Talk:Nativity of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Nativity of Jesus is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Bible references 2 Jesus' DOB 3 Caesar Augustus not Herod -- and Three Gifts not Three Wise Men 4 Born in a Stable - No! 5 link to 'sing' 6 References and external links 7 Picture is stupid 8 Not NPOV 9 Balance 10 Nestle 11 When was Jesus born? 12 Origin POV 13 Apocrypha

[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)

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

Just a couple quick references. 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"—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[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)