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

It is core doctrine that Jesus is God incarnate

So saying that “most Christians” believe that He’s the incarnation of God the Son implies that there’s a minority group that don’t, which simply isn’t true. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other denominations that deny the doctrine of the Trinity are, by definition, not Christian. MartianDeadman (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do not make the WP:RULES. Scholars of religion consider them Christians, this is final for Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A Christian is simply someone who professes to be one, by accepted definition. ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

So were the Nazis socialists simply because they claimed to be socialist? MartianDeadman (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You know by saying things like that you're going to make it much less likely you attract support for your proposed change to the article, right? AntiDionysius (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What? If Christians are those that simply claim to be Christian, then why would socialists not be those that claim to be socialists, regardless of what they actually believe in? MartianDeadman (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to debate you (which also isn't to say it's a good argument; it isn't), I'm just telling you that Wikipedia works by consensus. Your object here is not to "win", it's to convince people to support your preferred course of action. When you make Nazi comparisons, you make that harder for yourself. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But if consensus is inconsistent, why should we use it? MartianDeadman (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Because it is, so far, the best way we have figured out on this project to make an encyclopedia by anonymous people who involve themselves when and if they please. You will probably not be able to convince other Wikipedians that "because MartianDeadman said this is the definition" is a better way. There are other views, and perhaps even non-Christians have views on this? More at WP:CONSENSUS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No, MartianDeadman is definitely right, Signed a random Wikipedian. I don't mean to argue MY specific version of Christianity should be cannon on this site, but the thing that is the core idea to the Bible should be. The entire point of the Bible is the coming of Christ as redemption for a sinful mankind (John 3:16, Matthew 17:5, Matthew 11:27, Luke 1:35, etc). if he isn't God's Son, part of the Triune, and wholly God and wholly Man, Christianity fundamentally doesn't work. Just because someone SAYS they're Christian is absolutely meaningless if they don't at least believe John 3:16 to be true:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

That's like- The whole point to being Christian. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I understand I'm not the only opinion, but to appeal to every single person would dilute the definition of Jesus down until he's just some guy. We can discuss every other controversial Christian doctrine a different time, and I'm personally content and agree it shouldn't be 'my way or the highway', but this is the one thing that makes Christianity, you know, CHRISTianity. 11Penguins (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's why there's Jesus in Christianity. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Despite what you think, "Christ" does not mean "God", it simply means "king of the Jews". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered that you do, in fact, "argue MY specific version of Christianity"? You've set your own arbitrary definition of what is within and outside the definition of Christian. It may be a very mainstream point of view among Christians but it's still a subjective and arbitrary definition. You think it's indisputably logical and inevitable. But so do those who think of the definition of "Christian" much more restrictively, like the adherents to the Westboro Baptist Church or more expansively like non-Trinitarians such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. To those of us who think Jesus is "just some guy", your drawing that particular line in the sand makes no more sense than any other, in my opinion. You are trying to make an absolute when there isn't one. The only true absolute here is whether or not someone claims to be a Christian. That can be objectively tested. Everything else is belief, opinion, miasma .... DeCausa (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I agree it is just a matter of claiming to be a Christian, but it has already been pointed out that it is what sources say. In any case, anyone who thinks that Christianity has always been only Trinitarian really should be reading up on the Arian controversy for starters. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Because there isn't a better way. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A Christian is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no test. You can be an atheist and still be a Christian. Christian atheism O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Do they have to actually demonstrably follow those teachings, or just say they believe in them? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if they actually have to follow them, there are a hell of a lot fewer than indicated by the stats. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To use badf grammar, "politics ain't religion." ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Texas briefly denied the tax exempt status of a Unitarian church based on similar thinking -- until someone read the First Amendment. There are many flavors of Christianity and other religions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

the Nicene Creed which by consensus is the document that all real Christians must abide by, with the exception of a few small denominations that use other creeds, but contain the same information, says that Jesus is god and thus any that don’t believe that are not Christians, so the word “most” should indeed be replaced with “all” or just entirely removed. But if you need a verse from the Bible just look to Romans 10:9-10 “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.", that very clearly states that to be saved, and thus be Christian, you must confess that Jesus is lord, which means saying he’s God, along with believing that he was raised from the dead by God the Father. Thus groups that do not believe the Jesus is God aren’t Christian and the change stehst have been suggested should be implemented. And even if the rules say you can’t change it, the existence of that line in the paragraph is an insult to real Christians and is spreading false information. 2600:100C:B037:FA39:3485:91C8:B039:B895 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

To say that "the Nicene Creed which by consensus is the document that all real Christians must abide by" is very obviously factually untrue. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t. The Nicene creed is perfectly Biblical, denying it results in heresy. MartianDeadman (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope, the Nicene Creed is one interpretation of the Bible, among many other interpretations. Wikipedia does not kowtow to theological orthodoxy, which anyway is in the eye of the beholder. As Bart Ehrman stated, the Twelve Apostles taught nothing similar to the Nicene Creed. And quite probably they knew nothing about the Holy Trinity. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the authors of the Nicene creed would certainly view Wikipedia as heretical. That is not our problem, though. VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The Nicene creed is perfectly Biblical, denying it results in heresy. I do believe the East-West Schism would like a word! Dumuzid (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There is, indeed, an explicit and well-sourced section about this on the Nicene Creed article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"Lord" in modern parlance means "boss", not "God". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

real Christians. Please do not use such intolerant wording here again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Mmm... ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious what you intend to gain by this. Check this out: Wikipedia:Task Center. :) ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Disassociating Mormonism (and non-Trinitarianism in general) from Christianity. MartianDeadman (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@MartianDeadman yeah, you're not going to be able to do that here. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to wage an informational campaign. It is an encyclopaedia which reflects the world as it is, not as you would like it to be. And the world generally categorises Mormonism as a kind of Christianity. So Wikipedia does too. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

More specifically, reliable sources tend to do so. I’ll also note that, as a Christian, I have been taught I am not qualified to judge (Jude 1:9) - nor are my personal beliefs on this topic germane. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, arrested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You have an error and it's so bland. We KNOW he was the Son of God, and the error is that he was arrested first by Jewish Soldiers, then turned over to Roman Authorities after the Last Supper. He was put before Herod, and then back to the Roman to Pontius Pilot, where he was scurged, his robe was hangled over, and then a crown of thorns was placed on his head. Pontius Pilot then gave the Jews a choice after "washing his hands", two were put before the people. The Jews insisted upon Jesus Christ to be cruxcified. Pontis Pilot didn't put Jesus Christ to death at the main venue, It's the Jews who more than once insited in Cruxifiction. Jesus Christ forgave them dying on the cross. 2600:6C5D:B7F:278D:B93B:7157:E988:52ED (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, we don’t “know” anything about details from 2,000 years ago, and certainly about the existence of gods. Much of it is apocryphal. What has been included is cited to a former professor of religion. You are welcome to discuss additional reliable sources WP:RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You know because Rome took accurate records. You know there is a continuity and it is always will be anno domini. B.C. and A.D.(Before Christ, and after Christ.) You know because if you are human you are breathing in and out, you exist because the Holy Bible tells you God made human beings. Someone didn't just pull you out of a hat. People can't make birds, bees,flowers, and trees. They can mess around, but they can't make them. God did that. BELIEVE... 2600:6C5D:B7F:278D:2DDA:5D6D:1E39:CEA1 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birth date

Most people believe Wikipedia Talk is just for angry people wanting to change something, but it's also just general discussion on the topic.

Did you know that no one actually knows the day Jesus was born? December 25th was decided in the year 336 because of the winter solstice, and pagans having a holiday the same day, to help them with conversion. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Actually talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, and not for general discussion of the topic. While the above info is interesting im not sure it's especially relevant to improving our article on Jesus. Do you have in mind an edit that you'd like made to the article text? -- Euryalus (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Specificslly where it says december 25th and january 7th and how his birthday is celebrated then. I cant write it, but maybe put :December 25th was a date decided in the year 336 by (not sure who) to coincide with the winter solstice and the pagans having a holiday on the same day." IEditPolitics (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Over-detailed for the lead. In the Chronology section we state that the year of his birth is not precisely known, but don't explicitly clarify that the time of year is also unknown. Probably room for improvement there. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli and Palestinian by subcategories

I noticed that since Jesus is listed under the category People from Bethlehem, he's technically listed under People from the State of Palestine, Palestinian people, and under Arab people. This is factually incorrect, as Jesus was not an Arab- nor was he from the State of Palestine. He is also apparently listed as an Israeli due to being a part of category People from Nazareth- which he was not.

I suggest that the two categories (and maybe a fair bit of other towns in the region) be given the splits Category:Palestinians from Bethlehem and Category:Israelis from Nazareth, and the parent categories that refer to Israel and Palestine be removed from the broader "People from Bethlehem/Nazareth" categories. Is there any objections to me doing this? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 06:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@HadesTTW There may very well be, the topic being what it is. Have you considered starting a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Cannot comment on the technical category stuff here, but OP is definitely right that the two subcats are just factually incorrect and unsupported in the article body.--SinoDevonian (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)