Talk:Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ.

The FAQ provides links to archived talk page discussions.
Please read the FAQ.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit

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.^[1] 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,^[2] 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."^[3]^[4]
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

^ R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
^ Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
^ Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
^ Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Jesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 3, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 3, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 6, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 15, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 14, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 27, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
April 21, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 21, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
July 12, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 5, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
May 28, 2013	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
August 15, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Core FA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion FA‑class Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Jesus / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bahá'í Faith FA‑class High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ancient Near East FA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bible FA‑class Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.
Caitlin Dewey (6 November 2015). "Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Wikipedia articles you haven't read". National Post. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
Omer Benkajob (27 April 2017). "Why Jimmy Wales' WikiTribune Won't Save the News". Haaretz. Retrieved 30 April 2017.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137

Obsolete subpages

Topical archives

2nd Paragraph Debate

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Infobox image proposal

Christ Pantocrator mosaic from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem

Mosaic from the holiest site in Christianity. I proposed this image a year ago and it was declined because it was too early for a new picture at that time and because of glare. Now that enough time has past and the glare is fixed I bring it up again. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion that led to the current image is here. St Anselm (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the current one looks better, and is easier to see at reduced size. Better yet, we haven't had any complaints yet (despite the obvious minefield), so if it isn't broken, don't fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the potential sensitivity of this topic it's probably wise to follow the principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but this image is growing on me. It's a typical depiction of Christ Pantocrator and of all the churches to have a prominent wikilink in the lede caption the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would be the most appropriate. How old is the mosaic? Even if it's 20th-century it could still be an appropriate lede picture as an illustration of Orthodox art sticking very closely to the traditional formulas. Ham II (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the current image is better. On big articles like this it may be a good idea to rotate after a few years, but I think the next choice should not be another Byzantine-style one, but more Western church. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325062826/http://www.stevemason.eu/resources/SMason-JSJ-2007-Jews-Judaism.pdf to http://www.stevemason.eu/resources/SMason-JSJ-2007-Jews-Judaism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' existence, England

user:General Ization wants to add a survey about people in England's views on Jesus' existence. However, this doesn't belong in this article as it says more about religious views of the English than it does on the historicity of Jesus. This is a classic case of Argumentum ad populum.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FutureTrillionaire: First, I was not the original editor who introduced this content; I reverted your reversion of Redhat101's contribution. Secondly, yes, to respond to your hypothetical, if a responsible poll published in a reliable source indicated that 40% of the population of any country or other sizable population believed that George Washington never existed, it should certainly be mentioned at George Washington. Popular skepticism about the very existence of the subject is relevant to the subject of this article. I'm less confident that Derek Murphy's claim belongs here, but that can be taken up as a separate discussion. General Ization ^Talk 03:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for Argumentum ad populum, no, no one is making a case that 40% of the English don't believe Jesus existed, ergo he did not exist. Your invocation of that claim as an argument against the content is itself fallacious. General Ization ^Talk 03:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that 40% of England not believing in Jesus might belong in the religion in England article, since it says more about religious belief in England. We already have a section on the Christ Myth Theory, so I'm not sure why you want to add specific statistics from specific countries.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a responsible poll published in a reliable source which provides insight into the acceptance of the theory by a large Western population (which happens to be English) of a country largely considered Christian, and is relevant to the subject of this article. The fact that it also might belong somewhere else is not a valid argument for its removal here. General Ization ^Talk 03:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory. The user that added that statistic to this article copied it from Christ Myth Theory. If you have a statistic on popular acceptance of this theory on a worldwide level, and maybe it's significant enough to belong in this article as well. However, as statistic for just England is not.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what other editors think. The results of the Church of England poll, which was limited to an English population because that is where the church is based (obviously), tend to show it may not be not as much of a fringe theory as you seem to think, whether or not those who were polled knew of the theory or know it by that name. General Ization ^Talk 04:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Christ Myth Theory: "In modern scholarship, the Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory, and is accepted by only a small number of academics." Obviously, opinion from experts in the field is more valuable than layman's opinion (in this case, an apparent popular misconception in England). The England statistic is okay for the Christ Myth Theory article, but it's undue weight for this article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed the "layman's opinion" argument. As I said, let's see what other editors think. At this point, we neither have consensus for its retention or for its removal. General Ization ^Talk 04:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against adding the statement, it looks so out of place and is skewed towards a certain demographic. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 12:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really as much a case of "undue weight", it is really more of a case on whether a survey should belong on a summary of another article, and it clearly does not. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 12:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, is it higher or lower than the percentage in Mongolia? St Anselm (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Jesus by Richard Neave

I was wondering why the more realistic depiction of Jesus, as created by Richard Neave for Popular Mechanics, has not been included in this article? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/

The article includes many obviously unrealistic art, so why the absence of scientific depiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a copyrighted image. It would need a fair use rationale and to be in low res, but the article already has so many images that it may not be warranted. If there is an actual study associated with the reconstruction, the article could cite it, though. --FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, such a picture may be better suited for the Historical Jesus article - again, if there is a study to back it up. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather Race and appearance of Jesus. The Neave reconstruction is already mentioned there, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Press Criticism - Wikipedia's Multiple Parallel Narratives

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

History and geography
Religion and philosophy

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

An article published three days ago criticized our coverage of Jesus as follows:[1]

One famous and telling example is the history of the Wikipedia page for Jesus: as tensions and disagreements grew between believers and nonbelievers, the article was broken up into a number of new ones, splitting into one page for Jesus and another for Historical Jesus. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Wikipedia attempts to sidestep it altogether, allowing both sides to enjoy their version of the truth.

I have tried to verify this claim. A talk page comment from the late Steven Rubenstein from 12 years ago summarized it as follows:

Please remember the history: in an attempt to keep the Jesus article NPOV, detailed accounts of a variety of views were added, and the article became too long for many servers. There was a quick consensus to have the article focus on the Christian POV, with sub-articles on other points of view, and very brief summaries with links as subsections of the Jesus article. The main topics spun off were on the historical and cultural context for Jesus, which placed Jesus in the context of what we know about Jewish history and culture; one on the "historicity" of Jesus, meaning, debates over whether or not Jesus actually existed; this article, and I think one or two more on the critical study of the NT and Christology.

I propose we take this criticism seriously and consider whether some restructuring of the various Jesus articles would be appropriate. Things have moved on significantly since 2003-04 when the current structure was created. The suggestion of "Multiple Parallel Narratives" on such a high profile topic is damning to our project.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been the case 12 years ago, but the continued existence of all those pages is due to Wikipedia:Summary style. St Anselm (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When New Atheism was more fashionable the Jesus article was a mess. You had militant atheists pushing the unscholarly view that Jesus never existed. It was largely done by footnotes to crank sources. For readers who took the time to view the footnotes and had some familiarity with the scholarship surrounding the historicity of Jesus, it made Wikipedia look very unscholarly. Militant atheists are just a small minority of the world’s population and their unhistorical POV should not have been as prominent as it was formerly. As far as the press coverage, I have my doubts that the warring camps of Wikipedians will ever stop fighting over the article. One suggestion I have is to break up the Christian view of Jesus into two camps: theologically conservative/tradtional Christianity and liberal Christianity. desmay (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One famous and telling example is the history of the Wikipedia page for Jesus: as tensions and disagreements grew between believers and nonbelievers, the article was broken up into a number of new ones, splitting into one page for Jesus and another for Historical Jesus. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Wikipedia attempts to sidestep it altogether, allowing both sides to enjoy their version of the truth."

Is it really "famous"? I was not around when Historical Jesus was created so I don't know the circumstances but it is not the case that articles about Jesus are split into different pages for believers and unbelievers, that would be WP:POV fork and is not allowed. The different articles about Jesus concentrate on different aspects of Jesus studies.Smeat75 (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard - I cannot regard as important that someone somewhere doing a vague criticism of Wikipedia claimed something wrong happened in this article 12+ years ago.

First, in this side remark of a long piece against Wales generally, the opinion writer did not give a date or other reason for credibility of his own claims about this article. And if this is being given as a famous, clear, or worst example he has or could choose makes me think not well of that critic. What is actually in the page creation says nothing like that, and what you have seems not a good match. There *was* a deletion discussion and mentions done circa archive 7 of Jesus, I think I will respect it as more credible than this critic's portrayal of motives.

Second - neither that article nor this RFC is proposing something, so if there is no alternative in sight then ... it seems rather pointless whingeing. The focus should be whether it is a valid article today and whether the content is good, not on something 12 years ago which may have been (was) far different content than today.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gads, going back twelve years in order to base a critique? Just thinking of all the changes that have occurred in twelve years can take your breath away. The leap is too far to take it seriously. It reminds of sibling squabbles, "You took my candy five years ago and now I want your candy!" Who cares what happened five years ago much less twelve years ago. For me the take away is, okay, I hear you and let's be sure we continue to be as fair as possible and base our decisions on proper reasoning. Anything more does not make much sense. --^StormRider 04:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49

[Hick_page_27-2] Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.

[ConrandHyersFooterBio-3] Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.

[4] Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]