Talk:Census of Quirinius/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dating of the census

Schürer says, "It was started ... in the earliest in the summer of A.D. 6." and completed "at the latest in the autumn of A.D. 7" (The history of the Jewish people). So, perhaps we should say 6-7 instead of 6/7. I see no problem with listing it under 6 AD, though. Rbreen (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Order Issue

I find an issue with the order and perhaps the name of this entry. "The Census of Quirinius refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea..." only as regards this entry, not elsewhere. The article begins by describing censuses that may or may not have anything to do with to census mentioned in Luke. the article should start out with how the census is mentioned in Luke and placed from there. As it is, it is leading the reader into assuming the historicity of a census which in fact is a controversy. Burpboohickie (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The primary reference for the Census of Quirinius is Josephus.[1] I don't think anyone questions his account. The controversy is over how the Gospel of Luke uses the census in relation to the chronology of Jesus. 75.0.4.4 (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want a secondary reference:

H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 246: "When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in 6 CE, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea."; page 274: "Josephus connects the beginnings of the extremist movement with the census held under the supervision of Quirinius, the legate of Syria, soon after Judea had been converted into a Roman province (6 CE)."

75.0.4.4 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there really is no controversy about the census in 6 CE. All the experts accept that this took place, and played a part in the history of Jewish resistance and the zealot movement. The opening section of the article deals with this, and gives background information about Roman censuses in general. The Luke controversy is a secondary matter - Luke gives no additional information about the historical event and is generally assumed to have included it in his narrative for apologetic rather than historical reasons. The history of the controversy is of some interest, but mainly to historiographers. I can't see a POV issue here. --Rbreen (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been no further comment here, so I assume the matter is closed. I will remove the POV tag. --Rbreen (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

'Ancestral' homes

Rbreen, I'd like to comment on your latest edit:

'...and although people could be asked to return to their homes to be registered, it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.'

The decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus does not simply say 'Everyone please go home for the census'. It tells people to return to their original administrative district (NOMOS), and their own hearth (EFESTIA). This section is addressing people who originate from one NOMOS but who are currently living in a different NOMOS because they are working there. It is telling them not to go back to their current home, but to their original home in their original NOMOS, the one they came from before they took up residence elsewhere. Your phrase 'all who were out of their districts to return to their homes' does not identify the fact that these people were in fact living outside their original NOMOS and their original family home. Your phrase makes the command sound as if it's simply talking to everyone who has traveled outside their NOMOS (maybe for shopping or whatever), and does not identify the fact that it's addressing people who had two separate homes, their original family home in the NOMOS from which they came and their current home in the NOMOS to which they have moved (and in which they were residents), because of their work. This is analogous to Luke 2:3, which does not actually specify 'the town of their ancestors' ('Everyone went to his own town to be registered'), nor does Luke 2:4 identify Nazareth as Joseph's 'own town' ('So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea'). If Luke meant Nazareth to be identified as Joseph's 'own town' in the terms of Luke 2:3 then he would not have introduced a reason requiring Joseph to move out of Nazareth in order to be in his 'own town'. Moving Joseph out of Nazareth to his 'own town' means that in some way Nazareth was not Joseph's 'own town'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference is in a section which explains why the Luke account has traditionally been considered problematic, and the apparent claim that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because of his ancestry (rather than because this was his second or original home) - whether true or not - has long been one of the reasons.

The issue of whether this is what Luke is saying, and whether it is historically accurate as far as census practice is concerned, is a separate matter and is dealt with further in the article. It is as a matter of fact very widely agreed that Luke is indeed saying this, and that no evidence exists for such a practice in Roman censuses. Your interpretation is interesting, but apart from Paul Maier I know of no serious writer who suggests this (and Maier's suggestion does not seem to have met with support from biblical scholars), and he does not in any case support the argument that Nazareth was not Joseph's home town. --Rbreen (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about my interpretation, or even about the traditional Fundamentalist view that when Luke said 'own town' he really meant 'ancestral home' (no translation I know renders the Greek that way). What I am objecting to is your representation of the Egyptian census. As it stands, you do not identify the fact that it is telling people with two homes to return to the home of their origin, not the home in which they are currently residing. It's telling them to their original administrative district (NOMOS), and their own hearth (EFESTIA). This means their original home, not the home in which they live. And however else you want to interpret Luke, you cannot deny that he is saying that when Joseph left Nazareth he did so in order to return to his 'own home'. Whatever Luke means by 'own home', it's clear that Nazareth wasn't Joseph's. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the "people with multiple homes" interpretation of the papyrus based on any modern source? It doesn't seem obvious to me (people can reside away from "their own hearths"/"τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἐφέστια" without owning second homes), and the revised edition of Schürer's history interprets the same text the opposite way (vol. 1, p. 413): "The intention was for people to return to their normal places of residence and work. Luke's own narrative represents this as having been Nazareth (2:4, 39)." EALacey (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The text is here. It addresses specifically people who are residing away from their NOMOS to return to their own NOMOS and their own hearths. Where do you suppose people who are residing outside their NOMOS are living? In the street? Wandering the countryside? They are people who are living in a new place because of their work, and the decree states specifically that if their work is of sufficient importance to the local city in which they are currently living, then they are exempt from the requirement of a return to their own home ('Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before').

This is not telling people to 'return to their normal places of residence and work'. They were living in a completely different NOMOS to their original. Their 'normal' places of residence and work were both in their current NOMOS, not their original NOMOS, so telling them to return to their 'normal places of residence' would not require them to move out of their current NOMOS to their NOMOS of origin. Yet the decree specifically requires them to move out of their current NOMOS and return to their NOMOS of origin, demonstrating that they are normally living outside it. These people are migrant rural-urban workers, some of whom are so valuable to the city's economy that it is not convenient to have them travel back to their 'own home' ('Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before'). Sure, they may not have to own the homes themselves (they could be renting), but that they have two homes is a given, unless they're living in the street. This is no different to the rural-urban migration pattern in countries all the world over, such as here in Taiwan where people from counties such as Taizhong and Tainan live in the capital city of Taipei to work, and return to their original family home on festival days and national holidays. They are residents in one place, but they are originally from a different home in a different county. They have two separate houses, with the original home usually kept either by parents, grandparents, or older members of the extended family.

You can't say that Luke represents Nazareth as Joseph's 'own town' when his entire point is that a decree commanding people to return to their 'own home' means that Joseph must leave Nazareth. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this view? Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the source is Luke 2:3-4, which says that everyone had to go to their 'own town', and then goes on to say 'So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee'. Let me know if you think that Luke is saying 'Since the decree ordered everyone to go to their own town, Joseph stayed in Nazareth'. Surely you're not disagreeing that Luke is saying the decree required Joseph to leave Nazareth in order to go to his 'own town'? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite your repetition of the point, I can't see where the text of Vibius' edict (which I had read previously) mentions a "NOMOS of origin". It tells people to go to "their own" nomos and hearth, but does not specify which this would be in the case of anyone who owned several homes. If the aim of the edict really was to tell people with multiple homes which of those homes they needed to register at, then it's spectacularly badly worded. On the other hand, if the aim was to tell people who owned only one home to go there, then it makes perfect sense. Of course, I'm not an authority on census practice in Roman Egypt, and perhaps someone who is would disagree with me (and Schürer-Vermes-Millar), but such a source hasn't been cited yet. EALacey (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they owned multiples homes I said the opposite, 'Sure, they may not have to own the homes themselves (they could be renting)'), I said they had more than one home, and the reason is that they are living in the city for work (which the decree states specifically). The decree it is telling people to go to their own NOMOS because they are not currently living in their own NOMOS (here 'NOMOS of origin' means the NOMOS from which they originally came). They are living in a different NOMOS. It tells people to go to their 'own hearth' because they are not currently living at their 'own hearth', they are living in a different place. It is precisely worded to this effect (not 'spectacularly badly worded'). Remember, the different homes in question are not the 'country house' and 'town house' of the wealthy, the decree (as I mentioned), is addressing specifically those who are living away from home because they are working in the city:

Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before...

How do you think these people originally 'from the countryside', but 'required by our city' to stay, 'remained here' during the census if they had no local homes to go to? I haven't read Schürer-Vermes-Millar, but I doubt sincerely that they argue anything equivalent to the idea that the decree is requiring local people wandering in the streets to stop shopping and go home. I also doubt sincerely that they argue the decree is telling people to stay in the NOMOS in which they are currently living, and go to their home in that NOMOS. There's no point in telling people to go back to their own homes if that's where they're already living, and no point in telling them to go back to their 'own NOMOS' if that's where they already are. But perhaps that's not what you intended to represent them as saying (in which case I am uncertain as to what you are telling me about their views). To me it's significant that atheist historian Richard Carrier includes this census as evidence that Luke's census account could well be historically accurate (Carrier, Richard, 'The Date of the Nativity in Luke', 5th edition, 2006):

• 'I do not see Luke's account as historically impossible, as some have tried to argue'
• 'there could easily be any number of reasons why an ancestral connection with Bethlehem would require them to journey there for a census of Judaea'
• 'We do know that censuses could have such requirements for travel, not only from papyri [1.3] but also from common sense'
• '[1.3] The famous P.Lond. 904, discussed in F. Kenyon and H. Bell Greek Papyri in the British Museum 3 (1907), p. 125 (with plate 30), and in George Milligan Greek Papyri (1910) pp. 72-3'
• 'Rostovtzeff cites other evidence proving that there was an idea of a return to the idia, "place of origin," employed in some censuses conducted in the east, cf. Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates, pp. 305 ff. Also, cf. Rosen, op. cit., in 10.2'

Part of the confusion over this decree is the fact that a key word (NOMES), has been incredibly misrepresented in a number of supposedly authoritative works. It is widely quoted as saying that those who are 'living away from their HOMES should return to their hearths', and I have found this misquote even in Maier's work which I thought would have been up to a higher standard (Paul Maier, 'In the Fullness of Time', 1991, page 339). This misquote is found all over the Internet, and makes absolute nonsense of the decree. I speculate that the misrepresentation occurred because some translations of the Greek use a lower case transliteration of NOMOS instead of translating it, rendering it 'nomes' which looks very like 'homes' in English, and that this misunderstanding of the word was then proliferated, but that is only my theory. What's amazing is how widespread the misquote is, and the fact that it's even in Maier's work demonstrates that a lot of people just aren't checking their facts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right that I shouldn't have referred to "owning" multiple homes – my apologies for reading your post too hastily. On reflection, I do agree it's possible that the home of a migrant worker's family would constitute his "own hearth" while a rented place of accommodation wouldn't. I was assuming that the people from the countryside mentioned as presently in the town were countryside residents making trips to town for business reasons (e.g., to sell agricultural produce), since I would have imagined long-term country-to-town migrant workers as a relatively smaller class in the pre-industrial world and in a province mainly known for agriculture. But I certainly can't claim any particular knowledge of Roman-Egyptian economics. The sentence I quoted earlier from the revised Schürer ("The intention was for people to return to their normal places of residence and work") is referring specifically to Vibius' edict and follows a quotation from it, so Schürer and editors clearly didn't understand the countrypeople concerned to be long-term city residents either. EALacey (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Schürer et all seem not to explain why the city would need 'countryside residents making trips to town for business reasons' to stay in the city for the duration of the registration, nor why such people wouldn't be returning home at the end of the day in any case. The decree specifically requires these people not simply to 'go home', but to return to 'their own hearth' and 'and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them'. That is clearly cultivation to which they had not been applying themselves, and demonstrates that they had been away from home for a lot longer than it takes for a day trip to the city to sell a few vegetables. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if we can clarify this:

1. In Egypt in 104, during the census, people living away from their home district (nome) were ordered to return there to their original homes (= hearths). This probably means migrant workers, staying away from their family homes.

2. Around 70, the author of the Gospel of Luke writes that during the Census of Quirinius everyone went to their towns (polis) to be registered. This was a century before the Egyptian reference, and in a different country, but the principle was probably the same, since the Romans did a house-to-house survey and would want people to be where they lived and owned property. You would expect him to go to his home town (original home = hearth).

3. Joseph goes from Nazareth to Bethlehem (apparently implying that this was 'his town'; Nazareth would not have been covered anyway, as it was not part of Judea)

4. However, it doesn't say, "because that was where his home was". It says, "because he was descended from the house and family of David". It doesn't make clear whether others were doing the same. Writers generally assume this means that he was going there because it was his ancestral home (Bethlehem being the birthplace of David). This is reinforced by the fact that when they get there they stay at an inn, not in the family home; the inference is that they do not actually live there, but are only visiting because of the census.

5. The assumption therefore that has generally been made is that Luke is telling us that everyone went to be registered in their ancestral town, not their actual homes (home, hearth). This is highly improbable for a variety of reasons, but if you assume that Luke is creating a pious fiction in order to glorify Jesus, and is not too bothered about the facts, then of course it doesn't matter. Skeptical scholars simply assume Luke patched historical details together for theological purposes; traditional ones try and make it fit by arguing, for example, that the Romans must have made some special concession to Jewish tribal customs, and that Joseph and Mary must have been staying with family in Bethlehem. No scholarly source, as far as I am aware, argues that the Luke account is asserting that Joseph actually lived there (ie that it was his normal family residence)

6. Given that most of the scholars who have studied this question were trained to read Koine Greek, I would advise caution with regard to translations. Additionally, not all of them write in English - Emil Schürer, for example was German. --Rbreen (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with points 1-3. :As for points 4-5, I disagree that 'This is highly improbable for a variety of reasons'. Atheist historian Richard Carrier (as unsympathetic to Christianity as any scholar could be), sees no historical impossibility in Luke's account of the census, and helpfully cites evidence substantiating it, including Papyrus London 904. The following is from his paper 'The Date of the Nativity in Luke' (5th edition, 2006), with my emphasis:

• 'Though Jesus' family appears to have resided outside Judaea in Nazareth, there could easily be any number of reasons why an ancestral connection with Bethlehem would require them to journey there for a census of Judaea (so much as a tiny plot of ancestral land would be enough, and Judaic law made it unusually difficult to get rid of such properties)'
• 'We do know that censuses could have such requirements for travel, not only from papyri [1.3] but also from common sense'
• 'it is a well known fact that even Roman citizens had to enroll in one of several tribes to be counted, and getting provincials to organize according to locally-established tribal associations would be practical'
• '[1.3] The famous P.Lond. 904, discussed in F. Kenyon and H. Bell Greek Papyri in the British Museum 3 (1907), p. 125 (with plate 30), and in George Milligan Greek Papyri (1910) pp. 72-3'
• 'Rostovtzeff cites other evidence proving that there was an idea of a return to the idia, "place of origin," employed in some censuses conducted in the east, cf. Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates, pp. 305 ff. Also, cf. Rosen, op. cit., in 10.2'

It is simply not true that skeptical scholars are all dutifully lined up against the historicity of Luke's census and religiously convicted scholars are all dutifully lined up in favour of the historicity of Luke's census. The arguments for and against cross partisan lines, being found on both sides of the theological divide.

I should clarify here that when I mentioned 'skeptical scholars' I did not mean scholars who are religiously skeptical, I meant simply those who were skeptical of the accuracy of Luke's account.--Rbreen (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that 'Luke is creating a pious fiction in order to glorify Jesus' is strange since his gospel never refers to Bethlehem as connected to Jesus other than in one verse, where it is described simply as the place where he was born (certainly not in any way which glorifies him). Equally strange is the idea that he is inventing a non-existent census and a non-existent census method as a cause for a non-existent event in order to contrive a means by which Jesus can fulfill certain Old Testament prophecies which he then completely fails to mention at all. Once more Carrier:

• 'Finally, even if Luke were making this up, he would sooner make something up that sounded plausible: in other words, such procedures were probably followed in at least one census within the author's memory, and we have no way to disprove the use of such a practice in previous provincial assessments.'

Bethlehem appears only twice in Luke's entire gospel, and it is never cited as related to any Old Testament prophecies at all, unlike in Matthew's gospel. This has been noted by both religious and secular commentators (emphasis mine):

• 'Surprisingly, however, he does not quote the messianic prophecy about Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), as does Matthew (Matt. 2:5-6)' ('Luke', Fred B Craddock, Westminster John Knox Press 1990, page 34)
• 'This is not to say that Mic. 5.2 could not have formed the framework for the pre-Lukan birth tradition, nor that Luke was unaware of the passage, but only that he is not consciously imitating Micah's prophecy' ('The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology', Mark L Strauss, 1992, page 111)

We seen in Matthew an excellent example of how to apply a Messianic prophecy to Jesus' birthplace, and Matthew doesn't need to contrive any explanatory details of how Jesus was born there. He just says 'That's where Jesus was born' without seeing the need for any backstory at all. He also makes specific mention of the Messianic prophecy which Jesus' birth is supposed to be fulfilling in some way. Luke's narrative is entirely different, not least because of the complete absence of references to any Messianic prophecies at all (certainly not Micah 5:2).

I agree entirely with point 6. Given that I was trained to read Greek myself (though I am nothing like a professional), I know well enough to be cautious with regard to translations and that's the very point I was making. I identified the error in Maier's misquote of Papyrus London 104 by reading the Greek itself (to which I linked), not the English. Maier's misquote is an unfortunate translation or typological error which has been repeated in many other works. As I said, this indicates many people are not checking their facts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Carrier again

We now have several prominent quotations on the Census of Quirinius page from Richard Carrier's online article. There was discussion on this page a year ago about whether this ought to be cited – see "restructuring &c", above – and the balance of opinion at the time seemed to be against. Andrew_c pointed out that Carrier's article was published on a website he edited, which effectively qualifies it as self-published.

The reference to Carrier as an "atheist historian" implies that he counts as an authoritative source because he's saying something that supports the accuracy of a text sacred to a religion he disagrees with. I think this kind of emphasis on the personal beliefs of scholars is more in the style of web-forum polemics than an encyclopedia article. If Carrier is an authority on Quirinius' census(es), we should discuss his views in general (to my mind, the best argument presented last year in favour of citing him was that he's fairly prominent online and readers would want to see how his views fit into a wider picture); if not, we shouldn't make an exception for those of his statements that support partial Biblical accuracy. I would favour removing the references to his work entirely; we should be able to find a more authoritative source saying that Luke's account is not historically improbable, even if its author isn't an atheist. EALacey (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

At present the article is designed to give the appearance that the majority of religious scholars have conceded that Luke's account is not only unhistorical but impossibly so. This is achieved by identifying the majority of negative commentators as religious. This being apparently considered valid, I see no reason why Carrier's atheism should not be mentioned as a contrast. It certainly conveys no authority. Having said which, I'm happy to have it removed if we remove all reference to the religious beliefs of others. Other negative commentaries are cited without any reference to the fact that their personal ideology is antagonistic to Christianity (diminishing the likelihood of them commenting positively on the historicity of Luke), and yet they are still considered a valid source and cited as authoritative. The article is overwhelmingly weighted against the historicity of Luke, including a number of statements without accompanying arguments, simply piled up to give the appearance of authority:

• 'In 1886, however, the theologian Emil Schürer, in his monumental study, Geschichte des judischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ), closely criticised the traditional view'
• 'The proposed translation has been described by others as "implausible" (A. N. Sherwin-White),[57] "almost impossible" (Daniel B. Wallace),[58] and "obviously a last-ditch solution to save the historicity involved" (Joseph Fitzmyer). None of the seven most popular English translations of the New Testament accepts the alternative interpretation.'
• 'the American scholar Raymond E. Brown concluded that "this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy."'
• 'James Dunn remarks: “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Luke was mistaken”.'
• 'Geza Vermes comments, "from whatever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality".'
• 'W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders: “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”.'
• 'J. P. Meier considered "attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history... hopelessly contrived",.'

Those last five points are all contained in a single paragraph. Several of these statements are personal opinion, one of them (from Davies and Sanders), isn't even specifically discussing the census, and the intention is clearly to convey the impression that no reasonable person would consider Luke's census even remotely plausible.

The Davies / Sanders statement is in reference to the census; this statement was made in this specific context. --Rbreen (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Carrier is a recognized historian, so the complete omission of any of his comments on this subject (especially when he has conducted one of the most comprehensive studies in recent years), is strange to say the least. I understand that the purpose of the article is to convey a negative impression of the census and to imply to the reader that no reasonable person takes it seriously, but I question that this is legitimate.

In any case, the citation of self-published works is cautioned against where the work is being cited to substantiate a general factual claim. Thus it is illegitimate to write 'Elvis is still alive' and cite a self-published work such as a blog, but it is not illegitimate to write 'The belief that Elvis is still alive persists in contemporary culture', and cite a self-published work such as a blog. In this case, if I were to write 'Luke's account of the census is not impossible, as some have argued' and cite Carrier, that would be illegitimate. But I am in fact citing Carrier only as a source of Carrier's view, and as such his article is an entirely appropriate source. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Which sentences are you referring to where you say the article identifies specific scholars as religious? I can't see where it mentions anyone's religious beliefs apart from Carrier's (unless calling Emil Schürer a theologian counts as identifying him as Christian).

I didn't say that the article identifies specific scholars as religious, I said it gives the appearance that the majority of religious scholars have conceded that Luke's account is not only unhistorical but impossibly so. It does so by citing the views of a large number of religious scholars who have stated that they believe Luke's account is not only unhistorical but impossibly so. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the piling up of quotations near the end of the "Twentieth Century" section is excessive. The point is apparently to provide evidence that Lukan inaccuracy is the majority position, but they could be moved to a footnote. I don't think the overall tone of the article is unbalanced.

I think it's unbalanced to refer to both Christian and non-Christian sources which deny the historicity of Luke's account, but exclude any non-Christian sources which affirm the historicity of Luke's account or at least state that it is historically plausible. That's unbalanced. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to refer to 'Christian' and 'non-Christian' sources here - almost all commentators on the subject have some religious connection, but generally try to maintain a non-religious approach when assessing the information. I do not know of any avowedly non-religious commentator who supports the accuracy of Luke with the exception of Carrier.

I agree the 'piling up of quotations' is excessive - that reflects earlier conflicts over whether the belief that Luke is inaccurate was a majority view or not. Ideally this should be more compact - the only problem is taking the time to reflect the variety of views within this overall approach. I will try to cut that back and transfer much of the detail to footnotes when I have a moment. --Rbreen (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your view on the use of self-published sources is in line with how the relevant Wikipedia policies are generally interpreted. On an issue about which there is significant scholarly disagreement (such as whether Luke's account is impossible), any source can only be cited for its author's opinion, and is a reliable source for establishing that author's opinion. However, the way I've always seen the relevant policies interpreted is that an individual's opinion should only be covered in the article when it has been promoted or discussed in sources which are reliable on the topic of the article. In the case of your Elvis example, it would be appropriate to cite an article from a respected magazine about the belief that Elvis is alive, but not a self-published blog unless its author could be demonstrated from reliable sources to be an authority on the topic. Is Carrier's work cited in scholarly literature on Quirinius' census? (The Internet Archive shows versions going back to 1999, so there has been time for it to be noticed.) EALacey (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In the material I have included, Carrier is only being quoted as a reliable source for Carrier's opinion. What you are discussing is whether or not Carrier is a 'notable source'. Carrier is certainly a 'notable source', and this particular article of his (which has been around for about 6 years), is cited in a range of articles and texts which address this issue. I'll quote User:Andrew c on the issue of whether or not Carrier is a notable source, an issue which has been discussed previously on Wikipedia:

'If someone is doing research into atheism or the historical Jesus from a secular point of view on the web, you are going to run across Richard Carrier's name, if not articles by him. Sure, he doesn't have a PhD (isn't a requirements that everyone who has an article have a degree), and sure he may be more of a 'pop' historian than a True Scholar, but the very fact alone that he is a 'pop' historian, ergo popular, solidifies his notability. So he is a web celebrity, so he isn't a true scholar, these are the sort of things you can use to attack him during an academic debate, but they are useless here at wikipedia. In the realm of online atheists, he is a celebrity. I find it strange that the most vocal complaints are coming from someone who is defending notability concerns director towards his own article (which I agree is not quite an encyclopedia article, as much as an overblown resume.) -Andrew c 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that here User:Andrew c claims Carrier is a 'pop historian', whilst in his post below he claims Carrier is not a recognized historian at all. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, last time I checked, Carrier was not a recognized historian. He was simply a graduate student. To be a recognized historian, you have to have recognitions, such as a doctorate degree. You have to be published in notable historical journals (Freethought Today and Skpetical Inquirer do not count). That said, I believe the quotations from Carrier are inaccurate, or do not accurately describe his position. After saying that Luke's account could be plausible, he then states "Nevertheless, it's possible Luke deliberately added both of these features to the story for apologetic reasons." It appears he is just discussion all possibilities. Similarly, he concluded "I think Luke strained to force his story to seem more plausible than it already was when it got to him." But regardless what Carrier's actual beliefs are, I do not believe that we should be citing him as a recognized historian, nor using a webpage that he published himself without editorial oversight. He uses very thorough sources, so perhaps we should use his article as a spring board for our own research. We could dig out the books that Carrier cites and use them here. Carrier's footnote 1.4 looks like a good place to start for people who argue that Luke's account of a census contains plausible information.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Carrier both as an atheist and a historian. I have also notified him that you deny his personal claim to be a historian and his defence of this claim on Wikipedia. If you read Carrier's article, you will find the quotes are entire accurate (they were quoted verbatim), and they do accurately describe his position. He does not simply say he believes it's plausible. He states positively that he believes Luke's account is not historically impossible. I made that clear in the article by quoting directly his personal belief that Luke's account is not historically impossible:

'Nevertheless, though Matthew's account looks and smells like a fantastical legend (see below), I do not see Luke's account as historically impossible, as some have tried to argue.'

That is not simply a statement of 'possibilities', that's a definite statement that he does not see Luke's account as historically impossible. The statements which follow explain why he does not see Luke's account as historically impossible. The quote you provide 'I think Luke strained to force his story to seem more plausible than it already was when it got to him' follows this statement, and in this context argues directly the opposite of your clam concerning Carrier's meaning. You omitted the first two words of the sentence you quote ('To the contrary'), thus completely misrepresenting the sentence. Carrier is saying that he does not see Luke's account as historically impossible, rather the opposite (hence 'To the contrary)'. He simply says that he believes Luke 'strained to force the story' after receiving it from another source. As you can see from the quotes I provided, Carrier believes that although it is possible that Luke's account could contain features which were added for apologetic reasons, it is Carrier's personal belief that the account is not historically impossible given the extant historical evidence, which is the very point for which I cited him in the article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the use of Carrier is problematic. He is an interesting writer, and seems fair and thorough, but the article in question is self-published on the internet. That simply doesn't match up to the level of scholarly work on this subject - writers like Raymond Brown, Geza Vermes, Ed Sanders, J G Dunn, and others - these are highly regarded and widely cited writers. Putting Carrier's work in with these is contrary to the principle of undue weight. He simply isn't a notable source at this level - all the other modern citations are to published scholarly journals. The WP article on self-published sources says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves". This is not an article about Carrier. It also says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I can't see that this fits Carrier: he's simply not an 'established expert'. Furthermore, I see no conflict between Andrew c's description of him as a "pop historian" but not a "recognised historian". --Rbreen (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the issue is notability not selfpublishing. Andrew c's description of him was written to defend reference to Carrier in an article as 'a historian', and as a notable source, so it's contradictory for him to argue against this in the current discussion. In the article The God Who Wasn't There Carrier is referred to both as a historian and as a published notable source:

**Richard Carrier is a philosopher and historian studying ancient science at Columbia University in New York, where he received a Master's degree in ancient history. His articles have been published in The History Teacher, Skeptical Inquirer and The Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. He served as editor-in-chief of the Secular Web for several years. His latest book is Sense and Goodness Without God.

He has also been published in the 'Journal of Higher Criticism', 'Biology & Philosophy', and 'German Studies Review'. When he is removed from other Wikipedia articles which use him as a notable source, I'll remove him from this one. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

According to his own about page, [2], Richard Carrier is a grad student in Ancient History at Columbia specializing in Roman science. Although it is possible for him to do good work outside of his expertise, it is fair to say that most scholars active in this field have not heard of him (yet). Stephen C. Carlson (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

According to his own about page, he is 'a historian and a philosopher' with a BA, MA, and M Phil, not simply a student. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide census of Augustus

"No simultaneous census of the entire Empire in Augustus' time is attested to outside of Luke": no, three times, see Res Gestae Divi Augusti 8 (lat. gr. ing.): 28 B.C.; 8 B.C.; A.D. 14. --Robertoreggi (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Those were not censuses of the whole Empire, they were only censuses of Roman citizens, and therefore would not have covered ordinary people such as Joseph and Mary. --Rbreen (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"This emperor caused an accurate account to be taken of all persons in the Roman dominion, together with the amount of their property" (Roman censor#Census beyond Rome)

And there were censuses also in the city "autonoma" of Apamea (see it:Lapide di Venezia) and in the kingdom of the "rex socius" Archelaus of Cappadocia (Annales 6,41 lat): they weren't Roman citizens, like also Joseph and Mary. --Robertoreggi (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The census carried out by Augustus was in connection with the lustrum, a census of Roman citizens only. The Res Gestae account clearly describes it as such. That this was the case is not disputed in modern scholarship.

The Wikipedia article cited, Roman censor#Census beyond Rome, is based on a book published in 1870 and is seriously out of date; besides, the authority quoted in that section, in support of a worldwide census, is the Gospel of Luke, and the Josephus account of the 6 AD census. The first is the source at issue here, and the second makes no reference to a worldwide census.

The census in Apamea was part of the census of Quirinius - Apamea is in Syria, and the census covered Syria as well as Judea. The census of Archelaus of Cappadocia is mentioned in this article - it was carried out independently on the initiative of the local ruler. There is no dispute that these censuses were carried out, but they do not provide evidence of a world-wide census. --Rbreen (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Apamea was in Syria, but was an "autonoma polis", they weren't romans, like Joseph and Mary (Corrado Marucci, Storia e amministrazione romana nel NT, in Aa.Vv., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, vol. 2 Principat, Berlino-New York 1996). The census of Archelaus of Cappadocia was a census of non-Roman people, like Joseph and Mary.

Scholars disagree with you. This is a POV voice. --Robertoreggi (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the censuses in Apamea or Cappadocia were of Roman citizens. There is ample evidence of local censuses that covered all the people (non-Roman citizens); but they occurred in specific places for specific reasons. The question is whether any evidence exists of a world-wide census of non-Roman citizens, ordered by Augustus. The censuses described by Augustus in the Res Gestae are a completely different matter. This is what most modern mainstream scholars say. --Rbreen (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"most modern mainstream scholars" is not all scholars. In italian see Giuseppe Ricciotti, Vita di Gesù, par. 183-188 and Corrado Marucci, Storia e amministrazione romana nel NT, p. 2197 in Aa.Vv., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, vol. 2 Principat, Berlino-New York 1996. It's possible a specific "firt census" in Iudaea by Herod in 8-7 B.C., in occasion of the world-wide (roman) census of Augustus in 8 B.C., with Quirinius Censitor (egemonéuontos), and a second census in 6-7 A.D. with Quirinius Legatus. This is a POV voice. --Robertoreggi (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Most or Many?

Bible scholars have traditionally attempted to reconcile these accounts, but most modern scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel.

Most or many? There are many scholars who don't believe Luke was mistaken, and there is evidence that the accounts can be reconciled. (ApJ (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

I feel like this is an issue that needs to be addressed, this language is in serious opposition to article guidelines (see WP:Weight and the article Quirinius discussion page.Awotter (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

request for review of NPOV language in lead

Posted here. Awotter (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to start again

The article is just a piece of special pleading. Scrap it and start again. PiCo (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gospel of Luke describes the census (or enrollment) which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem at the time of Christ's Birth. Luke states that this census occurred when Quirinius was was governor of Syria. This implies that Quirinius had authority over both Syria and Judea, at least for the purpose of the census. Luke calls this census the first under Quirinius. The second census under Quirinius was described in detail by Josephus (Ant. 18:1ff). In the early years of the first century A.D., Quirinius again had authority over Syria and Judea for the purpose of a census. A Galilean named Judas started a rebellion against this taxation. This rebellion is mentioned in Acts of the Apostles: “After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census….” (Acts 5:37).

Luke calls Quirinius "governor of Syria." Quirinius did have the title of governor of Syria at the time of the second census. But, at this earlier date, Quirinius most likely had only the role of one who governs, rather than the actual title. Similarly, Luke calls Pontius Pilate "Governor of Judea" (Lk 3:1), even though Pilate had the title of "Procurator." Luke uses the word "governor" to mean "one who governs."

The usual date for the second census under Quirinius is A.D. 6. As a result of earlier dates for the deaths of Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus, as well as for the death of Herod the great, my revised date for that census is A.D. 2. If this was the date of the second census under Quirinius, when was the first census? According to Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman, the census under Caesar Augustus was taken every 17 years in the provinces (the occupied territories, including Israel). He places the first census under Quirinius in 12 B.C., 17 years before the second census of A.D. 6 (Chronos, Kairos, Christos, p. 305). My revised date for this first census would therefore be 16 B.C.

Each census was for the purpose of taxation. The census/taxation took two years to complete. From late spring of one year, through all of the next year, until spring of the third calendar year (Nikos Kokkinos, Chronos, Kairos, Christos, p. 140-141). So, in this revised chronology, the census of 16 B.C. actually began in late spring and continued until the spring of 14 B.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truththatleadstoeternallife (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for a census in 16BC? Without it, this is just wishful thinking. 89.167.143.229 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The gospel of Luke clearly states that he is referring to the "first census" under Quirinius. The census in AD 6 was covered by Josephus in detail and is thus well-known and accepted today. It should not be any kind of "wishful thinking" to postulate the language of "first census" refers to the fact that there were multiple censuses under Quirinius, including one during which he was also governor of Syria (between 6-8 BC). The author above cited sources, I will cite others which raise the possibility that there were differences between Luke's gospel account and Josephus's account of the census, indicating two different events: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Jesus_and_the_Gospels/JosephusAndLukeOnTheCensus.pdf

The article states that "most modern scholars" consider Luke to have "made an error". That language does not represent an unbiased encyclopedic viewpoint. I agree with the first writer here, this thing needs a massive overhaul to fairly present all viewpoints. Awayforawhile (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is correct in stating that. It acknowledges that there are other views, but they aren't historically supported, as the links above aptly demonstrate. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the pulse of "most modern scholars" could so easily be taken. The language of "first census" is historical support in and of itself... But I'll change "most" to "many" and make it fair for both of us. Awayforawhile (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Quirinius as ruler of a small part of Syria (specifically Cilicia)

At the time of the birth of Christ Quirinius was (according to the article Quirinius):

Some years later, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 - 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. He won by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders. For this victory, he was awarded a triumph.

According to the article Cilicia:

It (Cilicia) was reorganized by Julius Caesar, 47 BC, and about 27 BC became part of the province Syria-Cilicia Phoenice. (including Cyprus?)

Quirinius, at that time, could therefore have been ruler of at least a small part of 'Syria'. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this original research, it's wrong as well. If Quirinius was legate of Galatia, he certainly wasn't legate of Cilicia at the same time. Cilicia and Syria were jointly administrated from time to time, but if he was legate of Cilicia (which he wasn't), he would still not have been legate of Syria, because Cilicia wasn't a part of Syria. The provinces were just administrated by the same legate. And we know Quirinius wasn't a legate of both Syria and Cilicia. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Circular reasoning leads in circles. Awayforawhile (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly circular. Quirinius can't have been legate of Syria during the time, because we know who was. So it doesn't matter if Quirinius was legate of Cilicia because a) Cilicia wasn't a part of Syria and b) if they were jointly administrated at the time, it would have been by the current legate of Syria, which wasn't Quirinius. Also, note that nobody even bothers to try to justify placing Quirinius as legate of Cilicia. It's just pulled out of nowhere. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Template placement

Should it be at the beginning of the article, or should it be in the middle? The article is not entirely about Jesus or Christianity, but it does involve it. What are your thoughts? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Richard Carrier section

Removed section for two reasons:

• 1. Published online and not in an academic journal or press. Does not meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)
• 2. Undue weight to give an MA student an entire section. WP:UNDUE

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Citing Mark Smith, Carrier says that the Herod the King reference in Luke 1:5 could refer to Herod's successor Archelaus (who only called himself "Herod" on his coins) as "even Josephus, who otherwise refers to Archelaus as ethnarch, could still call him a king (Antiquities of the Jews 18.93)" and that "at the only place in the New Testament where the name "Archelaus" is used (Matthew 2:22), he is said to have basileuei, "reigned," a term that does not entail but nevertheless implies a status of king (basileus), in contrast to other verbs of governing that could have been chosen."

Why not just cite Mark Smith directly? There is nothing gained by using Richard Carrier as an intermediary. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Article quality and structure

I looked on here by request. It is so bad that will take a long time to fix. Part of the problem is that the modern scholarship items are buried at the end and the long lost Nathaniel Lardner type items start the discussion. Who wants to know about Lardner (of all people) upfront? The final assessment at the end is almost right in that most think there was a mix up, but several explanations have been offered - but those are not comprehensively covered. I will just tag it for a reshuffle, but needs a 50% makeover, etc. Not that I will attempt it now.. History2007 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede section

The writing in the lede section is horrible and unencyclopedic. I came here to find out when scholars believe the census took place (the time of year), and I couldn't make heads or tales out of the second paragraph.

Text from lead section, 27 December 2012, with added comments in bold by User:Scrapbkn

In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a census of the entire Roman world in which individuals had to return to the birthplace of their ancestors. It describes how Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, in Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. There is no evidence of the Romans requiring people to return to their ancestral homes for a census and there is skepticism among scholars that such a custom existed or would have been practicable. (Separate paragraph for readability.)

The Gospel of Matthew, which has a different birth narrative, describes Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died ten years earlier, in the spring of 4 BC. Biblical scholars, troubled by the apparent contradiction in Scripture, have traditionally sought to harmonise these accounts, while most critical scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke.

However, as is evident from this article's What article? The Wikipedia article? lack of reference then add it to the article to Sir William Ramsay's 19th Century ground-breaking, on-site exploration of the historical and physical evidence in situ, which so confounded his previous colleagues in Germany, the author (Who? Once again, is this referring to the Wikipedia article?) prefers to cite those who seem to be unable to believe that events happened as Luke, the physician and careful observer and chronicler of events, recorded them. Ramsay was the first "arm-chair" critic to actually go and see the locations mentioned in the New Testament, with the avowed aim to find evidence once and for all that would prove the disbelieving critics of Europe correct, and those who believed the Bible to be true, to be fools. Nor was he ignorant of the Quirinius problem. A search of the Web for articles related to Ramsay's analysis of the Quirinius problem demonstrates this fact. (What? Why is this statement in an article that is supposed to be encyclopedic? Present sources to support your statement, rather than stating an ambiguous "a search of the Web". Poor scholarship.) Ramsay wrote four books dealing with the historicity of Luke's writing. The reference is incomplete; poor scholarship. Yet, most of the author's article is given over mostly to the views and opinions of those who maintain that there is a historical conflict between what Luke wrote (in the matter of the Census) and what is believed to be true by modern scholars. This is not a balanced or honest presentation of the issue nor of the actual evidence. At the same time, to be fair, no less a conservative scholar than F.F. Bruce also had a problem with Ramsay's explanation. But, by offering a possible alternate translation of a single Greek word in Luke 2:2 , Bruce offers a solution to the Quirinius problem, as well as his criticism of Ramsay. It should be noted especially, that many of the objections to Luke's record have more to do with what other historians of the time did NOT write, than with what Luke DID write! (Oh dear heaven, this whole section needs to be removed. Since when do scholars (or those pretending to be) write with exclamation marks? I gave that up in high school.

---

References

Really, this needs to be completely re-written. The lede is not supposed to be a critique of the article - it is supposed to present a concise summary of said article. I don't know anything about the subject, so I can't really fix this, but someone really needs to take it in hand. Scrapbkn (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with most of your points. The problem is finding someone who will cut the bad stuff out of the article and whip it into shape in a fair and neutral manner. The non-Christians are so intent on ensuring that "everyone" knows that the Bible is crap (and therefore want to make sure the lede says so) and the Christians are intent on ensuring that the Wiki narrative stays absolutely faithful to the Biblical account. So random editors come in, add and subtract as they see fit and you are left with what we have and no one with an interest in really improving the page has time to follow it through. IMO, this is true with many Bible pages on Wikipedia where the (predominantly) secular editors war against the Biblical ones and concensus is hard to gain without ticking off one party or the other.

That being said, you seem to have both a (passing) interest in the subject as well as knowledge in writing techniques and methods - you don't need to know the subject in depth to be able to honestly read through it, correct obvious mistakes, and cut out the chaff. Think about it. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is still not encyclopedic

I am very concerned that after all the discussion in 2008 and the plea for a rewrite in 2009, the earlier sections of the article reflect in the main the "critical" point of view. But the whole "critical" academic movement is based on re-interpretation of and casting doubt on the accuracy of Biblical texts.This one-sided bias is specifically against Wikipedia rules.

Where there is profound disagreement among scholars - and I use that word in its widest meaning - then that should be reflected in the article. I am not pleading for a bias in the other direction but for a proper balance and honest adherence to Wikipedia principles.

Let me give some examples of this disguised bias:

Six examples of bias

1. The article title is "Census of Quirinius" but Luke mentions "the first" census whilst the Roman Emperor Tiberius himself wrote in "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus" "I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens." (Obviously the dates were calculated later) It is not scholarly to say, "Oh, those were Roman citizens only so we don't have to mention that census." The fact is that there was am empire-wide census in 8 BC and Quirinius MAY have been involved and it certainly best fits the Luke narrative. So the very title of the article shows a "critical" bias - only one census. It should be renamed "Quirinius and Census" and the first paragraph should explain the dispute over whether there were one or two under his auspices.

2. Throughout Josephus is held forth as a more authoritative historian than Luke, whereas the fact is that Luke has proven far more reliable. For example, Josephus' narrative of the events of the reign of the emperor Caligula, which was 30 years later and in the historian's own lifetime, is universally held to be confused and inaccurate. That Josephus did not mention the 8 BC census is neither here nor there, we know it happened from a far more authoritative source - the emperor.

3."This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6/7, whereas the Gospel of Matthew indicates a birth during or just after the reign of Herod the Great." Why is the "whereas" there? This gives readers the impression that Luke indicated that Jesus was born after Herod's demise. In fact, Luke 1.5 specifically begins his story, "There was in the days of Herod king of Judaea ..." referring to a time just one year before Jesus' birth. So here the article is blatantly mis-leading.

4."No other record of such a census exists." Blatantly untrue, as I have shown above.

5. "Modern scholars tend to explain the disparity as an error on the part of the author of the Gospel." There was a lot of discussion of this in 2008, but it is still there. "Some modern scholars..." or "Modern scholars of the critical persuasion ..." is all that is needed to even this up.

6. "The same author, in Acts of the Apostles, associates the census with the much later revolt of Theudas," is just untrue. It was Judas that Gamaliel associated with the census and this was most definitely the one of which Josephus wrote.

I think that establishes enough that this article needs to be rewritten. I see that the article Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles is headed by various banners telling readers that the neutrality of the article is disputed and suggesting that it should be rewritten. I am therefore surprised that the same banners have not been added to this article.

I'm unclear as to the procedure for a rewrite. I would be quite happy to undertake that myself and submit the result for discussion. Obviously I would use the verifiable facts presently included along with missing facts and outline the matters in dispute.In fact, large sections on the history of the arguments over the centuries should be left intact, they represent genuine historical research as opposed to the opinions expressed earlier in the article.

In the meantime, those banners should be placed at the top of the page immediately. Logical Analyst (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There are all sorts of problems with the above. Just a few : you say "the Roman Emperor Tiberius himself wrote in The Deeds of the Divine Augustus 'I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague'." Excuse me, why do you think that is by Tiberius? Res Gestae Divi Augusti, (Latin: "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus") is the funerary inscription of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, giving a first-person record of his life and accomplishments. "Augustus left the text with his will." It is by Augustus himself.

You say "Throughout Josephus is held forth as a more authoritative historian than Luke, whereas the fact is that Luke has proven far more reliable." Please. A narrative which jumps straight into visitations from angels, chats between them and mortals, and miraculous births, is quite obviously not history at all, but a completely different form of literature altogether. I don't have time right now to go into more detail, but I have just seen this and want to let you know that there is severe and profound disagreement with what you say and the changes you want to make. Smeat75 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Luke's "all the world"

The lead has this sentence: " the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a census of the entire Roman world in which individuals had to return to the birthplace of their ancestors."

This is unsourced, and I think it's wrong: in English, when we say "all the world" we mean all the world, but in other languages this phrase simply means "everyone" - French, "tout le monde", modern Arabic "kul il-alam". Luke was, of course, written in Greek, and I have no idea what the Greek phrase is or was, but if it's similar than Luke would have had no intention of implying that the entire Roman world was caught up in the census. PiCo (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactement. Now how do you exactly in Arabic? History2007 (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Bizabt" (phonetic spelling of Egyptian dialect). There must be a source somewhere for this - surely one of the mainstream commentaries on Luke would note it?PiCo (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bizabt. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Greek used is "πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην", which actually means "the whole of the inhabited earth", [[3]]. It is translated as " Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth" by the New American Standard Bible. It has long been felt that "the whole of the inhabited earth" cannot be meant literally, and that Luke is referring to an empire-wide census of the Roman world. This is the standard interpretation, see for instance Scofield Reference Bible 1917:[[4]] "1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

[1] world

Gr. "oikoumene"= "inhabited earth." This passage is noteworthy as defining the usual N.T. use of oikoumene as the sphere of Roman rule at its greatest extent, that is, of the great Gentile world-monarchies Dan 2:7. That part of the earth is therefore peculiarly the sphere of prophecy." I have never seen anyone suggest before that it just means "everybody", I think this is quite wrong and the article is correct to say "the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a census of the entire Roman world in which individuals had to return to the birthplace of their ancestors."Smeat75 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Christianthinktank.com content is non-free

A big chunk of text from christianthinktank.com/quirinius was pasted into the Gospel of Luke section, and removed by Dougweller in the next edit (31 January).

Material from Christianthinktank.com is non-free, due to a "prayerware clause"; the 3rd condition of christianthinktank.com/prayware (linked from the site's FAQ). --83.255.57.204 (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a one-off edit by that IP and it's interesting to find out where it came from. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Including W.M. Ramsay's "Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?" as source

Hello everyone!

I've recently tried to add a 5-point summary of arguments presented in W.M.Ramsay's Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?, chapter 5 (see this revision), that would “mirror” the similar one about Emil Schürer, but it's been rolled back a few times.

Dougweller motivated the last removal in the notes to the 16:04, 13 October 2014‎ revision referring to the wp:undue policy and requested to discuss it in the talk page.

By itself, I think that the source is at least worth mentioning, it would contribute to complete the picture of arguments and relevant sources included in the article (judging from what I can find, W.M.Ramsay was a somewhat notable New Testament scholar and archeologist, the work cited is fully accessible and verifiable online and it deals particularly with the Census of Quirinius. It isn’t really recent (1898) but that’s not older than other sources used and it has been recently reprinted).

However, if giving this source its own separate 5-point summary (like I was doing) lends an undue weight to minoritarian theories then we could use it in a different way.

I propose that instead of making a separate summary, we simply use it to integrate the already existing “various suggestion” bullet point list with a short mention:

The new point in "their various suggestion" could be:

• There was a first general census that included Herod’s kingdom and that he held on basis of tribal descent during a previous mandate of Quirinius’. [new source]

What do you think? Bardoligneo (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Missed this and am reverting it. Wikipedia can't state this as fact - and if it were anything close to a consensus opinion there would be plenty of modern academic sources. Recent reprint doesn't make it any better. A huge amount of 19th century material has been reprinted recently due to technological reverting. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And in any case, the link you gave is just repeating what Luke says, not adding anything new to the claim so far as I can tell. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased

This article has plenty of evidence against the chronology of the nativity story, but little evidence for it. what little evidence there is is quickly disproved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.214.171 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

FLAG THIS ARTICLE FOR BIAS -- IT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE TOTALLY FLAGGED FOR ***BIAS*** AND FOR FAILURE TO FACT-CHECK. There is almost NOTHING in this article which is accurate, correct, source-cited, or for which evidence is cited. The article makes flat assertions of ***FAITH NOT FACT*** which means this article is ***NOT TRUSTWORTHY*** and certainly NOT based on archaeology or any of the academic disciplines, particularly HISTORY. This is a totally UNENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE and violates just about every precept of Wikipaedia.Lethomme (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Archaeological Diggings magazine

This is a religious magazine. See [5], [6], etc. It's first editor was the Creationist David Down, see [7]. (Love the falsehood that archaeologists think C14 dating is a joke. It's current editor is Gary Webster[8]. It clearly fails WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Correcting bias on this article

I have stumbled upon this article, and I have found that it seems to be terribly biased into showing that the book of Luke is incoherent with historical evidence, and even leading someone to conclude that its reports are not true and thus that it cannot have been inspired by God. Now, I firmly believe that this is not true: instead, I believe that the Gospel of Luke is part of the inspired Word of God, and that it is way more historically reliable than Wikipedia.

But, of course, this is not the point under discussion. The problem with this article is that it is biased, failing to accurately represent the Christian perspective on this problem (which also happens to be mine). Fortunately, I have found this article and corrected its bias. Here is a detailed explanation of the problems I have found and the changes I have performed:

1. It does not present the possibility that the books of Luke and Acts were written before AD 65, nor the arguments in favour of this position. Therefore, I have added the arguments that defend such a stance, with an appropriate reference.
2. It does not present the possible explanations given by Christians to account for this apparent discrepancy. Therefore, I have added these possible explanations in detail, with an appropriate reference.
3. It says that these possible explanations are rejected by most scholars, and says there are reasons for that, but fails to mention such reasons. Therefore, I have added a ‘[specify]’ template to the sentence where this is said.
4. It talks about the ‘contradiction’ between Matthew and Luke, by which Matthew says that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, whilst Luke says that they lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem because of the census. However, this is not true. You can read the Gospel of Matthew: it does not say where Mary and Joseph lived. Therefore, I have removed this, for it is a false claim.
5. It says that the scenario described by Luke seems ‘unrealistic’. However, in the article, the position of this stance is strange, because it is placed after the main ‘problem’ with the gospel (the one of the census's date) is explained, but before there are references to the possible explanations to it. Therefore, I have placed that sentence at the end of the article, after the entire discussion of the problem of the date of the census, so that it would logically make more sense.

This is what I have corrected in the article. Please use good judgement to assess my actions and do as you see fit. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the reversion. I understand your position, but Wikipedia follows what we call 'reliable sources' - see WP:RS, not what religious texts say. The Bible is a reliable source for what it actually says, but not for history. Doug Weller (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe you may have misunderstood my position. You say, ‘Wikipedia follows what we call “reliable sources”, [...] not what religious texts say.’ My aim was never to make Wikipedia defend my position of biblical inerrancy. Instead, I believe that Wikipedia should be an independent, unbiased source: and this means that it should show the facts, as well as all the most significantly held views, without defending specifically any of them, but solely presenting all the arguments and counter-arguments from all sides, so that each person can make their own choice (that is what I get from WP:NPOV). With that in mind, I would like to make Wikipedia explain my position more accurately and in greater detail (I reiterate my 2^nd point in the above list: the possible explanations are only briefly mentioned, without any detail, in such a way that they seem to be stupid explanations Christians desperately give when they lack anything else), and without ridiculing it (again I reiterate my previous bracketed clause); I would also like Wikipedia to explain why sceptics reject my proposed explanations (I reiterate my 3^rd point on that same list: it just says, ‘Your thesis is wrong. There are reasons to defend my thesis that your thesis is wrong, but I will not bother to present them. But I'm still right.’)

Let it be noted that I think this article is biased, and that I find it extremely ridiculous that the editors of Wikipedia do not want my position to be heard. But whatever! I shall not insist, since you clearly do not want it. Let something else be noted: I tried to fix this problem, but you guys did not want it to be fixed. Therefore, it is still there.

About your final remark, ‘The Bible is a reliable source for what it actually says, but not for history’, I must say that I completely disagree with the final part: I firmly believe that the Bible is accurate in everything, including history, and that the apparent discrepancy discussed in this article has a solution, even though we may not know it yet.

Finally, in any way, I want to thank you for posting this message here, declaring that you support what I have done. That made me feel very well: that someone from Wikipedia agrees with me. Thank you! :) -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 19:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sim(ã)o(n). You ask why the article states conclusions without giving the arguments that support them - notably the conclusion that Luke's account of the Census contradicts what is known of the lives of Herod and Quirinius. The last sentence of the last paragraph begins by saying that various proposals have been put forward for resolving the difficulty, but that they have been rejected by most scholars for reasons summarised by Raymond Brown in his 1977 book, The Birth of the Messiah. Rather than argue here on Wikipedia, I suggest you get hold of Brown's book - he was a very eminent scholar - and see what the experts say (because we are not experts.) PiCo (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I find that absolutely ridiculous. I come to Wikipedia to get information, and the best thing you can tell me is, ‘Get this book. It's really good. That way, I do not have to waste my time writing here what it says.’ Wow! What I think is that there is no reason. I will not give a penny to read the opinion of someone who disagrees with me. For me, opinions are free. — ‘Do you believe in biblical inerrancy?’ — ‘Well, yes, of course!’ — ‘Well, I think your conclusion is obviously wrong and completely stupid.’ — ‘Hmm... Will you tell me why?’ — ‘Yes, for €15, three weeks from now, in paper.’ — Ridiculous! If you want a debate, tell me your arguments. I do not pay to hear opinions different from mine. If you have them, tell them! If you do not want to tell me, fine! I shall simply believe that you have no good case, and that I did the right thing by not wasting my money and time to read a bunch of nonsense. I do not care how eminent he is: if he dies with that mindset, he shall go to hell, and he cannot say he has not been warned. He may think he is wise and intelligent, but he is not. ‘For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [...] Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [...] But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.’ (1 Corinthians 1:18,20,27) -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 01:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is describing the opinions of scholars, not ours. I suppose we could go into the details (I mean in the article, not here), but it would be tedious. As for the inerrancy of Scripture, you need to consider that there are many errors - to take just one, not unconnected with this topic, Acts 5:34-40 dates Judas' uprising at the time of the Census (6 CE) after the uprising of Thadeus' when in fact Thadeus' revolt was several decades later, in the mid-40s. (The same passage, incidentally, has Gamaliel the pharisee telling to the Sanhedrin about Thadeus' revolt in about 35 CE - a full ten years before the revolt occurred).PiCo (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. You may not go into the details. I do not mind. Do whatever you want. As for your accusation on biblical inerrancy, you must remember that you are not omniscient, and that, to any apparent contradiction, there may be possible explanations which you cannot begin to fathom. History has shown this many times. The Bible has no error or contradiction that cannot be reasonable explained (even if the explanation has not yet been found). Regarding this specific accusation, let it be noted that these dates you mention are not in the Bible. It seems that the thing with Judas could never be in AD 6, because he apparently came after Jesus. The census mentioned there may not be the same as this census of Quirinius (there may have been another census meanwhile). If Theudas' revolt was in the AD 40s, and Judas' after that, this makes sense with being after Jesus' crucifixion (probably early AD 30s). As for Gamaliel's report, I fail to see ‘AD 35’ in this passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim(ã)o(n) (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you wrote I support you. You are certainly entitled to your view of the Bible, but using it in this way is against our policy. Doug Weller (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not write that you support me; I wrote: ‘I want to thank you for [...] declaring that you support what I have done.’ (emphasis added) And I wrote that because you explicitly said: ‘I support the reversion.’ As for my view of the Bible, I fail to understand what you mean by ‘using it in this way’. If you mean making Wikipedia defend this position, then yes, it would be rightfully against your policy. But I insist that this is not what I am trying to do (just as I said earlier: ‘My aim was never to make Wikipedia defend my position of biblical inerrancy’). Instead, I was trying to make Wikipedia accurately represent both sides of the argument — and, since I saw that my position was under-represented, I tried to correct that. I did not delete any defence of the scholars' position (that is, any arguments against mine) — nothing in my edits could be seen as attempting to eliminate the other position or making this article unbalanced in terms of the perspectives it defends, but only trying to balance this even more. I fail to see how this is against your policy. But, anyway, I no longer care. I tried; you did not want it; therefore, I give up, and we might as well stop talking about this, and move on! Happy editing! :) -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 15:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop the edit warring - WP:SUMMARY applies here, the Nativity article is far too long already for all the details

As I've said in my edit summary, the Nativity article should simply have a summary of this one, with the details in this one. At 182,000 bytes the Nativity article is too long to have more than a summary and already has some summary sections. WP:SUMMARY states that "Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article. The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split.

A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. For copyright purposes the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a main article should link back to the original."

User:GBRV, if you really think this is wrong and we should ignore WP:SUMMARY here then I suggest an RfC whether than continuing reverting. But I think the main problem is that you are new and to not understand how Wikipedia works yet. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, your argument makes sense. But if this article will contain the main description of this issue, then it needs to have a much fuller treatment than it previously had, which is why I've copied and adapted the section from Nativity of Jesus, which had a lengthier description which we had worked out via mediation some months ago. How does that sound? Can everyone live with that as a compromise? GBRV (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Census is really notable only because it is used to pin-point the birth-date of Jesus - it has no particular notability otherwise. It makes sense to me that we give the full treatment to the dating-in-Luke issue here, but it also makes sense to me that we give the full treatment to the dating-in-Luke issue in the Nativity article, where the Date is addressed specifically. The whole issue is regurgitated in the Chronology of Jesus article and in the Anno Domini article as well, and probably elsewhere – Jesus-related articles tend to duplicate like mulberry trees. However the dating issue includes the discussion of Herod’s alleged actions as well. The Nativity article would therefore be the best place for the full discussion. However I take note that the Nativity article is already excessively bloated. I therefore propose two alternative solutions: A) We split the Nativity article, putting the “themes and impacts and christologies” into a new article named “Themes and impacts and christologies of the Nativity of Jesus;” or B) we create a new article specifically dealing with the dating of the Nativity, and then all the related articles have summaries and blue-links to the new article. I am happy to help implement either option – just let me know. Wdford (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"this" is inconsistent with the historical evidence

Here's the second paragraph: As the census mentioned by Josephus took place around 6 CE, and Luke's second marker is the reign of King Herod who died around 4 BCE, most modern scholars believe this is inconsistent with the historical evidence,[2] although others believe the apparent contradiction can be resolved.

What does "this" refer to? What is inconsistent with the historical record? The date of the census? The date of the death of Herod? This needs to be clarified. Omc (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Census of Quirinius

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Census of Quirinius's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Rahner731":

• From Chronology of Jesus: Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 page 731
• From Nativity of Jesus: Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 p. 731

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Due weight (slow edit warring)

I agree with PiCo, most sources introduced by GBRV in support of his view are outdated or marginal. Certain "scholars" mechanically disagree with everything which disagrees with orthodox dogmas. So there will never be unanimity (consensus isn't unanimity). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Due weight in the article

User GBRV wishes to alter the article substantially in a manner that makes it seem there's some discussion in academic circles to the effect that Luke might be right in dating Jesus' birth by the census of Quirinius. This isn't the case. But I'l go through the diffs one by one:

Lead, current version:

• The Census of Quirinius was a census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius after the imposition of direct Roman rule. It is one of two historical markers by which the author of the Gospel of Luke dates the birth of Jesus.<sfn|Vermes|2010|p=no pagination>

• As the census took place in 6 CE, and Luke's second marker is the reign of King Herod who died in 4 BCE, the gospel is inconsistent with the historical evidence.<sfn|Novak|2001|p=291-292> Most modern scholars explain this as an error,<sfn|Novak|2001|p=293> but the authors of the Gospels were ignorant on many points about the early life of Jesus, and both the Gospel of Luke and Gospel of Matthew put Jesus' birth in Bethlehem in order to match a prophecy in the Book of Micah that the messiah was to come from that place.<sfn|Davies|Sanders|1984|p=622>

Lead, GBRV's version:

• The Census of Quirinius was a census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius after the imposition of direct Roman rule. It is one of two historical markers by which the author of the Gospel of Luke dates the birth of Jesus.<sfn|Vermes|2010|p=no pagination>

• As the census mentioned by Josephus took place around 6 CE, and Luke's second marker is the reign of King Herod who died around 4 BCE, most modern scholars believe this is inconsistent with the historical evidence,<sfn|Novak|2001|p=291-293> although others believe the apparent contradiction can be resolved.{Cite book | last=Archer | first=Gleason Leonard | authorlink=Gleason Leonard Archer | title=Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties |date=April 1982 | publisher=Zondervan Pub. House | location=Grand Rapids, Mich. | isbn=0-310-43570-6 | page=366}

The first para is the same in both. The second para, however, has been altered to say that the contradiction between Luke (a census in 6 CE) and history (Herod died in 4 BCE) is only apparent, when it's obviously real, which is what our source says. The proposed new para then goes on the say that "other [scholars] believe the apparent contradiction can be resolved.{Cite book | last=Archer | first=Gleason Leonard | authorlink=Gleason Leonard Archer | title=Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties |date=April 1982 | publisher=Zondervan Pub. House | location=Grand Rapids, Mich. | isbn=0-310-43570-6 | page=366} This is highly misleading, as there's actually no argument in modern scholarship. (The source cited here, by the way, is quite old and was never mainstream in biblical studies).

However, since GBRV wants to discuss this in detail, I'll undertake to expand the article to discuss the various arguments and show why they've been rejected.PiCo (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is the real text from that article: Not surprisingly, due to his confusion over such historical details, [[Tertullian]] believed some two centuries later that a number of censuses were performed throughout the Roman world under Saturninus at the same time.<ref name=CoxEasley289 /><ref name=Vardaman >Nikos Kokkinos, 1998, in ''Chronos, kairos, Christos 2'' by Ray Summers, Jerry Vardaman ISBN 0-86554-582-0 pp. 121–126</ref><ref>C.F. Evans, ''Tertullian's reference to Sentius Saturninus and the Lukan Census'' in the ''Journal of Theological Studies (1973) XXIV(1): 24–39</ref><ref>''The Life of Jesus of Nazareth'' by Rush Rhees 2007 ISBN 1-4068-3848-9 Section 54</ref> [[Geza Vermes]] has described such approaches as 'exegetical acrobatics'.<ref name="Vermes2006">{{cite book|author=Geza Vermes|title=The Nativity: History and Legend|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J00OOo-3RqEC&pg=PT28|date=2 November 2006|publisher=Penguin Books Limited|isbn=978-0-14-191261-5|pages=28–30}}</ref> Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the version in "Nativity of Jesus" was something we had agreed upon after long discussion and mediation (remember that?), we need to use that version rather than going through all of this all over again, since that would nullify the entire point of having debates and mediation in the first place. Likewise there's no reason to bicker over the version in each separate article one by one for countless different articles. That's one of the reasons I wanted to just link to a single version of it in one article, to make things manageable. That can be this article if you want, but it'll need to be the version we already worked out in Nativity of Jesus, not one that we haven't debated or agreed upon. I'm going to paste a verbatim copy of that article's text on this subject. If you want to change it, we'll need to resume mediation again. Tgeorgescu added this version to the one in Nativity of Jesus, which means that article now has both versions one after the other, repeating much the same thing. That makes even less sense, so I'm going to remove the addition. GBRV (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (Coming here after GBRV left a note on my talk page, since I was involved in the Nativity dispute a little while ago): "Inconsistent" should certainly not be in WP voice, since a significant number of scholars have produce (or tried to produce) explanations of the discrepancies. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Further comment: I have no idea where the "not surprisingly" comes from with regards to Tertullian's views. StAnselm (talk)

I hadn't been aware of the para at Nativity of Jesus - maybe I should have been, but I wasn't.

St Anselm raises the objection that Wikipedia shouldn't state outright that there's an inconsistency. I don't agree - the inconsistency is objective. You could certainly say that biblical inerrantists have tried to explain it away, but they don't deny that it's there.

Tertullian shouldn't be there at all - he wasn't in a position to know when Herod died, or when the census took place, or when Jesus was born. He's irrelevant. PiCo (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's only objectively inconsistent if it's talking about the same census. And if the translation is correct. And this really is a terrible article: apparently there is a translation issue, which Brown responds to, but we are not told what it is. The "Gospel of Luke" authorial background is also undue weight, especially with all the material that has been excluded. StAnselm (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The argument was in GBRV's most recent version that Tertullian believed so because he was confused. I don't object to it. As a compromise solution, we could keep both pieces of text, instead of replacing one with the other. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with St Anselm that the article is pretty awful ow, but it was pretty good before GBRV got into it. We'll take it to a mediation forum after New Year - there are more important things to do at this season. PiCo (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to deal with all the issues in one reply to everyone.

I just copied the stuff about Tertullian from the "Nativity of Jesus" article because I thought we had agreed to that text, but the text certainly isn't very good. I'd support getting rid of the Tertullian part entirely.

The version that PiCo wants to keep sounds like a POV personal essay that just argues in favor of one position while quickly glossing over and dismissing all other views. Wikipedia articles can't just skim over competing viewpoints while arguing forcefully against them. At least the version I added dealt with several viewpoints in a more neutral manner. As StAnselm has mentioned, there are significant dissenting opinions which need to be given more than just a brief dismissive parting shot. I'd also like to try to include the views of historians rather than just Biblical scholars alone. I very much doubt that most historians dismiss the Roman sources mentioning that Quirinius served two tenures in Syria, or that there were censuses every fourteen years.

Another problem with the many articles on subjects related to this one: almost all of them seem to always use the same three or four authors (Ehrman, Vermes, and a handful of others) as the "overwhelming consensus" - the smallest "overwhelming consensus" in history - and the only justification is that these authors claim everyone agrees with them. We've been over this before during the mediation for "Nativity of Jesus", but the same problem occurs in article after article. Given that thousands of authors have written about these subjects, three or four does not establish a consensus.

Since PiCO wants to leave this debate until later, I've reverted the article to Rarty's version because at least that one is neither mine nor PiCo's (so neither of us gets to keep our version in), and it's also a very slimmed down form that doesn't have much controversial material. GBRV (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The current version looks OK to me, but I think we should maybe add the following:

• Are there non-Biblical sources for this census - if yes then we should maybe add them to the background section;
• Did a Roman census require people to register in the home towns where they lived, or the home town where their forefathers lived, even if that is in a different province entirely?
• Is it certain that the census referred to by the Pharisee Gamaliel is the same census of Quirinius in AD6?
• Since the dating of the birth of Jesus is the most notable issue, should we mention that this conflicts with the Nativity as described by Matthew?

If there are any other issues which need to be added, let's add them to the list please? Wdford (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@GBRV, given that the area of disagreement is so big, how would you like to proceed? Will we go to DRN?PiCo (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be having this detail here at all. This article is about the Census, not the Nativity, so I think we should only include material that is relevant to the Census. If you open it up, the pro-Bible editors will flood in to defend their POV. The nativity debate should happen either at the nativity article, or at a new article about the Nativity of Jesus Dating Controversy. Perhaps we could start by answering the questions I raised in my post above of 27 Dec, then go from there to add further relevant details to the article? Wdford (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wdford: to answer the questions you raised on 27 December:

Q: Are there non-biblical-sources for the census? A: yes, Josephus mentions it explicitly, plus it was normal practice to hold such a census whenever a new population came under direct Roman rule (the purpose was to make an assessment of tax liabilities).

Q: Did a Roman census require people to register in the home towns where they lived, or the home town where their forefathers lived, even if that is in a different province entirely? A: No. Biblical inarrantitists argue that there was, on the basis of a specific text from Egypt, but in fact this relates to a specific census in ALexandria, and the inhabitants of that city were being asked to return to nearby villages inwhich they held property, because it was property that was to be taxed. There are good sources for this.

Q: Is it certain that the census referred to by the Pharisee Gamaliel is the same census of Quirinius in AD6? A: I'd have to do some research on that one.

Q: Since the dating of the birth of Jesus is the most notable issue, should we mention that this conflicts with the Nativity as described by Matthew? A: That conflict is the only reason we have an article - there must have been thousand of Roman censuses, and this is the only one that has an article so far as I know.

There are some sources in the Bibliography that apply - they're where I got this information from.PiCo (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I was a bit rushed and unclear. A: I accept that Josephus mentioned a census, but did Josephus give a precise date? It seems that scholars are assuming 6AD as that was the earliest it could have been, but it is not necessarily the case that Quirinius implemented this immediately – he would have had other things to do in Syria as well, the admin for a first-time census would have been substantial – especially since the locals were resistant - and communications in those days would have been slow. B: We should then mention that a Roman tax was based on property ownership, so a Roman census required people to register in the home towns where they owned property, not where their forefathers lived (with sources). This undermines the whole basis of the journey to Bethlehem, and thus affects the issue across the board. D: We should then mention that Matthew uses Herod exclusively as a marker, which thus conflicts with Luke on the dating. We can include a line that says “some apologists claim to have harmonised these blatant contradictions, but their results are rejected by most scholars” – if we can find RS sources for that statement. Wdford (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I have to refer you to the various sources given in the bibliography. We've got Freeman as source for the statement that the census was in 6 CE (not Josephus - we can't use Josephus directly as he's a primary source). We don't say why the census was carried out, beyond it being for tax, but there were conceivably several types of taxes that could have been required, from property tax to a simple head tax - none of which, of course, would have applied to Joseph, as he lived in Nazareth and therefore wasn't a subject a of the Roman empire. Nor does he seem to have owned property in Bethlehem - if he had, he wouldn't have had to find a room in an inn. But sources are needed, and I suggest starting with Freeman. (Personally, I wouldn't use a word like "blatant" to describe the contradictions in the bible - this area is touchy enough as it is! :) PiCo (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Don Carson and Douglas Moo conclude that Luke is not referring to the census of 6 AD, and offer two possibilities for resolution: Quirinius held an earlier post in Syria (William Barclay), or that it should be translated "this census was before the census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Nigel Turner). StAnselm (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that there were two censuses hinges on the translation of the Greek work prote - Carson and other conservatives believe it allows the sentence in Luke to be read as meaning that there was an earlier census (earlier than the one in 6 CE). Today this idea is held by only a tiny number of scholars and the issue is really no longer debated. (Yes, I do have a source for that statement - it's not OR). The idea that Quirinius held an earlier post in Syria is slightly more possible, but not much, and it also is held by a tiny minority. But we shouldn't be debating this detail here, we should be discussing how to improve the article in an overall sense.PiCo (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

On conservative arguments defending Luke - translation of "prote", 2 censuses, etc. - see Novak's [Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts] (pages linked). This a study from 2002 and sums up the weight of scholarly opinion on these texts. Unfortunately page 293 is missing from the google book excerpt, but the substance would be an explanati9on of what "prote" is about - it can be filled in from Carson or other sources. What counts is that Novak is saying there's no ongoing debate in scholarly circles. In other words, due weight means we can't write the article in a way that suggests this is a live issue.PiCo (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, found a source that explains "prote" - George Shillington's [Introduction to Luke-Acts]. Shillington agrees with practically everyone that the inconsistency is real, and says that efforts to harmonise Luke with history are not convincing (which is the mainstream conclusion, although he doesn't say that). On "prote": it means "first" (Shillington says), and could be understood to mean "before" Quirinius was governor, not "while" he was governor. Since all I'm after is an explanation of Novak's reference to "prote" that's all that interests me, but Shillington is worth reading. PiCo (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to everyone in one note.

I would support limiting this article to just the census itself, since my main purpose was to consolidate the numerous descriptions of the Biblical debate that are currently in an umpteen number of different articles. One problem with this article, however, is that it makes no allowance for the fact that there may not have been just one "census of Quirinius" (that's one of many points of dispute); and in fact the idea of having an article for just this one topic is itself questionable. There were many Roman censuses; do we want to have an article for each of them? If, as PiCo says, this census is important almost solely because Luke 2 mentions a "census of Quirinius" (specifically, "the first census"), then it should be folded into the "Nativity of Jesus" article. I don't think we need a separate article for every phrase in the entire Bible, and in this case we are literally talking about just one phrase in Luke 2.

Here are responses to Wdford's questions:

1) Yes, there are sources outside of the Bible mentioning the census, although it depends on what you mean by "the census" since one of the points of dispute is whether "the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria" refers to the one c. 6 AD or an earlier one during Quirinius' first tenure (as indicated by a Roman inscription which mentions Quirinius serving in Syria during the reign of Herod as well as the later tenure mentioned by Josephus).

2) Re: the issue of returning home or to the place of one's ancestors for the census: first of all, the Bible merely says that people were required to return to their own hometown, not the place of their distant ancestors (it says Bethlehem was Joseph's own hometown, and adds that Bethlehem was also the place of Joseph's ancestors, two statements which have been conflated by some people to conclude that the Bible is claiming the census required people to return to the place of one's distant ancestors, which is not what it says). Secondly, there's a Roman document issued by Gaius Vibius Maximus which describes people returning to their hometown for the census (specifically in Egypt, but there's no reason to think that it was just a local custom in Egypt, especially since this Roman document and the Biblical account both describe the same practice in two different provinces. Normally, that would be taken as proof of a general pattern). I would add that "hometown" doesn't mean the person currently lives in that town, but rather the place where they were born (which would explain why Joseph would need to stay at an inn). Also, there's a constant confusion over Joseph's alleged permanent "residence" in Nazareth, which is not what the Bible actually says: it says Nazareth was Mary's hometown and Joseph was currently in Nazareth for unknown reasons, possibly visiting Mary's family before their betrothal or for some other reason. It doesn't say he permanently lived in Nazareth, in fact it doesn't say where he lived at all. We need to avoid stating any one interpretation as established fact (as this article used to do), because there are numerous interpretations of these passages. The NPOV principle means mentioning as many of them as would be justifiable, not forcefully insisting that one interpretation is the absolute truth.

3) I think it depends on whether any of these sources are referring to a census in AD 6, which is one of the major points of dispute. The Bible talks about "the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria", which can be interpreted in several ways (either "the first of two censuses under Quirinius", or "the first Roman census in Judea", etc). It can also be translated "before Quirinius was governor...". Again, we need to avoid dogmatic assertions that one view is the correct view and all others are irrelevant.

4) It only conflicts if you interpret things a certain way, which is yet another point of dispute.

Finally, on the issue of scholarly consensus: when this subject has been debated on Wikipedia in the past, the debate always revolves around what a handful (usually three or four) Biblical scholars say about the reception of their own theories, which is not remotely neutral for establishing a consensus; and it entirely ignores the opinions of historians. Biblical scholarship is not the only relevant field here, because this is also a topic in the history field. I don't know offhand what the consensus among historians is - or how you'd even determine that - but I do know that the normal procedure in the history field is to reconcile as many of the written sources as possible rather than declaring them invalid just because one possible interpretation would hold them to be contradictory. Some Biblical scholars also try to reconcile the sources, but they're not generally the ones who are quoted in this article or other related articles. GBRV (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just clearing up a few points from @GBRV's post:

"there are sources outside of the Bible mentioning the census": Only Josephus, nothing else.

"a Roman inscription ... mentions Quirinius serving in Syria during the reign of Herod". There is no such inscription.

"[the bible] says Bethlehem was Joseph's own hometown". The bible does not say this.

"there's a Roman document issued by Gaius Vibius Maximus which describes people returning to their hometown for the census". No there isn't - it's a document from Alexandria requiring those holding property outside the city to register that property.

etc etc. It's too much trouble correcting all these mistakes. Look up the sources. PiCo (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What we need to do is decide how the article should be structured. Perhaps surprisingly, I agree that there should be a "head article" - it should be this one (what else would you expect of an article titled Census of Quirinius?). But what should be in it? And what sources should it use? Those are the questions.PiCo (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

OK this seems straightforward. A Roman census would only happen in a Roman province. Prior to 6CE Judea was a separate kingdom, not a Roman province. If the gospel census happened during a prior term of Quirinius in Syria then it would not have applied to Judea, which would not yet have been part of the Syrian province, so that possibility is disqualified. If the gospel census happened during the reign of Herod it would not have been a Roman census, so that possibility is disqualified. All in all it is simple that the census of Luke could not have happened earlier than 6CE. Secondly, the gospel of Luke states at Luke 2:39: "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." It is thus clear that Joseph resided in Nazareth, in which case he would not have been affected by a Judean census in the first place. No amount of apologetics can gloss over this. If Luke is contradicting Matthew – as seems clear from this and other examples – then the gospels cannot be relied upon as accurate historical fact. If Luke can be made to seem to be consistent with Matthew only by assuming a bunch of translation errors and other mistakes, ie by rewriting the gospels, then again the gospels cannot be relied upon as accurate historical fact. Giving equal weight to some apologetics who are clutching at straws is not NPOV. The mention of a census in Acts says only "the census", so seemingly there had only been one census by that time, and Acts gives no clue as to the date.

This article is only about the Census of Quirinius. We need only state that the census is one of the markers used by Luke to denote the date of birth of Jesus, which must thus have been in 6CE or shortly thereafter, but that this marker conflicts with Matthew who claimed a birth while Herod was still king, ie no later than 4BCE. The argument over the historical inaccuracy of the gospels has its own articles (many of them) and this debate should not be included here at all. Wdford (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wdford: You're making a number of assumptions. Firstly, you're drawing a huge dividing line between pre- and post-6 AD Judea, although the difference was a matter of degree (it was ruled by local dynasties both before and after; it was a Roman protectorate beforehand, etc). Secondly, you're treating the estimated dates as hard facts when in fact they have significant margins of error. Thirdly, if Josephus' account and the Biblical account really do differ on this point, it doesn't automatically mean that Josephus is the correct one. Josephus was born c. 37 AD, which means he isn't a directly contemporary source. StAnselm provided a link to an article which argues that Josephus made a mistake on this point (rather than Luke): http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

Fourthly, you're assuming the phrase "their own town of Nazareth" implies that Nazareth had always been Joseph's hometown prior to his marriage although the passage in fact deals with his place of residence after his marriage, not before.

On a final issue that you raised: if you want this article to exclude the issue of Biblical accuracy, which I agree should be handled in other articles, then this article needs to exclude it entirely rather than putting in a small parting shot which only presents one viewpoint (even if you think that viewpoint is dominant). It doesn't make much sense to say we're excluding it while nonetheless including something about it. GBRV (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

These are the arguments put forward by conservative scholars, and the current state of scholarly regard they receive:

(1) There was a "first" census prior to the one in 6CE, and Luke's Greek word prote can be translated as "the first census". Novak discusses this, and says: "The overwhelming majority of modern historians and all major Bible translations accept the non-doctrinal translation as correct (ie., accept that prote cannot be translated as "first" in this case) ... no real dispute exists concerning the proper translation..." (Novak, 2002, p.294). What's important here is that we have a RS saying there's no dispute. If we put any discussion of this into the article, we have to cite this - the actual arguments used are immaterial.

(2) It was normal practice for people to travel to their home villages (or the villages of ancestors) for censuses, as shown by the order of Gaius Vibius Maximus issued in Egypt. This also is discussed by Novak. "The text of the papyrus only states that persons temporarily absent from their homes were to return to their hearths (not ancestral homes)"; the order appears to relate only to Alexandria. Although Novak doesn't say this, it's also a fact that (a) this papyrus dates from a century or more after the birth of Jesus; (b) Roman praqctice differed from province to province: and for these two reasons the Egyptian papyrus is not relevant to the problem presented by Luke.(Novak, page 297 fn.38).

(3) Not mentioned by Novak is that Joseph, as a man of Nazareth in Galilee, was not a Roman subject and therefore was not subject to Roman taxation. There are sources for this.

To sum up: If we do include in our article a discussion of conservative arguments to explain the contradiction, we need to clarify the consensus of scholars as sketched by Novak and others.

@GBRV suggests that this article might be folded into the Nativity of Jesus article. He might be right, and I'd like to hear other opinions on that. But if it is, it needs to reflect the scholarly consensus as outlined in Novak and elsewhere, which is that Luke made a mistake.PiCo (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

PiCo: I'm going to respond to both of your notes to me in one response to keep this more manageable.

There is in fact an inscription which has long been regarded to refer to Quirinius' two terms in Syria: the inscription found at Tivoli in 1764 was accepted by numerous historians to refer to Quirinius since no other official would fit the description.

Likewise, the Bible does in fact say that people were required to go to their "own city", not the place of their ancestors: Luke 2:3 says: "And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city". This clearly indicates that 1) the policy merely required travel to one's own town, not to a place more distant or tenuous; and 2) Bethlehem must have been Joseph's "own town" rather than Nazareth. This means that he would, in fact, have been subject to the census. The Bible doesn't say why or how long he had been in Nazareth, but merely that he had been there before traveling to Bethlehem. It's probably reasonable to assume he had been visiting Mary in Nazareth because the Bible says the latter was her home town, not his.

Re: the document from Gaius Vibius Maximus : the idea that this document contradicts the Bible is based entirely on the assumption that the Bible claims people had to return to the place of their ancestors, which is not what it says (as I noted in the point farther above). Plenty of RSs have pointed this out as well as the text itself, regardless of whether Novak personally agrees or not. Once this is cleared up, Novak's argument becomes pointless since the G. Vibius M. document actually confirms the need to return to one's town. You also claimed that the document isn't relevant because the practice differed from province to province, but in this case we're talking about a census originally ordered by Caesar Augustus and hence by the central government, hence it was an empire-wide census which would have a good degree of regularity from one province to the next. But the important thing is that this document and the Bible both say that people were required to return to their hometown, so the only documents we have confirm this point for two different provinces.

On the issue of consensus: during the previous debate re: "Nativity of Jesus" I and others pointed out why the consensus you're claiming is debatable. You have cited a few authors who basically claim that everyone agrees with them, which is of questionable objectivity. GBRV (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, here are my further thoughts:

1. The only notability this census has is in the connection with the Luke narrative, and (virtually) no-one considers it to be the same census. If the article is kept, it is reasonable to focus on the discrepancy/harmonisation with Luke's gospel.
2. Yes, I agree there is a clear consensus that Luke's statement is factually incorrect (though note Shillington's point that "the author was not as concerned with precise chronology as modern critical historians are"). Even conservative scholars concede this - e.g. John Rhoads, "Josephus Misdated The Census Of Quirinius." JETS 54 (2011) cites Daniel Schwartz's 1988 statement, "the scholarly consensus today, shared even by many conservative Christian scholars, is that Luke is wrong."
3. However, Novak's statement that "no real dispute exists" (a) applies only the the translation difference, and (b) is from 2001, and may be outdated. Since that time, the alternate translation has appeared in the margins of the ESV and the 2011 NIV translations, as well as N. T. Wright's 2004 commentary Luke for Everyone. Wright says, "One way of translating the Greek here is to see this census as the earlier one." (p. 23) Although this is a popular commentary (written under the name of Tom Wright), his standing as an NT scholar suggests that this quote should be added to the article. I don't think the view can really be classified as "fringe", and even if it is, it is still significant enough for the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you would cite Rhoads' article as proof that virtually everyone thinks Luke was wrong, given that Rhoads' article is arguing that Josephus got it wrong rather than Luke. GBRV (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Rhoads is explicitly writing his article to challenge the existing consensus. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Anselm - sure, but first, what about @GBRV's suggestion that this article should be folded into Nativity of Jesus?

Not opposed to that idea, but I note that Josephus devotes considerable space to the census and consequent tax revolt. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

First section: the census

I've given a brief account of the census and noted the origins of the Zealot movement. Any comments?PiCo (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. StAnselm (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Shortened the para on the census, added a para explaining the breakup of Herod's kingdom and the deposition of Archelaus.PiCo (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Corrected an error in the first sentence of the lead - the census was in Judea only, not Syria.PiCo (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Second section: Luke

Added a section on Luke/Quirinius and the problems with it. Added that most scholars accept that Luke made a mistake, using Raymond Brown as source. Comments? PiCo (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I think we need to include the possible harmonizations, while acknowledging their lack of broad support in the scholarly community. Brown is an old source (1978) though I note that people still refer a lot to him. I would be inclined to say that the gospel dates the birth of Jesus... by a census of Quirinius. StAnselm (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

PiCo: Why are you unilaterally adding stuff that we're supposed to be discussing? I agree with StAnselm that a more balanced analysis needs to be given if we're going to cite that debate in this article, but we really need to cover the issue in only one article, not all over the place.

Stating a 6 AD date is also problematic, since the census mentioned in Luke may not be the same one mentioned in Josephus, and the estimated date is approximate anyway. GBRV (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The passage commented out is not really controversial, it acknowledges that most scholars agree that Luke made a mistake, which is a statement of fact (about what most scholars think), so of course if it says that most of them think that it is true, then a few of them think that it is false. So, there is nothing doubtful about most scholars thinking so. The stuff before that are the reasons why most scholars think so, so that it could be attributed to majority opinion. Of course, biblical inerrantists will disagree with anyone finding a mistake inside the Bible, so there will never be unanimity in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The passage GBRV objects to was added to give us something concrete to discuss - notice that each time I've made an edit in the article, I've made a note on Talk asking for comments.

Everything in this passage is based on reliable sources, and wherever possible it shows the balance of scholarly opinion. I'll analyse it line by line so you can see for yourself:

Sentences from passage	Source
There are several problems with this passage (i.e., with the passage from Luke 2 quoted immediately prior).	Unsourced because it serves as an introduction, but sources are available - see, for example, George Shillington's "Introduction to the Study of Luke-Acts": "The time of this census is problematic" because Herod and Quirinius "do not fit the known chronology."
It states that "all the world" was to be registered, but there was no universal Roman census in the reign of Augustus; it fails to recognise that a census held in Judea would not have applied to Galilee, which was not a Roman province; and, given that the purpose was to register people for a poll-tax and their property for property tax, it would have made no sense to require them to travel long distances to the homes of long-dead ancestors.(FREEMAN, p.328 fn.10)	"Luke talks of an empire-wide decree that required Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. There is no record of such a decree. ... The survey would not have reached Nazareth as it was not part of a Roman province. Even if it had been, subjects were taxed on the land in their villages and listed for a poll tax. It would have made no administrative sense to have summoned Mary and Joseph and other descendants of David to Bethlehem."(FREEMAN, p.328 fn.10)
More serious than these is the link Luke makes between the Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BCE, and the census held 6 CE.(BROWN p.17 fn.26)	After listing the same problems as Freeman, Brown continues: "More serious is Luke's connection between the reign of Herod the Great (1:5) and the census under Quirinius. Herod died on 4 BC; Quirinius became governor in Syria and conducted the first Roman census of Judea in AD 6-7." (BROWN p.17 fn.26)
Most scholars accept that Luke has made a mistake.(BROWN p.17)	"Most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke's part." (BROWN p.17)

@GBRV, do you agree or not agree that the sources are reliable? If so, do you agree or disagree that they've been used correctly? If you agree that the sources are both reliable and used correctly, do you have any other arguments/reasons that they should not be used? Or do you want to edit the sentences/paragraph (using reliable sources of course)?

Incidentally, I'm quite happy to review arguments defending the historical accuracy of Luke on the census, but let's get this paragraph settled first.PiCo (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think this material belongs elsewhere. All that is needed here is to say that Luke uses this census as a marker of the nativity, it contradicts with the mentions of Herod, and harmonizing the two requires that we assume Luke was referring to a different census. This article is not about a different census, it is about this census, so in that case a hypothetical different census (and its allure for Bible inerrantists) is irrelevant here. Wdford (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So are you suggesting the section on Luke just have the two quotes from Luke 1 and 2, plus a sentence based on that final sentence from Brown to the effect that scholars agree that Luke made a mistake? I'd be fine with that.PiCo (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically yes. I think we should start by putting the full detail of the nativity contradictions into the article Historical reliability of the Gospels, probably here [9] . There is already a start there. Once we have done that properly, we can refer all other articles to that material, to avoid repetition. Then we can clean up this article quickly and easily - and other related articles too. Wdford (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to cover several replies in one post, for the sake of compactness.

Pico (and also re: Tgeorgescu's similar comments): I realize where these statements come from, because you've presented your proofs many times before and I and StAnselm have pointed out why there are problems with stating these things as nearly universally-held facts. Just to use a handful of examples since we've gone over this so many times in the past: the statement that Galilee was not under Roman jurisdiction is only relevant if Joseph was a native of Nazareth, which the Bible doesn't claim (it says Mary was, not Joseph), and the statement about returning to the place of one's ancestors is only relevant if the Bible had actually said that people were forced to return to the place of their ancestors, when in fact it says that everyone had to return "each to his own town" or words to that effect. There are plenty of RSs which have pointed this out, meaning that it isn't a negligible opinion that can just be ignored. Likewise for the other points, which we have already debated countless times in the past. You want to remove all opinions except for one because it's the majority among "critical scholars" (however you want to define that term); but that doesn't mean there isn't any significant opposition.

I agree with Wdford that this article needs to be kept focused on the census itself rather than on debates over its implications for the Bible. If you want this article to deal with the census mentioned by Josephus, then let's have some quotes from RSs about Josephus' description about the context and the unrest generated by the census - especially since the unrest and the formation of the Zealot faction are important incidents in their own right, aside from any Biblical debates.

But I don't agree with Wdford that this article should have a brief and one-sided summary of only one side's position. We need to either cover the issue in depth or leave it out entirely. GBRV (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@GBRV, your first para argues from first principles instead of sources (in other words, you're giving us OR). Brown says that "most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke's part." We need to mention that in order to show the balance of scholarly opinion. Do you accept that Brown is a reliable source? Note I'm not asking you whether you accept Brown's conclusion (I know you don't), but do you accept that he's a reliable source?PiCo (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC) (Added a sentence to the lead saying that Luke 2 contradicts known history, source is highly reliable, a major Catholic encyclopedia edited by a leading Jesuit scholar - something like this is needed if we are honest with readers).PiCo (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I fear we're heading back into the old debate; critical scholars ≠ scholars generally, the fact that Brown is a RS doesn't mean we put his statements in WP voice, etc. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much that we're headed back to that situation as that we've never managed to get out of it. I keep asking GBRV what sources he'll accept and he keeps ignoring me.PiCo (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Wdford, I don't think this edit helps at all. You've introduced inerrancy when it wasn't in the reference at all. (And I don't think N. T. Wright, for example, can be described as an inerrantist.) Moreover, I think you've made up the "one or other is in error" bit - AFAIK, all scholars believe the Herod reference is correct. Finally, the Gospel of Luke does not say that Jesus was born during this census. StAnselm (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

PiCo: My first paragraph was summarizing what various authors have said, just to make the point that there are other viewpoints out there even if they aren't in the majority. You know perfectly well that a majority opinion does not justify completely excluding all other viewpoints. We just go around and around on this without making any headway. GBRV (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Third section: inerrancy

I added an outline of the arguments made in defense of Luke's accuracy, and the reasons they haven't been accepted by scholarship. Comments?PiCo (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed or commented out your new additions to the article because: 1) we're supposed to be discussing these things rather than each adding stuff on our own initiative. Let's finish the discussion before you add your own version. 2) The new material isn't balanced, since it states one position as dogmatic fact while only briefly mentioning the other side in order to quickly dismiss it as the work of people with an ideological agenda (as if only one side has an agenda). There are numerous problems with this: Wikipedia isn't supposed to use selective labeling for only one side; and all of the topics covered in this article are open to dispute, especially since the dates are only estimates because the original sources only give relative dates (usually the regnal year). What we've got here is a house of cards based on an endless series of relative offsets, and generally only a handful of sources to establish events. Certainly, dogmatic statements should not be in the lede.

You also didn't respond to my suggestion that this article should mainly cover the subject of the census itself rather than the modern debate over Biblical issues. You personally are clearly focused on debunking the Bible, but that's not the only issue here. Historians who study Roman history would mainly be interested in the effects of the census (and the revolt it sparked) on Roman administration in Judea, for example. Right now, the article only spends one sentence (ONE) covering this subject. That makes no sense. Every single article does not need to focus entirely on Biblical debates.

And let's get done discussing one section of this talk page before you add yet another section (we now have three sections going for this debate!), thereby spreading out the discussion and making it even more difficult. One thing at a time. GBRV (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You said: "You also didn't respond to my suggestion that this article should mainly cover the subject of the census itself rather than the modern debate over Biblical issues." I don't have strong opinions on that one way or the other, though I do think that most readers coming to this article will be interested in the gospel of Luke rather than Imperial Roman history. But sure, there's at least one other editor who thinks that the discussion of the reliability of Luke 2 should go in the article on the historical reliability of the bible.PiCo (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not most readers will be interested in the census' connection to Luke 2, it's still a part of Roman and Jewish history, and a reasonably important part since it led to the formation of a faction which later played a crucial role in the First Jewish Revolt (66 - 73), which in turn led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Diaspora. That's frankly a huge issue in Jewish history, and the census in 6 AD was one of the things which set that sequence of events in motion. Whether or not that census is the same one mentioned in Luke 2 is itself one of the points of dispute. GBRV (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Text for discussion

Following @GBRV's comments above, I've restored a complete version of what the article might look like. This can serve as a basis for discussion. Please note that everything in it is sourced from reliable sources, and that as a whole it tells the reader where the balance of scholarly opinion lies. Many times I've asked GBRV to comment on specific sources, and he never has. If he wants to dispute that any specific source is reliable, or to suggest that the weight of scholarly opinion lies somwehere else, please do so now, but please don't revert this and leave us with no text to discuss. I'd like to hear from @StAnselm, @Wdford, and @Tgeorgescu. PiCo (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I generally agree that PiCo does a good job. GBRV's wish should be granted by stating that there are dissenting voices from the mainstream consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu said: "GBRV's wish should be granted by stating that there are dissenting voices from the mainstream consensus." The first para of the section on Luke and inerrancy says: "...conservative Christians have put forward a variety of defenses of Luke's accuracy" (sourced to Blomberg). If this isn't enough we can look for something else.PiCo (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

PiCo: Your proposed text should be listed on the talk page rather than the article. If I added my own version to the article during discussion, you'd revert it immediately on sight. And I already mentioned my objections to it, which you mostly haven't responded to (i.e., a majority opinion is not the only thing we're supposed to report; nor are we supposed to selectively use labels only for one side (e.g. "conservative Christian"), especially since the dissenting views don't solely come from conservative Christians, nor are the people on the other side neutral, since so many of them have an agenda too.) I'm not disputing most of what your sources say other than to point out that they mostly represent only one side of the issue, as well as representing just the latest variation of the old discredited idea that everything in the Bible is false (the Assyrians and Babylonians, Pontius Pilate, etc). I have also said that I think the views of historians should be represented as well as Biblical scholars, since this is a topic in the history field as well.

TGeorgescu: Thank you. GBRV (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you GBRV. I hope you understand my frustration, which is that every time I put a concrete piece of text up you say we can't discuss it - and still you haven't addressed the actual text or the sources.

Taking your points here:

• "a majority opinion is not the only thing we're supposed to report". No, we're supposed to report all significant opinions, giving due weight to each. That's what I've tried to do. If you feel the sources I'm relying on are not reliable, or I've misrepresented them, or there are other sources, please tell us.
• "nor are we supposed to selectively use labels only for one side (e.g. "conservative Christian")". The labels, as you call them, come from the sources. I don't regard them as unreasonable, in fact I think Blomberg would be happy to call himself a conservative Christian - just as I'm happy to use him as a source.
• "your sources ... mostly represent only one side of the issue". I've tried to find where the weight of scholarly opinion lies. If you have sources that say it lies somewhere else, please tell us.
• "I think the views of historians should be represented as well as Biblical scholars, since this is a topic in the history field as well". Gruen is a historian of Classical Rome, not a biblical scholar. Novak's degree is in Roman history.PiCo (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By repeatedly putting in your version while we "discuss" it, you're using discussion to perpetuate your version. That's an abuse of the process as far as I'm concerned, and that's why we previously had a neutral version that was neither yours nor mine. If you want to present text for discussion, then post it on the talk page, not the article itself. If you reinsert it again, I'm going to break off discussion and just revert your text from now on. Enough is enough.

Regarding your responses to my points: your text doesn't give "due weight", it uses the opposing view only as a foil which is quickly dismissed in favor of the "enlightened" view. The normal procedure is to present both sides' viewpoint in its best version, while nevertheless noting what the majority opinion is. The point isn't whether Blomberg considers himself a conservative Christian, because 1) not everyone who agrees with him on this issue is also a conservative Christian, and 2) the people on the opposing side also include plenty of biased people - atheists, radical Christians who want an excuse to reject traditional theology, etc - and yet you're not using any labels for them. You're making it sound as if one side is neutral but the other side isn't. That's a polemic, not an encyclopedia article.

You didn't address my point that the article should focus mainly - or at least more than it currently does - on the impact of this census on Roman and Jewish history rather than obsessing over the Biblical debate. One sentence is not sufficient to cover the effect of the census on the history of Judea. GBRV (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have just got back from travelling, and I must say the recent edits are rather disappointing - PiCo, it looks like you have ignored what I said, and certainly failed to interact with it. Firstly, the "no real dispute' claim is dubious - as I have already pointed out, it is outdated, predating Wright and the 2011 NIV margin. Secondly, the introduction of inerrancy into the article is massively undue synthesis - Allert is cited, but he does not refer to the census at all. And as I pointed out, Wright, for example, is not an inerrantist. Thirdly, Merz's claim that "the sole reason for introducing Quirinius is to provide a time for the birth of Jesus" is dubious and should not be in WP voice. I suspect the majority of scholars today would be more likely to see the mention as Luke setting the birth of Jesus against a backdrop of the political situation of the time rather than providing precise dating. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)