Talk:Census of Quirinius/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Revert

@Achar Sva: I'm trying to understand the exact reason for your revert. You just said "Better sources and English in original", but I don't think I removed any sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like many of Achar Sva's edits to this article favor conciseness over comprehensiveness and clarity. Explaining that the use of the census in Luke is a literary device is a valuable point to make (assuming the sources support it, of course, which they probably do). Saying that the apologetic arguments "spring from biblical inerrancy" (the one change by UpdateNerd that Achar Sva kept) is less clear than saying that they "spring from the belief that the Bible is inerrant". Not everyone knows what biblical inerrancy is, and we shouldn't require readers to click away from this article to understand it when we can explain it here with just a few extra words. And it is essential to explain that the author of Luke wanted to set Jesus's birth in Bethlehem so that Jesus would fulfill preexisting expectations about the messiah. It's the whole reason why Luke's story about the census exists. A. Parrot (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to reintroduce some of the less controversial edits slowly so whoever can revert them individually if needed. I'm all for bringing back "the belief that the Bible is inerrant" since its meaning is more self-evident. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections to the most recent reintroductions, which I think are all the creation of wikilinks. However, I don't like having this sentence:

• A: The census may have been a literary device to move Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order for Jesus to be born in the same city as King David, seeming to fulfil Old Testament prophecy.

replace this one:

• B: Luke needed the census because he needed to move Joseph and Mary from Nazareth, "their own city" (Luke 2:39), to Bethlehem where the birth was to occur (Matthew had the reverse problem: he believed that Jesus's parents already lived in Bethlehem and so needed a reason for them to move to Nazareth), and may also have wanted to contrast the rebellious Zealots with the peaceable Joseph and Mary, who had obeyed the Roman edict, and to find a prophetic fulfilment of Psalm 87:6: "In the census of the peoples, this one will be born there" (in the Greek or Septuagint version, it is "princes" who will be born).

As B is extremely clumsy I suggest breaking it up as follows:

• C: ''Luke needed the census in order to move Joseph and Mary from Nazareth, where they lived ("their own city" - Luke 2:39), to Bethlehem, where the birth was to occur (SOURCED FROM BROWN, p.17). Matthew had the reverse problem: in his gospel Jesus's parents already lived in Bethlehem, and he needed a reason for them to move to Nazareth (SOURCED FROM BROWN, p.17); he may also have wanted to contrast the rebellious Zealots with the peaceable Joseph and Mary, who had obeyed the Roman edict, and to find a prophetic fulfilment of Psalm 87:6: "In the census of the peoples, this one will be born there" (in the Greek or Septuagint version, it is "princes" who will be born).(SOURCED FROM BROWN, p.19)

Sentence A and the sentences making up C agree that Luke's use of the census as a literary device serving the needs of the storyline, but I think C, from Brown, is clearer as to how this works. I'm also uneasy with using a web-based source - Brown is a major scholar, and his book, unlike a website, won't easily disappear.

As for the sentence about inerrancy, I'm happy with it the way it is right now (recently edited by someone else): Attempts to reconcile Luke's account of the census have been described as "exegetical acrobatics" by Géza Vermes, and spring from the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching".

Mostly I think this was just in need of copyediting: attribution, etc. Looks like the scholarly sources are all there; I just needed to familiarize myself with them. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

References

"Herod I, who carries out the (probably fictional) Massacre of the Innocents" - not supported by source

I've just read through the source at [1] and p.170 does not say probably fictional or unsourced. Reading through to p.189 I found "Josephus’s myth or Josephus’s record? Matthew’s myth or Matthew’s record? The harder evidence and the weight of probability clearly support the latter—in both cases.56 One of the most doubted episodes in the New Testament has stronger historical credibility than it has thus far been accorded in critical scholarship." Maier is also used as a source at Massacre of the Innocents for "A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend, or folklore." He does say "probably a majority of current biblical scholars," but goes on to say "Except for Brown, however, such conclusions are not well supported by the authors who drew them." So except for a slight omission in the quote, it's correct, but said by someone who disagrees with them. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't see that mention of the Massacre of the Innocents has any place in this article at all. Achar Sva (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right, it doesn't need to be mentioned directly. The cited scripture of Matthew 2:16–18 already mentions Herod I's order to kill infants under two years. Further, a convenient link to the Massacre of the Innocents is already provided at Herod the Great. I'd say let's remove it from this article. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Daily views

I have just added a viewcounter because it is useful to know how wide the readership is. As a rule of thumb, I tend to think that articles getting more than 20 views per day deserve extra work to make them useful. This one is getting around 200. Interesting to see how that spiked to over 3000 at Christmas! --Doric Loon (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Gertoux

@Ploversegg: Gérard Gertoux has been salted for a reason. Fideism (religious dogma) makes him inept to be a mainstream historian.

Gertoux plagiarises Wikipedia for his articles, he's not reliable. As for the argument itself, try to find it stated by a mainstream source.PiCo (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no doubt whatsoever that he plagiarises Wikipedia - I wrote the passages he stole.PiCo (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination). Doug Weller talk 19:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I looked thru the discussion for deleting the authors wiki article. I would say that it was was hardly a tsunami of support for deletion. And does that automatically imply a mandate to delete all his refs? If we are getting rid of fideists are we salting Pascal and James too? Anyway, its too small a point for me to argue over but sometimes seeing stuff that happens under the hood on Wikipedia is like watching sausage being made.Ploversegg (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If he declares under oath that he did not plagiarize, that would be good enough for me. He will have to take the oath upon the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

He was studying for a PhD in Bible scholarship at a reputable French university, and when his professors saw what he really means to write, they jettisoned him from the university. It simply wasn't their task to produce all-out fundamentalist research. It wasn't their job to accommodate WP:FRINGE POV-pushers and pseudohistorians, and it certainly isn't ours. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Copy/paste from Talk:Chronology of the ancient Near East. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

However most Christian scholars

"most Christian scholars" is unsourced. A lot of Christian scholars kowtow to the mainstream academic view. So, unless the editor means that only fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are Christians, there is no ground for their statement. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Some Christian scholars believe there is a contradiction, but by saying 'most' I am not implying that all Christians believe Luke did not make a mistake. So I am not saying only conservatives are Christians, but the majority of NT scholarship is done by theologically conservative Christians (see https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/a-list-of-conservative-and-liberal-bible-scholars/). The most prestigious Christian NT scholars are NT Wright, Darrel Bock and Richard Bauckham; none of whom believe that there is a contradiction in the Census.

Also if your problem is with the edit saying 'most Christian scholars', then I am fine taking that out but I don't see why you would revert it all. Samjmv003 (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The conditions for claiming something like "most Christian scholars" are defined at WP:RS/AC. So, it is your mere opinion that most Christian scholars agree with you. For a fact, liberal Christians (like the majority of Christian Bible scholars from the mainstream academia) don't have a problem with errors in the Bible (they gladly admit that the Bible is ridden with errors). Besides, you have also deleted long-standing sourced information, so the WP:ONUS is upon you on both counts. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This shows https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/a-list-of-conservative-and-liberal-bible-scholars/ that most Christian scholars are conservative not liberal. I know liberal scholars admit the Bible has errors, but there are less liberal scholars than conservative and just because the Bible has errors it does not follow that Luke's nativity account is an error. I deleted an edit at the end since it was redundant to the topic, also it was not being unbiased it was trying to push an agenda.

If those are the only sections you take problem with I will revert my edit without those sections. Samjmv003 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Samjmv003 Do you expect us to take Robinson seriously? The bio he wrote on Amazon gives him no credentials and all his books there are Kindle self-published.[2] Then see [3] and [4]. The guy's a bit of a nut, here's a quote from him:"After Jesus has completed the 1,000 year kingdom on earth, He will melt the universe with a great heat death and everything will collapse back upon itself. The destruction of earth and the universe will not happen until God says that it is time for it to happen. Man cannot destroy the earth or human life, because God has a plan that He has determined and no one can change what God has planned. During the seven year Tribulation described by the Book of Revelation, chapters 6-18, we see that the earth will be struck by Asteroid’s, and nuclear war will break out, as well as global warming will threaten the earth." Oh look, the tribulation is coming now.Russia Coming From The North: The Tribulation Begins If this is the level of source you expect us to accept, you don't belong here. One of the reasons I reverted you was the claim about "non-Christian scholars", probably based on Robinson. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"If this is the level of source you expect us to accept, you don't belong here." There is the question of competence here, but I would question whether Samjmv003 is simply trolling us. Dimadick (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Samjmv003: tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference to Luke Gospel

After reading the article, I'm quite settled in my consideration that the reference in the gospel of Luke has been misapplied and mis-specified particularly with reference to the introductory discussion in the article.

The article says that Luke placed the timing of the Census but Quirinius in BC4 when it actually occurred in BC 6,..however a comparison of the following references using different bible versions paints a completely different picture:

Luke 2:2  (And thisG3778 taxingG582 was firstG4413 madeG1096 when CyreniusG2958 was governorG2230 of Syria.)G4947 [KJV STRONG] Luke 2:2  This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ESV] Luke 2:2  When this first census took place, Quirinius was the governor of Syria. [GNB] Luke 2:2  This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ASV]

These texts shows clearly that Luke says this census was first made when Quirinius was governor, which could verily be in BC 6, and the reading of the texts shows reference to an earlier historical period as contrasted wit the time of the event of the Birth of Christ to which the primary focus of Luke is.

Furthermore, given that at this time the Roman Empire had reached what as come to be known as the Augustan Age [Height of Glory] and was a world empire in the actual sense. Taking logistics and planning, such a worldwide census would not have been possible within a year, but could have taken years.

I suggest that the census was started when Quirinius was governor in BC 6 and was continued to this time forcing Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth. Mcfaddent (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The census took place in 6 AD (a.k.a. CE, "current era") not 6 BC (or BCE, "before current era"). Luke's error is the smoking gun that the labels BC for "Before Christ" and AD for "Anno Domini" ('in the year of the lord') never made real sense. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Besides, the date is not the only thing Luke got wrong here. I'm not sure what is gained by the attempt to harmonize. Doric Loon (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)