CITE issue that you mentioned in your edit summary. So I asked because so many places have those links, and I just thought they could not all be breaking the rules of WP:CITE. So the question was just policy related given that you had brought up WP:CITE. The style issues are another story. And the question was really general to whoever knows the answer, not just you. So if someone else knows that would be good. By the way, I just came across this page and noticed that it is almost entirely external links, but all to the same database. So I have a feeling those links are not breaking the rules of WP:CITE. Are they? Anyway, ideas will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

They are breaking the rules. It is plainly visible. Why do you think they are not?-Civilizededucation^talk 01:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know for sure if they are breaking the rules or are not. Hence the question. You seem to think they are, but your assumption immediately implies that "the use of Template:Bibleverse within page text is against policy". Yet I see that used all over Wikipedia. And as above, on pages such as List of American exchange-traded funds I see many, many external links which are not references. I doubt if they are all breaking the rules. Hence I question your assumption. I think we do have a fundamental difference here on how we read pages. You seem to read them and think one thing, I seem less certain about jumping to immediate conclusions. So I am not sure what the answer is, given the widespread use of that template. History2007 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is tons of POV material, false refs, OR, synthesis, preaching material, commercial advertising, personal aggrandizement material, irrelevancies, etc. etc. etc. on WP. Do you think all that is also not against policy? Do you think we should add such stuff because others have done it too? I think not. I think it is misuse of WP. A million drivers break the speed limit every day. Does that mean that it is legal to break the speed limit? Your comments appear to reflect anarchist thinking to me. Why do they don't seem to accept what the policies say clearly. Your arguments appear to be childish and illogical. My way of thinking is-- accept what the policies say, don't take the cue from others who do it wrong. You think there is something wrong with it?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't heat up. This is just notation. Cool off for a day, then we will talk about it. By the way, as for my childish logic, in fact as a child I was a logician... just loved logic as a child... really. History2007 (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if someone is going to look into this, can you see if there is an easy way to get a Galatians type link like the above from Biblesource. That would be the nicest way - nothing external and a single click, instead of two clicks that make you lose your place on the page, etc. I do not immediately see one. History2007 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Both Leadwind and myself left questions for people on the talk pages for the Bibleverse type templates. The answer at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Bible_lookup.3F was that the template can be used within "in line text", but that the future of Wikipedia is in using Wikiquote/wikisource that has no external links at all. Hence, instead of debating how the WP:CITE item should be read, given that answer and the future direction of Wikipedia, it is clear that based on that answer Wikiquote with no external links is best. History2007 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

undue weight given to non-mainstream viewpoint

Our best sources agree that the birth narratives are inventions. But we have this non-mainstream sentence included as if it were mainstream:

"Paul L. Maier, on the other hand, argues that Bethlehem was a small town and that the massacre was too small an event for Josephus to have heard of, given that it was over forty years before his birth."

Can we find any support for this idea in any of our commonly accepted reference texts, or in disinterested secondary and tertiary sources? If we can't, it's fringe. According to WP:WEIGHT, we shouldn't cover it ourselves, or at the most cover it as an explicitly non-mainstream viewpoint.

Likewise, I can't cite a creationist on a dinosaur page, even if attributed properly.

To treat this non-mainstream viewpoint the same way we treat mainstream viewpoints is a disservice to the mainstream viewpoint and to the reader. And it violates policy. Leadwind (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So... who is Paul Maier? Is he a leading proponent of the "narratives are historical" view? I'm still unconvinced that it makes sense to have two separate treatments of the topics. If we could properly characterize Maier as an exemplar of the dissident "the narratives are historical" camp, we could weave in all such dissident opinions in line with the consensus view, thus providing the reader with an integrated perspective. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who Maier is. Since his viewpoint isn't mainstream, how would you recommend we treat it. For my part, I find no support for his viewpoint in our best sources. No one integrates creationist viewpoints into the evolution page. Why integrate Maier's view with the mainstream one? Leadwind (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The new section on Massacre of the Innocents violates History's favorite policy ever: WP:WEIGHT. It treats the fringe view of non-mainstream scholars on an equal footing with the views of the scholarly consensus. If our best sources say one thing and second-rate sources say another, we shouldn't treat those two views equally. It's a violation of NPOV to give a viewpoint more weight than it deserves. History never likes addressing WP:WEIGHT. Maybe someone else can read that policy and explain it to him, as I have failed. Leadwind (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the WEIGHT problem can be resolved by establishing clearly what the mainstream viewpoint is (via a really good supporting quote that says something on the order of "the mainstream view is that the gospels are ahistorical". A really good second quote would say something like "The chief proponents of this view are Vermes, Sanders and Brown." or "The leading experts on the gospel narratives are Vermes, Sanders and Brown and they all agree that the gospels are ahistorical." Following the establishment of the mainstream view, we should have a quote that says something on the order of "However, despite the scholarly consensus, some Christian apologists still insist that the narratives are, in fact, historical."

Once we've done that, we can have a "mainstream vs. fringe" comparison throughout the article. Wherever appropriate, we can say "the mainstream consensus is that X never happened because of reasons A, B, C. In opposition to this consensus, Christian apologists argue that X could have happened because of reasons P,Q,R". I do not have a problem with identifying the mainstream and fringe positions as such. However, we need a quote from a reliable source to establish these identifications.

Re the question of whether it makes sense to integrate the mainstream and fringe views into a single thread in the article as opposed to having two sections, I think the problem is that the two views must interact because some of the apologist views are made in response to assertions made by the historical-critical scholars. Thus, separating the two views into two sections would result in repeating some of the historical-critical view in the apologist section.

As to the assertion that one does not mention creationism throughout the evolution article, the point is that there are often separate articles that treat notable controversies. Creationism has an article unto itself which covers the history of the concept. There is also a separate article titled Creation–evolution controversy. Admittedly, this is not a controversy of the same magnitude as creationism which is why we do not need separate articles on it; instead, we must present the controversy here. IMO, it is inappropriate to ignore the controversy by saying "it's fringe and it's not worth mentioning". I think we should establish that it's fringe and then present it as I outlined above.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually R T France is not a crazy-fellow, but a 1st class Oxford scholar. He is a very good source to use in Wikipedia, as are the other 3 sources in that section: Paul L. Maier, Paul Barnett and Craig Blomberg as their Wikipedia pages (which I have not edited) state. These are in the "our best sources" category. Their view is not fringe. These are 1st class scholars.

And we should note that these four scholars do not say whether the massacre happened or not, they just reason that the silence of Josephus is not sufficient grounds for assuming that it did not happen. They take no position on its historicity via the silence of Josephus, neither does the 2nd paragraph in that section. The views of these 4 first class scholars need to be presented to the reader. One can not pretend that these 4 scholars do not exist.

Now, I had not looked into or thought about the Massacre of Innocents before this, but once I looked into it after a few minutes I said to myself: "one does not need to be Roger Penrose to follow the logic of R. T. France". So I thought I would explain that here, just for the sake of talk page clarificaton. This type of argument has been presented in a few places, but in my view may not be needed in the article itself, given that there are 4 references to it and that this article is not a SAT test. However, if someone wants to add this type of info with suitable refs, I see no problem. Anyway, the SAT version of the question is:

• Suppose a village has 240 inhabitants and the oldest person is 60 years old. Approximately how many male children below age 2 are there?

The answer is 4 children. There are 120 men and 120 women and assuming age uniformity, there are (120 / 60) * 2 = 4 male children below age 2. So in a village of about 250 people, there are 4 or 5 male children that fit the requirement. And assuming 3 or 4 villages around, that gives about 15-20 male children in the vicinity. To come up to 25 children, one needs a population of about 1,500 people, which was a pretty large neighborhood in those days. There are published estimates that given that Bethlehem is about 30,000 people now, 2,000 years ago it was 200-300 people at most. So the R. T. France type reasonings are really far too trivial to include in a SAT test. And given that four respected scholars are used to support that statement, that should be enough. But I still wonder if France and Penrose know each other. History2007 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard, so in the Massacre section, we could say something like "Traditionalist scholars maintain that the massacre could have happened and surmise that that massacre was on too small a scale to come to Josephus' attention." That seems OK. Strictly speaking, we should give a viewpoint no treatment at all if it's not treated at all in our best sources, but practically speaking I'm OK with reporting on the traditionalist viewpoint. We shouldn't need to name our mainstream scholars. That's what the Sources section is for (just like in a regular encyclopedia). Again, History wants us to focus on historicity, but let's stick with the bigger picture. We should report what modern skeptical scholars say about the narratives, not just what they say narratives' historicity. I think we have enough cited information that we can move forward with your plan. I think we're already close to there. Leadwind (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

History, find a commonly accepted reference text that makes the point you're making, and I'll be impressed. Leadwind (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading through these edits I have gotten progressively more uncomfortable with the way Sources are evaluated. Either a scholar is a scholar or (s)he is not. They are not Believing schoalrs, or atheist scholars; they are just scholars. There is definitely a difference between scholars with some being superior to others. It is genearlly very easy to qualify by reference when a particular scholar has achieved that degree of fame and respect.

Sacred history is one thing and I generally have no problem presenting the story as Sacred History has described; however, as an editor of faith, I reject presenting Sacred History as History. Often there is a large delta between sacred history about a topic and the actual historicity of such a topic. The flash point evolves when an advocate is incensed that historicity may not completely agree with sacred history. Let's remember a few things: (1) Sacred history is a topic of faith (2) None of us should be advocates of anything; we are neutral editors who have left their soapboxes with the family (3) In a secular encyclopedia the best we can achieve is to state what sacred history is and what history tells us (4) Don't interpret historians; let them speak for themselves; if they don't speak, we don't either (5) Fringe anything is seldom needed, but when it is it is barely mentioned in keeping with balance (6) to repeat soapboxes and axes are left at the door; they are not fun and only cause problems. When all else fails, just state the facts and leave the editorializing to blogs and such. -17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesus and gentiles

Luke, writing for a gentile audience, portrays Christianity as open to gentiles right from the start.[68] I think that this line is basically correct. However, it also carries the impression that jesus himself was preoccupied with gentiles in Luke. My impression is that Jesus himself did not have much to do with gentiles during his earthly ministry and the gentile mission starts in Luke-Acts only through a "vision" to Peter after jesus' resurrection. So, it seems inappropriate to me to give the false impression, based on a mythical nativity scene, that the gentile mission started during jesus' lifetime or with his birth in Luke.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. I think 90% readers will not notice that, but it should change just to be as correct as can be. In fact it probably needs to be worked into another one of the parags like the one by Koester and does not need to be glued to the Moses thing because it is not a Moses issue. That whole section till needs spring cleaning. History2007 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't locate any other problems in that section. Maybe you see something which I don't. However, I think the traditional view section is incomplete and will add something about the changes in the traditional view.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In that section there are no huge error as such, but the parags need to be shuffled to be together instead of interleaved. I will just group them, should take 5 minutes. History2007 (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In Luke, the angels proclaim Jesus to be a savior for all people on the day he's born, and Simeon recognizes him as the savior for both Israel and the gentiles. It's in the prelude. Now, the prelude was written after the ministry of Jesus, so the ministry part of Luke reflects an older tradition, but the gospel (once complete) has gentile love all over it from day 1. Luke even portrays John the Baptist as baptizing gentiles. Leadwind (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusion which I am having is that the nativity scene is regarded as completely fiction. So, the Simeon incident does not count for much. Then, apart from a few scattered incidents, Jesus does not seem to have much to do with gentiles, and only stays preoccupied with Jews, Jewish law, Jewish authorities, etc during his ministry. At least he does not seem to be on a gentile mission, during his ministry. And the gentile mission starts only after his resurrection, i.e. after his lifetime, due to a "vision" from god to Peter. After that, Paul gets a "vision" of his own, and goes on overdrive, and the gentile mission takes off with full speed. Is this correct? If so, then the sentence we have, even though correct in what it says literally, would seem to be giving a wrong impression. -Civilizededucation^talk 01:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "Luke, writing for a gentile audience, portrays the infant Jesus as a savior for gentiles as well as Jews"? Then we show we're talking about the birth narratives, not Jesus' ministry. Or kindly propose your own wording. Leadwind (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a fine idea. It does seem to solve the difficulty which I saw with the sentence.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A question of logic

The logician in me has been very unhappy here. Very unhappy indeed. He feels that this article is performing a "Massacre of innocent logic" and he thinks he needs to talk about it.

The logic of historicity

There are many types of logic: modal logic, intuitionistic logic, multi-valued logic, etc. But the logic used herein is best described as gumbo logic. As a start, let me flatly state that:

• There is no single sentence verdict on historicity.

Regardless of the definition of historicity (a big issue itself), the historicity of Matthew is different from that of Luke. Luke may have invented it, or he may have really heard it, etc. and Matthew may have done similar things. There are at least (and indeed more than) 4 distinct cases here: Luke=yes, Luke=no, Matthew=yes, Matthew=no. Of course, Luke=yes, Matthew=yes needs to discuss the interlinks (e.g. return to Nazareth), but that is the only case. The discussion here seems to only consider the conjunction of these. And while some portions of some narratives may be non-historical, some portions may be historical, as discussed below. That needs to change and be clarified.

Repeated quotes from books by a few authors does not result in the presentation of logical analysis in an article. The questions here are not really discussed in a scientific or historical setting, regardless of the endless dances around scholarly references. Wikipedia articles need to be logical, not just a gumbo of repeated references.

Think of it this way: Is anyone going to present a historical document in Hebrew that would be copy of a signed recording contract with Bethlehem Records by the angles who sang at the Nativity? I doubt that. Similarly, any discussion of the virgin birth would require medical records from the Bethlehem General Hospital and from what I hear they do not keep records for more than 25 years. So those elements of the narratives are not even subject to historicity discussion. From a scientific point of view those are legendary and religious elements that people accept on faith. Those issues need to be detached from the historicity discussions. As of now, they are still intermingled.

However, there are questions of historicity, e.g.

• "Did Joseph and Mary ever set foot in Egypt?"

Now that is a historical question and is independent of the angels or the dreams. Did Joseph and Mary travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem? That is a historical question. So historicity discussions should focus on those, and also separate the historicity of Luke from Matthew, because there are multiple scenarios for which parts of the story may be considered true using 21st century scientific methods, and which may be viewed as a legendary embellishment using said methods.

If the "three stooges" are supposed to be Brown, Sanders and Vermes, it would be a grossly ill informed statement. These three are at the absolute pinnacle of their field. There is NO scholar who could be claimed to be more reliable than these scholars, although a handful could be claimed to be equal to them. Among these, I understand that Brown is a conservative evangelical, catholic priest and a scholar among scholars. As far as the issue of virginity of Mary not being a historical question, these scholars don't seem to think so. Maybe thay have good reasons too. As long as there is sourced content from an RS, it can be a source for material on WP, regardless of whether the issue is religious or historical, and if these scholars discuss the issue, it is well within their field.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I resent the implication that the three best possible sources may be referred to as stooges, even though their reliability and academic stature is undisputed. I think refs from scholars like these brings great value to an article, and this is what prevents an article from becoming a meaningless, valueless word soup. I think they are being seen as "stooges" only in an attempt to trivialize their value. Actually, academically, and for WP, their word is worth it's weight in gold. There is none more reliable than them. It is very much preferable if someone could do some more research on their academic standing.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the comments should stay and the modified ones should be restored. Since you have said that you had meant it as a joke, it would not be an issue for me anymore. However, if I modify my comments, most of them would stop making good sense. If I delete them, we may lose some useful discussion. I intend to use these comments as a background to establishing the importance of leading scholars as sources. There are some other issues too which I want to bring up in the process. The other issue being that the historicity section seems to be sourced mostly from conservative, moderate types. For a good mix, we should also have some liberal types. IMO, Sanders, Brown, John Meier, Bruce Metzger=conservative and Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, Stephen Harris= a moderate, with a somewhat conservative leaning. The liberal types would be John Dominic Crossan, William Arnal, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ludemann, Luz Ulrich....-Civilizededucation^talk 03:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. I do not need to take instructions here about my own posts. I really think this tangent distracts from the topic of this section which was the "lack of logic" in the historicity discussions. In response to my point on heavy reliance on names and lack of logic, what do I get as a response? More names. I do not get logic. As for the "should be author list" that is your list, not mine. My point was that the section is heavy on names and light on logic. Now we want more names to remedy the logic? You can type 200 more names here, but it will not change anything about the logical issues. None of my logical issues have been addressed. Period. History2007 (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I had the impression that you objected to a large part of the article relying on just three authors. If that was the objection, and if a large part of the article does rely on just three authors, I agree with you point. As such, I had proposed the names of some mainstream scholars, most of whom happen to be leading scholars, who could be desirable as sources. I think I should also have mentioned Elaine Pagels, Gerd Theissen, and Bultmann, Schweitzer. Of course there can be many more names, but let us leave this.

And I would also like to correct myself, Bultmann and Schweitzer may have more weight than even Sanders, Vermes....Now, since I don't seem to be able to see what your issue is, I think I will leave this for anyone else who might want to take it up, and then, I too may begin to see what the issue actually is. Regarding the "instructions" thing, I had said "I think", which is ="I feel" i.e. not an instruction. I had also said "should", not "must". You may also want to see the talk page guidelines.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Themes, parallels and logic

Whether Luke wrote for the gentiles or the Jews does not affect the historicity of whether Joseph and Mary traveled from point A to point B or from Nazareth to Bethlehem. So that type of thematic analysis is a scholarly thematic debate, but not one about historicity of the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem. However, the census of Quirinius is a clear element in historicity. The historicity discussions of Luke depend on that, not on the tone for his audience.

Similarly, the question of whether Matthew drew parallels to the old testament does not directly impact the historicity of the nativity story. Joseph may have traveled to Egypt or not, and Matthew may have modeled it after Moses or not. How Matthew drew parallels does not produce a hotel receipt from Cairo Hilton for "Mr and Mrs Joseph" when they arrived in Egypt. The Moses discussion is a biblical analysis issue, not about establishing the fact whether Joseph ever set foot in Egypt. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this point which is why I have previously proposed separating thematic analysis from historical analysis. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too Richard. Will fix it now. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The logic of the silence of Josephus

Again, we have a clear, clear, clear case of Faulty logic in the discussion here. Logically speaking, a theory may be true or not, but errors in a particular proof of it neither support, nor invalidate the theory. The fact that a particular proof may be invalid has no bearing whatsoever, on the truth of the theory. I am sorry, this is just simple logic.

Let me try to explain this again in terms of the flat earth theory we used before:

• Group A say that the flat earth theory is false, else Josephus would not have remained silent about it.
• Group B says the silence of Josephus is "no proof of the falsehood" of the flat earth theory.

Here Group B is not, repeat not, accepting or denying the flat earth theory. They are denying a particular proof of the invalidity of theory. I am sorry, this is simple logic. And Wikipedia does need a minimal logical presentation. So let us stop using faulty logic flags on that. It is just embarrassing for Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is more

Anyway, this is just a start of my complaints about the lack of logic in the historicity discussions here. There is more if you like. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

there is no "historicity" section

History repeatedly says we shouldn't get non-historicity material mixed in with the historicity section. But there is no historicity section in the first place. We're reporting what mainstream scholars say about the narratives, not just what they say about the narratives' historicity. Leadwind (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a "Historicity" section which you proposed removing two weeks ago ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nativity_of_Jesus#remove_historicity_section here) and then acted upon your own proposal despite the demurral of History2007 and myself. I do not think the result has been an improvement and would like to bring back the "Historicity" section or at least call it "Historical analysis". This would punt the "thematic analysis" subsections to a separate section. I'm open to the precise naming of either of these two sections but I am opposed to mixing the two sets of ideas into a single section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, another example of what I would term "interesting logic". But as they say Richard, "the unwarranted/unilateral change of yesterday is the forgotten edit of today". I will change based on my comments about logical analysis above, and your comments above about the Themes section. That needs help anyway and I will organize them now, as discussed. He also, again, deleted text and references "at will" and I just restored them. There were other random reference deletions from before that I will restore too, now that I am at it.

And I was really surprised to realize that this dance has been going on for 16 days now. The only real substance has come from Sayerslle's additions from Luz and the rest has been one song after another. Not an improvement really. History2007 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's weird to me to take historical analysis (e.g., Matthew was trying to make Jesus into a greater Moses) and move it out of the historical analysis section. That sort of interpretation is part of the historical-critical method. It's not separate from historical analysis. But I'm more concerned with what material is included (esp. not giving fringe view equal status to mainstream views) than with organization. Leadwind (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree with Richard that the historicity of whether Jesus was born in Bathlehem is a separate issue from the tone used. The portrayal and thematic analysis was originally separate and I also see it as separate. The issue again is that of avoiding "gumbo logic" that mixes everything as my long discussion above illustrated. And again, there have been many logical errors in what was said, as stated above. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think my layman's non-academic perspective may be getting in the way here. So I'm going to explain what my framework is and what I think your framework is. If I have gotten it wrong, please enlighten me so we can hash out a mutually agreeable resolution.

To me, there is historical fact e.g. "When and where was Jesus born, was there a census of Quirinius, was there a Massacre of the Innocents".

There is interpretation which I always thought of as theological e.g. what is the theological implication of the genealogies and are the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by the gospel narratives.

If I understand you correctly, there is a sort of detached, objective view similar to literary criticism in which we look at the gospel and ignore both history and theology and ask "why is this work written the way it is". Thus, in the same way that we can see how an author such as James Joyce makes references to earlier literary traditions, we can also consider the author of Matthew as making references to earlier scriptural traditions. It is not historical fact that Matthew was referencing Moses since neither the text nor any outside statement by Matthew establishes this. However, it is widespread belief among the faithful that this is true. However, you can be an atheist and still believe this because we are now talking about why Matthew wrote what he wrote not whether what he wrote is historically accurate.

To me, this is a third perspective that is different from both the traditional faith-oriented perspective (it's all true) and the strictly historical perspective (none of it is true).

In the faith-oriented perspective, we believe that most of the gospel narratives are true. Some parts may be proven false but the faithful believe that the narratives are essentially true and have religious implications for their faith.

In the historical perspective, we take nothing for granted and any part of the narrative is subject to challenge. In fact, it appears that none of either gospel's narratives have any foundation in historical fact except the fact that Jesus was probably born sometime around the year 0AD. (based on the general acceptance that there was, in fact, an itinerant teacher named Jesus).

In the critical perspective, we are less interested in historical truth but neither are we necessarily bound by theology and faith. What we want to know is what did Matthew or Luke intend when they wrote what they wrote (or even what conventions were they bound by even if they were not fully aware of them).

If I've got this right, I think this argues that we should separate out the historical from the critical because, even though they are both "scholarly" opinions, the conclusions are really based on using different methods.

However, it may be the case that Biblical scholars use both methods concurrently and discuss their conclusions seamlessly without separating the two methodologies. If this is true, I accept that it could be awkward to separate the treatment of the two in this article. Is that what you are arguing? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you Richard, given that I also see the question: "Did Joseph ever set foot in Egypt" as a fully historical question that can be settled via the discovery next year of a new document somewhere (I joked about a receipt from Cairo Hilton), as opposed to "what was Matthew thinking/intended" whose answer is even deemed almost impossible to determine for living people in the view of modern scientists and scholars sans a PET scan.

However, I think another specific perspective that scholars such as Harrington have discussed must be mentioned: "We will never know". I think part of scholarly/historical/scientific realism is that there are statements whose validity is indeterminable and scholars such as Harrington argue that some of the biblical episodes fall in that category. There is no axiom of science and history that states that 20th century scholars are capable of "determining the truth of all statements". Assuming that would be the height of academic arrogance. What Herod had for lunch on his last day of life may be one of those indeterminable questions and there are millions more. Indeed there are facts which will remain unknown for long, or forever from a historical perspective.

And another perspective that must be mentioned is that the evangelists were not even trying to write a chronology. They were primarily writing religious documents, not time tables of events. That point has been made by multiple scholars. As one scholar put it: Matthew spent far more time discussing the name of the child and its theological implications than the actual birth event itself. So I think the brief "it is all fake" telegram has been sent enough times here without the consideration of all scholarly perspectives. Yet, it is clear that there is no single sentence verdict on all elements of the narratives, and that fact must be discussed in the article. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard, you've put your finger on the disconnect that has been bugging me for so long. As you say, "Biblical scholars use both methods concurrently." On lots of religion articles on WP, there are "historicity" sections where POV editors argue back and forth by proxy over whether this or that detail is true, false, or possible. That's interesting to anti-scripture crusaders and to pro-scripture crusaders, but it's not what a regular encyclopedia talks about. When historians say that the narratives were invented, that's not their conclusion, it's their opening remark. The real meat of historical analysis is not ruling the Massacre of the Innocents out (for example), but explaining how the MoI got there and what it means. When you ask a historian about the massacre of the innocents, the answer isn't just "it didn't happen." That's not news, and it doesn't tell us much about the MoI. The answer is more like, "The MoI is a story invented to liken Jesus to Moses and to show that even at his birth he was already a threat to every Jew's most hated former ruler." That's a historical answer with some meat to it. So if you our page splits the analysis up so one section that says "it didn't happen" and another section that says "it's based on Moses," then you don't have an integrated reading experience. Here's another take on it: instead of asking the closed-end question of "is it true?" ask the open-ended question of "what's going on here?" The traditionalist answer isn't just that it's true, but also that this true event is evidence that Jesus really was a greater Moses. The historical-critical answer isn't just that it's false, but also that this event demonstrates the way that early Christians were shaping their recollections of Jesus. The "is it true" focus is too narrow, it's not the focus that you see in professional encyclopedias, and it really serves the purposes of the POV battlers who want to stack up evidence on their side. That's why I don't want there to be a separate "historicity (true/false)" section. Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there is a difference. As a reader who asks questions, I asked a few questions in the past few days and was surprised. I think other readers need to be informed of the issues. I asked myself:

• "what historical data outside the Bible do the experts use to analyze historicity?" A tomb? An artifact? Remnants of a workshop? Any documents in the same time period?

After all, the experts seem so impressive, knowing all these Greek and Hebrew texts etc. So I asked what historical items outside the Bible they use. The answer seems to be: in most cases not very much and in some cases absolutely nothing. Nothing at all outside the Bible. That was an interesting discovery.

In Wikipedia, we never use one Wikipedia article as a reference for another. We always use external items for verification. Now in the cases of:

• Death of Herod: there are external historical records beside the Bible.
• Census of Quirinius: there are external historical records beside the Bible.

So these could be subject to historical analysis. What data is there for:

• Joseph ever set foot in Egypt, or did not: Nothing. Nothing outside the Bible. No records of his workshop in Egypt, no receipt from the Cairo Hilton that he ever stayed there.

So scholars on "both sides" of that debate do not in fact have any historical data of any sort outside the Bible to support their claims. So those scholars who say: "we do not have enough records to know" do have a valid point. The reader needs to be informed of their view, and of the distinction between cases that rely on "historical records" versus those that are entirely based on "Biblical comparisons" of Masoretic word usage in one place and Septuagint usage in another. Similarly, what historical data is there for Matthew's intentions: Nothing outside the Bible itself. Old Testament text is compared to New Testament text. Great. No historical records at all. And given that there is ongoing debate as to where Matthew got his text in the first place, the situation is even murkier than murky.

As a reader, I wanted to know these issues, and I had to look outside Wikipedia to figure it out. So the other readers need to be informed, so they do not have to look outside Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

'So those scholars who say: "we do not have enough records to know" do have a valid point.' They do? Then find a commonly accepted reference text that says so. Don't persuade us with reason that your viewpoint is important. Show us that the experts writing other reference texts think it's important. Leadwind (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The general issues that I outlined about the different approaches are already covered in Wikipedia in articles such as historicity, Biblical criticism and Historiography. The fact that there is no single historical record outside the Bible anywhere that states Joseph went to Egypt or did not is not even being disputed by anyone. There is no record of it outside the Bible anywhere, and no one has even claimed they have a record. History2007 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maier and the Massacre of the Innocents

Maier is being quoted to support both arguments for and against the historicity of the massacre. This is a bit odd. Does he actually take a stance on the question or does he just report on the dispute without taking a stance? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and as it happens he is discussing both perspectives. He is a good scholar, as I said before. he reports on what others said, then take a stance against the silence of Josephus, saying that it was a small scale event. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Christology of Nativity

In this section I'm not sure the ground is laid out - discussion of the Christology in the Nativity that is picked up later in doctrinal disputes, - in Matthew - the implications of 'pregnant thru the workings of the Holy spirit' in other words , Son of God, virgin birth and divine procreation, alien concepts, (acc to Luz) to judaism of genesis but idea later penetrated judaism, in Philo of Alexandria's thought too - implications of his name 'he will save his people from their sins' - and principally, theological significance of'Immanuel' 'god is with us' - in this story of Jesus, God is 'with' his people, the story of jesus has theological significance, for Matthew Jesus is an occurrence of god the earthly Jesus will remain with his community every day to the end of time..this is garbled , but the thing is , is the Christolgy of the nativity laid out in the section , or just the disputes that followed. .Sayerslle (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am pretty interested in the history of Christology and if you and your friend Luz can expand things either here or in the Christology article that will be great. The section on Christology can probably be improved - without doubt. It is too short about the early parts, and that needs expansion. But the reality is that the disputes and schisms were NOT just about the Nativity, but because Nestorius was critcizing the royals and Celestine I got upset and set him up, as discussed here: Talk:Christology#Christology.23Council_of_Ephesus. Now that may be too much to add here, but I agree that the section should say more about the theology and Christology. Now what should go into theology and what into Chrstology, I think we should figure out what we want to say, then add it. Do you have a suggested paragraphs that we can talk about? I love this stuff. History2007 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on a paragraph, like I said I've got 3 Luz books!, and I've just taken notes on the prologue to Matthews gospel from one of them so far, (he calls 'the prologue' up to 4:22,)- Luz calls Matthews Prologue 'a key text in Christology' - Sayerslle (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be very interesting to hear about. Many people argue that Christology started with Philippians 2, but of course Luz knows a lot more about it than I do, so I am all ears now. History2007 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Larry Hurtado - reliable source?

I found this source who has interesting stuff to say about Jesus' conception and birth http://books.google.com/books?id=k32wZRMxltUC&pg=PA318&dq=Nativity+Jesus+Luke+Matthew&hl=en&ei=lZpJTcitD4a-sQOtrvjeCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Nativity%20Jesus%20Luke%20Matthew&f=false

However, I'd like to ask if anyone has heard of this author and his credentials before I rely too heavily on his work.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

He has a Wikipedia page Larry W. Hurtado: a scholar of early Christianity and Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at The University of Edinburgh. I had him in my notes actually stating that: "Neither Luke of Matthew claim that their Nativity narratives are based on the direct testimonies of either Mary or Joseph" page 322, but had not used it. Anyway, he seems good. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to investigate a bit. And the first signs did not look good to me. This is one of his books. It is published by Paternoster press. It was a publisher of christian books [1]. So, this book would generally be nogood IMO. But, to form a view about the author in general, would need that a fuller list[2] of his books be investigated to find out where he is published most of the time. If most of his books have been published by presses like OUP, CUP, Yale, or other reputed university presses/academic publishers, he would be a valuable source. BTW, this is the first time I have come across this name, but that should not be a consideration.-Civilizededucation^talk 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, but again I see no stated policy in Wikipedia (WP:V, etc.) for the "publisher scoring algorithm" outlined above, and I think StormRider commented on source selection further above too. In any case, the man is "professor at Edinburgh", has written various books on the topic and is certainly a WP:reliablesource in my view: I have no hesitation in using him as a W:reliablesource. But I doubt that we will agree, so I hope you will understand if I do not debate him for ever. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see Storm as a highly experienced ed. I don't think Storm is enthusiastic about presenting sacred history as history. I am not sure what you make of it. Anyway, it is not necessary to discuss sources beforehand.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we agree on that point. So let us leave it at that now that we agree. As for sacred history, if you mean the statements in the Bible being religious statements rather than a timetable of secular events, I also think so, for the authors of the Bible did not really bother to put dates in it. They were trying to teach/indoctrinate people first, everything else second or maybe third. But what I think matters not, many sources say that too. But that is probably yet another topic. History2007 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite what I had meant. But, as you say, it is probably another topic. I too have been into situations where I have felt disinclined to talk. In such situations, I have been known to take a break for a few days.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Eerdmans is a well-established publisher with a good reputation and I don't think I've ever objected to one of their books even when I disagree with what one of their books says. The other test is whether what the source says is in line with the majority viewpoint. If it is, it's probably good. If not, then probably not. Leadwind (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I too don't object to Eardmans per se, I understand that Eardmans is a press which publishes serious academic books, as well as books meant for christian audiences. As such, I am ambiguous about this publisher. And the author under discussion appears to have written some books with "Our Lord" in the title of the book. So, I am skeptical about this author too. I don't see very many academic authors writing books with titles like that. However, the material which we use from his book can also be an indicator of his reliability.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The title of a book is likely to be significantly effected by input from the editor. Evaluating any author based on his publisher's marketing plan would seem somewhat shortsighted. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, therefore status quo ante proposita. That said, "The Nativity" might not be opposed were someone to boldy go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Nativity of Jesus → Nativity — This is the primary meaning of "[the] Nativity" in English. All other (common) uses are derivative and refer directly to this nativity, establishing the superior educational value of this topic. This article was in fact only moved from its original title (same as the proposed one) because it's content was focused on the birth of Jesus while its lede basically noted that "nativity" was a synonym for "birth". The article can have a hatnote to the DAB page and to birth. (By this proposal it is intended that Nativity be moved to Nativity (disambiguation).) Srnec (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Weak Oppose. But not a big deal at all, given that Nativity of Jesus will redirect there. Yet having the word Jesus in the page title reduces the chance for ambiguity. Good Olfactory's comment that "this topic is probably the primary meaning in English" already reflects the fact that the equation "Nativity = Nativity of Jesus" is probably well understood but not 100% right. I do, however, hope that we will not all talk for 3 years for a move that will make less than 0.000001% difference to the quality of content in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose since it is a synonym for birth. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  The word "reformation" does not exclusively refer to the Protestant Reformation, yet that is where it redirects, because "reformation" is not an encylcopedic topic anyway. We could say the same for Renaissance, except that is not even a redirect. I see we have The Holocaust, and I suppose we could go with The Nativity, but I don't know why we would do so when Holocaust redirects there anyway. But this shows that we recognise that occassionally common nouns come to refer predominantly to one historical instance of themselves. This is especially so when the common noun is not worthy of an article anyway (reformation) or is no in common use for any other purpose (nativity). Srnec (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is because of WP:NOTDICDEF. Were someone to write an encyclopedic article about "reformation", religious and/or otherwise, (as opposed to "Reformation"), then the need would arise as which was the primary topic and of an eventual dab. When it come to "nativity" (as opposed to "Nativity" or "The Nativity"), there is a need of disambiguation, since it may refer to birth. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yet, there is no link to birth on the DAB page, although there is a link to the Wiktionary article for "nativity". This would work for the current article, too. I think my point stands, there is only one encyclopedia topic for the word "nativity" in the same way there is only one for the words "reformation" and "renaissance". Srnec (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Good thing to point out, {{sofixit}} [3] ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per nominator. Obviously the primary topic, regardless of etymology. The Celestial City (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, despite my initial misgivings. I think on balance this is probably an appropriate change if it's desired. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support The Nativity, but not plain old Nativity. ^rossnixon 02:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my argument above. Neutral re. The Nativity and Nativity of Jesus. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but "The Nativity" would be better. Kauffner (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Nativity, but Support The Nativity per Srnec's reasoning. Support per primary topic. Ajl^talk 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this, I just caught the timestamp... Ajl^talk 12:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC) I was tired when I wrote this, and someone pointed out to me that the discussion was still open anyways. Ajl^talk 22:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Open, yes - alive, not exactly. Seven days have passed and it is time to close this and move on. I think the nominator can just withdraw it, given the current status of teh votes and we can move on. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment. This topic is probably the primary meaning in English of "the Nativity", but it may not be for just the solitary word "nativity", which is what this proposal suggests moving to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment "In population statistics, the birth rate or number of childbirths per unit of time." [4] ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that was a good point Mr Falk. That point is a key obstacle to the use of Nativity. I did not know that disambig page was there. So Nativity is not a suitable name for this article, given that fact. And given that Nativity of Mary is also a well established term, then there is really no point in the rename. History2007 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nativity vs. infancy

It's a quibble, but in scholarly circles the nativity and the infancy are two separate narratives - the nativity is the birth story, the infancy is what follows, the attempt of Herod to kill the kill the child and the flight into Egypt. I've deleted some material. PiCo (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Name of Jesus's father

"Jesus being born near the end of Herod's reign and his father being named Joseph are considered historically plausible." They are? surely they both come from the gospel-writer's wish to show Jesus as the new Moses - so Herod is the wicked Pharaoh and Joseph is his father because the Joseph of Genesis immediately precedes Moses in the Torah. (Note that I'm not saying these theories are true, but the fact they exist means that you can't say that these two things are "considered historically plausible"). PiCo (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I say go ahead and change it. It is no big deal really in my view. We can just say the Gospel says it was Joseph. That part is for sure, given all the Bible copies out there, the rest is subject to debate given that none of us was there at the time. I have no exact stats, but my guess is that 5% of the readers pay attention to that anyway. History2007 (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Luke 3:23 says Jesus "about 30" when he began his ministry, which works out to a birth year of 2 BC. In John 7:52, the Pharisees say Jesus cannot be the messiah because "no prophet shall arise from Galilee". So they understood Jesus to be born in Galilee, i.e. Nazareth, rather than in Bethlehem. Kauffner (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the Eastern Christian perspective?

There are pictures of Nativity scenes which are fine for Roman Catholic or Protestants, but inappropriate in terms of Orthodox Christian teaching. You can see a picture of the Nativity as it was traditionally taught here. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nativity_icon There should be a paragraph written re: that slight difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article needs some clean up concerning neutral point of view. It talks of Jesus and disciples as if they are real historical people and as if the events recorded in the gospels are fact rather than things recorded in a text. I'm not challenging that many of these are Christian beliefs, but it takes a Christian-centric worldview rather than making it obviously separate from any particular religious viewpoint. As with the need for more incorporation of Eastern Christian perspective, the article needs to bear in mind that for many these are just works of literature. For example, 'Luke draws parallels' is really short-hand for 'Parallels are seen by some in the Gospel of Luke' or 'The authors of the gospel of Luke attempt to draw parallels'. The first implies to non-Christian readers that Luke is a person who is actively drawing these parallels when that is not only a matter for debate (most of the gospels weren't written by single individuals), but sounds very strange to those of other faiths (or none at all). Read the later bits of the article with the mindset of a Hindu, Buddhist, or Atheist and many bits of it come across as assuming that these stories are somehow true, rather than works of literature from a different belief system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcummings (talk • contribs) 09:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Nativity of Jesus → The Nativity

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus → The Nativity – This title was suggested by the closer of the previous RM. Googling "The Nativity" -wikipedia shows that this topic is primary. The Nativity already redirects here. Britannica`s entry is entitled "Nativity", and it uses "the Nativity" in the text. There are books on this subject titled "The Nativity" here and here. The proposed form is certainly more common as a search term, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry. Your argument about searches is actually valid. The only reason I prefer Nativity of Jesus is that it telegrams what it is upfront. Of course, WP:COMMONNAME should be considered, but then the encyclopedia reader should know what it is within 3 seconds when it is used in a "See also" somewhere else. When "The Nativity" is used in a See also elsewhere, it is less clear than Nativity of Jesus. That is all. History2007 (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom and WP:UCN. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• See also Merriam-Webster, Oxford English Dictionary, and The American Heritage Dictionary. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback)

• Oppose It may be common, but it is too ambiguous. --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Google is [not] your friend. The search terms comparison has a nice multi-year graph showing huge spikes for "The Nativity" in December each year and tiny spikes for "Nativity of Jesus", but to the right of that graph (with underlining added) it had this:

A This Week in History: Church of the Nativity siege

B Palestinian Leader At Midnight Mass President Mahmoud Abbas Attends Bethlehem Church Of The Nativity

C Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

D 'Children of mud' celebrate the nativity of John the Baptist

E Tony Jordan to follow The Nativity with story of Noah

F Palestinians seek UNESCO recognition for Church of the Nativity

G Eyewitness: The nativity

Of course "Nativity" appears in a lot more pages, since it is not specific enough. "Nativity of Jesus" is more specific, less ambiguous, more informative of what the article is about, (and I like it! :)
—Telpardec  TALK  17:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Some other "nativity" wiki-pages: * Nativity * Nativity of Jesus in art * Nativity of Jesus in later culture * Nativity of Jesus (disambiguation) * Nativity scene * Church of the Nativity * Nativity of St. John the Baptist * Nativity of Mary * The Nativity Story

• Check the associated terms for "The Nativity" on the bottom of the Insights page. It's "nativity church", "nativity movie", etc. I don't see anything that suggests that readers are seeking information on the nativity of someone other than Jesus. The list of news stories is just random, not intended to be representative of what readers are seeking. Kauffner (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually Telpardec has a point in that "Nativity of Mary" and "Nativity of John the Baptist" etc. may be showing up in searches, etc. History2007 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• You obviously didn't check Insights' list of associated terms. Here it is: nativity church, the nativity church, church of nativity, the christmas nativity, christmas nativity, nativity movie, the nativity, the nativity movie, nativity scene, nativity of jesus. Not one of those search terms suggest an interest in the birth of Mary or John the Baptist. Try googling "The Nativity" -wikipedia. Not one hit on the first three pages of results relates to the birth of anyone other than Jesus. Kauffner (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I do not pay attention to G-insights because it does not establish "usage" but "interest in search". Interest in search has no bearing on usage in mainstream published sources. History2007 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, so what source calls this subject "nativity of Jesus"? I gave Britannica in the nom, and Presidentman has given a list of dictionaries. All these sources call it nativity/Nativity. Here are even more dictionary entries. Cambridge is typical: "Nativity, the birth of Jesus, celebrated by Christians at Christmas: the Nativity story." Kauffner (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There are various sources which use the term Nativity of Jesus, also here etc. Yet my main objection is/was based on "ambiguity", as in Carl's post. History2007 (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The first three pages of Google results for the proposed term all relate to this topic. It is a highly unambiguous term. There's nothing wrong with using an ambiguous term as the title of an article anyway. Kauffner (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we know our respective positions. Let us see what other people will say. History2007 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Timeline

I would like to suggest that there be a timeline to the "Birth of Christ" one that makes reference to a Jewish time that is a correct way when interpreting the Birth of Christ. He was not born in the month of December or even in the winter months. One clue is Rome would not of had a census in that time, it would have been in the months of Sept-Oct, the next clue is when the Host of Angels tells the shepherds in the field about the birth would have been in the feast of Sukkot which literally means "God is with us" if you check your facts in the Bible it clearly makes references to so many things on the birth of Christ, and with a little knowledge of the Bible one can find this out on his own. Zachariah was in the division of Abijah which was a division set up in the Book of Chronicles their time would have been an accurate time. Another clue is when the birth of John the Baptist happened Mary was 3 months into her pregnancy.Clearly looks like this: Sukkot-Birth, Passover- sacrifice, Unleavened Bread- death, Firstfruits- resurrection, Shavout- Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Yom Kippur- Atonement Rosh ha Shanah- (Yahs new year) judgement. The Bible says that the spirit of Elijah shall proceed the coming of the LORD- so John the Baptist would have been born on Passover and about six months later in the feast of Sukkot the Messiah would have been born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12thebeginning (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is likely beyond the scope of this article. See Chronology of Jesus and Historical Jesus. Elizium23 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. And much of the commentary above about the time line is WP:OR and source free. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

December birth user suggestion

The Birth of Jesus, the Christ

The birth of Jesus is a topic that has been the subject of debate for many,years. There are many theologians

that have openly started that the Birth of Jesus was not in December, and most likely not in the winter season.

There are those who say that there is no way of telling when the birth of Jesus occurred, and that it does not matter

as long as we celebrate it in the correct spirit and for the right reason.

What if there really is a way to know the real date of the Birth of Jesus, would it make a difference?

Remember this, that most of the treasures that are found in ALMIGHTY GOD'S Holy Word has to be dug out.

A nugget of wisdom may be found on top of the ground or laying in a stream, but the mother-lode vein

of understanding will only be uncovered with diligent, and time consuming search.

What if the Holy Bible, ALMIGHTY GOD'S Holy Word, could actually tell us the day when the only begotten

Son of God was born, would it make a difference to the Christian Church?

Let us take a look at some verses of Holy Scripture and the words that they contain, to see what can be found.

The first 4 verses of Luke tell us of the importance and the reliability of what

Luke is about to tell us concerning Zacharias, the father of John the baptist,

and the time in which he served as a priest in the Temple.

Luke 1:1-4

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration

of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning

were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things

from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,

wherein thou hast been instructed. KJV

Verse 5 holds the key to unlocking the mystery we seek to understand.

THE COUSE OF ABIA

Luke 1:5

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias,

of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. KJV

NT:2183 Course

ephemeria (ef-ay-mer-ee'-ah); from NT:2184; diurnality, i.e. (specially) the quotidian rotation

or class of the Jewish priests' service at the Temple, as distributed by families: KJV - course.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Diurnality and Quotidian are words that mean Daily. (Webster's Dictionary)

NT:7 Abia / Abijah

Abia (ab-ee-ah'); of Hebrew origin [OT:29]; Abijah,

the name of two Israelites: KJV - Abia.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The course of Abia, or Abijah as it is known in the Old Testament,

was the time period that Abijah was to serve in the temple

to burn incense unto ALMIGHTY GOD.

the 8th course was named after Abijah as he was the first Priest to be appointed to that office for that particular time.

Most Holy Bibles that have any kind of cross reference system,

directing you from one verse that you might be reading to another, will most likely

give you a cross reference from Luke 1:5 to I Chronicles 24:10.

This cross reference may be found at the end of the verse that you are reading,

in a center column, or in a foot note found at the bottom of the page.

I have checked 4 of our KJV versions, and 1 NIV, and all show the same cross reference

to I Chronicles 24:10 to tell us more about the COURSE OF ABIA / ABIJAH.

1 Chronicles 24:10

10. The seventh to Hakkoz,

the eighth to Abijah, KJV

This would have been the 8th course, or division as stated in I Chronicles 24:1.

Each course or division would be for service of seven days, a week, as found in I Chronicles 9:25.

Back to Zacharias the father of John the baptist, his course, of Abia/Abijah, would have been

the 8th course or division which would have been the 8th week of the year.

That is the 8th week of the Hebrew year.

The book of Exodus, chapter 12 Moses and Aaron are instructed by ALMIGHTY GOD

as to when the beginning of the year will be, which is Abib, also known as Nisan.

Exodus 12:1-2

12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,

2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months:

it shall be the first month of the year to you. KJV

OT:2320 Month / New Moon

chodesh (kho'-desh); from OT:2318; the new moon; by implication, a month: -month (-ly), new moon.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Then in Exodus 13:4 we are told the name of that month is Abib,

also known as Nisan

Exodus 13:1-4

13:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among

the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

3 And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt,

out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you

out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.

4 This day came ye out in the month Abib. KJV

OT:24 Abib

'abiyb (aw-beeb'); from an unused root (meaning to be tender); green, i.e. a young ear of grain;

hence, the name of the month Abib or Nisan

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Knowing the name of the first month of the year, Abib, which ALMIGHTY GOD gave to Moses,

we then can go to a Hebrew Calendar Website that converts the Gregorian Calendar Years to the Hebrew Calendar years.

The Gregorian calendar is the calendar that most of the world uses today and starts the year with January 1.

The Hebrew calendar Starts each month with the new moon. The month of Nisan, (Abib) starts

in mid March to mid April depending on how the New Moon falls for that month, in that particular year.

The year, or 2 years that we are looking at would be Hebrew years 3760 and 3761, which takes us back to the last year before

the birth of Jesus, and the first year AD or CE, the year of the birth of Jesus. We are looking at 2 years due to the fact

that John the baptist was conceived and born 6 months before Jesus. This would mean that the entire time period that we are looking

at is a couple of days short of 17 months, (Hebrew Calendar), 9 months + 6 months + 8 weeks.

9 months = the time period from John's conception, to his birth.

6 months = Jesus was conceived 6 months after John, which means he would be born 6 months after John.

8 weeks = The 8 weeks that Zacharias served in the temple just before John was conceived.

9 months + 6 months + 1 month and 26-27 days = 16 months and 26-27 days.

Please remember the Hebrew months only had 29 - 30 days, not 30 - 31 as the Gregorian calendar.

The year that John was conceived was Hebrew year 3760.

The first month of the Hebrew year 3760 was Nisan / Abib.

Nisan / Abib 1, 3760, on the Gregorian calendar would have been March 25th, 1BC.

Zacharias served the 8th week of the Hebrew year in the temple, which would have been

Iyar 20th, through Iyar 26th 3760, or on the Gregorian calendar it would have been May 13th through May 19th, 1BC.

John was conceived on Iyar 27th, 3760, on the Gregorian calendar it would have been May 20th, 1BC.

John was born 9 months later which was Sh'vat 27th, 3761, or February 10th, 1AD, on the Gregorian calendar.

Jesus was conceived 6 months after John was conceived, which would have been Chesvan 27th, 3760.

On the Gregorian calendar it was November 13th 1BC .

Jesus was born 9 months later.

On the Hebrew calendar Jesus was born on Av 27th 3761, this would have been August 6th, 1AD ,or CE.

Please keep in mind that the birth date of Jesus the Christ will always remain the same on the Hebrew Calendar,

it will always be the 27th day of the Hebrew month Av. Therefore, because the Hebrew month has less days the

Gregorian month, his birth date on the Gregorian calendar will change each year to coincide with the Hebrew calendar.

Most often, if not all the time, his birth date should fall within the month of August on the Gregorian calendar.

By the way, one of the reasons ALMIGHTY GOD gave us the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, was to be able to

to figure out the days, the months, and the years, so that HIS people could keep the festivals that HE

commanded us to keep.

Genesis 1:14

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;

and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: KJV

Below is the most user friendly website that I could find that converts the Hebrew to Gregorian

and gregorian to Hebrew, or BC to AD/CE.

www.shirhadash.org/calendar/hcal.cgi?y=3760 www.shirhadash.org/calendar/hcal.cgi?y=3761

Highlight either one of above web addresses, and then right click on it.

Then left click on Go to www.

Melvin L. Heath (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:OR Melvin. The statements you typed above are "original research" and fail per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:Primary. This will not fly in Wikipedia. Take my word for it. Sorry. History2007 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

20th c. research is thin, wants more information

There are much more studious analyses by Talley, Pfatteicher, and Buchiner, to name a few, that suggest documentary evidence for the dating of the birth of Jesus (per church calendars) back to the 4th, or possibly 3rd, c. but none of those are listed here, or discussed. If anyone has background in this, it would be a useful addition to the article; I'm just coming across them and have not integrated them well enough to do so, but someone must have a more updated background on this that could.67.134.206.28 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)