lpetrich

I'd recommend showing that it's not original research, like citing some source which contains such a table -- that's a Wikipedia policy that its admins are not likely to change anytime soon.

And No Robots, I hope that you are willing to accept that most other people don't think that your eccentric highbrow theology is the bee's knees.

thedistillers

I have already given my opinion on this; I do think comparing 2 texts is original research. But what is and isn't "original research" is a gray area, so I don't see any point to argue. I leave it to TPTB to make a decision.

But just for the record, checking one of your "reference":


When dealing with the narrative found in Matthew the first thing necessary is to read the text through and understand the story being told, before reading in conjunction with other texts. In Mt 1.18 Joseph and Mary were engaged but did not yet live together. In Mt 1.24 Joseph took Mary as his wife, ie they lived together, but had no physical relations. This continued until the child was born. We are told in Mt 2.1 that it happened in Bethlehem. The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue. When the family returned from Egypt they were going back to their home in Judea, but, because of another warning, they didn't stay there but made their "home in a town called Nazareth", Mt 2.22-23. (And see the following section in the text.)

That's a 8 lines long "reference". If we refer to that particular entry only, I don't think it's pedantic to call this "original research".

No Robots

The point was that the Wikipedia editors resist any explicit reference to a movement within contemporary Judaism to reclaim Christ as one of its own. This movement is widely attested:

• "Behold! The Jewish Jesus" / Howard Jacobson. The Guardian, January 9, 2009.
• "Re-Judaizing Jesus" / David Van Biema. Time, Mar. 12, 2008.
• A Jewish View of Jesus / Hyman Gerson Enelow
• Yahvism: And Other Discourses / Adolph Moses

As for what you call my highbrow theology, I am propounding nothing more than Judaism in all its ancient purity:

• Shema Yisra'el, Jahve Elohenu, Jahve Ehad = Hear, O Israel, Beingness is our God, Beingness is One.—Deut. 6:4
• Know that the whole of being is one individual and nothing else.—Maimonides
• Under this name we adore God as Eternal and Infinite Existence, as the source of all being.—Yahvism: And Other Discourses / Adolph Moses

spin

Ahh, it's a footnote. And you have an earlier version. Look at the table here: the footnote also supplies two secondary sources, to whit:

In Mt 1.18 Joseph and Mary were engaged but did not yet live together. In Mt 1.24 Joseph took Mary as his wife, ie they lived together, but had no physical relations. This continued until the child was born. We are told in Mt 2.1 that it happened in Bethlehem. The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue. When the family returned from Egypt they were going back to their home in Judea, but, because of another warning, they didn't stay there but made their "home in a town called Nazareth", Mt 2.22-23. The view that Bethlehem was the home of Joseph can be seen in Brown, Raymond E.;Achtemeier, Paul J. (1978). Mary in the New Testament. Paulist Press. p. 24. ISBN 0809121689, 9780809121687. ; and in Marsh, Clive;Moyise, Steve (2005). Jesus and the Gospels. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 39. ISBN 056704372X, 9780567043726.

I tried hard to accommodate whatever specific issues could be raised. That is how you work toward consensus. The response was consistently and resolutely unhelpful.


spin

mountainman

Dear Spin,

I recently posted a note about WIKI's Josephus on Jesus "discussion" page.
It too is classified as being within the scope of WikiProject Christianity ...

All this is simply apologetics in disguise. Apologetics always finds consensus. Surely everyone can see this. You would do better to maintain your own pages. WikiProject Christian Apologetics and WikiProject Christianity cannot be differentiated. You are rarely going to win a battle on the opponents home territory, since you are invading their holy wiki-space. If you truly consider it a battle, you need to quickly adopt alternate publication strategies.

In regard to the "Birth Narrative comparison" I think it is good. At a glance we can see the salient issues being presented tabularised. Does wonders for the big picture on agreement (or otherwise) between the two gospels for example on selected details. You should produce this elsewhere. It is a valuable precis on the basic data.

WikiProject Christianity and televison have at least one thing in common.
There is an OFF switch.


Best wishes,


Pete

JoeWallack

JW:
Excellent table Spin. Wikipedia is intended to be a dictionary so the organization is usually by specific subjects and not by general issues such as contradictions. Your table lists all the differences so it has a polemical flavor to it.

Even though all of your points are supported by Brown in his masterpiece, The Birth of the Messiah, and he highlights the differences on page 35, I can understand an objective editor at Wikipedia thinking all the differences in one table are a little too much for an encyclopedia that is already giving Brown's related conclusion:

and detail differences:

JW:
I think for the most part Wikipedia's policy of prohibiting original research is preventing Christians from adding apologetics since there are a lot more of them than you and they are much more motivated. This does lead to comical positions in the short term. It's clear that Richard Carrier is the foremost authority on the Birth Dating error Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006) that the world has ever known and his related article is in a category by itself (so to speak) as the best on the subject, yet Wikipedia decided that he could not be referenced on the subject because he has not published anything on it in print. But this rule is very efficient at preventing crap from either side. Believe it or not, most people, unlike you, are not more knowledgeable than Bible scholars (except for the Skeptics here, of course).

Your fine table illustrating the (as my daughter would say) "ginormous" differences between the Infancy Narratives is more than welcome though at ErrancyWiki Matthew 1 since this site is intended to be for Polemics.



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Correction. "Encyclopedia".

Colbert had a great comment regarding Conservapedia's self-proclaimed need to create itself because of Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias, "They don't trust you to write what you think."



Joseph

"I thought I made a mistake once but it turned out I was wrong." - JW

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
I just tried to edit the related Wiki page and found out that I've been suspended indefinitely for supposedly being a sock-puppet of spin. I was never notified and apparently there is now no way for me to communicate with Wikipedia in order to dispute. I had heard of bias of Christian Administrators at Wikipedia but I had no idea. Obviously I got the attention of the Christian Administrators there and this was the only solution they could think of. For the Christians here you should be proud of what your fellow Christians are willing to do to promote Jesus.

While this suspension is in effect it is open season on lying for Jesus here and at ErrancyWiki.

What I was going to write Spin was that Bart Ehrman, the best known Bible scholar, lists as serious differences in Jesus, Interrupted, every observation you make in your table. Ehrman has a major related general point that the reason major contradictions in the Christian Bible are often not noticed is because people do not read the Bible horizontally. Exactly the point of your table.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

spin

How exactly did you find this out Joe? I feel like breaking a few heads.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
This is what I get when I try to edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...us&action=edit

JW:
gentlexit was suspended for the same reason. So this is how the game (lying for Jesus) is played at Wikipedia. Disgusting. For all my fellow truth-speakers here, be sure and send my regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MBisanz.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page