Talk:Census of Quirinius/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Revert

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

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

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

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

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

replace this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Daily views

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

Gertoux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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