Talk:Nativity of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Saints Nativity of Jesus is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Holiday-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of objectives or join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Nativity of Jesus was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 20, 2007

Contents

[edit] Bible references

I think this could do with some actual Bible references. I've heard that there are quite a few common misconceptions about the scene and that modern representations are flawed in some ways. Also, how does the represenation differ around the world? violet/riga (t) 14:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus' DOB

Though Jesus's birth is celebrated on 25 December, most scholars agree that it is unlikely he was actually born on this date. - Could somebody expand on this? --NicholasJones 19:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- This is because of the whole "shepards watched their flocks by night" bit. No self respecting shepard would have their flocks out in midwinter. To be internally accurate, a more temperate date would work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.20.67 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caesar Augustus not Herod -- and Three Gifts not Three Wise Men

Just a couple quick refekathrynmj kathryn rences. It was Caesar Augustus not King Herod who decreed the tax census (Luke 2:1). Herod ruled Judea but Caesar ruled all of the Roman Empire (including Judea)

Regarding the wise men: that event has some interchange taking place with Herod (Matthew 2), and likely took place a while after Jesus was born (but while he was still a baby and still in Bethelem). The Bibie never limits the number of wise men to three. The Bible references THREE types of gifts but does not reference how many wise men (Matthew 2:1-13). The Bible indicates they came "from the "east to Jerusalem" but it does not specifically note Persia. Many believe that Persia is the likely location. There are similar references to the birth of Kings and stars from that area. In addition, the term "Magi" may tie to the higher-level ruling members (king makers) of the Persian "parlement" of the time (i.e., to politicians not astrologers as some reference).

Tesseract501@aol.com; September 30, 2005.

[edit] Born in a Stable - No!

The Bible didn't say Jesus was born in a stable. It says he was placed in a manger. One thing doesn't translate to another. Just like most scholars think he wasn't born in an inn. 165.21.154.109 10:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply: I think the conjecture is sound (about Jesus being born in a Stable). The usual place to find a manger is in a stable. Mangers are located in places where animals are fed or kept (hence, a stable of some sort). It is possible, but I think unlikely, that Joseph found and moved a manger to a different location (if he found a portable manger). The reference is clear that there was not enough room for the newborn Jesus to be placed in the Inn keepers beds.
There was no room for them at the Inn, and the newborn Jesus was placed in a manger. Luke 2:7, "And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."
The angels referenced it as a sigh for the shepherds: Luke 2:12, "And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Luke 2:15-16, "And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger."
Regardless of where the manger was located, the very humble sorroundings of Jesus' birth is one of the awe inspiring aspects of the Nativity story.

Tesseract501@aol.com; September 30, 2005

Interesting enough, proper translation suggests that Jesus was born downstairs in a relative's home. Th word "inn" in Greek being "kataluma" also translates to "upstairs." Jesus was born in a manger within a family home, because there was not enough room upstairs.

[edit] link to 'sing'

Why do you have a link to the word 'sing'? If you click, what you get has zero to do with the nativity!

[edit] References and external links

Hey. What happened to the external links? -- CQ 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also missing are the categories. see here.


[edit] Picture is stupid

A medieval depiction of the betrothal of Mary and Joseph from the Nuremberg Chronicle. Why does Mary have yellow hair. She did not get a virgin birth (i.e. no mention exists of her not getting born from the sexual union of two Judeans.) Enda80 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Yellow was the mediaeval way to depict blonde hair. You'll also notice that Mary and Joseph are being anachronistically married by a Christian bishop - people's awareness of how things were was often locked into their own time - much like how people sometimes depict Romeo and Juliet as figures involved in gang war between modern american gangsters, rather than in a late mediaeval continental europe setting. Clinkophonist 17:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. The blonde hair a) became common following the vision of StBridget of Sweden of the nativity, which mentions this, b) is much easier for a cheapo woodcut colourist to achieve a good effect with. Contemporaries well understood that the couple were married by a Jewish priest of the Temple, & more careful depictions of the day showed a "mitre" at 90 degrees to that of a Christian bishop, which they believed (not without some reason) to be the authentic headgear of a Jewish priest. But Michael Wolgemut and his workshop had over 600 woodcuts to do (for over 1800 different illustrations), & this one was probably designed to be used for other marriages as well.

Generally the pictures on this article are not well chosen however Johnbod 01:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not NPOV

"A minority of scholars believe that Luke, writing for a Hellenic audience, may have chosen to use the term Bethlehem (Hebrew for house of bread) due to similar terms occurring in a few mystery religions and an alleged syncretistic tendency in Luke's writing. Matthew on the other hand is often suspected by scholars of trying to portray Jesus as a new Moses, though obviously based in Palestine, and would have thus had a strong motive to demonstrate Jesus' claim to the Jewish crown by placing his birth in the city of king David."

Can someone explain how these assertions, being placed as undisputed fact, are NPOV? I have {{npov}} on this article until it can be sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I can get a citation for the "New Moses" bit. That is something I know I've read before. The other part about Luke needs a citation, but saying "a minority of scholars believe" removes the "undisputed fact" aspect, and makes it clear it is just a POV (and a minority one at that).--Andrew c 05:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Out of interest, if it is really so minor then why are we giving it such prominence? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that this passage adds much insight or meaning to the understanding of the Nativity of Jesus. It ought to be removed. - Icebird 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

I have restored the paras on Mark and by Zindler. Sourced material, that is plainly relevant, must not be removed without a clear concensus on here. I have amended Zindler to just speak of atheists. These paras are need for balance and without them a NPOV tag would be justified. BlueValour 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The stuff about Zindler basically just says that atheists don't believe in Christianity. Its not like he's an expert this subject. The Markan Priority is a rather technical one for the lead and already dealt under "Relationship among the Gospels"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauffner (talk • contribs)
The nativity is a contentious topic and it is essential that balancing views are included for NPOV. As I said, above, if you are not happy please argue the case here rather than unilaterally removing sourced material. BlueValour 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Any atheist viewpoint is pointless. Everybody knows what atheist believe, what Zindler has to say about the Nativity is is not needed since it is already known what conclusion and atheist would come to. You might as well as say the sky is blue while you are at it. And if we need the atheist view, then we also need the Buddhist view, the Hindu view, the Wiccan view, the Agnostic view and so on. The atheist view on the Nativity belongs in the article on atheism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Exciteops
A contrary opinion on the Nativity of Jesus is relevant in an article headed Nativity of Jesus. It has already been pointed out to you that balance is required, as it is for any article in Wikipedia. Moriori 08:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you - if you can source Buddhist, Hindu and Wiccan views please feel free to add them. BlueValour 16:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The Nativity of Jesus is part of Christianity. I don't think we need to explicitly state that non-Christians don't accept Christian dogma, that is generally assumed. I think the only notable issue is that Muslims DO accept parts of the Nativity story. Ashmoo 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Ashmoo. I have been thinking about this issue a great deal since reading the article. Then today it especially struck me while reading another Wikipedia article. In the article on semi-automatic pistols, there is NO section for gun-control measures and opponents of semi-automatic pistols. The reason is that such opinions have no place in an article about semi-automatic pistols -- the article is about the weapon, not the politics of the weapon. Same thing with the Nativity of Jesus -- those that want to include information other than Christian dogma should create such an article as part of a larger article on disagreements with Christian belief. This article is not the correct place for an argument in favor of or against the Nativity of Jesus. I strongly recommend deleting such sections unless someone raises a valid point for their inclusion. Hecman111 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have returned the reference to the fact that many modern scholars view the birth narratives as partly or wholly invented to the opening section, since it is a key point of interpretation for the topic. Firstly, these views are common among Christian scholars; Secondly, the Nativity stories are often reported as history, and Jesus is a historical figure as well as a theological one and therefore this article of interest to non-Christians as well. I have removed the section on 'what atheists think' as it hardly seems relevant, this view is widely shared, not just by atheists, and anyway I'm not sure you can say what atheists think as if they all believed the same things. Finally, I have removed the reference to Muslims - it would be interesting to have a detailed reference to Muslim views here, but it needs to be more substantial than this. Anyone? Rbreen 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your changes Rbreen. Somehow they seem much more appropriate for the material and present the scholars' views in an clearly unbiased manner. I believe that the article in its new form is inclusive of multiple perspectives in a way that still respects the sensitive nature of Christian belief. I suggest any potential further changes by others be discussed here first. Hecman111 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
i think alot of people are looking at this the wrong way for example if i went to the Zeus page their would be an objective and historic view, somehow i doubt anyone would be claiming he was real and nobody would even suggest that we should add the ancient Greeks point of view to respect their wishes, that's crap, being sensitive to Christian beliefs has no place in an encyclopedia, which is what wikipedia is supposed to be, if you want to say the jesus story is real go to conservipedia. Myth should really have no place here unless specifically stated as myth. and hecman111 your argument makes no sense there's no anti-jesus group or something no ones after jesus, but if guns didn't exist then it would be portrayed that way on wikipedia. for example look and the unicorns page the first sentence is "A unicorn (from Latin unus 'one' and cornu 'horn') is a mythological creature" straight away the premise of the article is obvious, nobody claims them as real and nobody should claim that jesus is real except that there may or maynot of be a person born of natural means who started a cult and had the name jesus, who didn't perform miracles or did anything divine. thats objectivity anything else is a complete miss-representation of the facts. (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Nestle

Why on earth is the word "Nestle" in the section Immanuel? It was added by an anonymous user. Does it have some appropriate meaning here? As far as I know it's the name of a food company. Chris Wood 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When was Jesus born?

"Though Jesus's birth is celebrated on 25 December, there is a feud between christians and scholars wether this is actually true."

This sentence logically implies that no Christians are scholars and that no scholars are Christians. I'm not sure that "feud" is an appropriate way of describing the discussion and I don't know that many Christians believe that Christmas is the anniversary of Jesus' birth. It is rather an annual celebration of the nativity and the doctrine of the incarnation. Stratocastermagic 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I fixed the scholar thing by writing just scholars.-User:Mike Bags

Incarnation is March 25, nine months before Christmas. Because Jesus was considered the "sun of righteousness," he was associated with solar days. December 25 was a solstice celebration in ancient times. There's no feud -- there's only 1/365 chance that Jesus was actually born on December 25. Kauffner 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin POV

If one were to study the immerse data related to finding the stories of Jesus in BCE sources, that scholar would certainly find what (non-Christian) Joseph Campbell did, that every culture has myths of hero who dies and resurrects and that these are manifestations of Jungian archetypes, not one group copying another. Indeed, the virgin mother was a motif in South American before Europe interacted with them! Therefore, a causal link between Osiris appears strong but is really unprovable. --Ephilei 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is actually no relation to Osiris or Horus, mythological beings that were not born of a human virgin mother. In any case, this article is about the "Nativity" in general and not about the "Virgin Birth". Placing the section in question at the top clearly shows the POV pushing intent of it. I removed it therefore. Str1977 (smile back) 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apocrypha

I was expecting to find some accounts of the nativity from the apocrypha here. Don't some of the traditions actually come from them? --JimWae 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There are some references here (location section etc) but not a full acount. Johnbod 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location edits

I edited the section on location. Some info was not specifically on the location of the nativity (flight into Egypt), or was already covered in a previous section. There were some bad errors also that I fixed. For example, it stated that "the tradition of the birth location derives from the translation of a Greek term which ambiguously means either gathering room (an upper room in a home) or cave" — kataluma means "inn" or "gathering room", and has nothing to do with the cave. It only is a question of where (inn or guestroom) Mary and Joseph found no room before going to the manger/cave. It also said that the Arabic Infancy Gospel "mentions the ox", but I don't believe that it does. It also stated that the Protoevangelium "introduces the innkeeper" - I don't believe it does. Lostcaesar 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, also, for "τωι" I was unable to add a circumflex to the omega, nor was I able to write the iota as a subscript, even in polytonic, so if someone could do that it would be great. Lostcaesar 11:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick-failed "good article" nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that has large numbers of {{fact}} tags, as this one does, must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Other serious issues present in the article include, but are not limited to: the overuse of primary source material from the Bible (more secondary sources are desirable in order to avoid original research), the use of cquotes for block quoting (something expressly prohibited by WP:MOSQUOTE) and the improper formatting of many of the references; just a named url for the Biblical chapter is not sufficient to verify the reliability of a source - there are many translations of the text. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth

In brief, Mathew specifically states that Jesus was born while Herod The Great was alive. Luke states that Herod was king when John The Baptist was conceived but does not actually say he was alive when Jesus was born. The chapter in Luke on Jesus' birth mentions the census in 6 ad but does not ever refer to Herod still being king - seeing as he died 10 years before. It does state that Mary conceived before John was born - quite the gestation! Most importantly, however, is that nowhere does Luke mention Herod in connection with Jesus's birth - just in relation to John's. s-slaytor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.80.110 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The year of birth cannot be reconciled between the two biblical texts and what is known of classical history. Two hundred years of trying has not been successful. The now traditional estimate of 4 B.C. is the best effort. (The other challenge is to date the crucifixion. It is too bad that the ancients didn't give and get calendars for Christmas gifts.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs a criticism section

this article really needs a criticism section because it does not reflect a fair and unbiased view. mainly it needs a section stating the many inconsistencies between Mathew and Luke's accounts of the birth, the glaring similarities between the nativity story and many earlier myths and creeds, also that December 25 is long venerated in pagan tradition in connection with the winter solstice which was the likely reason that it was chosen as the date of Chirst's birth. not to mention that there were no other historical records of the birth, life or death of Jesus besides what was in Mathew and Luke. most of all the section should be well referenced. some ideas where the information can come from is Robert J. Miller, Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God (Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polestar Press, 1993 Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (Washington, D.C.: Joseph J. Binns/New Republic, 1977), pp. 154, 456 the works of Gerald Massey just to name a few, many historians have problems with the nativity story and their view should be well documented in this article i don't believe that two lines stating that "Many modern scholars consider that the two Gospel accounts present two different and conflicting narratives, and view both stories as "pious fictions".[3] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels" is enough information on the subject, the key word here is "many" we should not fear insulting the Chirstian community by giving a fair and unbiased view on the nativity otherwise we are doing nobody any favors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1NosferatuZodd1 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This viewpoint is actually covered in detail in the body of the article - but perhaps the section heading "Relationship between the Gospels" isn't very informative - I will try giving it a more representative title. --Rbreen (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


An important point has been missed by the article. The article largely treats the Nativity of Jesus as an historical event, and hence immediately gives rise to a host of arguments. It is inappropraite to treat the Nativity of Jesus as a historical event because the historicity is highly contentious (including between Christians). What the Nativity of Jesus actually is, is a story, and should be properly represented as such. The Nativity of Jesus can either be said to be a specific example of the general mythological story of a god mates with human female to give birth to a god on Earth, or it can be said to be a development of one of the earlier such stories (eg from ancient Egypt from where some stories for the old testament derived).

Within the article on the Nativity of Jesus (ie the story) there should be a section discussing the story's relevance to Christians, and any special interpretations of the story that various Christians subscribe to.

By separating out the issues about the story, from issues of belief, we hopefully will be able to develop a greater degree of consensus. C Birch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.149.60 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Perhaps we need a more balanced look at this.--Rbreen (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Rbreen here the fact of the matter is that this is an encyclopedia after all and peoples beliefs should not even be taken into account other than documenting those believes in an objective way. they defiantly should not be portrayed as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1NosferatuZodd1 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful link perhaps?

Here's something I was just reading; [1] that has a number of references which might be useful to this article, under Scholars, on the subject of Jesus's birthplace, specifically that a number of authoritative sources apparently find it unlikely that it was Bethlehem, for a range of reasons. Also as pointed out in this link, it includes references to the fact that while John doesn't contain any active information about where the birthplace was, it does give an indication that it wasn't Bethlehem, which seems relevant to the subject.Number36 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)