Talk:Jesus

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What should this article be named?

A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname.

Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?

A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format.

Q3: Did Jesus exist?

A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Wikipedia?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

• Based on this Wikipedia search the phrase is widely used in Wikipedia.
• The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
• The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

• Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
• Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?

A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:

• Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
• Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
• It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."
• Finally, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?

A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

• Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
• A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
• More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc.

Q6: Why is the infobox so brief?

A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?

Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.

Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?

The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?

A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions.

Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?

A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.

Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus?

A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.

Q10: Why does the article state "[m]ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this?

A10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

Wasn't Jesus born in Bethlehem?

Why does the infobox not list Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace? Of the two books in the Bible that describe Jesus' birth, Luke and Matthew, they both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I know the Bible isn't exactly the ideal source, but wouldn't that be enough to put it as his birthplace? I am not a part of this article's editor-base so forgive me for my lack of knowledge. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Frequently asked question #6 - I guess this short discussion? --Onorem (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onorem: Thank you! – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"I know the Bible isn't exactly the ideal source, but wouldn't that be enough to put it as his birthplace?" Hell no. The article on the Nativity of Jesus specifies that both contradictory nativity narratives are of doubtful historicity:

• ""Many modern scholars consider the birth narratives unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two different accounts which cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative."
• " More generally, according to Karl Rahner the evangelists show little interest in synchronizing the episodes of the birth or subsequent life of Jesus with the secular history of the age. As a result, modern scholars do not use much of the birth narratives for historical information."
• "According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among scholars on the historicity of the accounts, e.g., most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away as Chorazin. Bruce Chilton and archaeologist Aviram Oshri have proposed a birth at Bethlehem of Galilee, a site located 7 mi (11 km) from Nazareth at which remains dating to the time of Herod the Great have been excavated."
• Basically there are at least 5 suggested locations for Jesus' birth, with Nazareth being the most likely candidate. Dimadick (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't buy into Bethlehem of Galilee, but I think Oshri was right that Bethlehem of Judea was uninhabited. Since the part with Bethlehem of Judea is a falsifiable statement, while the part with Bethlehem of Galilee is pure hearsay. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Everything in the Gospels is hearsay. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That is not true, archaeologists have found lots of pottery remains dated to the Herodian period (see [1], at 3:16), which indicates that there was settlement activity in Bethlehem of Judea during Jesus' lifetime. Potatín5 (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth would you not consider https://sourceflix.com/, a source of honest information that would help people in Mormonism see their way out of the LDS church and into the truth of Christianity a WP:RS? If it's online, it's an RS, this is well established. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

All I know of truth I learned from the Bene Gesserit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Kull wahad! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Croyez ceux qui cherchent la vérité, doutez de ceux qui la trouvent. -André Gide O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see someone still reads his journals, which are often better than many of his novels. My copy was stolen by a house-guest, and is much missed.

The most probable reason for the dissonance in the Gospels as to his birthplace is that Jesus was of Nazareth, and the early Jewish-Christian community's messianic beliefs were contested by fellow-Jews, who cogently argued that the traditional criteria for a messianic birth require Davidic descent (hence the fabricated genealogies) and the Tanakh places David's birth or origins in or around Bethlehem. But what then, was a carpenter's family doing so far south? Oh, the census required their presence there (which historically places his birth in year 6 c.e., people forgot precise dates back then, just as young people do now. But since the historical figure was remembered as living around the end of Herod's reign, a story developed that Herod killed newborn candidates for the messiahship. This happily framed Jesus in the heroic mold of the myth that a national saviour always undergoes a lethal threat at birth (Oedipus, Cyrus, Moses), and also kickstarted the Egyptian motif, a reverse Exodus, to make the whole yarn resonate, as ancient stories do also elsewhere, with archetypal motifs of past legends of identity formation. Thus patched up over reelaboration in the various communities, it would ring more sonorously on the heartstrings of other, more diffidentJews who were otherwise less disposed to accept this novel variation on a core set of stories at the heart of Jewish identity.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Too bad we can't put that in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really 'mine' (no idea is anybody's - there's always a hidden history to our opinions). But it sums up reading I did around 15-16 to give some scholarly veneer to pagan views my Catholic school found disturbing and corruptive of other classmates. It came to a head when, forced on a retreat and obliged to 'confess', by that point I had nothing to confess, but spent the 15 minutes asking the priest to explain why the Church had been so harsh with one of their own, Alfred Loisy, about whom I'd read in a worn copy of the Hibbert Journal picked up on a firesale of books in Warrandyte (I had to wag school to get them). Boy, did that upset the dear fellow. He got up and abruptly left the confessional, thank goodness. But what I wrote above, in so far as I can recall, possibly reflects reading commentaries on allusions to Jewish sceptical questioning of Jewish Christians in, for example, John's Gospel, and also Joel Carmichael's The Death of Jesus which I snapped up and devoured in a day when Penguin released its edition sometime in 1966. I'm sorry. I'm really short of time these days. I should though add that the answer to the query below is that the NT version’s construction was influenced by the words in Micah 5:2 stipulating prophetically a messiah born in Bethlehem (Judea). Since Matthew was written by 'Matthean' communities generations after the ostensible events and quite some distance from Palestine (anywhere from Damascus to Antioch and perhaps both), they probably had little knowledge of the Galilean Bethlehem proximate to Nazareth. Bruce Chilton in his Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography , Crown Publishers 2002 ISBN 978-0-385-50544-4 pp.7,9. notes that such a site (implying a long prehistory of use or settlement prior to Jesus’s time) is attested at Joshua 19:15, and that recent archaeology has ascertained that this Bethlehem has ruins datable to the Ist century CE. No doubt here he is drawing on Aviram Oshri’s original published results ( “Bet Lehem of Galilee,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18 (1998). Reasonably, he goes for this Bethlehem as probably behind what diaspora Jews confused with its Judean sister.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: You are misunderstanding me. I do not want to cite that website in the article; my point was simply to refute @Tgeorgescu's claim that Bethlehem of Judea was uninhabited during Jesus' lifetime by pointing to an interview where one of the excavators at the site (Shimon Gibson) says that archaeology shows it was inhabited at that time. That was all. Potatín5 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look good to me. But, it's Sunday, and a holiday here. Let's allow some time for others to weigh in. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that, as modern scholarship is uncertain on Jesus's birthplace, the article should not present a definitive view on where it was. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2023

Change Jesus father to God and Joseph 2600:1700:9420:19D0:3475:31C9:F406:FF03 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

See the footnote beside Joseph's name in the Infobox. We would need an independent, reliable source to change it. The Bible does not fit that definition. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Its already mentioned in the article lede. RudolfRed (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Joseph isn't mentioned in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

While Joseph isn't mentioned in the lead, he is in the infobox. I see no reason to alter the infobox: it identifies Joseph as the father, with the footnote that Christians see the Holy Spirit as the father and thus Joseph as "adoptive". Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The Miracle of Resurrection

Some scholars, notably Scholem Asch, have re-interpreted the life of Jesus and described the crucifixion as a painful and bloody mock event, in which the Jewish and Palestinian followers rescued Jesus, while the Roman and Temple authorities were duped into believing that the crucifixion happened. In this regard it is worthwhile to re read the book The Nazarene, by this author and re-interpret the Gospels.

If the crucifixion was a mock event, then it explains how Jesus appeared again to his followers and disciples. To avoid recapture Jesus and John may have emigrated to Patmos, with friends of Luke to look after them. Such a re-interpretation would indicate Jesus as co-author of the four Gospels and his brother James (in Jerusalem) being the Editor of the New Testament. The early life of Jesus, as described in the four Gospels would have been written by Mary and Joseph, the parents of Jesus. JohnEC Jr (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As previously noted, and as outlined in the article on him, Asch was an essayist and novelist, not a reliable source or scholar in this area. Are there a number of RSs that lend credence to Asch’s theory? If not, this is likely WP:FRINGE and so does not belong in the article. Prevalent Jewish thought on Jesus also seems adequately covered in the article (in my opinion). Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If this is worthy of a conference with the Churches, they may be welcome to offer their views also.JohnEC Jr (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

46.97.170.219 (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC) The principal parent is God

Not sure what is being asked in this edit request. The article already refers to Jesus as the son of God. Please re-post if there's a specific (and reliably sourced) amendment you'd like made. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Jesus’ birth date and death date

In the article Historical Jesus. It says Jesus was born between 7-2 BC and died 30-36 AD. 69.204.59.102 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does, under Historical_Jesus#Other_possibly_historical_elements. This article talks about it at Jesus#Chronology. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)