This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Census of Quirinius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
"most Christian scholars" is unsourced. A lot of Christian scholars kowtow to the mainstream academic view. So, unless the editor means that only fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are Christians, there is no ground for their statement. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb ( talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Samjmv003: tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
After reading the article, I'm quite settled in my consideration that the reference in the gospel of Luke has been misapplied and mis-specified particularly with reference to the introductory discussion in the article.
The article says that Luke placed the timing of the Census but Quirinius in BC4 when it actually occurred in BC 6,..however a comparison of the following references using different bible versions paints a completely different picture:
Luke 2:2 (And thisG3778 taxingG582 was firstG4413 madeG1096 when CyreniusG2958 was governorG2230 of Syria.)G4947 [KJV STRONG] Luke 2:2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ESV] Luke 2:2 When this first census took place, Quirinius was the governor of Syria. [GNB] Luke 2:2 This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ASV]
These texts shows clearly that Luke says this census was first made when Quirinius was governor, which could verily be in BC 6, and the reading of the texts shows reference to an earlier historical period as contrasted wit the time of the event of the Birth of Christ to which the primary focus of Luke is.
Furthermore, given that at this time the Roman Empire had reached what as come to be known as the Augustan Age [Height of Glory] and was a world empire in the actual sense. Taking logistics and planning, such a worldwide census would not have been possible within a year, but could have taken years.
I suggest that the census was started when Quirinius was governor in BC 6 and was continued to this time forcing Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth. Mcfaddent ( talk) 00:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. You'll notice I have just added a section on the funerary stele. I think it is important to give it this much detail, because the stele is not discussed anywhere else on the English Wikipedia, but I am aware that at the moment it looks like it is disproportionately long given the shortness of the article and the fact that the stele is a fairly minor element of the topic. However, I would like to expand the article in a couple of ways, and possibly go for GA status. Since I know other people are also writing here, let me get feedback before I go on.
First, I think this article should be laid out in a way that makes it clear that the historical census is the primary topic, and what Christians did with it comes second. (I raised this once before and I think there was agreement in principle.) So I've used the distinction between headings and subheadings to divide it into two main parts, first on the historical event, then on the Christian tradition. I'd like to expand the account of the historical event with more detail, and also add a subsection there on Josephus.
The discussion of Luke needs to go more into his use of the census as a literary motif, and focus less on whether he was historically accurate, though of course his inaccuracies need to be clearly stated - but they are not the most interesting thing here. It should also be mentioned that the census also appears in Acts.
The section on exegesis needs to go more into the theological aspects. At present it focusses only on refuting the silly arguments of fundamentalists, and again, while that needs to stay, it is not the most interesting thing.
And there needs to be some discussion of the census in European culture - we already have two excellent paintings, but the art history ought to have text too, and I suspect that if we look we will find studies of the census in literature.
I would be keen to put some more work into this, but not if it is going to be reverted by others who reject the concept, so I'd be glad of feedback and if possible consensus before I do anything more. Doric Loon ( talk) 15:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This article should be based on two legs - the factual history of the census, from Roman records, and the gospel story, which is well known to most Christian readers but is largely fiction. The associated art is fine for illustration, but is not notable enough to be a major section in itself and must pass the WP:UNDUE rule.
Wdford (
talk) 14:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently the Lede states ". . . died between 5 BCE and 1 CE."
However, the following Section has "c. 72 – 4 BCE", and the linked article Herod the Great offers two scholarly estimates of 37–4 BCE ( Schürer) and 36–1 BCE (Filmer).
Whence comes the Lede's 1 CE? It's only one year's difference, there being no historical Year 0 (although astronomers have to use one, because mathematics, so astronomical dates BCE differ from historical ones by -1), but in view of the sensitivity of dates in this context, precision or cited scholarly disagreements should be observed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.101.197 ( talk) 07:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Census of Quirinius. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Have the records of the Census of Quirinius survived? Were Joseph, Mary, and Jesus recorded in the census?
The story of the family travelling to be recorded in the census is widely known but I have never seen the follow-up detail mentioned, i.e. that the family was then actually inscribed in the census.
On the face of it, it seems highly unlikely that the census records bearing the names of the family threesome survived from ancient times, but is the fate of these census records known?
Did other censuses record the presence of the individuals, either before or after Jesus was born? Would a later census, if it had survived, throw light on the question of whether Jesus had siblings? Perhaps censuses were held much less frequently than in modern times. O'Dea ( talk) 16:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Osuaggiefan November 9, 2023 at 8:25 amLog in to Reply
It seems to me that it is widely believed that in the era of the second temple Jewish people kept massive genealogical records in the temple. Why do people believe that? Is there any attestation for that either inside the canonical Bible or outside? Thank you so much for your time.
BDEhrman November 13, 2023 at 7:18 pmLog in to Reply
No, no attestation. Modern myth. Nothing to it.
BDEhrman November 27, 2023 at 12:03 pmLog in to Reply
1. There were no genealogical records in the Temple. If someone says there were, they’re makin’ stuff up. 2.Luke’s genealogy can’t be Mary’s. Read it closely: it goes to Joseph, not Mary, explicitly. The idea that it is comes from an attempt to reconcile the two by noting that the Infancy narrative in Matthew focuses on Joseph and the one in Luke on Mary so, hey, maybe they’re different genealogies. They are indeed different. But they are both of Joseph, not Mary.
Marc Lipshitz
Follow
I am an Orthodox Jew and have studied in Kollel and Yeshivah.5y
What happened to the Jewish genealogical records after AD 70?
There never were Jewish genealogical records. I don’t know who came up with the idea that all the records were stored in the Temple- the simple reality is that there were no genealogical records. Simply think about the impossibility of gathering and storing information in an era where travel between places took months or years….
The practice of recording the genealogies of Israel, especially the priests and the Levites, is evident in Second Temple Jewish texts, and they were used to authenticate proper pedigrees for marriage.
24:33 contrary to what people say ancient jews did not keep their genealogies 24:38 people tell you this all the time it's absolutely not true jews did not so some jew living in the 24:46 year you know 29 a.d he didn't know who his 24:51 great-great-grandfather was any more than you do they didn't do that but people think because they reading the 24:56 bible you've got all these genealogies this is what jews are doing the whole time no they absolutely did not do that 25:01 so they had two they had no sources of information they wanted to trace jesus 25:07 lying back to david because he's the son of david well what if you don't know who his great-great-great-great-grandfather 25:12 is well you got to make something up and so they came up with something 25:18 whether you agree with that explanation or not it's a contradiction
This is an encyclopedia article about an event in history, not a Sunday school lesson. The stuff you quote is exactly what I meant when I referred to "desperate attempts of Christian fundamentalists to make the Luke story seem accurate". I have read it all before many times and it is all a load of tosh. The Luke story is objectively historically false. The dating is wrong, end of story, and even the sources you quote do not attempt to defend "Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. " People did have to return to their homes for certain Roman censuses, yes, but the idea that someone had to go to a city of a supposed ancestor from a thousand years earlier for a census is absurd. Actual historians of Roman history, as opposed to "theologically conservative" propagandists, dismiss this story as laughable. However I do not believe in one person trying to force their view onto a WP article, if I were the only person saying these things I would accept consensus but I am not. Smeat75 ( talk) 13:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Please obey WP:RS/AC. If you don't, then bona fide Wikipedians will have to revert your edits.
An article about a historical census should not give equal validity to mainstream history and religious apologetics; these two are simply not in the same league. If the IP calls that "POV" and "biased": Yes. We are biased. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This version has now become widely accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars pursuing historical-critical approaches.10 [...] I turn to the question of the dating of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke not because I wish to claim that I have found the definitive solution to this puzzle, which has occupied the minds of New Testament theologians for centuries.
— from the horse's mouth
I was disappointed to see that the reference to the Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus was deleted. The reason given in the edit summary was that the Syrian census was a separate census and thus "tangential at best". However, the title of this article is "Census of Quirinius", not "Census of Quirinius in Judea", and thus the Syrian part of his census-taking work seems to me to be entirely relevant here. Rather than getting into revert conflicts about this, I have created a new article on the stele, which you will find at Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus - I think it deserves that. However, I do think that readers searching for information on the census in Luke may find that interesting and helpful, and so there should be a link to it from here. I will start by making a "see also". Doric Loon ( talk) 21:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Census of Quirinius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
"most Christian scholars" is unsourced. A lot of Christian scholars kowtow to the mainstream academic view. So, unless the editor means that only fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are Christians, there is no ground for their statement. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb ( talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Samjmv003: tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
After reading the article, I'm quite settled in my consideration that the reference in the gospel of Luke has been misapplied and mis-specified particularly with reference to the introductory discussion in the article.
The article says that Luke placed the timing of the Census but Quirinius in BC4 when it actually occurred in BC 6,..however a comparison of the following references using different bible versions paints a completely different picture:
Luke 2:2 (And thisG3778 taxingG582 was firstG4413 madeG1096 when CyreniusG2958 was governorG2230 of Syria.)G4947 [KJV STRONG] Luke 2:2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ESV] Luke 2:2 When this first census took place, Quirinius was the governor of Syria. [GNB] Luke 2:2 This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ASV]
These texts shows clearly that Luke says this census was first made when Quirinius was governor, which could verily be in BC 6, and the reading of the texts shows reference to an earlier historical period as contrasted wit the time of the event of the Birth of Christ to which the primary focus of Luke is.
Furthermore, given that at this time the Roman Empire had reached what as come to be known as the Augustan Age [Height of Glory] and was a world empire in the actual sense. Taking logistics and planning, such a worldwide census would not have been possible within a year, but could have taken years.
I suggest that the census was started when Quirinius was governor in BC 6 and was continued to this time forcing Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth. Mcfaddent ( talk) 00:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. You'll notice I have just added a section on the funerary stele. I think it is important to give it this much detail, because the stele is not discussed anywhere else on the English Wikipedia, but I am aware that at the moment it looks like it is disproportionately long given the shortness of the article and the fact that the stele is a fairly minor element of the topic. However, I would like to expand the article in a couple of ways, and possibly go for GA status. Since I know other people are also writing here, let me get feedback before I go on.
First, I think this article should be laid out in a way that makes it clear that the historical census is the primary topic, and what Christians did with it comes second. (I raised this once before and I think there was agreement in principle.) So I've used the distinction between headings and subheadings to divide it into two main parts, first on the historical event, then on the Christian tradition. I'd like to expand the account of the historical event with more detail, and also add a subsection there on Josephus.
The discussion of Luke needs to go more into his use of the census as a literary motif, and focus less on whether he was historically accurate, though of course his inaccuracies need to be clearly stated - but they are not the most interesting thing here. It should also be mentioned that the census also appears in Acts.
The section on exegesis needs to go more into the theological aspects. At present it focusses only on refuting the silly arguments of fundamentalists, and again, while that needs to stay, it is not the most interesting thing.
And there needs to be some discussion of the census in European culture - we already have two excellent paintings, but the art history ought to have text too, and I suspect that if we look we will find studies of the census in literature.
I would be keen to put some more work into this, but not if it is going to be reverted by others who reject the concept, so I'd be glad of feedback and if possible consensus before I do anything more. Doric Loon ( talk) 15:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This article should be based on two legs - the factual history of the census, from Roman records, and the gospel story, which is well known to most Christian readers but is largely fiction. The associated art is fine for illustration, but is not notable enough to be a major section in itself and must pass the WP:UNDUE rule.
Wdford (
talk) 14:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently the Lede states ". . . died between 5 BCE and 1 CE."
However, the following Section has "c. 72 – 4 BCE", and the linked article Herod the Great offers two scholarly estimates of 37–4 BCE ( Schürer) and 36–1 BCE (Filmer).
Whence comes the Lede's 1 CE? It's only one year's difference, there being no historical Year 0 (although astronomers have to use one, because mathematics, so astronomical dates BCE differ from historical ones by -1), but in view of the sensitivity of dates in this context, precision or cited scholarly disagreements should be observed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.101.197 ( talk) 07:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Census of Quirinius. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Have the records of the Census of Quirinius survived? Were Joseph, Mary, and Jesus recorded in the census?
The story of the family travelling to be recorded in the census is widely known but I have never seen the follow-up detail mentioned, i.e. that the family was then actually inscribed in the census.
On the face of it, it seems highly unlikely that the census records bearing the names of the family threesome survived from ancient times, but is the fate of these census records known?
Did other censuses record the presence of the individuals, either before or after Jesus was born? Would a later census, if it had survived, throw light on the question of whether Jesus had siblings? Perhaps censuses were held much less frequently than in modern times. O'Dea ( talk) 16:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Osuaggiefan November 9, 2023 at 8:25 amLog in to Reply
It seems to me that it is widely believed that in the era of the second temple Jewish people kept massive genealogical records in the temple. Why do people believe that? Is there any attestation for that either inside the canonical Bible or outside? Thank you so much for your time.
BDEhrman November 13, 2023 at 7:18 pmLog in to Reply
No, no attestation. Modern myth. Nothing to it.
BDEhrman November 27, 2023 at 12:03 pmLog in to Reply
1. There were no genealogical records in the Temple. If someone says there were, they’re makin’ stuff up. 2.Luke’s genealogy can’t be Mary’s. Read it closely: it goes to Joseph, not Mary, explicitly. The idea that it is comes from an attempt to reconcile the two by noting that the Infancy narrative in Matthew focuses on Joseph and the one in Luke on Mary so, hey, maybe they’re different genealogies. They are indeed different. But they are both of Joseph, not Mary.
Marc Lipshitz
Follow
I am an Orthodox Jew and have studied in Kollel and Yeshivah.5y
What happened to the Jewish genealogical records after AD 70?
There never were Jewish genealogical records. I don’t know who came up with the idea that all the records were stored in the Temple- the simple reality is that there were no genealogical records. Simply think about the impossibility of gathering and storing information in an era where travel between places took months or years….
The practice of recording the genealogies of Israel, especially the priests and the Levites, is evident in Second Temple Jewish texts, and they were used to authenticate proper pedigrees for marriage.
24:33 contrary to what people say ancient jews did not keep their genealogies 24:38 people tell you this all the time it's absolutely not true jews did not so some jew living in the 24:46 year you know 29 a.d he didn't know who his 24:51 great-great-grandfather was any more than you do they didn't do that but people think because they reading the 24:56 bible you've got all these genealogies this is what jews are doing the whole time no they absolutely did not do that 25:01 so they had two they had no sources of information they wanted to trace jesus 25:07 lying back to david because he's the son of david well what if you don't know who his great-great-great-great-grandfather 25:12 is well you got to make something up and so they came up with something 25:18 whether you agree with that explanation or not it's a contradiction
This is an encyclopedia article about an event in history, not a Sunday school lesson. The stuff you quote is exactly what I meant when I referred to "desperate attempts of Christian fundamentalists to make the Luke story seem accurate". I have read it all before many times and it is all a load of tosh. The Luke story is objectively historically false. The dating is wrong, end of story, and even the sources you quote do not attempt to defend "Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. " People did have to return to their homes for certain Roman censuses, yes, but the idea that someone had to go to a city of a supposed ancestor from a thousand years earlier for a census is absurd. Actual historians of Roman history, as opposed to "theologically conservative" propagandists, dismiss this story as laughable. However I do not believe in one person trying to force their view onto a WP article, if I were the only person saying these things I would accept consensus but I am not. Smeat75 ( talk) 13:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Please obey WP:RS/AC. If you don't, then bona fide Wikipedians will have to revert your edits.
An article about a historical census should not give equal validity to mainstream history and religious apologetics; these two are simply not in the same league. If the IP calls that "POV" and "biased": Yes. We are biased. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This version has now become widely accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars pursuing historical-critical approaches.10 [...] I turn to the question of the dating of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke not because I wish to claim that I have found the definitive solution to this puzzle, which has occupied the minds of New Testament theologians for centuries.
— from the horse's mouth
I was disappointed to see that the reference to the Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus was deleted. The reason given in the edit summary was that the Syrian census was a separate census and thus "tangential at best". However, the title of this article is "Census of Quirinius", not "Census of Quirinius in Judea", and thus the Syrian part of his census-taking work seems to me to be entirely relevant here. Rather than getting into revert conflicts about this, I have created a new article on the stele, which you will find at Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus - I think it deserves that. However, I do think that readers searching for information on the census in Luke may find that interesting and helpful, and so there should be a link to it from here. I will start by making a "see also". Doric Loon ( talk) 21:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)