Trivializing the Nativity—Wikipedia’s Gift to the Christmas Season

As previous articles in this series have shown, the bias of Wikipedia admins and select editors who dominate its ranks has “democratized” information in a highly undemocratic way, especially when it comes to religion. But perhaps one of the most glaring and offensive examples is their trivialization of the miracle of Christmas and the birth of the Savior: Wikipedia’s article on the “Virgin birth of Jesus.”

In its passion to emphasize NPOV (Neutral Point of View), the Wikipedia hierarchy uses so-called “authoritative sources” over primary sources, including scripture, to define the beliefs of religious denominations. This is particularly noteworthy when it comes to the New Testament, which forms the foundational beliefs of the world’s 2.3 billion Christians who represent 31 percent of the population of Earth and 81 percent of the world’s religious population (those who believe in a religion). In their hubris, Wikipedia editors and admins do not consider the gospel as “reliable” and classify it as such.

Matthew 1:18-23

The Virgin Birth of Jesus comes to us through New Testament. According to the King James translation of Matthew 1:18-23:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

^“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

^“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

^“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

^“Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

^“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the English translation of these same verses is:

“Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph,^* but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.

“Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man,^* yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.

“Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord^* appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.

“She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus,^* because he will save his people from their sins.”

“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:

 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.”

The religious significance of the Virgin Birth:

Wikipedia’s treatment of this article denigrates a pillar of the Christian faith.

As article on crossway.org by J. I. Packer (1926–2020), who served as Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology at Regent College, explains:

“For the past century and a half, skepticism about both Jesus’s virgin birth and his physical resurrection has been quite unreasonably strong. It began as part of a rationalistic quest for a non-miraculous Christianity, and though that quest is now out of fashion (and a good thing, too), the skepticism lingers on, clinging to the minds of Christian people as the smell of cigarettes clings to the room after the ashtrays have been cleared. It is no doubt possible (though it is neither easy nor natural) to believe in the incarnation of the eternal, preexisting Son while disbelieving the entry and exit miracles; greater inconsistencies have been known; but it is much more logical, indeed the only reasonable course, to hold that since on other grounds we acknowledge Jesus and the Word made flesh, these two miracles, as elements in the larger miracle of the Son’s incarnate life, raise no special difficulty.”

Wikipedia editors trivialize the miracle, implying that Matthew’s rendition was based on his ignorance of the science of fertilization, stating:

“… the modern scholarly consensus is that it [the Virgin Birth] rests on slender historical foundations, though conservative scholars maintain its historicity.”

With that single quote from the seven-page section of a chapter of the book Matthew: A Commentary, Volume 1 by Frederick Dale Bruner, Wikipedia editors “authenticate” that even Christian theologians have disavowed the concept. Is it just an oversight, then, that Wikipedia does not include Bruner’s conclusion: Today, the traditional doctrine of the virgin birth is still defended by conservative theologians.

Equating belief in the Virgin Birth to Ignorance

The article continues in its denigration of the beliefs of practicing Christians by classifying the belief as a product of ignorance:

“The ancient world did not possess a thoroughly modern understanding that male semen and female ovum were both needed to form an embryo.”

Thus, with a keyboard stroke, they relegate the belief of the Immaculate Conceptions and God’s Grace to the likes of the beliefs of the Indigenes People of the South Pacific island of Vanuatu, who, during WW II, created a religion and worship replicas of aircraft after warplanes dropped food and supplies on the island.

Wikipedia Talk Pages and the “construction” of knowledge

A peer-reviewed article by René König, published in the Journal of Information, Communication & Society, focuses on Wikipedia. It states, in part:

“Drawing on insights from the sociology of knowledge, Wikipedia’s talk pages are conceptualized as an arena where reality is socially constructed.”

“On the talk pages, these views collide, thereby serving as a useful case study to examine the role of experts and lay participants in the process of knowledge construction on Wikipedia. The study asks how the parties negotiate ‘what actually happened’ and which knowledge should be represented in the Wikipedia entry. The conflicting points of view overload the discursive capacity of the contributors. The community reacts by marginalizing opposing knowledge and protecting or immunizing the article against these disparate views. This is achieved by rigorously excluding knowledge which is not verified by external expert authorities. Therefore, in this case, lay participation did not lead to a ‘democratization’ of knowledge production, but rather re-enacted established hierarchies.”

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across biased and skewed religious coverage in Wikipedia, we encourage you to submit an article or a write-up of how Wikipedia has misrepresented religion; send this to our editors at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights are very valuable for ensuring accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.