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.
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.
I tagged this page as a low quality item. I managed to count only 5 WP:Secondary references, Ehrman (used twice), Wright, Vermes and Sanders once each, Harris (used 3 times), probably just 8 reference points. Then there are about 79 WP:Primary references... nice going. And there are large chunks of WP:OR and unsubstantiated claims. Some of these are just incorrect, some are misleading and contradict the rest of Wikipedia, as well as WP:RS sources used therein. E.g. this page states (with no reference) that Baptism is not mentioned in the Gospel of John while the lede for the page Baptism of Jesus states that "In John 1:29-33 rather than a direct narrative, the Baptist bears witness to the episode" which is more accurate and has WP:RS references. And of course the whole discussion of John the Baptist etc. is incomplete without a reference to Acts 10:37-38, Acts 19:4, etc. Before that section there are statements such as "the gospels give two different accounts of the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph" which is less than accurate. That is just one point of view and various scholars argue about multiple variations on that ranging from legal arguments about father references to one path being through Mary, etc. Those types of unsourced statements in the page are just incomplete and inaccurate.
The section called Ministry is specially woeful. It has very few references, no mention of the specific segments of the ministry (Galilean, Perean, Judean, etc.) and arbitrarily picks out a few parables to fill in the text. And of course the page fails to mention the fact that there are five major milestones in the gospel narrative of the life of Jesus: Baptism, Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension. And you guessed it, one of them is not even mentioned in the article. Not even once. Guess which one... Failing to mention one of the 5 key events (accepted by many WP:RS sources) is just slipshod. And of course the mention of the major turning point in the narrative at the end of Matthew 16 and Mark 8 would have been too much to expect. This article needs a rewrite really.
And the problems are too numerous to mention here. There is no mention of Jesus at Herod's Court during the passion, the episodes relating to appearances to women etc. after resurrection are poorly handled, and the text refers to the Gospel of Hebrews, in an article about the New Testament. Someone should mention that the NT does not include that. And the list goes on... This article just needs a rewrite with proper WP:Secondary sources. There is no way around it. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have cleaned up most of it now. Should be able to finish adding WP:RS sources in a day or so. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Merging Return of Jesus to Galilee with this
The article "Return of Jesus to Galilee is very short and covers just one episode, which is not even an episode. It hardly requires an article for itself. --Rbreen (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I see what you mean, but I note that it has an illustration - if it has its own separate depiction in art, it's probably notable by itself. Hence, I'm inclined to keep it. StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)