Jump to content

Talk:Jesus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Jesus/Archive 137) (bot
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{Skiptotoctalk}}
{{Article history
{{Talkheader}}
|action1=FAC |action1date=10:51, 17 January 2004 |action1result=not promoted |action1oldid=6800469
{{Calm talk}}
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#Jesus Christ
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=10:51, 17 January 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#Jesus Christ
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=6800469


|action2=FAC |action2date=18:41, 2 Jun 2004 |action2result=not promoted |action2oldid=6800976
|action2=FAC
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2004#Jesus Christ
|action2date=18:41, 2 Jun 2004
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2004#Jesus Christ
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=6800976


|action3=FAC |action3date=06:42, 3 Aug 2004 |action3result=not promoted |action3oldid=6801172
|action3=FAC
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2004#Jesus
|action3date=06:42, 3 Aug 2004
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2004#Jesus
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=6801172


|action4=FAC |action4date=00:48, 2 Nov 2004 |action4result=not promoted |action4oldid=7044553
|action4=FAC
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004#Jesus
|action4date=00:48, 2 Nov 2004
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004#Jesus
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=7044553


|action5=AFD |action5date=18:15, 3 May 2005 |action5result=kept |action5oldid=
|action5=PR
|action5link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus
|action5date=00:30, 6 October 2005
|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/Archive1
|action5result=reviewed
|action5oldid=24854473


|action6=PR |action6date=00:30, 6 October 2005 |action6result=reviewed |action6oldid=24854473
|action6=GAN
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/archive1
|action6date=07:48, 12 December 2005
|action6result=listed
|action6oldid=31027124


|action7=FAC |action7date=02:23, 15 December 2005 |action7result=not promoted |action7oldid=31414159
|action7=FAC
|action7link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive1
|action7date=02:23, 15 December 2005
|action7link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive1
|action7result=not promoted
|action7oldid=31414159


|action8=PR |action8date=16:38, 14 April 2006 |action8result=reviewed |action8oldid=48433670
|action8=PR
|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/archive2
|action8date=16:38, 14 April 2006
|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/Archive2
|action8result=reviewed
|action8oldid=48433670


|action9=PR |action9date=18:44, 27 November 2006 |action9result=reviewed |action9oldid=90476227
|action9=PR
|action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/archive3
|action9date=18:44, 27 November 2006
|action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus
|action9result=reviewed
|action9oldid=90476227


|action10=FAC |action10date=03:52, 21 April 2007 |action10result=not promoted |action10oldid=124510613
|action10=FAC
|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive2
|action10date=03:52, 21 April 2007
|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive2
|action10result=not promoted
|action10oldid=124510613


|action11=WAR |action11date=00:09, 21 August 2007 |action11result=approved |action11oldid=152509285
|currentstatus=GA
|action11link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Jesus
}}
{{WPB
|1={{WPReligion|class=A|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
|2={{ChristianityWikiProject|nested=yes|class=A|importance=Top|core-topics-work-group=yes|jesus-work-group=yes}}
|3={{WikiProject Islam|nested=yes|class=A|importance=mid}}
|4={{WikiProject Judaism|nested=yes|class=A|importance=mid}}
|5={{WPBiography|nested=yes|class=GA|priority=Top|core=yes|listas=Jesus|A-Class=current}}
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=A|importance=Top|category=Philrelig|VA=yes}}
{{FAOL|German|de:Jesus von Nazaret}}
{{todo}}
{{Talk:Jesus/archivebox}}


|action12 = GAR | action12date = 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | action12result = delisted | action12oldid = 295717805
==Recent Archive log==
|action12link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jesus/2
* [[/Archive 73]] - Doctors (Finding in the Temple); Inconsistency?; Lostceasar's Issues
* [[/Archive 74]] - Era notation vote; We have an article called "Evidence of evolution" but...; Denomination; Jesus' Family; central figure to founder; With respect to the section on Gnosticism
* [[/Archive 75]] - I could find no other encyclopedias which denied the existence of Jesus; Forensic reconstruction?; Missing the logic; POV, "Little external documentation" about Jesus according to whom? Also, little is too vague/subjective; Wasn't Jesus Black?
* [[/Archive 76]] - Man claims to be 2nd Coming of Jesus, Christian view, 6th century portrait, Jesus in Japan?, lack of modern historians views, trilemma, New Section Proposal: Conspiracy Theories About Jesus, African?
* [[/Archive 77]] - Revision of Christian Views, The Great Mystery link, Inline citations, NPOV proportionality, fact of Jesus, Jesus' family, Jesus was Albanian, Scholarship, Kabbalah vs. logia of Jesus.
* [[/Archive 78]] - Cultural effects, The Jesus Extraterrestrial Connection, Supernatural/psychic categories, intro and historicity/myth, "...was handed over by Pilate the Roman governor to be crucified," Sanders on Jesus as a Pharisee
* [[/Archive 79]] - Nietzsche, Family genealogy, Myth, BCE/BC, Islam, Magi, Arrest, Judaism's view
* [[/Archive 80]] - William Lane Craig debate, Non-Christian views of Jesus, scholars and the death and Resurrection of Jesus, islamic view of jesus, Jesus' title and race, error in the article, parables, The Jesus Family Tomb and James Cameron, judgement, cousin, myth, Unnecessarily implied atonement theology in intro
* [[/Archive 81]] - Founders of religions category tag, Jesus's Character, Recent significant changes, Judaism View, Minor Edits Reverted, Featured Article Status, Possible Bias?, Atheist views section, Report for violating 3RR, Atheist views - take 2, LIBERAL BIAS, Vandalism! Help! Someone!
* [[/Archive 82]]- Muslim view on Crucifixion, Notes section may need clean up, A Torrent, judgment, slavery, POV tag?, Featured article nomination.... maybe, Sources on Jesus' life, Standardizing references, Historicity or Revisionism?


|action13 = GAN | action13date = 18:18, 5 May 2013 | action13result = listed | action13oldid = 553661601
===Subpage Activity Log===
|action13link = Talk:Jesus/GA1
* ''Discussion on Judaism's views moved to [[Talk:Jewish view of Jesus|Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus]].''
* ''Buried vs. entombed," alledged "lack of sources" archived to [[Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro]].''
* ''New subpage created, [[/Historical Jesus]], with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.''
* Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to [[/2nd Paragraph Debate]].''
* Sudden move of [[Christ]]: discussion moved to [[Talk:Christ]].''
* Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_mythology#Citations_and_expert Christian Mythology Talk]] for relevancy reasons
* [[User:Andrew c/Jesus]]: sorting data b/w [[New Testament view on Jesus' life]], [[Christian views of Jesus#Life]], and [[Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels]].


|action14 = WPR | action14date = 28 May 2013 | action14result = copyedited | action14oldid = 557195146
== NT and scholars ==
|action14link = Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2013


|action15=FAC |action15date=10:04, 15 August 2013 |action15result=promoted |action15oldid=568634194
The longstanding text was
|action15link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive3
*''however, because few of the [[gospel]]s' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy.''
it was changed by LotR to
*''because few of the [[gospel]]s' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified in secular records, some historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy.''
and I have tried out
*''however, because few of the [[gospel]]s' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, historians debate their accuracy.''


|currentstatus=FA
I agree that saying that the historical task is "difficult" is a little POV, so instead of singling out scholars that have difficulty, I changed the —wording to be less decisive and more neutral, stating they debate the accuracy. I also removed "in secular records" which was added, because historians accept multiple attestation as a valid criteria for historical reliability. That means if something can be independently verified in multiple non-secular sources, it can still be considered historical. I hope these changes are well met, but I've taken the time to explain them further here on talk in order to give space for community discussion. Also, I removed the following text that was added in a comment in the main article ''The gospels themselves are historical documents, written within the lifetimes of the apostles. Luke himself is considered by some to be "a historian of the first rank".'' I'm not exactly sure why it was added. It was unsourced and in comment code so it seems like commentary. Is there something we need to discuss on talk? Do we need to make changes to the historical Jesus section? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 17:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
|maindate=December 25, 2013

|topic=Philrelig
:Please don't edit the part of the article in question during a content dispute because it can lead to edit warring. The recent changes are not acceptable because they introduce the weasel word "some" and reintroduce the "secular" notion that I disputed above. Please see [[Criterion of multiple attestation]] for more information about what I mean by multiple attestation. The gospels are not 4 independent accounts. Because of the synoptic problem, it is obvious that the gospels use each other as sources. So something that may be found in 3 different gospels, but all originate from a single source is considered by scholars to be one, not 3 different sources. And the criteria of multiple attestation is just one of many different methods scholars use to judge historicity. Something that may be recored in 5 different independent sources (say the resurrection) may still be considered ahistorical by some scholars. Anyway, there is no need to specify "secular", nor is there a need to say "some" scholars. Is it not true that any scholar holds an opinion on historicity and by publishing, they are entering the general debate? Are there scholars that refuse to publish on historicity? Saying that historians debate the details is just that. Saying "some scholars..." implies that the rest of the scholars don't engage in discussions concerning the historical Jesus, which isn't true to my knowledge.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
}}

{{Archives |large=yes |auto=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30 | box-width= 285px|index=/Archive index|<center>Obsolete subpages: [[Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios|Cited Authors Bios]], [[Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro|Christian views in intro]], [[Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees|Scribes Pharisees and Saducees]], [[Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death|Dates of Birth and Death]], [[Talk:Jesus/Historicity Reference|Historicity Reference]], [[Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA|Comments, PR, FA]], [[Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets|Sockpuppets]], [[Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus|Languages Spoken by Jesus]], [[Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus|Historical Jesus]], [[Talk:Jesus/Related articles|Related articles]], [[Talk:Jesus/Rewrite|Rewrite]], [[Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate|2nd Paragraph Debate]]</center>}}
::I don't know why LotR is ignoring the talk page. The edits are problematic. Scholars don't decide whether something is historical based on whether there is non-Gospel attestation. If that were the case, there would a very, very minimalist Jesus because there is almost no non-Christian information on Jesus. Perhaps we do need to phrase the sentence better to be more clear. However, the changes are simply false. Look through any of the mainstream scholars' books on the historical Jesus (E.P. Sanders, Raymond E. Brown, Bart D. Ehrman, John P. Meier, etc). They all use multiple historical methods to judge the historical probability of the various aspects of the Gospel accounts. They don't just say "oh, this pericope isn't found in secular sources, so it must be made up". -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 00:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Round in circles|search=no}}

{{Controversial}}
:::First, let me apologize for ignoring the talk page — it was not intentional, but in my haste I honestly did not notice that anything was being posted here. The text as it stood before was problematic, suggesting that the gospels (and consequently, the entire New Testament canon, since all the books portray a consistent picture of Jesus) are ahistorical. I am not a historian, but I do have a little knowledge in the matter. I am aware that Mark's gospel was the earliest account, that Matthew and Luke have material in common with Mark, and that the later evangelists probably drew upon Mark. However, there is material in Matthew and Luke not found in Mark, suggesting another non-Markan source (Q). There is also material unique to Matthew (M), and then again other material unique to Luke (L). My point being is that the 3 synoptic gospels are not merely carbon copies of a single source. The Gospel of John, unlike the synoptics, claims to be written by an eyewitness. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts contain excruciating details relating the otherwise "insignificant" events of the story to the larger context of world history and contemporary events. Many of these details in Luke's accounts have been verified and, while not providing anything in the way of theology, nevertheless establishes him as an accurate historian. In fact, his gospel starts out with the claim:
{{Not a forum}}
<blockquote>
{{Calm}}
:::"I too, having followed the whole course of events accurately from the first, have decided to write an orderly account for you, in order that you may be sure of the reliability of the information which you have received." — Luke 1:3-4
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=n|listas=Jesus|1=
</blockquote>
{{WikiProject Biography|core=yes}}
:::The 4 gospel accounts, along with the Epistles and Acts, are remarkably consistent, yet written by different authors, and they do not all draw upon a single source. They were not considered authoritative by the early church because "they are in The Bible," but rather they were included as part of the biblical canon at an early date precisely because they were recognized as accurate and authoritative. If they were secular documents, they would probably be considered authentic beyond all doubt. In my rewording I attempted to restore NPOV; while there may be modern scholars who debate their accuracy, the gospels nonetheless cannot be subtly dismissed as "unscholarly" or "ahistorical," as they were before. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 00:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
::::To say that critical scholars debate historicity is true, but it is less informative than the reader deserves. Critical scholars have reached a broad consensus, that the gospels are partly historically reliable and partly not. The debates are not about whether the gospels are accurate. They're about which parts are legit and which are not. Even within this debate, there is broad agreement on big issues, such as that the Gospel of John is far less historically reliable than the synoptics (some would say historically worthless). These are basic, noteworthy viewpoints that are simple to state and relevant to the topic of the gospel narrative. "Critical scholars hold some parts of the gospels, such as Jesus' parables, to be more historically accurate, and others, such as the Gospel of John, to be less historical." A reader who's curious about these debates about historicity would be grateful for the informative version. I understand that Christians hold a virtual veto on adding things to this section, but can't at least the sentence about the [[historical-critical method]] and its treatment of the gospels get a pass? [[User:Jonathan Tweet|Jonathan Tweet]] 02:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|anglicanism=y|anglicanism-importance=Top|catholicism=y|catholicism-importance=Top|eastern-orthodoxy=y|eastern-orthodoxy-importance=Top|jesus-work-group=y|latter-day-saint-movement=y|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=Top|oriental-orthodoxy=y|oriental-orthodoxy-importance=Top|messianic-judaism=y|messianic-judaism-importance=Top|theology-work-group=y|theology-importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Bahá'í Faith|importance=High}}
::::Thanks for coming to talk. Hopefully we can fix this problem. I'm not happy with the current version. The current version is simply inaccurate. It is saying that Christians cannot be critical. It is saying that someone like Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic priest, can't hold the belief that Luke's info on the census is ahistorical (which is Brown's view). It is saying that someone like John P. Meier, another Catholic priest, finding that the "stilling of the storm is a product of early Christian theology", not a historical event. Christian scholars can be critical and it false that "Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate". This isn't a Christian vs. secular thing. I'm going to have to say that the previous version was far superior. All we need to say is that scholars debate (or discuss) the historicity of the events in the text. We don't have to say that there are some biblical literalists out there, and we don't have to say that there are mythists either. The whole purpose of the intro to the "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" section is to say that "hey, this is a plot summary of the biggest sources on Jesus' life, we aren't saying either way if this is 100% historically accurate or 100% historically bogus." Editors were concerned that this article read like a sunday school lesson and was thus not neutral. It still confuses some people how big of a plot summary of the NT we have, but I personally think it is fine (or at least was fine with the previous wording of the intro). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 03:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=top}}
:::::I don't know how to describe the two camps: those that take the gospels at face value and those who differentiate between historical and ahistorical elements or sections. Maybe "Christian scholars traditionally regard the gospels as historically reliable. Critical scholars, including some modern Christian scholars, regard some parts (such as the parables) as more historically accurate and others (such as the Gospel of John) as less." Here are my comments on the original: "however, because few of the gospels' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy." This line implies that the gospels themselves come across as accurate and it's only lack of ''external'' verification that's the issue. In fact, the gospels are internally contradictory (esp. synoptics v. John), and John was identified in the early Christian era as not so much a historical account as a spiritual one. The following version of the line, I'm guessing, would be forbidden from this section: "however, because few of the gospels' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, because they contain extraordinary claims, and because the gospels contain some internal contradictions, historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy." If we want to say "hey, this is a plot summary of the biggest sources on Jesus' life, we aren't saying either way if this is 100% historically accurate or 100% historically bogus," then let's not be coy. "This summary of the gospels takes them at face value without analyzing them according to standard historical methods." [[textual criticism|Textual critic]] [[Bart D. Ehrman]] says that constructing a unified story from the four gospels, all of which are different from each other, is tantamount to creating a new gospel, one that differs from each of the four. Maybe a reference to that viewpoint would help the reader understand this section in its context. [[User:Jonathan Tweet|Jonathan Tweet]] 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=High |byzantine-task-force=yes}}
::::::For the record, ''John was identified in the early Christian era as not so much a historical account as a spiritual one'' - by that you mean Origen, and only him. The Church Fathers otherwise didn't say as much, and the earliest witness, Papias, said it was the most historical.
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid}}
::::::Remember also the scholars who believe that a historical analysis of the Gospels leads to the ''conclusion'' (not assumption) that they are historically accurate. This groups is not reperesented in the above.
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=high}}
::::::[[User:86.141.9.225|86.141.9.225]] 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=top}}

}}
I reject the terms secular scholar and Christian scholar; there are only scholars. Individual scholars may be people of faith, but those are personal issues. Use a reference; outside of that be careful creating reasons why they are unreliable. History is difficult to verify because we don't have mulitple, independent sources for the same event. Scripture, by it very nature, is first and foremost an instrument of faith. Attempting to make it more than that is difficult. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|

{{American English|flag=off|reason=very first non-redirect edit (2001-NOV-21) used spelling "Savior" and "recognize".}}
:First let me say that I am not attached to the present wording, and am certainly open to iterations. The term "Christian scholar" came into play when the term "Christian" was introduced. To clarify, when I say "Christian," I implicitly mean "orthodox Christian," so the wording "Christian scholars generally believe that..." is, by-and-large, a correct statement, since orthodox Christianity claims to be founded upon historical events. Again, I am not attached to that wording, and I believe we can find an agreeable solution. I feel that my main point is being completely missed, however, namely that traditional scholars (Christian and otherwise), using the historical method, have concluded that the essential elements of the gospels are indeed accurate. I recognize that there are other scholars, particularly modern, who draw different conclusions, and who may reject certain aspects, especially anything supernatural. The original wording did not give me that impression. To me, the underlying message I draw from ''"because few of the [[gospel]]s' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy,"'' is ''"the gospels are without historical merit because they cannot be independently verified by secular sources"'', which is not only POV, but incorrect. The word "secular" keeps rearing its ugly head because, as I thought I conveyed above, the NT documents, written by several different authors and based upon multiple sources, ''themselves'' provide independent verification. I get the impression that the objection here is that "well, they are also part of the Bible, so they are not independent." The text needs to be written to convey the notion that some scholars, using the historical method, affirm the historicity of the gospels, while others reject some, or even most elements of them. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Annual readership}}
:::::::'''John was identified in the early Christian era as not so much a historical account as a spiritual one'' - by that you mean Origen, and only him.' I meant Clement of Alexandria, c 200. Origen, too? I see a pattern. [[User:Jonathan Tweet|Jonathan Tweet]] 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
{{section sizes}}
::::::Clement said nothing of the sort. [[User:86.141.9.225|86.141.9.225]] 09:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Press
This is a debate we have had many times in the past - I agree in general with AndrewC and Jonathan Tweet. There is an important issue here and it is a tricky one. On the one hand, it is silly to say that all scholars are the same, just scholars ... a theologian and a historian are both scholars, but they are driven by different interests and use different methods and are accountable to different communities. On the other hand, it is silly to suggest that because one is a Christian, even a devout and pious Christian, one cannot use the same methods as - let's say, for the sake of argument - an atheist. The problem is what kind of language to use. In the past I have favored the term "critical scholars" not because I distinguish between them and Christians but because it is an attempt to define a kind of scholarship independent of one's religious beliefs. perhaps a more precise and effect way to do this would not be to use an adjective to qualify "scholar" at all, but an adjectival phrase like "scholars who employ x y z methods" - wordy, I admit, but clearer. Be that as it may, we do have to distinguish between scholars (whose degrees may be in theology, Bible, or religious study) who study the Bible ''as historians'' and other scholars who study the Bible for theological or homilitic purposes. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
| subject = article

| title = Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed
Short thrift was given to parallels between the Jesus myth and earlier myths. This should be developed further. In the Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets, there is a passage about the Syrian Adonis being born in the same cave in Bethlehem that Jesus was born in, to a virgin named Mary, who was later sacrificed. This was 300 years before Jesus. Let's see a comparison also with all the various Greek, Roman, Sumerian and Egyptian savior/dying/revifying gods. [[User:Astarte9|Astarte9]] 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
| org = [[BBC News]]

| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
==Yahshua==
| date = 18 July 2013
Should this article feature a ref to "[[Yahshua]]"? Or would that be confusing since "Yahshua" is arguably merely a sect based, dogmatically informed translation of "Jesus" with apparently no true historical or philological merit?[[User:L.C.Porrello|LCP]] 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
| archiveurl =

| archivedate =
:There doesn't seem to be a logical place to fit that link anywhere in the article. We can't put it in the "Names and title" section because that is a subsection of the Historical Jesus section. As you state, the name has no historical merit so, I presume the view isn't held by any notable historians. So then, it is a view held by a sect, so it could go in the Religious views section. However, we have to decide how notable the sect is, and would be giving a minority position undue weight by including it in a top tier article? We can only fit so much information in this one article. If we put it anywhere, perhaps we could write one sentence about the name and the movement in the "Other views" section. -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
| accessdate = 18 July 2013
==Pretty important information!==
| author2 = Caitlin Dewey
I think it's a little strange that nowhere in the first paragraph does it mention that Jesus is regarded by Christians as the son of God! Is this left out for a reason or may I add a sentence to the first paragraph please?
| title2 = Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Wikipedia articles you haven’t read

| org2 = National Post
Also, there is a sentence about fulfillment of prophecy that claims that Jesus fulfilled "many" of the prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. According to the New Testament, every prophecy was fulfilled, and I think it may be misleading to suggest that there are some prophecies Jesus may have not fulfilled (according to the Christian faith.) Should that be changed to a more neutral stance?[[User:Bonjour123|Bonjour123]] 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
| url2 = http://news.nationalpost.com/news/demon-cats-helicopter-escapes-and-crayon-colours-the-most-fascinating-wikipedia-articles-you-havent-read

| date2 = 6 November 2015
Whether or not you believe Jesus to have forfilled all the Jewish prophecy concerning the Messiah, depends upon which account of Jesus' life you believe in. For instance, if you believe Jesus died upon the cross, then you cannot believe that all the prophecy was forfilled. This is because one of the prophecy's is that Jesus would bring the word of God to all Jewish people's. During the time of Jesus, Jewish tribes were scattered as far west as France and north Africa, and as far east as Persia, Afganistan, and Sindustan (modern Pakistan). Orthodox Christians believe Jesus died before personally being able to preach to these Jews. Some other groups do not.[[User:86.4.59.203|86.4.59.203]] 01:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Holger.
| accessdate2 = 10 November 2015

| author3 = Omer Benkajob
*How about the fact that christian believe that they have the holy spirit, which is part of the Trinity, inside them meening Jesus IS in them and they go to all of the Jews, Gentiles and other religious groups--[[User:Wwjd333|Wwjd333]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
| title3 = Why Jimmy Wales' WikiTribune Won't Save the News

| org3 = Haaretz
:Good thing there's nothing in that prophecy about Jesus having to bring the word of God to the Jewish people during His first lifetime, that'd sure make those Christians look pretty silly, huh. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
| url3 = http://www.haaretz.com/life/.premium-1.786100

| date3 = 27 April 2017
Can i just point out, he HAS bought the word of god to all jews... how many jews dont know about jesus!! dosent say he had to do it personally, he was just the messenger [[User:Teta|Teta]] 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
| accessdate3 = 30 April 2017

| author4 = Richard Cooke
1. Jesus' death on the cross for human salvation was prophesied in Old Testament, more specifically Isaiah 53. interestingly in this passage it's also mentioned that after that "He would see the light of life and be satisfied." this was also fulfilled in His resurrection.
| title4 = Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet

| org4 = ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]''
2. as Teta pointed out, He brought the Word of God to all Jews not only by Himself but also by His messengers (apostles) & His followers since then. (and He has been in control of all them - including when Apostle Peter was miraculously released from the prison through an angel of God).
| url4 = https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/
it's true that Jews were scattered to Europe & Persia etc but the Gospel was spread throughout these areas in early Christian history. Siung99
| date4 = 17 February 2020

| accessdate4 = 27 February 2020
1. I would have to agree with this. Why does the first paragraph have to portray a secular view of Jesus? Just because the "darkness cannot comprehend the light" doesn't mean we have to leave the most important part about who Jesus is out of the first paragraph.
| author5 = Caitlin Dewey

| title5 = The most fascinating Wikipedia articles you haven’t read
2. Could anybody name a biblical prophesy that Jesus did not fulfill? The Bible doesn't say Jesus would bring the word of God to all jewish peoples. The Jews were and are one people even if they were scattered. Could you please quote the scripture that supposedly says this?
| org5 = ''[[The Washington Post]]''
[[User:125.239.90.29|125.239.90.29]] 12:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
| url5 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/05/the-most-fascinating-wikipedia-articles-you-havent-read/

| date5 = 5 November 2015
<b>Continuing Ministry</b>
| accessdate5 = 8 March 2023
Orthodox Christianity considers that since Jesus is still alive, in heaven, he continues in a ministry of prayer and intercession there for the world. He also continues to influence individual peoples lives through well attested miracles and life changing revelations. Evangelicals and others consider the "Jesus lives in their hearts" giving individual comfort and guidance.
}}
This deserves a mention (or not?) [[User:Cosnahang|Cosnahang]] 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
== Jesus' father?? ==
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K
The Wikipedia article states, factually, that Joseph was Jesus' father. From the point of view of this world religion, the Virgin Mary and Jesus' miraculous birth are absolute and fundamental concepts in Christianity without which the religion is reduced to nothing but folklore. The article should state instead that Joseph led Mary and the baby Jesus to safety in Egypt after being warned in a vision to do so.[[User:194.54.8.205|194.54.8.205]] 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)RKravis May 2007
|counter = 137

|algo = old(30d)
In history and the Bible Joseph is considered Jesus father but this article should also add he is not Jesus birth father and how Jesus was born soley from Mary/--[[User:Migospia|Migospia]] 14:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Jesus/Archive %(counter)d

}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
:According to Christian orthodoxy, Joseph was not the father. What the Gospels actually mean is something that has been debated by theologians and historians and Bible critics. What "the truth" is of course is not relevant to Wikipedia. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive <#>
I would gather that as Wikipedia is an impartial source the article should either project certain facts about the man Jesus is believed to have been (he does turn up on Roman records) or present both viewpoints, I'd go for the latter but I am a mere WikiNoob. [[User:Henners91|Henners91]] 07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes
:Sorry if this is off topic, but you brought it up. What are these Roman records of which you speak?-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
}}

How is this even an issues? He should obviously be referred to as Jesus's father here. There is an article about the Virgin Birth linked from the introduction. It would violate NPOV to claim that Joseph wasn't Jesus's birth father. But it already mentions the debate when it links the Virgin Birth article. I see nothing wrong here. [[User:JeffBurdges|JeffBurdges]] 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:Hold on a minute, is this over the article saying that Joseph is Jesus' father, or that the article is somewhere stating that Joseph is Jesus' biological father? If it's the former, I was ignoring this discussion because that's accurate, though not necessarily clear, since legally speaking, Jospeh was indeed Jesus' father. But if the article is saying that Joseph is Jesus' biological father, it seems to be that itself would be violating NPOV, it would clearly be siding with a naturalistic stance on things. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the Christian belief, a required belief to be a Christian, Jesus had no biological father. If there should be a "father" mentioned, it should be God, since Jesus many times refered to God as "Father" and "My Father". -[[User:Yancyfry jr|Yancyfry]]
:Jews refer to God as our father all the time, it does not mean we claim a biological relationship. Jesus calling God his father was consistent with jewish practice at the time. I am not saying this to dismiss the Christian view, only to remind people that it is not the only view. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 10:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

John 3:18 refers to Jesus as "the ONLY begotten Son of God," this clearly shows that he is not the Son of God in the same way that God's creations (other people) are his children. The word begotten shows the biological relationship between Jesus and God the Father.
[[User:125.239.90.29|125.239.90.29]] 12:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the article correctly refers to Joseph as Jesus' father, as many christians also do, but then explains the Virgin Birth belief. How can you do this any other way? [[User:JeffBurdges|JeffBurdges]] 12:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he is trolling. Just like that. Putting Jesus' biological paternal line aside, Joseph was indeed Jesus' legal father, just and simply like that. I am Catholic and I've never had doubts or trouble about Jesus and/or other Jewish people calling Joseph his father. However, God IS his Father. Capitals making a big difference in here. Jeeze, trolls rant about this as much as about Jesus' brothers and sisters...--[[User:Kim Kusanagi|Kim Kusanagi]] 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

hi guys. it seems you got confused about the fatherhood of Joseph. Joseph was not His biological father, because Mary had got pregnant before Joseph married her. but he was his legal (human) father too. True, Jesus did refer to God as "His Father", as He had the unique status: both as man and as God. (God who became man).

=== Step-father ===
(moved from further down to include with earlier discussion)[[User:Afaprof01|Afaprof01]] 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been discussions in the past on how to modify the word "father". One interpretation is the Joseph was Jesus' step-father. However, that term is not used once in the gospels. This section is ''Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels,'' so we must follow the gospels here. There are placed to insert various Christian interpretations of the "raw data", if you will (like the ''Christian views'' section). However, we cannot present one interpretation of the data as if it were the truth. Therefore, as we have decided in the past, it is best to simply leave the word "father". It could be "legal father", it could be "biological father", it could mean any number of things. We leave it up in the air because the gospel accounts are not clear. Anything more would be adding interpretations, and choosing one interpretation is not neutral. What do others think about father? This has come up multiple times in the past, so is it really that controversial? Is there a better solution?-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 14:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was my change that resulted in the ''rv''. I yield. On further reflection, Luke informs us that when Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the temple to be circumcised, "''his father'' and his mother marveled at what was said about him" (Luke 2:33). Luke does not add the words adoptive, foster, or legal. He simply calls Joseph "his father." The same Luke who had written about the Virgin Birth now calls Joseph the ''father of Jesus''.[[User:Afaprof01|Afaprof01]] 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== Christianity vs. Mormonism (Debate) ==

Moved to Mmirachi[[User talk:Mmirarchi|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]. Please join in...

==Picture Caption==
The following has been added "As customary since the legalisation of Christianity in the 4th century, he is shown bearded and with the long hair and strong features that identify him as a Jew. He is enthroned as in the [[Book of Revelations]]". Firstly what on earth does it mean to say that "strong features" identify Jews? Secondly, beards were unfashionable in the 6th century, yes, but they were fashionable earlier and are regularly depicted on Antonine rulers. More importantly, they were depicted on ancient Greek philosophers. Early depictions of Jesus do not show him as bearded, and it's unclear whether this convention originally emerged as a specific signifier of Jewishness. The phrase "Greco-Roman priest and king" has nothing to do with paganism. It refers to his costume and regalia. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Early depictions of Jesus were indeed greek in style, and somewhat similar to greek perceptions of deity. The public image of Jesus change dramatically upon the re-immergence of the Turin Shroud approximately 1300AD. After which time, the typical image of Jesus became established.[[User:86.4.59.203|86.4.59.203]] 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Holger.

:Nonsense. It's a trivial exercise to find images of Christ predating 1300 with the "typical" appearance. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:Well since I've has no reply from the editor who made these changes I will remove some of the text, which is rather too long and unwieldy now. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 12:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Chronology -- Last supper ==

I'd like to comment on some things in the following paragraph that I think could benefit from some tweaking.

"The date of Jesus' death is also unclear. The Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion as directly before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan (called the Quartodeciman), whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe Jesus' Last Supper as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, some scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John.[10]"

1. I don't know that the Gospels mention Friday at all. Perhaps this word should be deleted.

2. Does the word "Quartodeciman" refer to the date itself, or the controversy surrounding the date, and to the Christians who observed Passover on that date (as opposed to the Sunday.) In brief: isn't the word an adjective?

3. I am aware of the issues in harmonizing the synoptics with John when it comes to the Last Supper. Some harmonizations suggest that there were two Passover celebrations, one on the eve of the 13/14, and the other on the eve of the 14/15. I would not say that the synoptics say the Last Supper was on the 15th, because this presupposes that all Jews celebrated on the same night, which may not be the case.

I'm not sure if my 3rd point is very clear. I can try to clarify if anyone wants to pursue this. I suppose what I'm suggesting is that we simply say something to the effect that there is a dispute as to whether the Last Supper was a Passover seder, because the synoptics seem to present it as such, but John appear to say otherwise. This could be the topic of a whole article.

--[[User:Hrankowski|Hrankowski]] 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

:1. I believe all the Gospels mention that the day following the crucifixion was a Sabbath. It therefore happened on a Friday, which by Jewish reckoning was the same day as the evening before when the Supper was eaten.

:2. "Quartodeciman" means the 14th. It was included there solely to give someone an excuse to link to [[Quartodecimanism]]. It ought to be removed; it's intrusive and is pushing a POV.

:3. This is complicated. Whether it was the Passover at all is not clear. The Synoptics thought it was, although Mark is very confusing about it. That remark in the article about Mark 14:2 is well taken. However, John says that it was «Παρασκευὴ τοῦ Πάσχα» (Jn 19:14), the Preparation ''of the Passover''. (Later on he uses "Preparation" unqualified where the context suggests it meant the same thing as in the Synoptics: the Preparation Day for the Sabbath.) In this case we have to follow our sources and not engage in any original research. Since this passage is cited it should remain. (Although it would be useful to check the source just to be sure.) And that's leaving aside the 14-15 issue, although I really think it was on the 14th.

My own church follows John's chronology partly because even the Synoptics say that leavened bread was used at the institution of the Eucharist, which could not have happened on the Passover. (The word used for bread is "artos", which always means leavened bread unless otherwise stated. Everywhere else unleavened bread is mentioned the ordinary word for it is used, "azymes". For example, the "Feast of Unleavened Bread" is «Ἂζυμα» at Mark 14:1.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 10:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

== Where to put this article in the "GA article" page ==
Currently, Jesus is listed under "divinities" in the [[Wikipedia:Good_articles]]. While he is viewed as God in mainstream Christianity but this is not universally held (e.g. among Muslims or some scholars). Any suggestions? --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if they allow multiple categorization, but it seems like "Protohistoric figures" could work. But "Divinities" seems best. They list a number of figures that are rejected by the majority of world religions today. On the other hand, many many more people alive today recognize Jesus' divinity moreso than they do Apollo's. I think the argument that we should change the GA categorization for NPOV concerns is not founded because the same argument could apply to a more extreme degree to the other articles listed. However, I do have some reservations because this article simply isn't only about the divine belief in Jesus. This article covers multiple POVs, including the scholarly historical Jesus and Islam's Isa, where the other articles may only be about the divine figures. Therefore, I would support multiple categorization, but I do not think we need to remove "Divinities".-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

== God the Son ==

Just letting those who watch this article that [[God the Son]], which was a long standing redirect to the Christian views of Jesus article, has recently been turned into a stub. If anyone wants to contribute to that article, or restore the redirect, or has any opinion on the matter (good or bad) please feel free to check it out.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)



== Mary Magdalene ==

Shouldn't his relationship with Mary be mentioned somewhere? I know that the Church's view is that he remained a virgin, but there is a lot of evidence otherwise.

[[User:Ffac06|Andrew V.]] 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:There is really no evidence either way -- unless you're counting frenzied speculation, bad movies or theological dogma. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:: '''NO''', It should not at all be added. --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, one obviously wants some sort of article about variations in christian beliefs and Jesus's apperance in fiction. Such an article would clearly have a serious section on Mary Magdalene & Jesus. But I don't see why you'd put that here. What you might do with the variations article is, every time you say anything mention in that article, you could have a little (see "Variations in Christianity") link. It's just a way to be respectful of other people's beliefs without letting all the minor beliefs fill up the article. [[User:JeffBurdges|JeffBurdges]] 15:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A more important issue for this page is: What about all the parts of the Jesus story that are taken from other "profits"? There are many views about what parts of Jesus's story are actually copied from other belief systems. Or other less important contemporary wandering profits. It'd be good to explain more of this. [[User:JeffBurdges|JeffBurdges]] 15:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We have pages for that too. See [[Jesus-myth hypothesis]], [[Mythographic perspectives on Jesus]], [[Historicity of Jesus]]. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:Cool [[User:JeffBurdges|JeffBurdges]] 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no real evidence supporting this claim. This Mary & Jesus relationship is not against the Bible though. I do not remember anything said that Jesus will be a virgin, only born of a virgin. But there is nothing in support of this either. This probably would've been recorded if so. -[[User:Yancyfry jr|Yancyfry]] 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Note- The Bible clearly prophesizes that Jesus will not only
have a family but children...

===Jesus Family===
The commentators above and others claim there is no proof
that Jesus had a family when the bible prophesied that he
did. See Isaiah.

o He shall see his Seed - Isaiah 53: 10

o He shall sprinkle his Seed across many nations - Isaiah 52:15

o Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and His Maker,
ask me of things to come concerning My Sons ... Isaiah 45: 11

The only source settling this all out for On Point consideration
is the new book - see link below.

This subject was popularized in the recent best seller Da Vinci Code where after chasing all over Europe the Heroine is found to be a descendant of Jesus. But that fictional account would claim
that after 2000 years any children of Jesus and descents would
come down to only one person...(a silly view.)

See link below to book discussing all this in detail AND the many proofs of descendants from Jesus down through time esp to Euro Royal lines .. all well known and understood; but the commentators above are not educated in any of this and so deny it ... when it is well established.

Book showing descents from Jesus family to today and including
descent also to perhaps you ...and to US Presidents...
[http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=3834562231130&isbn=0595333001 Jesus family descents to today]

See also [[Desposyni]]<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User: 76.200.211.121 | 76.200.211.121 ]] ([[User talk: 76.200.211.121 |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ 76.200.211.121 |contribs]]){{#if:04:46, 4 July 2007|&#32;04:46, 4 July 2007|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

'signature added'
/s/ cmpkkllef .

:You know that parable Jesus gave about sowing seeds? That was about seeds of the Gospel being sown into men, not seeds of His supposed biological children. And what do you know, here we are in 2007, and the seeds of Jesus' message of salvation are indeed sprinkled across many nations, and since Jesus is God, He of course can see it. Also, references to God's children are repleate throughought the Bible, and in the plural sense, it refers to believers, not to literal descendants of Jesus. How about that [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:1&version=31 1 John 3:1], eh? [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Yes, you people need to realise that the official story that was created by the Roman Catholic Church and the actual historical timeline are two different things. I have no intention of offending anyone, however this is the truth. The catholic church was told by the roman empire to make an offical story at the First Council of Nicaea. This was then enforced throughout the roman empire, which included britain. then the roman empire collapsed but the religion lived on. It was in 1500 during the spread of the british empire across the world (including america) that this offical story got spread even more.

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

::My point is, just because you are told its truth and you are told that faith (belief without evidence) is a good quality isn't always so.

::The potential real father of Jesus should be included because imaculate conception is a doctine of the roman catholic church - it may not be true. And furthermore, there is a lot of thought that 'virgin' is a mistranslation. virgin in the original version of the text was mistranslated. virgin actually means young woman. This would put the so called virgin birth idea to rest.

::Understand, i do not wish to offend anyone, but truth has a place in this article.([[User:Simaloko|Simon.uk.21]] 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

:::Then you should write the truth instead of half-remembered things you didn't understand in the first place.
:::*Some people make this ''claim'' about Constantine, but it's supported by neither the historical record nor a reasonable analysis of the facts. It's mainly accepted by groups who want it to be true, so as to allow them to pick and choose doctrine according to their own tastes instead of what Christianity has historically believed.
:::*The verse you have in mind where some now say "virgin" is a mistranslation is from the Old Testament, in Isaiah. The New Testament -- the primary source on Jesus' life -- was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and it says "virgin" unambiguously. But even the Isaiah verse must have been understood to mean "virgin" at some point -- that's how it was translated into Greek a couple centuries before Jesus was born.
:::*What on earth makes you think the British Empire had anything to do with "spreading the official story"? Other European nations spread Christianity on a larger scale and earlier than anything the Empire managed to do.
:::*Your conspiracy theories need to take into account those Christian churches that have never been "Roman Catholic" in the sense of being subject to the Pope's jurisdiction, yet still teach Nicene Christianity. Since this accounts for about 250,000,000 Christians, it's not an insignificant group.
:::*"[[Immaculate Conception]]" doesn't mean what you think it means.
:::To drag this back to something relevant to article content: There are only dubious sources for the idea the Jesus had descendants, such as the book ''[[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]]'', or fiction based on them such as ''[[The Da Vinci Code]]''. There's practically nothing citable. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

it appears that people are claiming that the roman catholic church is behind some form of cover-up concerning a possible family of jesus'.

ok let it be known i am not a catholic and find their theology to be very askew from my beliefs as a protestant. however, if there is some cover-up we should consider the question "why"? and also we must consider evidence.

now, apparently, there is only the gospel of thomas an apocryphal gnostic text that includes one fragmented line which states something akin to the fact that Jesus loved Mary the most. considering firstly the fact that the gospel itself is questionable then certainly this one fragmented line is hardly conclusive evidence and it certainly doesn't consist of itself as "plenty of evidence" as has been stated in the talk page earlier.

furthermore, none of the actual accepted gospels even offers a single hint (which i feel compelled to remind the readers is all the gospel of thomas offers) that Jesus had a wife or children. it certainly wouldn't have been a taboo or something the first Christians would have felt needed to be hidden. marriage and children are ordained by God and supported by plenty of biblical passages.

therefore, if Jesus did in fact have a wife and children. it wouldn't have been anything anyone would have any particular reason to cover up. secondly, the actual lack of evidence doesn't offer us wikipedia authors any sources to quote besides current literature trying to ressurect an idea debunked already by mainstream scholars.
[[User:70.156.11.235|70.156.11.235]] 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

==The FAC and the Sources on Jesus' life section==
I'd like to start trying to resolve some of the issues in the April FAC which failed, and I think the Sources on Jesus' life section is a good place to start, because I think what i'm about to suggest is more or less an obvious fix. One of the objections raised that was the "Sources on Jesus' life" section needed more information about the Apocrypha, (At least, I think that was what someone was trying to get at) but I have serious doubts that part of what is there now is relevant itself, specifically, the last paragraph:
:"Books that were not included are known as the New Testament apocrypha. These include the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of logia—phrases and sayings attributed to Jesus without a narrative framework, only rediscovered in the 20th century. Other important apocryphal works that had a heavy influence in forming traditional Christian beliefs include the Apocalypse of Peter, Protevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Acts of Peter. A number of Christian traditions (such as Veronica's veil and the Assumption of Mary) are found not in the canonical gospels but in these and other apocryphal works."
None of this seems to have to do with Sources on Jesus' life at all. This paragraph seems mostly about the formation of Biblical canon and its impact on Christian tradition, indeed, besides the Infancy gospel and the Gospel of James, none of the works mentioned claim to say anything about Jesus' life at all, as far as I can tell from their Wiki articles. And then, of course, the Infancy gospel is sort of obviously a medieval fairy tale at best, are there really that many notable people out there who take it as a serious source on Jesus' life? Nextly, I was under the impression Thomas was just a collection of supposed sayings of Jesus, rather than something providing information about Jesus' life. The only book here that I don't know much about the relevance of is the Gospel of James, but since it's only being listed in the context of just being important to Christian traditions and beliefs with the rest of these, I don't think just being in this list is really adequate mention of it as a possible source on Jesus' life, if it is even taken seriously itself. The most obviously irrelevant thing here, however, has got to be the last sentence, what possible relevance does it have in relation to Jesus' life? I understand that there are many people who believe the Gospel of Thomas to be important in relation to Jesus though, and I don't want to accidently remove something that might be important to the article, so for now, all I propose is to remove the last two sentences. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:If nobody objects, I will be removing the last two sentences today. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

== I found this confusing ==

I found the following paragraph under "Other Views" confusing.
<blockquote>
There are many non-religious people who emphasize Jesus' moral teachings. Garry Wills argues that Jesus' ethics are distinct from those usually taught by Christianity.[112] The Jesus Seminar[113] portrays Jesus as an itinerant preacher (Matthew 4:23), who taught peace (Matthew 5:9) and love (Matthew 5:44), rights for women (Luke 10:42) and respect for children (Matthew 19:14), and who spoke out against the hypocrisy of religious leaders (Luke 13:15) and the rich (Matthew 19:24). Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers that many consider to have been a deist, created a "Jefferson Bible" for the Indians entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings.
</blockquote>

After reading the first sentence, I expected the views of "non-religous people", perhaps atheists, agnostics or politcal leaders. Instead, the views of two quite religious persons and one very religious institution are described.

--[[User:William Warner|William Warner]] 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:It would seem the section title should be changed; what about Alternative views of Jesus, or Other perceptions of the importance of Jesus? Another might be "Moral importance of Jesus". Good catch; it is confusing given the title. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 06:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::I'm fine with the sub-heading "Other Views", as it's the last one in the section. Perhaps the first sentence of the quoted paragraph should be "Some Christians have placed a heavier emphasis on Jesus' moral teachings.", while the first sentence of the second paragraph in this sub-section might read "In the development of their own ideas, many non-religious philosophers have reacted to the figure of Jesus."--[[User:William Warner|William Warner]] 07:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I see now, sorry about the revert. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|Until(1 == 2)]] 16:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::As I believe [[User:Silly rabbit]] has already noticed according to his edit summary, Wills is not a Christian, or at least does not appear to be as far as his Wiki article says. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: Ah, sorry I missed this talk section before editing. I think that "secular scholars" is better than revert-warring over whether these people are Christian or not. The section does not deal so much with belief as in the method of exegesis. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] 16:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::: None of the listed are secular scholars. Garry Wills is a religious writer, the Jesus Seminar is comprised of religious scholars, and Jefferson was not a scholar but was religious enough to create a digest of the NT for native americans. I see the point of exegesis, though, and changed "Christians" to "writers". I still see value in identifying Russel and Nietzsche as non-religious, and must have been the original purpose of the sentence.--[[User:William Warner|William Warner]] 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::: I suppose that the two categories are signaled nicely by the paragraph break, and an explicit label isn't necessary.--[[User:William Warner|William Warner]] 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: While clearer, the new wording changes the meaning of the section a little. Before it highlighted the beliefs of the writers, but now it does not. Even without the labels, most readers who would care about the distinction will notice it right away.--[[User:William Warner|William Warner]] 17:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::: I meant "secular" in the ecclesiastical sense, but I like the current compromise solution even better. There is really no need to make the distinction explicit at all. Thanks, [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

==Horus and the film Zeitgeist==
Since [[User:Vexorg]] insists on having a section in the article dedicated to this Zergeist movie, and an external link by religioustolerance.org, I feel discussion on the talk page is in order, since I do feel this section, its rationale for existance, and the external link are quite, well, lousy. First of all, [[Zeitgeist the Movie]] is a conspiracy theory film. It is a mixture of conspiracy theories dealing with the Federal reserve, the banking system, 9/11, and Christianity all wrapped into one, and was released only on google video as far as the article claims. There does not appear to be any especially authoritative or notable source responsible for its production, and in fact, looking at its talk page, there is even a notification there already about how without any apparent reviews on the movie, that it may not even be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia at all. Currently, Vexorg's section appears compleatly based on the movie, in fact, it could be construed as advertising.

Nextly, the religioustolerance.org link appears rather low quality. Only a very few of the supposed traits of Horus appear to be inline cited, and there's even a bit at the bottom about how some of Horus's supposed attributes that religioustolerance advocates the existance of have no real evidence to support their existance, according to several Egyptologists. I therefore conclude that the link probably fails [[WP:EL]], specifically, under the "links to be avoided" section number 2, for most likely being misleading and/or unreferenced, and may fail number one, since the notability of this Horus thing does not appear like it would properly belong in the article at all, if this was going for FA status.

In conclusion, I see no valid reason for the inclusion of [[User:Vexorg]]s section, nor the religioustolerance.org link. Vexorg's usage of a warning to other editors is also highly contrarian to general Wikipedia philosophy, and his section certainly wouldn't qualify under the same kind of extenuating circumstances we have for the article's lead. Currently, I see no valid reason why I should not attempt to remove the section again. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


:At a minimum, the section should be rewritten based on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and merged with the section on "Sources of Jesus' life." And not as a standalone advert for the conspiracy-theory film, but as an alternative scholarly interpretation of the historicity of Jesus. More scholarly work in the field has focused on Dionysius rather than Horus, and I think that the article should reflect this. Horus is worth mentioning, but ''not'' worth an entire section. See [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:The whole section is baloney, derived from AcharyaS. It's covered - not very well at the moment - in [[Jesus Christ and comparative mythology]]. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


:: There's no reason why a subsection on comparisons to Horus can't be included. There's also no reason why the movie Zeitgeist can't be mentioned as it has a whole section exploring the comparison between Horus and Jesus. Citing it as an advertisement is ridiculous. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of films nad other media. Please note that the section is under construction, which I have explicity stated. There is no reason to jump on it like a ton of bricks at this point. In fact why not help make the section better. [[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::The reason the movie Zeitgeist cannot be used is that it's an unreliable source. Conspiracy theories are unreliable sources by their very nature.

:::Wikipedia may have thousands of film and media articles, but the salient feature about them is that they achieved some kind of notability. A film so commercially unviable that its official release is on Google Video isn't. It also commits a number of obvious errors in its opening minutes that immediately disqualify it as any kind of factual source whatsoever, unless we're writing about how far conspiracy theorists are willing to distort facts to fit.
:::: The Zeitgeist webpage lists all the sources used in the film. The section here did not specify that Zeitgeist was a factual source anyway. It just said Zeitgiest 'explored' the comparisons between Horus and Jesus[[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I don't care if they list their sources. If the film represents them accurately then they're wrong, as anyone who knows anything about Egyptian mythology and English etymology will tell you. For this film to "explore" a comparison between Horus and Jesus is akin to exploring Africa by vacationing in London. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 01:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is there even a Wikipedia article on this "film"? Are there any external reliable sources? It looks like this is just a big astroturfing effort. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your Google movie. Also, at the very end of the Religious Tolerance piece, it says that they actually talked to some Egyptian history scholars and the scholars told them that their claims about Horus were incorrect. Wikipedia doesn't source articles with disproven research. I know nothing whatsoever about what the ancient Egyptians believed about Horus, but if the article being used to source the comparison itself says that its own claims aren't true, why exactly are we including it? Lastly, people seeking to attack Christianity have made tons of comparisons with ancient mythology and literature. Google and you can find comparisons made with the Odyssey, with Greek mythology, Hinduism, Buddhism, or anything else under the sun. The inclusion of this one comparison is only for the self-serving purpose of giving this google movie some free advertising in a high-visibility article that is one of the top g-hits for "Jesus". It absolutely should not be included here. Find somewhere else to advertise. --[[User:BigDT|<font color="maroon">Big</font><font color="orange">ΔT</font>]] 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:: to [[User:BigDT]] .. 1] Zeitgeist is not my movie. 2] The reference to it here is NOTHING to do with advertising. 3] While the film itself criticises Christianity the inclusion of it here was for references purposes only. Wikipedia has articles on films and [[Zeitgeist The Movie]] is a film. It is simply YOUR erronous opinion that the inclusion of a reference to it here is for advertising purposes. I can completely understand why certain people would try and discourge the knowledge of this movie as it challenged a lot of widely held beliefs. But to question the inclusion of the movie as an article in wikipedia for no other reason than that is against the supposely balanced ethos of Wikipedia. While I can understand why you don't want this film to be included in Wikipedia there is absolutely no reason why it should not be featured I May also politely remind you of WP:AGF. While I will continue to WP:AGP individual editors I can easily detect that this page has a veil of bias anything that may criticise Christianity. This sadly is not the balanced view that Wikipedia should portray. [[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia has articles on films (like [[Star Trek]]), but that doesn't mean we have articles on every internet film someone makes. We have articles on companies (like [[Microsoft]]), but we don't have articles on [[Billy's Bait and Tackle Shop]]. --[[User:BigDT|<font color="maroon">Big</font><font color="orange">ΔT</font>]] 02:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Your argument is, with respect, weak considering [[Zeitgeist The Movie]] is hardly a home movie. Film distribution, like music distribution is changing due ot the internet. Just because a film is released for free distribution on google does not mean it has little relevence compared to blockbusters like [[Star Trek]] Considering the noteriety Zeitgeist already has, I was actually suprised their wasn't already a wikipedia page on it. Anyway I can see the reason for the passionate opposition against not only the mentioning of this movie but reference to comparisons between Horus and Jesus on this page. Contary to some of the obvious feelings here I didn't edit anything with the intention of criticising Christianity, only with the intention of including comparisons between Jesus and Horus and a reference to Zeitgeist for academic purposes. I think it would certinly be better included on here than on, for example, the [[Criticisms of Christianity]] page. Like I say I didn't see the inclusion as a criticism. But OK... you guys win, and I'm not going to continue any more edit wars here. LIfe is too short[[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] 03:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


There Osiris connection is mentioned and linked to in #Possible_external_influence. The discussion would fit better on the page linked to, though I'd begin with Joseph Campbell and E. Wallace Budge as sources.--[[User:William Warner|bleeding_heart]] 01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

==MoS==
"Ascension" and "Temptation" in a couple of the headings are capitalised -- is this deliberate? [[User:Chensiyuan|Chensiyuan]] 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Probably, in this case, they don't refer to temptation or ascension in general, but specific events termed "Ascension" and "Temptation". [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

==Some Scholars = fourth sentence??? ==
Being that there are well over a billion Catholics and twice as many Christians (2.1 billion), I hardy believe that the opinion of a few scholars is worthy of this much attention. Seriously. Religion aside, any reasonable person would agree that this kind of ‘trivia’ does not belong as the fourth sentence of the description of Jesus (literally, take a look, it’s the fourth sentence!). This is just plain common sense. At most, this information is trivia (despite the several articles that have been developed on the topic). Just to put things in a different perspective consider this example about Mengele:
:Josef Mengele (March 16, 1911 – February 7, 1979), was a German SS officer and a physician in the German Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. He gained notoriety chiefly for being one of the SS physicians who supervised the selection of arriving transports of prisoners, determining who was to be killed and who was to become a forced labourer, and for performing human experiments on camp inmates, amongst whom Mengele was known as the Angel of Death. ''A small number of scholars agree with the work and studies of Josef Mengele.''
How ridiculous does that sound! Wikipedia is becoming a credible source of information, however, people would certainly have second thoughts if they were to see such trivia in the introductions. Introductions are meant to be purely descriptive and not introduce opinions, trivia or consipiracy theories...those (if they must be included) belong later in the article. Christian or not, Administrator or not…I believe that REASON should be your guide concerning this issue. This is certainly a very important article on Wikipedia. Sure, I guess you could include this information (that is, if it’s not just an ulterior agenda imposed by someone a while ago), at most, somewhere in the body. In addition, even if someone is an atheist or non-Christian, that doesn’t mean they can’t exercise discretion about any faith, much less one that is a third of the world’s population. Putting others' faith into question is not exactly a noble way to be spending one's time (consider, for example, the [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]).
Lastly, after quite an exhaustive search, I really didn’t see any consensus reached in this talk page on this issue. Plus, this notion is already mentioned in the article more than once. I believe that this is a VERY valid edit on my behalf and I didn’t even remove the citation (just moved it down to one of the other mentions of this theory). I hope that reason will win out and I hope that the people that contribute here are all rational and understand this concern. Sincerely,
[[User:Anubis3| <font color="green">'''aNubiSIII'''</font>]] <sup>([[Special:Talk/Anubis3|<font color="yellow"><small>'''T'''</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Anubis3|<font color="black"><small>'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 09:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:Because the talk pages are pretty expansive: [[Talk:Jesus/Historicity_Reference#Table_of_Suggested_Lines_.28Final_Tally.29|this is]] the preliminary poll to see where people stood with various proposals (note, at the time, only 2 people wanted to remove the sentence entirely); [[Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/Archive 2|this is]] the run off between the top two candidates. And the rest of the [[Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/Key|2nd paragraph subpages]] deal with tweaking the wording. There was also great discussion concerning this matter before the first poll in the talk page archives scattered through #25-39. Just pointing this out because Anubis3 said "I really didn't see any consensus reached".

:As for the specifics about whether to include it or not, I do not believe comparing the scholars who support these views to Nazi sympathizers is helpful ([[Godwin's Law]] anyone?) The argument to include the sentence is NPOV. We state that the view is a small minority view, and we state what it is. We are giving all notable views space in the lead, hopefully with due weight. A lead is supposed to summarize article content, and since we have a section in the article about this, it makes sense to have a summary sentence in the lead relating to the view explained in more detail later in the article. All that said, I can understand the counter arguments that these views are so minor that giving them any space in the lead would be undue weight. I can possibly even sympathize with the position that some religious groups' views that don't have space in the lead are more notable than this content. So I'm not exactly sure where I stand on removing the sentence. I just feel that we should respect the previous lengthy process that brought us here, and not make rash changes without talk page support.

:Looking at the sentence, I feel it is problematic. It contrasts scholars who ''question the historical existence of Jesus'' with scholars who claim a ''completely mythological Jesus.'' How significant are these two positions, and do we really need to contrast the two? The only person I can think of who questions the historical existence of Jesus (he's an 'agnostic' regarding the historical Jesus, if you will) is [[Robert M. Price]] (and perhaps [[G. A. Wells]] a decade or two ago). The rest of the folk that are in the citation clearly fall under the mythist camp, right? I think a better sentence would be something along the lines of "Scholars critically examine the sources for the historical Jesus and to varying degrees find them reliable or not; very few scholars find them entirely accurate while very few scholars find them completely spurious." We could add the mythist citation to the "completely spurious" part, mentioning in the footnote the Jesus myth hypothesis, and then we could add some citations to biblical literalists to the "entirely accurate" part? I always thought it was strange that we mentioned in the lead those who deny the historical Jesus, but didn't mention those who think the Gospels are flawless accounts. Hmm... sorry if this is stream of conscious. Just some ideas I'm throwing out.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:I fully agree that this sentence, representing a radical minority viewpoint, does not belong up front in the Introduction, which, in and of itself, gives undue weight (to put it mildly). I was not watching this page when the straw poll occurred, or I would have strongly advocated removing the sentence. We do not find such bizarre statements in the Introductions of [[Mohammed]], [[Gautama Buddha|Buddha]], [[Confucius]], [[Socrates]], [[Aristotle]], [[Plato]], [[Homer]], [[Saint Peter|Peter]], [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]], etc. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not saying this to be rude, honest, but did you read the lead to [[Homer]]? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, and did not find any comparable sentence in the ''Introduction''. I did note the sentence in the first Section saying that there is no concrete evidence that he existed, but nothing along the lines of "mythological Homer" in the ''Introduction.'' Regardless, there are more than enough examples that illustrate the point. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:::If my opinion matters, I think it was undue weight then, and I think its undue weight now, and really, the article doesn't talk about the Jesus Myth hypothesis very much, but being in the lead like it is, you'd think that its placement would indicate a section or two of discussion in the article somewhere, since a lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. However, there is only one sentence about it in the rest of the article, most of the skeptical things in the historicity section don't seem to have anything to do with whether or not Jesus existed. I doubt I was familiar enough with proper article structure at the time to realize that when we had those polls though.... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:I forgot to mention 1.4 billion muslims who also acknowledge the existence of Jesus. That makes that sentence even more ridiculous in the intro (or lead, if you will). Half the world vs. a few ambiguous "scholars". I'd say that makes for a pretty strong case. Yet the scholars get the fourth sentence! Undue weight is an understatement. Although I agree the statement itself might fall under NPOV, the issue here, I think, is its strategic placement in the article which makes it "a flashing red light" for POV. Oh and Mike Godwin is a nerd. Haha. Maybe it never occurred to him that Hitler and the Nazis are synonymous with evil/extremism. You can use any example you wish, but I'm pretty sure you got the point I was trying to make. I certainly think its due time for a new poll judging by the responses...anyone??? [[User:Anubis3| <font color="green">'''aNubiSIII'''</font>]] <sup>([[Special:Talk/Anubis3|<font color="yellow"><small>'''T'''</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Anubis3|<font color="black"><small>'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::Speaking of evil, [[m:Polling is evil]]:Þ What do people think of altering the sentence to say something along the lines of "Few scholars believe the historical accounts on Jesus to be entirely accurate or entirely spurious." I believe bringing up the number of Christians or the number of Muslims is a red herring. This paragraph is discussing scholars, and the diversity of their views. Unfortunately, there is no such monolith as "scholarship" and professionals differ on their theories. The idea is to be neutral and present a spectrum, instead of ignoring anything that disagrees with mainstream scholarship.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::: That sounds like a good idea. I agree with some of the opinions voiced above that emphasizing the "some scholars" does rather place undue weight on their viewpoint. The purpose of the original sentence seems to be to emphasize a diversity of opinion as you say. However, I would also suggest a slight expansion of the passage to include discussion of the ''Questions of reliability'' of the gospel account and the ''Possible external influences''. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I am anti-polling as well. The present version by Andrew is no doubt a big improvement. My comments are that no historical account can be said to be entirely 100% accurate, so this statement probably goes without saying. I would also say "Very few scholars...", for indeed this adjective is warranted here. My preference would still be to omit the sentence altogether. The sentences preceding it are informative and NPOV enough. Acknowledging the historical existance of Jesus is no more POV than acknowledging the historical existance of any of the historical figures I cited above. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Broadening the 4th sentence to cover the fact that the extent of the historical accuracy of the new testament and gospels is subject to a lot of scholarly debate makes sense. The historicity section needs to cover all aspects such as the comparative mythology side of things (making sure of undue weight etc). Unfortunately we have this stupid arbitrary split of the [[Jesus and comparative mythology]] and the [[Jesus myth hypothesis]] which messes up how we summarize the scholarship as all the reading I have done starts with the former and some end up at the latter stance - not necessarily as a definite but as a balance of probability. Andrew's suggestion looks fair to me - what wiki links would be used? As Andrew also says - numbers mean nothing in these cases unless they have some special knowledge in this area. [[User:SOPHIA| <font color = "purple">'''Sophia'''</font>]] 22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While I have long fought for including the views of critical scholars (meaning, those whose interpretations of Biblical texts are not influenced by theological beliefs) and agree that we must acknowledge that many people question the existence of Jesus, I have long had problems with the last phrase referring to the mythological Jesus for two reasons. First, many of the proponents for this view are not established scholars of the Bible or 1st century Roman Palestine (i.e. they are diletantes who rely on secondary sources and whose work does not rise to the standards of peer review). Second, the most sophisticated propnents of this approach that I know of do ''not'' claim that Jesus did not exist but rather that Christianity, including the Christian Jesus, owe more to contemporary pagan mythologies than to the actual life and teachings of anyone named Jesus in the first Century i.e. this is an argument not about Jesus but about Christianity. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Homestarmy here. The early placement suggests the idea is far more important than it is. The first time I read the sentence, I thought the rest of the article was going to be ridiculous and useless. I think the idea is covered fairly well in the first paragraph of [[Jesus#Possible_external_influence]].--[[User:William Warner|bleeding_heart]] 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

:Regardless of how numerous or respectable they are, the scholars who argue for Jesus-as-myth are not some obscure group of people advocating something arcane that nobody has ever heard of. It is not "trivia." On the contrary, their views are quite visible. Many people have heard, written or argued about Jesus-as-myth theories--just run a Google search and look. Many Christians are quite sensitive to these ideas. Accordingly, readers deserve some up-front statement, in the lead, explaining the standing of these views among scholars. I find the objections to this sentence eccentric and ill conceived. [[User:ECKnibbs|ECKnibbs]] 22:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:P.S. And the SS example is ridiculous. If the "small number" of Mengele supporters were as visible as supporters of the Jesus-as-myth advocates, they would obviously deserve mention in the leads of a number of articles. Mentioning that a certain position exists does not imply support for that position.

::ECKnibbs, I don't know about you, but before I started contributing to Wikipedia, I don't remember ever hearing a single thing about this Jesus-as-myth thing, as far as I can remember, contributing to this project led to the first time of me even hearing of it in my entire life. Their views are quite visible now alright, since its in the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Jesus, and this article is the first result on google, but who caused that? Certainly not the scholars themselves or the actual notability of the arguments, only our long and vast argument over how notable these people were, resulting in what is in the lead now. I'd go so far as to say that thanks to this sentence, this very article may be the most visibility this movement has ever recieved. Google searches as a whole, however, are not sure-fire indicators of true notability, the "google test" is a well-used (and often mis-used) argument in [[WP:GOOGLEHITS|AfD proceedings]]; large numbers in a search result do not on their own make a strong case for notability. Many Jesus-myth people seem quite sensitive to the idea that their views might not be notable enough to warrent major inclusion in this article, however, readers ought to be presented with an article that lives up to our own policies and guidlines. But with the subject matter in the sentence mentioned in only one long sentence deep in the body surrounded by mostly unrelated material, the article currently falters in that regard, since part of the introduction causes the whole article to slip up in being "a well-constructed article", since "[[WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis|the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text.]]" in a well-constructed article. Based on the overall length of this article, i'd expect an independent sentence on the Jesus-myth in the lead like this to indicate at least several paragraphs or even an entire section of discussion in the article somewhere, dedicated only to the Jesus-myth stuff, not one long sentence buried in a more general section. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 04:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I was not arguing about the notability of the Jesus-as-mtyh hypothesis. It is doubtless notable, which is why Wikipedia has the [[Jesus myth hypothesis]] article. I was instead taking a utilitarian position: many people have heard about this theory and, to be useful, the [[Jesus]] article should mention it in the lead. Reference works should anticipate the questions that people consulting them might ask. I think it is likely that many will read this article with questions about Jesus' existence and mythological status in mind.

:::You seem to underestimate the prominence the mythological Jesus ideas. Like many people with a Catholic education, I was taught about those who argued for Jesus' nonexistence in high-school, and given talking points to refute the position. This sort of theorization seems to have achieved peak popularity in the early 20th century (when, in fact, most Catholic school apologetics curricula were devised), but it's still out there. Though biblical scholars as a whole reject the notion, bestsellers like <i>The Jesus Mysteries</i> have given the idea a lot of exposure. There are also academic books influenced by 'mythological Jesus' ideas, even if they do not openly advocate Jesus' non-existence. In this vein see, for example, Dennis R. MacDonald, <i>The Homeric Epics and the Gospels</i> (Yale University Press: New Haven, 2000).

:::The reference in the lead to the Jesus-as-myth advocates is neither as "buried" nor as disconnected as you seem to think. It is part of a paragraph devoted to sketching scholarly opinions of Jesus and his historicity. Most of this paragraph sketches the scholarly mainstream; the final sentence tells the reader that there is a range of opinions--a few people even doubt that Jesus existed. And have you even read the Jesus article? See the sections on "Questions of reliablity" and "Possible external influence", both of which devote a substantial amount of material towards the mythological Jesus theories. The position doubtless deserves a sentence in the lead, unless you want to cut out all this material as well.
:::[[User:ECKnibbs|ECKnibbs]] 08:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::::The question of notability for this article has never been whether something is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, if it was, this article would be large enough to be turned into a book. Many people may of heard of this theory, but countless number of people have heard a great many things about Jesus, and compiling a reference that can anticipate all of those things would take up far more space than a Wikipedia article should normally hold, especially if all of that information was crammed into the lead. As it is, the Jesus-myth has a long sentence as the third paragraph of the "Questions of reliability" section already which is just a glorified version of the sentence in the lead anyway, and a shorter (yet far more vauge) sentence in the section below it, dedicated to "a small minority", whatever that means.

::::Catholic education is not something I am familiar with, but if the curriculum was calling primarily for apologetics in various areas, well, apologetics isn't exactly a very popular topic in society at large. However, if the academic books in this area don't actually advocate Jesus not existing, then even if they lifted some of their arguments straight from Jesus-myth book's pages, that still wouldn't confer the Jesus-myth theory itself notability, merely other things related to the "Questions of reliability" section most likely.

::::When I refer to the buried sentence, I don't mean the one in the lead, I mean the one in the body, in the "Questions of reliablity" section. And ok, maybe I didn't notice that second sentence at first in the section below, it was even shorter than the first mention in the body. However, scholarlyness of the Jesus-myth theory aside, (Far better editors than myself in this area can probably debate that much better than I can) two sentences which aren't even linked together seems like a very strange definition of "substantial material" in a 102 kilobyte article to me. Even stranger, your assertion that the sentence in the lead has a doubtless need for existance, since of course, I do doubt it, and have already made clear that I doubt it, thusly making the need of the sentence quite non-doubtless indeed. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::I think you misunderstood my reference to Catholic apologetics. It was just part of my argument that the Jesus-as-myth notion enjoys a fair amount of <i>currency</i>, more in fact than many things people may have heard about Jesus. The notion enjoyed some scholarly attention, in its day. What place this earns the theory in the article is a matter of opinion, but I object to calling its inclusion "ridiculous", on the level of giving "trivia" in the lead.

:::::There is another way to look at the question, which is perhaps less subjective than simply claiming that the 'mythical Jesus' has enough circulation to warrant inclusion: The Jesus-as-myth theories generally boil down to the question of the degree of "external influence" (and in fact the entire first paragraph of our "external influence" is devoted to explaining this). Most of the mythical Jesus arguments claim that external influences on the Gospels and related Christian texts were so great that they provide no accurate information about anything, and that Jesus' very existence is thus open to doubt. The opposite end of the spectrum is, of course, holding that our documents provide us with the equivalent of eyewitness reporting, without any significant external textual influence, and thus constitute solid evidence not only that Jesus existed, but that he worked miracles and rose from the dead. As part of this spectrum, the mythical Jesus people are important, and they have exercised influence on scholarship. The book by MacDonald I cited above, for example, argues for a very high degree of external influence on the Gospels. In other words, the Jesus-mythers sit on one end of a debate that is very important to the article. This debate is not marginal or unimportant, it is not "trivia" or in any way "ridiculous," and communicating the parameters of this debate to readers at the beginning of the article seems a good idea, especially as issues of historicity crop up so often in any discussion of Jesus.

:::::I understand your objections less and less. They seem based entirely on the assertion that there are many opinions as important as the 'mythical Jesus' notion, but that we exclude the latter while including the former, and that this makes the article biased. What are these other ideas? Perhaps they should indeed be included.

:::::[[User:ECKnibbs|ECKnibbs]] 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::The "Mythological-Jesus Hypothesis" is a radical-minority viewpoint that does not belong in the lead of a general article about Jesus. No one is denying that the viewpoint cannot be addressed in the article -- it just doesn't belong in the lead. As already mentioned, we do not find such radical points-of-view in the introductions of other historical ancient figures.

::::::I would accept the rewording proposed by Andrew: "[Very] few scholars believe the historical accounts on Jesus to be entirely accurate or entirely spurious." That speaks to the spectrum of opinion you refer to. But the POV catch-phrase "mythological-Jesus" has to go. While it may have sensational merit, it is also potentially inflammatory and offensive to the religious sensibilities of the world's Christians and Muslims. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 13:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Mythical/Historical Jesus Controversy ==


A number of recent scholars and historians of the period have seriously been considering that Jesus may have been a mythical character and was put into the historical framework as a real person by the early christian church in 110 AD. According to them this suggests that Jesus may never have actually existed. I have been researching this and it is looking increasing likely that this may have been the case. The first four gospels (mark, matthew, luke, john) don't seem to know anything about most of the apparent miracles of Jesus and the story that we would see as familar with Jesus today.

This should really be taken into consideration in the article in the interest of a fair and unbias page.

Watch the movie, the god who wasn't there.

We already have wikipedia articles dedicated to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_comparative_mythology

We should put a insert into the main Jesus article because this is relevant and should be linked. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|81.77.48.148}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|81.77.48.148}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|81.77.48.148}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

: If you haven't noticed, no one really cares about what you believe or not. That is NOT the issue being discussed here. Go ahead make a big sign that you're an atheist or non-Christian or tatoo it to your forehead. But, again, no one here cares because this is about conforming the Wikipedia rules. Most people here are making valid arguments based on Wikipedia's rules/standards concerning this issue, so if you would like to make an effective input in this discussion, try to take an NPOV stance. Oh and don't use big words like "fair" and "unbias" when you are the prime example of their opposite. [[User:Anubis3| <font color="green">'''aNubiSIII'''</font>]] <sup>([[Special:Talk/Anubis3|<font color="yellow"><small>'''T'''</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Anubis3|<font color="black"><small>'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 12:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::Have I missed some history with the anon editor that you are referring to? As far as the contributions history shows the post above is the only one he/she has made to this page. Not that that matters as the post by Anubis3 is unnecessarily aggressive and rude to any editor. I chose to ignore the SS analogies above as a sign of immaturity but further posts of the type above will result in civility warnings. [[User:SOPHIA| <font color = "purple">'''Sophia'''</font>]] 12:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::Sophia, I'm sorry you feel that way but my comments are no more uncivil than you calling me immature and aggressive. This discussion is now way off topic. I only wanted to keep it NPOV, because if you haven't noticed these are some very sensitive issues being discussed here (on all sides), matters of faith. Please refer to Wikipedia's defintion of [[Wikipedia:Civility|Civility]] if you are having trouble. Thanks. [[User:Anubis3| <font color="green">'''aNubiSIII'''</font>]] <sup>([[Special:Talk/Anubis3|<font color="yellow"><small>'''T'''</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Anubis3|<font color="black"><small>'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 13:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Wow, seems like a bit of an overreaction to me, although I can sympathize with you. Often it feels as though one is constantly under siege from anonymous editors on Wikipedia. Anyway, my take is that the IP wanted a link to Jesus and comparative mythology. I have added this to the see also section. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] 13:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: Hi everyone, okay so it was me who made the inital post in this topic, i have signed into my wikipedia account now. First off, i do not mean to offend anyones beliefs, i'm just saying in the interest of being fair, this should be considered in the main article because the facts are that there are a number of academic scholars and historians who find the idea that Jesus may actually have been a myth credible.

::::I don't want to get into any arguments, however there are good reasons why he may have been a myth. This has to do with the history of the christian church and the lack of evidence for the character of Jesus in the records of the Roman Empire, never mind the conflicting stories in the bible.

::::Just understand i don't mean to offend you, i just want the wikipedia article to be as fair and unbias as possible. ([[User:Simaloko|Simon.uk.21]] 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

::I'm sorry to just butt in, but accusations about NPOV violations are a little off the mark. In the first place, as far as I know, NPOV policies regard the content of articles, not necessarily contributions on Talk. In the second place, this thread opens by comparing those who doubt Jesus existed to (hypothetical) supporters of Mengele and his medical experiments. Given this context, it seems a little unfair to jump all over an editor for posting his or her suggestions for the article, simply because that editor also confessed to finding the Jesus-as-myth hypothesis convincing.
[[User:ECKnibbs|ECKnibbs]] 14:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Well put - no editor should have their head bitten off for having the good manners to discuss their views of the article on the talk page even if they are seen by some as treading on the "sensitve ground" of their faith. Pulling the "this offends me therefore you have to be careful what you say" card is a form of [[passive aggressive]] behaviour that is a anathema to balanced discussions and free speech. This article is ''about'' Jesus and most of the problems here are caused by some taking this as a forum for apologetics or [[WP:OR|OR]] of all kinds. I should have taken Andrew's advice and considered the thread [[Godwin's Law|dead]]. In all seriousness Anubis3 I would reread [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:BITE]] along with [[WP:NPOV]] if I were you as you have missed some very important points - such as the fact that I was referring to your ''posts'' and had not made the jump to classifying you personally. [[User:SOPHIA| <font color = "purple">'''Sophia'''</font>]] 15:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you both missed the mark about the Mengele example. I wasn't supposed to be that difficult. But, evidently, I should have noticed earlier that this discussion, and most people in it, favor one certain point of view. Advancing the position I am supporting is proving futile. I no longer feel welcome in this discussion. It's seems that throughout this discussion, as soon as someone entered supporting the opposing viewpoint about the sentence (that is, the one that I am supporting), some users here converge on that person to kick him/her out. I don't think that this is right. Apparently, that is why it is still locked down as the fourth sentence.

ECKnibbs and Sophia, I don't know if it could be more clear about NPOV on talk pages. It's written in big bold on the top of this page [[Wikipedia:Talk Page]]. Personal views/philosophies, on talk pages or in articles, impune the integrity of Wikipedia. That is simply the point that I was attempting to make. (Sophia, I'm not even gonna respond to your other comments)

It's funny, no one seems to be questioning the existence of [[Muhammad]] or [[Gautama Buddha|Siddhartha]] or [[Abraham]] or regard them as myth on Wikipedia (especially not in the leads!). Hmmm..., maybe they're too afraid. Yet, Wikipedia has entire articles of the myth and nonexistence of the lead figure in Christianity. OR, maybe the "war on Christianity" is not just a political slogan. However, you'll only fool yourself if you believe that the "scholars" that point to the myth are anything more than a few conspiracy theorists. It's one thing to question the '''historicity''' of Jesus and another to question his existence. As a last suggestion then, therefore, I would replace "historical exitence" with "[[Historicity of Jesus|historicity]]" (after all that is the title of the article) at the very least (dropping the myth part completely). Otherwise, this article should be RED FLAGGED and a [[Template:NPOV]] should be added. Perhaps my comments will be followed by critical reponses, but I assure you, I already got the point: I am not welcome. [[User:Anubis3| <font color="green">'''aNubiSIII'''</font>]] <sup>([[Special:Talk/Anubis3|<font color="yellow"><small>'''T'''</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Anubis3|<font color="black"><small>'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Talk Page]] says nothing about maintaining NPOV in posts on the talk page. The bold note at the top of this page begins with the words "Article policies", not "Article:Talk policies." Perhaps I am wrong, but I assumed this label meant that they apply to the article.

:That said, I have no problem with substituting <i>historicity</i> for <i>historical existence</i>; the latter term makes me a little uncomfortable anyway.

:[[User:ECKnibbs|ECKnibbs]] 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::I have attempted to revise the disputed sentence as follows:

::<i>Some scholars and authors question aspects of the [[Historicity of Jesus|historicity of Jesus]], with a small number arguing for a completely [[Jesus as myth|mythological Jesus]].</i>

::I am not entirely satisfied with the edit (I think "many," rather than "some," scholars "question <i>aspects</i> of the historicity of Jesus"), and I suspect it will be reverted. But it seemed worth a try.

::[[User:ECKnibbs|ECKnibbs]] 18:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:::To clarify, ''Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. '''They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views'''.'' [[User:Anubis3| <font color="green">'''aNubiSIII'''</font>]] <sup>([[Special:Talk/Anubis3|<font color="yellow"><small>'''T'''</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Anubis3|<font color="black"><small>'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::No one in this conversation has used this page as a platform for their personal views, Anubis3.[[User:ECKnibbs|ECKnibbs]] 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Again, to clarify, ECKnibbs: ''According to them this suggests that Jesus may never have actually existed. I have been researching this and it is looking increasing likely that this may have been the case. The first four gospels (mark, matthew, luke, john) don't seem to know anything about most of the apparent miracles of Jesus and the story that we would see as familar with Jesus today.'' It would be good now get back to the issue, as I no longer want to have to clarify everything. [[User:Anubis3| <font color="green">'''aNubiSIII'''</font>]] <sup>([[Special:Talk/Anubis3|<font color="yellow"><small>'''T'''</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Anubis3|<font color="black"><small>'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I have to admit it isn't clear to me what "aspects of the [[Historicity of Jesus|historicity of Jesus]]" actually means. [[User:EALacey|EALacey]] 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Nor to me, come to think of it. What about: "Many scholars question aspects of the traditional accounts of the life of Jesus, with some..." More cumbersome, maybe, but a little more specific? "Historical existence" troubles me a little, and just substituting "historicity" for "historical existence" seems even more confusing.[[User:ECKnibbs|ECKnibbs]] 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::I did not see this new section on this topic before making my post in the previous section. So that it is not overlooked, I am reposting my recommendation here. I would accept the rewording proposed by Andrew: "[Very] few scholars believe the historical accounts on Jesus to be entirely accurate or entirely spurious." That speaks to the spectrum of scholarly opinion on the matter, and does so in a fairly NPOV way. But the POV catch-phrase "mythological-Jesus" has to go. While it may have sensational merit, it is also potentially inflammatory and offensive to the religious sensibilities of the world's Christians and Muslims. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Scholars today are not more ready to state that Jesus was mythical than they were 50 years ago or even 150 years ago. This position has been around for a while. On the other end of the intellectual spectrum my grandmother never believed man walked on the moon. In her mind it was an impossiblity. However, in both cases the position is a very small, statisticlly insignificant minority.
::::::In the English language the common individual interprets mythology as the stuff of fairy tales. It is not the common language for religions of today. Our objective is to write not for the academic milieu, but that of society at large. I support LotR's proposal because it does that very well. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I do not find arguments about offending religious sensibilities persuasive. Does it not offend non-Christians to suggest that some dead Palestinian was actually the son of God? Wikipedia shouldn't be "politically correct" in the sense of self-censorship for the sake of not offending Christians. We must take this from a NPOV stance. I was reluctant to make this comment because I still stand by the wording I already proposed and that LotR's endorsed (would you support having a link to the Jesus Myth article in the footnote?), but felt it was important for everyone to examine why we include multiple views on wikipedia, and exclude others.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::My comment about "religious sensibilities" was more an after-thought (but still something for us to take into consideration). While Wikipedia need not always be bound by political correctness, it ought not go out of its way to be offensive to a rather large group of people (over 2 billion Christians and Muslims) either. And, for what it's worth, I do not find the "but then everything is offensive" argument convincing, either. Affirmative statements about the central figure of a religious belief system (e.g., "the New Testament canon proclaims Jesus to be the Son of God") is not the same as derogatory, crackpot statements designed to ridicule that belief system. As Storm correctly points out, calling something a myth is to say it's a "fairy tale," and the implication is that only childish fools believe in fairy tales.

::::::::That said, the modified version resolves these issues, and it seems to have garnered support. The credit belongs to Andrew for writing it, although I advocate that "Very" be inserted at the beginning of his original version. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::: There is no need for this arguement. All i suggested was that some academics and scholars who have investigated the historical timeline find that it is credible that Jesus never actually existed. This in my opinion should have a paragraph in the main article. There is no need for people to be defending faith etc... the rest of the article will still be there, all im saying is that a paragraph should outline my point. In the interest of fairness i think we can all agree that the opinion of some academics should not be ignored in the main article. ([[User:Simaloko|Simon.uk.21]] 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

:::::::::: If they were really academic there'd be more case for that, but as I believe has been demonstrated time and again, almost none of the premier advocates of Jesus-myth things are actually academics, or academics in a field that would be authoritative on this subject. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

===New proposal from Afaprof01 ===

So after we basically all agreed on a wording, and LotR made it go live earlier today, another user has come along and changed it to ''Disputes about the existence of Jesus and reliability of ancient texts relating to him are discussed later in this article and in several separate articles including [[Jesus and history]].'' completely ignore our previous work. What do other users think of this version? I think referencing wikipedia articles in this manner is just poor writing. There may be some underlying ideas in that proposal that could help to improve the wording of the Andrew/LotR version, adn I'm sure we can talk them out, but I think it's premature to have an undiscussed version go live. And what up with blanking the big ref?-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 05:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:It's not just poor writing, its an MoS violation of [[WP:SELF]], I seriously doubt any FA reviewer would let us pass with that in the lead. Though on the ref, it does occur to me that we now need to reference scholars who believe the Gospels to be compleatly accurate in addition to the Jesus-myth folks.... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
::Good luck finding any. While many may believe into the spiritual truth of the bible, I'd be suprised if a significant number of even deeply religous scholars believe in the literal accuracy of the gospels, given that it takes a massive amount of mental yoga to reconcile the discrepancies between them. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 09:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I changed it back to the new agreed version as it's important to note early on that there is huge range in the acceptance of the historical documents that this whole article is built on. [[User:SOPHIA| <font color = "purple">'''Sophia'''</font>]] 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I think I mentioned before that we should probably site some biblical inerrants. I can't think of any off the top of my head, maybe William Lane Craig? maybe Gary Habermas? (I'm not sure how far they take their beliefs, but I believe they both argue for a historical resurrection when most scholars don't go into that terittory, or outright reject the resurrection as historical). I'm sure there are some theologians out there we could cite. I mean, we site a bunch of non-historians, non-biblical scholars for the myth group, I'm sure we can find some non-historians who have degrees in some field and teach at very conservative universities who hold the view on the other side of the spectrum. I'll try to put some research into finding citations, and others are welcome to contribute.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::It also occurs to me that with the way the sentence is written now, it refers to all historical accounts of Jesus, whether that be the Gospels or not. If it was just the Gospels, we wouldn't necessarily need someone who is a Biblical inerrantist, but merely someone who believes that whenever the Bible mentions Jesus' life, that it's accurate. But it's have to be someone pretty crazy who not only belives the Bible to be accurate, but everything else as well, including all of Josephus and every Infancy gospel, no matter how clearly ridiculous an account the infancy gospels may be. You might try [[D. James Kennedy]] as a non-historian non-biblical scholar yet popular type of inerrantist fellow, he's got some theological degrees. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::It looks like we're changing the meaning of this sentence, from "some think jesus never existed" to "some question the reliability of the accounts." I'm fine with that. The idea that Jesus may not have lived gets plenty of airtime in the rest of the article, and it doesn't belong in the introduction. I think the best paragraph so far is the one in which the sentence was simply eliminated. I prefer a clear statement of a minority opinion to one written by committee and grafted on without regard to its very visible seams. The sentence as it's written now says very little, unlike the two that precede it. Last night, I reverted the compromise sentence because it read so badly, but I neglected to read all the talk that preceded the change. Perhaps a better approach to closing this paragraph would be something along the lines of "While there is broad agreement on these few details, facts about Jesus have always been hard to prove and hotly disputed, as the nature of this person is so important to so many." I like that wording because it captures the spirit of much of the rest of the page, which is chock full o' alternative views.--[[User:William Warner|bleeding_heart]] 22:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it very weasely to say "Very few scholars believe that all historical accounts concerning Jesus are either completely accurate or completely inaccurate concerning Jesus' life." First, it is not a true statement. Throughout >2000 of history of Christianity, many (not very few) scholarly Christian theologians have agreed with the accuracy of the biblical accounts concerning Jesus. Therefore, "very few" is an inept descriptive. At the other end of the spectrum are more liberal theologians who have serious doubts about a lot of things. I like the statement: '''Disputes about the existence of Jesus and reliability of ancient texts relating to him are discussed later in this article and in several separate articles including [[Jesus and history]].''' (1) It clearly and unapologetically acknowledges there are disputes; (2) It avoids the quantitative like "very few" which is virtually meaningless; (3) It tells the reader upfront that this article does deal with some of those disputes, so keep on reading; (4) It also tells the reader that this is not a thoroughly comprehensive article about Jesus in all respects. If it were, there wouldn't be so many others on Wiki with only subtle differences in titles. It lists only one other Wiki article, [[Jesus and history]], which does contain references, seealso's, etc., to many other articles dealing with "Disputes about the existence of Jesus and reliability of ancient texts." It's about as Neutral Point of View as one can get. Thanks for your consideration. [[User:Afaprof01|Afaprof01]] 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. We've had various issues with the new proposal, leading me to believe it was premature to add it to the lead. The most recent criticism is that RossNixon claims that the belief that the entire NT account of Jesus' life is entirely historical is actually a common belief. Is there any support for that statement. Could we start getting into our sources (I know we mentioned it above, but it's probably best to actually see what the sources say, where the scholars stand before adding things to the article).-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 05:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:The thing is Andrew, by saying all accounts like that sentence, it doesn't imply that it only means serious sources, so saying that "very few" people trust all documentation concerning Jesus means there'd have to be some crazy guy who trusts the infancy gospels and every pseudographical work concerning Jesus, no matter how contradictory to the gospels, and no matter how plainly ridiculous and discounted the account is. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::Hey don't get me wrong, I think we have a pretty good version (I did help with some of the original wording ;) I just think it would be fair for everyone to have a chance to give their imput. Maybe we can address Ross' concern here and be on our way, but it doesn't hurt just to wait another couple days to be sure we are on the right track (which I think we are). You make a valid point that we aren't just talking about the gospel accounts. If we get to the point of needing something else, I came up with another idea, but I don't want to confuse things anymore than they already are so I'll hold off making new proposals (besides, I like the path we are on).-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 05:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Andrew, you wanted some source support? All I can offer for now is a partial list of conservative evangelical scholars who strongly support the historicity of the NT. One could compile a long list of moderate to conservative scholars who have defended the accuracy and historicity of the New Testament, viz. Paul Barnett, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Richard Bauckham, E. M. Blaiklock, Marcus Bockmuehl, F. F. Bruce, E. E. Ellis, Craig Evans, Donald Guthrie, Colin Hemer, Harold Hoehner, Martin Hengel, Craig Keener, Andreas Köstenberger, Bruce Metzger, Stanley Porter, Robert Stein, Ned Stonehouse, Graham Twelftree, Daniel Wallace, David Wenham, John Wenham, Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright, Edwin Yamauchi, etc. Does this help? [[User:rossnixon|<sup><font color="green">''ross''</font></sup>]][[User talk:rossnixon|<sup><font color="blue">''nixon''</font></sup>]] 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::::We are now into parading beliefs rather than scholarly work - unless I'm really out of the loop there is no widespread acceptance of the complete accuracy of the NT except by Christian apologists. The historicity of the census has never been established and what about the different lineages in Matthew and Luke? Complete acceptance of the NT is a much a minority view as the Jesus myth (even though it has more proponents - the wonders of faith). I'm happy to see a sentence that gives a feel for the full spread of views in academia for the accuracy of the documents that this whole article is based on, giving no undue weight to any one group. We need something though as most academia does pick and choose which bits to accept - often based on the faith of the scholar - no non Christian accepts the historicity of the resurrection for example. [[User:SOPHIA| <font color = "purple">'''Sophia'''</font>]] 10:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ross, did you read Homestarmy's point above? The sentence isn't just talking about the 4 gospels, but ALL accounts of Jesus' life. How many of those scholars believe Josephus doesn't have any Christian interpolations? How many of those scholars believe the infancy gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, etc are entirely historically accurate? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 13:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Here is one example from your list. I randomly picked Craig Evans and found ''It is highly unlikely that the Gospel of Judas preserves for us authentic, independent material, material that supplements our knowledge of Judas and his relationship to Jesus''[http://www.craigaevans.com/Gospel%20of%20Judas.pdf]-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::My apologies. I did not pick up on the inclusion of non-canonical texts. [[User:rossnixon|<sup><font color="green">''ross''</font></sup>]][[User talk:rossnixon|<sup><font color="blue">''nixon''</font></sup>]] 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::No need to apologize. I think this may indicate that our wording has a certain connotation and we could consider rephrasing to make it clear. As a refresher, this is the text that was last in the article ''Very few scholars believe that all historical accounts concerning Jesus are either [[Biblical literalism|completely accurate]] or [[Jesus as myth|completely inaccurate]] concerning Jesus' life.'' The original proposed version said "the gospels" instead of "all historical accounts" and I think the change helps. I still think that nearly all ''historians'' do not consider the gospels flawless, but Ross has clearly shown a number of ''biblical scholars'' and theologians who do hold that position. So is saying "all historical accounts" enough to convey that we are not just talking about the gospels?-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a general comment (''not'' in response to Andrew's last posting): To claim a historical document to be ''reliable'' is not to say it is "infallible" or "120% accurate." I keep hearing rumblings about the Gospels being "inconsistent" (on some factual details), and therefore are somehow "ahistorical." This is a ''non sequitur''. If they were identical then it seems that they might have originated from a single source (which is not the case). The fact is, the NT canon is remarkably consistent in its portrayal of Jesus, but this is not to say that they are 100% accurate in all details.

In any event, on Friday I went ahead and made the change because there was agreement among the editors discussing this issue, followed by silence. When issues are discussed on a Talk page at length, and silence ensues, I take that to mean it is time to implement the proposed change. I would advocate restoring the sentence that was agreed on, or one of the similar variants, then hammer things out more in Talk if necessary. The original contention was not to give undue weight to an extreme minority viewpoint (the so-called "Mythological Jesus" denigration) in the lead. The objection to removing the sentence completely was that, in the spirit of maintaining NPOV, an indication of the range of scholarly opinions was given in the lead. There are no objections to this. The sentence that Andrew proposed achieved a very nice compromise that achieves the goal quite nicely. So I advocate restoring it (or one of the similar variants), then iterating from there. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 13:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:Many readers will read "historical accounts" and think of the NT. The non-canonical texts are vastly less known and regarded by most as mythological or apocryphal. Is there another term that sounds less historicitic that could be used? Say "ancient texts"? That is the term used on this page [http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/Bible/outside.stm] [[User:rossnixon|<sup><font color="green">''ross''</font></sup>]][[User talk:rossnixon|<sup><font color="blue">''nixon''</font></sup>]] 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::Good suggestion. It works for me.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a day off yesterday to heal my eyes from staring at the computer too long, so I didn't reply earlier. It's not that I don't like the idea of a new sentence that doesn't have the Jesus-myth disproportionatly mentioned in violation of lead guidelines, its just that i'm not sure anymore that the sentence suggested is correct. Since I assume we're going on the principle that the sentence there now will be replaced by one sentence, something vauge might be necessary in order to relate to the several sections given to academic opinions without only mentioning the Gospels and without trying to write in extremes of opinion that don't exist. What about something like "''Scholars in fields of study relating to sources on Jesus' life have a wide array of opinions concerning the accuracy and reliability of historical documents and records pertaining to his life." [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:Ross's suggestion seems fine though, so are we going to go with that? [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 18:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::Took a couple days off myself. I noticed the change has been made and just wanted to commend those who worked on iterating this much improved sentence. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 14:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

== Zoroaster ==

I reverted the edits to Possible_external_influence which added Zoroaster and changed all the instances of "pagan" to "gentile." The paragraph as it was was exceptionally clear, cohesive and persuasive, in that it limited its argument to external sources that christians themselve claim, the apostle Paul, popes JPII and Benedict, and Cornell West, to name a notable few. I suggest a sentence at the end of the section would achieve more while destroying less.--[[User:William Warner|bleeding_heart]] 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

== Redirect & Article title==

Just a quick query: shouldn't typing in "Jesus" redirect to the disambiguation page? Its quite a common name in some countries, so just assuming that it refers to Jesus of Nazareth is a bit strange. I would also back changing the name of the article to Jesus of Nazareth, rather than just Jesus, for the same reason.[[User:Hagger|Hagger]] 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed, Jesus is a common name in some countries, but in those countries where Jesus is common Christianity is the prevalent religion. When one seeks to know about "Jesus" everyone knows immediately you are not talking about Jesus Ortega around the corner. Curious, are there other notable individuals who are immediately recognized simply by the name Jesus? We strive to faciliate searches and make Wikipedia the most user friendly; I think it is doing that currently. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

: I also think 'Jesus' is probably the most neutral, broadly acceptable name we're likely to have. Plus if we change this one, would we have to change related articles, and wind up with [[Jesus of Nazareth in Christianity]], [[Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth]] etc? Status quo is better. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:: no, i think Jesus should stay at this page. Generally the term Jesus is associated with this page. Keep it the same as it is. ([[User:Simaloko|Simon.uk.21]] 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

::: If this is an informal straw poll, I agree. --with those who say leave it as it is. <span style="color:green">[[User:David.atwell|=David]]</span><sup>([[User_talk:David.atwell|<span style="color:orange">talk</span>]])</sup><sub>([[Special:Contributions/David.atwell|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]])</sub> 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

== You guys got two months to add a criticism and controversy, or I'll call the creator of wikipedia to shut this page down ==

Ghandi has a criticism and controversy page, so why not Jesus Christ? Add it in now, thank you. [[User:Zephead999|Zephead999]] 07:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

: Zephead999, you are completely free to being creating your own page on this topic. Feel free to begin anytime you like. There is no individual who is responsible for creating a page except for yourself. Just be sure that the article you create fits within the guidelines of wikipedia policy. [[User:Tiggerjay|Tiggerjay]] 07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiger, I think Jesus Christ is pretty cool. But the fact that he did ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong is disturbing. Again if Ghandi has a criticism and controversy section then don't you think [[Jesus Christ]] should as well? Again, I'm too lazy to add this in but you guys should [[User:Zephead999|Zephead999]] 07:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:Back to the old routine, are you, Zabrak? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 07:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:Define criticism. Oh, and if you're too lazy, we're too lazy. <span style="color:green">[[User:David.atwell|=David]]</span><sup>([[User_talk:David.atwell|<span style="color:orange">talk</span>]])</sup><sub>([[Special:Contributions/David.atwell|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]])</sub> 09:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:: What or who is Ghandi?. --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] 08:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::[[Gandhi]]. Zephead999 spelled it incorrectly. <span style="color:green">[[User:David.atwell|=David]]</span><sup>([[User_talk:David.atwell|<span style="color:orange">talk</span>]])</sup><sub>([[Special:Contributions/David.atwell|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]])</sub> 09:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The article already specifies the major criticisms of Jesus: according to Christians, the belief that Jewish leaders criticized him as a blasphemer, and according to historians, that Roman officials criticized him for sedition. As far as the historical sources concerning Jesus, that is pretty much all we have. It is no surprise that there are more criticisms of Gandhi because he lived recently and the historical record of his life is much larger than that of Jesus. Many historians would also claim that Gandhi was a much more well-known and controversial figure during his life than Jesus. In my experience, most people who say they have criticisms of Jesus really have criticisms of the Christian account of Jesus - in short, what they are really critical of is Christianity, or some form of Christianity they are familiar with, and not Jesus, whom they never personally knew. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 10:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:Try [[criticism of Christianity]] and I think you will find what you are thinking of. As [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] says, this is a figure from history and therefore critical comments referenced from authors through the ages are interwoven in the text. I personally don't like separate sections and I know others don't as it can make a complex and interesting subject reduce to "for or against" type arguments. [[User:SOPHIA| <font color = "purple">'''Sophia'''</font>]] 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)]

yeah Sopiha I agree with you 100%. That's what I'm saying, we should make a seperate thing talking about the negative things Jesus has done, or what people have THOUGHT he has done if Ghandi/Gandhi, however you spell it does. [[User:Zephead999|Zephead999]] 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

:Why? That makes no sense whatsoever. Gandhi is a contemporary figure; we have all kinds of information available on him. On Jesus there's really only the New Testament. The most objectionable things he was said to have done are portrayed in various apocryphal gospels the neither modern scholarship nor Christian tradition think are at all valid.

:You actually don't agree with Sophia at all. She was saying we ''shouldn't'' have a separate section. I agree with her. Articles become tiresome both to edit and read when they're made to look like debating society transcripts.

:So-- are you being consistent here, or do you just have something against Christianity? If you're consistent, you'd be over at [[Gautama Buddha]] saying the same thing about him. But you're not, are you?

:But by all means, go straight to [[User talk:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] right now if you like. Why wait? I'm sure he'll be just as happy to hear from you now as he would be in two months, and just as likely to take the action you want. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


"You actually don't agree with Sophia at all. She was saying we shouldn't have a separate section. I agree with her. Articles become tiresome both to edit and read when they're made to look like debating society transcripts. "

Actually I do agree with Sophia. There should be no seperate articles on that kind of garbage, that's why if there is one on Ghandi there should be one on Jesus Christ.


=='''Frequently asked questions'''==
By the way I have nothing against Christianity, and i don't even know whot he hell Ghandi is. I'm a white teen from Oregon and I am highly uneducated on this type of stuff. I'd assume Ghandi for the most part would be a cool guy and if he did anything bad, it would be presumably small so it should not have it's own section, do you know what I mean? Same thing with Jesus Christ, now untill Ghandi's critcism gets removed, or one gets added on Jesus Chrsit i'll make this article a leaving HELL! [[User:Zephead999|Zephead999]] 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
<!--Moved FAQ here because FAQ banner is invisible in mobile-->
::If you think you agree with Sophia, then you don't understand what she's saying. "Section" means a subdivision of ''this'' article. She said nothing one way or the other about separate articles.
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:27, 5 December 2032 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1985873230}}<!-- END PIN -->
{{Talk:Jesus/FAQ}}


== Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence ==
::But what garbage? If it's verifiable from reliable sources, then it belongs in the article. That we have such sources about Gandhi and not Jesus is either because 1) Gandhi did such things and Jesus didn't; or 2) Gandhi is a well-documented person from recent history, while Jesus was around 2,000 years ago and is mentioned in only a limited number of sources, nearly all of which were written by his followers.


I am going to make a bold suggestion, aware that I might be picking a fight with some long-standing consensus here. I am focused here on the first sentence of the lead. Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence. Call him that elsewhere in the article, even elsewhere in the lead, but not in the first sentence. This is not right.
::Don't make assumptions. Be informed. Do the research. Ignorance is nothing to brag about. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Yes, as a factual matter, he was an ethnic Jew, no doubt. But the question we have to ask is how relevant his Jewishness is to his life and notability as a figure. Is his ethnic identity so important that it needs to be in the ''lead sentence''? It is interesting that most Jews on Wikipedia (e.g., [[Albert Einstein]]) are not explicitly described as such in their lead sentences. But Jesus, of all people, is.
:You do of course realize, should you choose to be purposefully disruptive, administrators will likely block you in short order with little remorse, and we'll probably forget you even existed in a few short weeks afterwards? Besides, that Nietzsche thing is in the other views section already, what more do you want? [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, regarded as the son of God. He is a prominent prophet in Islam. In contrast, in Judaism, he is, in the words of American political commentator and orthodox Jew [[Ben Shapiro]], "just another Jew who tried to lead a revolt and was killed for his troubles." Yet the first sentence of this article makes a point of emphasizing the Jewish identity and only the Jewish identity.
::::Sadly, Iam not getting any idea out of this. He would call Jimbo Wales to delete this article. Hmm Yea right. Comparing Jesus Christ with Gandhi is not a good idea. --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


I want to emphasize again that this is not a factual error as by blood he was a Jew, but the emphasis on this is misleading in a pernicious way that makes it inappropriate for the first sentence. Writing that he is a "Jewish religious preacher" vastly understates the scope and nature of his role in human history. He is notable precisely because he was not a mere "Jewish preacher", but rather someone who made claims regarded as heretical in Judaism (and for which he was thus executed for by the pressuring of the local Jewish community), ultimately founding a new religion distinct from Judaism and from which the Jewish nation has clearly separated itself for the past 2000 years.
== BC/AD AND BCE/CE Dating? ==
What's with the use of both systems of dating?
:Once it became apparent that trying to choose either system would incur the edit-war-tastic wrath of the side that preferred the other system, this became the status quo. Though someone didn't like it in the FA nom... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::Oh no not this one again - but thanks for asking on the talk page and not just changing them. [[User:SOPHIA| <font color = "purple">'''Sophia'''</font>]] 10:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Wish you all the best for finding the right dates :) --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


I also note that that many other encyclopedias, like most non-English WPs and [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus Brittanica], seem to agree with me on this and have far better lead sentences. [[User:JDiala|JDiala]] ([[User talk:JDiala|talk]]) 08:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
== Critical secular? ==


:: What nonsense. He was a Jewish Rabbi. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.103.107.57|2.103.107.57]] ([[User talk:2.103.107.57#top|talk]]) 15:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I'm a little concerned about the addition of "critical secular", and I've always felt a little uneasy with the sentence ''Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate; critical secular scholars, on the other hand, debate the extent of their historicity.'' Why do we need two modifiers, critical and secular? Are there secular scholars who unquestionably accept the gospel accounts? are there critical scholars who unquestionably accept the gospel accounts? and only when we combine the critical and the secular do we get the scholars who start to question the accounts? and also, while we are on this topic, there are many scholars who are christian who question the bible account, from Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, to Marcus Borg and even Robert M. Price. I think its rare to have Christian scholars who believe the accounts to be historically accurate (i.e. biblical literalism). This may be going out on a limb, but maybe we could phrase it "[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate, while [[Biblical criticism|critical scholars]] debate the extent of their historicity." My only concern is connotations associated with the technical terms, hence the wikilinks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 14:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:I like your version, although "apologists" has a weird ring. However, this is certainly more correct than the old version. Few Christian scholars (by common definition of "Christian") are literalists. However, many literalists will not accept anything else as Christian, so expect some resistance.... --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::I think that a scholar is simply a scholar; to what s/he applies critical thought is siimply a matter of expertise in a professional sense. Underlying this this type of terminology is the foundational concept that only those scholar who are critical use logical thought. Conversely, I would also assume that people of faith will assume that a "secular" scholar is an individual overcome by the puny thoughts of man or the world. Though I understand the ease of using terminology as Christian scholar or critical, an secular scholar, it comes with a lot of baggage. There are scholars who are people of faith and others who are not. Does this make sense? --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The issue is not simply that some scholars are of faith and others are not. Some scholars who are men and women of faith are and do bracket their personal faith/theological convictions when studying texts such as the Bible historically or as literature - in these cases, the scholars may not be secular, but their scholarship is as good and makes the same assumptions as good scholarship by well-ttrained secular scholars. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Going with [[The Elements of Style|Strunk and White]], what about simply going with "Scholars debate the historicity of the gospels"? "On the other hand" suggest a conflict that is not really there. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I concur with the above comments. The word "Christian" was inserted because, admittedly, those scholars who hold the New Testament canon to be reliable also tend to be Christian (no big surprises here -- if one holds the NT accounts to be true, then it is not unreasonable that one would also believe in the Divinity of Christ). However, that is not to undercut the fact that they are still ''scholars'' who rely on good scholarship, independent of whatever faith they might have. I would add to Stephan's pared-down version to read
:::::"Scholars debate the historicity of the gospels. While some believe that they are [[historical method|historically reliable]], others debate the extent of their historicity." [[User:LotR|LotR]] 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I strongly support that language; it is completely neutral, IMO. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I think it's a little too weasely with "some.." and "others.." The previous versions tried to be more specific about what camps held what views, although there has been issues with trying to narrow it down. -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


:With all due respect, this strikes me as incorrect, and underplays both Jesus' own Jewish context as well as the fact that Christianity itself emerges from an explicitly and quintessentially Jewish background. Jesus attends the Temple. He cites the ''tanakh''. He is referred to as the ''telos'' of the law--the law being obviously the ''torah''. Certainly, he began a new religion, but I think any devout Christian would argue that it was, in fact, the same religion--that is, the prophets and Jesus are both theologically relevant. To say that Jesus was Christian, and therefore should not be described as Jewish (in the first sentence, at least) strikes me as a category error regarding the relationship between the faiths. Jesus did not say he was starting a new religion, he claimed to be the fulfillment of the existing one. The lead as we have it strikes me as both factually and theologically sound, but I will trust to the wisdom of consensus. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 14:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
[note, message moved up to: [[Talk:Jesus#New proposal from Afaprof01]]] -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 04:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::Dumuzid makes sense to me. According to Luke, [[Circumcision of Jesus|he was circumcised]] as well. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:As one of the major figures in religious history, I'd say his 'Jewishness' is pretty important to his identity. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] ([[User talk:Onorem|talk]]) 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:It is not so much his Jewish ethnicity that is important, but his Jewish religious identity and background. Christianity still very much sees itself as a continuation of the Israelite religion, and it was not until some years after Jesus' death that the leaders who succeeded him decided to allow gentiles into their movement. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, exactly. The suggestion to remove this from the first phrase was strange. The entry in EB is good, but our page says practically the same. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion except calling the suggestion "strange", best not to contribute. The EB entry doesn't say the same as I've indicated. [[User:JDiala|JDiala]] ([[User talk:JDiala|talk]]) 02:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The strange for me was you treating Jesus solely on the basis of his ethnicity ("Is his ethnic identity so important", "as by blood he was a Jew"). I would also advise you not edit Judaism or Islam subjects since they are obviously related to the Arab-Israel conflict, ''broadly construed'' [https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/religion-and-israel-palestinian-conflict-cause-consequence-and-cure]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 18:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Policing TBANs isn't what an article talk page is for. I'm allowed to edit Jewish topics as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug_Weller&diff=1228269450&oldid=1228268599 implied by the banning administrator]. [[User:JDiala|JDiala]] ([[User talk:JDiala|talk]]) 20:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::He is agreeing with my comment just before, which is a perfectly valid contribution. Heckling when your proposal is sinking like a stone is not a good look! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::For context, this particular user and I have had past disagreements (to put it lightly) in another topic area, which made their way onto ANI. I have a suspicion that he's following me around and it's personal, since he's never contributed on this article before and conveniently his first contribution here is hours after I suggest something to shoot it down. But you're right insofar as this would have been better addressed on his user page than the article talk page, which I have now done.
:::::I have no objections to the many others who disagree with me on this and am fully prepared to humbly accept a defeat. [[User:JDiala|JDiala]] ([[User talk:JDiala|talk]]) 18:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:Jewish identity was central to Jesus as well as to the first members of the Christian sect. It is critical that that context be established in the first sentence. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed; his Jewish ethnicity, culture and religious background are integral to understanding who he is, regardless of one’s personal beliefs. Does it need mentioned in the first sentence of the lead? While I’m not sure it does, neither am I persuaded that it causes any harm. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 04:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:Albert Einstein is not a religious figure. Jesus is. Seems rather important to start with at least a bit of his religious background. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)


:'''Suggestion''': need a [[Religion of Jesus]] page, much along the lines of [[Sexuality of Jesus]] page. One examining the whole array of theories to be found. Seen it claimed not only that Jesus was Jewish or Jesus was gnostically proto-Christian, but even that Jesus was [[Hindu]], or proto-[[Muslim]]], or functionally [[Pandeist]]. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 08:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:Andrew, not sure what you mean by "message moved up" -- this thread is discussing another line of text distinct from the one discussed in [[Talk:Jesus#New proposal from Afaprof01]].
::Sounds doable, there are likely good sources, [[:Category:Religious views by individual]] may have some inspiration. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::There are libraries of sources, but the fringy theories won't feature much. But this is pretty much totally irrelevant here, and won't alter the first sentence. We seem to be done here. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::: What does it take for a theory to be fringy about a metaphysical figure for whom literally every aspect of their existence is thoroughly disputed? [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 07:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Jesus was a Jew. He was a rebel Jew and a dissident Jew born into and raised in an entirely Jewish context. Nothing reliable that has come down to us today about the historical figure calls that into question except for the small number of scholars who argue that he never even existed. His Jewish identity was central during his life on Planet Earth that we all inhabit 2000 years later. People can believe if they will that he is/was immortal or God in human form or capable of performing miracles or that he arose from the dead or that his mother was a never ending virgin or that the whole family rose to heaven in a fantastical way. Or believe that he was an impressive charismatic human guy very much like we might call a modern stage magician who put together an impressive performance to attract followers to his religious reform movement. Unsuccessful except for a handful when he was alive but fabulously successful in the centuries after his death Believe any competing theory that you want, but he was born a Jew and lived his entire life as a Jew. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:The suggestion to downplay Jesus's Jewish identify and background is completely without merit.
:1. It is common practice in Wikipedia to note the ethnicity of ancient religious-figures/philosophers/scholars '''in the first sentence''', even when their influence and fame went far beyond their ethnic background. Here are some examples: [[Muhammad]] "was an '''Arab''' religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam"; [[Socrates]] "was a '''Greek''' philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy"; [[Plato]] was an ancient '''Greek''' philosopher; [[Zarathustra]] "was an '''Iranian''' religious reformer who challenged the tenets of the contemporary Ancient Iranian religion, becoming the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism"; [[Confucius]] "was a '''Chinese''' philosopher". Even in more modern religions (or sub-religions) we find: [[Martin Luther]] "was a '''German''' priest, theologian"; [[John Calvin]] "was a '''French''' theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation"; [[Baháʼu'lláh]] "was an '''Iranian''' religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith"; [[Joseph Smith]] "was an '''American''' religious leader and the founder of Mormonism"; [[Leonard Howell]] "was a '''Jamaican''' religious figure".
:2. Further as many before me commented, Jesus was not only Jewish "by blood". He was Jewish also "by soul and intellect". All the sources tell us he identified as a Jew, practiced Judaism (with some modifications) and the traditions about him and the teachings attributed to him are deeply rooted in the Judaism of his days (e.g. Monotheism, Messianism, the claim of Davidic lineage, the importance of the Torah and Old Testament etc). [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 07:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
::The part about [[Muhammad]] being emphasized as "Arab" leader shouldn't be there. I'll start a discussion at [[Talk:Muhammad]].'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 19:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Why? [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 16:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Disagree that it should be removed however I do think it's very silly that the fact he was Jewish is mentioned in the first sentence but not that he was the prophet and representative of God on earth in the Christian faith. Comparing these two it's not up for debate that he is far more heavily associated with Christianity and primarily Catholicism than Judaism, I'd expect no one to suggest Abraham's post first mention he's important in Christian faith comparative to Judaism after all. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::Meh, that's the 2nd sentence. There's no real benefit to be had to try to cram the information in those two sentences together into an overburdened single first sentence. I'm not sure the article text or facts of the matter support the implication that Jesus is more central to Catholicism than to Orthodox or Protestant sects. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 01:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::"I'm not sure the article text or facts of the matter support the implication that Jesus is more central to Catholicism than to Orthodox or Protestant sects" - In terms of text no I wouldn't say but the Catholic Church is much more associated with Jesus symbolically, pretty much every church in Catholicism features Jesus on the cruxifix as the central feature while also commissioning art largely based around Jesus and Mary. Orthodox churches by comparison don't have the same central shape or design and while they can often feature him as a central piece it's more often shared with many other saints. It ''was'' a specific aim of the Catholic Church to be more directly tied to Jesus too.
:::That said he's clearly more prominent in Christian faith than any other which for a start makes it odd referencing his Judaism but I think a large part of this is also how it's more centrally referring to him as a ''person'' first rather than a religious figure which is what he's much more commonly associated. Put it this way if I opened a physical Encyclopedia that was arranged this way while most of his entry was talking about him as a religious figure, I'd find it oddly structured to say the least. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 18:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree to disagree on the Catholicism thing since it isn't relevant to the rest of this discussion, but it seems you're confusing veneration/centralism with iconography. Yes, the subject of this article is the individual, not Christianity. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::"but it seems you're confusing veneration/centralism with iconography" - no I was using that as a brief example of how the association is more closely/directly tied with him, a part of this also comes from the fact that the major protestant factions have their own founders and even the central focus of Orthodox churches not being Christ. Though I'm not arguing either way which Christianity is more associated with him I just wrote it in response as yes iconography of a religion deeply impacts the veneration/centralism which are concepts that largely can't be measured so asking for which is most important is impossible to answer.
:::::There's no saying to which religious believer has the most veneration of Jesus cause that's subjective but I'm referring to the physical world associations which yea he's overwhelmingly associated with Christianity and it's bad phrasing to associate him with a different religion first.
:::::"Yes, the subject of this article is the individual, not Christianity." - ok, don't see how that's relevant to my comment. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 15:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|a part of this also comes from the fact that the major protestant factions have their own founders}} no one is confusing Martin Luther with Jesus. This is nonsense. {{tq|the central focus of Orthodox churches not being Christ}} this is unequivocally incorrect. {{tq|physical world associations}} so...iconography? Yes, that seems to be where you're hung up/confused. {{tq|ok, don't see how that's relevant to my comment}} because Jesus is central to the religion of Christianity, but Christianity isn't the subject of this article. The subject of this article, the historical/mythological individual Jesus, was Jewish. He's not particularly important to the religion of Judaism except perhaps in how it's impacted Jewish-Christian conflict and relationships over the last couple of millenia, but Judaism was ''critically'' important to Jesus and his identity. We of course go on to mention Christianity throughout the lead and article, but it isn't critical to mention it in the first sentence. We can't and shouldn't cram everything in to sentence one per [[MOS:LEADCLUTTER]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::"no one is confusing Martin Luther with Jesus. This is nonsense." - This is the second time you've responded with a very snide answer that has nothing to do with what I wrote, reminder of [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] as you're responses really aren't good faith interpretations of what I've written.
:::::::Frankly I've been the one arguing to follow the standard format of Wiki pages, as you pointed out he's a "historical/mythological individual" and the overwhelming bulk of the article derived ''from'' those Christian accounts as he is in foremost associated with that religion in our world and the first sentence doesn't reflect that.
:::::::Per [[MOS:LEADCLUTTER]] "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader ''what'' or ''who'' the subject is, and often ''when'' or ''where''." and currently this sentence places a higher value on ascribing his racial/religious heritage than the religion built around his life. Assuming you were an alien then reading the first two sentences is just misleading: "He was a Jewish preacher but is the central figure of a different religion? Did the Christians just get it wrong or what?" is a completely valid reading of this entry in it's current state. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Since we can't seem to find common ground on much of anything including the intent behind my own words and the text of WP:AGF, probably best for us to agree to disagree. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 16:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Ponder for a moment that one can be deeply important to both the history of Judaism as well as any number of other things. While time is limited, the contents of these arguments amount to false dichotomies imo. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::"Ponder for a moment that one can be deeply important to both the history of Judaism as well as any number of other things." let's not be disingenuous I clearly addressed both points.
:::It's a very strange way of reading an opening sentence about an article on Jesus which is really the point being made here and frankly it ''is'' strange to arrange it this way. Typically articles are arranged by referencing what the person or topic in question either ''is'' or is most well known for and on that end Jesus is very obviously more associated with Christianity than Judaism.
:::Though ''really'' I think it's more odd because it frames him first as a person rather than a spiritual figure which he's much more commonly known for. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 18:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::We also have many articles about fictional characters. [[Captain Ahab]] says in the 2nd sentence he is a monomaniacal sea captain. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Correct, in the '''''second''''' sentence. Which is my point here's the first: '''Captain Ahab''' is a fictional character and one of the [[protagonists]] in [[Herman Melville]]'s ''[[Moby-Dick]]'' (1851).
:::::It's extremely clear who he is and where he's relevant followed by a specific description of him. Compare this to say the article on [[The Buddha]]:
:::::"'''Siddhartha Gautama''', most commonly referred to as '''the Buddha''' (<abbr>lit.</abbr> 'the awakened one'), was a [[Śramaṇa|wandering ascetic]] and religious teacher who lived in [[South Asia]], during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded [[Buddhism]]."
:::::"'''Jesus''' (<abbr>c.</abbr> 6 to 4 [[Before Christ|BC]] – [[Anno Domini|AD]] 30 or 33), also referred to as '''Jesus Christ''', '''Jesus of Nazareth''', and many other [[Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament|names and titles]], was a 1st-century [[Jews|Jewish]] preacher and religious leader."
:::::See in The Buddha article it also refers to him as a person but it just makes direct reference to ''what'' he did and the religion he's primarily associated with, it's not until the second and third sentences we start describing where he's from and what religions he was associated with before founding Buddhism. It should follow the same structure he first emphasising what he did "Religious Leader" and then what (of the varying) religions he's most heavily associated with which would be Christianity, also the sentence structure is misleading this way as it implies it was '''''Judaism''''' specifically that he was preaching which isn't accurate considering he was [[Rejection of Jesus|rejected]] by them for his preachings which became the foundations of Christianity cause that's what he was preaching, influenced and inspired by Judaism of course. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 19:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::: "he was [[Rejection of Jesus|rejected]] by them" Who the heck are them? The narrative about the [[Apostles]] points out that his followers were also Jewish. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 22:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::One assumes he means that Rabbinic Judaism doesn't consider Jesus to be the Messiah. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 23:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yea, I thought that was clear when I linked to the event to be honest. There isn't specifics on whether or not all the Apostles were Jewish though they likely were in terms of culture but they're consistently referenced as [[Disciple (Christianity)|The First Christians]] which their pages also reflect since they like Jesus have a much greater association with Christianity than Judaism. The more I read the opening lines of the page from talking about it the less sense the opening sentences make. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 12:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I didn't quite articulate my thoughts in the clearest way, but luckily I've just happened upon a little thought experiment for you. If you had to pick one word that says the most about Jesus's biography, what would it be? I think you could plausibly pick either "prophet" or "preacher" here, so I'll go ahead and lock that in for us. What is the second content word one could add that fills in the absolute most about him? (You can use whatever linking or grammatical words are necessary, like "from Bethlehem" is valid here.) I have racked my brain, but cannot think of a second word that even comes close in core additive information than "Jewish". <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I replied to Andre above with a comparative to The Buddha article that honestly reads better. I get what you're going for cause none of this is '''''wrong''''' and I think maybe the initial posters tone here has implied a sorta reading for supporting comments.
:::::" I have racked my brain, but cannot think of a second word that even comes close in core additive information than "Jewish"" Christian? Like even writing "was the a prophet of Christianity and it's central religious figure" would make more sense. Then background in the second and third would still mention his Jewish background and teaching etc. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 19:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::It is common practice in Wikipedia to note the ethnicity of ancient religious-figures/philosophers/scholars '''in the first sentence''', even when their influence and fame went far beyond their ethnic background. Here are some examples: [[Muhammad]] "was an '''Arab''' religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam"; [[Socrates]] "was a '''Greek''' philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy"; [[Plato]] was an ancient '''Greek''' philosopher; [[Zarathustra]] "was an '''Iranian''' religious reformer who challenged the tenets of the contemporary Ancient Iranian religion, becoming the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism"; [[Confucius]] "was a '''Chinese''' philosopher". Even in more modern religions (or sub-religions) we find: [[Martin Luther]] "was a '''German''' priest, theologian"; [[John Calvin]] "was a '''French''' theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation"; [[Baháʼu'lláh]] "was an '''Iranian''' religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith"; [[Joseph Smith]] "was an '''American''' religious leader and the founder of Mormonism"; [[Leonard Howell]] "was a '''Jamaican''' religious figure". [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 21:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's a fair comment treating at the point I mentioned however it's missing the major problems with this opening sentence. Judaism is both a religion and ethnicity but a religious preacher is a ''specific role'' pertaining to religion. As far as Jesus himself is concerned we can't say what he ''preached'' per-say but I'm sure each religious group he's associated with would say he preached ''their'' religion at the time though of course he is far more commonly associated with Christianity today.
:::::::Which is the glaring difference between this post and all the others you mention the main religion he's associated with is relegated to the second sentence, it's very strange to not mention Christianity in the opening sentence for Jesus. The ordering of the sentence itself is an issue as it states "was a 1st-century [[Jews|Jewish]] preacher and religious leader." which is just openly misleading, his ethnicity should be mentioned but it shouldn't be written in a misleading manner and the fact he's the central figure of Christianity should absolutely be there, it's by far what he's most associated with. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 12:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I disagree with your claim below that "preached a different religion to Judaism and said as much amongst his apostles", but that's a different discussion to my point here. I wouldn't object to changing the first sentence to "was a 1st-century [[Jews|Jewish]] man who became the central figure of Christianity" [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 12:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Also Jesus was not Christian himself, since Christianity was born only following his death and alleged resurrection. As the examples I gave show in Wikipedia first we give short description of the person then of his influence. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::This isn't true by any means, Jesus himself preached a different religion to Judaism and said as much amongst his apostles. It's a difficult point (looking at the history here too) but it's simply extremely dismissive to Christians to openly claim the main figure of their church was preaching a completely different religion and they just got it wrong. I don't know of any other article treated this way. [[User:Galdrack|Galdrack]] ([[User talk:Galdrack|talk]]) 12:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I disagree with your factual claim and with your attitude. Wikipedia is not supposed to suppress the truth to placate religious feelings. But anyway to avoid a lengthy discussion I suggested a compromise version . We can change the first sentence to "was a 1st-century [[Jews|Jewish]] man who became the central figure of Christianity". [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Or in full and without changing other things: "Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader who became the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion." Admittedly that is becoming a bit clunky so I would drop ", the world's largest religion". [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 14:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Another alternative I won't object to: "Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish man who preached new religious ideas and became the central figure of Christianity". [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I would say that all three of these suggestions are worse than the present wording, with or without the mention of Judaism, since they essentially just weld the current first two sentences together while losing the "[NAME] was a [PROFESSION]" format that pretty much every article about a historical figure follows. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 15:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Yep, I'd have to agree with you there. [[User:ChrisgenX|ChrisgenX]] ([[User talk:ChrisgenX|talk]]) 21:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I mean claimed to be the jewish messiah. So his jewishness is important [[Special:Contributions/193.173.45.71|193.173.45.71]] ([[User talk:193.173.45.71|talk]]) 12:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::It wasn't when the Messiah was [[Cyrus the Great]] [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Cyrus didn't claim to be the Messiah. He probably never even heard this word. And nobody today regards him as the Messiah. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::We call Jesus Jewish because mainstream scholars call him so. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe not, but the statement is rather glib, and can easily be called out. And what we regard today about theological claims doesn't have much bearing on this either. There's no discussion about his Jewishness, just whether it should be in the first sentence, which seems to have got lost for several in this debate. [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 02:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The whole story of Jesus is about his Jewishness and his relationship to the Jewish sects and Jewish rebels in Rome at the time - Pharisees, etc. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Golikom, I have shown somewhere above that it's the common practice in Wikipedia to mention the ethnic identity of religiously important historical figures in the first sentence of their article. There's no reason to do otherwise in the case of Jesus, EVEN if his Jewish identity wasn't important to his story, all the more so since it clearly is important to his story, as others have mentioned here. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] - I've not suggested it shouldn't be, just that certain parts of this discussion have degenerated into Blueskying his Jewishness and don't address the actual question at hand. But otherstuff isn't a very strong argument for this either - [[Saint Peter]], [[Paul the Apostle]], [[John the Baptist]], [[Jacob]], [[David]], [[Miriam]] for example - none of these mention ethnicity in the first sentence. [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 03:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Golikom|Golikom]] Well look at MOS regarding biographical articles ([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#First sentence|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#First sentence)]], according to which:
:::::::"The first sentence should usually state: ... 3. Context (location,
:::::::'''nationality'''
:::::::, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable."
:::::::Since Jesus Jewish nationality is clearly a part of the context for the activities that made him notable, then that should close the debate.
:::::::Furthermore from this follows that the articles that you mentioned should also include this detail in them in the first sentence (at least those about which there is a consensus that they are real historical figures). I'll make the neccesary corrections soon.
:::::::[[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 10:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Note it says "usually". It's not compulsory - only one of the four examples given actually states nationality. I don't think there's any need to change any of those opening sentences. Nationality is really a much more modern concept than the period we're talking about here - and certainly saying Jesus had Jewish "nationality"" is pretty anachronistic. [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 11:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Not true. The Jews were regarded ad a nation both by themselves and by others since the Old Testament times. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Jewish is usually used for the post-exilic period and Jacob, Miriam, and David all pre-date that period.
:::::::::For contemporaries within the first century, [[Josephus]] has in the first sentence "was a Roman–Jewish historian and military leader" and [[Philo]] has "also called Philō Judæus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt".
:::::::::Jesus would have been identified as Jewish in his time much as the New Testament identifies people as Samaritans or Romans or Greeks. It is also important from the encyclopedic point of view to state that up front since there is a non-scholarly view that he wasn't.
:::::::::Also [[John the Baptist]] should mention he was Jewish and did until October 13. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 12:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Agreed. With regard to Jacob, Miriam, and maybe even David, I would also add that there isn't a scholarly consensus that they are real historic figures that actually lived. But as for the rest they definitely should be name ad Jews in the first sentence. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, As mentioned above, we should follow general academic practice and use "Israelite" for figures living (or supposedly living) before about 500 BC/BCE. But that should be in the start of the lead. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Irrelevant here, since Jesus lived around 0 and sources refer to him as Jewish. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 17:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I've done [[John the Baptist]] (reverted the opening sentence back to the version of Oct 3, "was a Jewish preacher active in the area of the Jordan River in the early 1st century AD"). [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 12:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:Jesus Christ was a Jewish rabbi. The religion that he preached was Judaism. He was mocked by the Romans as the "King of the Jews". Jesus being Jewish is an important part of his historical and religious significance. I don't think that this change is worth the controversy it would cause. [[User:JohnR1Roberts|JohnR1Roberts]] ([[User talk:JohnR1Roberts|talk]]) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The argument that Jesus, "King of the Jews," wasn't notably Jewish is frankly, kind of silly. It sounds like someone who really hasn't studied the New Testament much. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 01:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


Wow, lots of thoughts here. I've skimmed the discussion, so apologies if I missed the nuance in people's views. Here's the situation as I see it:
:I am well aware of the whole "some say this, others say that" weasel word thing. Not sure how else to go about saying it, though, if one cannot say something like "Christian" versus "secular" or "critical" (and to be clear, I did not think that was an optimal way of saying it, either). And merely saying "Scholars debate the historicity of the gospels." without clarification is not informative enough. An analogy would be, say, on the [[Dinosaur#Extinction theories|Dinosaur page]] merely "Scientists debate the cause of extinction of the dinosaurs." ...well yes, and??? [[User:LotR|LotR]] 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
* The term Jewish can refer to an ethnicity and/or a religious faith.
* Jesus was in fact ethnically Jewish.
* Jesus was a preacher and religious leader.
* Jesus' preaching happened in the first century in a Jewish religious context.
* Jesus was and is the central figure of Christianity, considered by most Christians to be the incarnation of God the Son and the promised Messiah.
* Jesus was and is an important figure in many non-Christian faiths.
* While most Christians consider their faith to be a continuation and fulfillment of pre-Jesus Judaism, post-Jesus Judaism and Christianity are distinct faiths.
* Jesus cannot be described as a Christian, as that would be like saying that King James was a Jacobite or Karl Marx was a Marxist.
Taking all that into consideration, I think the current opening paragraph of this article is excellent. If it is changed at all, it should be by removing the word "Jewish", leaving the rest the same. Why should we do/not do that?


'''Reasons to leave it in:'''
== the chronololy of the life of jesus ==
* It would be consistent with the vast majority of similar articles. See for example [[Muhammad]], [[Confucius]], [[Zoroaster]], [[Socrates]]. [[The Buddha]] doesn't specify an ethnicity because we actually don't know.
* The Jewish context of Jesus' preaching is much-discussed by the sources and important for understanding the early history of Christianity.


'''Reasons to remove it:'''
''removed copy and paste job of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm by{{user|210.213.72.155}}'' -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
* It could create confusion as Jesus is not an important figure in modern Judaism.
* It's debatable whether Jesus considered himself to be (religiously) Jewish.
* It could be undue weight if Jesus' Jewishness is considered a minor part of his significance.


Personally, I think the points in favor of leaving it outweigh the points in favor of removing it, but I'm interested to hear if people have further factors to add to the ones I enumerated above. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 16:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Is this the Catholic Encyclopedia? [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 04:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


:I agree with most of what you said, except for 2 points. I think it's quite cleat that Jesus regarded himself as religiously Jewish. See for example in this Wikipedia article "He tells his followers to adhere to [[Jewish law]]". I could expand on this but I don't have time to delve into all the sources now. Maybe next week. I also don't understand how "It could be undue weight if Jesus' Jewishness is considered a minor part of his significance" is a point for removing the word "Jewish".
:: It says so. So yes it is is Catholic Encyclopedia. --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:I would also add that keeping the word "Jewish" in in accordance with MOS as I have shown above. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Considering Jews see Jesus as an imposter messiah, and don't believe in the outpouring of the "Holy Ghost" which are both accounted for in the Bible; I would say he isn't your traditional Jew. that is if you think he's a Jew at all. it would be better to say that he's of Jewish descent than to say he was a Jew. If you could find a Jewish Wikipedian to comment they'd say something along the lines of what I've said. [[User:DarlingYeti|DarlingYeti]] ([[User talk:DarlingYeti|talk]]) 18:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah, but he's definitely Jewish. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 18:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::I am a Jewish Wikipedian, and while I think Jesus was not the Messiah (as do most of the humans living today) , it doesn't change the fact that he was a Jew, both ethnically and in his beliefs. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 18:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Question}} How many RS describe him as a "Jewish preacher and religious leader"? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 14:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::A lot of RS refer to him as Jewish preacher/teacher or rabbi and even Jewish theologian/mystic. Here is a partial list found in a few minutes in a search of titles of books and articles only:
::[https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/How_Jesus_Became_God/dmspAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jesus+%22Jewish+preacher%22 https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/How_Jesus_Became_God/dmspAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1]
::https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/Mythologizing_Jesus/UKQoCQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
::https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html
::https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/Rabbi_Jesus/8NKreclXD6QC?hl=en&gbpv=0
::https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/The_Crucified_Rabbi/emr91t3DtPoC?hl=en&gbpv=0
::https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/Jesus_the_Jewish_Theologian/sbBM7w74E3wC?hl=en&gbpv=1
::"I Shall be Reckoned with the Gods": On Redescribing Jesus as a First-Century Jewish Mystic. By: Joseph, Simon J., Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 14768690, 2020, Vol. 18, Issue 3 [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 15:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Which one of those describes him as a "Jewish preacher and religious leader"? I'm asking this because that's what's in the lead. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The first one calls him "Jewish preacher" in the title of the book. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 16:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::In other words, none of them describes him as a "Jewish preacher and religious leader".
:::::Him being described as "the central figure of Christianity" (this is what he's notable for) is what the readers expect to see before anything else. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::You want a single source that says the exact words "Jewish preacher and religious leader" together? Why? Do you doubt that he was a Jewish preacher and a religious leader to those who followed him?
::::::Anyway, the reason that "the central figure of Christianity" are not the first words in the sentence is because this is not according to the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#First sentence|MOS for first sentence of biographies of historical figures]]. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Because it's relevance is disputed (this is what this discussion is about), hence, the question starting with "how many ....".
:::::::{{tq|the reason that "the central figure of Christianity" are not the first words in the sentence is because this is not according to the MOS for first sentence of biographies of historical figures|q=yes}} How exactly did you come to the conclusion that his ethnicity should be mentioned before what he's notable for? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::# And I showed you there are many sources that speak of Jesus as "Jewish preacher/teacher/rabbi/mystic/theologian". I can bring many more if you want. So that part is completely DUE. You want to remove the words "and religious leader"? I don't object to that. In fact, there is actually another reason to remove "religious leader". The way it is now in the sentence it might lead people to think that Jesus was a leader who had a large Jewish following while he was alive, which is not correct.
::::::::# According to the order of the points in MOS. Ethnicity (point 3) is mentioned before what he's notable for (point 5). Also see in many other examples I brought above: [[Muhammad]] "was an '''Arab''' religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam"; [[Socrates]] "was a '''Greek''' philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy"; [[Plato]] "was an ancient '''Greek''' philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms"; [[Zarathustra]] "was an '''Iranian''' religious reformer who challenged the tenets of the contemporary Ancient Iranian religion, becoming the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism"; [[Confucius]] "was a '''Chinese''' philosopher of the Spring and Autumn period who is traditionally considered the paragon of Chinese sages". Even in more modern religions (or sub-religions) we find: [[Martin Luther]] "was a '''German''' priest, theologian, author, hymnwriter, professor, and Augustinian friar. Luther was the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation, and his theological beliefs form the basis of Lutheranism"; [[John Calvin]] "was a '''French''' theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation"; [[Baháʼu'lláh]] "was an '''Iranian''' religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith"; [[Guru Nanak]] "was an '''Indian''' spiritual teacher, mystic and poet, who is regarded as the founder of [[Sikhism]] and is the first of the ten Sikh Gurus"; [[Joseph Smith]] "was an '''American''' religious leader and the founder of Mormonism".
::::::::[[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 20:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You haven't showed anything that proves that ethnicity is relevant.
:::::::::{{tq| Ethnicity (point 3) is mentioned before what he's notable for (point 5)|q=yes}} there is no mention of "ethnicity" in [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#First_sentence|point 3]]. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::"3. Context (location, '''nationality''', etc.) for the activities that made the person notable". [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 21:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Is "Jewish" a nationality? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes. The concept of the Jewish nation is very old. It appears even in the Bible itself. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::and certainly was at the time of Roman Judea '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That's baseless [[WP:OR]] that will remain so until RS say that Jesus' nationality was Jewish.
::::::::::::::Why shouldn't he be described as "Roman"? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::That's nonsense, and nothing about it is OR. It's well-sourced in many sources. Jesus was not Roman as Roman Judea was not a province that would have given the Jewish people there Roman citizenship. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 21:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::It would be quite easy to find RS that say that the Jews had a distinct national identity in Jesus time. Just give me some minutes. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 21:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I'm not interested in anybody's OR.
::::::::::::::::Is there a RS that says that Jesus' nationality was Jewish? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Hundreds if not thousands of sources [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html] '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 21:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Feel free to quote the part that says something about his nationality (remembering that he was born, lived and died in the Roman empire). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::It's an irrelevancy to insist on language using "nationality," as that is a modern concept that would have had a different meaning in antiquity. Same with race and ethnicity: these are modern concepts that would have had a different meaning ~2000 years ago. See for example [https://www.google.com/books/edition/John_within_Judaism/xMtKEAAAQBAJ?hl=en] ''John Within Judaism: Religion, Ethnicity, and the Shaping of Jesus-Oriented Jewishness in the Fourth Gospel''. The important thing is that the sources say, "Jesus' identity cannot be understood apart from his Jewishness." '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 21:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::The RS (not you) judge what is relevant and what isn't.
::::::::::::::::::::If the term "nationality" doesn't apply to him, then what exactly are we discussing here? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::"{{tq|Nationality, etc.}}" does apply to him, but the text isn't used in the article. The article does and should contain this {{tq|was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader}}. It's key to his story and notability. You might have an argument if the article said, "Jesus was a preacher of Jewish nationality," but it does not. "Religion" is also an anachronism. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 21:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Nationality, etc." does apply to him|q=yes}} so point 3 that you cited above doesn't apply. In other words, you're mentioning "ethnicity" in the lead sentence without a valid reason. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::I contend that the term nationality do apply to describing as Jewish. Here are some sources that say that the Jews had a distinct national identity in Jesus time:
:::::::::::::::::::::::https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/elements-of-ancient-jewish-nationalism/68B5269393825257297A43E197C94A12
:::::::::::::::::::::::https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/The_Construction_of_Nationhood/uMJDaelOpsgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA186
:::::::::::::::::::::::There are more sources, but it's too late here now, so I'll being them tomorrow or next week. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::See {{tq|Nationality, etc." does apply to him|q=yes}} (above).
::::::::::::::::::::::::Like I said, I'm not interested in anybody's [[WP:OR]]. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::You are confusing me with Andre. We are not the same person. Pay more attention. And there is no OR here. Both sources I brought you are book printed in Cambridge University Press. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::Don't be silly. Your OR is irrelevant. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Where do you see any OR by me??? [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 22:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::There is no OR here. It's a sensible summary of a range of sources. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 11:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I wasn't asking. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 12:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::Your argument (M.Bitton) is extremely off-base. "Nationality, etc.," implies nationality and related or similar concepts, such as identity. I have given sources saying Jesus' identity (religious + ethnic) is Jewish and critical to him. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::All you have presented so far is OR and more OR. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::What do you think OR means? I presented the sources by recognized academics that directly address this topic. See the discussion of Jewish ''ethnos-identity'' in Cirafesi and the PBS summary quoting Harold W. Attridge: The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School, Shaye I.D. Cohen: Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies Brown University and Paula Fredriksen: William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::I know what it means. Do you know what [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]] stands for? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::There's nothing unverifiable in the article about Jesus' Jewishness. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::You do realize that we're talking about the nationality, don't you? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::You seem to keep bringing that up, but no, the topic is "Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence"? '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't need to go back that far: your first reply to my comment was about "nationality". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Huh? I have been participating in this thread as you can see, and my first comment or really any of my comments were not about "nationality," they're about whether Jewish is an important topic to the topic sentence for the Jesus article. You brought up nationality and you argued that his nationality should be Roman, which is not something that any source does. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Your first reply to my comment was about "nationality". I didn't argue "that his nationality should be Roman", I mentioned it. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::So just dropping in here at random, but I think you might need to read some [[E. P. Sanders]]. Here's just one example. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454511] [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 21:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Feel free to quote the relevant part. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::{{tqb|In regarding this aspect as essential for Jesus, Sanders is indebted especially to Albert Schweitzer, but he rightly corrects Schweitzer's scheme. Sanders makes us see the importance of the normal Jewish expectations of Jewish "restoration theology"; these expectations were common to Jesus and his many Jewish contemporaries, but for Jesus especially they were central.}} page 250. But that is David Flusser summarising Sanders. My point is really that Sanders is a scholar credited with rediscovering the Judaism of Jesus. And since Sanders there has been quite a theological shift towards recognising this and grounding theology in an understanding of his being a Jew. N T Wright speaks of Jesus as understanding his role within the eschatological framework of his his being the Jewish messiah (I forget the exact quote, but its something like that). After Sanders there has been such a shift in this that I am surprised we are having this debate. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Where is the part about his "nationality"? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::That isn't the test. See [[WP:ETHNICITY]]. {{tq|Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.}} Which it is (ethnos-religious-identity) '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Are you saying that "Jewish" stands for his ethnicity? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::As I said, that's applying a modern concept to antiquity. Jewishness is ethnoreligious and also national. It's not really important which it is more of. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I know what you said, but {{tq|also national|q=yes}} (about Jesus) is unsourced and unlike to ever be sourced. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::Genesis 12:2 ? [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::[https://www.jstor.org/stable/42943852] Jesus had a connection to Jewish nationalism. Jesus' actions and teachings can be interpreted as being involved in the Jewish national struggle against Rome. The Gospel of Mark contains traces of Jesus as a political revolutionary sympathizer involved in this struggle. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::Again, not a source in sight about his so-called "Jewish nationality". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::A source about the notability of Jewishness to the topic sentence as pertaining to national identity. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Still nothing. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::See [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324689961_How_Jewish_Is_God_Divine_Ethnicity_in_Paul's_Theology] {{tq|The simplest way to articulate the idea of ancient constructs of ethnicity is to list some of the relevant vocabulary: γένος (“people, family, race”); ἔθνος (“people group”); συγγένεια (“kinship”); συγγενεῖς (“kinfolk”); gens (“family”); domus/οἶκος (“household”); mos maiorum, fides patrum, παραδόσεις τῶν πατέρωv, ἔθη, τὰ πάτρια ἔθη, τὰ πάτρια (“ancestral custom”); πατρίς (“fatherland”). These words, taken together, express a concept cluster connecting blood relations (family), shared customs, inherited protocols for showing respect to gods (what we might refer to—cautiously!—as “religion”), and ancestral land or locality. Συγγένεια—“kinship”—also served as a term for citizenship: citizens of a city were imagined as members of the same γένος }} '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Nothing to do with Jesus or his supposed "Jewish nationality". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Yes, the topic is about Jesus, the article is about the "{{Tq|Jewish identity of Paul’s god}}." Maybe peruse the article a bit before you discard it as unrelated. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Very funny. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|God’s Jewish ethnicity, even eschatologically, remains constant. This divine ethnicity, refracted through the lens of prophetic eschatology, reveals and highlights three interconnected ideas: first, that Israel alone has “known” God; second, that the other nations have not known God; and, third, that at the end-time, these nations, too, will know God, and they, too, will worship him in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount. Despite its insistence on God’s ethnicity, in other words, Jewish tradition presses this larger claim peculiar to its religious culture: Israel’s god is also and ultimately the god of all other ethnic groups as well. He is the nations’ god qua Jewish god who dwells in Jerusalem. But the nations (and their gods) by and large will know this only at the end-time. Seen in this light, the establishment of his kingdom is quite literally the Jewish god’s ultimate act of cross-ethnic outreach. The ethnic-theological difference between Israel and the nations, the nations’ ignorance of the true god, is what binds all of these other ἔθνη}}. Clearly showing that there is an Israelite national identity reflected in the Gospels. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Nothing yo do with "nationality", nor can it be about it given that he was born and raised in the Roman empire. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The article is indeed about the Jewish ethnic identity which is covered by [[WP:ETHNICITY]] which satisfies relevance and notability. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::We do not need a source saying "Jewish was Jesus' ''nationality''" to say that Jesus was Jewish. Nationality is a total red herring. All sources unproblematically and uncontroversially identify Jesus as Jewish and that's all we need to know. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 11:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That's your irrelevant opinion. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 12:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I agree that even if there were no RS saying explicitly that Jesus had a Jewish nationality it would still be justified to write that he was Jewish in the first sentence. But in fact we have many such sources. See [[User:Vegan416/sandbox#Source talking explicitly about Jesus Jewish Nationality|here]] [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 12:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That's his ethnicity. Being born and raised in the Roman empire means that he was either a Roman citizen (there is nothing suggesting that he was), a Roman subject (we have a source for that) or a Roman slave. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 12:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Except he was from Nazareth so that makes him a subject of Herod Antipas, the Jewish ruler of a Roman client state. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 12:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Well, it's all about what the sources say. We have a source that describe him as a "Roman subject" (which makes sense since he was living in a Roman province). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 12:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Bitton, that's your uninteresting and unimportant personal view. The RS I brought talk explicitly about Jesus' Jewish '''NATIONALITY.''' Your views don't count against them. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 13:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The RS describes him as a '''Roman subject''', so what some irrelevant nobody thinks of this is neither here nor there. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 13:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::We have one source that mostly calls him a Jew and in one sentence, talking about Paul's theology, and referring to an attempt to trap Jesus into opposing Rome, he is referred to as a subject. One source, and a source can be wrong - or rather it can be speaking loosely. As has been pointed out, he was a subject of Herod, Rome's client king. The Romans would have had no concept of Jesus as a Roman. He was a Jew. Josephus, writing of the Antiquities of the Jews, repeatedly discusses nations, including but not limited to the Jews. Whatever distinction you want to make about Roman subjects, it is not how sources generally treat Jesus. There is simply no doubt that sources repeatedly and extensively speak of Jesus as a Jew and the jewishness of Jesus. We don't need to appeal to modern concepts to see this. This is simply what the sources say. Jesus, even in Christian theology, was a Jew. {{pb}}But, we can use a modern example to put paid to this nonsense about him being a Roman subject. Even if we grant that as he was subject to a ''client'' king, that made him subject to Rome, we can note that this is not a nationality, but a legal status. [[Gerry Adams]] is technically a British subject, but good luck to you if you want to remove "Irish politician" from the first sentence of the lead of his article. Wales is a nation, but the Welsh are all British subjects, and even though the UK ''is'' a unitary state, it is a state composed of several nations. I don't really know what you are arguing anymore, but there is no reason whatsoever to remove Jewish from the lead based on anything you have posted here. None. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 13:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::There are other sources that describe him as a "Roman subject":
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|the surprising thing about Jesus is not how little he is mentioned by classical authors but how much. I know of no other Roman subject of comparable social status who figures as much as he does in their writings.<ref name="Margaret H. Williams">{{cite book|author=Margaret H. Williams|title=Early Classical Authors on Jesus|year=2022|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-567-68316-8|page=11}}</ref>|q=yes}} [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 13:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 13:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}} The indentations are getting crazy here. At most we might want to adjust the intro to indicate he was living in the Roman empire's sphere of influence (I wouldn't use that terminology but the idea) as well as being Jewish. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 13:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::I think if you are not getting the "restoration theology" point there, it may be because you are importing modern notions of nationality, which would be a demand for [[WP:OR]], since Rome was a city state and not a nation, and Jesus was not a citizen of Rome. The Jewish people were the nation. That passage makes the point, and it is far from alone. Again, maybe reading Sanders and not demanding his words be chopped into Wikipedian bite size snippets would be called for here. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::If modern notions don't apply, then there is no reason to apply them to the article while squaring circles (the Jews were no different than the others who under Roman control). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::Isn't the question whether we call Jesus Jewish? The answer to that is an obvious yes. No need to use the word "nation". [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::The Jews ''were'' different from other Roman provinces. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::So were the others. What's that got to do with the claim that he had "Jewish nationality"? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::There was a different status of Jesus and his followers relative to say, a Roman [[plebeian]]. This is related to the status of Judea under Herod, who was a [[client king]]. This is basic New Testament background info. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::There you go: "Roman plebeian" it is. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Huh? No, I'm saying Jesus was ''not'' a Roman citizen. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I know: you said he was a "Roman plebeian". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::@[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] Here take a source that speaks specificaly about Jesus as belonging to the Jewish nation.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I can find more, but I have to go to sleep now.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'''"...'''to emphesize that Jesus belonged to the Jewish nation continuously, without any interruptions also after his demise"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Grochowski, Z. T. (2020). [[doi:10.31743/biban.8985|Nicodemus. A Disciple Liberated by the Cross of the Christ from the Darkness of Fear and Disbelief]]. ''The Biblical Annals'', ''10''(4), p. 660 [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 22:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That's not about nationality, nor can it be given that he was born and raised in the Roman empire. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq| Jesus belonged to the Jewish nation continuously,}}, how isn't that about nationality???? '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Now you are just trolling [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 22:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Be very careful how you address me as I have zero tolerance for crap (especially from you). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Sorry. The exact wikipedia term is "bludgeoning" and not "trolling". which is exactly what you do. Repeating your OR argument again and again even in the face of RS that contradict you. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 22:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Pathetic! You will simply be ignored from now on. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::No, he was ''not'' a plebeian, which is a type of citizen. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Was he a Roman subject? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::He was not, under Herodian Judea, he would not have been considered a citizen or a Roman plebeian. See [[Herodian kingdom]]. It was a [[client state]] and he was a subject of the client king Herod. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Great. Do we have RS stating that? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Of course. [https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004210219_077] p. 2364 {{tq|A similar verdict is appropriate with regard to Herod’s violent response to the news of a rival “king of the Jews”}} p.2371 {{tq|Matthew’s statement that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was king }} p.2379 {{tq|King Herod, client king of Jewish Palestine}} p. 2380 {{tq|at the likely time of Jesus’ birth Herod was not one to hold back from eliminating those he regarded as a threat to his throne, and the enquiry of the magi as to the birth of a new “king of the Jews” was well calculated to provoke the violent and indiscriminate response}} '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That source doesn't mention the word "subject". On the other hand, This RS<ref name="Anthony Pagden">{{cite book|author=Anthony Pagden|title=Worlds at War The 2,500 - Year Struggle Between East and West|year=2009|publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-102983-7|page=190}}</ref> describes him as a '''Roman subject'''. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That source is clearly not as good on the question of his nationality, as it's a general history about war by a political scientist, while the source I mentioned is specifically about the historicity of Jesus' birth by a New Testament scholar. Anyway, it's not relevant to the question of whether he was Jewish. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::It's written by a historian and published by Oxford University Press. It also has the benefit of describing him as a "Roman subject" (without resorting to OR). 22:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Please furnish us with the quotation from that work and why you think it contradicts or supercedes the statement by [[Richard T. France]] in ''The Birth of Jesus in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols)'' '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 23:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|This RS describes him as a Roman subject.}} Does it? I found" {{tqb|Paul may have been a loyal subject of the Roman Empire; }} (page 148). But it only refers to Jesus as a Jew. Paul, of course, ''was'' a Roman citizen. There is no mention of Jesus on page 190. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 23:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Paul had been a good Roman citizen, Christ an obedient Roman subject. Neither had chosen to defy the power of Rome; neither had seen any future for their creed outside Rome.|q=yes}} [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That's taken out of context. The context is referring to Paul's vision of a universal church, after Jesus' death, not about Jesus' birth. There's no contradiction. The statement is best understood as ''counterfactual'', because as we know, Christ was ''not obedient'' but a rebel who was crucified. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 23:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Ah, page 139. So the full context is: {{tqb|The meeting of all these different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups—the Scythians, the Jews, the Greeks, the barbarians, and the Romans—would take place on an entirely different, and more elevated, plane. Paul had been a good Roman citizen, Christ an obedient Roman subject. Neither had chosen to defy the power of Rome; neither had seen any future for their creed outside Rome. Both had also drawn a clear distinction between the Church and the state, between the spiritual and the secular. When asked by the Pharisees, in the expectation that he would betray himself, whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman state, Jesus asked to be shown a Roman coin. [etc.]}}
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::So that text says he was in the Jewish ethnic group. He did not say "don't ask me, I'm not a Jew". Clearly that source supports the view that Jesus was a Jew. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 23:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Of course he was a Jew (who said otherwise?). He was also a Roman subject (the part that is of interest to us). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The source given does ''not'' say he was a Roman subject. It says in Paul's vision of a Roman church he was re-cast as an obedient Roman subject. He was neither, and he was not born a Roman subject, nor does that source say that. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 23:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Sigh. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Plebeians were citizens. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Was he a Roman slave? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I believe it is debated whether Jesus was ever a slave, but probably not. His mother possibly was '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::He wasn't a slave. But even if he was a Roman slave in the first sentence we should have called him Jewish. As for example the philosopher [[Epictetus]] is called "a Greek Stoic philosopher". despite the fact that he was a Roman slave. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 22:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::No, he was a Jew. Look, if you don't know that Jesus was not a plebeian, which would have made him a Roman citizen, then you probably should not be editing this article. I would suggest now might be a good time to take a break. I think maybe you are feeling under pressure here, and painting yourself into a corner that does not represent your actual view. I'll be doing likewise. I only wanted to alert you to Sanders, and I don't want to pile on. But maybe fresh minds will see this differently. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::He was a Roman subject (see source above). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Actually he was born as a subject of king Herod. When Judea passed later to be rule directly by Roman proconsuls he became a Roman subject. But that doesn't matter. People who live under the rule of colonialist empires don't lose their separate nationalities because of that. And wikipedia MOS doesn't think so either as the example of [[Epictetus]] shows. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::@[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] @[[User:AndreJustAndre|AndreJustAndre]]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::And here is an example of another philosopher [[Sextus Empiricus]] who had '''Roman citizenship''' and yet is called in the first sentence "a [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[Pyrrhonism|Pyrrhonist]] [[Philosopher|philosophe]]" [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 23:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Don't ping me again about this discussion. I have no interest in discussing anything with you. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::It doesn't matter. There is a consensus here that you are bludgeoning, and that your position is wrong. Good night. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 23:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I agree with Sirfurboy. M. Bitton is bludgeoning. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::You will join your friend in the ignored list... forever! [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Andre said "There was a ''different'' status of Jesus and his followers ''relative to'' say, a Roman plebeian." He did not say he was a Roman plebeian but the opposite. No sources call him "a Roman"; all sources call him "Jewish". [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I provided a source that calls him a '''Roman subject'''. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 12:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::Except for the restoration theology point. {{tqb|Sanders makes us see the importance of the normal Jewish expectations of Jewish "restoration theology"; these expectations were common to Jesus and his many Jewish contemporaries, but for Jesus especially they were central.}} [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:<s>Out of interest: why "Roman empire's sphere of influence" and not simply a "Roman subject" (which is sourced and explains why he was crucified without civil rights)? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 13:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)</s>
::@[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] Whether Jesus was a Roman subject or not, doesn't change the fact that multiple RS speak of him as having a Jewish nationality. Your error is that you assume that being a Roman subject made your nationality a Roman nationality. But this assumption is completely wrong and not supported by any RS. It is as ridiculous as saying that [[Ghandi]]'s nationality was British because he was born and lived under the rule of the British Empire. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 13:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::For the last time: please refrain from pinging me about this discussion as I have no interest in interacting with you or reading your mumbo jumbo. Thanks. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 13:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Well you have already interacted with me quite a lot since the previous time you told me that :-) [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 13:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


:@Erp: out of interest: why "Roman empire's sphere of influence" and not simply a "Roman subject" (which is sourced and explains why he was crucified without civil rights)? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 13:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::: OK, so why was it removed? Per [[Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics]], text from the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain although the text is rarely usable "as is". Better to fix it than to remove it unless it is hopelessly inappropriate. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::Jesus was subject to direct Roman control while in Jerusalem (just as everyone else visiting Jerusalem was including Jews visiting from areas well outside Roman influence) but not in his home area around Nazareth which was a client state of Rome under the control of Herod Antipas (and previously under Herod the Great whose client state was much bigger and included Jerusalem). Think of the status of people living in say Czechoslovakia during the height of the USSR; would they normally be called "USSR subjects" even though subject to indirect USSR control? I also note that the source which describes Jesus as "an obedient Roman subject" is writing a broad survey covering 2,500 years and the author's area of specialization is much more modern. I'm not sure a someone specializing in the historical Jesus would use the term "Roman subject" to apply to him especially not without plenty of context so people don't think it is equivalent to "Roman citizen" (note that "British subject" in the past use to be equivalent to "British citizen"). [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::There is more one than one source that refers to him as a "Roman subject", including the one about the "Early classical Authors on Jesus".<ref name="Margaret H. Williams" /> This one<ref name="Larry Krieger">{{cite book|author=Larry Krieger|title=World History: Perspectives on the Past|year=1992|publisher=D.C. Heath, 1992 |isbn=978-0-669-30850-1|pages=161|quote=Jesus was both a Jew and a Roman subject}}</ref> for instance, describes him as "both a Jew and a Roman subject". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC) [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Well the second source which has "both a Jew and a Roman subject" is a textbook covering a huge time scale and aimed I would guess at high school students. This makes it tertiary and probably not interested in the nuances of Roman client states versus Roman provinces. I note it also states that the Romans took over the Jewish kingdom about the time of Jesus's birth. Rome confirmed Herod Antipas as ruler of Galilee and Perea as his father, Herod the Great had willed, and that lasted till well after Jesus's death. Another son, Herod Archelaus, was also confirmed as ruler of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea but Rome deposed him in 6 CE and took direct control; I assume this is what the textbook is referring to. If the textbook can't get those nuances right, it can't be trusted on Jesus as a Roman subject. The first source has "I know of no other Roman subject of comparable social status" which I would be inclined to consider an indirect way of calling him a Roman subject. He could be considered a Roman subject (as in subject to Roman law) when wandering around in Judea/Samaria, but, not when growing up, living, and wandering around in Galilee. BTW we should really start a new section if we are discussing whether "Roman subject" should be in the intro. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 21:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's the third source. The second source is about the "Early classical Authors on Jesus". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Margaret H. Williams is indeed a reputable historian and it's a good source. However, her reference to Jesus as a Roman subject is likely using the word "subject" in the general sense, as in, "the subject of my writing" or the "subject of my work," and not in the technical sense of sovereignty, as in "subject of the British crown." Still, it counts as a description of Jesus as Roman, but whether that one good source which uses that phrase should influence the article is dubious, and I'd say no for reasons I'd like to elaborate on. I think the point made by Sirfurboy is well-taken that Gerry Adams should not be referred to as a British politician, but an Irish politician: he is essentially Irish. Similarly, Jesus should not be referred to as a Roman preacher, but a Jewish preacher. However, it's true that Williams does refer to Jesus as Roman, but that's not her only word on the subject. See [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Jews_in_a_Graeco_Roman_Environment/kPxmKKx7mucC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Jesus] p.25-26 of ''Jews in a Graeco-Roman Environment'' by Williams which clearly states her professional opinion that Jew and not Judaen is the right translation of Ioudaios and specifically references Jesus and erasure of his Jewish identity. Clearly, you can't use Williams to justify describing him as a Roman, when she even sees referring to him as a Galilean as erasure of his Jewishness. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 01:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, she's not using the word "subject" in the way you're describing it; and besides, she's not the only one who's describing him as a "Roman subject" (which he most certainly was, unless one is prepared to argue that he was either a citizen or a slave). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 01:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Regardless of how she may be using it - and it's not immediately obvious from the context, but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she's using it inexactly and not making an error - most experts do ''not'' consider Jesus Roman or a Roman subject. He was a subject of King Herod, unlike Paul, and not "Roman" because back then, if you were called "Roman," that meant you were a citizen of Rome, which he wasn't, so it'd be misleading to describe him as a Roman or a Roman citizen. It's true that during his lifetime, Rome controlled Judea, and you can make the argument that he was a subject of the Roman Empire as a result of that, but it's highly ananchronistic to do so, and as multiple users have argued, the relevant ethno-religious-national identity of being Jewish at the time is what should be taken from Margaret H. Williams very erudite work. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::She's the reliable source, you're not. The other source, written by a historian and published by the Oxford University Press, describes him as a "Roman subject". So unless there is some RS that disagree with them, either by stating that he "wasn't a Roman subject" or that he was either "a citizen" or "a slave", then there is nothing to discuss. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::For all practical purposes, he was not. He didn't pay Roman taxes. He was not a Roman citizen, some sources do call him a colonized subject of the Roman Empire, but that doesn't prove that his nationality was Roman, and it wasn't. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|He didn't pay Roman taxes|q=yes}} utter nonsense. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::He paid the Jewish tax and the temple tax, not the tributa and the vectigalia. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{tq|He didn't pay Roman taxes|q=yes}} find a source that says that and then, find another that disagrees with the sources that I cited. Good luck! [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You don't need to find a negative; there's no source that says that Jesus was a Roman citizen or of Roman nationality, many sources that say he was not a Roman citizen, some that refer to him as a colonial subject of the Roman Empire, and there are many sources that say he paid the Jewish tax and the temple tax. We can therefore assume that he did not pay the Roman taxes that Roman citizens would have paid at the time. If you have a source that he did, or that Roman nationality should be ascribed to him, then that would be another story. So far you've presented 1 good source, and a couple of OK sources with a couple of mentions of "Roman subject." I don't have a problem with using these sources in the body of the article, mainly the Williams source, but we should not hyperfocus on this specific aspect of the source that is contrary to the many more sources - including 2 out of 3 of the sources you presented - that refer to him as Jewish, not to mention those that call him Judean or Galilean or something else other than Roman. He was not culturally, ethnically, or linguistically Roman. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{tq|He didn't pay Roman taxes|q=yes}} I'm still waiting for a source that supports this gem of yours (one of many). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::[https://www.jstor.org/stable/43714171] {{tq|earliest Christians were still considered Jews and would certainly be asked for the Temple tax.... After destruction of the Temple, Jews, including Christ would not be asked to pay the Temple tax; they would be forced to do so in the interests of Jupiter Capitolinus. Proselytes, too, might ... tax, if they were sufficiently identified with Judaism.... would undoubtedly "offend" the Roman agents... }} Roman citizens paid customs taxes. Jews paid different taxes. The taxes were later levied ''by'' the Romans; they were not the "Roman tax" that Romans paid. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Huh? Is that supposed to support what you wrote? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::{{tq|He didn't pay Roman taxes|q=yes}} Try again and his time, try to remember who the subject is. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I just gave a source explaining that as a Jew, Jesus was taxed differently; he paid a Jewish tax. He paid a temple tax. ''to'' the Romans, but not ''as'' a Roman. Roman citizens paid customs taxes. Roman collection of the Temple tax continued after the Temple's destruction in 70 A.D. The tax was transferred to support Jupiter Capitolinus, and some abuses of the ''fiscus judaicus'' were abolished during the reign of Nerva. This is again more support that he wasn't considered Roman or treated as Roman, and shouldn't be described as such in the lead. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::{{tq|He didn't pay Roman taxes|q=yes}} [[Render unto Caesar|try again.]] [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Yes, that was the temple tax in that quote, if you read the source I've shared it's about that part of Matthew '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::I don't see the name of Jesus mentioned in that source. What I want is a source that supports your baseless claim. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::The name "Christ" is mentioned several times. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::About something else. If you don't have a source that supports the claim that you made (that he didn't pay Roman taxes), then say so. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::On p. 5, "Did Jesus pay the Temple tax"? '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::Who cares? You said that he didn't pay Roman taxes. Do you have a RS that supports your assertion. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't know how else to explain the argument that I've already shown that Jesus did not pay the taxes that Romans paid '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Your explanation is not needed. Do you have a RS that supports your assertion that Jesus didn't pay Roman taxes? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I already gave the RS, you've already claimed it doesn't mention Jesus or Christ even though it's all about that, and it shows what I've claimed. We'll have to agree to disagree, as in my view, I've already provided more than ample sources in this discussion. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Do you have a RS that supports your assertion that {{tq|Jesus didn't pay Roman taxes|q=yes}}? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{tq|...Roman rulers...the poll tax ... provincial citizens did not have to pay and others did}} '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::What's that go to do with your baseless claim (that Jesus didn't pay Roman taxes)? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I've just substantiated the claim that Jesus didn't pay Roman taxes, he paid Jewish taxes, to the Romans. There's also a section in that source about "subjects" too. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::So long a source doesn't mention Jesus (the subject you made a baseless claim about), then it's worthless. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::It does? "Jews, including Christ" in the last quote. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::Nope. You made a claim about Jesus, so you bring a source that mentions Jesus and supports your claim that he didn't pay Roman taxes. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|...disciples were considered Jewish and were treated as Jew...they were the "sons" of God, the king of heaven, were n...They were taxed by God for the Temple, i.e., in his name...and his disciples used the Temple, they would be expe...Jew}} This whole thing is about Jesus and whether they paid the Temple tax (i.e., the Jewish, not the Roman poll tax or the other Roman property taxes or customs taxes). It doesn't search or copy paste well because it's scanned badly. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|not the Roman poll tax|q=yes}} this is another baseless assertion that you will never ever be able to substantiate. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::Actually, yes, I have that part backwards. The poll tax is what they referred to the tax on non-citizens. So by paying the poll tax it shows he was ''not'' a Roman citizen. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::No, you had it wrong (admit it). We know that he was a "Roman subject". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::In the last statement where I wrote "poll tax," yes, I had that wrong. He did not pay the customs taxes or the Roman property taxes that Romans paid; he did pay a poll tax paid by non-Romans. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Paid to Rome by Roman subjects. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Most importantly ''not'' paid by Roman citizens. Throughout all of the sources, he is described as Jewish and his community as Jewish. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That's not important at all given that we know that he was a "Roman subject". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{Cite journal| issn = 0148-4184| volume = 13| issue = 2| pages = 131–135| last = Campbell| first = Alan D.| title = The Monetary System, Taxation, and Publicans in the Time of Christ| journal = The Accounting Historians Journal| access-date = 2024-11-30| date = 1986| url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/40697912| jstor = 40697912}}
::::::::::::::::"Of the population of Palestine only Judaea and Samaria paid taxes directly into the Imperial treasury."
::::::::::::::::The author then quotes "The Times of Christ" Lewis A. Muirhead, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907, pp 44-45 "The average reader of the Gospels is apt to suppose (a) that the whole population of Palestine was as directly as possible under tribute to Rome, and (4) that the collectors of the Roman taxes were the so-called “publicans.” Both suppositions are inaccurate. As to (a), only Judaea and Samaria paid taxes directly into the imperial treasury. Herod Antipas and his brother Philip, who governed the rest of Palestine (except Abilene), probably continued to pay to the emperor the kind of tribute their father had paid even in the days of the Republic to Mark Antony, but the taxes within their dominions were (in theory) neither levied nor controlled by the Roman Government." [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 02:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::We're talking about the Jesus and the claim that he didn't pay Roman taxes. I'm still waiting for a source that supports that claim. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::You seem to be confusing, perhaps my inartful turn of phrase, the Roman taxes, i.e. the taxes on the Romans, versus the Jewish taxes, which were paid ''to'' Romans. I apologize if the phrasing is confusing. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::By all accounts Jesus lived in Galilee, a client state. The Roman poll tax and land tax was not paid by residents of client states as per the source. Instead the client-state ruler had his own taxes collected and paid to him though part of that would in turn be sent to Rome as tribute. Now there were other Roman taxes such as on goods in transit through the Roman Empire, but, Jesus does not seem to have been carrying much in the way of followers. He could well have paid some of those much as people nowadays pay duty on goods they bring into a country. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 03:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::In other words, he paid the Roman taxes and the claim (by Andre) that he didn't was baseless. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::He was not taxed as a Roman, and the status of his nationality is not affected; this further proves the point he was of Jewish nationality. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::I think you made enough baseless assertions for one day.
:::::::::::::::::::::*{{tq|Jesus didn't pay the Roman taxes|q=yes}}
:::::::::::::::::::::*{{tq|they [the Jews] paid the Temple tax (i.e., the Jewish, not the Roman poll tax..|q=yes}}
:::::::::::::::::::::I'm done here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 03:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::I already said I made a mistake calling the Roman tax the poll tax, as I made a mistake in terminology, and that isn't what they refer to that as; they refer to the Jewish tax as a poll tax, while they refer to the "Roman tax" again, my phrasing may be ambiguous, because I mean the taxes ''on'' Roman citizens, i.e. the Roman customs tax and property taxes. But again, the question we were trying to answer with this discussion is what identity to ascribe to Jesus in the lead, not to score points. During the time of the story in Matthew, Jesus says to pay the Jewish tax ie the poll tax. There's also the Temple tax which he is said to have paid. Both examples reinforce the idea that Jesus should be described as Jewish. Whether "Roman subject" is defining is arguable. If there's a concrete change to the article's text you think we need as a result of these dicussions, probably good to start a new section since this one has 250 comments now. However, I do not see that we've found anything that suggests that Jesus shouldn't be known as Jewish in the first sentence, and a lot that suggests he should. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I should have probably been clearer. The quote "I know of no other Roman subject of comparable social status" is from Williams.
:::::::The quote "both a Jew and a Roman subject" is from Krieger.
:::::::Jesus's legal status in the eyes of the Roman empire would have been as a [[peregrinus]]; a term that applied to both those in the empire who were free and who had no citizenship and also those outside the empire who were free. If the latter travelled into the empire they would be treated like peregrini who had always lived in the empire. In addition he had no patron to call upon for aid (Herod Antipas and his court would also be peregrini but Herod Antipas could look to the emperor as his patron and his court would look to him as their patron so they were reasonably safe from a Roman governor like Pilate). [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 02:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There is no reason to guess given that we have RS describing him as a "Roman subject" (who paid his Roman taxes, despite claims to the contrary). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 02:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::out of curiosity. What do the direct records of the life of Jesus say about him being a Jew? I see multiple "interpretations" by many different scholars, but the whole point of Wikipedia is to give direct unbiased insight. some of the sources that have been sited in the above talk, are biased because of denomination and such. [[User:DarlingYeti|DarlingYeti]] ([[User talk:DarlingYeti|talk]]) 15:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::If those exist at all that would be a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source. We summarize secondary sources. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 16:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't use the term "Direct records" but instead "primary sources". We only have a minuscule number of Roman records none of which deal with Jesus (and I'm not any with Judea of his timr). The wikipedia article [[Sources for the historicity of Jesus]] might help a bit. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 16:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's actually the best idea anyone has had in this talk Erp! Tbh I don't care whether or not they call Jesus Jewish or not, I'm just afraid there might be small misunderstanding with some if they just think he was a Jewish teacher, when he didn't adhere to some of the most common Jewish traditions. [[User:DarlingYeti|DarlingYeti]] ([[User talk:DarlingYeti|talk]]) 17:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::A great deal of "the most common Jewish traditions" today had not developed, or were probably very much a minority thing among Jews of 30CE. The question of how deviant/heretical/whatever Jesus was in the context of the Judaism of his day is a very very complex and difficult one, only partly because we don't know much about his views on the matter. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 19:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:DarlingYeti|DarlingYeti]] In the New Testament there are several places where he is referred to as a Jew. see [[Jesus#cite note-449|here]] [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 17:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}


== Should Jesus be described as a Roman Subject? ==
::::Talk pages are for discussing article content, not for copying and pasting large blocks of public domain text. This talk page is rather long as is, and it can be hard to keep track of past discussions (which are still active) while other discussions are going on below them. The anonymous user simply copy and pasted the CE text, with no comment. They didn't say "Hey, I found the following public domain text, maybe we should consider using it." We have no idea why the user placed the text here on the talk page. However, because it did add 32% to the article size, and the exact same text is easily accessible through the link I provided, I thought my move was appropriate. If not, I'm sorry. We can restore the copy and paste text if you like, but perhaps we should make a talk subpage for it? maybe [[Talk:Jesus/Catholic Encyclopedia]]-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


The discussion on describing Jesus as a Jew has most recently and voluminously changed topic. Setting up this section for further discussion. This also includes whether Jesus paid "Roman taxes". I'll let the various sides layout their arguments. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 03:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
==Article Name==
:Of course Jesus was a Roman subject. That is crystal clear except to the small minority who believe that he is mythical and never existed. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 04:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be titled Jesus Christ? -- [[User:Ray-Ginsay|The Serene Silver Star]] 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::Except he was a resident for almost his entire life in a Roman client-state, [[Galilee]], ruled by Herod Antipas. He was indirectly subject to Roman rule there and directly subject to Roman rule when visiting [[Judaea]]. His legal status when in Judaea would have been that of a [[peregrinus]] as would any other free foreigner visiting there or any non-Roman citizen resident there. The problem is that "Roman subject" may given the wrong idea of his status given the more modern use in terms like [[British subject]] so we should we use that term or different wording? [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 04:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::We have RS saying that he was a "Roman subject". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:AndreJustAndre|AndreJustAndre]]@[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] On taxes. Jesus would not have paid the taxes owed by a Roman citizen since he wasn't one. I think we can agree on that. He also would not have paid the Roman poll tax and land tax paid by peregrini resident in Roman provinces as he was resident for the most part in the client state ruled by Herod Antipas. He may have paid the Roman taxes on goods in transit or similar taxes. He likely paid taxes to Herod Antipas (I'm not sure there is a record of what type of taxes Antipas levied). He is stated to have paid the temple tax. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::He was a Roman subject and he did pay the poll tax. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::To take a wider step back, there are sources which, as Cullen328 rightly points out, do not necessarily grant the historicity of a person called Jesus that we can point to in the historical record. There are also a range of sources between sources that are dissecting the primary sources somewhat more credibly, and there are sources reconstructing using the tools of history rather than literary criticism. I would say that "Roman subject" is an ambiguous term, but in the sense narrowly were colonial subjects of the Roman Empire comparable to British subjects such that their nationality could be described as Roman - I would say no. I do not think Roman is defining, I do not object to the statement that Jesus was a colonial inhabitant and in a technical sense subject to Rome, assuming such a person existed, I do not think "Roman subject" is the best way to describe the status. It's imprecise and as another source above points out, anachronistic. In the primary sources the term ''sons'' is used where we would say ''subjects'' today. Nationality, religion, and ethnicity are also anachronistic. The bottom line in my view is not whether Jesus was subject to the Roman Empire, but whether we should use that as a defining description in the lead. I would say no, it's anachronistic, and maybe not an error per se but potentially unclear and misleading. Jesus was treated as a Jewish person which came with a special status, in taxation and other things. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''No''' as long as we are still talking about the lead, which must summarise the main text and should not contain novel information that is not there. That one is a no-brainer. Should we discuss it in the main? Well the relevant section would be ''Judea and Galilee in the 1st century'', where we do discuss the status of these. I think what we have there is sufficient, and introducing a discussion of Jesus' status within that carries risks ''unless'' we have a good secondary source that answers that exact question. We need to avoid OR. Now the above discussion mostly has one editor repeating that sources do call Jesus a Roman subject. But the source assessment is very weak and Erp and others have already addressed that. We have an enormous number of sources on Jesus, calling him all kinds of things, but sources must always be dealt with critically, and just listing a few sources (some of them clearly not being from subject matter experts) that make the claim is ''not'' what should be in this article. If we don't have sources looking at the exact question being asked, it adds nothing to the article to add it. But regardless of whether it is added to that section, it does ''not'' belong in the lead.
:[[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::I note the section on Judea and Galilee though it describes Judea, Samaria, and Idumea as becoming a Roman province, it does not describe the status of Galilee (and Perea) which become a client state under Herod Antipas. I would consider that as fairly significant given that Jesus by all accounts spent most of his life there. I would suggest adding a sentence just before the sentence on the Gentile lands: "[[Galilee]] with [[Perea]] was a Herodian client state under the rule of [[Herod Antipas]] since 4 BC." with appropriate reference. Does that sound reasonable? [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 08:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, thanks. I don't think the matter is needed in the lead. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 13:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, agreed. That would be a good edit. Thanks. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 14:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, agreed. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 17:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Support '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Done. I did check my new reference to see if it could support all the claims in the paragraph. It could do for some but not all; not the prefect visiting Jerusalem during religious festivals nor "Gentile lands surrounded the Jewish territories of Judea and Galilee, but Roman law and practice allowed Jews to remain separate legally and culturally. Galilee was evidently prosperous, and poverty was limited enough that it did not threaten the social order". [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 20:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Looking at the map and checking some stuff, another Herodian client state that existed for most of Jesus's life was that of [[Philip the Tetrarch]] (d. 34 CE) who was ruler of Iturea, Gaulanitis, and Batanea (visible on the map). The client state is described in the article [[Herodian tetrarchy]]. It is mentioned in Luke and at least some of it had Jewish settlements ([[Bethsaida]] was in Gaulanitis or at least on the border [scholarly debate about where it was]). Perhaps a sentence after the Galilee sentences stating something like "[[Philip the Tetrarch|Philip]] (d. 34 CE), half-brother of Herod Antipas, ruled as [[Herodian tetrarchy|Tetrarch]] yet another Herodian client state that included [[Gaulanitis]], [[Batanea]], and [[Iturea]]."
::::Also the [[Decapolis]] should perhaps be mentioned since this was one of the two mostly non-Jewish regions Jesus is stated to have visited and is on the map (these were a collection of Hellenistic city-states that were clients of Rome). The other region was Phoenicia which at that time was part of the Roman province of [[Roman Syria|Syria]]; cities in it mentioned in the gospels as places Jesus visited or was near were [[Sidon]] and [[Tyre, Lebanon|Tyre]]. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 03:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' to including this in the lead section. Wow, lots of digital ink spilled on this since the last time I checked in. I did my best to read through the discussion, and I applaud all of you for devoting the time to engage in it. Frankly it seems like hair-splitting to me, but in any case, here's my thoughts:
:#'''The concept of "subject" is ill-defined and varies from time to time and author to author.''' It will also vary from reader to reader. For many readers, describing him as a Roman subject would imply a similar relationship between Jesus and Rome to that between a [[British subject]] and [[United Kingdom|Britain]] or an [[American citizen]] and the [[United States]], which would be a misconception. In particular, calling Jesus a Roman subject would suggest to many readers that Jesus was a Roman citizen, which was not the case.
:#'''Summarizing and organizing the claims of RS is not [[WP:OR]].''' I noticed in the discussion above a lot of mention of [[WP:OR]]. Some of those concerns I agree with. [[WP:OR]] is using the claims of sources to support a further implication not asserted in those sources. Examples of [[WP:OR]] would include "'''Jesus was born in the Roman Empire''', therefore ''he was a Roman subject''" or "'''Jesus paid Jewish taxes''', therefore ''he did not pay Roman taxes.''" if the sources only assert the bolded material. Choosing to include "Jesus was Jewish" in the type of information described in point 3: Context in [[MOS:FIRSTBIO]] is not OR, it's the kind of editorial decision that should be made through the consensus process.
:#'''Consider whether to include this information in the article body, based on [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:RS]] considerations.''' If the available reliable sources have a consensus that Jesus should be described as a Roman subject, and if Jesus' legal relationship with the Roman Empire is prominently featured in the available RS, then it should be considered for inclusion in the appropriate section of the article body. This is already a very long article, though, so it might also be necessary at some point to fork out that information into [[Ethnicity of Jesus]] or into a new article called something like [[Nationality of Jesus]]. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::I reverted a bold change to citizenship in the info box. It doesn't make sense when Judean citizenship was not a thing. [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Citizenship (and birthplace) in Info box ==
:Maybe. [[Jesus Christ]] currently redirects to [[Jesus]]. I personally think it should be the other way around. But since he is also refered to as [[Jesus of Nazereth]], you could make a point that the simplest name should be used. [[User:12.214.89.153|12.214.89.153]] 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


I note that it would be wise to omit citizenship in the infobox given that he wasn't a "citizen" of anywhere in the Classical world sense of the word (currently it has been set as [[Herodian kingdom|Judean]] though this is being disputed). In addition [[Infoboxes#Nationality_and_citizenship_in_infoboxes]] says not to use a demonym like 'Judean'; it also says not to use unless not clear from other information such as birthplace. Add in that Judean links to [[Herodian kingdom]] which ceased to exist in 4 BCE. I also note the addition seems to be new. On birthplace, I would drop [[Roman Empire]] since it seems most probable he was born in a client state not the empire proper whether that of [[Herod the Great]] or that of [[Herod Antipas]] or even, though unlikely, that of [[Herod Archelaus]]. The only way he was born in the Roman Empire proper would be if he was born in [[Judea]] not Galilee after 6 CE when Judea came under direct Roman control. One could use "c. 6 to 4 BC [[Herodian kingdom]] ([[Client kingdoms in ancient Rome|client state of the Roman Empire]])". [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 19:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:"Jesus Christ" as the article title would not really conform to Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|Neutral Point of View]] Policy as Christ (or Messiah) is a religious title that is most readily identifiable with Christianity and has a token position in Islam. <small>[[User_talk:The_Thadman|אמר]]</small> <tt><b><font color="#0033CC">[[User:The_Thadman|Steve Caruso]]</font></b></tt> 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


:I agree with everything Erp said here. [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 20:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Then Nazereth will have to do. Jesus just doesn't feel cmplete. -- [[User:Ray-Ginsay|Vitus Werdegast]] 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:'''''He wasn't a "citizen" of anywhere in the Classical world sense of the word'''''
:Actually , he was a citizen in the "classical world sense" . He was a subject of the Herodian dynasty and its realms , both politically and legally , as clearly seen in his trial when Pilate at first turned him away. Historically : being a subject (The "Citizen" of the time) didn't necessarily involve having inherent clear-cut rights and obligations between a centralized government and its populace. That itself is an Enlightenment-era innovation.
:Pre-modern states beyond city-states were much like the Mafia in The Godfather. It was a loose network of relationships between notables , and client-patron relations between commoners and whoever strongman or dynasty that came to dominate them.
:The Roman Empire was the ultimate power in the area , but had implemented a separate regime which relegated civil government duties and authorities to it , which was the Herodians. As Jesus was neither born in the Empire , nor was his father a Roman citizen , he was under their authority , and so he was their subject.
:'''''Says not to use a demonym like 'Judean'; it also says not to use unless not clear from other information such as birthplace'''''
:The [[Help:Infobox]] doesn't mention anything on the inclusion of nationality. It says '''Trivial details''' should be excluded , '''while Materially relevant to the subject''' should be included.
:If anything , the citizenship field helps readers understand Jesus' trial better , as "Citizenship" at the time referred to being under someone's authority , and thus being responsible for their actions.
:Had Jesus was a Roman citizen , he would have been sent immediately before Tiberius in Rome for trying to start another bloody civil war like that that came later in the Crysis of the Second Century. Instead we see it's the Sadducees who were angrier about Jesus than Pilate , who only cared about getting the taxes to Rome than dabbling in the squabbles of petty Kings of a culture that was widely dismissed as deviant.
:''''Judean links to Herodian kingdom which ceased to exist in 4 BCE''''
:Then we'll just link to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Herodian_dynasty&wvprov=sticky-header#Rise_to_power_and_reign Herodian dynasty]. That will include the holds of both Herod's Kingdom and his successors. [[User:TheCuratingEditor|TheCuratingEditor]] ([[User talk:TheCuratingEditor|talk]]) 20:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::We're not talking about post enlightenment citizenship. Subject and citizen are very different things, particularly in the Roman world. To claim that the subject "was the "Citizen" of the time, or that it " didn't necessarily involve having inherent clear-cut rights and obligations" is nonsense. Rights and obligations were foundational to ancient citizenship just as they are to modern. [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You say "very different things". It's true , but practically at that point being a "citizen" in Roman times signaled a special political status that most common people didn't have , which only became widespread after [[Antonine Constitution |Caracalla's edict]]. That's besides that [[Roman citizenship]] had various levels with different privileges and rights, and wasn't uniform , making it more of a socioeconomic class. Proper legal status is separate from these contexts.
:::Seeing we are talking about a filed in infoboxes here rather than proper history as in the above discussions , and we don't don't have "Subject of" field for the info boxes of historical figures , then the two terms are interchangeable when it comes to it. Sorry if I couldn't say it more obviously earlier. [[User:TheCuratingEditor|TheCuratingEditor]] ([[User talk:TheCuratingEditor|talk]]) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::But the terms are not interchangeable, and if the infobox parameters are imprecise then they should be omitted. What you added was not Roman citizenship either, but Judean, which simply didn't exist. [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 22:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::'''''If the infobox parameters are imprecise then they should be omitted'''''
:::::Either that field is valid here , or it's not, the proper value is another matter. And here you are saying that if he was Roman it would've been fine to keep the field , and if he wasn't , it should be removed . It's as if only Romans had a concept of "citizenship" at the time , which as already said is of a different character in every political entity at the time then how we understand it today.
:::::Seeing some are quite pedantic over these terms ,and the conceptions and impressions are getting hairy : then its best to remove it..I can't really recall a pre-modern figure whose infobox has the citizenship field anyway, as it likely assumes the modern sense of "citizenship" at mind whenever it's used. [[User:TheCuratingEditor|TheCuratingEditor]] ([[User talk:TheCuratingEditor|talk]]) 23:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well, exactly.
::::::There might be an argument for including it if he was a Roman citizen, but he wasm't, so best to remove altogether [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Yes, leave it out. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== Jesus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin ==
::This article isn't only about "Jesus Christ" you will see sections on the historical Jesus, Jewish views on Jesus and other views that do not use the title "Christ". Looking through the interwiki links does help because there are multiple instances of "Jesus", "Jesus Christ", and "Jesus of Nazareth". The latter two redirect here. Unless there is a serious concern that the [[Jesus (disambiguation)]] should actually be located at [[Jesus]], I think leaving the article here is just fine. The only need to expand the title is for disambiguation purposes, which we are currently dealing with via the disambig header at the top of the article.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Several reputable academic sources support this statement, however certain editors are engaging in prohibited edit wars in order censor this relevant fact. [[User:Danishdeutsch|Danishdeutsch]] ([[User talk:Danishdeutsch|talk]]) 22:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think the current article name is fully in agreement with [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Both "Jesus Christ" and "Jesus of Nazareth" are much less likely to be used than just plain Jesus, and I'm ready to bet peanuts against macadamias that when the average user enters "Jesus" in the search box, he or she expects to arrive at this article (although he may be surprised by some of the contents ;-).--[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 09:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


:Please refrain from citing site policy that you have not read; it is embarrassing.
== include how Jesus Christ had a dad. It's humanly impossible for a woman to reproduce asexually. ==
:The lead is perfectly fine as it is; for what it's worth, it has been the subject of careful crafting by many editors over the years, and it seems to fulfill [[WP:LEAD|its function as a balanced summary of the contents of the body]]. As such, you shouldn't even be trying to add newly sourced material directly to the article lead. As it is already made clear that he is tried, and made clear that he is executed after being turned over by Jewish authorities, the addition adds remarkably little to the reader's understanding of the subject, and is essentially wasted space in the most important location of a vital article.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Danishdeutsch|Danishdeutsch]] first stuff in the lede of this article has been discussed a fair bit so it is best to bring up in this talk page what you want to modify and allow discussion here before making changes. Second, the lede summarizes what is in the body and the body does not state the Sanhedrin condemned him to death. Even the main article [[Sanhedrin trial of Jesus]] describes the various gospel accounts some of which did have the Sanhedrin find him worthy of death and also notes that the accuracy of the gospel accounts has been doubted. Third your source when looked at ({{Cite thesis| publisher = Ouachita Baptist University| last = Prior| first = Vivian| title = The Trial of Jesus: A Historical Look at the Jewish and Roman Trial Proceedings Trial Proceedings|type= honors thesis|url=https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1939&context=honors_theses&utm_source=chatgpt.com|access-date=2024-12-25| date = 2024-04-17}}) is apparently an undergraduate honors thesis and these are not considered reliable sources barring very unusual circumstances (e.g., cited by undoubted reliable sources as reliable or later publication in a peer reviewed journal). [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 02:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::OTQ: several mainstream scholars deny that Jesus even had a trial, whether by the Sanhedrin or by Herod or by Pilate. They state that after he got snitched, presumably to the Roman authorities, since Jewish authorities could do nothing against Essenes in Jerusalem, who were mocking them openly, he got summarily executed, with no trial at all. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Hey ==
it's regarded as a "miracle" to his followers. but it's also a "folklore" to smart, rationale people. [[User:71.182.92.118|71.182.92.118]] 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] do you enjoy reverting my edits for fun of something. What's wrong with changing the first picture, the image I added looks more beautiful. Why do you care so much too? My edit didn't violate any rules [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:He had a dad. Some fella named God. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::The man said "humanly impossible". This may be true. He didn't say anything about it being impossible for God. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 04:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:Is there a point to this with respect to the article, or are you just complaining? ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
it's important to recognize that from a completely scientific viewpoint we can never say anything is "impossible". Rather, we may only say having observed such and such a circumstance for so many times we may tentatively conclude it is highly unlikely such an event may occur. Science is concerned only with observable facts and what has been observed. [[User:70.156.11.235|70.156.11.235]] 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
also, i must caution that liberalism (not in the political sense) remains liberal so long as it forgos fundamental declarations itself. for example, democracy is a liberal ideal but it is not liberal to say something like "democracy is best always right." or science has all the answers.[[User:70.156.11.235|70.156.11.235]] 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


:I have a watchlist with many pages on it. I don't quite understand why you feel entitled to make significant changes to the most visible parts of our most vital articles without particular care for consensus or site guidelines—and then expect to not hear anything else about it. That you are consistently taking personal offense at these changes being challenged perhaps says more about your habits and priorities so far than anyone else's. Ultimately, many things are the way they are on articles like these for pretty good reasons, and like it or not it's often reasonable to expect you haven't taken everything into account if you find something amiss, and thus it's more productive to ask first. Precious little is infallible, but I think the accumulated work of others deserves a bit more care than you are affording it. [[WP:BEBOLD|Be bold]], but allow that others will be too, perhaps in restoring the status quo. The attitude you have towards the concerns of others is pretty unacceptable.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 09:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
==Clean Up==
::i didn't know you needed consensus for every single edit. Most people make edits without getting consensus first. Next, you said something about site guidelines. My edit didn't violate any site guidelines. Replacing an image with another image violates 0 guidelines. Also the reason I Started taking offense is because you reverted multiple edits of mine in a very short timeframe period. It just seems you like reverting edits, even if the edit is harmless, violates no guidelines, or is historically accurate, like when someone added John the Baptist was Jesus cousin, and you removed that, like what's the point? Can I please get consensus so I can add that image back? [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 09:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Could someone clean up the notes at the bottom of the [[Jesus]] Page as it is all messed up
:::I just think the picture of Jesus in the infobox looks ugly. The 1880s painting looks beautiful and is a glorious piece of art. Can I please have consensus. Do you like Christianity or do you not? I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out your motive for reverting good edits about Jesus Christ and Christian empires and stuff like that [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 09:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
: Especially that notes look so ugly. I agree it need an urgent cleanup.Ή --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] 09:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The present image is fine. I cannot single-handedly give you consensus that I explicitly articulated was the result of dozens of editors' work. Your behavior has been pretty gross and self-centered. and you frankly need to grow up. Sorry. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 10:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:: There was an unclosed ref tag. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::you said you stopped replying because you had to take a shower or something. It usually doesn't take an hour for that, and I saw on your recent contributions that you made an edit 20 minutes ago. You could've replied then. And can you please tell me why we must keep the current image. The other image is fine too. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 10:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Good job :) --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] 11:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Ok I just checked and you edited your most recent reply. How is an ugly depiction of Jesus, that is thousands and thousands of years old, dozens and dozens of editors work? The person who put that image in Wikimedia Commons, that wasn't there work. Also you say my behavior is self-centered. How? How is wanting to add a nice picture of Jesus Christ self-centered, one of my favorite depictions btw and one of the most beautiful artworks that German man has ever produced [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 10:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What did the depiction look like? [[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] ([[User talk:DisneyGuy744|talk]]) 10:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] look at my edits on this page. It was a painting in the 19th century by a German painter. Crazy how he has the same name as one of Adolf Hitler's personal photographers. But they're two different people lol. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, I will reply exactly when I am able to, and it is not acceptable for you to immediately justify disruptive editing like what you've consistently been trying to pull.
::::::I'm not going to pretend that "I think it's beautiful" is an argument that has any merit in itself for our purposes, or how it is one I'm even meant to endorse or argue against. I think the present image is beautiful. That's why we make actual arguments, and fall back on some deference for the status quo to avoid totally subjective arguments like the one you seem to be keen on here.
::::::For what it's worth, there is a positive, substantial argument here too, though I've not been able to make it yet for all the heartburn: we attempt to use depictions that are universally representative—in this case across Christendom, to the extent that is possible—and given yours is from the 19th century, with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe during the late Renaissance (if I were an art scholar I may have a more specific characterization), it is pretty clearly not a depiction of Jesus that is very representative given the scope of the article. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 11:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] disruptive editing? I knows that's a name of a Wikipedia guideline and that's what your referencing, but I don't see how I'm disrupting anything. I just made edits you disagree with, not disrupting anything or harming anyone or anything. Also you made a good point. Me saying "the painting by the German guy" is beautiful, is an opinion not a fact. Since the painting I added is from the 19th century, with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe during the late Renaissance, how about I replace the current image with another one similar to it instead. from thousands of years ago that universally represents interpretations of Jesus, not a modernized European twist? [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 11:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok Remsense, how about this. It's basically the same image but more colorful. What do you think https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg can I replace the current image with this [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 11:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::looks nice, i'm going to add it for you. [[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] ([[User talk:DisneyGuy744|talk]]) 11:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Unbelievable. I'm done here, because you clearly are not going to respect any argument or understanding that implies you cannot immediately get your way. If I catch something because I technically violated 3RR spread across two discrete instances fending off independent instances of the worst faith editors possible in an article that gets 300k views a month, then so be it. You do not seem to accept that you are not entitled to publish changes to the encyclopedia against consensus—which for the third time I clearly do not unilaterally represent—and that does not bode well. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 11:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I didn't do anything. @[[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] added the image, I was waiting for your response to the new image i proposed but he went on ahead and added it, probally cause he or she felt bad for me lol. your argument for the first image i proposed was it wasn't universally representative. So i found an image on wikimedia commons that is the exact same, except it's a little brighter. what do you think about it, can we add it. ignore disneyguy, he acts weird, and sometimes he follws my account, he said he's catholic and i guess he's interested in editors who edit stuff about religion. if he stalks you next get an admin and block him. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 12:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] lol just saw you edited your latest reply to say "'<nowiki/>'''You do not seem to accept that you are not entitled to publish changes to the encyclopedia against consensus—which for the third time'''''". i'm not disneyguy lol. you can check other talk pages i'm involved in, he's some guy who followed my account a few times. why are you accusing me of being other people lmao. also you say if i don't immediately get my way i throw a fit. it's kinda the opposite. you revert peoples edits on religion, even if there's nothing wrong with the edit or if it's a slight improvement, and you tell me to go to the talk page, then ghost me half of the time claiming you're taking a shower, when i see your making edits on other pages. once me or disneyguy replace the image on this article, you're quick to revert but not reply to messages when i see you're online clearly not taking a shower lol. hopefully we can get an admin or someone in here to make a decision, because clearly you're not willing to discuss, and your acting like those people who get blocked for the "not hear to build an encyclopedia" rule.'' [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Merry Christmas to the editors involved in this discussion. Yes, the long-term image was arrived at per consensus and should not be changed without another full discussion, selection process, and consensus. Remsense has been very patient in explaining this and protecting the page on Christmas, the essence of volunteer editing. It may not be an image everyone likes, those are the pitfalls and twist and turns of consensus. Many do like it and appreciate its historical significance, which is why it's the first image on the page. I like pineapples on pizza but wouldn't make them mandatory to serve my guests. Thanks, and hopefully an edit war can be avoided. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I've been trying to have a discussion, but remsense keeps ghosting me, they say they took a shower, it doesn't take an hour to shower and get done right when i make an edit to this article. when remsense said they were taking a shower, they were making edits to other pages lol. remsense made some good and bad points on why we should keep the same image or not. the bad point was this is "the result of dozens of editors' work". wikipedia editors didn't make that depicion of jesus thousands of years ago, and putting an image onto this article from wikimedia commons isn't work lol. a good point remsense made was the first new image i proposed, was with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe and isn't universally represented. so i proposed this picture https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg it's the exact same, just more colorful and easier to look at, and still has the same historical significance since it's the same. and without replying to the talk page for a very long time, remsense accuses me of being another editor who agreed with my proposal and reverted their edit. what do you think, since remsense isn't willing to have a constructive conversation, thank god you're here. what do you think of this image https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 13:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] AHHHHHHH!!!!!! it happend again. i just got ghosted again. lol. while people in this discussion make edits on other articles, they ignore me for an hour or more, and totally would longer, maybe days if i didn't point out i get ghosted. "GET CONSENUS, NOW!!!" is what they say, and i'm like "im trying", and they say "YOU WONT STOP TILL YOU GET YOUR WAY!!!!" and im like "you told me to go to the talk page, now you won't let me get consenus?, guess i have to edit the article again to get your attention". you mighv'e been on tons of other talk pages since you probally follow multiple accounts, not just me, is this how every wikipedia editor acts? hopefully not. anyone who's reading this, do i have your consenus for this picture. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I agree the image should be changed. so, i guess you hae a little consenus. i might add the image back in a few hours. but maybe you should be nicer to the other editors, now matter how unreasonable they can be or even if they lie about you, you should still treat people with respect and maybe then god will bless you. [[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] ([[User talk:DisneyGuy744|talk]]) 13:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Please don't edit war by adding it back, in this case consensus means a full RfC with options, arguments, and choices attended by many editors. Consensus in this case (a contested change in a longterm opening image of a major topic page), may be a waste of time for everyone except in the learning curve capacity, as the image that you and the other editor are lobbying for is just a later copy of the present historical artwork. Your comment above about being nicer is commendable, thanks. WP:CIVILITY has its role in Wikipedia communication, and understanding that discussions take time, that we are all volunteers here, and that if an editor takes a bit of time to come back to a discussion that's their business and should not be a concern (for example, please note the Wikipedia logo of an open globe - that means the encyclopedia is never done and that criticism of a volunteer's time and their editing route and habits - or if they are or are not taking a shower - should not be an aspect of editing). Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::i know me and disneyguy are lobbying for a later copy of the present historical artwork. but the later copy just looks 1,0000,000000,00000x better. remnense said they were done with this conversation, so it's just us three, if you give us consensus, all three of us agree and it's done. if you wanna start an RfC however i'm up for it. we need the later version, it's brighter, more colerfull, the painting doesn't have scratches like the orignal, and jesus honestly deserves better. im saying this as a non-christian who's extremly inerested in jesus's teachings. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 14:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{u|HumansRightsIsCool}}, happily or sadly that's not how consensus works on a contested topic such as this, three editors can't cook in a change in a long-term opening image. I'm not starting an RfC, as I don't mind the present image (the image you suggest is just a later copy) and its historical background. The fact that other people have copied it goes to its notability. As for what Jesus deserves, I don't think he'd mind the present image but who can say? It's been on the page long enough that complaints have been few and far between (I'm guessing, not having kept track of the image placement's history and criticism). As for Jesus' teachings, yes, his Sermon on the Mount in particular, as a summary of what he had learned up to that point, has few if any equals. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::where in wiki's guidlines does it say three people can't determine consensus, if there was only 3 or 4 people involved in the discussion then they can. and please start an RfC you don't have to be a part of it. this really matters to me. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 14:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::If a change in the opening image was made without anyone reverting for a few weeks, then it could be said to have gained a consensus of some sort. But in this case an image was changed and then, importantly, quickly reverted. A similar case may be at [[Mary, mother of Jesus]], where the opening image is also an ancient painting comparable to this one (kind of bookends of the Jesus-Mary topic). Consensus for the Mary image was a long multi-stepped process attended and commented on by many editors. In both cases I think an RfC to change either would fail. On this one specifically, the semi-modern copy of the ancient image may be crisper and clearer, but seems to lack the import and emotional quality of the original (just my opinion, of course, but one I would express in an RfC with multiple choices). I'm feeling for you in wanting to present the topic in a favorable light, just that we differ on which image does that better. Make sense? Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:As one of the editors who participated in a very lengthy and detailed discussion several years ago that involved many editors and considered many images before arriving at a consensus for this one, I would want to see very strong reasons for changing it. The current image has numerous strong points in its favor:
* It is of great historical significance (being one of the oldest detailed depictions of Jesus still extant).
* It is more ethnically ambiguous and stylized than some other options, helping mitigate the "white Jesus" phenomenon.
* Notwithstanding the above, it is sufficiently aligned with the iconography of Jesus many readers will be familiar with to avoid unnecessary confusion.
* It is artistically excellent (though not aesthetically pleasing in the typical way).
* Related to the above, it includes symbolism that is of significance to both historical and modern theological understandings of Jesus, which regardless of our various personal perspectives is undeniably a central aspect of this article's notability.
:I would strongly oppose replacing this image with a more recent, unknown image as was suggested above, and would want to hear the case for other alternatives, with a presumption of keeping the present image unless a consensus emerges of similar strength to the consensus that put this image in place originally. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== RFC: Changing picture (or picture caption) in infobox ==
== The Pope the scholar ==


* '''Result on RFC to change infobox picture''': unanimous ''oppose'' and withdrawal of RFC by proposer
I think it is highly misleading to say "while other scholars hold the historical and theological Jesus to be one and the same" and then cite a 2007 book by the Pope to support this statement. The Pope's view, being the head of the largest Christian denomination, clearly belongs in the "Religious perspectives/Christian views" section. While I know that there is a grey area between when scholarship stop and religion starts, most scholars acknowledge that historical methodology cannot plausibly reconstruct the supernatural events in the Gospels. That is not to say that they didn't happen, only that a scholarly, objective methodology can only go so far in those matters. When the Pope says the historical Jesus and his theological Jesus is one in the same, is he making a theological statement of faith? or is he stating an objective conclusion from scholarly methodology? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
* '''Result on RFC to change infobox caption''': discussion underway


=== Picture ===
: Andrew, Benedict XVI argues in his book that positing scholarship and religion as somehow mutually exclusive, or two extremes with a grey area in between, is not accurate (I don't have the book handy to cite page #'s, sorry). In my opinion, his book also demonstrates the feasibility of his thesis -- Biblical scholars I know respect Benedict not only for his office, but for his scholarship. He incorporates the same historical-critical methodologies employed by "most scholars." Benedict XVI criticizes (in a scholarly, not polemical, way) the arguments of key figures among those you call "most scholars" -- those who methodologically posit the disjunction between faith and history such as Bultmann and Loisy. If you'd like other examples of scholars who share Benedict XVI's view of this matter, I could list a few: Gregory Vall, William Murphy, Francis Martin, Matthew Lamb, Matthew Levering, Michael Dauphinais, Iain W. Provan, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman, and Richard B. Hays. These are the ones I know off the top of my head, and include Catholics and Protestants, priests and laymen. Since there is a healthy scholarly debate regarding the appropriate methodology to use in the scholarly study of the Bible, I find it appropriate and not misleading, as you say, to point out that such a debate exists. Not to mention it would leave the article biased and incomplete. [[User:The.helping.people.tick|The.helping.people.tick]] 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
{{cot|title=RFC on picture change unanimously opposed and withdrawn by proposer}}
i suggest the current image be replaced by this https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg it's clearer, and is easier to look at. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The suggested image is a newer copy of the sixth-century painting used on the page, and lacks the notable and often-cited God/man duality present in the present lead image. The older image also has historical significance to the topic of Jesus, and may have been one of the images which evolved into the existing common view of what Jesus "looked like", and thus contains both aesthetic and encyclopedic nuances. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Agree.''' i agree with you Humans. the current image sucks, i just don't know why you have to turn it into this big thing. i agree with you the current image sucks, but i honestly don't know why you care so much. i just read Randy's comment, he opposes the new image you want. i don't but i can see his point. either leave it alone or maybe pick a different image to try and replace the current one. that has the same historical significance. if you hate the current one so much. [[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] ([[User talk:DisneyGuy744|talk]]) 15:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] ok i'll link some pictures and you tell me which one is best that people might agree on to replace the current image [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 15:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::1st: [[commons:File:00058_christ_pantocrator_mosaic_hagia_sophia_656x800.jpg|File:00058 christ pantocrator mosaic hagia sophia 656x800.jpg - Wikimedia Commons]]
*:::2nd: [[commons:File:Christus_Ravenna.jpg|File:Christus Ravenna.jpg - Wikimedia Commons]]
*:::3rd: [[commons:File:Пантократор_(Св._Богородица,Битола).jpg|File:Пантократор (Св. Богородица,Битола).jpg - Wikimedia Commons]]
*:::@[[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] pick what you think could replace the current image and i'll ask everybody else. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 15:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::For visibility, consider displaying pictures as thumbs, like so:
*::::[[File:Cefalù Pantocrator retouched.jpg|thumb|Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews]] [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] thank you !! [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 15:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Humans, i think the third one looks the best, but i gotta go with the second one because it looks the oldest. and we're talking about an image that has the same historical significance. so the second one. [[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] ([[User talk:DisneyGuy744|talk]]) 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::ok everyone, disneyguy said second one. agree or oppose? [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 16:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::As for age, it seems [[Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)]] (the current [[WP:LEADIMAGE]]) is about the same. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


* '''Oppose'''. No reason to use a [[WP:USERG]]-version when we have the real deal. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Isn't Benedict a scholarly-type person in his own right, I was under the impression he had gotten some qualifications in theology or something before becoming pope, and since the sentence also concerns theology rather than just history, the.helping.people.tick's citation seems appropriate... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] it's not user generated it was a remake in the 19th century, lots of pictures of jesus get remade or designed, but it's not ai. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 15:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, Benedict (still as Ratzinger) is a formidable Catholic scholar and held positions as professor of theology at 4 different (secular) universities. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
*::Your link says 29 July 2023 by Nesrine Younes. If you have other info, you can link that, people might find it interesting. Looks AI-aided to me. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There are two issues here: first, even scholars do not always write scholarly works. Second, there are different types of scholarship. I believe theologians are scholars. I think critical historians and literary critics are also scholars. The assumptions and interests driving these scholars are different. This is not just a matter of secular versus religions, by the way - historians and jurists in the US or UK are all scholars and sometimes write on the same issues but in very different ways. Sociologists and historians of science, and biologists and physicists, are all scholars but often provide conflicting accounts of science. We should avoid using the word "scholar" unmodified. Wherever we use it, we should be clear as to what kind of scholar. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] oh. Randy said it was from the 19th century. guess he was wrong. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 15:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Did he? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, I edited it out when I couldn't confirm the data that was in the discussion above this RfC (1880 was mentioned there). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Gotcha! [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:* '''Oppose''' As the editing info for the page states "''The lead paragraphs and infobox were created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it.''" so we are free to discuss changing it. The infobox picture has been discussed many times before such at at [[Talk:Jesus/Archive_134#New_image]] (September 2021); [[Talk:Jesus/Archive_133#Infobox_image]] (October 2019); I suggest people read these as well as searching in the talk page archives for picture or image. I've seen nothing to justify changing the picture from the current one that is well known, ancient, and highly significant in its own right.
: Andrew c, regarding your recent change which now reads, "Some scholars draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and Jesus as understood through a theological point of view, while other scholars, along with many religious adherents, hold that a Religious perspectives on Jesus|theological Jesus represents a historical figure," it seems that there is an implied disjunct between scholars and religious adherents, as if there were no religious adherents who are scholars. In fact, many scholars are religious adherents, which does not make them any less scholarly. This seems to violate NPOV. [[User:The.helping.people.tick|The.helping.people.tick]] 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 16:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Oppose.''' the current image is much better, more signfiicant, and is dated more closlely to the time period historicaly associated with Jesus.
:[[User:Sm8900|Sm8900]] ([[User talk:Sm8900|talk]]) 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


'''Comment''' I don't see anything very wrong with having a "Should we change the [[WP:LEADIMAGE]], it's been awhile?"-rfc at this point. And of course the result may turn out to be "No.", after we talked about it for 30 days (I assume you know that a [[WP:RFC]] is usually 30 days ''at least'') But the OP:s only alt is a non-starter IMO, so we'll see what happens. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Good catch. We can strike the "along with many religious adherents" part for now. I just thought it was obvious that the Jesus depicted in the Qur'an is believed to be an actual historical figure by most Muslims, as is the Jesus depicted in the NT gospels to Christians, and the Jesus depicted in the Gospel of the Ebionites to the Ebionites, etc. In addition to the scholars who hold the view, there are many lay people who may share the view as well, but not based on scholarship, per se. Maybe there is a more elegant way to convey this. I honestly did not intend to create a dichotomy between "other scholars" and "religious adherents", because those "other scholars" are going to be "religious adherents" .-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


:woah. that's quit a while lol. well to make some sort of progress right now, do you agree with disneyguy or do you oppose the second image. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
==AD/CE is BOLLOCKS!==
::IMO, not obvious improvement. The thing about the current [[WP:LEADIMAGE]] [[Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)]] is that it's quite interesting, and a noted historical artwork. That doesn't mean we must have it there, but it probably means that editors will not agree to remove it without what they consider good enough reason. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
What PC drivel! Wikipedia isn't a place for political grandstanding. The dates should be BC and AD only! --[[User:Nordic Crusader|Nordic Crusader]] 07:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] my reasoning for removing the current image is - it's hard to look at - as you pointed out there's other depictions like the second one disneyguy was talking about, that are the same age or even older, and that are 100x better - and i think i see scratches on the painting? basically the image isn't high quality like at all. that's probally why people remade it more often then some of the other depictions lol. how about you @[[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]], your thoughts one the second option, agree, oppose, or neutral like grabergs. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 16:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Political correctness is powerful, Nordic. It can even seep into neutral information areas like Wikipedia. Sad, but true[[User:142.176.46.3|142.176.46.3]] 19:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::[[File:Brooklyn Museum - The Youth of Jesus (Jeunesse de Jésus) - James Tissot - overall.jpg|thumb|Late 19th century by [[James Tissot]], an interesting painter]]
{{Off topic warning}}
::::I don't find it hard to look at. It's worn because it's ''old'' and that is ''one'' aspect to consider here. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Please note, Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOT|soap box]] [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 10:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per several above. I don't object to changing image every so often, but the proposed one would not be on my list. Launching a drive-by Rfc was premature. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)::::
*:@[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] we dont change it often. it's been 3 or 4 years since the current image has been up. by chance i know you oppose, but if you had to replace the image, which one would you pick.would you [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' the proposed change. The current image of the Sinai Christ Pantocrator is the best of the options presented in this RFC, and vastly superior to the Hoffman painting that was attempted. It's immediately recognizable, has historical value as (one of?) the earliest extant Pantocrator, and artistic value. If there is a better option for the lead, it hasn't been presented in this RFC. [[User:Seltaeb Eht|Seltaeb Eht]] ([[User talk:Seltaeb Eht|talk]]) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
BCE and CE stand for Before the Common Era and Common Era. They mean the same as BC and AD but are neutral in regards to religion. I think that is in keeping with the NPOV policy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 12:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
*:sorry bro but we're actually closing this RfC rn. you came late. basically me and @[[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] made a deal. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*::i don't see any deal indicated above with {{ping|Randy Kryn}} [[User:Sm8900|Sm8900]] ([[User talk:Sm8900|talk]]) 18:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::unles you mean keeping the status quo, which is fine of course. thanks. [[User:Sm8900|Sm8900]] ([[User talk:Sm8900|talk]]) 18:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes, Rfc's are a very public thing - once you launch one, nobody is "late" commmenting ''after 3 hours'', nor can they be closed early after a "deal" with one editor. It was a mistake to launch it. It is arguably clearly failing, so can be closed on those grounds, or you can withdraw it. Is that what you want to do? For next time, if you really feel you want to launch one, wait until the holiday season is over. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


* '''Oppose''' per {{u|Randy Kryn}}, {{u|Seltaeb Eht}}, and previous consensus. {{u|HumansRightsIsCool}} and {{u|DisneyGuy744}}, can you slow down and show some patience? It's Christmastide and presumably many of the editors who care about the question may have other commitments IRL. – '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]] · [[m:User:ClaudineChionh|global]])</small> 03:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Both are acceptable notations. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


{{cob}}
:BCE and CE are far from neutral regarding religion - by renaming the Christian calendar as "common", they are making Christianity out to be commonly believed. This is pure evil from the politically correct perspective. If you use BC and AD you are simply marking that you are using the Christian calendar, which is far more reasonable. 22:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::Don't be silly. 'Common' means that the era-notation is commonly used (i.e is common to all cultures - international). Anyway, the use of this convention is not going to change, so don't bother to bruise your typing fingers. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 22:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Firstly, it isn't commonly used - plenty of countries use other calendars. Secondly, I heard this line of reasoning on one of the Islamic blogs (where CE was presented as some kind of Jewish plot!) a few years ago - so its a failure there if you're really trying to be all sensitive and politically correct by using it. Thirdly, its a bit rich to argue that the academic convention that has been in place for no more than a couple of years "isn't going to change" ... academics are as changeable as the wind, and will probably change to some other abbreviation or calendar when they realise that CE is even worse than AD. [[User:75.60.181.84|75.60.181.84]] 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::This is the wrong place for this discussion. Try [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]. --[[User:John|John]] 22:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I meant it was not going to change on this page. If Islamist blogs alleging Jewish plots are to be accepted as evidence we may as well give up on NPOV now. however, it's an odd sort of Jewish plot that that is "making Christianity out to be commonly believed". [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The claim that CE/BCE is an academic convention that has been in place for only a couple of years is either a lie, or something soneone just made up (i.e. BS) - the pracice originated well over a hundred years ago. In any event, which part of "Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOT|soap box]]" do you (anonymous user, not PB or John) not understand? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


=== Caption ===
== Buddhist views section ==
Proposed: Change current caption, which reads
''The [[Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)|Christ Pantocrator]] of [[Saint Catherine's Monastery]] at [[Mount Sinai]], 6th century AD'' by appending ''... analyzed as depicting Jesus' duality of God and man as two sides of the same face'', or similar. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 03:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* Yes, the image can be seen and described from an "it's ugly" point of view because, so I'd thank {{u|HumansRightsIsCool}} and {{u|DisneyGuy744}} for making me "see" the obvious. Since the caption did not explain the duality in the caption, I've added "analyzed as depicting Jesus' duality of God and man as two sides of the same face." Does reading that in the caption change your opinion of retaining the image? We have to trust readers to read the caption as well as view the image, two sides of the same coin itself, and a more descriptive one, hopefully with an economy of words, also acts as an inspiration to readers to take a second look at the artwork. Two editors saying that it's an ugly image means that many thousands of readers have the same impression. Thanks for pointing that out. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 17:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] reading that caption changed my opinion of retaining the image. close RfC. we're done here. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 17:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*::someone removed it add it back [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::The attempt at horse trading, when you have no leverage whatsoever what the caption says if it goes against consensus, is not a good look. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' if that particular wording since current wording implies a general belief in Jesus having two natures ([[Dyophysitism]] or [[Hypostatic union]]). I would also feel a lot happier if the sources (footnote 7) cited in [[Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)]] actually supported the statement; it isn't as far as I can see in Chatzidakis, Manolis and Walters, Gerry. "An Encaustic Icon of Christ at Sinai." The Art Bulletin 49, No. 3 (1967): 197–208. Galey, John, Forsyth, George, and Weitzmann, Kurt. Sinai and the Monastery of St. Catherine, Doubleday, New York, 1980 mentions the icon as showing the two natures but not as each on one side of the face. I can't quickly check the third source (Manaphēs) or fourth source. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 04:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
This text was recently added to the Buddhist views section:
::I was able to access a copy of Gale, Forsyth, and Weitzmann (1980), and it does explicitly link the two sides of the face to human and divine nature as cited in the article:
{{cquote|In the book 'The Lost Years of Jesus' the author, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, claims that scrolls were found by Nicolas Notovitch in Monasteries in Tibet which spoke of the teachings of a Saint Isa, note that Isa is also the name of Jesus in Islam. The author is speculating that Jesus has traveled extensively through India and other countries in the years that are not covered in the Bible.}}
::{{blockquote|One represents the nearly life-size bust of Christ Pantocrator, blessing and holding a jewel-studded Gospel book. The hieratic frontality and the impression of aloofness on the one hand and the avoidance of strict symmetry and the enlivenment of the face achieved by different arching of the eyebrows on the other, strike a harmony between the divine and the human nature of Christ. (p. 92)}}
I don't find that Notovitch was a Buddhist, nor that his views are representative of Buddhist views. It seems that his interpretation of a text he found in Tibet, and Prophet's interpretation are that Jesus traveled in India, etc. Is this material appropriate for the section it is in? Or is it appropriate for inclusion in the article?
::For a contrasting view, I found Trilling, James (1983) "Sinai Icons: Another Look" (available [https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/44170802 here] for WPlibrary/those with JSTOR access)
&mdash; [[User:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|{{{User|ERcheck}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|talk]]) 17:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
::{{blockquote|It is tempting to equate the volumetric and linear aspects of the painting with the human and divine natures of Christ. Unfortunately, in the absence of confirming texts we cannot know whether Byzantine artists expressed theological ideas at once so subtle and so concrete, and above all so exclusively ''stylistic''. (Footnote: Weitzmann sees the asymmetry of the face as a way of representing Christ's two natures (Weitzmann. 15). Again, it seems doubtful whether a Byzantine would have interpreted the image in this way.) (p. 303-304)}}
::Also cannot find anywhere to access Manaphēs or the other work by Weitzmann. Should probably take this over to the icon's talk page, but I wonder if the interpretation is mostly Weitzmann's. I don't have the necessary background reading in the field to evaluate between Weitzmann and Trilling, though. [[User:Seltaeb Eht|Seltaeb Eht]] ([[User talk:Seltaeb Eht|talk]]) 19:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think there is insufficient support to include it here in the caption. I agree we should bring it up on the icon talk page. Do you, @[[User:Seltaeb Eht|Seltaeb Eht]], want to copy or shall I? [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I started a [[Talk:Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)#Interpretation|discussion there]]. Courtesy pings @[[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] @[[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] @[[User:Erp|Erp]] @[[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] @[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] @[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]] @[[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] @[[User:LWG|LWG]] that I've started a discussion about the relevant sources at the icon's article. [[User:Seltaeb Eht|Seltaeb Eht]] ([[User talk:Seltaeb Eht|talk]]) 21:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


(Note from jtrevor99: the following was originally in response to Seltaeb's Oppose vote on the first RfC. The portion of the conversation pertinent to the picture is preserved in that section above; the portion pertinent to the caption is below.) [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 04:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Judging by the [[Elizabeth Clare Prophet]] article, she might represent some New Age views, but not Buddhism. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
*:::@erp please stop removing captions in the infobox. i'm literlly willing to close the RfC is if those captions stay because i like them so much. if you disagree with it start a new discussion. or else please stop. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] i saw your newest revert. first of all i wasn't edit warring, i made 2 reverts about the infobox image 2 times, yesterday. if i revert you about something completely different, after a day, that's not edit warring. i know your probally going to ignore this message claiming your busy taking a shower or something, but if i make an edit to this page your quick to revert. why do you oppose the captions? please evrybody tell me, that's what this discussion is about from now on. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 01:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::It is disheartening that, while you've been linked it multiple times, and have also been directly told what it says, you have not bothered to even skim the lead of [[Wikipedia:Edit warring]]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::*{{u|HumansRightsIsCool}}, thank you for your comments and agreeing that the proposed caption is better, and that it solves a major concern. But no, we can't force caption language against other editors who have removed it. That's edit warring. The caption is being discussed here, but for the time being it has to stay as it was before my edit. Wikipedia has survived for 24 years with rules like this, which shows their value. No edit warring seems a bright line, and some admins jump the gun in blocking without discussion. So best to keep away from it. As for the caption change, it seems an obvious addition with, as I say, an economy of words explaining to the many readers who find the image ugly what they are actually looking at. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::*:ok me and @[[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] agree to add the captions. i think moxy opposed, i didn't read his full message yet just saw the word oppose, anyone agree or oppose adding captions? from this point on that's what the RfC is about. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::*::It's pretty clear that @[[User:Erp|Erp]] also opposes the longer caption. I haven't stated so explicitly, but I decidedly prefer the status quo here as well. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::*{{u|Remsense}} and {{u|Erp}}, it really doesn't make the caption that much longer, and the opening caption would also act as a page topic descriptor (Jesus, as encyclopedically defined, is perceived as both a God and a man, which is what he himself taught). It tells readers who experience the image as ugly that there's more to it than that, offering encyclopedic information about this sometimes-controversial opening image. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 02:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::*:I appreciate hearing more about the motivation here. Let me sleep on it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Note also if we are moving to a discussion about caption change, I suspect the opening statement should also change. I oppose the addition because it is digressing into an analysis of the particular painting which the reader can get by following the link. I also note that the discussion of the belief that Jesus is both man and god (a belief not held in Islam nor by some Christians) is a relatively small portion of this article. However if we do want to include it there should be a link to where the duality belief is discussed (possibly [[Incarnation (Christianity)]]). [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the proposed change..... Can stick the meaningless text that is being editwared over as a note would be okay with me. New text needs to be explained either with a link to an article or a source.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 01:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


*:Claudine, humans doesn't wanna change the image anymore, editors are now fighting about if the captions in the infobox should change or not. i haven't said anything in hours, i've been slowing down. [[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] ([[User talk:DisneyGuy744|talk]]) 03:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Response: Jesus or in this case Saint Isa was found to be studying AND teaching at Buddhist monasteries according to the book. So if not in Buddhism than where? Maybe under controversy, travels, historicity?
*::Thanks for the clarification, and per {{u|Erp}} I think the opening statement should be modified to refer to the proposed caption change, so that others don't miss that key detail as I did while attempting to digest all this. '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]] · [[m:User:ClaudineChionh|global]])</small> 03:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm not sure of the proper protocol for changing opening statements; does the opener @[[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] have to do it? I have changed the section header again. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 03:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]] well what do you think, oppose to caption change or not? i'm honestly tired of human's nonsense and i have commitments in real life too. he's starting to act childish. [[User:DisneyGuy744|DisneyGuy744]] ([[User talk:DisneyGuy744|talk]]) 03:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Weak oppose''' I think that the proposed phrasing makes this less [[MOS:CAPSUCCINCT|succinct]], but I haven't got a better alternative to suggest... maybe, like Randy, I should come back to this in a few hours. '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]] · [[m:User:ClaudineChionh|global]])</small> 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the proposed wording on a few grounds. 1), to me a a reader it creates more questions than it answers - analyzed by who?. 2) Per Erp, is the sourcing on the statement solid? Is it a general consensus on the piece or the opinion of a few scholars? 3) As others have noted, it assumes the orthodox Christian belief up front, as one of the first things readers see. 4) It's apologizing for the use of an image a few users here see as "ugly", and trying to explain a reason we're using it anyway. I don't think it's ugly, but an aesthetic judgement like that ''is'' something we can come to a consensus on. But if we come to a consensus it's ugly, why use it? Either it's the best image to use (which I think it is, of the options presented), and it doesn't need extra explanation. Or it's "ugly" and needs apologizing for, and we should find a different image. [[User:Seltaeb Eht|Seltaeb Eht]] ([[User talk:Seltaeb Eht|talk]]) 16:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' The duality in the depiction is worth mentioning if and only if it can be grounded in good third-party sources, since as mentioned above its not the only possible interpretation of the image (though it is an interesting one!). If such sources are found the main article [[Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)]] should also be expanded accordingly. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Consensus as a historical person ==
:Nowhere. It's not a reliable source. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 00:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


It strikes me as an issue that the sources being used as evidence for the near-universal scholarly acceptance of Jesus as a real historical person are generally not drawn from academic historians, but primarily from theologians, and sometimes even priests. [[User:DZDK|DZDK]] ([[User talk:DZDK|talk]]) 01:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think that one person's views, especially not one person's views represented in only one of their books, is really important enough for any of these other views sections. There's just no case for amazingly special notability that I see. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


:Modern academic scholars of that era whether Christian or not generally consider Jesus to be a real person. See [[Christ myth theory]]. The more established proponents of mythicism such as [[Robert M. Price]] even agree it is fringe. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 02:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
in the muslim view of jesus...
::Could possibly avoid this by qualifying the sentence with a follow up sentence as seen at [[Historical Jesus]]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 02:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
u should add that they belive that the injl was messed with which made the bible
:::You mean like what already exists at [[Jesus#Christ_myth_theory]]? [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 02:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The word virtually is always been odd to me..... Virtually (as the word virtually is simply not an academic term used in this context). To confront the topic of this post and what I perceive as an non-academic term in this case we should say something like {{green|Although, there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, the majority of scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 03:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::"Majority" is an understatement; "virtually all" is more to the point. But this has already been duscussed endlessly before. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It is a bit like the argument about whether Shakespeare wrote any of the plays attributed to him. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 04:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[Virtually]] has a specific academic use - thus sounds out of place...perhaps ..{{green|Although there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, there is general scholarly agreement that Jesus existed historically.}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 06:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Specific academic use within mathematics not history or Biblical studies. We could replace 'virtually all' with 'almost all' though I think 'virtually' conveys better how minuscule the number of scholars in the field who hold this view are. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 15:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"General scholarly agreement" would also be fine. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 15:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::: "General scholarly agreement" is not the same as "virtually all [scholars]". If the latter is accurate but the phrase is not acceptable because of other connotations of ''virtually'', one could say, "{{xt|With few/rare exceptions, all ...}}". [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 06:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since as pointed out above the Christ Myth view is fringe, and rejected by all but a very few proponents (who as mentioned above themselves acknowledge the view as fringe), we need stronger wording than "majority" or "general" to avoid giving undue weight to the myth hypothesis. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Lets deal with this in a blunt manner then. lets lead our readers to more info on the topic. As we know most only read the lead..so lets deal with the topic head on. {{green| Although there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, there is general scholarly agreement that [[Historical Jesus|Jesus existed historically]]. The [[Christ myth theory|Christ myth theory]] is considered fringe, and finds negligible support from scholars.}} <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's not an awful option, but the lead is already crowded and I think the current wording (especially with the footnote) gets the message across. We already link to the Christ myth theory and discuss its fringe status in the historical views section, which I think is the appropriate amount of weight to give that issue in this article. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Saying this in the lead will explain why its not covred in the alticle much and will lead readers to infomation fast. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not unthinkable, but seems to give christ myth more lead-attention (any) than it should have per the article content it has. I think the current "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." is alright. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Just my view I believe we should mention in the lead multiple sections from the article.... Those about academic debate about accuracy etc...as seen in historical and religious view section and of course to indicate to our readers that this is not a debate about historical Jesus off the bat. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 20:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::We should not give undue weight to fringe theories by including them explicitly in the lead. It is sufficient to say what we do now in the lead and expand with the Historical views section of which Christ myth theory is a subsection. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 21:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:27, 28 December 2024

Featured articleJesus 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2005Articles for deletionKept
October 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 21, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 12, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 28, 2013Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
August 15, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
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:
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

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

Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence

[edit]

I am going to make a bold suggestion, aware that I might be picking a fight with some long-standing consensus here. I am focused here on the first sentence of the lead. Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence. Call him that elsewhere in the article, even elsewhere in the lead, but not in the first sentence. This is not right.

Yes, as a factual matter, he was an ethnic Jew, no doubt. But the question we have to ask is how relevant his Jewishness is to his life and notability as a figure. Is his ethnic identity so important that it needs to be in the lead sentence? It is interesting that most Jews on Wikipedia (e.g., Albert Einstein) are not explicitly described as such in their lead sentences. But Jesus, of all people, is.

Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, regarded as the son of God. He is a prominent prophet in Islam. In contrast, in Judaism, he is, in the words of American political commentator and orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro, "just another Jew who tried to lead a revolt and was killed for his troubles." Yet the first sentence of this article makes a point of emphasizing the Jewish identity and only the Jewish identity.

I want to emphasize again that this is not a factual error as by blood he was a Jew, but the emphasis on this is misleading in a pernicious way that makes it inappropriate for the first sentence. Writing that he is a "Jewish religious preacher" vastly understates the scope and nature of his role in human history. He is notable precisely because he was not a mere "Jewish preacher", but rather someone who made claims regarded as heretical in Judaism (and for which he was thus executed for by the pressuring of the local Jewish community), ultimately founding a new religion distinct from Judaism and from which the Jewish nation has clearly separated itself for the past 2000 years.

I also note that that many other encyclopedias, like most non-English WPs and Brittanica, seem to agree with me on this and have far better lead sentences. JDiala (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. He was a Jewish Rabbi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.107.57 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this strikes me as incorrect, and underplays both Jesus' own Jewish context as well as the fact that Christianity itself emerges from an explicitly and quintessentially Jewish background. Jesus attends the Temple. He cites the tanakh. He is referred to as the telos of the law--the law being obviously the torah. Certainly, he began a new religion, but I think any devout Christian would argue that it was, in fact, the same religion--that is, the prophets and Jesus are both theologically relevant. To say that Jesus was Christian, and therefore should not be described as Jewish (in the first sentence, at least) strikes me as a category error regarding the relationship between the faiths. Jesus did not say he was starting a new religion, he claimed to be the fulfillment of the existing one. The lead as we have it strikes me as both factually and theologically sound, but I will trust to the wisdom of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dumuzid makes sense to me. According to Luke, he was circumcised as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the major figures in religious history, I'd say his 'Jewishness' is pretty important to his identity. --Onorem (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not so much his Jewish ethnicity that is important, but his Jewish religious identity and background. Christianity still very much sees itself as a continuation of the Israelite religion, and it was not until some years after Jesus' death that the leaders who succeeded him decided to allow gentiles into their movement. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. The suggestion to remove this from the first phrase was strange. The entry in EB is good, but our page says practically the same. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion except calling the suggestion "strange", best not to contribute. The EB entry doesn't say the same as I've indicated. JDiala (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strange for me was you treating Jesus solely on the basis of his ethnicity ("Is his ethnic identity so important", "as by blood he was a Jew"). I would also advise you not edit Judaism or Islam subjects since they are obviously related to the Arab-Israel conflict, broadly construed [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policing TBANs isn't what an article talk page is for. I'm allowed to edit Jewish topics as implied by the banning administrator. JDiala (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is agreeing with my comment just before, which is a perfectly valid contribution. Heckling when your proposal is sinking like a stone is not a good look! Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, this particular user and I have had past disagreements (to put it lightly) in another topic area, which made their way onto ANI. I have a suspicion that he's following me around and it's personal, since he's never contributed on this article before and conveniently his first contribution here is hours after I suggest something to shoot it down. But you're right insofar as this would have been better addressed on his user page than the article talk page, which I have now done.
I have no objections to the many others who disagree with me on this and am fully prepared to humbly accept a defeat. JDiala (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish identity was central to Jesus as well as to the first members of the Christian sect. It is critical that that context be established in the first sentence. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; his Jewish ethnicity, culture and religious background are integral to understanding who he is, regardless of one’s personal beliefs. Does it need mentioned in the first sentence of the lead? While I’m not sure it does, neither am I persuaded that it causes any harm. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Einstein is not a religious figure. Jesus is. Seems rather important to start with at least a bit of his religious background. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: need a Religion of Jesus page, much along the lines of Sexuality of Jesus page. One examining the whole array of theories to be found. Seen it claimed not only that Jesus was Jewish or Jesus was gnostically proto-Christian, but even that Jesus was Hindu, or proto-Muslim], or functionally Pandeist. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds doable, there are likely good sources, Category:Religious views by individual may have some inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are libraries of sources, but the fringy theories won't feature much. But this is pretty much totally irrelevant here, and won't alter the first sentence. We seem to be done here. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does it take for a theory to be fringy about a metaphysical figure for whom literally every aspect of their existence is thoroughly disputed? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus was a Jew. He was a rebel Jew and a dissident Jew born into and raised in an entirely Jewish context. Nothing reliable that has come down to us today about the historical figure calls that into question except for the small number of scholars who argue that he never even existed. His Jewish identity was central during his life on Planet Earth that we all inhabit 2000 years later. People can believe if they will that he is/was immortal or God in human form or capable of performing miracles or that he arose from the dead or that his mother was a never ending virgin or that the whole family rose to heaven in a fantastical way. Or believe that he was an impressive charismatic human guy very much like we might call a modern stage magician who put together an impressive performance to attract followers to his religious reform movement. Unsuccessful except for a handful when he was alive but fabulously successful in the centuries after his death Believe any competing theory that you want, but he was born a Jew and lived his entire life as a Jew. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion to downplay Jesus's Jewish identify and background is completely without merit.
1. It is common practice in Wikipedia to note the ethnicity of ancient religious-figures/philosophers/scholars in the first sentence, even when their influence and fame went far beyond their ethnic background. Here are some examples: Muhammad "was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam"; Socrates "was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy"; Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher; Zarathustra "was an Iranian religious reformer who challenged the tenets of the contemporary Ancient Iranian religion, becoming the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism"; Confucius "was a Chinese philosopher". Even in more modern religions (or sub-religions) we find: Martin Luther "was a German priest, theologian"; John Calvin "was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation"; Baháʼu'lláh "was an Iranian religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith"; Joseph Smith "was an American religious leader and the founder of Mormonism"; Leonard Howell "was a Jamaican religious figure".
2. Further as many before me commented, Jesus was not only Jewish "by blood". He was Jewish also "by soul and intellect". All the sources tell us he identified as a Jew, practiced Judaism (with some modifications) and the traditions about him and the teachings attributed to him are deeply rooted in the Judaism of his days (e.g. Monotheism, Messianism, the claim of Davidic lineage, the importance of the Torah and Old Testament etc). Vegan416 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part about Muhammad being emphasized as "Arab" leader shouldn't be there. I'll start a discussion at Talk:Muhammad.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Vegan416 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it should be removed however I do think it's very silly that the fact he was Jewish is mentioned in the first sentence but not that he was the prophet and representative of God on earth in the Christian faith. Comparing these two it's not up for debate that he is far more heavily associated with Christianity and primarily Catholicism than Judaism, I'd expect no one to suggest Abraham's post first mention he's important in Christian faith comparative to Judaism after all. Galdrack (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, that's the 2nd sentence. There's no real benefit to be had to try to cram the information in those two sentences together into an overburdened single first sentence. I'm not sure the article text or facts of the matter support the implication that Jesus is more central to Catholicism than to Orthodox or Protestant sects. VQuakr (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not sure the article text or facts of the matter support the implication that Jesus is more central to Catholicism than to Orthodox or Protestant sects" - In terms of text no I wouldn't say but the Catholic Church is much more associated with Jesus symbolically, pretty much every church in Catholicism features Jesus on the cruxifix as the central feature while also commissioning art largely based around Jesus and Mary. Orthodox churches by comparison don't have the same central shape or design and while they can often feature him as a central piece it's more often shared with many other saints. It was a specific aim of the Catholic Church to be more directly tied to Jesus too.
That said he's clearly more prominent in Christian faith than any other which for a start makes it odd referencing his Judaism but I think a large part of this is also how it's more centrally referring to him as a person first rather than a religious figure which is what he's much more commonly associated. Put it this way if I opened a physical Encyclopedia that was arranged this way while most of his entry was talking about him as a religious figure, I'd find it oddly structured to say the least. Galdrack (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree on the Catholicism thing since it isn't relevant to the rest of this discussion, but it seems you're confusing veneration/centralism with iconography. Yes, the subject of this article is the individual, not Christianity. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but it seems you're confusing veneration/centralism with iconography" - no I was using that as a brief example of how the association is more closely/directly tied with him, a part of this also comes from the fact that the major protestant factions have their own founders and even the central focus of Orthodox churches not being Christ. Though I'm not arguing either way which Christianity is more associated with him I just wrote it in response as yes iconography of a religion deeply impacts the veneration/centralism which are concepts that largely can't be measured so asking for which is most important is impossible to answer.
There's no saying to which religious believer has the most veneration of Jesus cause that's subjective but I'm referring to the physical world associations which yea he's overwhelmingly associated with Christianity and it's bad phrasing to associate him with a different religion first.
"Yes, the subject of this article is the individual, not Christianity." - ok, don't see how that's relevant to my comment. Galdrack (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a part of this also comes from the fact that the major protestant factions have their own founders no one is confusing Martin Luther with Jesus. This is nonsense. the central focus of Orthodox churches not being Christ this is unequivocally incorrect. physical world associations so...iconography? Yes, that seems to be where you're hung up/confused. ok, don't see how that's relevant to my comment because Jesus is central to the religion of Christianity, but Christianity isn't the subject of this article. The subject of this article, the historical/mythological individual Jesus, was Jewish. He's not particularly important to the religion of Judaism except perhaps in how it's impacted Jewish-Christian conflict and relationships over the last couple of millenia, but Judaism was critically important to Jesus and his identity. We of course go on to mention Christianity throughout the lead and article, but it isn't critical to mention it in the first sentence. We can't and shouldn't cram everything in to sentence one per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"no one is confusing Martin Luther with Jesus. This is nonsense." - This is the second time you've responded with a very snide answer that has nothing to do with what I wrote, reminder of Wikipedia:Assume good faith as you're responses really aren't good faith interpretations of what I've written.
Frankly I've been the one arguing to follow the standard format of Wiki pages, as you pointed out he's a "historical/mythological individual" and the overwhelming bulk of the article derived from those Christian accounts as he is in foremost associated with that religion in our world and the first sentence doesn't reflect that.
Per MOS:LEADCLUTTER "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." and currently this sentence places a higher value on ascribing his racial/religious heritage than the religion built around his life. Assuming you were an alien then reading the first two sentences is just misleading: "He was a Jewish preacher but is the central figure of a different religion? Did the Christians just get it wrong or what?" is a completely valid reading of this entry in it's current state. Galdrack (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we can't seem to find common ground on much of anything including the intent behind my own words and the text of WP:AGF, probably best for us to agree to disagree. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ponder for a moment that one can be deeply important to both the history of Judaism as well as any number of other things. While time is limited, the contents of these arguments amount to false dichotomies imo. Remsense ‥  01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ponder for a moment that one can be deeply important to both the history of Judaism as well as any number of other things." let's not be disingenuous I clearly addressed both points.
It's a very strange way of reading an opening sentence about an article on Jesus which is really the point being made here and frankly it is strange to arrange it this way. Typically articles are arranged by referencing what the person or topic in question either is or is most well known for and on that end Jesus is very obviously more associated with Christianity than Judaism.
Though really I think it's more odd because it frames him first as a person rather than a spiritual figure which he's much more commonly known for. Galdrack (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also have many articles about fictional characters. Captain Ahab says in the 2nd sentence he is a monomaniacal sea captain. Andre🚐 18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, in the second sentence. Which is my point here's the first: Captain Ahab is a fictional character and one of the protagonists in Herman Melville's Moby-Dick (1851).
It's extremely clear who he is and where he's relevant followed by a specific description of him. Compare this to say the article on The Buddha:
"Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha (lit. 'the awakened one'), was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia, during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism."
"Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BCAD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader."
See in The Buddha article it also refers to him as a person but it just makes direct reference to what he did and the religion he's primarily associated with, it's not until the second and third sentences we start describing where he's from and what religions he was associated with before founding Buddhism. It should follow the same structure he first emphasising what he did "Religious Leader" and then what (of the varying) religions he's most heavily associated with which would be Christianity, also the sentence structure is misleading this way as it implies it was Judaism specifically that he was preaching which isn't accurate considering he was rejected by them for his preachings which became the foundations of Christianity cause that's what he was preaching, influenced and inspired by Judaism of course. Galdrack (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he was rejected by them" Who the heck are them? The narrative about the Apostles points out that his followers were also Jewish. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One assumes he means that Rabbinic Judaism doesn't consider Jesus to be the Messiah. Andre🚐 23:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I thought that was clear when I linked to the event to be honest. There isn't specifics on whether or not all the Apostles were Jewish though they likely were in terms of culture but they're consistently referenced as The First Christians which their pages also reflect since they like Jesus have a much greater association with Christianity than Judaism. The more I read the opening lines of the page from talking about it the less sense the opening sentences make. Galdrack (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't quite articulate my thoughts in the clearest way, but luckily I've just happened upon a little thought experiment for you. If you had to pick one word that says the most about Jesus's biography, what would it be? I think you could plausibly pick either "prophet" or "preacher" here, so I'll go ahead and lock that in for us. What is the second content word one could add that fills in the absolute most about him? (You can use whatever linking or grammatical words are necessary, like "from Bethlehem" is valid here.) I have racked my brain, but cannot think of a second word that even comes close in core additive information than "Jewish". Remsense ‥  18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to Andre above with a comparative to The Buddha article that honestly reads better. I get what you're going for cause none of this is wrong and I think maybe the initial posters tone here has implied a sorta reading for supporting comments.
" I have racked my brain, but cannot think of a second word that even comes close in core additive information than "Jewish"" Christian? Like even writing "was the a prophet of Christianity and it's central religious figure" would make more sense. Then background in the second and third would still mention his Jewish background and teaching etc. Galdrack (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice in Wikipedia to note the ethnicity of ancient religious-figures/philosophers/scholars in the first sentence, even when their influence and fame went far beyond their ethnic background. Here are some examples: Muhammad "was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam"; Socrates "was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy"; Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher; Zarathustra "was an Iranian religious reformer who challenged the tenets of the contemporary Ancient Iranian religion, becoming the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism"; Confucius "was a Chinese philosopher". Even in more modern religions (or sub-religions) we find: Martin Luther "was a German priest, theologian"; John Calvin "was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation"; Baháʼu'lláh "was an Iranian religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith"; Joseph Smith "was an American religious leader and the founder of Mormonism"; Leonard Howell "was a Jamaican religious figure". Vegan416 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment treating at the point I mentioned however it's missing the major problems with this opening sentence. Judaism is both a religion and ethnicity but a religious preacher is a specific role pertaining to religion. As far as Jesus himself is concerned we can't say what he preached per-say but I'm sure each religious group he's associated with would say he preached their religion at the time though of course he is far more commonly associated with Christianity today.
Which is the glaring difference between this post and all the others you mention the main religion he's associated with is relegated to the second sentence, it's very strange to not mention Christianity in the opening sentence for Jesus. The ordering of the sentence itself is an issue as it states "was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader." which is just openly misleading, his ethnicity should be mentioned but it shouldn't be written in a misleading manner and the fact he's the central figure of Christianity should absolutely be there, it's by far what he's most associated with. Galdrack (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your claim below that "preached a different religion to Judaism and said as much amongst his apostles", but that's a different discussion to my point here. I wouldn't object to changing the first sentence to "was a 1st-century Jewish man who became the central figure of Christianity" Vegan416 (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Jesus was not Christian himself, since Christianity was born only following his death and alleged resurrection. As the examples I gave show in Wikipedia first we give short description of the person then of his influence. Vegan416 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true by any means, Jesus himself preached a different religion to Judaism and said as much amongst his apostles. It's a difficult point (looking at the history here too) but it's simply extremely dismissive to Christians to openly claim the main figure of their church was preaching a completely different religion and they just got it wrong. I don't know of any other article treated this way. Galdrack (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your factual claim and with your attitude. Wikipedia is not supposed to suppress the truth to placate religious feelings. But anyway to avoid a lengthy discussion I suggested a compromise version . We can change the first sentence to "was a 1st-century Jewish man who became the central figure of Christianity". Vegan416 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or in full and without changing other things: "Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader who became the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion." Admittedly that is becoming a bit clunky so I would drop ", the world's largest religion". Erp (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative I won't object to: "Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish man who preached new religious ideas and became the central figure of Christianity". Vegan416 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that all three of these suggestions are worse than the present wording, with or without the mention of Judaism, since they essentially just weld the current first two sentences together while losing the "[NAME] was a [PROFESSION]" format that pretty much every article about a historical figure follows. -- LWG talk 15:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd have to agree with you there. ChrisgenX (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean claimed to be the jewish messiah. So his jewishness is important 193.173.45.71 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't when the Messiah was Cyrus the Great Golikom (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrus didn't claim to be the Messiah. He probably never even heard this word. And nobody today regards him as the Messiah. Vegan416 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We call Jesus Jewish because mainstream scholars call him so. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but the statement is rather glib, and can easily be called out. And what we regard today about theological claims doesn't have much bearing on this either. There's no discussion about his Jewishness, just whether it should be in the first sentence, which seems to have got lost for several in this debate. Golikom (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole story of Jesus is about his Jewishness and his relationship to the Jewish sects and Jewish rebels in Rome at the time - Pharisees, etc. Andre🚐 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Golikom, I have shown somewhere above that it's the common practice in Wikipedia to mention the ethnic identity of religiously important historical figures in the first sentence of their article. There's no reason to do otherwise in the case of Jesus, EVEN if his Jewish identity wasn't important to his story, all the more so since it clearly is important to his story, as others have mentioned here. Vegan416 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vegan416 - I've not suggested it shouldn't be, just that certain parts of this discussion have degenerated into Blueskying his Jewishness and don't address the actual question at hand. But otherstuff isn't a very strong argument for this either - Saint Peter, Paul the Apostle, John the Baptist, Jacob, David, Miriam for example - none of these mention ethnicity in the first sentence. Golikom (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Golikom Well look at MOS regarding biographical articles (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#First sentence), according to which:
"The first sentence should usually state: ... 3. Context (location,
nationality
, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable."
Since Jesus Jewish nationality is clearly a part of the context for the activities that made him notable, then that should close the debate.
Furthermore from this follows that the articles that you mentioned should also include this detail in them in the first sentence (at least those about which there is a consensus that they are real historical figures). I'll make the neccesary corrections soon.
Vegan416 (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note it says "usually". It's not compulsory - only one of the four examples given actually states nationality. I don't think there's any need to change any of those opening sentences. Nationality is really a much more modern concept than the period we're talking about here - and certainly saying Jesus had Jewish "nationality"" is pretty anachronistic. Golikom (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The Jews were regarded ad a nation both by themselves and by others since the Old Testament times. Vegan416 (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish is usually used for the post-exilic period and Jacob, Miriam, and David all pre-date that period.
For contemporaries within the first century, Josephus has in the first sentence "was a Roman–Jewish historian and military leader" and Philo has "also called Philō Judæus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt".
Jesus would have been identified as Jewish in his time much as the New Testament identifies people as Samaritans or Romans or Greeks. It is also important from the encyclopedic point of view to state that up front since there is a non-scholarly view that he wasn't.
Also John the Baptist should mention he was Jewish and did until October 13. Erp (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. With regard to Jacob, Miriam, and maybe even David, I would also add that there isn't a scholarly consensus that they are real historic figures that actually lived. But as for the rest they definitely should be name ad Jews in the first sentence. Vegan416 (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, As mentioned above, we should follow general academic practice and use "Israelite" for figures living (or supposedly living) before about 500 BC/BCE. But that should be in the start of the lead. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant here, since Jesus lived around 0 and sources refer to him as Jewish. Andre🚐 17:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done John the Baptist (reverted the opening sentence back to the version of Oct 3, "was a Jewish preacher active in the area of the Jordan River in the early 1st century AD"). Erp (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ was a Jewish rabbi. The religion that he preached was Judaism. He was mocked by the Romans as the "King of the Jews". Jesus being Jewish is an important part of his historical and religious significance. I don't think that this change is worth the controversy it would cause. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that Jesus, "King of the Jews," wasn't notably Jewish is frankly, kind of silly. It sounds like someone who really hasn't studied the New Testament much. Andre🚐 01:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, lots of thoughts here. I've skimmed the discussion, so apologies if I missed the nuance in people's views. Here's the situation as I see it:

  • The term Jewish can refer to an ethnicity and/or a religious faith.
  • Jesus was in fact ethnically Jewish.
  • Jesus was a preacher and religious leader.
  • Jesus' preaching happened in the first century in a Jewish religious context.
  • Jesus was and is the central figure of Christianity, considered by most Christians to be the incarnation of God the Son and the promised Messiah.
  • Jesus was and is an important figure in many non-Christian faiths.
  • While most Christians consider their faith to be a continuation and fulfillment of pre-Jesus Judaism, post-Jesus Judaism and Christianity are distinct faiths.
  • Jesus cannot be described as a Christian, as that would be like saying that King James was a Jacobite or Karl Marx was a Marxist.

Taking all that into consideration, I think the current opening paragraph of this article is excellent. If it is changed at all, it should be by removing the word "Jewish", leaving the rest the same. Why should we do/not do that?

Reasons to leave it in:

  • It would be consistent with the vast majority of similar articles. See for example Muhammad, Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates. The Buddha doesn't specify an ethnicity because we actually don't know.
  • The Jewish context of Jesus' preaching is much-discussed by the sources and important for understanding the early history of Christianity.

Reasons to remove it:

  • It could create confusion as Jesus is not an important figure in modern Judaism.
  • It's debatable whether Jesus considered himself to be (religiously) Jewish.
  • It could be undue weight if Jesus' Jewishness is considered a minor part of his significance.

Personally, I think the points in favor of leaving it outweigh the points in favor of removing it, but I'm interested to hear if people have further factors to add to the ones I enumerated above. -- LWG talk 16:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you said, except for 2 points. I think it's quite cleat that Jesus regarded himself as religiously Jewish. See for example in this Wikipedia article "He tells his followers to adhere to Jewish law". I could expand on this but I don't have time to delve into all the sources now. Maybe next week. I also don't understand how "It could be undue weight if Jesus' Jewishness is considered a minor part of his significance" is a point for removing the word "Jewish".
I would also add that keeping the word "Jewish" in in accordance with MOS as I have shown above. Vegan416 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Jews see Jesus as an imposter messiah, and don't believe in the outpouring of the "Holy Ghost" which are both accounted for in the Bible; I would say he isn't your traditional Jew. that is if you think he's a Jew at all. it would be better to say that he's of Jewish descent than to say he was a Jew. If you could find a Jewish Wikipedian to comment they'd say something along the lines of what I've said. DarlingYeti (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah, but he's definitely Jewish. Andre🚐 18:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Jewish Wikipedian, and while I think Jesus was not the Messiah (as do most of the humans living today) , it doesn't change the fact that he was a Jew, both ethnically and in his beliefs. Vegan416 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: How many RS describe him as a "Jewish preacher and religious leader"? M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of RS refer to him as Jewish preacher/teacher or rabbi and even Jewish theologian/mystic. Here is a partial list found in a few minutes in a search of titles of books and articles only:
https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/How_Jesus_Became_God/dmspAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/Mythologizing_Jesus/UKQoCQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html
https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/Rabbi_Jesus/8NKreclXD6QC?hl=en&gbpv=0
https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/The_Crucified_Rabbi/emr91t3DtPoC?hl=en&gbpv=0
https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/Jesus_the_Jewish_Theologian/sbBM7w74E3wC?hl=en&gbpv=1
"I Shall be Reckoned with the Gods": On Redescribing Jesus as a First-Century Jewish Mystic. By: Joseph, Simon J., Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 14768690, 2020, Vol. 18, Issue 3 Vegan416 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of those describes him as a "Jewish preacher and religious leader"? I'm asking this because that's what's in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one calls him "Jewish preacher" in the title of the book. Vegan416 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, none of them describes him as a "Jewish preacher and religious leader".
Him being described as "the central figure of Christianity" (this is what he's notable for) is what the readers expect to see before anything else. M.Bitton (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want a single source that says the exact words "Jewish preacher and religious leader" together? Why? Do you doubt that he was a Jewish preacher and a religious leader to those who followed him?
Anyway, the reason that "the central figure of Christianity" are not the first words in the sentence is because this is not according to the MOS for first sentence of biographies of historical figures. Vegan416 (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's relevance is disputed (this is what this discussion is about), hence, the question starting with "how many ....".
the reason that "the central figure of Christianity" are not the first words in the sentence is because this is not according to the MOS for first sentence of biographies of historical figures How exactly did you come to the conclusion that his ethnicity should be mentioned before what he's notable for? M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. And I showed you there are many sources that speak of Jesus as "Jewish preacher/teacher/rabbi/mystic/theologian". I can bring many more if you want. So that part is completely DUE. You want to remove the words "and religious leader"? I don't object to that. In fact, there is actually another reason to remove "religious leader". The way it is now in the sentence it might lead people to think that Jesus was a leader who had a large Jewish following while he was alive, which is not correct.
  2. According to the order of the points in MOS. Ethnicity (point 3) is mentioned before what he's notable for (point 5). Also see in many other examples I brought above: Muhammad "was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam"; Socrates "was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy"; Plato "was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms"; Zarathustra "was an Iranian religious reformer who challenged the tenets of the contemporary Ancient Iranian religion, becoming the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism"; Confucius "was a Chinese philosopher of the Spring and Autumn period who is traditionally considered the paragon of Chinese sages". Even in more modern religions (or sub-religions) we find: Martin Luther "was a German priest, theologian, author, hymnwriter, professor, and Augustinian friar. Luther was the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation, and his theological beliefs form the basis of Lutheranism"; John Calvin "was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation"; Baháʼu'lláh "was an Iranian religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith"; Guru Nanak "was an Indian spiritual teacher, mystic and poet, who is regarded as the founder of Sikhism and is the first of the ten Sikh Gurus"; Joseph Smith "was an American religious leader and the founder of Mormonism".
Vegan416 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't showed anything that proves that ethnicity is relevant.
Ethnicity (point 3) is mentioned before what he's notable for (point 5) there is no mention of "ethnicity" in point 3. M.Bitton (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"3. Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable". Vegan416 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Jewish" a nationality? M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The concept of the Jewish nation is very old. It appears even in the Bible itself. Vegan416 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and certainly was at the time of Roman Judea Andre🚐 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's baseless WP:OR that will remain so until RS say that Jesus' nationality was Jewish.
Why shouldn't he be described as "Roman"? M.Bitton (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, and nothing about it is OR. It's well-sourced in many sources. Jesus was not Roman as Roman Judea was not a province that would have given the Jewish people there Roman citizenship. Andre🚐 21:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite easy to find RS that say that the Jews had a distinct national identity in Jesus time. Just give me some minutes. Vegan416 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in anybody's OR.
Is there a RS that says that Jesus' nationality was Jewish? M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds if not thousands of sources [2] Andre🚐 21:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to quote the part that says something about his nationality (remembering that he was born, lived and died in the Roman empire). M.Bitton (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an irrelevancy to insist on language using "nationality," as that is a modern concept that would have had a different meaning in antiquity. Same with race and ethnicity: these are modern concepts that would have had a different meaning ~2000 years ago. See for example [3] John Within Judaism: Religion, Ethnicity, and the Shaping of Jesus-Oriented Jewishness in the Fourth Gospel. The important thing is that the sources say, "Jesus' identity cannot be understood apart from his Jewishness." Andre🚐 21:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RS (not you) judge what is relevant and what isn't.
If the term "nationality" doesn't apply to him, then what exactly are we discussing here? M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nationality, etc." does apply to him, but the text isn't used in the article. The article does and should contain this was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader. It's key to his story and notability. You might have an argument if the article said, "Jesus was a preacher of Jewish nationality," but it does not. "Religion" is also an anachronism. Andre🚐 21:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality, etc." does apply to him so point 3 that you cited above doesn't apply. In other words, you're mentioning "ethnicity" in the lead sentence without a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that the term nationality do apply to describing as Jewish. Here are some sources that say that the Jews had a distinct national identity in Jesus time:
https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/elements-of-ancient-jewish-nationalism/68B5269393825257297A43E197C94A12
https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/The_Construction_of_Nationhood/uMJDaelOpsgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA186
There are more sources, but it's too late here now, so I'll being them tomorrow or next week. Vegan416 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Nationality, etc." does apply to him (above).
Like I said, I'm not interested in anybody's WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing me with Andre. We are not the same person. Pay more attention. And there is no OR here. Both sources I brought you are book printed in Cambridge University Press. Vegan416 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. Your OR is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see any OR by me??? Vegan416 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OR here. It's a sensible summary of a range of sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument (M.Bitton) is extremely off-base. "Nationality, etc.," implies nationality and related or similar concepts, such as identity. I have given sources saying Jesus' identity (religious + ethnic) is Jewish and critical to him. Andre🚐 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you have presented so far is OR and more OR. M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think OR means? I presented the sources by recognized academics that directly address this topic. See the discussion of Jewish ethnos-identity in Cirafesi and the PBS summary quoting Harold W. Attridge: The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School, Shaye I.D. Cohen: Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies Brown University and Paula Fredriksen: William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University. Andre🚐 22:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it means. Do you know what WP:VERIFIABILITY stands for? M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing unverifiable in the article about Jesus' Jewishness. Andre🚐 22:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that we're talking about the nationality, don't you? M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to keep bringing that up, but no, the topic is "Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence"? Andre🚐 22:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to go back that far: your first reply to my comment was about "nationality". M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I have been participating in this thread as you can see, and my first comment or really any of my comments were not about "nationality," they're about whether Jewish is an important topic to the topic sentence for the Jesus article. You brought up nationality and you argued that his nationality should be Roman, which is not something that any source does. Andre🚐 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first reply to my comment was about "nationality". I didn't argue "that his nationality should be Roman", I mentioned it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So just dropping in here at random, but I think you might need to read some E. P. Sanders. Here's just one example. [4] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to quote the relevant part. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regarding this aspect as essential for Jesus, Sanders is indebted especially to Albert Schweitzer, but he rightly corrects Schweitzer's scheme. Sanders makes us see the importance of the normal Jewish expectations of Jewish "restoration theology"; these expectations were common to Jesus and his many Jewish contemporaries, but for Jesus especially they were central.

page 250. But that is David Flusser summarising Sanders. My point is really that Sanders is a scholar credited with rediscovering the Judaism of Jesus. And since Sanders there has been quite a theological shift towards recognising this and grounding theology in an understanding of his being a Jew. N T Wright speaks of Jesus as understanding his role within the eschatological framework of his his being the Jewish messiah (I forget the exact quote, but its something like that). After Sanders there has been such a shift in this that I am surprised we are having this debate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the part about his "nationality"? M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the test. See WP:ETHNICITY. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Which it is (ethnos-religious-identity) Andre🚐 22:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that "Jewish" stands for his ethnicity? M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that's applying a modern concept to antiquity. Jewishness is ethnoreligious and also national. It's not really important which it is more of. Andre🚐 22:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you said, but also national (about Jesus) is unsourced and unlike to ever be sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis 12:2 ? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Jesus had a connection to Jewish nationalism. Jesus' actions and teachings can be interpreted as being involved in the Jewish national struggle against Rome. The Gospel of Mark contains traces of Jesus as a political revolutionary sympathizer involved in this struggle. Andre🚐 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a source in sight about his so-called "Jewish nationality". M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source about the notability of Jewishness to the topic sentence as pertaining to national identity. Andre🚐 22:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See [6] The simplest way to articulate the idea of ancient constructs of ethnicity is to list some of the relevant vocabulary: γένος (“people, family, race”); ἔθνος (“people group”); συγγένεια (“kinship”); συγγενεῖς (“kinfolk”); gens (“family”); domus/οἶκος (“household”); mos maiorum, fides patrum, παραδόσεις τῶν πατέρωv, ἔθη, τὰ πάτρια ἔθη, τὰ πάτρια (“ancestral custom”); πατρίς (“fatherland”). These words, taken together, express a concept cluster connecting blood relations (family), shared customs, inherited protocols for showing respect to gods (what we might refer to—cautiously!—as “religion”), and ancestral land or locality. Συγγένεια—“kinship”—also served as a term for citizenship: citizens of a city were imagined as members of the same γένος Andre🚐 22:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with Jesus or his supposed "Jewish nationality". M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the topic is about Jesus, the article is about the "Jewish identity of Paul’s god." Maybe peruse the article a bit before you discard it as unrelated. Andre🚐 22:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
God’s Jewish ethnicity, even eschatologically, remains constant. This divine ethnicity, refracted through the lens of prophetic eschatology, reveals and highlights three interconnected ideas: first, that Israel alone has “known” God; second, that the other nations have not known God; and, third, that at the end-time, these nations, too, will know God, and they, too, will worship him in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount. Despite its insistence on God’s ethnicity, in other words, Jewish tradition presses this larger claim peculiar to its religious culture: Israel’s god is also and ultimately the god of all other ethnic groups as well. He is the nations’ god qua Jewish god who dwells in Jerusalem. But the nations (and their gods) by and large will know this only at the end-time. Seen in this light, the establishment of his kingdom is quite literally the Jewish god’s ultimate act of cross-ethnic outreach. The ethnic-theological difference between Israel and the nations, the nations’ ignorance of the true god, is what binds all of these other ἔθνη. Clearly showing that there is an Israelite national identity reflected in the Gospels. Andre🚐 22:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing yo do with "nationality", nor can it be about it given that he was born and raised in the Roman empire. M.Bitton (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed about the Jewish ethnic identity which is covered by WP:ETHNICITY which satisfies relevance and notability. Andre🚐 22:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need a source saying "Jewish was Jesus' nationality" to say that Jesus was Jewish. Nationality is a total red herring. All sources unproblematically and uncontroversially identify Jesus as Jewish and that's all we need to know. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your irrelevant opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that even if there were no RS saying explicitly that Jesus had a Jewish nationality it would still be justified to write that he was Jewish in the first sentence. But in fact we have many such sources. See here Vegan416 (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's his ethnicity. Being born and raised in the Roman empire means that he was either a Roman citizen (there is nothing suggesting that he was), a Roman subject (we have a source for that) or a Roman slave. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except he was from Nazareth so that makes him a subject of Herod Antipas, the Jewish ruler of a Roman client state. Erp (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's all about what the sources say. We have a source that describe him as a "Roman subject" (which makes sense since he was living in a Roman province). M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bitton, that's your uninteresting and unimportant personal view. The RS I brought talk explicitly about Jesus' Jewish NATIONALITY. Your views don't count against them. Vegan416 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RS describes him as a Roman subject, so what some irrelevant nobody thinks of this is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have one source that mostly calls him a Jew and in one sentence, talking about Paul's theology, and referring to an attempt to trap Jesus into opposing Rome, he is referred to as a subject. One source, and a source can be wrong - or rather it can be speaking loosely. As has been pointed out, he was a subject of Herod, Rome's client king. The Romans would have had no concept of Jesus as a Roman. He was a Jew. Josephus, writing of the Antiquities of the Jews, repeatedly discusses nations, including but not limited to the Jews. Whatever distinction you want to make about Roman subjects, it is not how sources generally treat Jesus. There is simply no doubt that sources repeatedly and extensively speak of Jesus as a Jew and the jewishness of Jesus. We don't need to appeal to modern concepts to see this. This is simply what the sources say. Jesus, even in Christian theology, was a Jew.
But, we can use a modern example to put paid to this nonsense about him being a Roman subject. Even if we grant that as he was subject to a client king, that made him subject to Rome, we can note that this is not a nationality, but a legal status. Gerry Adams is technically a British subject, but good luck to you if you want to remove "Irish politician" from the first sentence of the lead of his article. Wales is a nation, but the Welsh are all British subjects, and even though the UK is a unitary state, it is a state composed of several nations. I don't really know what you are arguing anymore, but there is no reason whatsoever to remove Jewish from the lead based on anything you have posted here. None. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sources that describe him as a "Roman subject":
the surprising thing about Jesus is not how little he is mentioned by classical authors but how much. I know of no other Roman subject of comparable social status who figures as much as he does in their writings.[1] M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The indentations are getting crazy here. At most we might want to adjust the intro to indicate he was living in the Roman empire's sphere of influence (I wouldn't use that terminology but the idea) as well as being Jewish. Erp (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you are not getting the "restoration theology" point there, it may be because you are importing modern notions of nationality, which would be a demand for WP:OR, since Rome was a city state and not a nation, and Jesus was not a citizen of Rome. The Jewish people were the nation. That passage makes the point, and it is far from alone. Again, maybe reading Sanders and not demanding his words be chopped into Wikipedian bite size snippets would be called for here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If modern notions don't apply, then there is no reason to apply them to the article while squaring circles (the Jews were no different than the others who under Roman control). M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the question whether we call Jesus Jewish? The answer to that is an obvious yes. No need to use the word "nation". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jews were different from other Roman provinces. Andre🚐 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So were the others. What's that got to do with the claim that he had "Jewish nationality"? M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a different status of Jesus and his followers relative to say, a Roman plebeian. This is related to the status of Judea under Herod, who was a client king. This is basic New Testament background info. Andre🚐 22:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you go: "Roman plebeian" it is. M.Bitton (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? No, I'm saying Jesus was not a Roman citizen. Andre🚐 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know: you said he was a "Roman plebeian". M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Here take a source that speaks specificaly about Jesus as belonging to the Jewish nation.
I can find more, but I have to go to sleep now.
"...to emphesize that Jesus belonged to the Jewish nation continuously, without any interruptions also after his demise"
Grochowski, Z. T. (2020). Nicodemus. A Disciple Liberated by the Cross of the Christ from the Darkness of Fear and Disbelief. The Biblical Annals, 10(4), p. 660 Vegan416 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not about nationality, nor can it be given that he was born and raised in the Roman empire. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus belonged to the Jewish nation continuously,, how isn't that about nationality???? Andre🚐 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are just trolling Vegan416 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful how you address me as I have zero tolerance for crap (especially from you). M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. The exact wikipedia term is "bludgeoning" and not "trolling". which is exactly what you do. Repeating your OR argument again and again even in the face of RS that contradict you. Vegan416 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pathetic! You will simply be ignored from now on. M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was not a plebeian, which is a type of citizen. Andre🚐 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was he a Roman subject? M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was not, under Herodian Judea, he would not have been considered a citizen or a Roman plebeian. See Herodian kingdom. It was a client state and he was a subject of the client king Herod. Andre🚐 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Do we have RS stating that? M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. [7] p. 2364 A similar verdict is appropriate with regard to Herod’s violent response to the news of a rival “king of the Jews” p.2371 Matthew’s statement that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was king p.2379 King Herod, client king of Jewish Palestine p. 2380 at the likely time of Jesus’ birth Herod was not one to hold back from eliminating those he regarded as a threat to his throne, and the enquiry of the magi as to the birth of a new “king of the Jews” was well calculated to provoke the violent and indiscriminate response Andre🚐 22:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source doesn't mention the word "subject". On the other hand, This RS[2] describes him as a Roman subject. M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is clearly not as good on the question of his nationality, as it's a general history about war by a political scientist, while the source I mentioned is specifically about the historicity of Jesus' birth by a New Testament scholar. Anyway, it's not relevant to the question of whether he was Jewish. Andre🚐 22:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's written by a historian and published by Oxford University Press. It also has the benefit of describing him as a "Roman subject" (without resorting to OR). 22:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please furnish us with the quotation from that work and why you think it contradicts or supercedes the statement by Richard T. France in The Birth of Jesus in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols) Andre🚐 23:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This RS describes him as a Roman subject. Does it? I found"

Paul may have been a loyal subject of the Roman Empire;

(page 148). But it only refers to Jesus as a Jew. Paul, of course, was a Roman citizen. There is no mention of Jesus on page 190. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paul had been a good Roman citizen, Christ an obedient Roman subject. Neither had chosen to defy the power of Rome; neither had seen any future for their creed outside Rome. M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's taken out of context. The context is referring to Paul's vision of a universal church, after Jesus' death, not about Jesus' birth. There's no contradiction. The statement is best understood as counterfactual, because as we know, Christ was not obedient but a rebel who was crucified. Andre🚐 23:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, page 139. So the full context is:

The meeting of all these different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups—the Scythians, the Jews, the Greeks, the barbarians, and the Romans—would take place on an entirely different, and more elevated, plane. Paul had been a good Roman citizen, Christ an obedient Roman subject. Neither had chosen to defy the power of Rome; neither had seen any future for their creed outside Rome. Both had also drawn a clear distinction between the Church and the state, between the spiritual and the secular. When asked by the Pharisees, in the expectation that he would betray himself, whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman state, Jesus asked to be shown a Roman coin. [etc.]

So that text says he was in the Jewish ethnic group. He did not say "don't ask me, I'm not a Jew". Clearly that source supports the view that Jesus was a Jew. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he was a Jew (who said otherwise?). He was also a Roman subject (the part that is of interest to us). M.Bitton (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source given does not say he was a Roman subject. It says in Paul's vision of a Roman church he was re-cast as an obedient Roman subject. He was neither, and he was not born a Roman subject, nor does that source say that. Andre🚐 23:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plebeians were citizens. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was he a Roman slave? M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is debated whether Jesus was ever a slave, but probably not. His mother possibly was Andre🚐 22:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't a slave. But even if he was a Roman slave in the first sentence we should have called him Jewish. As for example the philosopher Epictetus is called "a Greek Stoic philosopher". despite the fact that he was a Roman slave. Vegan416 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was a Jew. Look, if you don't know that Jesus was not a plebeian, which would have made him a Roman citizen, then you probably should not be editing this article. I would suggest now might be a good time to take a break. I think maybe you are feeling under pressure here, and painting yourself into a corner that does not represent your actual view. I'll be doing likewise. I only wanted to alert you to Sanders, and I don't want to pile on. But maybe fresh minds will see this differently. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was a Roman subject (see source above). M.Bitton (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he was born as a subject of king Herod. When Judea passed later to be rule directly by Roman proconsuls he became a Roman subject. But that doesn't matter. People who live under the rule of colonialist empires don't lose their separate nationalities because of that. And wikipedia MOS doesn't think so either as the example of Epictetus shows. Vegan416 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton @AndreJustAndre
And here is an example of another philosopher Sextus Empiricus who had Roman citizenship and yet is called in the first sentence "a Greek Pyrrhonist philosophe" Vegan416 (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ping me again about this discussion. I have no interest in discussing anything with you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. There is a consensus here that you are bludgeoning, and that your position is wrong. Good night. Vegan416 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sirfurboy. M. Bitton is bludgeoning. Andre🚐 22:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will join your friend in the ignored list... forever! M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andre said "There was a different status of Jesus and his followers relative to say, a Roman plebeian." He did not say he was a Roman plebeian but the opposite. No sources call him "a Roman"; all sources call him "Jewish". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a source that calls him a Roman subject. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the restoration theology point.

Sanders makes us see the importance of the normal Jewish expectations of Jewish "restoration theology"; these expectations were common to Jesus and his many Jewish contemporaries, but for Jesus especially they were central.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest: why "Roman empire's sphere of influence" and not simply a "Roman subject" (which is sourced and explains why he was crucified without civil rights)? M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Whether Jesus was a Roman subject or not, doesn't change the fact that multiple RS speak of him as having a Jewish nationality. Your error is that you assume that being a Roman subject made your nationality a Roman nationality. But this assumption is completely wrong and not supported by any RS. It is as ridiculous as saying that Ghandi's nationality was British because he was born and lived under the rule of the British Empire. Vegan416 (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time: please refrain from pinging me about this discussion as I have no interest in interacting with you or reading your mumbo jumbo. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have already interacted with me quite a lot since the previous time you told me that :-) Vegan416 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erp: out of interest: why "Roman empire's sphere of influence" and not simply a "Roman subject" (which is sourced and explains why he was crucified without civil rights)? M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus was subject to direct Roman control while in Jerusalem (just as everyone else visiting Jerusalem was including Jews visiting from areas well outside Roman influence) but not in his home area around Nazareth which was a client state of Rome under the control of Herod Antipas (and previously under Herod the Great whose client state was much bigger and included Jerusalem). Think of the status of people living in say Czechoslovakia during the height of the USSR; would they normally be called "USSR subjects" even though subject to indirect USSR control? I also note that the source which describes Jesus as "an obedient Roman subject" is writing a broad survey covering 2,500 years and the author's area of specialization is much more modern. I'm not sure a someone specializing in the historical Jesus would use the term "Roman subject" to apply to him especially not without plenty of context so people don't think it is equivalent to "Roman citizen" (note that "British subject" in the past use to be equivalent to "British citizen"). Erp (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is more one than one source that refers to him as a "Roman subject", including the one about the "Early classical Authors on Jesus".[1] This one[3] for instance, describes him as "both a Jew and a Roman subject". M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the second source which has "both a Jew and a Roman subject" is a textbook covering a huge time scale and aimed I would guess at high school students. This makes it tertiary and probably not interested in the nuances of Roman client states versus Roman provinces. I note it also states that the Romans took over the Jewish kingdom about the time of Jesus's birth. Rome confirmed Herod Antipas as ruler of Galilee and Perea as his father, Herod the Great had willed, and that lasted till well after Jesus's death. Another son, Herod Archelaus, was also confirmed as ruler of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea but Rome deposed him in 6 CE and took direct control; I assume this is what the textbook is referring to. If the textbook can't get those nuances right, it can't be trusted on Jesus as a Roman subject. The first source has "I know of no other Roman subject of comparable social status" which I would be inclined to consider an indirect way of calling him a Roman subject. He could be considered a Roman subject (as in subject to Roman law) when wandering around in Judea/Samaria, but, not when growing up, living, and wandering around in Galilee. BTW we should really start a new section if we are discussing whether "Roman subject" should be in the intro. Erp (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the third source. The second source is about the "Early classical Authors on Jesus". M.Bitton (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret H. Williams is indeed a reputable historian and it's a good source. However, her reference to Jesus as a Roman subject is likely using the word "subject" in the general sense, as in, "the subject of my writing" or the "subject of my work," and not in the technical sense of sovereignty, as in "subject of the British crown." Still, it counts as a description of Jesus as Roman, but whether that one good source which uses that phrase should influence the article is dubious, and I'd say no for reasons I'd like to elaborate on. I think the point made by Sirfurboy is well-taken that Gerry Adams should not be referred to as a British politician, but an Irish politician: he is essentially Irish. Similarly, Jesus should not be referred to as a Roman preacher, but a Jewish preacher. However, it's true that Williams does refer to Jesus as Roman, but that's not her only word on the subject. See [8] p.25-26 of Jews in a Graeco-Roman Environment by Williams which clearly states her professional opinion that Jew and not Judaen is the right translation of Ioudaios and specifically references Jesus and erasure of his Jewish identity. Clearly, you can't use Williams to justify describing him as a Roman, when she even sees referring to him as a Galilean as erasure of his Jewishness. Andre🚐 01:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, she's not using the word "subject" in the way you're describing it; and besides, she's not the only one who's describing him as a "Roman subject" (which he most certainly was, unless one is prepared to argue that he was either a citizen or a slave). M.Bitton (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how she may be using it - and it's not immediately obvious from the context, but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she's using it inexactly and not making an error - most experts do not consider Jesus Roman or a Roman subject. He was a subject of King Herod, unlike Paul, and not "Roman" because back then, if you were called "Roman," that meant you were a citizen of Rome, which he wasn't, so it'd be misleading to describe him as a Roman or a Roman citizen. It's true that during his lifetime, Rome controlled Judea, and you can make the argument that he was a subject of the Roman Empire as a result of that, but it's highly ananchronistic to do so, and as multiple users have argued, the relevant ethno-religious-national identity of being Jewish at the time is what should be taken from Margaret H. Williams very erudite work. Andre🚐 02:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's the reliable source, you're not. The other source, written by a historian and published by the Oxford University Press, describes him as a "Roman subject". So unless there is some RS that disagree with them, either by stating that he "wasn't a Roman subject" or that he was either "a citizen" or "a slave", then there is nothing to discuss. M.Bitton (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all practical purposes, he was not. He didn't pay Roman taxes. He was not a Roman citizen, some sources do call him a colonized subject of the Roman Empire, but that doesn't prove that his nationality was Roman, and it wasn't. Andre🚐 02:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't pay Roman taxes utter nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He paid the Jewish tax and the temple tax, not the tributa and the vectigalia. Andre🚐 02:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't pay Roman taxes find a source that says that and then, find another that disagrees with the sources that I cited. Good luck! M.Bitton (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to find a negative; there's no source that says that Jesus was a Roman citizen or of Roman nationality, many sources that say he was not a Roman citizen, some that refer to him as a colonial subject of the Roman Empire, and there are many sources that say he paid the Jewish tax and the temple tax. We can therefore assume that he did not pay the Roman taxes that Roman citizens would have paid at the time. If you have a source that he did, or that Roman nationality should be ascribed to him, then that would be another story. So far you've presented 1 good source, and a couple of OK sources with a couple of mentions of "Roman subject." I don't have a problem with using these sources in the body of the article, mainly the Williams source, but we should not hyperfocus on this specific aspect of the source that is contrary to the many more sources - including 2 out of 3 of the sources you presented - that refer to him as Jewish, not to mention those that call him Judean or Galilean or something else other than Roman. He was not culturally, ethnically, or linguistically Roman. Andre🚐 02:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't pay Roman taxes I'm still waiting for a source that supports this gem of yours (one of many). M.Bitton (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[9] earliest Christians were still considered Jews and would certainly be asked for the Temple tax.... After destruction of the Temple, Jews, including Christ would not be asked to pay the Temple tax; they would be forced to do so in the interests of Jupiter Capitolinus. Proselytes, too, might ... tax, if they were sufficiently identified with Judaism.... would undoubtedly "offend" the Roman agents... Roman citizens paid customs taxes. Jews paid different taxes. The taxes were later levied by the Romans; they were not the "Roman tax" that Romans paid. Andre🚐 02:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Is that supposed to support what you wrote? M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't pay Roman taxes Try again and his time, try to remember who the subject is. M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave a source explaining that as a Jew, Jesus was taxed differently; he paid a Jewish tax. He paid a temple tax. to the Romans, but not as a Roman. Roman citizens paid customs taxes. Roman collection of the Temple tax continued after the Temple's destruction in 70 A.D. The tax was transferred to support Jupiter Capitolinus, and some abuses of the fiscus judaicus were abolished during the reign of Nerva. This is again more support that he wasn't considered Roman or treated as Roman, and shouldn't be described as such in the lead. Andre🚐 02:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't pay Roman taxes try again. M.Bitton (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the temple tax in that quote, if you read the source I've shared it's about that part of Matthew Andre🚐 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the name of Jesus mentioned in that source. What I want is a source that supports your baseless claim. M.Bitton (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Christ" is mentioned several times. Andre🚐 03:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About something else. If you don't have a source that supports the claim that you made (that he didn't pay Roman taxes), then say so. M.Bitton (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On p. 5, "Did Jesus pay the Temple tax"? Andre🚐 03:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? You said that he didn't pay Roman taxes. Do you have a RS that supports your assertion. M.Bitton (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to explain the argument that I've already shown that Jesus did not pay the taxes that Romans paid Andre🚐 03:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation is not needed. Do you have a RS that supports your assertion that Jesus didn't pay Roman taxes? M.Bitton (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave the RS, you've already claimed it doesn't mention Jesus or Christ even though it's all about that, and it shows what I've claimed. We'll have to agree to disagree, as in my view, I've already provided more than ample sources in this discussion. Andre🚐 03:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a RS that supports your assertion that Jesus didn't pay Roman taxes? M.Bitton (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Roman rulers...the poll tax ... provincial citizens did not have to pay and others did Andre🚐 02:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's that go to do with your baseless claim (that Jesus didn't pay Roman taxes)? M.Bitton (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just substantiated the claim that Jesus didn't pay Roman taxes, he paid Jewish taxes, to the Romans. There's also a section in that source about "subjects" too. Andre🚐 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So long a source doesn't mention Jesus (the subject you made a baseless claim about), then it's worthless. M.Bitton (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does? "Jews, including Christ" in the last quote. Andre🚐 03:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You made a claim about Jesus, so you bring a source that mentions Jesus and supports your claim that he didn't pay Roman taxes. M.Bitton (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...disciples were considered Jewish and were treated as Jew...they were the "sons" of God, the king of heaven, were n...They were taxed by God for the Temple, i.e., in his name...and his disciples used the Temple, they would be expe...Jew This whole thing is about Jesus and whether they paid the Temple tax (i.e., the Jewish, not the Roman poll tax or the other Roman property taxes or customs taxes). It doesn't search or copy paste well because it's scanned badly. Andre🚐 03:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not the Roman poll tax this is another baseless assertion that you will never ever be able to substantiate. M.Bitton (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, I have that part backwards. The poll tax is what they referred to the tax on non-citizens. So by paying the poll tax it shows he was not a Roman citizen. Andre🚐 03:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you had it wrong (admit it). We know that he was a "Roman subject". M.Bitton (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the last statement where I wrote "poll tax," yes, I had that wrong. He did not pay the customs taxes or the Roman property taxes that Romans paid; he did pay a poll tax paid by non-Romans. Andre🚐 03:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paid to Rome by Roman subjects. M.Bitton (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly not paid by Roman citizens. Throughout all of the sources, he is described as Jewish and his community as Jewish. Andre🚐 03:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not important at all given that we know that he was a "Roman subject". M.Bitton (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell, Alan D. (1986). "The Monetary System, Taxation, and Publicans in the Time of Christ". The Accounting Historians Journal. 13 (2): 131–135. ISSN 0148-4184. JSTOR 40697912. Retrieved 2024-11-30.
"Of the population of Palestine only Judaea and Samaria paid taxes directly into the Imperial treasury."
The author then quotes "The Times of Christ" Lewis A. Muirhead, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907, pp 44-45 "The average reader of the Gospels is apt to suppose (a) that the whole population of Palestine was as directly as possible under tribute to Rome, and (4) that the collectors of the Roman taxes were the so-called “publicans.” Both suppositions are inaccurate. As to (a), only Judaea and Samaria paid taxes directly into the imperial treasury. Herod Antipas and his brother Philip, who governed the rest of Palestine (except Abilene), probably continued to pay to the emperor the kind of tribute their father had paid even in the days of the Republic to Mark Antony, but the taxes within their dominions were (in theory) neither levied nor controlled by the Roman Government." Erp (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about the Jesus and the claim that he didn't pay Roman taxes. I'm still waiting for a source that supports that claim. M.Bitton (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing, perhaps my inartful turn of phrase, the Roman taxes, i.e. the taxes on the Romans, versus the Jewish taxes, which were paid to Romans. I apologize if the phrasing is confusing. Andre🚐 03:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all accounts Jesus lived in Galilee, a client state. The Roman poll tax and land tax was not paid by residents of client states as per the source. Instead the client-state ruler had his own taxes collected and paid to him though part of that would in turn be sent to Rome as tribute. Now there were other Roman taxes such as on goods in transit through the Roman Empire, but, Jesus does not seem to have been carrying much in the way of followers. He could well have paid some of those much as people nowadays pay duty on goods they bring into a country. Erp (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, he paid the Roman taxes and the claim (by Andre) that he didn't was baseless. M.Bitton (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was not taxed as a Roman, and the status of his nationality is not affected; this further proves the point he was of Jewish nationality. Andre🚐 03:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made enough baseless assertions for one day.
  • Jesus didn't pay the Roman taxes
  • they [the Jews] paid the Temple tax (i.e., the Jewish, not the Roman poll tax..
I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I made a mistake calling the Roman tax the poll tax, as I made a mistake in terminology, and that isn't what they refer to that as; they refer to the Jewish tax as a poll tax, while they refer to the "Roman tax" again, my phrasing may be ambiguous, because I mean the taxes on Roman citizens, i.e. the Roman customs tax and property taxes. But again, the question we were trying to answer with this discussion is what identity to ascribe to Jesus in the lead, not to score points. During the time of the story in Matthew, Jesus says to pay the Jewish tax ie the poll tax. There's also the Temple tax which he is said to have paid. Both examples reinforce the idea that Jesus should be described as Jewish. Whether "Roman subject" is defining is arguable. If there's a concrete change to the article's text you think we need as a result of these dicussions, probably good to start a new section since this one has 250 comments now. However, I do not see that we've found anything that suggests that Jesus shouldn't be known as Jewish in the first sentence, and a lot that suggests he should. Andre🚐 03:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have probably been clearer. The quote "I know of no other Roman subject of comparable social status" is from Williams.
The quote "both a Jew and a Roman subject" is from Krieger.
Jesus's legal status in the eyes of the Roman empire would have been as a peregrinus; a term that applied to both those in the empire who were free and who had no citizenship and also those outside the empire who were free. If the latter travelled into the empire they would be treated like peregrini who had always lived in the empire. In addition he had no patron to call upon for aid (Herod Antipas and his court would also be peregrini but Herod Antipas could look to the emperor as his patron and his court would look to him as their patron so they were reasonably safe from a Roman governor like Pilate). Erp (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to guess given that we have RS describing him as a "Roman subject" (who paid his Roman taxes, despite claims to the contrary). M.Bitton (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
out of curiosity. What do the direct records of the life of Jesus say about him being a Jew? I see multiple "interpretations" by many different scholars, but the whole point of Wikipedia is to give direct unbiased insight. some of the sources that have been sited in the above talk, are biased because of denomination and such. DarlingYeti (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those exist at all that would be a WP:PRIMARY source. We summarize secondary sources. Andre🚐 16:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use the term "Direct records" but instead "primary sources". We only have a minuscule number of Roman records none of which deal with Jesus (and I'm not any with Judea of his timr). The wikipedia article Sources for the historicity of Jesus might help a bit. Erp (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually the best idea anyone has had in this talk Erp! Tbh I don't care whether or not they call Jesus Jewish or not, I'm just afraid there might be small misunderstanding with some if they just think he was a Jewish teacher, when he didn't adhere to some of the most common Jewish traditions. DarlingYeti (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A great deal of "the most common Jewish traditions" today had not developed, or were probably very much a minority thing among Jews of 30CE. The question of how deviant/heretical/whatever Jesus was in the context of the Judaism of his day is a very very complex and difficult one, only partly because we don't know much about his views on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DarlingYeti In the New Testament there are several places where he is referred to as a Jew. see here Vegan416 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Margaret H. Williams (2022). Early Classical Authors on Jesus. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-567-68316-8.
  2. ^ Anthony Pagden (2009). Worlds at War The 2,500 - Year Struggle Between East and West. OUP Oxford. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-19-102983-7.
  3. ^ Larry Krieger (1992). World History: Perspectives on the Past. D.C. Heath, 1992. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-669-30850-1. Jesus was both a Jew and a Roman subject

Should Jesus be described as a Roman Subject?

[edit]

The discussion on describing Jesus as a Jew has most recently and voluminously changed topic. Setting up this section for further discussion. This also includes whether Jesus paid "Roman taxes". I'll let the various sides layout their arguments. Erp (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Jesus was a Roman subject. That is crystal clear except to the small minority who believe that he is mythical and never existed. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except he was a resident for almost his entire life in a Roman client-state, Galilee, ruled by Herod Antipas. He was indirectly subject to Roman rule there and directly subject to Roman rule when visiting Judaea. His legal status when in Judaea would have been that of a peregrinus as would any other free foreigner visiting there or any non-Roman citizen resident there. The problem is that "Roman subject" may given the wrong idea of his status given the more modern use in terms like British subject so we should we use that term or different wording? Erp (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have RS saying that he was a "Roman subject". M.Bitton (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre@M.Bitton On taxes. Jesus would not have paid the taxes owed by a Roman citizen since he wasn't one. I think we can agree on that. He also would not have paid the Roman poll tax and land tax paid by peregrini resident in Roman provinces as he was resident for the most part in the client state ruled by Herod Antipas. He may have paid the Roman taxes on goods in transit or similar taxes. He likely paid taxes to Herod Antipas (I'm not sure there is a record of what type of taxes Antipas levied). He is stated to have paid the temple tax. Erp (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was a Roman subject and he did pay the poll tax. M.Bitton (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To take a wider step back, there are sources which, as Cullen328 rightly points out, do not necessarily grant the historicity of a person called Jesus that we can point to in the historical record. There are also a range of sources between sources that are dissecting the primary sources somewhat more credibly, and there are sources reconstructing using the tools of history rather than literary criticism. I would say that "Roman subject" is an ambiguous term, but in the sense narrowly were colonial subjects of the Roman Empire comparable to British subjects such that their nationality could be described as Roman - I would say no. I do not think Roman is defining, I do not object to the statement that Jesus was a colonial inhabitant and in a technical sense subject to Rome, assuming such a person existed, I do not think "Roman subject" is the best way to describe the status. It's imprecise and as another source above points out, anachronistic. In the primary sources the term sons is used where we would say subjects today. Nationality, religion, and ethnicity are also anachronistic. The bottom line in my view is not whether Jesus was subject to the Roman Empire, but whether we should use that as a defining description in the lead. I would say no, it's anachronistic, and maybe not an error per se but potentially unclear and misleading. Jesus was treated as a Jewish person which came with a special status, in taxation and other things. Andre🚐 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as long as we are still talking about the lead, which must summarise the main text and should not contain novel information that is not there. That one is a no-brainer. Should we discuss it in the main? Well the relevant section would be Judea and Galilee in the 1st century, where we do discuss the status of these. I think what we have there is sufficient, and introducing a discussion of Jesus' status within that carries risks unless we have a good secondary source that answers that exact question. We need to avoid OR. Now the above discussion mostly has one editor repeating that sources do call Jesus a Roman subject. But the source assessment is very weak and Erp and others have already addressed that. We have an enormous number of sources on Jesus, calling him all kinds of things, but sources must always be dealt with critically, and just listing a few sources (some of them clearly not being from subject matter experts) that make the claim is not what should be in this article. If we don't have sources looking at the exact question being asked, it adds nothing to the article to add it. But regardless of whether it is added to that section, it does not belong in the lead.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note the section on Judea and Galilee though it describes Judea, Samaria, and Idumea as becoming a Roman province, it does not describe the status of Galilee (and Perea) which become a client state under Herod Antipas. I would consider that as fairly significant given that Jesus by all accounts spent most of his life there. I would suggest adding a sentence just before the sentence on the Gentile lands: "Galilee with Perea was a Herodian client state under the rule of Herod Antipas since 4 BC." with appropriate reference. Does that sound reasonable? Erp (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. I don't think the matter is needed in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. That would be a good edit. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Vegan416 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andre🚐 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I did check my new reference to see if it could support all the claims in the paragraph. It could do for some but not all; not the prefect visiting Jerusalem during religious festivals nor "Gentile lands surrounded the Jewish territories of Judea and Galilee, but Roman law and practice allowed Jews to remain separate legally and culturally. Galilee was evidently prosperous, and poverty was limited enough that it did not threaten the social order". Erp (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the map and checking some stuff, another Herodian client state that existed for most of Jesus's life was that of Philip the Tetrarch (d. 34 CE) who was ruler of Iturea, Gaulanitis, and Batanea (visible on the map). The client state is described in the article Herodian tetrarchy. It is mentioned in Luke and at least some of it had Jewish settlements (Bethsaida was in Gaulanitis or at least on the border [scholarly debate about where it was]). Perhaps a sentence after the Galilee sentences stating something like "Philip (d. 34 CE), half-brother of Herod Antipas, ruled as Tetrarch yet another Herodian client state that included Gaulanitis, Batanea, and Iturea."
Also the Decapolis should perhaps be mentioned since this was one of the two mostly non-Jewish regions Jesus is stated to have visited and is on the map (these were a collection of Hellenistic city-states that were clients of Rome). The other region was Phoenicia which at that time was part of the Roman province of Syria; cities in it mentioned in the gospels as places Jesus visited or was near were Sidon and Tyre. Erp (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to including this in the lead section. Wow, lots of digital ink spilled on this since the last time I checked in. I did my best to read through the discussion, and I applaud all of you for devoting the time to engage in it. Frankly it seems like hair-splitting to me, but in any case, here's my thoughts:
  1. The concept of "subject" is ill-defined and varies from time to time and author to author. It will also vary from reader to reader. For many readers, describing him as a Roman subject would imply a similar relationship between Jesus and Rome to that between a British subject and Britain or an American citizen and the United States, which would be a misconception. In particular, calling Jesus a Roman subject would suggest to many readers that Jesus was a Roman citizen, which was not the case.
  2. Summarizing and organizing the claims of RS is not WP:OR. I noticed in the discussion above a lot of mention of WP:OR. Some of those concerns I agree with. WP:OR is using the claims of sources to support a further implication not asserted in those sources. Examples of WP:OR would include "Jesus was born in the Roman Empire, therefore he was a Roman subject" or "Jesus paid Jewish taxes, therefore he did not pay Roman taxes." if the sources only assert the bolded material. Choosing to include "Jesus was Jewish" in the type of information described in point 3: Context in MOS:FIRSTBIO is not OR, it's the kind of editorial decision that should be made through the consensus process.
  3. Consider whether to include this information in the article body, based on WP:DUE and WP:RS considerations. If the available reliable sources have a consensus that Jesus should be described as a Roman subject, and if Jesus' legal relationship with the Roman Empire is prominently featured in the available RS, then it should be considered for inclusion in the appropriate section of the article body. This is already a very long article, though, so it might also be necessary at some point to fork out that information into Ethnicity of Jesus or into a new article called something like Nationality of Jesus. -- LWG talk 18:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted a bold change to citizenship in the info box. It doesn't make sense when Judean citizenship was not a thing. Golikom (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship (and birthplace) in Info box

[edit]

I note that it would be wise to omit citizenship in the infobox given that he wasn't a "citizen" of anywhere in the Classical world sense of the word (currently it has been set as Judean though this is being disputed). In addition Infoboxes#Nationality_and_citizenship_in_infoboxes says not to use a demonym like 'Judean'; it also says not to use unless not clear from other information such as birthplace. Add in that Judean links to Herodian kingdom which ceased to exist in 4 BCE. I also note the addition seems to be new. On birthplace, I would drop Roman Empire since it seems most probable he was born in a client state not the empire proper whether that of Herod the Great or that of Herod Antipas or even, though unlikely, that of Herod Archelaus. The only way he was born in the Roman Empire proper would be if he was born in Judea not Galilee after 6 CE when Judea came under direct Roman control. One could use "c. 6 to 4 BC Herodian kingdom (client state of the Roman Empire)". Erp (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Erp said here. Vegan416 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't a "citizen" of anywhere in the Classical world sense of the word
Actually , he was a citizen in the "classical world sense" . He was a subject of the Herodian dynasty and its realms , both politically and legally , as clearly seen in his trial when Pilate at first turned him away. Historically : being a subject (The "Citizen" of the time) didn't necessarily involve having inherent clear-cut rights and obligations between a centralized government and its populace. That itself is an Enlightenment-era innovation.
Pre-modern states beyond city-states were much like the Mafia in The Godfather. It was a loose network of relationships between notables , and client-patron relations between commoners and whoever strongman or dynasty that came to dominate them.
The Roman Empire was the ultimate power in the area , but had implemented a separate regime which relegated civil government duties and authorities to it , which was the Herodians. As Jesus was neither born in the Empire , nor was his father a Roman citizen , he was under their authority , and so he was their subject.
Says not to use a demonym like 'Judean'; it also says not to use unless not clear from other information such as birthplace
The Help:Infobox doesn't mention anything on the inclusion of nationality. It says Trivial details should be excluded , while Materially relevant to the subject should be included.
If anything , the citizenship field helps readers understand Jesus' trial better , as "Citizenship" at the time referred to being under someone's authority , and thus being responsible for their actions.
Had Jesus was a Roman citizen , he would have been sent immediately before Tiberius in Rome for trying to start another bloody civil war like that that came later in the Crysis of the Second Century. Instead we see it's the Sadducees who were angrier about Jesus than Pilate , who only cared about getting the taxes to Rome than dabbling in the squabbles of petty Kings of a culture that was widely dismissed as deviant.
'Judean links to Herodian kingdom which ceased to exist in 4 BCE'
Then we'll just link to the Herodian dynasty. That will include the holds of both Herod's Kingdom and his successors. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about post enlightenment citizenship. Subject and citizen are very different things, particularly in the Roman world. To claim that the subject "was the "Citizen" of the time, or that it " didn't necessarily involve having inherent clear-cut rights and obligations" is nonsense. Rights and obligations were foundational to ancient citizenship just as they are to modern. Golikom (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say "very different things". It's true , but practically at that point being a "citizen" in Roman times signaled a special political status that most common people didn't have , which only became widespread after Caracalla's edict. That's besides that Roman citizenship had various levels with different privileges and rights, and wasn't uniform , making it more of a socioeconomic class. Proper legal status is separate from these contexts.
Seeing we are talking about a filed in infoboxes here rather than proper history as in the above discussions , and we don't don't have "Subject of" field for the info boxes of historical figures , then the two terms are interchangeable when it comes to it. Sorry if I couldn't say it more obviously earlier. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the terms are not interchangeable, and if the infobox parameters are imprecise then they should be omitted. What you added was not Roman citizenship either, but Judean, which simply didn't exist. Golikom (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the infobox parameters are imprecise then they should be omitted
Either that field is valid here , or it's not, the proper value is another matter. And here you are saying that if he was Roman it would've been fine to keep the field , and if he wasn't , it should be removed . It's as if only Romans had a concept of "citizenship" at the time , which as already said is of a different character in every political entity at the time then how we understand it today.
Seeing some are quite pedantic over these terms ,and the conceptions and impressions are getting hairy : then its best to remove it..I can't really recall a pre-modern figure whose infobox has the citizenship field anyway, as it likely assumes the modern sense of "citizenship" at mind whenever it's used. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, exactly.
There might be an argument for including it if he was a Roman citizen, but he wasm't, so best to remove altogether Golikom (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin

[edit]

Several reputable academic sources support this statement, however certain editors are engaging in prohibited edit wars in order censor this relevant fact. Danishdeutsch (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from citing site policy that you have not read; it is embarrassing.
The lead is perfectly fine as it is; for what it's worth, it has been the subject of careful crafting by many editors over the years, and it seems to fulfill its function as a balanced summary of the contents of the body. As such, you shouldn't even be trying to add newly sourced material directly to the article lead. As it is already made clear that he is tried, and made clear that he is executed after being turned over by Jewish authorities, the addition adds remarkably little to the reader's understanding of the subject, and is essentially wasted space in the most important location of a vital article.Remsense ‥  22:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danishdeutsch first stuff in the lede of this article has been discussed a fair bit so it is best to bring up in this talk page what you want to modify and allow discussion here before making changes. Second, the lede summarizes what is in the body and the body does not state the Sanhedrin condemned him to death. Even the main article Sanhedrin trial of Jesus describes the various gospel accounts some of which did have the Sanhedrin find him worthy of death and also notes that the accuracy of the gospel accounts has been doubted. Third your source when looked at (Prior, Vivian (2024-04-17). The Trial of Jesus: A Historical Look at the Jewish and Roman Trial Proceedings Trial Proceedings (honors thesis). Ouachita Baptist University. Retrieved 2024-12-25.) is apparently an undergraduate honors thesis and these are not considered reliable sources barring very unusual circumstances (e.g., cited by undoubted reliable sources as reliable or later publication in a peer reviewed journal). Erp (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OTQ: several mainstream scholars deny that Jesus even had a trial, whether by the Sanhedrin or by Herod or by Pilate. They state that after he got snitched, presumably to the Roman authorities, since Jewish authorities could do nothing against Essenes in Jerusalem, who were mocking them openly, he got summarily executed, with no trial at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

@Remsense do you enjoy reverting my edits for fun of something. What's wrong with changing the first picture, the image I added looks more beautiful. Why do you care so much too? My edit didn't violate any rules HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a watchlist with many pages on it. I don't quite understand why you feel entitled to make significant changes to the most visible parts of our most vital articles without particular care for consensus or site guidelines—and then expect to not hear anything else about it. That you are consistently taking personal offense at these changes being challenged perhaps says more about your habits and priorities so far than anyone else's. Ultimately, many things are the way they are on articles like these for pretty good reasons, and like it or not it's often reasonable to expect you haven't taken everything into account if you find something amiss, and thus it's more productive to ask first. Precious little is infallible, but I think the accumulated work of others deserves a bit more care than you are affording it. Be bold, but allow that others will be too, perhaps in restoring the status quo. The attitude you have towards the concerns of others is pretty unacceptable.Remsense ‥  09:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't know you needed consensus for every single edit. Most people make edits without getting consensus first. Next, you said something about site guidelines. My edit didn't violate any site guidelines. Replacing an image with another image violates 0 guidelines. Also the reason I Started taking offense is because you reverted multiple edits of mine in a very short timeframe period. It just seems you like reverting edits, even if the edit is harmless, violates no guidelines, or is historically accurate, like when someone added John the Baptist was Jesus cousin, and you removed that, like what's the point? Can I please get consensus so I can add that image back? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think the picture of Jesus in the infobox looks ugly. The 1880s painting looks beautiful and is a glorious piece of art. Can I please have consensus. Do you like Christianity or do you not? I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out your motive for reverting good edits about Jesus Christ and Christian empires and stuff like that HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The present image is fine. I cannot single-handedly give you consensus that I explicitly articulated was the result of dozens of editors' work. Your behavior has been pretty gross and self-centered. and you frankly need to grow up. Sorry. Remsense ‥  10:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you said you stopped replying because you had to take a shower or something. It usually doesn't take an hour for that, and I saw on your recent contributions that you made an edit 20 minutes ago. You could've replied then. And can you please tell me why we must keep the current image. The other image is fine too. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just checked and you edited your most recent reply. How is an ugly depiction of Jesus, that is thousands and thousands of years old, dozens and dozens of editors work? The person who put that image in Wikimedia Commons, that wasn't there work. Also you say my behavior is self-centered. How? How is wanting to add a nice picture of Jesus Christ self-centered, one of my favorite depictions btw and one of the most beautiful artworks that German man has ever produced HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did the depiction look like? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyGuy744 look at my edits on this page. It was a painting in the 19th century by a German painter. Crazy how he has the same name as one of Adolf Hitler's personal photographers. But they're two different people lol. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will reply exactly when I am able to, and it is not acceptable for you to immediately justify disruptive editing like what you've consistently been trying to pull.
I'm not going to pretend that "I think it's beautiful" is an argument that has any merit in itself for our purposes, or how it is one I'm even meant to endorse or argue against. I think the present image is beautiful. That's why we make actual arguments, and fall back on some deference for the status quo to avoid totally subjective arguments like the one you seem to be keen on here.
For what it's worth, there is a positive, substantial argument here too, though I've not been able to make it yet for all the heartburn: we attempt to use depictions that are universally representative—in this case across Christendom, to the extent that is possible—and given yours is from the 19th century, with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe during the late Renaissance (if I were an art scholar I may have a more specific characterization), it is pretty clearly not a depiction of Jesus that is very representative given the scope of the article. Remsense ‥  11:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense disruptive editing? I knows that's a name of a Wikipedia guideline and that's what your referencing, but I don't see how I'm disrupting anything. I just made edits you disagree with, not disrupting anything or harming anyone or anything. Also you made a good point. Me saying "the painting by the German guy" is beautiful, is an opinion not a fact. Since the painting I added is from the 19th century, with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe during the late Renaissance, how about I replace the current image with another one similar to it instead. from thousands of years ago that universally represents interpretations of Jesus, not a modernized European twist? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Remsense, how about this. It's basically the same image but more colorful. What do you think https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg can I replace the current image with this HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looks nice, i'm going to add it for you. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. I'm done here, because you clearly are not going to respect any argument or understanding that implies you cannot immediately get your way. If I catch something because I technically violated 3RR spread across two discrete instances fending off independent instances of the worst faith editors possible in an article that gets 300k views a month, then so be it. You do not seem to accept that you are not entitled to publish changes to the encyclopedia against consensus—which for the third time I clearly do not unilaterally represent—and that does not bode well. Remsense ‥  11:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do anything. @DisneyGuy744 added the image, I was waiting for your response to the new image i proposed but he went on ahead and added it, probally cause he or she felt bad for me lol. your argument for the first image i proposed was it wasn't universally representative. So i found an image on wikimedia commons that is the exact same, except it's a little brighter. what do you think about it, can we add it. ignore disneyguy, he acts weird, and sometimes he follws my account, he said he's catholic and i guess he's interested in editors who edit stuff about religion. if he stalks you next get an admin and block him. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense lol just saw you edited your latest reply to say "'You do not seem to accept that you are not entitled to publish changes to the encyclopedia against consensus—which for the third time". i'm not disneyguy lol. you can check other talk pages i'm involved in, he's some guy who followed my account a few times. why are you accusing me of being other people lmao. also you say if i don't immediately get my way i throw a fit. it's kinda the opposite. you revert peoples edits on religion, even if there's nothing wrong with the edit or if it's a slight improvement, and you tell me to go to the talk page, then ghost me half of the time claiming you're taking a shower, when i see your making edits on other pages. once me or disneyguy replace the image on this article, you're quick to revert but not reply to messages when i see you're online clearly not taking a shower lol. hopefully we can get an admin or someone in here to make a decision, because clearly you're not willing to discuss, and your acting like those people who get blocked for the "not hear to build an encyclopedia" rule. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas to the editors involved in this discussion. Yes, the long-term image was arrived at per consensus and should not be changed without another full discussion, selection process, and consensus. Remsense has been very patient in explaining this and protecting the page on Christmas, the essence of volunteer editing. It may not be an image everyone likes, those are the pitfalls and twist and turns of consensus. Many do like it and appreciate its historical significance, which is why it's the first image on the page. I like pineapples on pizza but wouldn't make them mandatory to serve my guests. Thanks, and hopefully an edit war can be avoided. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to have a discussion, but remsense keeps ghosting me, they say they took a shower, it doesn't take an hour to shower and get done right when i make an edit to this article. when remsense said they were taking a shower, they were making edits to other pages lol. remsense made some good and bad points on why we should keep the same image or not. the bad point was this is "the result of dozens of editors' work". wikipedia editors didn't make that depicion of jesus thousands of years ago, and putting an image onto this article from wikimedia commons isn't work lol. a good point remsense made was the first new image i proposed, was with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe and isn't universally represented. so i proposed this picture https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg it's the exact same, just more colorful and easier to look at, and still has the same historical significance since it's the same. and without replying to the talk page for a very long time, remsense accuses me of being another editor who agreed with my proposal and reverted their edit. what do you think, since remsense isn't willing to have a constructive conversation, thank god you're here. what do you think of this image https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyGuy744 AHHHHHHH!!!!!! it happend again. i just got ghosted again. lol. while people in this discussion make edits on other articles, they ignore me for an hour or more, and totally would longer, maybe days if i didn't point out i get ghosted. "GET CONSENUS, NOW!!!" is what they say, and i'm like "im trying", and they say "YOU WONT STOP TILL YOU GET YOUR WAY!!!!" and im like "you told me to go to the talk page, now you won't let me get consenus?, guess i have to edit the article again to get your attention". you mighv'e been on tons of other talk pages since you probally follow multiple accounts, not just me, is this how every wikipedia editor acts? hopefully not. anyone who's reading this, do i have your consenus for this picture. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the image should be changed. so, i guess you hae a little consenus. i might add the image back in a few hours. but maybe you should be nicer to the other editors, now matter how unreasonable they can be or even if they lie about you, you should still treat people with respect and maybe then god will bless you. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit war by adding it back, in this case consensus means a full RfC with options, arguments, and choices attended by many editors. Consensus in this case (a contested change in a longterm opening image of a major topic page), may be a waste of time for everyone except in the learning curve capacity, as the image that you and the other editor are lobbying for is just a later copy of the present historical artwork. Your comment above about being nicer is commendable, thanks. WP:CIVILITY has its role in Wikipedia communication, and understanding that discussions take time, that we are all volunteers here, and that if an editor takes a bit of time to come back to a discussion that's their business and should not be a concern (for example, please note the Wikipedia logo of an open globe - that means the encyclopedia is never done and that criticism of a volunteer's time and their editing route and habits - or if they are or are not taking a shower - should not be an aspect of editing). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i know me and disneyguy are lobbying for a later copy of the present historical artwork. but the later copy just looks 1,0000,000000,00000x better. remnense said they were done with this conversation, so it's just us three, if you give us consensus, all three of us agree and it's done. if you wanna start an RfC however i'm up for it. we need the later version, it's brighter, more colerfull, the painting doesn't have scratches like the orignal, and jesus honestly deserves better. im saying this as a non-christian who's extremly inerested in jesus's teachings. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HumansRightsIsCool, happily or sadly that's not how consensus works on a contested topic such as this, three editors can't cook in a change in a long-term opening image. I'm not starting an RfC, as I don't mind the present image (the image you suggest is just a later copy) and its historical background. The fact that other people have copied it goes to its notability. As for what Jesus deserves, I don't think he'd mind the present image but who can say? It's been on the page long enough that complaints have been few and far between (I'm guessing, not having kept track of the image placement's history and criticism). As for Jesus' teachings, yes, his Sermon on the Mount in particular, as a summary of what he had learned up to that point, has few if any equals. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where in wiki's guidlines does it say three people can't determine consensus, if there was only 3 or 4 people involved in the discussion then they can. and please start an RfC you don't have to be a part of it. this really matters to me. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a change in the opening image was made without anyone reverting for a few weeks, then it could be said to have gained a consensus of some sort. But in this case an image was changed and then, importantly, quickly reverted. A similar case may be at Mary, mother of Jesus, where the opening image is also an ancient painting comparable to this one (kind of bookends of the Jesus-Mary topic). Consensus for the Mary image was a long multi-stepped process attended and commented on by many editors. In both cases I think an RfC to change either would fail. On this one specifically, the semi-modern copy of the ancient image may be crisper and clearer, but seems to lack the import and emotional quality of the original (just my opinion, of course, but one I would express in an RfC with multiple choices). I'm feeling for you in wanting to present the topic in a favorable light, just that we differ on which image does that better. Make sense? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors who participated in a very lengthy and detailed discussion several years ago that involved many editors and considered many images before arriving at a consensus for this one, I would want to see very strong reasons for changing it. The current image has numerous strong points in its favor:
  • It is of great historical significance (being one of the oldest detailed depictions of Jesus still extant).
  • It is more ethnically ambiguous and stylized than some other options, helping mitigate the "white Jesus" phenomenon.
  • Notwithstanding the above, it is sufficiently aligned with the iconography of Jesus many readers will be familiar with to avoid unnecessary confusion.
  • It is artistically excellent (though not aesthetically pleasing in the typical way).
  • Related to the above, it includes symbolism that is of significance to both historical and modern theological understandings of Jesus, which regardless of our various personal perspectives is undeniably a central aspect of this article's notability.
I would strongly oppose replacing this image with a more recent, unknown image as was suggested above, and would want to hear the case for other alternatives, with a presumption of keeping the present image unless a consensus emerges of similar strength to the consensus that put this image in place originally. -- LWG talk 19:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Changing picture (or picture caption) in infobox

[edit]
  • Result on RFC to change infobox picture: unanimous oppose and withdrawal of RFC by proposer
  • Result on RFC to change infobox caption: discussion underway

Picture

[edit]
RFC on picture change unanimously opposed and withdrawn by proposer

i suggest the current image be replaced by this https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg it's clearer, and is easier to look at. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose As the editing info for the page states "The lead paragraphs and infobox were created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it." so we are free to discuss changing it. The infobox picture has been discussed many times before such at at Talk:Jesus/Archive_134#New_image (September 2021); Talk:Jesus/Archive_133#Infobox_image (October 2019); I suggest people read these as well as searching in the talk page archives for picture or image. I've seen nothing to justify changing the picture from the current one that is well known, ancient, and highly significant in its own right.
Erp (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. the current image is much better, more signfiicant, and is dated more closlely to the time period historicaly associated with Jesus.
Sm8900 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see anything very wrong with having a "Should we change the WP:LEADIMAGE, it's been awhile?"-rfc at this point. And of course the result may turn out to be "No.", after we talked about it for 30 days (I assume you know that a WP:RFC is usually 30 days at least) But the OP:s only alt is a non-starter IMO, so we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

woah. that's quit a while lol. well to make some sort of progress right now, do you agree with disneyguy or do you oppose the second image. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, not obvious improvement. The thing about the current WP:LEADIMAGE Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) is that it's quite interesting, and a noted historical artwork. That doesn't mean we must have it there, but it probably means that editors will not agree to remove it without what they consider good enough reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång my reasoning for removing the current image is - it's hard to look at - as you pointed out there's other depictions like the second one disneyguy was talking about, that are the same age or even older, and that are 100x better - and i think i see scratches on the painting? basically the image isn't high quality like at all. that's probally why people remade it more often then some of the other depictions lol. how about you @Randy Kryn, your thoughts one the second option, agree, oppose, or neutral like grabergs. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late 19th century by James Tissot, an interesting painter
I don't find it hard to look at. It's worn because it's old and that is one aspect to consider here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed change. The current image of the Sinai Christ Pantocrator is the best of the options presented in this RFC, and vastly superior to the Hoffman painting that was attempted. It's immediately recognizable, has historical value as (one of?) the earliest extant Pantocrator, and artistic value. If there is a better option for the lead, it hasn't been presented in this RFC. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry bro but we're actually closing this RfC rn. you came late. basically me and @Randy Kryn made a deal. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't see any deal indicated above with @Randy Kryn: Sm8900 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    unles you mean keeping the status quo, which is fine of course. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Rfc's are a very public thing - once you launch one, nobody is "late" commmenting after 3 hours, nor can they be closed early after a "deal" with one editor. It was a mistake to launch it. It is arguably clearly failing, so can be closed on those grounds, or you can withdraw it. Is that what you want to do? For next time, if you really feel you want to launch one, wait until the holiday season is over. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

[edit]

Proposed: Change current caption, which reads The Christ Pantocrator of Saint Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai, 6th century AD by appending ... analyzed as depicting Jesus' duality of God and man as two sides of the same face, or similar. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the image can be seen and described from an "it's ugly" point of view because, so I'd thank HumansRightsIsCool and DisneyGuy744 for making me "see" the obvious. Since the caption did not explain the duality in the caption, I've added "analyzed as depicting Jesus' duality of God and man as two sides of the same face." Does reading that in the caption change your opinion of retaining the image? We have to trust readers to read the caption as well as view the image, two sides of the same coin itself, and a more descriptive one, hopefully with an economy of words, also acts as an inspiration to readers to take a second look at the artwork. Two editors saying that it's an ugly image means that many thousands of readers have the same impression. Thanks for pointing that out. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn reading that caption changed my opinion of retaining the image. close RfC. we're done here. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    someone removed it add it back HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The attempt at horse trading, when you have no leverage whatsoever what the caption says if it goes against consensus, is not a good look. Remsense ‥  17:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if that particular wording since current wording implies a general belief in Jesus having two natures (Dyophysitism or Hypostatic union). I would also feel a lot happier if the sources (footnote 7) cited in Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) actually supported the statement; it isn't as far as I can see in Chatzidakis, Manolis and Walters, Gerry. "An Encaustic Icon of Christ at Sinai." The Art Bulletin 49, No. 3 (1967): 197–208. Galey, John, Forsyth, George, and Weitzmann, Kurt. Sinai and the Monastery of St. Catherine, Doubleday, New York, 1980 mentions the icon as showing the two natures but not as each on one side of the face. I can't quickly check the third source (Manaphēs) or fourth source. Erp (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access a copy of Gale, Forsyth, and Weitzmann (1980), and it does explicitly link the two sides of the face to human and divine nature as cited in the article:

One represents the nearly life-size bust of Christ Pantocrator, blessing and holding a jewel-studded Gospel book. The hieratic frontality and the impression of aloofness on the one hand and the avoidance of strict symmetry and the enlivenment of the face achieved by different arching of the eyebrows on the other, strike a harmony between the divine and the human nature of Christ. (p. 92)

For a contrasting view, I found Trilling, James (1983) "Sinai Icons: Another Look" (available here for WPlibrary/those with JSTOR access)

It is tempting to equate the volumetric and linear aspects of the painting with the human and divine natures of Christ. Unfortunately, in the absence of confirming texts we cannot know whether Byzantine artists expressed theological ideas at once so subtle and so concrete, and above all so exclusively stylistic. (Footnote: Weitzmann sees the asymmetry of the face as a way of representing Christ's two natures (Weitzmann. 15). Again, it seems doubtful whether a Byzantine would have interpreted the image in this way.) (p. 303-304)

Also cannot find anywhere to access Manaphēs or the other work by Weitzmann. Should probably take this over to the icon's talk page, but I wonder if the interpretation is mostly Weitzmann's. I don't have the necessary background reading in the field to evaluate between Weitzmann and Trilling, though. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is insufficient support to include it here in the caption. I agree we should bring it up on the icon talk page. Do you, @Seltaeb Eht, want to copy or shall I? Erp (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion there. Courtesy pings @Randy Kryn @HumansRightsIsCool @Erp @Jtrevor99 @Remsense @Moxy @ClaudineChionh @DisneyGuy744 @LWG that I've started a discussion about the relevant sources at the icon's article. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Note from jtrevor99: the following was originally in response to Seltaeb's Oppose vote on the first RfC. The portion of the conversation pertinent to the picture is preserved in that section above; the portion pertinent to the caption is below.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @erp please stop removing captions in the infobox. i'm literlly willing to close the RfC is if those captions stay because i like them so much. if you disagree with it start a new discussion. or else please stop. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense i saw your newest revert. first of all i wasn't edit warring, i made 2 reverts about the infobox image 2 times, yesterday. if i revert you about something completely different, after a day, that's not edit warring. i know your probally going to ignore this message claiming your busy taking a shower or something, but if i make an edit to this page your quick to revert. why do you oppose the captions? please evrybody tell me, that's what this discussion is about from now on. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is disheartening that, while you've been linked it multiple times, and have also been directly told what it says, you have not bothered to even skim the lead of Wikipedia:Edit warring. Remsense ‥  01:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • HumansRightsIsCool, thank you for your comments and agreeing that the proposed caption is better, and that it solves a major concern. But no, we can't force caption language against other editors who have removed it. That's edit warring. The caption is being discussed here, but for the time being it has to stay as it was before my edit. Wikipedia has survived for 24 years with rules like this, which shows their value. No edit warring seems a bright line, and some admins jump the gun in blocking without discussion. So best to keep away from it. As for the caption change, it seems an obvious addition with, as I say, an economy of words explaining to the many readers who find the image ugly what they are actually looking at. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok me and @Randy Kryn agree to add the captions. i think moxy opposed, i didn't read his full message yet just saw the word oppose, anyone agree or oppose adding captions? from this point on that's what the RfC is about. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clear that @Erp also opposes the longer caption. I haven't stated so explicitly, but I decidedly prefer the status quo here as well. Remsense ‥  01:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remsense and Erp, it really doesn't make the caption that much longer, and the opening caption would also act as a page topic descriptor (Jesus, as encyclopedically defined, is perceived as both a God and a man, which is what he himself taught). It tells readers who experience the image as ugly that there's more to it than that, offering encyclopedic information about this sometimes-controversial opening image. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate hearing more about the motivation here. Let me sleep on it. Remsense ‥  02:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note also if we are moving to a discussion about caption change, I suspect the opening statement should also change. I oppose the addition because it is digressing into an analysis of the particular painting which the reader can get by following the link. I also note that the discussion of the belief that Jesus is both man and god (a belief not held in Islam nor by some Christians) is a relatively small portion of this article. However if we do want to include it there should be a link to where the duality belief is discussed (possibly Incarnation (Christianity)). Erp (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed change..... Can stick the meaningless text that is being editwared over as a note would be okay with me. New text needs to be explained either with a link to an article or a source.Moxy🍁 01:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claudine, humans doesn't wanna change the image anymore, editors are now fighting about if the captions in the infobox should change or not. i haven't said anything in hours, i've been slowing down. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification, and per Erp I think the opening statement should be modified to refer to the proposed caption change, so that others don't miss that key detail as I did while attempting to digest all this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 03:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure of the proper protocol for changing opening statements; does the opener @HumansRightsIsCool have to do it? I have changed the section header again. Erp (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ClaudineChionh well what do you think, oppose to caption change or not? i'm honestly tired of human's nonsense and i have commitments in real life too. he's starting to act childish. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think that the proposed phrasing makes this less succinct, but I haven't got a better alternative to suggest... maybe, like Randy, I should come back to this in a few hours. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed wording on a few grounds. 1), to me a a reader it creates more questions than it answers - analyzed by who?. 2) Per Erp, is the sourcing on the statement solid? Is it a general consensus on the piece or the opinion of a few scholars? 3) As others have noted, it assumes the orthodox Christian belief up front, as one of the first things readers see. 4) It's apologizing for the use of an image a few users here see as "ugly", and trying to explain a reason we're using it anyway. I don't think it's ugly, but an aesthetic judgement like that is something we can come to a consensus on. But if we come to a consensus it's ugly, why use it? Either it's the best image to use (which I think it is, of the options presented), and it doesn't need extra explanation. Or it's "ugly" and needs apologizing for, and we should find a different image. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The duality in the depiction is worth mentioning if and only if it can be grounded in good third-party sources, since as mentioned above its not the only possible interpretation of the image (though it is an interesting one!). If such sources are found the main article Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) should also be expanded accordingly. -- LWG talk 19:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus as a historical person

[edit]

It strikes me as an issue that the sources being used as evidence for the near-universal scholarly acceptance of Jesus as a real historical person are generally not drawn from academic historians, but primarily from theologians, and sometimes even priests. DZDK (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern academic scholars of that era whether Christian or not generally consider Jesus to be a real person. See Christ myth theory. The more established proponents of mythicism such as Robert M. Price even agree it is fringe. Erp (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could possibly avoid this by qualifying the sentence with a follow up sentence as seen at Historical Jesus. Moxy🍁 02:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like what already exists at Jesus#Christ_myth_theory? Erp (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word virtually is always been odd to me..... Virtually (as the word virtually is simply not an academic term used in this context). To confront the topic of this post and what I perceive as an non-academic term in this case we should say something like Although, there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, the majority of scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically. Moxy🍁 03:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Majority" is an understatement; "virtually all" is more to the point. But this has already been duscussed endlessly before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit like the argument about whether Shakespeare wrote any of the plays attributed to him. Erp (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually has a specific academic use - thus sounds out of place...perhaps ..Although there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, there is general scholarly agreement that Jesus existed historically. Moxy🍁 06:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specific academic use within mathematics not history or Biblical studies. We could replace 'virtually all' with 'almost all' though I think 'virtually' conveys better how minuscule the number of scholars in the field who hold this view are. Erp (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"General scholarly agreement" would also be fine. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"General scholarly agreement" is not the same as "virtually all [scholars]". If the latter is accurate but the phrase is not acceptable because of other connotations of virtually, one could say, "With few/rare exceptions, all ...". Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since as pointed out above the Christ Myth view is fringe, and rejected by all but a very few proponents (who as mentioned above themselves acknowledge the view as fringe), we need stronger wording than "majority" or "general" to avoid giving undue weight to the myth hypothesis. -- LWG talk 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lets deal with this in a blunt manner then. lets lead our readers to more info on the topic. As we know most only read the lead..so lets deal with the topic head on. Although there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, there is general scholarly agreement that Jesus existed historically. The Christ myth theory is considered fringe, and finds negligible support from scholars. Moxy🍁 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an awful option, but the lead is already crowded and I think the current wording (especially with the footnote) gets the message across. We already link to the Christ myth theory and discuss its fringe status in the historical views section, which I think is the appropriate amount of weight to give that issue in this article. -- LWG talk 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying this in the lead will explain why its not covred in the alticle much and will lead readers to infomation fast. Moxy🍁 18:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not unthinkable, but seems to give christ myth more lead-attention (any) than it should have per the article content it has. I think the current "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." is alright. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just my view I believe we should mention in the lead multiple sections from the article.... Those about academic debate about accuracy etc...as seen in historical and religious view section and of course to indicate to our readers that this is not a debate about historical Jesus off the bat. Moxy🍁 20:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not give undue weight to fringe theories by including them explicitly in the lead. It is sufficient to say what we do now in the lead and expand with the Historical views section of which Christ myth theory is a subsection. Erp (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]