Talk:Nativity of Jesus/Archive 2

Task List (January 15, 2009)

 * Completely rewrite the Gospel of Matthew section. (Work in Progress)
 * Find ISBN for "The Birth of the Messiah" citations or cite different sources.
 * Convert "The Narratives Compared" table into prose.
 * Improve citations by finding ISBNs and linking the author names.
 * Rewrite anything that attributes Gospel/Apocryphal authorship.

If you complete one of these tasks, please respond. Once the completion of a task has been verified, someone will strike out the task in the above list.

-- Jesse (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple things. One, even if it converted into prose, "the narratives compared" needs to be based on secondary sources; a WP editor interpreting the primary sources isn't going to cut it. Two, what do you mean by "rewrite anything that attributes Gospel/Apocryphal authorship"? I don't quite follow what you mean there. Thanks, Jesse. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) We will address citation problems later. We should convert it into prose first. (2) Earlier revisions contained "Matthew says", "according to Matthew", etc. These attributed, or seemed to attribute, Matthew the Evangelist with having authored the gospel. We should rewrite any statements that even seem to attribute authorship so it explicitly refers to texts and only texts. -- Jesse (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll work on these if you haven't done them already. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the attribution problem, and stricken it through above. Revisiting the whole table deal...do we need this, really? Reading through the article, the differences between Mt and Lk are addressed in "the nativity as myth". So why do we need to prosify the table? The salient points are already there, and its actually sourced. Can we please just remove the table wholesale, and improve "the nativity as myth" as needed? Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Jesse (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be driven to vandalize the comparison between the two gospel birth narratives. You cannot explain your real gripes about it. You do not seem to understand what a comparison is... you state you'd like it in prose, but you don't even give a reason for this preference. How do you think you could make clear a comparison between the two accounts in prose? All you have done is shown a brooding desire to remove the comparison at all costs. You cannot put forward anything constructive to improve it. It just has to be removed. I have been upfront with the section, asking you and anyone else to improve it if you think it needs it. There is nothing strange about a comparison table to make the relationship between things evident. Once again I will ask you to improve the section rather than performing acts of vandalism. --  spin  (control) 05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cut the act. You know very well that users who have been around as long as I have are not vandals. It is completely unnecessary. And as I pointed out above, there is no need for your section. Discrepancies are, in fact, already covered in the "narrative as a myth" section just below it. Kindly stop inserting a section which no-one but you seems to want in this article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * People may not remember, but it's worth pointing out that Spin composed this table himself, based on standard atheist "lists of bible difficulties", and did so for the purpose of "infidelizing" the article, as he said in a post in the Internet Infidels forum. Roger Pearse (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't appreciate the notion of infidelizing materials, then you are stuck with your bias. --  spin control 03:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Being around for a while doesn't stop you from committing vandalism. You are continuing to slash instead of improving. Your claim that there is no need doesn't make it so, You have simply tried to obfuscate the comparison, which in itself has nothing to do with the "narrative as a myth" section. If you do it again I will have to report you for your more than three reversions. Leave it alone and act responsibly. Make you suggestions as to how to improve it. As it is you just look like a vandal, who isn't interested in dialogue, just defacing. --  spin  (control) 07:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just reported you Carl for 3RR violation. You have proven that you cannot enter into a dialog on the material under discussion. You simply want to remove it. I'm sure you can understand the frustration of someone who will not follow Wiki procedure.
 * I am sorry, if my edit comments have harmed you. They were in response to someone acting unreasonably. --  spin  (control) 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Carl, could you check a JSTOR article for me? "The Sources of the Old Testament Quotation in Matthew 2:23" by Maarten J. J. Menken in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 120, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 451-468. Specifically, the Wikipedia article reads "The writer of Matthew uses an allusion to the birth of Samson to supply extra reasoning for the move to Nazareth", and cites that JBL article. Could you verify that the JBL article says that and provide the page number(s)? I would appreciate it. -- Jesse (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been ignoring you, just busy. I have the article pulled up, but basically the final like 2/3 of it are devoted to the role of Samson in this verse, and there's a lot of discussion of Greek and Hebrew, and I don't know those alphabets, but it will get done eventually. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally got around to it. I just kind fixed that whole section. Hope you like it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've been busy too lately. I'll try to set aside a bit more time to work on this article, but no promises. Please keep up the good work, though. --Jesse (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just clarified Carl's adventure in philology. --  spin  (control) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Without a source in site. OR is not welcome here. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your admitted ignorance regarding the philology you were faced with in the Menken article, which I introduced into the topic, should have put you on guard. This statement is simply false: "Using the Septuagint text, he did this by changing Naziraios (Judg 13:5) to Nazoraios (Mt 2:23)". (That should have been "Nazwraios" with an omega by the way.) Menken doesn't allow you to say this at all. He provides three possibilities: perhaps the writer thought the two forms were equivalent or that he may have found Ναζωραιος in his source or finally he used a Jewish exegetical method which allowed the change of certain letters -- the last he considers more probable, despite the fact that such a change would have been in Greek (see pp.461-2).
 * I quite liked the expressivity of "Nazirite" is followed by ἔσται -- "is followed by"! Really philologically meaningful and descriptive. And you go and undo a change for the clearer and more accurate.
 * You didn't need to include the material in the first place, only causing more complications than was necessary, but you wouldn't know it. I chose not to include the discussion when I wrote the paragraph because of the complexities it implies, including bits you cut out from my corrections. Including the extra information requires more knowledge than you can muster, so you leave it in an inadequate state.
 * It is interesting that you cannot see sources. I cited three biblical passages for anyone to check to see that they contain forms of καλεω when there is no equivalent in the Hebrew. Did you need a source that ἔσται and κληθἠσεται were verbs or that κληθἠσεται is derived from καλεω?
 * You need to admit that you shouldn't touch things that are outside your competence and then be good and leave them alone. Or would you just prefer not to know? --  spin  (control) 14:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you like to word the "Using the Septuagint text, he did this by changing Naziraios (Judg 13:5) to Nazoraios bit? First, yeah, I noticed it was an omega. You needn't treat me as incivilly as you have thus-far. It was my understanding that omega is transliterated o; a cursory search just backed me up. If you want to show me otherwise, I would be fine with the o being changed to a w. I really don't think that Menken disallows what I wrote; the article says that Matthew "more probably" "read" Naziraios as Nazoraios; and that "one vowel was changed". What I wrote is faithful to what Menken said. Would you like me to say "he did this by moving from" instead of "he did this by changing"? Or is it an issue of the three possibilities? I'd be fine mentioning that this is the most likely of the possibilities, though it is clear that Menken feels this is what happened.
 * I've incorporated your changes about the verb change; I agree your version was an improvement on mine.
 * You do, however, need to learn about OR and RS. You claim that I cannot see references. What you provided is not a reference. Your analysis of a primary source text is not a reference. If you find a RS that says "though it is simpler to see the change of verb a variant translation", then by all means, included it. But do not make a reference out of your analysis of the LXX text. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the proposed "Comparison table", it is clearly both OR and misleading. It has been set up to treat events like the angel appearing to Mary and Joseph, the shepherds and kings visiting the child, and the flight to Egypt as contradictory rather than being complimentary. There is no justification for this except to promote a point of View that attempts to promote and exaggerate alleged contradictions between the gospel accounts. This is all personal theorizing, since no strict timescale is set out in either gospel. The table is also factually incorrect as nowhere in the Matthew account does it state that Joseph lived in Bethlehem before the conception of Jesus. It would have to actually state this to be a contradiction.  Xan  dar  22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally wrong, but honest. You don't seem to be aware of the range of scholarly literature on the issue, but you are willing to impute motivation in the construction of the table. The table compares the tropes available in each account; it also compares the relative chronologies furnished by each. It is not meant to treat the two accounts as though they were facets of the one source story which would be what has been done for centuries, an a priori manipulation of the textual data. You have simply showed the sort of bias necessary to read the two texts in one particular manner. That of course is unhelpful and unscholarly. The first thing you need to do is read each narrative for what they singularly say, otherwise you cannot understand either. As an example, you cannot read Matthew by itself and come to the conclusion that there was a change of venue to Bethlehem for the birth (I've cited scholarly support for this position in a section above: Raymond E. Brown, Paul J. Achtemeier, "Mary in the New Testament", Paulist Press, 1978, p.24; Clive Marsh, Steve Moyise, "Jesus and the Gospels", Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005, p.39). The location in Bethlehem is supported by Mt 2:22-23 which clearly states that instead of staying in Judea on return from Egypt the family went to live to Nazareth. The task here is not eisegesis but exegesis. --  spin control 11:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Xandar is correct. The table adds nothing. The issues are dealt with in the article already. -- Secisek (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Spin, do not add the table to this article again until everything in it, along with their implications, is referenced with a secondary source. Even the users who sort of agree with you (Carlaude and Slrubenstein) seem to indicate that you need real references. Meanwhile, six users agree that it is OR/novel synthesis/in some way unacceptable. You do not get to have your way because you are convinced you are right. There is not consensus for the table being in this page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't even have time to finish writing up a report here before you ripped down the table. Do not simply remove things. Enter into a dialog on the issue -- which you have persistently refused to do. I cannot get any rational reason for your insistency to remove. You have tried what seem to me rather disreputable means to get rid of the table, including trying to move things into another category so you can claim that there is nothing new.
 * Perhaps, you didn't notice that I supplied references to the only two items I considered could be twisted into interpretation? No. I also noticed that you went headhunting for people to come and give you an opinion. That sort of thing usually tends to get the opinion you want. And the table had rested relatively untouched for quite some time before you decided to make it a crusading point. Please be reasonable -- and please respond below. --  spin control 06:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As an interested outsider to this discussion, responding to comments left of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page, my opinion is that the table as it stands is in dire need of work, or possibly removal. The fact that it deals exclusively with the two gospels, apparently ignoring all other accounts, is problematic, particularly as (I think) some other Christian groups accept or accepted some of those other accounts as valid or canonical, and that, on that basis, we could very well be in violation of WP:NPOV by choosing only those two to compare. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The table follows the only two gospel birth narratives discussed in the article. I can't see that, if there is a problem in the table dealing with only the two canonical accounts, the criticism here should be aimed at the article, not the table. --  spin control 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not to say that the contents of the table doesn't have a place in wikipedia, because I think it does. I can certainly see individual articles comparing possibly each of the four generally canonical gospels against each of the other four, for instance. But that discussion would better take place in those other real or potential articles, not here. The article as it stands seems to me to have very inadequate coverage of the other traditions relating to the nativity of Jesus, and any discussions regarding comparing only those two chosen sources which currently receive other adequate coverage while continuing to ignore the article's pronounced lack of content regarding the other extant sources strikes me as being at best counterproductive. For choice, I'd like to see the article's basic content improved to better cover all relevant material, and when that's done maybe consider what is at best a secondary issue regarding comparing those two chosen sources. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have time, why don't you expand on the the coverage of traditions? I myself am interested in philology here, what can be understood from the study of the text as text. It is the relationship between the two gospel gospel accounts that the table presents, as both deal with the one topic. --  spin control 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth Narratives Compared returned to text.
I've put a temporary version of the comparative table back in the text, rather than have people discuss the table when it is not there.

If there is anything in the table that is considered to be conjecture, please deal with it here, rather than simply removing the table, as has been done in the past. It is extremely hard to get positive feedback when people don't allow the possibility of feedback. (Although I don't believe so, if for some reason you think that the table is original research, please take it up with the appropriate place of concern in the structures provided by Wikipedia, as goes with any attempt at labeling the table synthesis, for there are no conclusions drawn with the table, no view is put forward -- all I see are the views of commentators.)

I've discovered how to get more than two lines of text in each cell, though that means having a more conspicuous border to the table.

While trying to maintain the brevity of a table, is there anything else that would need to be included? All constructive recommendations welcome. --  spin control 06:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's Wiki on primary sources: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Is the summary information provided in the table being considered "interpretation"? Would I then have to use full citation of the relevant verses? I would prefer to know what people are calling interpretations so that specific issues can be made transparent and therefore can be dealt with. --  spin control 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the comments of all the users, whom I did not get because I was sure they would agree with me. I went to the talk pages of related pages requesting comment, as well as the user talk pages of users who edit those pages regularly. I went to people who know policy. Your accusations are false and baseless. Return the table when you find it in a RS that is reasonably accessible to a large number of persons. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be serious: you solicited opinions. Such comments based on solicited responses have little value. Do you want me to do the same thing? You have a job to do and that is to enter into a dialog over the material. After you decided to -- in my opinion -- mess up the material I wrote on the prophetic source for Mt 2:23, we entered into a sort of dialog. I would like you to do the same with the table, rather than be intractable. --  spin control 22:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was acting on the advice of the admin who blocked you. The responses have a great deal of value, particularly as they're from experienced editors, rather than SPAs with fewer than 500 edits. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carl and other users that it is important for material to be properly sourced and to avoid original research and synthesis. I was concerned with the first sentence in the section Spin added:
 * For centuries the common story of the birth of Jesus has been a product of the two birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, but it is not easy to understand the progress of the individual birth narrative in each gospel, because the content of the other narrative is already too well ingrained in our approach to the material, so, in order to clarify the relationship between them, the basic elements are compared in the following table.'
 * The assertion that "it is not easy to understand the progress of the individual birth narrative in each gospel" is a matter of opinion and needs an in-line citation refering to a reliable source. Same thing for the assertion "because the content of the other narrative is already too well ingrained in our approach to the material". According to whom? Once again, it needs to refer to a reliable source.
 * It may be more productive to show the suggested section and table on this talk page or on a sub-page and then have editors comment and work through differences before adding the material into the article. At present there's no consensus to add the material, which means that Spin puts something in and then another editor like Carl removes it. In situations like this it's best to slow down, follow 1RR, and work through issues through talk page conversations. Alternatively, third opinions or other dispute resolution mechanism may help. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk)
 * For the moment I have removed the introductory comment and left the original statement. (I'll just remind you of all the Christmas creches which depict the shepherds and the magi together, all the paintings which do the same, the comments here of people who cannot accept the scholarly opinion that Matthew has Joseph living in Bethlehem only to move to Nazareth at the end of the narrative.)
 * I don't understand how a person will work through issues when they have successfully erased the material. One needs to be constructive to make progress on Wiki, not destructive. It is the dialog which allows progress. If a person doesn't want to enter into a constructive dialog, then it doesn't matter how one proceeds.
 * So, how about it, Carl Bunderson, can you be constructive on the issue? --  spin control 22:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been constructive until I am blue in the face. You've no sense of how OR, RS, and primary sources all interact. A clear majority of persons have indicated that your edits are inappropriate, you merely obstinately refuse to acknowledge it. Talking to you does absolutely no good. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not been at all constructive. You don't use the notion of primary sources as indicated in the material I've already quoted. All you've done is to opine that it is OR which it plainly isn't. You don't give constructive indications as to how to improve the material. Constructive indications involve proposing alternatives that would make the material acceptable to you. As to primary sources, again, this is what Wiki says:
 * Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.
 * I make no conclusions about the material. I don't make any interpretations of the material. You seem to me to simply be wrong in your interpretation of the rules. --  spin control 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most everyone else interprets them as I do; I'm in the right, you haven't been here enough to understand our policies, apparently. You are making up a table based on your reading of a primary source. I told you already that you can write prose, based on secondary sources, discussing any issues you want to; basically, expand the nativity as myth section. I told you that probly a month ago when I got involved in this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Carl solicited my opinion. The table looks fine, but the whole topic needs some citations. Spin, it's a lot harder to use secondary sources, but if you're going to take on the Bible, you need to do that extra work. Carl's interpretation that we can't create a table that's not already found in secondary sources doesn't match my read of wp:v at all. My reliable sources say that the two birth/infancy stories are different and that they are commonly merged in the popular culture (e.g., wise men at the manger). Defenders of Christian POV don't want WP readers to have an easy time seeing how different the gospels are from each other, so I can well imagine how folks would be especially touchy on this topic (while letting similar "violations" slide on other pages). I'd go get my RS's and provide some citations, but I'm about to head out of town for a few days. Leadwind (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer the table being found in a secondary source, but each cell in it does need to be sourced with something other than Bible verses. It needs to be kept in a sandbox until it is good enough to be on the page itself. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Leadwind. I have no desire to take on the bible. With the table I'm trying to do philology here, ie present the relationship between these two narratives by outlining the distinctive elements that can be in some way compared. There is nothing against Christians per se in doing so. I believe that the people who have objections to the table are not scholarly in intent. The same people who will not contemplate the differences between these two accounts will not consider the two distinct creation accounts in Genesis. Both these issues are quite mainstream scholarship. --  spin control 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Every cell needs to have a reference from a secondary source, Spin. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why exactly?
 * And would every cell need a reference from a secondary source if the cell contained only the gospel verse?
 * Here once again is the Wiki position on primary sources:


 * Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.


 * Do you believe that the primary sources have been reliably published? If so, they may be used in Wikipedia, right?
 * Do you believe that I have interpreted the primary source or misrepresented what that source says in a summary? If so, can you supply an example?
 * Are you able to verify the accuracy of the contents of each of the cells?
 * Do you believe that there is any actual interpretation in the table? If so where? --  spin control 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You forget the "but only with care" clause. Numerous editors have raised the same concern I have; for example, take what Ross Nixon wrote: "I propose removal of the table. Many of the items are made to look like contradictions, but can be easily harmonized. Only difficult areas should be shown, as prose with supporting references." The table itself is setting up interpretation in the reader's mind. And I am not going to explain this again. It has been elucidated for you by plenty of editors. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please answer my questions. It will help clarify exactly where any issue may be.
 * Also please note that there was a change in the layout of the table. There are contradictions and I have supplied secondary sources for those I considered that needed them. If there are specific cases that you consider need clarification, please note them here. I have removed the direct comparison of tropes in the table so as to discourage the eisegesis performed by Ross Nixon.
 * I did not forget the "but only with care" clause. This is an inappropriate POV accusation of yours. It has nothing to do with either reading the text or the table. It seems to be similar to that of Ross Nixon who talks of harmonization rather than what is actually written, which is the aim of the table. Until you actually see what is written, you won't read it for what it says. Then you can harmonize if you need to, but the desire for harmonization is POV. Harmonization is an interpretative act upon the primary sources and that would need secondary sources.
 * You haven't explained your claim that "[e]very cell needs to have a reference from a secondary source". Can you give a specific examples with some explanation of cells that need references from secondary sources? You have not been able to communicate what your specific issues are, so I fear your lack of specificity is endemic of a lack of substantial complaint. All I really know is that you don't like the table and you don't seem to have a scholarly reason for your dislike. --  spin control 09:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As Mango clearly stated on your talk page, Spin, consensus is against the table. I suggest you put it in your sandbox and fix it up, and bring it back here later. For now, consensus, however much you dislike it, is against you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you are mistaken about your fictitious consensus. Both Carlaude and Leadwind have not supported your position and said so at length. Carlaude gave several suggestions which you've shown no interest in. Consensus isn't simply a matter of having a majority, especially when you canvassed opinions from places which don't inspire a scholarly approach to the issue. It's about compromise to ensure the best result for everyone. You simply will not compromise. You give the impression that you're not interested in the best solution, and that you're not interested in consensus at all, but getting rid of the table at all costs and you are willing to try anything to do so.


 * Look at what mango said: "I don't think that argument is successful in arguing that the table cannot be included, because it contains no original observations, just a new presentation of the old observations." He is in fact another voice against your consensus.


 * I have long sought clear specific indications from you. I have asked you several questions in order for you to clarify your complaints and you have not answered them. If you cannot answer them, how can I accommodate any real grievances you might have? -- the ever-lovable  spin control 01:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am concerned with the lack of reliable sources for the table. Who exactly chooses which cells to include and how the table is structured? Its structure and choices can be construed as original research unless it is derived from reliable secondary or tertiary sources. I see that other editors have voiced the same concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, the table looks to be simply a visual aid to better understand the lengthy verbiage on the subject. Why is it a problem? P.S. The fact that the gospels contradict each other is hardly a news flash. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For which parts of the table are you concerned about, Majoreditor? All the material is from the two gospels and the origin cited. The only material that could be questioned as interpretations has footnotes. Wiki policy doesn't prevent the use of primary sources, as long as any interpretations or conclusions are sourced from secondary sources. No interpretations are given, nor any conclusions. If there is any interpretation or construing being done it is not by me. I have repeatedly asked for any problems to be made specific so that I can deal with them. --  spin control 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. The very act of selecting which material is included, which isn't, and how it's structured is synthesis at best, original research at worst, unless it's already been presented in a reliable secondary (or tertiary) source. Some editors who've seen this sort of thing before -- Jayjg, Leadwind, John Carter, just to name a few -- have voiced concerns. Not all are opposed to a table per se, we're just concerned about sourcing. Majoreditor (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have persistently sought practical contributions as to how to remedy any grievances. When you talk about sourcing, what do you mean? You know where everything in the table comes from. No opinions are given. No interpretations are given.


 * I have taken no special selective approach to the material. I think any claims to the contrary are interpretations that aren't supported by any evidence. I have offered to include any part of a narrative that people think should be included. If there has been any selectivity, it has not been willed, and no-one has offered to correct any selectivity, so obviously it is not a practical issue.


 * Jayjg gave an unsupported opinion and I don't think your use of either Leadwind or John Carter helps your claim. Leadwind raises issues about the audience. John Carter makes a complaint that is actually about the whole topic, not my table in itself.


 * Can you provide a practical way to make the table more acceptable (ie supply edit examples of improvements), or is there nothing really wrong with it? --  spin control 03:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Leadwind phrased it well when he said Spin, it's a lot harder to use secondary sources, but if you're going to take on the Bible, you need to do that extra work. Majoreditor (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. And again: "Defenders of Christian POV don't want WP readers to have an easy time seeing how different the gospels are from each other, so I can well imagine how folks would be especially touchy on this topic". This is an audience issue. I'll need to do that extra work specifically because of the behavior of a special interest group -- and this is not a general christian issue, but of a certain type of commitment of a more literalist kind. This apparently is a POV attack that you have been drawn into. --  spin control 04:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Different editors have various approaches on secondary research. I usually head to a university library to find secondary sources on philosophy and religion articles. Other editors have better luck using online tools to find what they need. You've mentioned "scholarly" several times, and I agree that the best sources for a topic like this are usually from academic journals, books authored by professors or tertiary sources written and edited by professionals. My guess is that you'll be able to find some wonderful scholarly source material. Some of it may require interlibrary loan, which means that it may take a few days to get to you. Don't be discouraged; most of us have been in that situation before. A little time, effort and collaboration can produce a good side-by-side tabular comparison. Majoreditor (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that you are trying to be helpful -- and I thank you for that --, but hell it's hard to get a straight response to a practical request for constructive suggestions for edits that would make the table more acceptable -- or at least specific grievances against specific parts of the table. This constant refrain for secondary sources when no opinions, interpretations or conclusions have been given is not constructive. What exactly would you want such a secondary source to say? Should it have a table I could copy? Please give me something tangible. So far, it's been like talking to a wall. All I've done is to put bits of two narratives in a table to allow easy comparison. Can nobody do in this topic as shown in the following chart?


 * [[Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg|thumb|none|300px|How consensus is generally achieved.]]


 * If I don't know exactly what you want I cannot do it. Telling me to get secondary sources is not tangible enough to be helpful. ...And I'd love a bit of collaboration. --  spin control 04:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does the comparison table infringe Wiki content standards
Does the table showing a comparison of the two birth narratives in the "Biblical narratives" section infringe on Wiki content standards? If so, please state how with an example or two examples. If not, please read the grievances on this talk page and comment. Thanks.

The table was removed again, so here it is:

In order to clarify the relationship between the two birth narratives, here are the basic elements compared:

14:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (coming from WP:AN) First, a general comment. As the onus is always on those demonstrating inclusion of content, having this discussion here and getting consensus before reintroducing is the proper way forward.


 * In principle, a table like this could be a positive addition to the article. I recognize the issues with WP:SYNTH and point out that they have not currently been overcome, but agree with others who have pointed out they could be, even if it would be nontrivial to do so.  A nuance that seems mostly missed is that such a table can be used in violation of SYNTH in a surprisingly large number of ways, so some of the discussions have sounded a tad myopic, even if well meaning.  Of course, it goes without saying (although I will say it anyway) that no such ways are acceptable.


 * However, I see a significant practical objection which I do not anticipate being overcome (without falling back on what many others have already implied: find a good scholarly source which presents exactly such a table). Maintenance.  Currently, the borders are ragged and poorly done, with ugly large patches of whitespace, and a haphazard color scheme.  Now this could be fixed, with some wikitext guru making the perfect table.  But if there was valid reason to add either another source, or another event in the story, its incremental development would be a nightmare.


 * Can you imagine coming to this page with a well sourced addition of a row or column of such a table? It would probably end up falling on the shoulders a very small number of editors to actually make the additions/updates, and the process of agreeing on what they should actually look like may make this discussion seem quaint.


 * I thus strongly suggest that in lieu of such a scholarly table being available from a reputable source (and no usage issues...), such threading be restricted to text, as it will be much easier to maintain, as well as much easier to find scholarly treatments of such discourse. Naturally, anyone can make the effort to build and maintain such a table and source it (both content and form; the latter, being the crux of SYNTH, will prove significantly more challenging than the former) properly; I merely wish to say caveat emptor with your priorites. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your considered opinion (and I hope for numerous other such thoughts). Just passing on the maintenance issue, it's an interesting point in that with each modification I've been forced to make the table more complex (an early version is here above). (And as you'll see in the previous section the aspects of the table were provisional when posted. The colors merely show where direct comparisons can be made.)


 * But the issue is infringement of content standards. If one can work out where there really is any infringement, it can be dealt with. At the moment all I've really had from most commentators are veiled aspersions [the table somehow treads on the feet of certain POVs] and I'm not a great mind reader. What I've sought is some tangible complaint. Saying that the form is the issue sounds good, but I don't understand how you get their in your mind. I can understand it hypothetically -- yeah, the form of something can be calculated to have an impact. All I'm getting is that there is that calculation and I've been saying it's bullsh*t, because the claimant is not a mindreader, and is merely doing eisegesis, while others are tiptoeing carefully so as not to offend anyone. Most people have the problem topsy-turvy, imputing some wrong-doing while they are apparently committing an act of interpretation and conclusion of the type they are accusing me of.


 * If making a table is an act of WP:SYN, then I guess we should remove all tables. If organizing data is OR then we say goodbye to every part of Wikipedia. --  spin control 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you a basic question or two. (1) Is there anything in the table that's not already in the verbiage in the article? (2) Is there any complaint that the verbiage in the article constitutes "synthesis"? If the answer to both questions is "NO", then there is no problem with the table, as I see it. It's merely a visual aid. One point to consider as regards the Magi. As I recall, the gospel that talks about them says they came to the house where Mary and Joseph were. It is a common misconception that the Magi were there at the manger. They weren't. There's no indication that the manger scene was any more than a temporary situation due to the shortage of rooms at Bethlehem's version of the Holiday Inn. By the time the Magi showed up, they had found a conventional place to stay. Either that, or it's just another contradiction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's merely a visual aid; anything that someone thinks might be a suspicious claim can be handled on a case-by-case basis. However, as a visual aid, I think it leaves much to be desired.  The color scheme is confusing to me, the fact that so many rows have only one entry is weird, many of the rows occur two separate times.  The table needs to either be an element-by-element comparison or some sort of timeline.  It's currently a mishmash of the two.  And the color scheme is more than confusing, I still have no idea what the colors are supposed to signify, if anything.  I note now, on a more careful examination, that there is text explicitly contrasting the two stories (but under the somewhat perplexing heading "The Nativity as myth", which doesn't talk about it as a myth that I could see.)  So I just think the table needs work.  But I firmly believe this discussion should emphasize what people think would make the best article rather than trying to use Wikilawyering on either side to attempt to force any outcome.  Mango juice talk 02:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the real answer would seem to be, "Fix the article first, then worry about the pretty pictures." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the stories are already contrasted in "The Nativity as myth", is the table desirable, Mango? And if so, why? I honestly don't see the value in it as a visual aid. If people are too lazy to read prose, that's their problem. We can't tabulate the entire encyclopedia for the convenience of those sort of persons. I seriously don't have a problem with a section talking about incongruencies between the accounts. But I want it to be well done, and I think prose with references (as we have in "The nativity as myth") does it well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's purpose is to educate, not to lecture the readers on how they should think. Prose just lays there. Pictures jump out at you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for answering for Mango. If I wanted your opinion, I would have posed a general question, not one pointed at Mango. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote David Brinkley, everyone is entitled to my opinion. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * lol, I don't begrudge you your opinion, it just seemed odd to reply to a question addressed to someone in particular rather than the community at large. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything posted by anyone is fair game for commenting upon. I still have to ask, what is the real issue about the table? The original complaint seemed to be that it was somehow "original research" or "synthesis", not whether it looked pretty or not. So far, it doesn't seem to be OR or SYN, so that changes the issue to simply one of formatting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I honestly consider it to be OR and NS; and look above; there are plenty of users who agree with me. And FWIW, I think the original version looked better... carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's the same info as the article, then the article itself is OR. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what this sort of reductionism leads to. One is making OR so flexible it becomes meaningless. Almost everything on Wiki becomes OR. --  spin control 04:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Answering for Mango it wasn't. This sort of discussion context allows anyone to give their thoughts. By the way, I also want the page to be well-done and communicate its content as successfully as possible. --  spin control 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, get over yourself Spin. Bugs and I moved on into useful dialogue awhile back. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange reaction. There's nothing I need to get over. And did you notice all of what I said? --  spin control 05:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) There need to be sources making the comparisons that are made in the table. It doesn't make sense to have a table saying that in Matthew the Christ child is adored by Magi, and in Luke by shepherds. We need a RS to say that the comparison is appropriate and important. A table that presents them as contrasting, without any thing to explain it, doesn't do any good. I have absolutely no problem with sourced prose discussing the differences in the narrative. But if all the table does is regurgitate the two sections above it, that's just a waste of space. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What did you think of the latest version of the table I posted for the very quibble you raised? They cannot be construed as contrasting, but you know that each gospel presents an adoration, by whom and with a brief contextualizer. "Ahh, that's from Matthew, oh, and that's from a different gospel."
 * "[R]egurgitate" is a rather sour word for you to use. Too overblown to be taken for much discursive value, but exaggerated enough to question your motivation. Obviously the table doesn't just regurgitate those two sections. It presents the material hopefully in a quickly accessible, clear manner that allows you to see what is in each account.


 * Do you not like any visually easily accessible presentation of data or just this one? --  spin control 06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fine with "visually easily accessible presentation of data"; however, I echo Mango's comments that this sort of data is not particularly suited to a table. I fail to see why we should have a table, if all you want to do is restate what can already be found in the prose just above it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An earlier form of the table can be found here:. This compared tropes such as annunciation to Mary and to Joseph, adoration by magi and shepherds, but someone argued that that was deliberately tempting contradiction, so I separated the tropes from direct confrontation leading to the more sparsely populated table here above. Naturally I'd prefer a more compact version, but I was trying to compromise and the result isn't bad to me -- just longer than I'd desire.

The colored sections merely indicate, though not till now explained here, there is a direct comparison. The table I explained when I reinserted it with various changes was a temporary form awaiting suggestions for changes.

I don't think there is much if anything that hasn't been said in the article. If that's not the case, any issues there can be dealt with. The text in the "Nativity as myth" section was an attempt by Carl to shift material there from the table perhaps under the assumption the table was about (apparently contradictions and) myth, or as a further reason to get rid of the table. I'm up for any issue by issue dialog.

(Any attempts by me at Wikilawyering were purely self-defense!) --  spin control 03:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The section "Nativity as myth" deals with what is in the table. It would be very easy to expand on what's there in terms of discrepancies between/among the narratives. Moreover, the section was there before any of this started. It's not like the text of that section was an attempt by me to do anything. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Moving the imformation from the table to the section in order to do away with the table is manipulative and unhelpful. It obscures rather than elucidates. The table's aim is to make both texts' contents easier to see and comprehend. A table is simply much more direct with small packets of information. --  spin control 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to baby the readers of the articles, go to Simple English wikipedia. Where do the tables stop? We already have the info in the article, there is no need to repeat the same info in a table. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's purpose is to educate, and learning is much easier in structured formats than paragraph after paragraph of boring prose. Think back to business meetings you've been in. Powerpoint slides with long sentences are repellant. Well-structured charts are eye-catching and much easier to digest. If the chart conveys the same information as the article, then either both of them are OR, or neither of them are OR. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's one thing being overlooked here, though, and that is the tendency to apply literalistic logic to the gospels, or any part of the Bible for that matter. It's too bad Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible is no longer in print. On page 770, he says this: "The word gospel is from the Anglo-Saxon "god spell" meaning "good news". In other words, the term refers not so much to the biography of Jesus as to the higher meaning of his life. The story of Jesus is the story of the coming of the Messiah, the initiation of the new covenant between God and man, the arrival of salvation - and this certainly must be considered good news." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you see my reply where I undented, or did it get lost in the fray? The table presents the material in such a way that it comes across as making an interpretation; or rather, it suggests a (novel) interpretation to the reader. This is novel and what makes it NS/OR, while the rest of the page is not. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, that point is not just mine; it's been raised by others as well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's the same info as in the text, making the same points, then it is not OR, it is not "novel", it's merely formatting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are plenty of people who disagree with you on that point. I think that's pretty much where we've got to. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's the same information, with the same conclusions, then either both are OR and novel, or neither one is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly we've hit a brick wall. The majority of people who have commented has said that the table is OR and NS, while the rest of the article is not. You saying the same thing multiple times isn't going to change that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your idea of consensus for your position is clearly wrong. Arguing that "[t]he majority of people who have commented has said that the table is OR and NS" has the validity of saying in 2002 that the majority of people say that there were WMD in Iraq. Seeing is believing. When pressed for a modicum of evidence for the claims of OR or NS the i nspectors have found none. Yet you cling to the fact that the "majority of people" claim that there is, ie you cannot justify your claims, but other people have made similar claims, so you feel justified in removing material for which you have no tangible argument to remove. You merely assert your opinion that it is whatever it is in order to claim it violates Wiki standards.
 * While your canvassing of opinions was somewhat inconclusive, your success rate since then has been very poor. The one thing is consistent through it all though, you have no stated reason supported by evidence for your objection to the table. You just want it gone at all costs. Your calls of OR and NS have fallen to pieces. Your claims of consensus gone. The majority of people -- is it now true? -- seem to support you. A very un-Wiki-like approach to editorship. You were wrong to remove the table. You were wrong not to enter into a normal effort to find consensus regarding content.
 * This RfC was about whether the table infringed Wiki content standards. It seems it doesn't. You should accept that and remove your objection to it. You've just gone from claiming OR to saying that you can't see any point for the table, while most recent commentators can. You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how often you change it, but it seems you have been trying to force it on the material here for a couple of months without clear justification.
 * You don't like the table for some still unstated reason. There are changes that I don't like, but I won't remove or change them without having an up-front reason for doing so. How about doing the same? --  spin control 16:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it comes down to there is no point to the table, that is all that is needed. Even Mango, who does not consider it to be OR, does not support its inclusion. You have no more consensus than have I. I maintain my objection to the table on all the grounds stated throughout this talk page. I do not have an ulterior motive here. The reasons I object to it can be clearly seen in my posts. If the majority of people have the same concerns I have, then there is a justification for my claims. I needn't defend them against you. My "canvassing" was perfectly acceptable within WP standards, and is of no less value than your RfC. Indeed, it generated more responses, I believe. There is no justification for including this table in the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, any excuse to get rid of the table and you have tried many. Perhaps you are just not a tables person. The opinions of that majority you cite to support your desire to get rid of the table have not been shown to have any substance regarding any content standards infringed. Now you have no argument. You mightn't understand the benefit being presented in a table, but others can. The only people who have been actively editing the material are you and I, and you have neither reasoned objection nor have you entered into consensus negotiations regarding the table, making no practical edits whatsoever. You have just incessantly removed the table. It doesn't matter how I've worked on the table. --  spin control 17:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A while back someone asked my opinion on whether a table is desirable. I'm pretty sure that this table, as is, is not desirable, it's more confusing than helpful.  Could some table be desirable?  Even of that, I'm a bit skeptical.  Tables are good for things that are structured and quantitative and this is neither: they are great for statistics, for instance, breaking them down in logical ways.  A timeline is better for something like a story, but having a timeline for this doesn't really make sense either.  A bulleted list might be okay, but it would emphasize the specific actual differences rather than what is thought of them... and would be a heavy overlap with the current text paragraph.  So, no, I think probably a table wouldn't be a good way to present this information; I'd have to be convinced by a draft.  (And for the record, I don't see what is OR about this, any more than it is original work to write a new paragraph of text containing documented observations.)  Mango juice talk 06:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The core argument against the table is that, while the information is the same, the table lays out the OR nice and visibly, while the prose sufficiently obfuscates the OR and thus somehow makes it acceptable. Great. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Compact form of the birth narrative comparison table
Here's a more compact version of the table:

--  spin control 22:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The table is looking better. Consider pointing out that the shepherds came to a manger while the Maji came to a house, which could be simple contradiction, but could also be interpreted that the Maji arrived at a later time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually not necessarily a contradiction! A house would have had a room which provided shelter for the household's animals in which there would have been a manger (ie a structure for giving food to the animals -- "manger" comes from the Latin via French verb mangiare "to eat"). For want of anywhere else to lodge in the house, the family could have been put in the animals' lodging. However, the house, without ulterior indications in Matthew, should be the same locale into which Mary was taken to wife in 1:24, so they weren't lodging. --  spin control 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I point out that 'wise men' is a bad translation. The underlying greek word is 'Magoi', ie. Magi. Ie. Zurvanist Priests (Zurvanism is a form of Zoroastrian). The eastern obsession with astrology/astronomy (no distinction was made back then), and the general reputation (among the Greeks particularly) for Zoroastrians to be utterly honest, did cause Magi to be considered 'wise men', which may well be why the bible mentions them (they would be considered honest witnesses), but that isn't the only thing Magi were. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no equivalent to Μαγοι in English. "Wise men" is merely the customary substitute given in more neutral translations such as the NRSV. What translation would you suggest (keeping in mind that Magi were apparently originally a tribe, and also involved in Persian politics and acted as administrators)? --  spin control 19:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion on RfC: content standards
1. Its blatantly obvious that the two nativity accounts are very different - one has Angels, Shepherds, the Quirinial (sp.) Census, and a 'kataluma' (Inn/Upstairs) while the other has a star, Zurvanist Priests (the Magi), Herod, and 3 gifts. -Clinkophonist (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --  spin control 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Parenthesis, καταλυμα is best translated as "lodging" [See Liddell & Scott] -- Lampe goes for "dwelling". Neither "inn" nor "upstairs" cuts it.) --  spin control 17:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Its so obvious and uncontroversial that pointing it out by using a table is utterly devoid of purpose. It serves nothing to spell out "Oh look they are different, look at these differences" when everyone already knows and accepts it. -Clinkophonist (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this reflects reality, in that the two birth narratives have so frequently been conflated in most presentations. (Just look at renaissance pictorial representations and modern nativity scenes.) You may be aware of the differences, but you'll find that a presentation of the differences does bring home the uniqueness of each to many people. --  spin control 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

3. The only controversy in relation to the existence of the differences is the reason why they exist. This reason, whatever it might be, and opinions thereof, cannot easily be communicated to the reader by tabular means. -Clinkophonist (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One needs to see the differences before having a need to go into the whys. --  spin control 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

4. The table does not attempt to address questions of why. -Clinkophonist (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about an opportunity to get there? --  spin control 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

5. The table is extremely ugly. -Clinkophonist (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with content standards, the subject of the RfC. However, you have your own aesthetic, but remember that the table can always be improved. Which version are you referring to (there are three preserved on this talk page)? --  spin control 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Spin, why are you so insistent on the table's inclusion? I've indicated that discussing the differences is no problem. But it needs to be done with real sources, and as Clink well-puts is, why is rather important. Let's expand upon the 'nativity as myth' section (and re-name it, I think, while we're at it). I have absolutely no objection to discussing historical anomalies/inaccuracies/discordancies/what-have-you. If you want to have a non- anti-Christian pov in the article, by all means do it. But do it well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have said before the issue has nothing to do with 'nativity as myth' and your sidelining of it there is wrongheaded. Philological concerns regard text, how it is constructed, the language used, etc. In fact for me the name 'nativity as myth' is also wrongheaded, because to use it one has to deal with myth, not say contradictions as you seem to want. I'd like to go on to the whys, but you will not allow the possibility with your die hard anti-table approach.


 * And your trifling But do it well comes from someone who while understanding little of the Menken article's complexities proceeded to change what I presented on the subject of the source of Mt 2:23. Please think of that before you try to talk about doing things well. And then, rather than generic talking, give specific editorial attempts at making the table better. Substance, Carl, not subterfuge. --  spin control 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The page table is not going to become good by any amount of effort. It needs to come wholly from a secondary/tertiary source. And seriously, I was engaging you on this page about Menken, making changes, and asked how you wanted things changed. But your edits were not completely improvements. I maintained those things I thought were good. But the ending of your edit was completely OR. That is not acceptable. I am willing to work with you to make this, and any page, as good as we can. But I am not going to put up with you insulting me as you insist on doing in regards to the Menken article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The page table is not going to become good by any amount of effort." Pure intransigence.
 * "It needs to come wholly from a secondary/tertiary source." You are attempting to apply standards that you have failed to show the relevance of here. Most people who have commented on the content standards issue do not agree with you.
 * There was no insult. Just your admission:
 * and there's a lot of discussion of Greek and Hebrew, and I don't know those alphabets, but it will get done eventually. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously on your own admission you could not have do[ne] it well.
 * Your working with me on the issue of the source of Ναζωραιος was to undo the corrections: "undoing unnecessary changes to Mt section" (05:44, 10 February 2009); "restoring original version of Menken paragraph". It was only after I reported you for 3RR regarding the table that you decided to cool your attitude and "work with [me]".
 * The supposed OR was caused by your inability to know how much material you should use from Menken. You couldn't see that you were simply uncritically repeating his opinion ("uncritically" because you were dealing with materials that you just don't have command of). I realized that there was no hope for getting you up to speed on the material, so I didn't pursue the issue about Menken's conjectures as to the source of the relevant verb through basic knowledge of grammatically similar functioning verbs. I am not going to search for someone stating basic knowledge for you who would not appreciate it, so I opted not to pursue the issue. Why you bothered with Menken's muddled justification for trying to include Isa 7:14, I don't really know. His abject conjecture was based on the vague hope of one word, which was after all in a totally different form. Working with secondary sources still requires you to know something about the material.
 * I'm not asking you to put up with anything, just to accept your limitations. --  spin control 04:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've amended my post; I meant table, rather than page.
 * Any relation of my working with you to the 3rr report was purely co-incidental. I couldn't care less if you, Spin, report me for 3rr.
 * Menken is a RS, so I fail to see why we shouldn't include his view on Is 7:14. You know more Greek than I do? I believe you. But WP doesn't care. We based our text on what is printed in reliable sources. Why you keep on bitching about my distillation of the Menken article is beyond me. Jesse asked me to do it, so I did. No one else was going to bother to do it. I made an effort to improve the article, and I do not appreciate you being an ass about it. If you don't like the fact that any WP user is entitled to provide material from a RS, leave. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's what Jesse actually asked you to do: "the Wikipedia article reads "The writer of Matthew uses an allusion to the birth of Samson to supply extra reasoning for the move to Nazareth", and cites that JBL article. Could you verify that the JBL article says that and provide the page number(s)?" You can't blame him. And I like that you call trying to clean up your mess "being an ass". As I said, "Working with secondary sources still requires you to know something about the material."
 * Menken may be a RS, but you should not present conjectures as facts. (I originally cited Menken for the Jdg 13:5 connection because he was there and relatively easy to cite. Earlier references were either in other languages or not so readily handy to me.) Now the issue about your dalliance with Menken was merely to indicate you set no example of "But do it well". If you want to carry it further, try in another part of this talk page: here we are dealing with possible infringements of content standards -- something that you've failed to justify or get support for. --  spin control 06:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The JBL article did not say that, so I fixed it accordingly. What I did was perfectly in line with what Jesse asked for. Moreover, he thanked me for my edit and referred to it as "good work". When I refer to you being an ass, I mean the condescending tone you take with me, and others, not "trying to clean up my mess". If you want to weaken the wording of the article in regards to Menken's "conjectures" vs facts, by all means do so. I invited you to earlier on this page, and I myself changed the wording to "Menken believes he did this by...", in an effort to placate you. When you have a valid concern, I am more than willing to address it. It is when you act like a conceited prick that I have no desire to work with you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're so sweet when you try to be offensive. But as I said, move it to another part of this talk page. We are dealing with content standards here. Let's have some good work on standards. --  spin control 11:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While the middle version of the table was somewhat better, the most recent version puts back all the major concerns about POV and OR, and adds some new ones. It's gone back to alleging contradictions where none exist by setting comp0limentary events against one another rather than allowing them to be complementary.  Xan  dar  12:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. But the table doesn't allege anything. It puts the data together. You do the alleging. There are a few contradictions in the two accounts and I have footnoted them with explanations and secondary sources, but I'm not particularly interested in contradictions per se. I'm interested in how the text got to be. Why Luke mentions Quirinius and why Matthew provides the Nazorean prophecy, for example. Text analysis over the years has looked into the issues. --  spin control 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (What I'd like to do is find some median position which takes less space than the middle table, but which does not offend too much in an effort to give an immediate understanding of the relationship between the two accounts. As you can see, it's not easy here.) --  spin control 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'That is a major POV which is here being presented in the table as fact. It continues making untrue claims (ie that the bible states that Joseph lived in Bethlehem),...  Xan  dar  12:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the footnotes on the subject? The highly reputed Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown (amongst many others) has written of the issue.
 * And I challenge you to provide a reading of what Matthew says that makes sense of the text without poisoning Matthew from your reading of Luke. A narrative holds together by itself, as Matthew did before it was collected into the New Testament. Some early communities would have only had a copy of Matthew to be read to them, so how would they have understood the birth narrative? You must try to understand that. --  spin control 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and also makes theoretical leaps in order to claim a contradiction where it is only POV that one exists (eg: trying to calculate the date of Jesus's birth via existing modern records of Roman censuses) There is far more.  Xan  dar  12:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only natural that someone who believes in a literal understanding of the text will bristle at that literal understanding being "put to the test", as one might consider it. Having been into the matter of the census in extreme depth, I have seen most if not all sad attempts to abuse the data: retranslating the text, appeals to inscriptions that supposedly allow for a redating of the Quirinius census, imagining another shot at proconsul by Quirinius when the proconsulship of Syria is quite clear, explaining away why someone under one government such as that of Antipas, should have to go for a census run by another government, why a Roman would meddle with a self-administered state and administer an unknown census under Herod, a close friend of Augustus etc, etc. We are dealing with scholarship and the issue amongst historians (unlike apologists) is quite well established.
 * You have picked out the issues that least disturbed me, as they are well evidenced. I was more worried that if for example I put the adorers together as reflections of the one trope that someone might try to conflate them. --  spin control 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The table is a bad idea. Tabular format invites a synthesis articulating a viewpoint, and that's exactly the result here. It doesn't matter what the KJV, NIV, or original Greek says; we aren't supposed to be interpreting primary sources. Instead, use paragraphs to discuss scholars' understanding of the narratives, with footnotes to reliable secondary sources, and additional notes/links to the relevant Bible verses. How do you know which verses are relevant? The secondary sources will say they are. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had various responses to the contrary about the table. Unless you refer to my summaries of the gospel text, I'm not interpreting anything. If you don't like the summaries, can you indicate individual summaries where I haven't been successful? The claim that the format invites a synthesis is analogous to the miniskirted girl who invites rape: the reality doesn't match the observer's desires. In whatever endeavor I will never be able to prevent eisegesis, for where there is a will there is a way. How do I know what verses are relevant? Common interests, shared tropes in the narrative, most if not all of which is dealt with in the text. Now if you think I've omitted something you think is needed or I've got something specific wrong in the act of collation, please don't be shy in speaking up. --  spin control 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a request for comment, so I read and commented: lose the table; use paragraphs; rely on secondary sources. If you dismiss what you don't like to hear, well, this isn't a page I edit. Tom Harrison Talk 18:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How can the table be argued to be "synthesis" if it's the same info, same sources, and same viewpoint that's already in the article in prose form? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The table is a synthesis because of the way it is laid out. A table should contain facts, while this table sets out complex issues that need to be presented as arguments in prose. Take my recent objections and spin's responses;
 * The table claims to show the differences between the gospel accounts. However it claims as fact that Matthew states that Joseph lived in Bethlehem. This is not true. As response, spin, brings forth a footnote to the opinion of certain scholars that Joseph may have lived in Bethlehem. Sorry. This is opinion, not fact, and should not be in a table claiming to be factual. As such it becomes a falsehood. Nor is attempting to guess how you think early communities might have understood the Matthew account permissible in this respect. The format of a table is not suitable for presenting suppositions.  Xan  dar  22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are functionally denying any reading of the text of Matthew. When challenged directly to provide a reading of what Matthew says on the issue without any reference to Luke you are not forthcoming. Please do not make apparently unfounded accusations about facts and falsehoods. --  spin control 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Similarly the issue of the date of Jesus's birth is a complex one. Spin insists that he can provide a contradictory date to that in Luke by synthesising a Matthew date from information from other sources about the dates of Quirinius's proconsulship and the rule of King Herod. This again, is the manufacture of a contradiction from material that is not in the accounts allegedly being compared. Putting such a concoction ionto a table is misleading. The issue needs the freedom of textual discussion, so that the opinions and evidence for them are presented as what they are.  Xan  dar  22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to make the date of Jesus's birth a complex issue. The two narratives simply supply two different indications that don't appear to reflect the same date. That's where your opinion kicks in. You start to interpret things for your own POV. You make it complex, despite the texts. --  spin control 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Other issues include the opposing of house and stable in the table. Luke says only that the baby was born in a manger, it doesn't say that the Holy Family stayed in the stable for their entire time in Bethlehem, or until the wise men appeared. This is another assumption.  Xan  dar  22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the table doesn't claim anything about a stable. No contention here. (Please see my comment just below the latest presentation of the table, dated 18:50, 21 February) --  spin control 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already objected to the setting in opposition of arguably complementary events such as the shepherds/kings, visit to Elizabeth/taking in of Mary, and presentation/flight to Egypt.  Xan  dar  22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And there is no contention: the manifestations and aftermaths of the adoration trope are simply different. Difference is not sufficient to indicate conflict. One proposal I made was the middle table above which took them out of line in order to deal with this issue. Others have indicated that it wasn't an issue. I have no opinion on it other than the desire to minimize the size of the table. --  spin control 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These issues, and opposing views of them should be properly set out in the text. A table cannot handle the range of arguments and views involved. Simply setting out POVs and inaccuracies and saying "There's a footnote" is not satisfactory.  Xan  dar  22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If enough people feel it is necessary to stagger the presentation of tropes, I'll happily do so. The table itself presents no POV, while the footnotes do. (While the reading of Joseph living in Bethlehem is interpretation, the text certainly indicates that Joseph does not live in Nazareth and provides no reason to think that Bethlehem was not his home.) No inaccuracies have been demonstrated. (The form and placement of these Matthean statements of dwelling help in the analysis of the construction of the text!) --  spin control 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Most people won't read the footnotes, and the footnotes themselves are hugely inadequate.  Xan  dar  22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While the possible fact that most people won't read the footnotes is irrelevant to us, the reader always has responsibilities when interacting with text. As to the footnotes themselves, I'm open to constructive suggestions. --  spin control 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I say again, if the table matches the article verbiage, then either both of them are OR/synthesis, or neither of them are. And if they don't match, then make them match. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tables are far too crude to present the nuanced information dealt with here - as has been demonstrated above. A table setting out the comparisons of accounts properly, in full and with all interpretations and possibilities included would be unworkably large. Setting down people's theories as if they were facts is just the most serious problem.  Xan  dar  01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thing the table has the rest of the nativity of Jesus article which deals with various matters found in the table. It was placed specifically after descriptions of the separate accounts for a reason and that is so the reader can come to it after they have gained information from that material. You seem to want them to have learned nothing or forgotten everything from those sections.
 * Your use of "nuanced" here seems to be as a synonym for your POV. You seem to be insinuating the need for more information in this table than there is in the article. You seem to be deliberately trying to make things far more complicated than they need be. This is the sign of obfuscation. We know for example when Quirinius made his census and why: it is a specific event for a specific reason. The extremes of obfuscation of the matter do not reflect in any sense the nuances of the text. The squirming about Quirinius is not about the text but a POV determined view of the text, as is the case with the non-reading of Matthew in regard to the home of Joseph. From the cracks, I glean that instead of dealing with ancient traditions, we see the desire to install a harmonizing modern eisegesis. "Hmm, they're different! That implies the possibility of error, so how can we re-present the data so that they don't appear to contradict each other?" This shows no interest in the text itself whatsoever.
 * It's normal to set "down people's theories" when the sources are well-respected scholars in the field and those theories are based on facts. You are welcome to set down your theories as long as they are based on 1) well-respected scholarly sources and 2) the facts of the matter. --  spin control 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tables are not the place for theories. If the main text of the article is well enough written, there is no need for the table. There would be no harm in the table if everything in it were non-controversial. However this is not the case. It is presented as a comparison, but by its layout, choice of events and the use of synthesis in its make-up,it becomes a POV item, over-emphasising claimed discrepancies between the gospels.  Xan  dar  20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tables seem to be used in numerous scholarly articles to present overviews, easy access to data, structured presentations of facts, etc. The theories are presented in the text. The tables illustrate the information. What is interesting here, is that for some reason Xandar doesn't seem to show any appreciation of how tables are used in general or how this table is used. --  spin control 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, tables are there to clearly present facts. What is in this table are theories and calculations which are in dispute, but presented as facts, possibly to promote an agenda. Xan  dar  11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that there are numerous indications derived from the two birth narratives, how many of the indications are according to you "theories and calculations which are in dispute"? And could you indicate just which of those indications? --  spin control 12:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Spin may not see this, being firmly attached to, (if not blinkered by,) his own viewpoint. Yet however much he dislikes it, there are other viewpoints. We do not have anything like a complete collection of Ancient Roman documents, so we cannot declare as a fact that there were no other censuses or that no Quirinius was in position at the right time. What has been set down in the table as a contradiction between the accounts, is in fact itself an obfuscation - based on calculations made by the poster or third parties based on theories and assumptions about other primary and secondary sources. A contradiction between the accounts must be apparent from the accounts themselves, not a synthesis based on certain assumptions and theories.  Xan  dar  20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please conjecture away at other censuses that the ex-consul Quirinius may have during his administration of Syria, but it has no place anywhere but fantasyland. Before the death of Herod it would be interference in a sovereign state. As the magistracy behind such a census would need to be the legate of Syria, who by rank was an ex-proconsul, for whom you need to conjure a slot in the list of Syrian legates other than the one he already fills. Outside the rosy halls of inerrancy, the evidence is long in for the census in Luke. You may like to kid yourself that you can squeeze hard enough and make a space for some solution that will allow the Lucan census to appear veracious, but no-one trained in classical ancient history these days would offer you a job to teach such a theory to innocent high school students. --  spin control 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to conjecture. These points are being argued all over the world. As I have said; the calculations that some people have made to "prove" a contradiction or error in Luke, are disputed. So presenting them as facts in a table without the opposing views is not in line with WP policies. A table comparing accounts should only compare what actually appears in the accounts not peoples theories about that.  Xan  dar  11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite some scholarly (not apologetic) arguments, please? --  spin control 12:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The same applies to the claim that Matthew says Joseph lived in Bethlehem. It doesn't. That "deduction" is a theory, and not a very well supported one.
 * The only theory I've seen is that if one closes one's eyes hard enough perhaps it will all go away. You will not read the source text. You can't cite someone who reads the source text by itself to come up with the notion that Joseph lived anywhere but Bethlehem. You know if you read the text that the family moves to Nazareth only after they return from Egypt (2:23). What you seem to be doing is rendering any reading of the text "theory" in order to stave off the obvious reading of the text. --  spin control 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are again revealing that this is individual interpretation. Matthew does not state where Joseph lived prior to the betrothal/wedding with Mary. All the rest is personal guesswork.  Xan  dar  11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We know that for Matthew Joseph did not live in Nazareth before the birth. 2:23 moves the family to Nazareth. Reading Matthew and nothing else, where did Joseph live before he took his family to Egypt then on to Nazareth? You are reducing the act of reading (whatever it is) to interpretation, and thus reducing the notion of interpretation almost to meaninglessness. --  spin control 12:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Similarly, two observers can report the same event differently dependant on their priorities. If Observer A says Mr Jones left home, went to a Cafe, bought a newspaper and went to a work, and Observer B says Mr Jones left home, filled up his car, talked to a flower seller and went to work. These are not contradictions, just differing accounts of events of the same day.
 * If observer A says that the family returned to Nazareth and observer B says they moved to Nazareth, they are clearly contradicting each other. (Do you have some inerrantist source that goes into denial over that?) But making such a fuss over a contradiction is to pay no interest in the text. The text could say anything as long as it doesn't contradict itself. Why do contradictions seem to be more important than the text? When John says that Mary Magdalene alone went to the tomb before dawn, but Mark says that Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome all went to the tomb or that an angel came down while they were coming and moved the stone away in Matthew, but it was already moved in Luke and there were two men in dazzling clothes standing in the tomb, the inerrantist will probably try to find some extremely forced means of avoiding any contradiction, continuing to commit the same error of avoiding the text unable to deal with what the individual text says. Instead you're stuck with continually threading different sources together and whenever some textual difficulty invariably comes along, the difficulty must be obscured, obfuscated, but never acknowledged or used. --  spin control 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Moved" to Nazareth is a very general word. There is zero evidence within that word that Joseph did not live there previously.  Xan  dar  11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You should look before you leap. The Greek is quite specific. The translation is relatively clear as well. "He went and dwelt/settled in... Nazareth"/"He made his home in... Nazareth." I used the word "moved" for conciseness. You should have checked the verse and you would have refrained from quibbling the way you did. Besides, 2:22 shows Joseph with the desire to return to Judea, but because he was afraid of Archelaus he went to Galilee instead. --  spin control 12:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I "Moved" to Yorkshire. Does that prove I didn't also return there? No it does not. And once again, care needs to be taken when personally interpreting scripture to ensure that you are not personally interpreting words inaccurately chosen by a modern translator. The resurrection account is off-topic here, but again you are seeing contradictions in accounts from people with different prioritied. If a newspaper prints "President Obama went to New York", and another prints "President and Mrs Obama went to New York", in most cases that will not be a contradiction.  Xan  dar  11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The resurrection is not the topic of what was being talked about, but the fact there are differences between the gospels, that you need to accept if you want to deal with scholarly matters. Your kludge about "different prioritie[s]" fails because I chose examples that actually contradict as written, but you are deliberately forcing the discussion in that direction because of your intractable approach. --  spin control 12:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no bar on airing theories on this matter, but they must be in the article text, with the proponent of the theory clearly identified, and the opportunity for rebuttal. A table in essence declares that what is in it are facts, verified by Wikipedia. that is why it is wrong here.  Xan  dar  20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can authoritatively say that the text declares that it represents the principal issues between the two separate birth narratives. Stop claiming to know what the table "declares", when all you are doing is fighting the inerrancy battle, a battle lost before you were born. Modern scholars know that there are difficulties with the text. That's why they are upfront about it. The difficulties themselves are clues for understanding how the texts have been put together. --  spin control 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are showing your ideological point of view here, and that is what I feel is behind this table. It is wrong because it presents as facts things that are not facts and many that are inaccuracies.  Xan  dar  11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The basic message you transmit is that you don't seem to want the table's content, footnotes or not, supported with published scholarly argument or not. You'll simply make claims about others' ideology as though you can hide yours. Anything that you see as contentious in the table has the support of the scholarly community. --  spin control 12:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Quirinius issue is covered in a single POV way that presumes a contradiction from certain interpretations of the texts. Not only is this wrong in itself, but it is clear that valid alternative opinions and research have been completely ignored. Biblical Archaeology by John Sailhamer and Dr Verlyn Verbrugge p110, joins many other works in arguing that Quirinius was twice Governor of Syria, and that Luke is referring to the earlier census, ordered by Augustus in 12 BC, and which spread over the years to 6 BC. Chronos, Kairos, Christos II By Ray Summers, Jerry Vardaman, states this line of argument. Other works making these points include, New Testament History by Richard L. Niswonger, The Archeology of the New Testament By Jack Finegan, and Herod the Great By Jerry Knoblet.  Xan  dar  21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked very specifically: "Can you cite some scholarly (not apologetic) arguments, please?" Instead, look at what you've given: two guys from obscure seminaries, a Zondervan stalwart, a pastor of Cumberland Presbyterian Church in Prairie Grove, Arkansas, and Jerry Vardaman, the character who tried to sell the idea of microletters with Christian messages on coins that no scholar has ever seen. It's not sufficient to do a simple google search of opinions that you prefer. If you are asked for scholarly arguments, that is really what you should provide. --  spin control 05:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me just cite the summary of the scholarly status quo on the census issue from the Census of Quirinius article: The majority view among modern scholars is that there was only one census, in 6 AD, and the author of the Gospel of Luke misidentified it with the reign of Herod the Great. In The Birth of the Messiah (1977), a detailed study of the infancy narratives of Jesus, 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." --  spin control 06:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone should go over to the census article and complain because it "is covered in a single POV way that presumes a contradiction from certain interpretations of the texts."
 * (The apologetic response was predicted earlier.) --  spin control 09:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

←That's an interesting point, Xander. Does anyone have a suggestion on how a table can best address the various scholarly opinions on the Quirinius issue? Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd do a table specifically for that issue, listing the scholarly consensus in one column and the hairbrained schemes in the various other columns. --  spin control 05:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew that spin would attack any scholar who opposed his viewpoint. These people are archaeologists and bible historians. Professor Ramsay, who discovered the first evidence that Quirinius was a ruler in Syria while Herod was alive was an eminent Oxford archaeologist. The point however is that there ARE other viewpoints on this issue, they ARE significant, and they need to be represented in any Wikipedia discussion of these issues. That is another reason why a table synthesisied out of one set of viewpoints is not suitable with respect to this issue.  Xan  dar  21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't mention Ramsay in your apologetic effort. Ramsay was, nevertheless, writing 90 years ago without a full deck of cards: more evidence has emerged since his time. Why cite stuff based on old scholarship and not the current scholarly analyses?? Because you are in conflict with recent scholarly analysis on the issue.... You'd rather stick with Zondervan, the seminaries, the pastor and the guy who sees microletters on coins. And, no matter what, the table must be erased! --  spin control 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that Xandar flogs a dead horse, that has been consensus in the Nativity of Jesus article (see Date of Birth), as well as in the Census of Quirinius article, ie the date of the census of Quirinius. The only other things he has complained about are well dealt with in footnotes in the latest version of the table. The data in the table represents the scholarly status quo. The claims of POV are baseless regarding the table unless scholarly consensus is POV, though the objections to the table have certainly been apologetic in nature, ie overtly POV.

The claims of synthesis have been unsubstantiated and the claim of original work has also failed. The nature of tables is to make the data easily accessible. I think the apologetic objections have proven that is the case. Will there be further objections if I reinstate the table? If so, on what grounds this time? --  spin control 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I continue to object to the table's inclusion, on the basis of the arguments I've already exhaused. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally unfounded claims of infringement of content standards and a lack of consensus. You just seem to have no apparent reason for objecting to the table. At least with BC/AD you could imply that many readers were stupid and couldn't cope with BCE/CE. Why not cough up what your problem with the table really is? --  spin control 03:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Spin, at this point it should be painfully obvious that there is no consensus to insert the table. Please don't imply that Carl or other are editing or dialoging in bad faith. It's best if editors continue to try to work through differences. Majoreditor (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply bad faith regarding Carl. I merely eliminated the claims that were unsubstantiated and asked for something that was more tangible.
 * As to the table, he has shown no positive way forward. And at this point there is no consensus that the table should be left out and no content specific reason to leave it out. --  spin control 22:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Passing user, not prepared to get sucked into huge discussion, permission to add two cents worth of opinion, table not sounding like a good idea Mark J (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If other articles are pushing the same Quirinius speculation referred to here, they too probably need looking at. Just because spin doesn't like or respect a strand of opinion doesn't mean that that opinion can be excised from Wikipedia.  Xan  dar  16:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not dealing with simple opinions or with apologetics here, but with scholarship. If you can't tell the difference, then you'd better keep away from editing pages that rely on the scholarship. Zondervan is apologetics, as are your seminarians and pastors. --  spin control 22:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Spin, statements like what you just made to Zander ("If you can't tell the difference, then you'd better keep away from editing pages that rely on the scholarship") aren't going to help resolve the issue.
 * While there are some editors who appear to be opposed to a table at all costs, there are several who will entertain the notion provided that it is sourced in an appropriate manner and avoids synthesis. Perhaps focusing on that approach may help. I'm relatively optimistic you can make traction on that front provided you're willing to do the research. It probably involves accessign scholarly works at a research library, but I suspect you have some experience with that. Majoreditor (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell me this: I have sourced the statements regarding where Joseph lived before the birth of Jesus; I have sourced the statment about what happened after the birth; and, as to the date, there are pages on Wiki which I've cited here, specifically what else do you feel the table needs (given that it lists only those things in the two accounts that are comparable in content)? I'd really like something specific as an indicator because so far I've found what has been said, almost no contructive help at all. Thanks for your indications. --  spin control 09:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair question, Spin, let me try to give you a fair answer.
 * The design of the table should be dictated by a reliable source. For example: take a reliable, scholarly, authoratative source which points out the inconsistencies (or the consistencies and the inconsistencies) in the Nativity story. Let's suppose that this single source points out ten inconistencies across two different books of the Bible. The table would then be ten rows by two columns. That way no one can say that Spin decided which ten items (ie, rows) to select (ie, no possibility of charging you with original research). An since you'd be drawing on a single reliable source no one could accuse you of synthesis. You may also consider going the extra mile and finding other high caliber reliable sources which offer similar explanations and add them as citations or as part of a general note. The final observation I'd have is to urge you to stick to a single table rather than two or more tables, as that would likely start to clutter the article.
 * I'm interested to hear what other editors think of this proposal. Majoreditor (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, you're suggesting more or less copying a table that appears in a secondary source. That would be perfectly acceptable to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as solving the problem. Anyone can produce a table and fill it with what they like. That doesn't mean it can go in Wikipedia unchallenged. So in order to have a balance, the article would probably need two tables explaining the different viewpoints, or a combined table which demonstrated the alleged inconsistencies in two columns, and then provided two equal columns to illustrate the POVs that those inconsistencies are non-existent. The problem with tables is that they are best at presenting undisputed facts.  Xan  dar  11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, such a table would fail to represent all perspectives. Alternative perspectives would be expressed through either a different table or through prose. editors would have to decide if two tables is too many or if presenting one perspective in a tabular format and other(s) in prose unfairly emphasizes the table's POV. Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems it's ok to plagiarize a secondary source for the full structure of a table, but no-one can make any tangible suggestions for the table that exists, suggestions that are the usual process in Wiki editing. People have complained about the selection of categories compared, but no-one can suggest a better selection or make improvements to the categories. Why is it that no-one seems to be able to follow normal Wiki editorial procedure here?? At the moment we just have it cut out like anathema.
 * Look, this is very simple. We have two narratives that share common narrative items while telling ostensibly the same story. The table is an attempt to represent the two narratives in the common material and shared tropes. If you want to improve it, be constructive. Demonstrate an alternative. Correct the table. Do something. This theoretical potato toss shows no way forward. --  spin control 09:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If we attribute the table, it isn't plagiarizing. A table that we come up with will be inappropriate, as it would constitute synthesis. Why you find content from a secondary source objectionable, I can't fathom. You would be getting what you want, essentially, and I (and I presume most other objectors to your table) would be satisfied. I have no intention of suggesting better categories/making improvements to the categories, because the whole endeavour of making one's own table is OR/NS. I won't engage in a process which is fundamentally flawed. Find something from a RS, and few persons will argue with you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Right now, without evidence that the content in the table can be found in that format in a RS, such a table has to be counted as being original research/synthesis, which isn't permitted. If a reliable source makes the same comparisons, and only those comparisons, then the information in the table can be counted as being reliably sourced. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have failed in your imputation of synthesis, Carl. There is no consensus to support such a claim here. That is one of the results of this RfC. You are free to synthesize, as you have so frequently done with the table, though that is merely a reflection of you.
 * You are totally wrong about my finding content from a secondary source objectionable, so stop your useless attempts at fathoming. This is such an anti-Wiki approach.
 * Then we have the incoherence of the whole idea of the table is flawed if it doesn't come from a secondary source, though is fine if it does. There is not a problem about the table per se. You just don't like the fact that I did the collation of it. You cannot point out any novel synthesis or any meaningfully original research. You simply refuse to perform your task of editing and carry on a process of obstruction. I believe it that you have no intention of suggesting better categories. You've had a lot of time to do so and failed. You've had a lot of time to establish your accusations of OR/NS and failed.
 * To show just how frivolous you have been, I shall be removing the whole passage purporting to represent the gospel of Luke on the nativity. It contains omissions and errors, and it is a classic example of synthesis. In the numerous hands that have worked on it the result is the equivalent to original research. It cannot stand as it is, unless of course you can find a secondary source that reflects the whole passage and I will be happy. Otherwise it cannot stay. --  spin control 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would ask the above editor to cease his attempts to falsely malign the motives of others. I stand by my comment that this table, as it is, is problematic. It seeks to interpret information by comparing the accounts of the story from two sources without citing specific sources for the comparison. Not that big a deal, but a problem nonetheless. It also seeks to place the material in a table, which will tend to give the reader the impression that it is complete. Tables are, in general, used only when dealing with limited information, like individuals holding a specific position. Unless this table can be demonstrated to be as complete as a table of all the holders of a given office to date, then it could easily be seen as giving a false impression, possibly intentionally so, that it is complete. It also completely fails to address any material from other sources, on the rather weak assertion that "he want(s)" it to just cover these two books. User:Doktorspin, in his comments above, also seems to me to be indulging in conduct which is of arguably less than effective style, and possibly in a way that itself violates policies or guidelines. If he wants the table included, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate that the table will be a positive addition to the article, and one that does not violate any of wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I have seen no such demonstration to date. I would very strongly urge that party to limit his comments to the subject at hand, rather than raising false allegations regarding the conduct or motivations of others. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are imputing interpretation on the part of the table. This is merely a POV action. You along with some others have failed to show any opinion, interpretation or conclusion made by the table, things that are requirements for the accusations made against the table. In fact you are making false claims. The table provides none of these things. Please don't continue these false accusations.
 * In order to communicate your substantive problems with the table, I have made another table below for your perusal. I would appreciate your constructive comments. --  spin control 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your claim of the results of "this RfC" ignores all the persons who commented earlier. Their opinions cannot be discounted. There is no overall consensus to include your table in the article.
 * And I'm glad you caught on; I very clearly stated that I have no intention of suggesting better categories. The whole idea of a user-made table, for a topic such as this, is flawed, and I will not aid it.
 * I agree the Luke section is in quite a sorry state at this point. I suggest we make a new version here, then submit it to be inserted into the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see, using your unhelpful approach and obstructionist criteria, just how you get it into the article. --  spin control 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Per John, Carl, Jay and numerous other experienced editors and admins who have commented so far: there are very real concerns about synthesis and original research, Spin. Consensus is against inclusion of the table unless it supported by a reliable source. Please do not try to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. As we've mentioned, the table can be included if it's properly sourced to avoid OR/SYN concerns. It won't be hard to do; please go to your local research library and search for the appropriate academic publications. Majoreditor (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Exercise
Given the naysayers' utter refusal to be constructive, let me try to read their minds. Here's a part of a comment by Marcus Borg about the birth narratives:
 * In Luke, Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth, but because of the census they travel to Bethlehem, where the birth occurs in a stable. They go back home to Nazareth after the birth. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem and the birth occurs at home (not in a stable). The family then moves to Nazareth after spending time in Egypt. Matthew mentions no trip to Bethlehem. In Matthew, "wise men from the East" follow a special star to the place of Jesus' birth. Luke has neither wise men nor star, but angels singing in the night sky to shepherds who then come to the manger. In Matthew, Herod the Great orders the killing of all male infants under the age of two in Bethlehem. The family of Jesus escapes by fleeing to Egypt. Luke's story has neither Herod's plot nor a trip to Egypt.

Does anyone find there to be any problem whatsoever with the following table? Does it in any way distort or misrepresent Borg's ideas? If so, how?

--  spin control 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If Borg discusses it in prose, there is no reason to present it as a table. It is more suited to prose anyway. Why this insistence on tabular format, Spin? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't said what is wrong with it. You've merely expressed a state of mind: in your mind you can't see any reason to present it as a table. That doesn't provide any problem per se. What is actually wrong with presenting the material as I have in a table?? Has anything been distorted? Changed? Any opinions proffered beyond those of Borg?
 * Tables obviously have a way of fast communication of information. --  spin control 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, Spin. The table is sourced to a single scholarly work; as such, it's clearly not original research and isn't synthesized.
 * Some editors may object to having this displayed in tabular form; others will think it's fine. If I were writing the article I would probably stick to prose, but I am not opposed to presenting this material as a table.
 * The only request that I have is that we make sure that the web cite which presents Borg's views is considered a reliable source. I'd prefer to source it to Google scholar or something like that if possible - but I would certainly not suggest that the current URL is necessarily unreliable. What do others think? Majoreditor (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can also be found here: . It is adapted from "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, by Marcus J. Borg and N. T Wright."
 * The presentation of the material here is only an investigation. Borg's material is rather incomplete, as he himself is aware. -- spin control 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awful. The proposed table is based on one person's interpretation. Why should HIS view get a table, or is the article to be full of tables representing all views? In addition, the table by placing events in contrast, again falsely opposes events instead of complementing them. An utterly POV piece.  Xan  dar  00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't propose this table for the article. I was soliciting this sort of biased comment in order to know just how one who is not interested in the information at any cost would deal with the table, when you could not fabricate a rule complaint. And I liked your POV projection. Very ironic and amusing. --  spin control 03:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a common review in the schoarly field of Biblical textual criticism. Nothing is new here, but I am not sure of its value to this article. It would be better suited in other articles that attempt to address Biblical inerrancy (or the lack of it), etc. The problem with a table is that it excludes the appearance of all rebuttal to the potential conflicts. It states the information declaratively and with finality; as if there is no room for disagreement, which there is. There is no discussion about who is Matthew and who is Luke; when were the periods in which both works were written, what is the purpose according to scholars for the style of writings within both books, what is the meaning of the differences, etc. Frankly, I find this type of writing more akin to taking pot shots, loaded with POV and innuendo, but not germane to the article.
 * Frankly, I find this information better presented in Bart D. Ehrman's book, "Jesus Interrupted", but that is another discussion and for another article. -- Storm  Rider  00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how much of this comment is actually relevant to the comparison of content between the two accounts. If I asked you to compare, say, two accounts of the death of King Arthur, I'm sure if you had the inclination you could do it, without the sort of fuss that has been kicked up here. If asked to compare the two creation story in Genesis, you would probably see the different contexts in which they were written, one in a world where the notion of a watery chaos was meaningful and one where barren dryness and emptiness was more the norm, yet both deal with the creation of humans and animals. Such a comparison table is not looking to do more than capture the data that are comparable. Could you not do a relatively objective comparison of the various accounts of the crucifixion, noting the similarities and differences? Is it just the birth accounts?
 * The role of the editor is to provide the best information possible. Your objections seem to lead to presenting no information at all. If you don't think the content of such a table is representative of the available data, the editor's job is to make proposals to improve it. And remember that the table doesn't simply occur in a vacuum. You seem to be talking as though the rest of the article didn't exist.
 * You said, "Frankly, I find this type of writing more akin to taking pot shots, loaded with POV and innuendo, but not germane to the article." What type of writing is that? And in your eyes where are the potshots, where is the POV and where is the innuendo in the table? Why is such a presentation of the nativity data not germane to an article on the nativity, especially when the two accounts have already been dealt with separately? --  spin control 03:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion on comparative table
I'm at loss to understand why some people have objections to such a table that makes immediately clear the relationship between the two birth narratives. --  spin control 20:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which surprises me, because we have gone out of our way to point out those objections. Evidently you never read them? In summary, they are as follows:
 * The table presents only a condensed form of the information, or, as you call it, "an overview of the situation". Other pertinent information, which whoever makes up the table may leave out, will still have to be included in the text, in effect, rendering the table basically useless and redundant, as the information still has to be included in the text. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been responded to before. You are misrepresenting the table and ignoring context. The table doesn't appear alone. You know that. --  spin control 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The table, as you have repeatedly stated, will, in your eyes, deal only with the two gospels in question. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As does the context it is in. This is a trivial non sequitur. --  spin control 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any other information, which is to be found in other sources, will evidently always be left out. That would seemingly violated WP:POV, as some parties, particularly some of the newer syncretic groups or some other churches reviving old beliefs, will have information which is included in some other books they consider canonical left out. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a complaint about the table at all. It's a complaint about the whole article. --  spin control 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you may not think that is a problem. But I personally have no doubt it will arise at some point. When it does, the table may become either unworkably large or useless. I personally cannot see any good reason to put ourselves in that situation, particularly when the chart basically adds no content which cannot be already found in the article itself. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As is the case of this post I'm responding to, but you feel it needs to be said, just as I feel the table communicates a clear presentation of the data. --  spin control 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The exact format of the chart remains in question. This is particularly problematic when dealing with churches which have differing readings of the books in question. How, if at all, will information from their versions be included? And it will have to be included, to ensure that we don't violate wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV. This, again, is a problem which can be avoided by not adding the chart in the first place, which, as we have both admitted, adds nothing specific to the article. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept that the exact form of the chart remains in question, but then so does every datum on Wikipedia. --  spin control 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, this one is to my eyes the most important one. It is wikipedia's formal policy regarding consensus, to be found at WP:CONCENSUS. So far as I can tell, you seem to be at best unfamiliar with it. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What you can tell doesn't necessarily reflect reality. Your notion of "consensus" is ultimately questionable as the number of people involved in this discussion doesn't constitute in any sense a representative sample of Wiki editorship. And the sources from where comments have been canvassed are guaranteed to skew results to a range of POV.
 * When people show no effort at constructive criticism it doesn't reflect any concern for consensus.
 * Falling back on consensus without any tangible issue is not an argument in itself. --  spin control 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It says, basically, that if there is a consensus that something will not be included, for whatever reason, it won't be included, despite, as seems to be the case here, one individual's ongoing attempts to include it. That attempt looks to me, personally, like beating a dead horse, which isn't particularly useful.
 * However, I do note that you, and, so far as I can see, only you, seem to be basically married to the idea. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you show no interest in where one goes after the table. The manic refusal will not allow one to get into the source criticism so that one can understand the development of the text. --  spin control 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And there is some precedent for such actions with the various other infoboxes. I personally would have no objections to directly contacting WikiProject Bible and WikiProject Christianity, which seem to me to be the two projects most directly interested in these matters, and request input from interested parties there, and personally would be more than willing to accept whatever the arising consensus might be. Would you be willing to do the same? John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you before "In order to communicate your substantive problems with the table, I have made another table below for your perusal. I would appreciate your constructive comments." I would still like a response. I need to see some semblance of NPOV approach.
 * If you must seek some judge and jury, we could try WikiProject Bible/Biblical criticism work group. We are not dealing with faith issues, but in literary and historical analysis. These are the considerations which should govern the choice of those who should form a consensus. If one is not interested in how text works, they shouldn't really be involved. How does such a person know what a reputable secondary source is here? --  spin control 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not once again try to indicate that I had said things that I had not said, as you have once again done above. The answer to the question you asked immediately above is fairly simple. It can be found at WP:RS. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a response. It doesn't indicate that you have paid any attention to the issue, let alone provided any "constructive comments". --  spin control 03:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, will you answer my question? Regarding the Biblical criticism work group, based on what I have seen, there isn't enough activity there to indicate anyone will respond to any comments made there. The last time a message there got a visible response was in July 2007. However, I see no reason to contact them as well, if you so desire. The Christianity and Bible projects both have a bit more activity. And I would urge you to adhere to our guideline of assuming good faith, John Carter (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly assume good faith, but I would prefer commentators who know about the subject. If you don't know what the reputable secondary sources are, can you comment? I have cited Marcus Borg and Raymond Brown. I can happily include E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, any world reputed scholar in the field who has dealt with the narratives substantively. I've had one editor try to cite Zondervan publications or works by seminarians at me. If you want to do something right, you need to know something about it. Without it you can have as much good faith as you like, but it won't help. --  spin control 03:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * which you can see with the link provided. Not everyone involved in the two more active groups I mentioned is necessarily going to be guided by a conflict of interests, as you seem to indicate by your statement above. However, if you so desire, I wouldn't see any objections to contacting WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, WikiProject Judaism and WikiProject Islam as well, considering that at least potentially they might be interested in similar situations which may occur in articles they deal with. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can contact whoever you like, but, given the sort of treatment I have seen here so far, you will not attract anyone knowledgeable in biblical literary scholarship. --  spin control 03:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have no intentions of contacting anybody. I am satisfied with the article as it is. It would be incumbent on you to establish that the consensus has changed for the table to be included. And I would very much appreciate it if you refrained from senseless insults of others, as you have once again indulged in above. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I'd already realized your intentions. And you should not try to point out the mote in someone else's eye when you have a log in yours. You were asked to be constructive. That is your one duty as an editor. --  spin control 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I did put a notice about this whole discussion on the WP Christianity talk page; no-one replied there, though some of the responses on this page may have been from that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I came here because of that notice, actually. Possibly/probably Secisek as well, as we're both rather active there, him more than me lately. But there is the potentially broader question about whether Biblical "infoboxes" are wanted, and I think it might be a good idea to resolve that matter early. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this just be cutting off the nose to spite the face? --  spin control 09:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the significance, or even the relevance, of the question above. Could you be a bit more specific please? John Carter (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like some constructive comment? --  spin control 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved parties
–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The section The Nativity as myth appears to be perfectly citing reliable sources and consist of relevant material. However, a better title is probably needed - e.g. Historical accuracy/Historical grounding. There is no WP:OR here.
 * 2) The relevant comment from Asimov or other sources about no intention to be historically accurate should be included here as well, to provide balance.
 * 3) The table leaves much to be desired in its presentation. Two side-by-side timeline images may be better.
 * 4) The content of the table is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH as all it does is pull facts from the referenced passages. Easily verifiable from these sources.
 * 5) The only content contention I can see is regarding the row headings used.
 * 6) Suggested that the timelines/differences be re-presented as simple graphics and used perhaps earlier on in the article. This would provide a useful overview to the narrative of the nativity, as well as a schematic to the sources of the narrative (i.e. what comes from Mt and what from Lk)
 * Thanks for the comment. The Nativity as myth may use similar material, but the table has nothing to do with myth. And what's the Asimov reference? If someone turned the material into images how do you maintain them? No-one can edit them. --  spin control 21:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this stopped being "uninvolved parties" pretty quickly. Anyway, in answer to the first response to my comment: The Asimov quote is mentioned further up. If the images are SVG they'd be pretty easy to maintain. If the images just illustrate the 2 narratives there wouldn't be much narrative necessary they wouldn't need much maintenance, unless someone starts re-writing the bible.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll fix the "uninvolved parties" issue now with a small relocation. :-)
 * The image matter: There are many editors who don't know what "SVG" means or implies!
 * Got the Asimov reference now. --  spin control 03:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are also many editors who don't know how wiki tables work. People are expected to learn how to edit using the available tools. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I find the tables a little snakey. I've had two questions on the discussion page of Help:table for several days. --  spin control 12:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit this article. My comment is that of an uninvolved party, which I think was the title of the section when I commented. Since that section is now called "Further discussion on RfC: content standards" and "Uninvolved parties" is down here, I've added my comment.

The table is a bad idea. Tabular format invites a synthesis articulating a viewpoint, and that's exactly the result here. It doesn't matter what the KJV, NIV, or original Greek says; we aren't supposed to be interpreting primary sources. Instead, use paragraphs to discuss scholars' understanding of the narratives, with footnotes to reliable secondary sources, and additional notes/links to the relevant Bible verses. How do you know which verses are relevant? The secondary sources will say they are. Lose the table; use paragraphs; rely on secondary sources. Tom Harrison Talk 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to Orange Dog, the text itself is to my view also has too great an emphasis with alleged differences between the accounts, (repeated in at least three separate sections) and presents some of these as facts rather than theories.  Xan  dar  20:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The table deals with those issues that that each narratives deal with (annunciation and its aftermath, the logistics, the adoration and what happened after that -- what else in common do they deal with?), hence it highlights the differences in the accounts, while showing the similarities. Besides these you only have two stories going their separate ways. What else of the shared content would you put in to lessen the effect of "too great an emphasis with alleged differences between the accounts"?!
 * You are really overusing the term "fact" here. We are dealing with literary narratives, ie texts, and should be allowed to be treated as such. --  spin control 04:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything inherently problematic about a table comparing differences between the Gospel accounts; plenty of secondary sources will present such differences in tabular form. However, given that this is Wikipedia, it may be prudent to eliminate the table due to complaints about OR#SYNTH, etc.; on the other hand, it may be worth slavishly imitating the table in an exemplary secondary source, and explicitly saying "this is the way source X presents the differences as a table..." It may even be worth presenting two or more tables, if the secondary sources actually differ that much. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)r


 * The table adds nothing that cannot be done in prose. I support the removal of the table and adding the info in a well-sourced prose section. -- Secisek (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tables can be very effective means of communicating an overview of a situation, while one can get bogged down in prose. --  spin control 20:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As this section is supposed to be "uninvolved parties" I have moved the discussion which followed up to the previous section to leave "uninvolved parties" uninvolved. --  spin control 09:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The section and the table show us that Luke and Matthew are different. Whop-dee-do. If two witnesses remember a bank robbery differently, we don't conclude that the robbery was a myth. Witnesses often see the same event differently. Can we imagine a reader who has no problem with virgin birth, a heavenly choir, angels and a miraculous star, but then when he finds out that there are two inconsistent accounts, his faith is vanquished? This shouldn't be about making up a list of Bible inconsistencies. "Myths" are the beliefs of a dead religion. "Nativity as myth" is an inappropriate title. Thousands of authors have written about this stuff and Raymond Brown is just one of them. Kauffner (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems exceptionally hard for some to comprehend, but the table has zippo to do with myth, dead religion, vanquishing faith, or any of those other ghosts that haunt some. This is the sort of back rationalizations that are the food for apologetics and would be best dealt with in such a context.
 * You need to look at what scholars do in the field of biblical literary analysis. The reaction I've had over the table has been one fear and loathing rather than reason and scholarship.
 * The material of the table has nothing to do with the simplistic notion of different witnesses reporting slightly different perspectives. (Such content differences don't go away with sleights of hand.) It is a step towards a literary analysis of the sources of the material. Showing how the birth narratives were written is a worthy endeavor. To show it requires the narrative seams to be understood and acknowledged. --  spin control 11:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the evidence of Folk Tales
One evidence of folk tales is that they have appeared in so many different versions with slightly altered wordings. A folk tale is traditional narrative, usually anonymous, handed down orally.Papias of Hierapolis, working in the 1st half of the 2nd century is the earliest historian concerning the origins of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew. Papias wrote, "he came across other accounts which came to him through an unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Savior and some other more mythical things." Reference Eusebius' Church History Chapter 39, Part 11 and 12 Shouldn't this be added in the Myth section? Kazuba (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are specifically proposing here. Are there particular incidents reputedly from these traditions you are seeking to add? If the answer is yes, I have to assume that they should be added. If you're just thinking to add something like "other stories are said to have existed as well," I suppose we could add something to that effect, but think that the same could probably be said about most Biblical articles, and probably is said somewhere among them already. We generally don't repeat data which is relevant to any of a number of articles relating to the same subject in every relevant article, but try to include it once in one of the more central articles of that subject, and drop it from the rest unless there is specific reason to include it in specific individual cases. Could you be a bit more specific please? John Carter (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Worst translation and most irresponsible use of Papias ever. Litteracy is good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.249.182 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Virgin birth
I find that this article tends to confuse the gospel narrative of the nativity with the doctrine of the virgin birth. First of all, most scholars do agree that Jesus was really born somewhere and that he did have a historical existence (cf historical Jesus). Secondly, the virgin birth is a dogma of faith that most likely cannot be held by the majority of non-Christian or non-religious people, because it implicitly claims that Jesus is divine. Finally, many reliable scholars do agree that the city of Bethlehem is a plausible place for Jesus to have been born, and only a minority have really questioned this geographical location. These questions aside, Jesus was probably born a short time before or after the first century AD (or CE if you prefer). ADM (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * John and Mark say he was born in Nazareth, so its two to two in the Gospels. There is an obvious motive to claim Jesus was born in Bethlehem even if he was actually born elsewhere: It fulfills a prophecy made by . "Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." Kauffner (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)