Talk:Nativity of Jesus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Justin Martyr and the cave

Moved from User talk:Walter Görlitz

 – Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note with your revert on Nativity of Jesus. I must confess I hadn't given much thought to who was first to place the birth in a cave, I was just going by what I recalled reading about the Protoevangelium being the earliest record of the birth in a cave. I looked up the reference given in the Nativity article - "Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins" - and on page 99 it says that Justin wrote this in his "Dialogue with Trypho" of between 155-161, which would place it just within the earliest dating for the Protoevangelium, which is fairly uncertain but seems to be "second half of the 2nd century".

Then I went to Lily Vuong's "Gender and Purity"; on page 38 she talks about the "concordances" between PJ and this document of Justin, and it seems an attempt has been made to date PJ on the basis that Justin was deriving his cave (and other matters) from it. My understanding is there's agreement that there's a dependency, but the direction is unsettled - is PJ using Justin, or vice-versa? Anyway, I thought you might be interested - it's a terribly minor detail, but I rather like these things.

Are you aware that I've been editing the Gospel of James article? You might like to help out. I work very slowly, changing things as I go because I really know very little and simply research at the time. Achar Sva (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I would imagine that it was fairly close. The fact that we have written records that only go back to the mid-second century does not preclude oral tradition predating that, but we should go with sources. I have a fairly full plate now, but might keep that in mind for later. Would you mind adding this to the section on the origin of that part of the story? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Emmanuel or Jesus

Referring to these reverts: Special:Diff/1035262652, Special:Diff/1035265098.

In edit summary, I wrote King James Version and LSV of Matt 1:21 both have "Jesus" not "Emmanuel". Textual variants in the Gospel of Matthew#Matthew 1 doesn't mention "Emmanuel" as a variant. To which Johnbod replied New revised Std or whateveer, Wycliffe, & most importantly for here, the Vulgate all have this

The status quo ante version of this article had "Jesus, because he would save his people from their sins", which is straight from Matthew 1:21. Thanks to Immanuel#Matthew 1:22–23 I now notice that in the next two verses, Matthew refers to Isiah's prophesy "spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ... they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".

This isn't a difference between Wycliffe & Vulgate vs. King James &c. It's a difference between verse 23 and the rest of chapter 1. When the author of Matthew is writing in his own voice he consistently uses "Jesus" &/or "Christ" (verses 1, 16, 17, 18, 25); when relaying the words of the angel, he uses "Jesus" (v.21); when he paraphrases the prophesy (v.23), he uses "Emmanuel".

• Wycliffe (Wikisource, 1380s): "And she shal bere a sone, and thou shalt clepe his name Jhesus; for he schal make his puple saaf fro her synnes. ... that was seid of the Lord bi a prophete, seiynge, Lo! a virgyn shal haue in wombe, and she schal bere a sone, and thei schulen clepe his name Emanuel, that is to seie, God with vs."
• Vulgate ([1]) "Pariet autem filium: et vocabis nomen ejus Jesum: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. ... quod dictum est a Domino per prophetam dicentem: ... et vocabunt nomen ejus Emmanuel ..."
• Greek (Wikisource, Scrivener 1894): "[21] τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν [22] τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, [23] Ἰδού, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός.

Putting verses 20–25 all together, we have: the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, saying ... she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus ... this was to fulfill the Lord's word that a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel ... Then Joseph awoke ... did as the angel ... had bidden him, ... and he called his firstborn son Jesus.

The current version is incorrect – an angel told him in a dream that he should take Mary as his wife and name the child Emmanuel. The angel instructs Joseph to name his son Jesus, not Emmanuel.

I have a wording in mind for this sentence which reflects the actual contents of Matthew, using context to take some interpretive liberty with the literal "ὄνομα / nomen". If someone doesn't like it and reverts, then you all can have at it. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, make sure you reference it properly. I'm not actually sure the point is necessary in this article, so maybe we should just trim the well-known account. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec)  Done Special:Diff/1035282813. With respect to the structure of the article, mentioning the prophesy at § Gospel of Matthew prepares the reader for discussion of Isiah at § Old Testament parallels. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Matt 1:21 in the Greek reads "Ἰησοῦν" (transliterated as iEsoun). Yes, the KJV and all other modern translations read Jesus in verse 21, but Emmanuel (Ἐμμανουήλ) is used in when referring back to Isaiah, which is quoted in verse 23. See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A21-23&version=AKJV;SBLGNT;THGNT;NASB;NIV to compare. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the side-by-side comparison, Walter, that's very handy. How do you feel about the extra sentence that I added? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was a great addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The para in question is a straight paraphrase of Matt. 1:18–25 in Wikipedia's voice, so external reference isn't really applicable. I agree with you about keeping it trim and simple, Johnbod. On the other hand, the reader now has a chance to click/tap through to Immanuel, and mentioning the prophesy ties in to discussion in a later section. Also, from what I've read here and in related articles, Matthew seems to have originated this use of "Emmanuel", so it's noteworthy. On balance I feel it's worth keeping the extra sentence. (I'm ambivalent about the wording "the son would be known as Emmanuel" vs. "the son would be called Emmanuel", but my intention was to avoid "they will name him" which has different connotations in English that might not apply in the original Greek.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Wikilink is helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Scope

"when Jesus was twelve years old they found him in the Temple listening to the teachers and asking questions so that "all who heard him were amazed". His mother rebuked him for causing them anxiety, because his family had not known where he was, but he answered that he was in his Father's house. "Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them, but his mother treasured all these things in her heart, and Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." No doubt, but is something that happened when Jesus was 12 years old part of his nativity? Achar Sva (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%201:1%E2%80%9325&version=nrsv. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NebY (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC) NebY (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed three subsections that were taken directly from the cited webpages [2][3], with very light trimming and paraphrasing. Those web pages clearly explain they are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

They were also out of scope for an article concerned specifically with the nativity. NebY (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I never realised that the Bible is copyrighted. Surely there is only one Bible? Surely every website that publishes the Bible is itself copying another source? Do all the different Bible online "sources" all paraphrase the material themselves? Is it perhaps just this particular website that we cannot quote? Are there "other" Bibles that can be quoted under "open source" rules please? I am very confused - please assist? Wdford (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Broadlly speaking, every new translation is a work of "skill, labour, and judgment" (to borrow a UK phrase) and qualifies for copyright. That's true of translations of Luke's Gospel and of Homer's Odyssey. An old translation like the King James will usually be out of copyright, but a new edition of an old translation might not be; for example, David Daniell's modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament qualifies for copyright. (Indeed, even without translation, new scholarly editions of ancient texts can qualify for copyright when by meticulous scholarship they correct copying errors that have crept in over the centuries.) Of course, this shouldn't impel us to start pasting in blocks of the King James into articles such as this; even if it was a perfect and neutral translation, its seventeenth-century English can be obscure or misleading to modern readers. Instead, just as with other texts, we describe it. NebY (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Wdford (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

King James, American Standard Version and others are out of copyright, but most modern translations are not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The table at List_of_English_Bible_translations#Complete_Bibles (no doubt not complete) lists several, but the situation re the ("King James") Authorized Version is actually not that simple - but quotations of the length Wikipedia articles need are not an issue. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

NebY, would this issue be resolved if there were a note saying "summarised from XXXX translation"?Achar Sva (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That's rather the point. We shouldn't simply copy-paste a translation, lightly paraphrase it or present a trimmed version. We should summarise that part of the gospel, which is to say describe what it says, and that's best done by not relying solely on any one translation (though any standard translation could then serve as a citation). The current section on Matthew is a little better but needs work.

We also need to be clear about our scope. This article is specifically about the nativity. In many churches, readings during Advent and at Christmas include other material such as the birth of John the Baptist and what Jesus did when he was twelve. That's part of many people's Christmases but it's not part of the nativity. NebY (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead and lists of agreements/disagreements

Wdford, you asked in a recent edit summary, "Why is the lead listing the things that the gospels do agree on, but not listing the things where the gospel don't agree?" My brief answer would be that lists of either sort would take up too much space. The lead should simply say that the two agree on very little. (With source of course).Achar Sva (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Section "Date and place of birth"

User:Walter Görlitz: I thought youre reversion of my version of the section was an error because in your edit summary yuo referred specifically to the subheaders I introduced in the "summary" section and didn't mention this section. I don't believe I've introduced very much that is new, simply simplified what's already there and checked out sources. I'll paste my version below, breaking it down into sentences, and perhaps you could show me what you think can't (or can) stand:

First para (my version)

• Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but Matthew implies that Joseph has his home there, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth and made the journey to Bethlehem in obedience to the census decree.
• In Luke the newborn Jesus is placed in a manger "because there was no place for them in the inn", or kataluma. *"Kataluma" may be translated as a private house, (although most scholars do not accept this interpretation), a small room, or an inn, but any case Luke excludes it as the place where Jesus was born, or at least where the baby was laid.
• Luke in fact does not say precisely where Jesus was born, but by the 2nd century a tradition had grown up that it took place in a cave outside the town (the tradition is found in Justin Martyr and the Gospel of James, both from the middle to second half of the century).
• Origen, who travelled throughout Palestine around 215, wrote of the "manger of Jesus", and in 325 St. Helena built the Church of the Nativity over a series of caves including the cave-manger site traditionally venerated as the birthplace of Jesus.

Second para

• Luke dates the birth to the year of the census of Quirinius, which took place in 6 CE, but as it also places it "in the days of King Herod of Judea", who died ten years earlier in 4 BCE, most scholars acknowledge that Luke has misdated the event.
• The majority of scholars assume that Jesus was born before the death of Herod, perhaps between 6 BC and 4 BC based on the information in Matthew 2:16 and by counting backwards from the information given in Luke 3:23 that he was about thirty years old in the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius.

The para about Islam is unchanged.Achar Sva (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not my version. Two other editors got it the way it is now. Talk to them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it's my version. What I'm asking is why you feel it's worse than the existing version. Achar Sva (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not making a quality judgment, but I see this going back-and-forth so the three of you should come to a common ground. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

For the Date and Place of birth section, I agree that any details in your version which are not already in the article, should be added. Some copy-editing will then probably be required too.

Why does the "Matthew" section have sub-sub-headings? Surely this is not necessary?

Wdford (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought it would make it easier for the reader. If you disagree, feel free to remove them. Achar Sva (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

References

In the article at present, the sentence beginning ""Kataluma" may be translated as either "inn" or "guestroom", and some scholars have speculated" is unsourced, leaving it looking terribly like WP:OR complete with WP:WEASELWORDS. Above you cite Brown 1997 for the kataluma speculation (do you mean Brown 1977?) and write "most scholars do not accept this interpretation". Does Brown make the speculation and/or say that some other named scholars don't accept it? Do you know of other scholars speculating likewise or rejecting such speculation? If it's Brown alone or almost alone, we should leave it out as WP:UNDUE.

Properly speaking, Luke doesn't date the nativity at all (no "in the year of" or suchlike). The census is part of his narrative, a part incompatible with his reference to Herod.or Matthew's. Some light copy-editing deals with that and "Luke has misdated the event" (eg that can become "Luke was in error").

We shouldn't say "islam places" any more than we'd say of other events "Christianity places" or "Judaism places". Is it the Quran? Hadith?

I may have other comments, but I have to stop now and deal with a couple of other things. Broadly speaking, I do prefer your version. NebY (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

NebY, The piece on kataluma is sourced from Brown 1977 (for some reason my fingers keep wanting to move on two decades) As for Islam, the answer seems to be that the Quran does not place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, but under a palm tree. It does, however, describe a virgin birth. Achar Sva (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the other editors are past or close to going over WP:3RR. I would rather see discussion happen here and consensus reached on the talk page or in a sandbox, and then moved to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Walter, I don't see any edit-warring at all, but instead a very good example of collaborative editing. I have no objection to people changing my edits if they feel I'm wrong, and I'll try to take their suggestions/alterations into account. Do you really see this as edit-warring? Achar Sva (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring clearly states a "revert is to undo the action of another editor." Consecutive edits are considered a single edit or revert.

Extended content

One for Achar Sva 2021-12-28T18:38:00‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,722 bytes −2‎ →‎Gospel of Matthew: better division of pericopes One for Neby 2021-12-28T18:42:19‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 117,079 bytes +357‎ →‎Gospel of Luke: add revdel template with endpoint that includes excessive unattributed quotation as well as the lightly trimmed direct copy/paste that's the most blatant copyvio One for Walter Görlitz 2021-12-28T23:18:55‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎ 117,009 bytes −70‎ leads should not introduce new material, they should only summarize what the article states. undo Two for Achar Sva 2021-12-29T01:43:42‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,484 bytes −525‎ →‎Gospel narratives: synopsis: on agreements and differences and impossibility of synthesis 2021-12-29T01:45:33‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,416 bytes −68‎ →‎Bibliography: refine page link 2021-12-29T02:04:15‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,385 bytes −31‎ →‎Gospel narratives: synopsis: closer to source 2021-12-29T02:09:08‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,429 bytes +44‎ →‎Gospel narratives: synopsis: relocate comparison of pericopes and itinerary 2021-12-29T02:10:22‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,431 bytes +2‎ relocate and rename section 2021-12-29T02:11:51‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,211 bytes −220‎ →‎Date and place of birth: Birth in Bethlehem is covered in the preceding section 2021-12-29T02:28:58‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 115,906 bytes −305‎ →‎Date and place of birth: expanding on the Bethlehem/birthplace pericope 2021-12-29T02:32:33‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 115,906 bytes 0‎ →‎Bibliography: supply url-link 2021-12-29T03:04:34‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,039 bytes +133‎ →‎Date and place of birth: moving towards a revision with sources 2021-12-29T05:08:41‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,289 bytes +250‎ →‎Date and place of birth: On Luke and dating the birth 2021-12-29T05:10:04‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,315 bytes +26‎ →‎Date and place of birth: material from article Census of Quirinius 2021-12-29T05:13:32‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,315 bytes 0‎ →‎Date and place of birth: copyedit 2021-12-29T05:14:05‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,271 bytes −44‎ →‎Critical analysis: this has been moved to another section 2021-12-29T05:17:12‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,281 bytes +10‎ →‎Nativity narrative comparison: copyedit 2021-12-29T05:24:46‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,628 bytes +347‎ →‎Nativity narrative comparison: extend on differences 2021-12-29T05:41:25‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 115,995 bytes −633‎ →‎Date and place of birth: cleanup 2021-12-29T05:52:50‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 116,192 bytes +197‎ →‎Bibliography: add book 2021-12-29T05:57:13‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 115,383 bytes −809‎ →‎Date and place of birth: updating sourcing 2021-12-29T05:59:34‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 115,245 bytes −138‎ →‎Date and place of birth: change to sfn 2021-12-29T06:17:04‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 114,372 bytes −873‎ →‎Date and place of birth: convert to sfn format 2021-12-29T06:21:26‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 114,761 bytes +389‎ →‎Bibliography: add book 2021-12-29T06:23:47‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,895 bytes −866‎ →‎Gospel of Luke: Delete this summary as inadequate, replace with headers to be filled 2021-12-29T06:25:24‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,895 bytes 0‎ →‎Date and place of birth: corr. date 2021-12-29T06:31:06‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,864 bytes −31‎ →‎Bibliography: add page link 2021-12-29T06:35:38‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,864 bytes 0‎ →‎Date and place of birth: corr. page 2021-12-29T06:46:49‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,773 bytes −91‎ →‎Date and place of birth: more concise on the year of birth Two for Walter Görlitz 2021-12-29T08:19:01‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎ 117,009 bytes +3,236‎ Restored revision 1062516598 by Walter Görlitz (talk): Why were these emoty sections created? This is not a sandbox undo Tags: Undo Twinkle One for Wdford 2021-12-29T11:29:05‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ 118,340 bytes +1,331‎ →‎Gospel narratives: synopsis: This is valuable 2021-12-29T11:30:33‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ m 118,339 bytes −1‎ 2021-12-29T11:32:15‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ 118,377 bytes +38‎ →‎Nativity narrative comparison: ce 2021-12-29T15:08:01‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ 118,040 bytes −337‎ →‎Critical analysis: removing duplication 2021-12-29T15:09:19‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ 117,996 bytes −44‎ →‎Critical analysis: removing duplication - this is more valuable at the top of the article 2021-12-29T15:17:12‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ 122,416 bytes +4,420‎ This is NOT "new material", it was in the article all along. This inclusion is necessary to ensure balance in the lead. 2021-12-29T15:19:54‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ m 122,417 bytes +1‎ Two for Neby 2021-12-29T19:09:15‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 118,235 bytes −4,182‎ →‎top: per WP:LEADS, the lead should be - and should only be - a comparatively brief summary of the material in the body of the article, material which should be sourced and referenced in the body rather than the lead summary (it is in this sense that the lead should not introduce "new" material) 2021-12-29T19:53:47‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 117,662 bytes −573‎ Merge "Gospel narratives: synopsis" and "Nativity narrative comparison" which had many repetitions and overlaps; order chronologically to help reader, express a little more briefly (we're not out to impress or be paid by the word) 2021-12-29T20:03:38‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 117,637 bytes −25‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: rmv suggestion that mention of census indicates the date, given that it greatly confuses dating and Luke may simply be wrong - see Census of Quirinius, Date of birth of Jesus, Chronology of Jesus 2021-12-29T20:39:09‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 114,743 bytes −2,894‎ →‎Critical analysis: entire sentences complete with their references ("Many view ...", "Sanders considers ...", "As a result ...", "Nevertheless, they") occurred twice in this one section, others ("Many scholars ...", "Scholars consider...") said the same thing with minor variations, giving us a section which kept doubling back on itself 2021-12-29T20:44:32‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 114,386 bytes −357‎ →‎Gospel of Luke: rmv revdel request, fulfilled with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=125661898 Tag: copyright violation template removed Three for Achar Sva 2021-12-30T00:50:42‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 111,725 bytes −2,661‎ →‎Date and place of birth: was this reverted by error? It's simply a slightly more concise statement of the previous text, with sources checked. Tag: Reverted Three for Walter Görlitz 2021-12-30T00:53:02‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎ 114,386 bytes +2,661‎ Undid revision 1062699979 by Achar Sva (talk) No error, but please start a discussion on the talk page undo Tag: Undo Four for Achar Sva 2021-12-30T01:13:05‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 114,415 bytes +29‎ →‎Massacre of the innocents, flight into Egypt, and return to Israel: the angelic warning leading to the move to Nazareth is important 2021-12-30T05:33:59‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,361 bytes −1,054‎ →‎Date and place of birth: Add secondary source for birth in Bethlehem; add re difference between gospels over home of Joseph; delete sentences duplicating info that Matthew implies Joseph is from Bethlehem; convert Brown citation to sfn (all sentences in this edit sourced) 2021-12-30T07:11:02‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,355 bytes −6‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: format - delete unnecessary angle brackets 2021-12-30T07:14:40‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,378 bytes +23‎ moved sentence on location of Joseph's home from place of birth section to comparison section, which seems more appropriate (that section is about Jesus's birthplace, not Joesph's home 2021-12-30T07:18:03‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,350 bytes −28‎ →‎Date and place of birth: no need to have the Greek language template twice 2021-12-30T09:39:04‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,454 bytes +104‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: give source for statement re story-origins from Joseph and Mary, and bring closer to source 2021-12-30T09:40:48‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,459 bytes +5‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: corr. date for Brown One for Wham2001 2021-12-30T09:57:13‎ Wham2001 talk contribs‎ 113,200 bytes −259‎ →‎Thematic analysis: Merge refs 2021-12-30T09:59:25‎ Wham2001 talk contribs‎ 113,200 bytes 0‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: Fix obvious error in year Five for Achar Sva 2021-12-30T10:15:39‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,005 bytes −195‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: remove duplicated note 2021-12-30T10:16:50‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,030 bytes +25‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: add source 2021-12-30T10:33:09‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,279 bytes +249‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: reducing duplication to produce a more fluent presentation of the same information 2021-12-30T10:33:55‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,278 bytes −1‎ →‎Date and place of birth: Jesus>baby to avoid repetition of the word in two consecutive sentences 2021-12-30T10:50:44‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 113,481 bytes +203‎ →‎Bibliography: add book Two for Wdford 2021-12-30T12:57:50‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ 113,579 bytes +98‎ added more for completeness Tag: Reverted Three for Neby 2021-12-30T21:36:00‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 113,481 bytes −98‎ Undid revision 1062774768 by Wdford (talk) the lead is a brief summary and introduction - completeness is very much not a virtue and citations are a red flag - see WP:LEAD Tag: Undo 2021-12-30T21:38:05‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 113,465 bytes −16‎ →‎top: the basis for Christmas on whichever day it falls 2021-12-30T21:48:46‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 111,886 bytes −1,579‎ →‎top: This paragraph was a fine example of lead-bloat. It's grown inexorably over the years as generalisations have been qualified and details added for completeness, but we've already said the Nativity is the basis for Christmas and linked to that article. Detailed discussion of the date on which Christmas is currently celebrated is a digression and an obstacle to the reader who's come here to read about the Nativity. 2021-12-30T21:55:07‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 111,825 bytes −61‎ →‎Comparison of Gospel accounts: "the loss and finding of Jesus in the Temple when he is 12 years old" is 12 yrears after the nativity. Wikilink the wise men, stick to lowercase otherwise we're going to capitalise everything. 2021-12-30T21:57:44‎ NebY talk contribs‎ 111,718 bytes −107‎ →‎top: sourced in body of article Six for Achar Sva 2021-12-30T22:02:07‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 111,737 bytes +19‎ →‎See also: add link to article on Matt. 2:23 - a surprisingly complete and well-sourced discussion 2021-12-30T22:20:31‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 111,501 bytes −236‎ →‎Massacre of the innocents, flight into Egypt, and return to Israel: This sentence simply restates the last sentence of the preceding paragraph Three for Wdford 2021-12-30T22:55:44‎ Wdford talk contribs‎ 111,561 bytes +60‎ A few extra words to summarize a very important point. Why is the lead listing the things that the gospels do agree on, but not listing the things where the gospel don't agree? Seven for Achar Sva 2021-12-31T02:00:45‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 111,561 bytes 0‎ →‎Date and place of birth: If we're going to use Brown as our source we better use his spelling of katalyma 2021-12-31T02:02:43‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 111,543 bytes −18‎ →‎Date and place of birth: Apparently "for them" is absent from the Greek, and as the meaning of katalyma is uncertain it's best not to translate it immediately as "inn" 2021-12-31T02:13:54‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 111,465 bytes −78‎ →‎Date and place of birth: from Brown on translating katalyma - and delete a sentence without source and which rehearses just one of the options. 2021-12-31T02:26:52‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 111,333 bytes −132‎ →‎Date and place of birth: source does not check out 2021-12-31T02:29:20‎ Achar Sva talk contribs‎ 111,229 bytes −104‎ →‎Date and place of birth: nothing about Islam on page 20

So by my count, you have seven reverts in the past 54 hours, four in the past 24 hours, but the stretch of the first in the past 24 started just outside the 24-hour marker. No one else editing here has even close to that in the same window. Discuss, reach consensus, then apply the edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, I don't want to encourage cooperative (or collaborative as you call it) editing, but I want to be clear on specifics of what constitutes a revert and an edit war. If you think someone else's edit is wrong, comment here, or in a new section below. Allow the editor to "fix" what you think is wrong, and only make the change yourself if nothing happens after a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I saw that it was sourced from Brown. That doesn't answer my questions. Further, we should stay with the normal transliteration of καταλυμα rather than follow Brown's which is at best old-fashioned.

More generally, Walter Görlitz makes a very good point (apart from giving me the title of Achar). Please do read and observe WP:BRD, and reach consensus here. This may not happen quickly, but be patient and don't assume that responding to you or editing this article is anyone's highest priority in life or even merely within Wikipedia. You may find Wikipedia:There is no deadline helpful. NebY (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)