Talk:Census of Quirinius

At the very least this article should mention...

That the census of Quirinius can only have taken place after the death of Herod, because during Herod's live, Judea was formally not Roman and no Roman census has ever taken place in territory they did not consider their own. And looking up other WP articles, it seems this is the only one on the subject that is too queasy to mention that Herod was long dead by the time Quirinius came around, which is only to be expected by a book written by someone ninety years later who wrote in Greek and may or may not have known enough Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew to make sense of the few sources (s)he likely had... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That issue has been discussed repeatedly. GBRV (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So? Does that mean it shouldn't be mentioned? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster - I've put a mention in. PiCo (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We had previously agreed - or so I thought - to consolidate this issue in only one article and have other articles link to that one, remember? Every single article does not need to repeat this same spiel attempting to debunk this Biblical passage, much less go into the matter in the same depth in every article. GBRV (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what other articles do, though I agree it's not sensible to have the same in-depth discussion reapeated all over several articles when a wikilink is possible. But the "home" article on the census of Quirinius should be this one - it seems sort of obvious to me.PiCo (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to consolidate the discussion in this article, but - as mentioned above - I'm not happy with the dubious insertion of a discussion on inerrancy, or with the dubious claim that "no real dispute exists". StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to take out the discussion of inerrancy, I only added it to please GBVH. The claim that no real dispute exists is sourced - please don't insert your own judgment.PiCo (talk) 08:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced, but it's an old, outdated source (as I argued above), and it's biased (per WP:YESPOV). StAnselm (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

2002 is old? I don't think so. And it's certainly not outdated.PiCo (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. As I explained above, it predates both Wright's commentary and the NIV revision. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

PiCo: I agree it's better to put it in this article rather than The Nativity; but the problem is that there's already similar information all over Wikipedia (including "The Nativity" if memory serves). If we take it out of those other articles then we can put it in this one; but if it's left in all those other ones then adding it to this one just compounds the problem rather than solving it. So until we hash this out, I've removed some of the material and commented out another portion of it. GBRV (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I leave it to you to fix those other articles. This one needs to explain the role of the census in attempts to date the birth of Jesus. I might point out that I, personally, have no doubt that Jesus was a real person and that he lived in the first half of the 1st century; just when he was born seems to me monumentally less important than who he was and what he taught.PiCo (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I can do that, but give me some time. I just don't like the idea of adding it to this one before it's been taken out of the others. GBRV (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please Consider this Source

I find Sir William Mitchell Ramsay's book, "Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?", particularly chapter 11 to be helpful in expanding perspectives on the chronology of the census; but if it is indeed not just me that thinks so, I feel that more seasoned users would do a better job at incorporating this source than I would. Here's a link so you can access the book and possibly find a way to incorporate the perspectives shared on this article: http://biblehub.com/library/ramsay/was_christ_born_in_bethlehem/chapter_11_quirinius_the_governor.htm Thank you.

Lapis Tiburtinus

Whatever the outcome of the discussions above, the article should not make the incorrect statement that the "Lapis Tiburtinus" inscription mentions Quirinius. His name doesn't appear in the inscription. --Amble (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe you're right, but surely our source has this if it's reliable?PiCo (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The source for this part is Novak, which says (p. 295): "While some historians have argued that the text refers to P. Sulpicius Quirinius, the greater weight of opinion is that the inscription does not refer to Quirinius." Confusion might arise from the translation on p. 294 which does mention Quirinius. However, this seems to be a translation of a restored text assuming that the subject is in fact Quirinius. Novak takes care not to say that this is a correct translation. In fact, the lines mentioning Quirinius and Crete and Cyrene are not found on the stone itself. So if we end up restoring one of the versions that mentions this, we'll need to adjust the wording a bit. --Amble (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reviving discussion

We really need to sort out the issues on this page, after discussions stalled last time. As I see it, the main issues are as follows:

1. To what extent do we mention "Luke's census" at all, given that (almost) everyone believes this was not the census (if there was one) at the time Jesus was born.
2. To what extent do we discuss efforts at resolving the discrepancy - including the translation of prote and hypothetical prior appointments of Quirinius
3. To what extent does this relate to theological convictions, especially the doctrine of inerrancy

StAnselm (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

For item 1, I would suggest that the question should not be "Is this the census (if any) at the time Jesus was born", but "Is this the census Luke refers to". That's a more straightforward question and may or may not have the same answer. --Amble (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes - although that's a separate question. If we follow NIVmg, for example, it's the census Luke refers to, but not the census during which Jesus was born. And under that theory, it has some relevance to the nativity, but perhaps deserves only a sentence or two. StAnselm (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We'd have to be very silly to base our editorial decisions on a variant interpretation that the NIV and other interpretations relegate to a marginal note if they mention it at all. --Amble (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We ought to note that it is discussed/offered as a possible translation. StAnselm (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, in answer to your question 1, (let's call it 1A for convenience), we should say that most scholars think Luke made a mistake, and a minority of (conservative?) scholars suggest one of the two resolutions mentioned in (2). (While a few don't wish to commit themselves either way.) But we should emphasise that nobody believes that Jesus was born in 6 AD. StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any scholarly support for an alternative interpretation of "prote" or a prior appointment of Quirinius? As far as I'm aware these are in the realm of fringe scholarship today (although they may not have been so in the past). I could be wrong, though. --Amble (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, N. T. Wright says, "One way of translating the Greek here is to see this census as the earlier one."

In this popular work Wright does no more than acknowledge that such an interpretation exists. He doesn't evaluate its historical or grammatical plausibility, or endorse it himself. Does N. T. Wright advocate this interpretation in a scholarly work? --Amble (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, yes. In Who Was Jesus? (2014), he says this is "actually the most natural reading of the verse". (Or to be precise, the most natural reading is "This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.") StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Addressing Anselm's questions at the head of this thread:

1. To what extent do we mention "Luke's census" at all, given that (almost) everyone believes this was not the census (if there was one) at the time Jesus was born.

- We need to refer to Luke's census because it's the only reason the census of Quirinius has notability - without Luke, this is merely one of hundreds, possibly thousands, of unremarkable Roman censuses. Plus, of course, Wikipedia readers expect to find a disussion of it.

1. To what extent do we discuss efforts at resolving the discrepancy - including the translation of prote and hypothetical prior appointments of Quirinius.

- Probably not at all, given that the overwhelming majority of current scholars believe Luke was simply mistaken. It's not a live issue in scholarly circles, whatever it might be among the general public. (For this we have Raymond Brown, and his opinion is reaffirmed in many works since.)

1. To what extent does this relate to theological convictions, especially the doctrine of inerrancy.

- It relates because a belief in biblical inerrancy is what leads a very small number of ultra-conservative scholars, and a rather larger proportion of the public, to continue to think that Luke could (must) somehow be right. But I'm willing to delete that section and it's gone from the current version of the article.

In the discussion above with Amble, St refers to NT Wright's opinion that the most natural reading of the passage in Luke is that the census "took place before the time when Quirinius was governor". This is not the general opinion of the grammar of the passage.

Please leave the longer version of the article in place, so that we can see what we're discussing.PiCo (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:GBRV that the version you left there was unbalanced. So, per (2), I do think we need to discuss the two possible resolutions in order to give balance. Once again, I think that Brown is outdated, and "overwhelming majority of current scholars" is an exaggeration. I am happy to concede Wright is in a minority, but I think the issue has been revived since Brown. Michael J. McClymond puts things a very different way: "some scholars... dispute whether this is a possible translation". The Brown citation(s) should be attributed and dated. StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, when I say "the issue", I mean the possible translation of prote.) StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

(Oops - I just realised it was Novak, not Brown, who said that "no real dispute exists". But my point still stands.) StAnselm (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, our task is to determine where the weight of scholarly opinion lies on this matter of translating the relevant phrase in Luke and the usage of the word prote. For that we have Novak, who says that "the overwhelming majority" of historians and major Bible translations accept the "non-doctrinal" translation; "no real dispute exists ... notwithstanding the occasional assertion to the contrary by conservative Christian writers." (Novak, page 294). Quoting or referring to those writers doesn't change this. If you want to challenge our source, you need to find another source that says something different about the balance of scholarly opinion.PiCo (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

PiCo: We don't need to keep your version in just so we can "see what we're discussing". We already know what we're discussing, because we've discussed it umpteen number of times before. If we're going to discuss it, then we need to leave a more neutral version in during discussion.

Re: your debate with StAnselm over "prote": I don't think he's disagreeing with you over what the majority view is, but rather he's saying that the minority view also needs to be included since that's a basic rule at Wikipedia. Even in cases in which there is no meaningful dispute, alternative points of view are still routinely included. At least in this case, there is a relatively large dissenting minority, and yet you want to completely purge all mention of that viewpoint or only include it as a foil that is quickly dismissed. That violates objectivity. GBRV (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If you feel we should cover the entire debate of the linguistic and other questions, fine, but personally I think it would make for an over-long article.PiCo (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You can't just leave your version in the article while we discuss it, because then your version wins by default and discussion becomes nothing but an excuse to keep it that way indefinitely while we "discuss" it month after month. I'm not going to go along with that.

As for the idea that a full treatment of the subject would make the article too long: right now, there are probably at least a dozen articles which each cover the issue in some depth, totaling a much greater amount of text than this article will ever have. GBRV (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you list those for us?PiCo (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I found one under Star of Bethlehem. I'd support your effort to have that material removed. In fact I'd delete that whole section - it doesn't actually attempt to date Jesus' birth by the star.PiCo (talk)

Ok, I've added an outline of the arguments in favour of Luke's reliability, and the reasons they're rejected by the vast majority of scholars - and it is the vast majority. If you still insist on reverting this there's no alternative but dispute resolution.PiCo (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

PiCo: Would you allow me to insert my version of the article and keep it in while we're supposed to be discussing it? The answer is clearly "no", so why am I supposed to allow you to do that? You're clearly not willing to have a good-faith discussion.

And you know perfectly well which other articles already contain similar material, because you inserted most of that stuff yourself, if memory serves. GBRV (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You folks are going in circles here, as you have been doing for years already, and still with no end in sight. The reality is that the Gospel of Luke is recognized by modern scholarship to be in error, and only a few inerrantists and wiki-editors still clutch at straws. This unproductive kerfluffle is ruining this article. There is an article now called Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth where we can thrash this out, with only a reference and a summary to that article in this article. Please can we move the debate over there, so that this article can be cleaned up and bedded down? Wdford (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wdford: The main issue is whether the article should ignore alternative points of view and claim - as PiCo has recently claimed - that all scholars "universally" take the same view, which is nonsense. A majority is not the same as universal agreement. Sometimes PiCo will allow a brief mention of opposing views, but only as a simplistic foil which he quickly and breathlessly debunks, which sounds like an essay advocating one side. GBRV (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the article must not ignore alternative views, but it must clearly state the view of the majority of scholars, with fringe views noted as such. I have offered a paragraph which is accurate and fairly weighted. What do you think? Wdford (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wdford: I would support consolidating the material in "Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth" as you suggested, so long as only a link to it will be in this article. But I suspect that within a week, the old material will be right back in this article and the new article will only serve to create yet another senseless repetition of the same stuff. Can I replace the current material in this article with a link to the other one, or will someone revert it on sight again?

@StAnselm, what do you think? GBRV (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, it belong here, not anywhere else - since nobody believes Jesus was born in 6AD, Quirinius has no relevance to the date of Jesus birth; the census is of interest only to the issue of biblical accuracy. Secondly, Wdford's version is by far the best I've seen in this article. Thirdly, I would still be in favour of a bit of tweaking - N. T. Wright should be mentioned, as by far the most prominent modern advocate of the minority view. (Now, can he be called conservative? I suppose he is on this issue, but not on others.) It also omits the second major argument, regarding a possible earlier tenure of Quirinius. I would also include a reference to NIVmg - alternate translations in major versions are routinely appealed to in biblical scholarship. StAnselm (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Stubby article

Despite the B-class rating of the article, I notice this is essentially a very short stub with several problems.

• The section about the census itself seems to be a very brief summary of historical information about the census. It fails to note which primary sources are used by modern historians to draw conclusions on the event and its relative importance. It also fails to offer historical background to the event, briefly mentions an entire "rebellion", and the apparent impact of the annexation and census in the formation of the Zealot political movement. This could use expansion and/or elaboration, because it does not seem to be a minor event.
• The sole source connecting this census to the birth of Jesus is apparently the Gospel of Luke. Much could probably be said on the agenda or reliability of the author, its intended audience, and that the manuscript tradition of this work presents some key differences between versions even in the primary Greek language.
• The text of the article deals with the "dating" error of Luke, but this only works when trying to harmonize the work with the Gospel of Matthew. There are simply contradictions between the two works, but it is rather unclear if Matthew is more accurate. It is Matthew which ties the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 BC), since Herod himself is a major character of this Gospel. Herod orders the Massacre of the Innocents, and causes the Flight into Egypt. Herod is absent as a character in Luke and these events are not mentioned or alluded to. The two narratives of the Nativity of Jesus are essentially contradictory accounts, with the historicity of both having been questioned. The nativity of Jesus article includes modern sources which have drawn the conclusion that "both narratives [are] non-historical". Why should they be harmonized?
• The primary Christian sources on the birth of Jesus and its location in Bethlehem are actually very limited, and the article fails to note that. The birth and related events are attested in Luke and Matthew only. The Gospel of Mark starts with an adult Jesus. No birth or childhood, no Bethlehem, no Herod or Quirinius, no parents or ancestors. The Gospel of John claims that Jesus is Logos incarnate but does not deal with information on his birth and childhood. Again, no Herod or Quirinius. So it is unclear that early Christian communities even had traditions on the birth of Jesus, or cared much about the details, much less that they argued about the dating.
• "Raymond E. Brown notes that "most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke's part." " I'd question how Brown knows the statistics of these "critical scholars", but their numbers are largely irrelevant. The section fails to address why do they think so, and what are their arguments on the subject. For all we know these might be scholars who are convinced about the Biblical inerrancy or superiority of Matthew, rather than critically evaluating the work.
• "arguing that the text in Luke can be read as "registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria" " This seems to be meaningless without mentioning which words of the primary text they are re-interpreting or translating.

I think this article should be re-rated. Dimadick (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick: I argued some time ago that this article should mainly focus on the role of this census in sparking a rebellion and other implications for Roman rule in Judea; but this is one of many articles that have long been dominated by editors who are only interested in debunking the Bible, in every single article they edit. Most of my time here is therefore spent responding to that issue, leaving no time left to add anything about Roman history.

The alleged contradictions between Matthew and Luke are very easily reconciled (and have been by many authors), far more easily than many other sets of accounts in history (take a look at combat accounts if you really want to get a headache trying to reconcile contradictions). I would like to add the opinions of general historians on these matters (rather than nothing but Biblical scholars), because I very much doubt that most general historians think these two accounts are contradictory, unless they take the same view on 99% of everything else. GBRV (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What the editors subscribing to the historical-critical method have in common is a deep distrust that inerrantism reflects the objective reality of the Bible, in its relationship with history. We do not debunk the Bible for the sake of debunking it. Instead we render the consensus views of mainstream Bible scholarship because we subscribe to Wikipedia's purpose of rendering world class scholarship. A short introduction to this view are: [1], [2] and [3]. So, we are not a cabal plotting to overthrow the Bible, but we are committed to the highest standards of academical scholarship. E.g. if I write a PhD thesis full of mistakes, I do not have to blame the critics for noticing mistakes in my thesis, but I only have to blame myself; the same applies to the Bible and its critics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

TGeorgescu: Inerrantism doesn't even factor into this. You didn't address my points, instead repeating your usual assurance that you're not part of a "cabal plotting to overthrow the Bible". If so, then maybe - just maybe - every single article doesn't need to repeat the same verbatim message debunking the Bible to the virtual exclusion of all historical issues related to that article's subject. The lede in this article doesn't even mention the impact of the census on Roman history - such as the rebellion it sparked - and yet the lede is quick to breathlessly allege that the Bible was wrong about the date of the census. The body text itself only mentions the rebellion in passing, but has paragraph after paragraph about the Bible's brief mention of a census under (or before) Quirinius, which may or may not even be the one which this article is supposed to be covering (the one mentioned by Josephus). Objectivity requires that we cover all the issues rather than just the one you personally are focused on. All attempts to clean up this stuff are always reverted on sight, or result in months of fruitless debate. This is supposed to be a general encyclopedia, not a set of personal essays debunking the Bible, much less the SAME text repeated verbatim in article after article. GBRV (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GBRV, "alleged contradictions"? The two narratives feature different casts of characters (Luke lacks Herod the Great and the Magi, but includes shepherds, Simeon, and Anna the Prophetess), and largely different circumstances. Luke has Jesus' parents staying in Bethlehem for a while, then heading for Jerusalem, then returning to Nazareth with him. The narrative is a peaceful one and mentions no conflict or persecution. Matthew has Herod wanting to kill Jesus and going on to kill every child of similar age in the vicinity of Bethlehem, Jesus' parents fleeing to Egypt and staying there until the death of Herod, and then avoiding Judea entirely for fear of Herod Archelaus. They settle in Galilee (and Nazareth) precisely to avoid Archelaus. Matthew does not mention any visit in Jerusalem. The narrative is one of danger, persecution, and stresses the need of secrecy. Attempts to reconcile the two accounts have to ignore key differences between their authors.

Tgeorgescu, how exactly do you render the consensus view of scholarship without mentioning its methods, its arguments, its conclusions? The article and related articles should summarize the scholars' methodology, not only their conclusion. That is a difference between research and wild guesses.

As for Biblical inerrancy, that seems to be rather irrelevant in this case. While Biblical inerrancy is not a particularly logical position and there are cases where the Bible (an entire collection of disparate works) disagrees with established history, the Nativity of Jesus does not seem to be such a case. Here two books in the same canon simply do not match each other, it is not a case of "error". Basically these two accounts consist of our only sources on the event. Arguments about their historicity, or lack of it, do not exactly prove anything substantial about the event. Because even the scholars lack a better source. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick: The fact that one Gospel mentions the shepherds visiting Jesus almost immediately after birth does not "contradict" the Magi visiting up to two years later. Common sense would indicate that they are clearly describing two different events in the same sequence rather than providing contradictory versions of the same event, and much the same can be said about the other things you claimed were contradictory. These points have been dealt with repeatedly in the various discussions in related articles over the past few months, so I'm not going to tediously rehash all the rest of the issues. You need to realize that it is typical for MOST historical accounts to have the same "problem" that you think is a fatal contradiction in these Biblical passages, in fact it is the expected norm for one eyewitness account to mention one subset of events and people while another account mentions a different subset of events and people, sometimes with very little overlap. Historians view that as one of the hallmarks of genuine eyewitness accounts, because actual eyewitnesses only describe what they personally saw, or what they personally choose to emphasize. But the authors routinely cited in this article (and similar articles) claim that even the slightest difference between accounts would mean they are false, which is not what historians normally assume. There are plenty of RSs which reconcile these Biblical accounts using the standard methods used by historians, but we're never allowed to include them in these articles except as brief representatives of a "lunatic fringe" viewpoint. StAnselm has pointed out why they aren't lunatic fringe viewpoints. GBRV (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree with most what you stated above. My point about inerrancy was a general one, since more or less the same editors had disputes about it in various articles. GBRV repeatedly stated that Bible scholars seek contradictions, while "real" historians harmonize reports. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

TGeorgescu: Well, historians DO actually try to reconcile accounts, otherwise literally 90% of history would need to be rejected. There has never been a single set of eyewitness accounts which state the same thing, in fact most of them seem to contradict until you realize that each one is describing a different piece of the same whole, like the classic "Five Blind Men and the Elephant" metaphor. This is basic stuff. GBRV (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GBRV: I think there's general agreement that the article can't mention the Census without mentioning the way Luke uses it to date the birth of Jeus, and it can't do that without telling readers that the majority of scholars have concluded that Luke is wrong. Nor, if we mentioned the famous rebellion, could we avoid telling readers that the majority of scholars have concluded that Luke is wrong about that too. While I have some sympathy for your feelings, what you're doing here is based on emotion, not reason.PiCo (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the rebellion doesn't even factor into the subject that Luke mentions (the nativity), how the dickens is Luke "wrong about that, too"? He doesn't mention it one way or another because there's no need to mention it, just as he doesn't mention the battles that occurred in that era. That isn't a "contradiction", it's a matter of sticking to his subject. But our article DOES need to cover the rebellion because Wikipedia is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article, and yet you continue to dodge that issue: i.e., if the lede never mentions the rebellion and even the body text barely covers it, why is it so crucial that the lede covers your favorite topic? THAT is unbalanced POV-pushing, especially since the same is true of virtually all these articles which deal with this type of topic. Don't accuse me of "going by emotion" if you can't address my points. The bottomline is that the current version of the article should have a neutral version of the text while we discuss things, rather than enshrining your version while we discuss the matter for weeks or months. The material you keep adding to the lede is disputed, hence it should be left out at least for now while we discuss it. Address that point rather than just sticking your version back in. GBRV (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to mention the rebellion, go ahead and add something.PiCo (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You again inserted your version into the lede while again refusing to address either of the reasons I gave for taking it out, indeed you made the ridiculous claim that I haven't given any reasons despite the patent fact that I repeated them again only an hour ago. Just to repeat myself yet again: covering the Biblical issue in the lede is excessive given that it's not the only - or even the primary - subject that the Census of Quirinius is supposed to deal with; and more importantly, since your version is disputed and we're supposed to be discussing that very same text, it's inappropriate to keep inserting your personal version. The article needs to have a neutral version while discussion takes place. Rather than discussing it, you gave a one-sentence response (ONE sentence) to my long comments today, again indicating that you just want to keep your version locked in place indefinitely while you claim that "discussion" is supposedly underway. Enough is enough.

StAnselm : what are your views on this? GBRV (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You haven't actually given any reasons, you've simply said "this doesn't need to be in the lede", followed by something about a rebellion (why? what does the date of Jesus' birth have to do with rebellions?) It's a lead, and leads summarise articles, and this point is in the body of the article, and, most of all, it needs to be in the lead because we need to inform readers that Luke's correlation of the census with Herod's death is useless when it comes to finding the year of the birth (which, in turn, is the only real reason this census has notability). As for leaving your version in place while the so-called "dispute" continues, that's laughable - you're simply using this as a delaying tactic. I'm going to report you for behavioural issues - I've assumed good faith with you until I can assume it no longer.PiCo (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You have absolutely no justification for reporting me since I've done nothing wrong (what rule did I violate?) Nor have you given any reason why we can't put in a neutral version while discussion takes place. That's normal practice, is it not?

As for your statement: "what does the date of Jesus' birth have to do with rebellions". Do I really need to point out that this article is supposed to be about the census itself, not just the "date of Jesus' birth"? The rebellion was an important event in Roman and Judean history - especially since it triggered the chain of events which eventually led to the First Jewish Revolt, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, and the Jewish Diaspora - and as such it needs to be covered far more than it is, rather than turning all these articles into a dissertation on the Bible. GBRV (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Folks, this article is not purely about the dating of Jesus’ birth – that is dealt with elsewhere. The gospel accounts are a serious component of the notability here, but the role the census played in the zealot revolt is also important and must be mentioned. Wdford (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The blatant contradictions between Matthew and Luke are not easily reconciled at all. The claim that they merely reflect two different views of the same event by two different eyewitnesses is ridiculous - neither Luke nor Matthew (or whomever wrote gospels in their names) was an eyewitness to Jesus' birth. The gospel authors could only have heard about these events 30 years later at the earliest, from Mary and Joseph, and there is no reason at all why the parents would have told the two authors two totally different stories. There is also no reason at all why the two authors would not have already heard the entire story from other oral accounts and traditions by the time they came to write their gospels down 70 years later - by which time both Joseph and Mary were surely already dead. This in indeed clutching at straws. Modern scholars hold that the nativity accounts are fiction. Only "conservative" authors try to prove otherwise, without much success. Wikipedia must give "due weight". Wdford (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that Matthew and Luke themselves were eyewitnesses to Jesus' birth, but they could have obtained information from eyewitnesses; secondly, I cannot fathom how you can claim that it's a contradiction for one of them to describe the shepherds arriving on the day of birth (or shortly after) while the other describes the much later arrival of the Magi up to two years later. To be contradictory, they would need to be giving contrary descriptions of the same event, not describing different events in different years. A description of two different events is not a "contradiction" if both events took place in sequence. Thirdly, my experience with combat accounts has taught me that it is literally routine, in probably 90% of cases, for historical accounts to give dramatically different descriptions even if they are definitely describing exactly the same event, such as the same battle. One soldier might talk about being attacked by the enemy in the early morning near a stream, while another says the first attack he experienced was in the late afternoon in a large dry field, while another says he saw no fighting that day. Does that mean these accounts "contradict" and the battle is "fictional"? No, because the standard assumption is that they are each describing different aspects of the battle in different locations and times of the day (or different days entirely), and some of the units may have been too far from the fighting to take part or even be aware that a battle was going on until they found out later. The alleged contradictions in the Bible are far easier to reconcile than most of the stuff I've been beating my head against all these years, so I guess I lose patience with the idea that it's impossible to reconcile them, or somehow improper to even suggest the idea that they should be reconciled. GBRV (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The above is an WP:OR argument about what Bible scholars should do for a living, instead of merely citing WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So, many full professors teaching at reputable universities and routinely published by prestigious academic presses should stop doing what they do, because, hey, it is GBRV from Wikipedia who says they need to better their ways. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just pointing out one of the basic principles they teach in classes for people working on a history degree : i.e., historians expect accounts to differ widely, because they almost always do. It's not merely my opinion, it's a basic rule taught in universities. And it was a response to Wdford's personal analysis of these Biblical passages. But his personal analysis isn't OR and mine is?

Do you realize that historians - secular ones - routinely use the Bible as a valid source? The textbooks I had in college - a secular university - cited it in quite a few chapters. But all of that is wrong because Bart Ehrman says so? And you claim Ehrman is authoritative because he says so. So you're using Ehrman to justify using Ehrman as a definitive source. That's pretty much the definition of a circular way of defining the matter. As StAnselm (and others) have also pointed out over the last few months, there are plenty of RSs even in the field of Biblical scholarship itself - to say nothing of the history field - with views that disagree with Ehrman on this. But we can't include them except as fringe views, because Ehrman says so. That's ridiculous. GBRV (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course we don't believe that Ehrman renders the consensus merely because Ehrman says so, but also because most Bible scholars teaching at reputable secular universities side with him, rather than with the literalists/inerrantists.

I am certainly not insisting that authors of Western Civilization texts for university classes should agree with the suggestions made about ancient Israel in recent decades by scholars such as those whom I have cited. What I am saying is that it is bad scholarship, and bad pedagogy, simply to ignore an important body of recent work, offering adult students a literalist-leaning account that is by scholarly standards probably twenty years out of date. At the very least, textbook authors should include more critical scholars' works and some minimalist works in their recommended readings, so that students would have a chance to confront such arguments on their own.

The Hebrew Bible is simply not a reliable source for the history of ancient Israel, and the authors of the textbooks surveyed seem largely unaware of this fact. Writers of textbooks for undergraduates need to ask themselves: If we are content to provide students with mythical, legendary, uncritical histories of ancient Israel, how can we have any legitimate grounds for complaint or criticism when others are willing to provide mythologized, fictionalized histories of other peoples and places?

— Jack Cargill, "Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks"

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

But, since most of Ehrman’s textual arguments are essentially the well-established and long-accepted consensus views of just about every worthwhile critical biblical scholar not teaching at a Christian university, seminary, or school with the word “Evangelical” in the title (Ehrman admits as much beginning at the 7:50 mark in the video here), the site is essentially little more than an online video version of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, where conservative scholars attempt to refute the biblical scholarship that is taught in every major university save the aforementioned conservative Christian schools.

— Robert Raymond Cargill, i stand with bart ehrman: a review of the ‘ehrman project’

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: You had previously argued that Ehrman should be used as an authority because Ehrman said most scholars agree with him, and that's what I was referring to in my previous note. The first quote you posted in your recent note seems to be complaining that Western Civ textbooks need to start presenting the view of Ehrman and likeminded people rather than ignoring their view, which seems to admit that many history textbooks do ignore their view, in which case I would point out that there might be a reason for that. It's not because the authors of history textbooks are all benighted, hapless fellows who have remained mired in the dark age of ignorance Before Ehrman (B.E.); it may be because the methods used by Ehrman and crew are - as I've said - often inconsistent with the usual methods taught to history majors in universities. The third quote sounds like a polemic - enlightened objective scholars on the one hand versus backwards biased Evangelicals on the other hand. There is plenty of bias on both sides, and the lines are not as clear cut as the polemicists make it sound. GBRV (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that Evangelical and conservative Bible scholarship should be boycotted, but it is a minority view in Bible scholarship. Some Evangelical colleges only allow Bible scholarship as ancilla theologiae, e.g. professors who express public doubt about biblical infallibility are sacked on the spot (some are even required to take formal oaths that the Bible is inerrant). That does not imply that everybody else is bereft of biases, but it might imply that the biases of scholars from secular universities are diverse and tend to cancel each other out. Bible scholarship does not mean just historical-critical method, it means history and archaeology of the Levant, and every other form of scholarship concerned with the Bible or with the civilizations that wrote it. So, the claim that taking the Bible as face value is outdated scholarship is correct: people who hold that the Bible should be considered true until proven false now represent an extreme position. The Albright school and its ideology of proving the Bible true through archaeological research, which once dominated Levantine archaeology, lost control of the field and got marginalized. Minority views should not me misrepresented as dominant. See Talk:Omri for quotes to this extent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The choice isn't just between either inerrantists on one hand or Ehrman and his buddies who claim most of the Bible is fictional on the other; because there is a middle ground in between. The history textbooks I had at a secular university were not written by inerrantists, but neither did they take the view that the Bible is all bunk, either. StAnselm has raised similar points, but we're always told that anyone who disagrees with Ehrman and company are "inerrantists". That's a false dichotomy. Nor have we been suggesting that "minority views should be described as dominant". You're not addressing the actual points. I would add that the "diversity" in many secular universities is not much more diverse than in an evangelical college, because surveys of the faculty have found that 98% identify as liberal (a dramatic change from a few decades ago when it was more balanced). That's about as homogeneous a group as you can get without completely purging the remaining 2% of moderates and conservatives. GBRV (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman does not take the view that the Bible is all bunk. But it is a fact that the bulk of Bible scholarship could be construed as liberal or as supporting liberal Christianity. We have then no other choice but to express the mainstream view, and if it happens to side with liberal Christianity, that's what we have to render. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's NPOV principle says that all viewpoints need to be represented. Yes, most academics are liberal, but that doesn't mean that the moderates and conservatives (and liberals who take a different view than most liberals) should be completely left out. Besides, the same liberal academia has also produced enormous numbers of academic journal articles, books, and classes (in fact entire fields) arguing the Postmodernist view that science is allegedly nonsense, and in fact if you look at the sheer numbers it becomes clear that there are probably more academics taking that view than the number of scientists in academia; but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should promote that view in its articles on the physical sciences. An academic fad is an academic fad, not the absolute truth. You've only cited a handful of authors (four or five) who take the view you claim is dominant. GBRV (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If by "Albright school" you mean the ideas of William F. Albright, who argued in favor of the historicity of the Book of Genesis, Book of Exodus, Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges, you are correct than modern archaeology has discredited his theories. But archaeology is in general more useful in shedding light on the actual situation of the ancient world and its material culture. The Old Testament preserves a whole lot of historical claims about the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires, which can be verified or rejected when compared to the historical record. I doubt the same is true about the New Testament. This collection of books has more to do with itinerant preachers (John the Baptist, Jesus, the Apostles, Paul) making their way across the Roman world. Even assuming that they all existed and were pretty much as the collection describes them, how much material evidence could a hand-full of rootless individuals have left behind? Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick: The archaeological arguments that some academics have put forth are mostly just another variation of the 19th century claim that even the great civilizations in the Bible were "fictional". From what I've seen, the new arguments are almost as bad as the old ones, which is why there are plenty of archaeologists who reject those arguments. We're just not allowed to cite them except as "lunatic fringe" views. GBRV (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it. That doesn’t mean there isn’t more work to be done and people don’t need to keep an open mind. Who knows that the future will bring? But, my only point is this: at present to say that archaeology is a friend to the historical accuracy of the Bible may be true for some things, but not for the foundational story of Israel’s origins–slavery, exodus, and conquest. This has been and continues to be a big problem, and claiming otherwise just makes the matter worse.

— Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple days ago, you quoted someone complaining that many textbooks weren't representing the views of Biblical-rejectionists. So how is there an overwhelming consensus in favor of that view? It depends on what you count. GBRV (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As shown in the quote below, it mostly depends upon when you count. In 30-40 years the mainstream view changed a lot. If authors of textbooks for undergraduates use outdated literature, they won't reflect such change, that's what the complaint was about: there was a sweeping change and some people lacking contact with present-day research still pretend that nothing has changed.

The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.

In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.

— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel

But, anyway, that's a helicopter view of the whole field, and, as pointed by Dimadick, it isn't immediately germane to the discussed article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If it comes down to how recent a work is rather than a difference between different groups or different fields, then why are the only authors quoted in all these articles always people in Biblical studies and none (or virtually none) from the history field? GBRV (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Again we see the straw-man argument about eyewitnesses. It is incredible that two authors writing 70 years later, somehow received such vastly different accounts of a momentous event. We are not talking here about "what color robe was Mary wearing at lunch that day", we are talking about foreign sages visiting from far-off lands, we are talking about homicidal kings carrying out massacres, we are talking about angels and divine visions, we are talking about a family fleeing into exile in a foreign country, and yet these momentous details all eluded Luke the Greatest Historian? Seriously? The suggestion that the two gospels record events that happened two years apart - and that neither gospel author was at all aware of the other event - also beggars belief. It would suggest that Joseph brought his pregnant wife from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for a census which didn't apply to them to begin with, then he took them home to Nazareth in an uneventful manner, then they all RETURNED to Bethlehem two years later for an unspecified reason, received adoring magi and were threatened by a king, then they ran away to EGYPT when they actually lived in Nazareth, and they stayed in Egypt for years before finally going home to Nazareth, all because of why? It is no surprise that scholars think Luke was making it all up. You have to really suspend disbelief to buy into such obviously-ridiculous "harmonization's". Wdford (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wdford: All the things you list as "contradictions" or as "ridiculous" can be easily explained if you look at what the text actually says. Firstly, you're assuming Joseph wouldn't have needed to register for a Roman census since you think Nazareth was his hometown because he happened to be there at one point, but the Bible says otherwise when it says "everyone went to their OWN TOWN to register", meaning that Bethlehem (not Nazareth) was Joseph's "own town". It says Joseph was merely IN Nazareth before that point, without ever implying that it was his hometown - it says Nazareth was MARY's hometown, not Joseph's, which would adequately explain why he was there : to visit her and/or arrange marriage by gaining permission from her family, as was common practice. Hence he was a native of Judea, not Galilee, and would in fact need to register for the census. Secondly, you say that Luke's version left out numerous momentous events despite being an overall summary of events, and you therefore claim his version is fictional. Do you realize that so many summaries and general chronologies leave out points that we would consider the most important? Medieval chroniclers routinely do this, such as when the official Burgundian chronicler Jean Lefevre de Saint-Remi talks at length about people shattering their lances at the Battle of Montepilloy in 1429 while airily ignoring so many more important things that you might expect from a chronology. Other chroniclers describe a completely different set of incidents during that battle. That's routine, but when Luke does it you claim it proves his account is fictional? Then be consistent and declare that a large percentage of events in history were fictional too. The rest of your analysis was a deliberate attempt to make the two Gospels seem as far apart as possible, but it's actually easy to dovetail the accounts if you assume that - as with MOST historical accounts - the accounts are describing two subsets of events which are not mutually contradictory. Luke doesn't say when they returned to Nazareth or why; you're assuming it was immediately after the previous events he described (and would therefore create an impossible timeline), but the common practice in many ancient texts was to deliberately compress events that were actually spread out in time, in fact the ancient Roman author Lucian recommended this type of abbreviation when writing a history. Once you realize that, the "contradiction" disappears. Likewise, Matthew doesn't say when the Magi arrived (I said it would be UP TO two years later, but could have been only a few weeks; it doesn't say). You've tried to create a contradiction by assuming it was either a full two years after (in which case you'd claim it creates a difficult timeline) or the same day as the shepherds arrived (in which case you'd claim it contradicts the other description of that day), but you won't allow even the possibility that it was in between those two extremes. But let's take a look at some examples from secular history and I want you to use the same analysis on these as you're using for the Bible. One of the most important battles of the Hundred Years War, the Battle of Patay on 18 June 1429 during which half the English army was wiped out, is described in such a confusing manner that historians still can't agree on where it began or even what the general outline was. The most substantial source is a chronicle by the mercenary Jean de Wavrin, but even his account is muddled : he says the "English" (without specifying which of the scattered units) tried to reach a nearby woods (near where?) as the French cavalry approached from the south, but were unable to do so before the "English" (he apparently means the French cavalry) had reached the southernmost point of the English positions where Lord Talbot was trying to block the French advance. Then Fastolf's unit came hurrying up (from where?) to try to join up with the English "vanguard" (meaning what, since the English army was in reverse sequence by now), and so on. It becomes more confusing as you add other sources and try to reconcile them. So that battle must be fictional, right? Likewise, one of the most important treaties of that era, the Treaty of Troyes in 1420, was achieved when Henry V reached a deal with Queen Isabeau of France, who was described by one source as a short brunette, by another source as a tall blonde, and by a third source as bald (!). So I guess she must have been fictional, and the agreement she made with Henry V was therefore fictional, and the treaty based on that agreement was fictional, etc? For that matter, the accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg are a hopeless mess and describe two supernatural events which they said played a profoundly crucial role in the Union victory but which you undoubtedly would view as fictional as well (unless you believe in supernatural events?). So Gettysburg must be fictional? Answer these questions, because you need to analyze things in a consistent manner. GBRV (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

GBRV, why do you assume that Luke's narrative is a summary of events? It seems to be rather detailed and covers an entire chapter of his work. The author depicts the birth of Jesus as a momentous event and has the newborn acknowledged as the Messiah.

As for Medieval chroniclers leaving out important events, this often has to do with the POV of the writers. Harold Harefoot died of a mysterious illness at the age of 24. One of our main sources on this illness is an Anglo-Saxon charter, which actually records a territorial dispute between two monasteries. "Harold is described as lying ill and in despair at Oxford. When monks came to him to settle the dispute over Sandwich, he "lay and grew black as they spoke". " The problem is that the source cares more about the dispute and covers it in detail, while devotes a few cryptic lines to the illness of the dying king.

Which is why I mentioned above that the agenda of the author has to be taken into account. The writers of the Gospels emphasize events that fit their distinctive theology and intended audience of the 1st century. Not what would later audiences and secular scholars want to find out. Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick: I was responding to Wdford's statement that Luke was summarizing other sources rather than giving an eyewitness account, which is true enough. I then pointed out that other summaries or general chronologies also tend to leave out a lot of things while focusing on issues that seem minor.

Yes, the Gospels were undoubtedly written with a specific audience in mind and with details chosen for that audience, but that doesn't mean that they contradict. That has been my only point. GBRV (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wdford, while I generally agree with your summation of the events described, I have to disagree with the "Luke was making it all up". The Magi, a homicidal Herod, fleeing to Egypt, etc. are all Matthew claims and Luke mentions nothing of the sort. Compared to Matthew, Luke gives a rather low–key narrative.

The nativity narrative in Luke covers Chapter 2 of the book. It starts with the Census of Quirinius. Using the text from Wikisource, based on the World English Bible: "Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to enroll themselves, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife, being pregnant."

The text continues with Mary giving birth to Jesus while staying in Bethlehem. An "angel of the Lord" alerts a number of (unnamed) shepherds of the Messiah's birth. The shepherds come to Bethlehem and visit newborn Jesus and his parents, then apparently publicize the birth.: "When they saw it, they publicized widely the saying which was spoken to them about this child. All who heard it wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds. ... The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, just as it was told them."

The narrative continues with Jesus' circumcision. Then it mention staying in Bethlehem for a period of post-birth purification, before heading to Jerusalem to present him to the Temple and offer an animal sacrifice. In Jerusalem, they meet Simeon and Anna the Prophetess, who separately acknowledge the baby as the Messiah. The parents of Jesus then take him from Jerusalem to Nazareth: "they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. The child was growing, and was becoming strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. His parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast..."

Which means that Luke skips about 12 years in the narrative, going from a baby Jesus to a 12-year-old Jesus. The implication seems to be that Jesus had an uneventful childhood, or that the author did not care about these years. Compare this to Matthew's melodramatic narrative of Jesus having to be hidden from the grasp of the Herodian dynasty.

But back to the actual topic, the census. Luke ties the birth of Jesus to a Roman census, not one taken in the Herodian kingdom. Matthew's Herod-related narrative is largely irrelevant here, unless one or more sources brings up the contradiction. Our personal beliefs matter little when it comes to writing an article. Dimadick (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The "contradictions" CANNOT be easily explained. Luke 2:39 says "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." Nazareth was thus their "own town", not Bethlehem. They would only register (and pay taxes) where they lived, so Joseph would not register in Bethlehem and then immediately emigrate to a foreign country.

Luke DOES say exactly when they returned to Nazareth and why – Luke 2:39 says "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." "Everything required by the Law" is referring to the purification rituals and the consecration of the firstborn male child (Luke 2:22). Per Jewish Law this happens after 40 days (Leviticus 12). The timing is perfectly clear – they returned to Nazareth 41-42 days after the birth. Nobody is compressing anything. Why did they return to Nazareth? Because it was "their own town". QED. Matthew on the other hand has Magi and massacres and flights to Egypt – all while they are still living in Bethlehem - but Luke somehow never knew about any of that stuff. The Magi quiet possibly arrived in Bethlehem up to 2 years later – I have no issue with that – but according to Luke the family was long gone by then, so the Magi would not have found anybody there to adore. And in Luke’s understanding of their history they went straight home – they did not spend a few years in Egypt on the way.

Matthew also says they lived in Egypt until Herod died, and then avoided Judea and went to Nazareth for fear of his son Archelaus (Matthew 2:21). Luke says they returned to Jerusalem "every year" at the Passover – with no apparent fear of Herod or Archelaus (Luke 2:41).

As for your strawman examples re Gettysburg etc – there is lots of actual evidence of the battle (not just one account by an anonymous source which contradicts known history), so no the battle was not fiction. However as to the related "supernatural events" – yes they were probably fiction, and were seemingly the perception of some individuals only. Battle stress does that, in the heat of the moment - particularly to religious men in fear of death. I have no problem with individual eyewitnesses reporting things as they saw them, however incomplete, but where accounts differ, we must accept that THOSE ASPECTS are uncertain and thus unreliable – we do not fake a "harmonization". This is common in how history is compiled – if the available accounts all differ on certain details then the reliability of those details is questioned. I don’t doubt that Jesus was born or that his mother was named Mary, as I don’t doubt the existence of Queen Isabeau. However due to the apparent contradictions re her appearance, we cannot really know what Isabeau looked like, so I discount any details in that regard. But we don’t need to write her out of existence completely. Simple enough?

However Luke was not an eyewitness with a single personal heat-of-the-moment perspective, he claimed to be carefully chronicling events as described by other well-informed people. At Luke 1:3-4 he states that "since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." If he is telling the truth here, he did NOT just jot down a single confused perspective, and a "careful investigation" would have turned up a mention of Magi and massacres and sojourns abroad. All this info could only have come originally from the parents, who would obviously have known the entire story – Mary would not have failed to notice fleeing to Egypt for a few years, no matter how stressful the first few weeks might have been for her.

PS: I am aware of what Matthew wrote vs what Luke wrote – I was referring to what Luke wrote about the Census as being Luke’s fiction. Wdford (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wdford: On the issue of Joseph's hometown: the clearest statement (and hence the most reliable) is in Luke 2:3 which says people returned to their own town to register, hence Bethlehem was Joseph's hometown. The later description of Mary and Joseph going to "their own town of Nazareth" may be referring to the fact that they lived there after their marriage (as Matthew also says), in which case it doesn't contradict Luke 2:3. If you interpret it otherwise, then the matter hinges on the use of the word "their", and I don't know what the original language was: is it just alluding to the fact that Nazareth was Mary's hometown but uses the equivalent of "their" only because the sentence as a whole refers to both of them? The fact that it's ambiguous means that: 1) it can't be used to trump the clear statement in Luke 2:3 that Joseph's hometown was Bethlehem; and 2) all of this is semantic nit-picking designed to cherry-pick only a few quotes which allow you to claim a contradiction while ignoring the ones that would create a consistent framework that makes sense. Again, if historians did that for other accounts, almost any set of events could be declared fictional because so many accounts have at least a few ambiguous phrases or confusing wording.

As for Luke 2:39: you claim it isn't condensing anything and you interpret the transitional phrase (the one stating that they left for Nazareth after doing everything required by the law) as a literal description rather than just a way of smoothly joining two statements; but even if both of those assumptions are true, there is at least one plausible way to dovetail Luke and Matthew. Since Matthew's account doesn't describe the birth itself or subsequent events but he does say that Jesus was a "young child" rather than a baby by the time the Magi visited, and they were in a "house" rather than a manger; it's therefore possible that they first went back to Nazareth shortly after the birth to wrap things up regarding wedding arrangements with Mary's family, and then went back to Bethlehem either because it was Joseph's home (the bride would usually move into the husband's house) or because they wanted to visit the Temple again (Bethlehem is only a few miles from Jerusalem, in which case they would likely stay with Joseph's family in Bethlehem), or to visit Mary's cousin Elizabeth, who lived in Judea; and the Magi met them while they were in Bethlehem at that time, likely several months or a year or more after the birth. That's a perfectly feasible timeline which doesn't create any contradictions. It does require a lot of travel, but it wouldn't be much more than what many people did when traveling to and from a distant town for a wedding or similar occasion, and there would have been plenty of time in between each journey.

Re: Luke's statement about their travels to Jerusalem for Passover: you insist on seeing Luke's statement as an absolute ("every year") which wouldn't leave any possibility for avoiding Judea even for a couple years, when in fact he's using a common expression to describe a recurring habit which isn't necessarily meant as an absolute or literal expression - e.g., when I say that when I was a child I used to go to my family's cabin "every year", that's an expression rather than a literal, absolute statement (I didn't go until I was maybe five or six, and I'm not sure we went every single year after that). Again, you're engaging in semantic nitpicking and deliberately interpreting things in the one way that would allow you to claim a contradiction.

You again brought up the issue of Luke compiling a history rather than writing his own eyewitness account; but as I pointed out yesterday, it's also common for compiled chronologies to gloss over many important events while fixating on trivial ones, such as the example I gave of Jean Lefevre de Saint-Remi's chronicle of campaigns during the Hundred Years War (in which he focuses on seemingly trivial things like nobles shattering their lances at Montepilloy while leaving out plenty of more important things). What Luke is doing is no different than that. Again, you need to use a standard method of analyzing these things.

Re: your comments about my Gettysburg analogy: firstly, a large number of soldiers from the 20th Maine regiment (including its commander, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain), and some of the Confederates who attacked them at Little Round Top hill, said they all saw the same supernatural figure; in fact the Confederates said they fired at the figure repeatedly at close range but the bullets had no effect. So I guess you're arguing that they all hallucinated the same thing at the same time, and some of them did it on two different occasions (once just before the battle and once on the second day at Little Round Top)? More to the point, if you're going to claim that a few ambiguous statements in the Bible would prove a large chunk of it is fictional, then presumably the much larger number of ambiguous statements in so many combat accounts would have to make them fictional, too. You claimed we should view differing accounts as unreliable rather than forcing harmonization; but if we did that, we'd have to view a significant portion of most battles as unreliable because so many of the accounts differ, and not just on a few details. Historians do in fact try to force harmonization if it's possible to do so, since otherwise there'd be no way to resolve anything - in fact, finding a method of harmonizing the accounts is the only way you can be reasonably certain you've found the right interpretation, just like getting the pieces to fit in a jigsaw puzzle proves you've found the right solution. I'm analyzing Luke the same way I analyze combat accounts, and it's far easier to do it for Luke. It mostly comes down to how you interpret a mere handful of ambiguous phrases. The fact that they are ambiguous is itself the chief reason you can't make a definite statement either way, much less declare them definitely contradictory. GBRV (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's all WP:OR. Stick to the WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This is typical of what we've been putting up with from GBRV - refusal to accept reliable sources as definitive, refusal to advance any alternatives, continual appeal instead to his own ideas on how history should be written. I don't accuse him of bad faith, but this is obstructionism of a serious order. PiCo (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The role of Nazareth is not that clear. The town receives relatively few mentions in the New Testament, none of which flesh out Jesus family's connection to it. Per our article on the town: " "Nazaréth" is named twelve times in surviving Greek manuscript versions of the New Testament, 10 times as Nazaréth or Nazarét, and twice as Nazará. "Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I too think that the two accounts of Luke and Matthew are easily compatible with each other: for instance, it's possible Luke simply didn't find (or for some reason didn't choose to include) one of the sources/traditions/material about the magi, etc. that Matthew included. I don't get why is it discussed here, though... The article should be about the census and, in case, its citation in Lukes' Gospel. Bardoligneo (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

PiCo: I only presented my own analysis on this in response to Wdford presenting his own personal analysis. As for the idea that I refuse to present any alternative RSs: whenever anyone has presented RSs in the past, you've always claimed that these should be relegated to the status of "fringe sources" because Ehrman says so. Then you eventually purge them from the article completely by claiming they are "undue weight" (for the same reason - Ehrman says so). That makes it completely pointless to present any more RSs to counter Ehrman: you will never allow them. But then you accuse me of "obstructionism" ? You haven't even responded to my last note to you in this discussion, and your previous responses did little more than claim (falsely) that I hadn't presented any reasons for my position.

It looks like the person you asked for advice about my "obstructionism" actually agreed with my position: EdJohnston wrote that the current lede "goes out of its way to zing a book in the Bible" and could be "worded more neutrally", or words to that effect. So can we finally have a more neutral lede? And more neutral article as a whole? GBRV (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Bardoligneo: It should be about the census, yes. But all these articles end up being about the same topic, often with the same refutation of the Bible repeated almost verbatim with hardly any variation. GBRV (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because you cannot trust every jot of it, does not mean that the Bible is bunk. That's a false dilemma. We have a consensus view expressed by multiple reliable sources and we have to render it, not shove it under the carpet as insulting your religion. Of course, it should be noted that consensus isn't unanimity and some scholars still disagree with the consensus view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There is an argument indulging in this false dilemma at [4]. What can I say about it is that it is anti-intellectual, being anti-intellectual is anti-Wikipedia. Being anti-intellectual means it is anti-scholarly and no wonder that people who support anti-intellectual fundamentalism don't qualify for Bible scholars at major universities, that might be the origin of your reported percentage of liberals in the academia. I mean the fact that the Bible has errors is rock-solid for every scholar except the fideists, so pretending that the Bible has no problems whatsoever makes one incompetent as a Bible scholar at a non-fideist university. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

TGeorgescu: Am I "censoring" Ehrman's view by saying it shouldn't be the ONLY view ever given? My edits to these articles haven't removed what you call the mainstream view, in fact my edits have usually kept your statements about it being the mainstream view even though I think that can be debated for the reasons I've given many times before. It is you who consistently try to censor all other views. You've also again repeated your standard mantra that everyone aside from the Ehrmanists are inerrantists/fundamentalists, while also claiming that 98% of academics in all fields are liberal because fundamentalists are "anti-intellectual". So there are virtually no moderates teaching computer programming because moderates are all fundamentalists who can't get into computer programming departments due to being "anti-intellectual"? Remember that both moderates and conservatives are being squeezed out by the 98% liberal dominance in academia, not just conservatives, much less only fundamentalists. GBRV (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: After having been busy for a few days, I have finally caught up on this discussion. There is, however, precious little to respond to - we seem to be having a theological dispute rather than discussing how the article could be improved. As I said above, Wdford's edits on 11 March produced the best version we've had so far; since then, we have had the addition of the revolt and the theory that "Quirinius had an earlier and historically unattested term", both of which are helpful additions. On the other hand, the addition of "The author of the Gospel of Luke incorrectly dates it to the reign of Herod the Great" is POV. As the article points, there is (presumably a minority) of scholars who do not think (the author of the gospel of) Luke is (necessarily) incorrect. So even if the majority of scholars think that Luke is incorrect, putting it in WP voice violates NPOV. (I am OK with having the words "Most scholars accept that Luke has made a mistake".) StAnselm (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, PiCo has cleared that up now. Personally, I would still like to see N. T. Wright mentioned, but we must be close to being able to remove the NPOV tag. StAnselm (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

STAnselm: Firstly, welcome back and thank you for improving the article. Secondly: there are still many violations of NPOV in the article. For example, it says that Quirinius' possible first tenure is "historically unattested", which is just one viewpoint, because the other side bases its view on a Roman inscription. Also, the aggressive debunking of Luke right in the lede is excessive as well as out of place, as even the guy whom PiCo consulted (EdJohnston) said. Since when does the lede go into details about controversies and present only one side as dogmatic truth? There are disagreements among scholars about many things related to this subject, but the lede doesn't mention these other disputes, nor should it since that's not the purpose of the lede. The article also states things like the date of Herod's death as if it were a certainty, although none of these dates are certain since the original sources always give them as an offset from some other event and they are therefore approximate. Also, the wording "most scholars accept that..." is just another case of PiCo making it sound as if his view is an acceptance of basic reality, like accepting that the sky is blue. Why not just say "most scholars believe...."? But if I put in even a small change like that, PiCo will revert it on sight and then threaten to report me. GBRV (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Since when does the lede go into details about controversies". Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The date of Herod the Great's death, 4 BC is the standard date chosen. According to his article: "Josephus tells us that Herod died after a lunar eclipse. He gives an account of events between this eclipse and his death, and between his death and Passover. An eclipse took place on March 13, 4 BCE, about 29 days before Passover, and this eclipse is usually taken to be the one referred to by Josephus. There were however three other total eclipses around this time, and there are proponents of both 5 BCE with two total eclipses, and 1 BCE." Dimadick (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines say prominent controversies should be mentioned; it doesn't say the lede should promote one side as dogmatic truth without going into the different points of view. The issue is already discussed in depth in the body, which is where it belongs. Even the guy whom PiCo asked for advice, EdJohnston, said the lede "goes out of its way" to push one viewpoint and should be worded more neutrally. Re: Herod's death: your own description notes that the 4 BC date is not the only possible date. But this article and related articles always present such issues as if the matter was decided beyond any doubt, although that's rarely the case. GBRV (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Well, Herod is not actually mentioned in the 2nd chapter of Luke which deals with the Nativity of Jesus (and the Census). Herod is mentioned briefly in the 1st chapter, but in another context. Quoting from the World English Bible: "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the priestly division of Abijah. He had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." Most of the 1st chapter is devoted to the family background and birth of John the Baptist, not of Jesus. Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

So GBRV continues to indulge in what Geza Vermes (a leading biblical scholar) describes as 'exegetical acrobatics'. Mmmmm. St Anselm, you say that you would like to see N. T. Wright mentioned - please would you propose the sentence you would like to include, so that we can close this loop? Wdford (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

And N. T. Wright (another leading biblical scholar) does it as well. I have added him as a footnote; maybe that's enough for the article as it is now (i.e. an extended quote might be undue weight for an article of this size). StAnselm (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Vermes is the guy who claims that Jesus shunned / avoided all non-Jews (both Samaritans and Gentiles) by rewriting the passages about the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well, the Roman centurion's servant, etc. GBRV (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm: Thank you for improving that section. GBRV (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

The article has an undue weight tag, and quite rightly, since GVBH continues to flog his personal point of view, which is that there exists a scholarly debate over the reliability of Luke, regardless of the lack of reliable evidence for it. And so the section on Luke gets longer and longer and he cherry-picks and argues. To recall: the tag says that the article "may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." The ideas, two of them, are that the word prote in Luke 2:1-7 can be read as "before", and that there exists evidence that Quirinius may have had a prior (prior to 6 AD) term as governor. Both these are fringe positions, according to our sources. If you, GVBH, believe otherwise, then produce a reliable source that says so. Otherwise, please leave the article alone.PiCo (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That material you deleted was added by Wdford and/or StAnselm, not me. And it isn't "undue weight" to briefly mention a viewpoint other than your own. Claiming that I made an "unexplained deletion" is false, because I had explained the reasons for it many times on the talk page before making the edit, and even the guy you consulted for advice (EdJohnston) told you much the same thing I've been saying. You just keep ignoring everything I say, or misrepresenting it, while refusing to discuss anything: you haven't replied to any of the comments on the talk page in days. GBRV (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Many have joined Archer in the hypothesis that Quirinius had an unrecorded term as Syria's governor during the time of Jesus' birth." StAnselm (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The mention of prote is a translation issue, but is not currently covered in the article. The historical record on Quirinius might be incomplete, we don't know what was his title during a lengthy campaign against the Homonadenses. But I don't see what would an earlier term of the man in Syria have to do with Judea. The Roman province of Judea was only established in AD 6, and a guy named Coponius was its first Prefect. Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick - I have included the translation issue and even mentioned it in the lede - although that got reverted. I have now made it even more clear.

@StAnselm - if that Gier thesis is considered WP:RS, we should note that Gier demolishes Archer's hypothesis. The full quote shold read: "Many have joined Archer in the hypothesis that Quirinius had an unrecorded term as Syria's governor during the time of Jesus' birth. Some misuse the "Tivoli" inscription which they say proves that some Roman official served twice in Syria and Phoenicia. First, the name is missing, so this is no proof that Quirinius is involved. Second, the inscription has been mistranslated. It should read: "legate of Augustus for a second time" not a second legate in Syria as the harmonizers insist." Wdford (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No, because they are talking about two different claims, with very different standards of evidence. But I'm not suggesting we use Gier in the article: I was citing him to show that the minority position is not (necessarily) fringe. StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wdford: Actually, the "harmonizer" argument is that the inscription reads as you described it: that someone held the position twice. And as Dimadick pointed out, it's accepted that Quirinius held some type of prominent position in Syria during a military campaign before the governorship mentioned by Josephus, so he clearly held some type of position in Syria twice. In any event, the normal procedure is to present both sides' best argument rather than presenting one of them only as a foil which is dismissed in the same phrase. It's one thing to note what the dominant viewpoint is; but it's another thing entirely to just gloss over the other viewpoint. GBRV (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

GBRV, you've been asked to produce a source for your belief that Luke has been mistranslated or that Quirinius held a prior office as governor in Syria. You seem to have an aversion to producing evidence, but if you have any, please produce it. (As Wdford notes, Anselm's Grier actually demolishes the point you're trying to make.)PiCo (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Both of those points already have sources - the article currently lists three of them. How many more does it need? GBRV (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter if Grier demolishes it, or whether we think he does. (Personally, I don't believe prote can be translated as "before"). What matters is whether the body of scholars that hold to/suggest it is significant enough. That's what NPOV means. And we also have to take into account the significant number of scholars who don't accept either explanation but still believe that both accounts can in principle be reconciled. StAnselm (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

For the proportion of scholars holding that prote can be translated as "before" we have Novak, who says "before" is rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars and no real dispute exists (Novak, page 294); for the second, there's no point in the history of the period when Quirinius could have held a previous governorship and no suggestion in any historical source that he did so (Novak page 296). PiCo (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And I think we've gone in circles with the (first) Novak quote: I have argued that it is pre-Wright and therefore dated; I don't think there is a consensus to include it. StAnselm (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We must certainly include mentions of the "prote = pre" argument, but with the explanation that this is a minority view. If we mention the "two-terms" hypothesis at all, we must again mention that this is decidedly fringe, that no names were ever mentioned on this inscription, and that Quirinius was certainly never a governor twice - although perhaps he held other "senior" positions over time. If so, why was Quirinius conducting a census in Judea while Herod was still king - was that normal? Wdford (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's fringe because Grier says "many" people have believed/suggested it. (There is a very important difference between minority and fringe.) StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wdford: I think the argument is that the term used in Luke can refer to any high-ranking official, not just a "governor", and that Quirinius held some type of high-ranking position during a military campaign prior to his term as governor described by Josephus. GBRV (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that many people believe it, doesn't mean its not fringe. (For a thorough grounding on this concept, check out the Christ myth theory discussions.) However the fact that the majority of scholars believe the complete opposite view , means that this view could possibly be fringe. Many "minority" scholars believe that Luke was somehow still correct, just because they want to believe that this is the case - for them, no actual evidence is required. Some "minority" scholars believe the "prote = pre" story, because there is actually some faint sense to it, even though the majority make strong arguments to the contrary - so I would agree this is a valid minority opinion and should be stated as such. However the "undocumented first term" makes no sense - there are no names in the Tivoli inscription, and even if Quirinius was indeed present in Syria as a military commander in an earlier period (is there any actual evidence to support this?) then on what basis was he conducting a census in Herod's "independent" kingdom? This seems like a long long stretch indeed to clutch at a small and soggy straw. Where is the cut-off between a valid minority opinion, and a fringe opinion? Wdford (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And so we drag on, rehashing the same points over and over. We need to, and must, reflect the balance of scholarly opinion, Novak gives it - the idea that by prote Luke is talking about an earlier census is dismissed by the overwhelming majority of scholars. No, Anselm, I do not see Wright as obviating this - Wright seems to be aiming his words at an audience with a reading age of about 12 (read it!) and although he says that one way of translating Luke's Greek is to see it as referring to an earlier census, he doesn't endorse that view. In fact he seems to be offering it as a sop. And most certainly he doesn't make any suggestion whatsoever as to where the weight of scholarly opinion lies. No, Wright is not an authoritative source for your point of view, and I think he'd be appalled to be seen as such. (Suggestion: email him on ntw2@st-andrews.ac.uk). Use Novak.

Which brings us to the second point, the idea that Quirinius may have had an earlier term as governor of Syria. Our source again is Novak, who says that the list of Roman governors between 25 BCE and 6 CE is well-known,that there is no space for Quirinius, and there is no suggestion in the historical sources that Quirinius served a term as governor of any province prior to 6 CE. General, yes, governor, no. We owe it to our readers to show the evidence, not hide it. PiCo (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems that somewhere in all of this you've missed the fact that there are two Wright books. The book by Tom Wright is indeed addressed to an audience with a reading age of about 12, and does only say "One way of translating the Greek here is to see this census as the earlier one." But then in Who Was Jesus? (2014) - and this time writing as N. T. Wright - he is much clearer and more forceful, and says that translating prote as "before the time" is "actually the most natural reading of the verse". Certainly no sop here. StAnselm (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's true that Tivoli inscription has no names, but contains many other details (Roman official who lived in the reign of Augustus, and survived that emperor, conquered a nation, rewarded with two Supplicationes and the Ornamenta Triumphalia...) so that Mommsen, Borghesi, de Rossi, Henzen, Dessau, and others agreed that it was almost certainly Quirinus (I've read it on this book by W.M.Ramsay).

I think the article should simply describe the difficulties and the possible explanations given by various historians: confusion/invention on Luke's part; Herod having to comply with Roman policies in an earlier term of Quirinus; different translation of prote ecc.. Descriptions like "(overwhelming) majority" / "minority" / "fringe", should be included but only if it is some RS that says that. Bardoligneo (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think StAnselm and Bardoligneo covered the issues pretty well, but I would add that the other side still seems to be claiming that one view is "fringe" because a handful of authors claim all "real scholars" agree with them. That's not a valid basis for labeling one side "fringe", much less for virtually excluding that entire side except to present it as a simplistic caricature which is immediately dismissed in the same breath. That's not the normal Wikipedia procedure. Likewise for the constant allegation that the "minority view" is biased, despite the fact that the other side is almost entirely composed of self-described atheists, radical Christians, or others who clearly have an agenda. So there is clearly bias on both sides, not just one. And as Bardoligneo pointed out, many of the great historians of the recent past accepted the Tivoli inscription as a reference to Quirinius because there aren't many (if any) others who would fit the description given. No new evidence has surfaced since then to justify a new conclusion, and the current academic fads in Biblical scholarship really do not overrule these long-respected historians. It should be added that the argument by various authors doesn't come down to Quirinius personally conducting the census, because the Bible doesn't say he conducted the census, it only places the census within a time period when he held some type of position in Syria. Additionally, a number of authors have pointed out that there were cases of "independent" jurisdictions (such as Apamea) which were still subject to Roman censuses.

Can we even mention historians like Mommsen? If I added a citation, it would be reverted on sight, wouldn't it? And that's entirely unacceptable. GBRV (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: the recent edit: You have again done the same thing you've done many times before: you wait awhile and then come in and see if you can completely purge the article of all alternate viewpoints while claiming that "due weight" requires a complete purge. That's nonsense. "Due weight" doesn't overrule the NPOV principle of including alternate viewpoints, including minority ones. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you revert this one more time I'll take it to conflict resolution - your actions are pov-pushing, and I believe you know it. The Wikipedia =guidelines on due weight are quite clear. PiCo (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"One more time"? I only reverted it once before you wrote the above note. But go ahead, take it to conflict resolution : at least then we'll have a relatively neutral mediator who is likely to agree that allowing both sides is not "POV-pushing", but removing all viewpoints aside from your own certainly IS POV-pushing. In no fashion do Wikipedia's guidelines allow systematically censoring everything but one viewpoint. I would add that I didn't even write the material you're deleting : I think Wdford added it, unless it was StAnselm.

I'd like [User:Wdford|Wdford] and [User:StAnselm|StAnselm] to weigh in here. GBRV (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You really should be checking the edit history for things like this. It was in fact, added by an IP address, 69.127.248.215.[5] As a contested recent edit it should stay out until there is consensus to include it. StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed this duplication, with a mild rewrite that covers all the various viewpoints while being clear about the weight of scholarly opinion. Please all help to polish it up, so that this can be put to bed. Wdford (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm: If all contested recent edits need to be discussed first, then why can PiCo continuously add disputed material without discussion? In any event, the material he's deleting now is merely a statement about one opposing view, which needs to be included for balance and which shouldn't be controversial. Wdford re-added a pretty balanced version. GBRV (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this source could help clarity some things or this one or [6]. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The above sources are a good reflection, but I think we have covered these points in the article already? Honestly people, the article now states clearly that the majority opinion is that Luke probably made a mistake in linking Jesus' birth with the term of office of Quirinius, we have mentioned all the different minority interpretations and explanations, and we have noted that these interpretations are considered to be "acrobatics" - what more remains to be done? Wdford (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Luke did not actually mention Quirinius, that's a translation error.

http://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2014/11/cyrenius-does-not-mean-quirinius.html --JaredMithrandir (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your own blog post is not a reliable source. --Amble (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

i source every argument I make.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You should read the ban upon pushing your own arguments, what counts as a reliable source and how Wikipedians verify claims in reliable sources. You cannot verify claims to your personal analysis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

So, basically, we're not interested if you're right or wrong. We only care for claims explicitly made by reputable scholars, published in either peer-reviewed articles from reputable scholarly journals or in books published by prestigious publishing houses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

JaredMithrandir, please understand that Wikipedia doesn't really allow blogs as sources per WP:NOTBLOG. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The word 'Critical' as applied to scholars

Recent edit-skirmishing on the word in the lead (or lede if you insist) raises what this word means in the context. My objection is foremost that of ambiguity: critical can either mean someone who argues against, or describe someone whose job it is to be a critic (as in theatre) and who will necessarily sometimes laud rather than criticise. So what sort of scholar is a 'critical scholar'? Should not all scholars be critical (in the theatre sense)?

I'm in over my head on this article as I don't have the referenced text (Brown 1978), but the disagreement smells of a proxy dispute over chronology, and perhaps religious orthodoxy. But putting that aside, what we need to do is establish what the book that is cited to support this statement actually says. Mcewan (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Turns out that Google Books have it, and 'critical scholars' is a direct quote. Page 17. Wasn't expecting that. But then the unexpected is commonplace these days. Mcewan (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my English is somewhat poor, so I'm not sure I fully understand your suspicions (accusations?), if you have any. As a matter of fact, what I did was mainly to fix an obvious mistake you have made earlier, as I explained in this edit summary. You can quote a sentence, you can paraphrase it, but you simply cannot put quotation marks around a sentence that is not in the source cited. As for the word "critical", apparently you added it trying to "correct" the "quote" you had just made. I find this word unnecessary, but I don't quite care if it's there or not (not a critical issue...). ראובן מ. (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not Herod the Great after all?

Currently, the article in the very second paragraph provides a summary judgment on the scholarship regarding the Census of Quirinius that reads, "No satisfactory explanation has been put forward so far to resolve the contradiction"... quoting Professor Gruen's footnote in a 1996 book on a different subject and also something from 1975. I dug up a year 2000 paper in "Catholic Biblical Quarterly" which proposes an explanation for the alleged contradiction (http://www.jstor.org/stable/43722645?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), and therefore we Wikipedia editors now know our statement to be false: how can references from 1996 and 1975 evaluate whether a proposal from 2000 is satisfactory? Was Smith's proposal already known and part of the review by the other authors? Clearly not, in the case of Dr. Gruen's 1996 book, which offers no more than a few words in a footnote on the subject, and the other Wikipedia editors did not say that the proposal wasn't satisfactory but only, "who is this M. Smith? DELETE". In order to adequately satisfy WP:NPOV, I recommend that the article remove the comment about "satisfactory explanation" to a subparagraph, and include the update in the scholarship as of 2000. If the seriousness of the source is in question, look at the citing newer articles here in Google Scholar: (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13589444918741178202&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ) These articles do not simply dismiss M. Smith's proposal, as Wikipedia has done. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Maisch & Vogel are about as cautious as Wikipedia, writing in 1975: "None of the explanations of this contradiction so far suggested is satisfactory", and there is no indication that they were evaluating Smith's proposal, that the writer of the gospel of Luke was actually talking about a different Herod, Herod Archelaus. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The paper by Beauchamp in 2010 which criticizes Smith's position seems to agree with Smith's own analysis that Matthew's reference to Herod the Great is not likely to be historic. I believe that this PhD thesis is not good enough reason to discount the published work by Smith. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Harizotoh9 had proposed including M. Smith's work back in 2012 (see archives) and his proposal was unanswered here in the talk page. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Consider the actual wording of the gospel. Matthew 2:1 and Matthew 2:3 refer to "King Herod". Only Herod the Great was a King - his sons were not kings. Matthew 14:1 refers to "Herod the tetrarch", so as to distinguish him from the King Herod. Matthew 2:22 says "But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there." Archelaus was indeed a son of Herod the Great. Once again, there is no doubt that Matthew was referring to Herod the Great as the king of the nativity who tried to murder the infant Jesus. I don't know where Smith got his ideas from, but if he is postulating that the Matthew-author merely mixed up his Herod's when describing the circumstances of the nativity, how does he explain Matthew 2:22? Do you perhaps know? Wdford (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wdford and it makes no sense to say "As of 1975, no satisfactory explanation had been put forward so far to resolve the contradiction". This is not 1975. If the IP is trying to say that the situation changed in 1975 when someone did put forward a satisfactory explanation to resolve the contradiction, he or she should say what it was, referenced to a reliable source.I reverted that edit but the IP just put it straight back in again and I don't want to edit war about it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Smith's ideas about Matthew 2, Smith takes the modest position that in a contest between Matthew and Luke for historicity, choose Luke... Luke explicitly starts by saying he's writing chronologically, and Luke is supposedly considered a reliable historian through the book of Acts. Smith makes the case that Archelaus fits as "King Herod" (I got through the paywall... actually, it's just a registration-wall at JStor... in order to read Smith's 2000 work http://www.jstor.org/stable/43722645 ). His is not the definitive position on the subject, but he makes a plausible case based in part on the account in Josephus that Herod the Great willed Archelaus the title "king" (p. 286) even though Caesar Augustus officially denoted him "ethnarch". Mark 6:14 also refers to a tetrarch as "king" apparently. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would happily agree with Smith that Luke is more historic than Matthew. I would also agree that Harry Potter is more historic than Matthew. Luke does however have problems too - the whole basis of the Roman census bringing Joseph and his pregnant wife a hundred kilometers on a donkey to Bethlehem is vaguely ridiculous as well, for starters. At least Luke doesn't have corpses rising out of their graves and wandering around in town - unremarked by Luke, or any other bible author, or Josephus, or the Romans.

However, while I would accept that LUKE is perhaps talking about Archelaus when he says in Luke 1:5 that John the Baptist was conceived "In the time of Herod king of Judea", I cannot accept the view of Smith that Archelaus was the Herod of the Magi and of the massacre of the infants. This is because Matthew 2:19-23 states quite clearly that Joseph fled to Egypt to escape Herod, and that when he was told in yet another dream that Herod was dead, and that he should return to Israel in fulfilment of yet another prophecy, he was afraid to return to Bethlehem because Archelaus had now taken over from his late father, so Joseph instead settled in Nazareth in fulfilment of yet another prophecy. The Herod of the nativity thus cannot have been Archelaus, because Archelaus only became "king" when Jesus was already in Egypt - and was perhaps already several years old. Surely Smith would have read a few verses further, seen this anecdote, and realized that his theory was ludicrous? What does this say about Smith as a reliable source? Wdford (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, Mark Smith is in favor of the theory that Jesus was born following the death of Herod the Great. He says "Herod had already been dead some ten years when Jesus was born."

He makes his case that the only thing connecting Jesus to Herod the Great is "the infancy narrative unique to Matthew". And to quote an online source: "Smith himself did not accept the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Matthew". Smith made several arguments defending the historicity of Luke and rejecting the historicity of Matthew. Dimadick (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am very happy to accept that Matthew is largely fiction, including the Magi, the Star, the massacre, the plentiful dreams and prophecies, the flight to Egypt etc etc (although I have been to Cairo, and I have visited the cave where the Holy Family allegedly sheltered - which is a big tourist attraction today as you might imagine.) I still question the historicity of much of Luke, but I can accept the possibility that Luke sets the conception of John the Baptist in the last days of the term of Archelaus, with transition to direct Roman rule taking place during the course of the pregnancies, hence the census. How long after the demise of Archelaus did the census take place - does anybody perhaps know? Wdford (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The census, as the article says, was in 6 CE. This was not after Archelaus' demise but after he was deposed and exiled by the Roman emperor and Roman direct rule imposed.[7] The article as it stands now is neutral and accurate, attempts to say "it was some other Herod", "it was some other census" or anything like that with reference to the passage in Luke are lame and rather desperate attempts by Biblical literalists to avoid the fact, agreed on by all neutral authorities, that the passage in Luke is historically inaccurate. See [8] for a full discussion.Smeat75 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically, we can not be certain when Herod Archelaus died. He was deposed in AD 6, and exiled to Vienne, Isère in Gaul. Primary sources do not seem to cover his final years. We do know that the province of Judea was formed following his deposition. And that someone called Coponius was appointed as the first prefect of the province. Dimadick (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)