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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024

Muslims believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and honored Jesus as the prophet to whom the Gospel was revealed, the heralder of Muhammad, and a Spirit and Word from God,[28][j] but they does not consiered him as neither God nor a son of God.

- incorrect grammar in the last part of the sentence. Hjteras (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Part of a poor quality recent edit which has been reverted. DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick Question

The article says that Pontius Pilate crucified Him... but Pilate doubted it and wanted nothing to do with it and delivered Him to the people. Should that not be added? Penelope Grayson (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the Jesus#Trials_by_the_Sanhedrin,_Herod,_and_Pilate section? Some related articles there, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Rephrase "Most Christians"?

Original Text: Most Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Proposed Changes: All Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son, though there is a minority, which have been deemed heretical by many major denominations, that recognizes neither Jesus as God the Son nor the Holy Trinity. Christians also believe Jesus to be the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Reason Why: Belief in Jesus of Nazareth as God the Son is quite literally one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith. To say that "Most", but not "All", Christians believe in him as God the Son and still refer to them as Christian would be wrong. You are removing a key factor of the faith and acting like it has not been removed. Vilo2023 (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You have provided to reliable source for this. The current text is sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously we're not adding in a logically inconsistent "all, except..." language that contradicts the cited source (Ehrman). Please remember not to inject your personal beliefs or synthesis into editing. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Granted, it could be amended further, yet changes should still be made.

As I have said first, the Trinity and belief in Jesus as God the Son have been established as cornerstones to the Christian faith by multiple different events, such as the Council of Nicea and the Athanasian Creed. To say that a denomination is still Christian while it rejects a fundamental part of Christianity makes no sense. So, the inclusion of "Most", rather than "All" seems quite silly and is the main thing I see needs to be changed.

This isn't merely because of personal beliefs, though I am quite biased as a Christian myself, but because it is part of the doctrine of every major Christian denomination. It would be the same as an anti-Fascist organization participating in Fascism. The bedrock of the ideology has been removed, therefore it no longer fits the grouping. A denomination cannot be both Christian while rejecting the guiding principles of Christianity, which is what denying Jesus as God the Son and the Trinity.

Even the Wikipedia article on Christianity contains neither "Most" nor "All" in a portion of text, which seems to have been copy and pasted over. Either "Most" needs to be changed to "All" in this article, or it could be removed as was in the article the text was taken from. Vilo2023 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming here to condemn other faiths as heretical, but the reliable sources tend to disagree with you, and that's a pretty important thing around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read Nontrinitarianism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And No true Scotsman. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think we could use an FAQ for this as this narrow view keeps coming up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea; I took a shot at it (as Q10). Feel free to modify/improve. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

Intro section:

"He was arrested in Jerusalem and tried by the Jewish authorities turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judaea."

I suggest to change "He was arrested" to "He was eventually arrested". It's a very minor edit but this text is preceded by a description of Jesus' activities and adding "eventually" will show more clearly that there is quite a bit of time between him starting his own ministry and his arrest. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:8D40:6944:3880:BC12 (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this change is necessary. The text's statement that Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem does not imply that he was immediately arrested upon arrival.

The length of his ministry is irrelevant to this section of the article, the purpose of which is to highlight the scholarly agreement that Jesus was a real, historical person. Zoozoor (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)