Talk:Jesus

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What should this article be named?

A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname.

Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?

A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format.

Q3: Did Jesus exist?

A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Wikipedia?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

• Based on this Wikipedia search the phrase is widely used in Wikipedia.
• The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
• The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

• Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
• Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?

A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:

• Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
• Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
• It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."
• Finally, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?

A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

• Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
• A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
• More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc.

Q6: Why is the infobox so brief?

A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?

Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.

Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?

The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?

A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions.

Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?

A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.

Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus?

A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.

Q10: Why does the article state "[m]ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this?

A10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence

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)

What nonsense. He was a Jewish Rabbi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.107.57 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2024 (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. Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Dumuzid makes sense to me. According to Luke, he was circumcised as well. 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. --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. 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. 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. 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 [1]. 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 implied by the banning administrator. 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! 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. 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. 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. 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. O3000, Ret. (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. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Galdrack (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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 ‥ 论 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. 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. Andre🚐 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 (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 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."

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)

"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)

One assumes he means that Rabbinic Judaism doesn't consider Jesus to be the Messiah. Andre🚐 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 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)

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 ‥ 论 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. 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". 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yep, I'd have to agree with you there. ChrisgenX (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean claimed to be the jewish messiah. So his jewishness is important 193.173.45.71 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't when the Messiah was Cyrus the Great 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. Vegan416 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We call Jesus Jewish because mainstream scholars call him so. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. 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. 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. Andre🚐 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. Vegan416 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Irrelevant here, since Jesus lived around 0 and sources refer to him as Jewish. Andre🚐 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"). 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. 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. Andre🚐 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:

• 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)

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)

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)

Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah, but he's definitely Jewish. Andre🚐 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. Vegan416 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Question: How many RS describe him as a "Jewish preacher and religious leader"? 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

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)

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)

The first one calls him "Jewish preacher" in the title of the book. 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. 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 MOS for first sentence of biographies of historical figures. 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 ....".

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)

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)

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)

"3. Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable". Vegan416 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Is "Jewish" a nationality? 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. Vegan416 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

and certainly was at the time of Roman Judea Andre🚐 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"? 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. Andre🚐 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. 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? M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hundreds if not thousands of sources [2] Andre🚐 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). 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 [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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Don't be silly. Your OR is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Where do you see any OR by me??? Vegan416 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no OR here. It's a sensible summary of a range of sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't asking. 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. Andre🚐 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

All you have presented so far is OR and more OR. 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. Andre🚐 22:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I know what it means. Do you know what WP:VERIFIABILITY stands for? M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing unverifiable in the article about Jesus' Jewishness. Andre🚐 22:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You do realize that we're talking about the nationality, don't you? 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"? Andre🚐 22:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Feel free to quote the relevant part. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Where is the part about his "nationality"? M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Are you saying that "Jewish" stands for his ethnicity? 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. Andre🚐 22:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Genesis 12:2 ? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

[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)

Again, not a source in sight about his so-called "Jewish nationality". 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. Andre🚐 22:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Still nothing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Nothing to do with Jesus or his supposed "Jewish nationality". M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Very funny. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's your irrelevant opinion. 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 here 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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.

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)

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. M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Jews were different from other Roman provinces. Andre🚐 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

There you go: "Roman plebeian" it is. M.Bitton (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh? No, I'm saying Jesus was not a Roman citizen. Andre🚐 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I know: you said he was a "Roman plebeian". M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Jesus belonged to the Jewish nation continuously,, how isn't that about nationality???? Andre🚐 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Now you are just trolling 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). M.Bitton (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. Vegan416 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Pathetic! You will simply be ignored from now on. M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No, he was not a plebeian, which is a type of citizen. Andre🚐 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Was he a Roman subject? 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. Andre🚐 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Great. Do we have RS stating that? M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

That source doesn't mention the word "subject". On the other hand, This RS describes him as a Roman subject. M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC) 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. Andre🚐 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) 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) Andre🚐 23:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sigh. M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Plebeians were citizens. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Was he a Roman slave? 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 Andre🚐 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. 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. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

He was a Roman subject (see source above). 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. Vegan416 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

I agree with Sirfurboy. M. Bitton is bludgeoning. Andre🚐 22:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You will join your friend in the ignored list... forever! 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". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I provided a source that calls him a Roman subject. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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". This one 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

He didn't pay Roman taxes utter nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

He paid the Jewish tax and the temple tax, not the tributa and the vectigalia. Andre🚐 02:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

Huh? Is that supposed to support what you wrote? M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

He didn't pay Roman taxes try again. 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 Andre🚐 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. M.Bitton (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The name "Christ" is mentioned several times. Andre🚐 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. M.Bitton (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

On p. 5, "Did Jesus pay the Temple tax"? Andre🚐 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. 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 Andre🚐 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? 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. Andre🚐 03:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

...Roman rulers...the poll tax ... provincial citizens did not have to pay and others did Andre🚐 02:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It does? "Jews, including Christ" in the last quote. Andre🚐 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. M.Bitton (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

...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)

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)

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)

No, you had it wrong (admit it). We know that he was a "Roman subject". 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. Andre🚐 03:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Paid to Rome by Roman subjects. 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. Andre🚐 03:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If those exist at all that would be a WP:PRIMARY source. We summarize secondary sources. Andre🚐 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. 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. 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. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@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)

References

Removed scholarly info

@Golikom Removed various information I posted from scholars, namely Alan Kirk and Michael Barber, that are well sourced and highly relevant to the sources for the Historical Jesus, claiming that they are "unnecessary". As far as I can tell there is no rule saying that supposedly unnecessary material can be removed from Wikipedia (the info is well-sourced and relevant). I would appreciate feedback and consensus on this matter. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You've added these significant bits of text to multiple articles already. They don't need to be added here as well Golikom (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how anything I put in other articles say has to do with my edit on this page. My edit provides good information that improves this page, which also likely has much more traffic than almost any other Christianity-related articles on Wikipedia.

I also do not think that Wikipedia articles must limit themselves to the bare minimum that is absolutely necessary. As long as information is properly sourced and relevant I do not see the issue in adding it. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

On that basis there might as well be one article for The universe that contains every bit of information ever. There are articles about the gospels, and copy pasting your text here is over detail. The level of traffic of a page does not have a bearing in this. Golikom (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would presume that an article on the universe would include much of the characteristics in detail throughout the known universe, such as its formation, stars, and galaxies, future, etc. In this case the transmission of material and historicity of the canonical Gospels, our primary sources for the historical Jesus, is highly pertinent, especially given how prominent the particular scholars I have cited are.

I still have not found any rule preventing my edits from being confirmed; is there some kind of limit to how detailed an article can be? Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:TOOMUCH here - we don't need a load of this scholar says, that scholar says about the sources gospels when it's sufficiently covered in those articles. It's notable for those articles - it's not critical to have this level of detail here Golikom (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case Derico and Kirk provide key insights on the oral/mnemonic nature of the transmission of the Jesus tradition; media criticism is absolutely key to researching the Synoptic Gospels, and there is no coverage on this page regarding how the authors used their sources. If anything I could provide much more detail (the entire book and Brill article in fact!), but I only chose to include the bare fact of oral dependence and Kirk's single quote, so I find it difficult to claim that I have added too much detail.

Barber's work has provided several major contributions as well, so I find it fitting to be included, though I am considering removing Allison's quote. Finally, this article already has "a load of this scholar says, that scholar says", several from much less prominent scholars than the ones I give. It is odd to single my edit out in particular. Silverfish2024 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the whole article needs a clean up is not a justification for adding more. Details about researching the gospels belongs in the articles about the gospels, not in the article about Jesus. Golikom (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The article does not need a "clean up"; citing academics by name is what you should expect in a field as contentious as historical Jesus studies. There is no requirement that everything in Wikipedia be in Wikipedia's own voice.

Information about the Gospels can be in an article about Jesus, since they are the main sources. Why include the notion that Mark is the most reliable Gospel if we are talking strictly about Jesus in the first place, for example? Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The article Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, which is just one random example from a very different field, cites various scientists like David Deutsch, Jeffrey A. Barrett, and Leon Cooper by name. I highly doubt all these articles need any kind of clean up because of this. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Silverfish2024, see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This is an overview article. There are subsidiary articles where more detail may be better suited. Apart from one post, you seem to be focussed on 'why shouldn't' your material be added. That's the wrong perspective. Per WP:ONUS, you need to persuade others why it should be added. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Golikom deleted my edit, which is itself an edit, so he must have a good reason if he is to maintain it. I already showed my justification; the manner of Gospel transmission and some homage to the Synoptic Problem, key to understanding the Gospels and henceforth Jesus himself, deserves inclusion. Barber's work has already convinced other top scholars and has not received much (if any) dissent as far as I can tell, so the claim that Mark considered the most reliable should not be trusted uncritically. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I linked to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the other editor linked to WP:TOOMUCH. Did you read them? They are making similar points. That's what you need to answer. The reason why you need to answer them is because of WP:ONUS. Did you read that? "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I suggest you address the issues raised. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have indeed read these articles, and I have already justified my edits twice. I have already responded to all the issues @Golikom has raised. Is there any issue you wish I dealt with? @DeCausa Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edit is too much detail for this article, IMO. The other editor seems to be saying the same thing. As far as I'm concerned you haven't addressed that so currently you have no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material, so you can't add it. Maybe other editors will join this thread and agree with you, in which case consensus will change. If you still want to add the material you can either wait until that happens or seek to persuade me and the other editor that it's not too much detail. Up to you. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have already explained that the transmission of the Gospels is important for studying the Gospels and Jesus, so I do not understand why you still believe my edit is too detailed.

As for my other edit, I do agree now that it was too detailed, though it supplies needed information against any supposed agreement Mark is more reliable. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that if the scholarly info is kept short and sweet, (1-2 paragraphs with all important info) then it should be added. of course, if it fits better in another article then you should add it there instead. you're grown people, be responsible and keep the edit wars to a minimum. DarlingYeti (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Revised Edit on Mark/Matthew

After a previous talk above I believe there is agreement that my edit adding Michael Barber, Dale Allison, and Matthew Thiessen was too detailed. My new edit is far less detailed and flows better with the rest of the article while providing the key information on Matthew's historicity, which challenges the claim that Mark is considered the most reliable by most scholars. I did not want to add any controversial edits without consensus, so I have justified and contextualized it in this talk and will consider any objections if they arise. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You're ignoring what's been said to you. You've now been given a 3rr warning on your talk page and you've been warned by an admin here. Don't attempt to restore any part of your edits until you have agreement on the talk page. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your concerns have been noted. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was already worried my edit was premature; thank you for confirming this. I will not edit the main page again until I find agreement.

This is my edit, which has taken into consideration a previous discussion regarding detail:

Mark, which is most likely the earliest written gospel, has been considered for many decades the most historically accurate, though this view has been strongly challenged in recent years. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the first part of the sentence was already present, and I have not included my sources in this Talk page. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I also propose an edit that goes this way:

Scholars have suggested an oral relationship or dependence emphasizing memory rather than visual copying. The care with which Matthew handled his sources means that the Gospel is not significantly different theologically or historically.

Although I disagree that my other edits were too detailed or that naming a scholar is bad, I hearkened to feedback to create this edit. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I can provide my sources if anybody wishes. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been a full week since I first proposed my two edits in the Talk page here and have not received any objections to my changed content, so I assume agreement has been reached per WP: TALKDONTREVERT. I will thus insert my edits if there are no issues. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that would be you ignoring the clear consensus that exists against your proposals. The interest others had in replying has dried up because you've argued a considerable amount here already but haven't engaged with the core objection others have heretofore raised. You have been told "no, this is a biographical article with a very broad scope, and a discussion of this kind would constitute excessive detail about what are ultimately metatextual topics in that context" multiple times—with various explanations and references to site guidelines given but more or less dismissed out of hand each time. Your stance is not one that seems interested in establishing consensus; rather, you're attempting to ram through what you've wanted from the start with changes that do not actually address the core point you've been told. No one else wants to spend more time trying to chip away at that. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll try articulating it in a more concrete way, because that sometimes brings it into clearer focus. As an extremely rough ballpark figure, we want encyclopedia articles that don't stray far above 10k words. That may sound extremely one-size-fits-all to the point of farce, but I ask that you take me seriously when I say 10k is rather useful as an extremely preliminary benchmark. This article is currently 13.3k words—safely past the point where every single article on the site needs thousands of words chopped out in my opinion, though that would be a bit strong for some others' tastes. Think about how much we have to cover about Jesus in those 10k words—we simply cannot afford to branch out from discussing him, his life, his ideas, his global impact directly, to second-order discussions of how scholars analyze the sources about him. That is how broad we must be. That's pretty clear in how I see it, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 08:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This latter explanation is quite informative, though I do not think my edit of less than 150 words contributes much to the overflow of info here. Can I start editing some things down from this article without making proposals? I can see material here that is probably not absolutely necessary to understanding Jesus or is not directly connected to his career. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It would actually be very much appreciated if some actionable ideas for how to slim this article down came out of this discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 19:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think I should create another Talk topic? This one already looks kind of cluttered. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus against my newest proposals (not the original) since no one before today replied with any objections, and this edit actually does respond to the objection on the previous Talk that my old edit was too detailed. I do not see what issue I am not addressing. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You do see it, because there is no reason to assume you have adequately addressed previous objections. You have been told that an added discourse in this vein is categorically unwarranted for this article, so why would your new slimmer revision of said discourse be assumed acceptable? I do not think you are unaware of this—in fact, you've bluntly rejected the validity of these concerns multiple times above. That is to say, if you add your changes again, it will be an indication as clear as the last time that you are uninterested in actual consensus, because you feel you are simply right where others are wrong. That's all. Remsense ‥ 论 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw the need to compromise based on the objections I received whether I am necessarily convinced or not. A slimmer version is less detailed and takes less reading time, which was the main objection all along. At this stage of the discussion however I think I agree that cutting this article down is much more worthwhile than trying to add more content. I think that's what I will look into rather than pursuing my current proposed addition any further. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense that the extreme length of this article means that there is a higher bar for inclusion, especially for content that already exists in other articles. The bar is not "is this information sourced and true", the bar is "is this information absolutely central to the subject of this particular article." -- LWG ^talk 15:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"the key information on Matthew's historicity" With the main exception being the two contradictory Nativity narratives, I am not aware of differences in historicity within the Synoptic Gospels. Their narratives are similar enough to point to common origins, and there are few details than can be either directly confirmed or contradicted by other sources of the era. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The birthplace of Jesus

It should be clarified in the infobox that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Palestine. It adds important detail that allows people to understand where his birthplace is in the modern world. Wikieditor969 (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's fine the way that it is. Moreover, another comment that you blew through should've given you a hint: there's actually no consistent contemporaneous textual evidence stating Jesus was born in Bethlehem; the evidence we have is the longstanding tradition that he was and the relatively late accounts in Matthew and Luke, which are understood to contradict each other. See Bethlehem § Classical period. Remsense ‥ 论 03:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no scholarly agreement that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Some scholars think that this detail was invented to connect Jesus to the King David who was supposed to be the ancestor of the Messiah. Also it is not the common practice in Wikipedia to put anachronistic data in the birth or death place of ancient historical figures. For example we don't say about the birth place of Alexander the Great that it is now in Greece and that his death place is now in Iraq. Vegan416 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Should Jesus be described as a Roman Subject?

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)

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)

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)

We have RS saying that he was a "Roman subject". M.Bitton (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@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)

He was a Roman subject and he did pay the poll tax. 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. Andre🚐 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.

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? Erp (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I don't think the matter is needed in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. That would be a good edit. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Vegan416 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Andre🚐 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". 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 (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)

• 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)

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)

Citizenship (and birthplace) in Info box

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)

I agree with everything Erp said here. Vegan416 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2024 (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 Herodian dynasty. That will include the holds of both Herod's Kingdom and his successors. 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. 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Yes, leave it out. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Jesus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin

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)

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 ‥ 论 22:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Hey

@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)

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 ‥ 论 09:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ‥ 论 10:45, 26 December 2024 (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. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2024 (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 HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What did the depiction look like? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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 ‥ 论 11:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

looks nice, i'm going to add it for you. 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. Remsense ‥ 论 11:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFC: Changing picture (or picture caption) in infobox

• 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

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) 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. 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. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) @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 HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) 1st: File:00058 christ pantocrator mosaic hagia sophia 656x800.jpg - Wikimedia Commons 2nd: File:Christus Ravenna.jpg - Wikimedia Commons 3rd: File:Пантократор (Св. Богородица,Битола).jpg - Wikimedia Commons @DisneyGuy744 pick what you think could replace the current image and i'll ask everybody else. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) For visibility, consider displaying pictures as thumbs, like so: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) @Gråbergs Gråa Sång thank you !! 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. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC) ok everyone, disneyguy said second one. agree or oppose? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC) As for age, it seems Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) (the current WP:LEADIMAGE) is about the same. 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. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC) @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. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2024 (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. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC) @Gråbergs Gråa Sång oh. Randy said it was from the 19th century. guess he was wrong. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Did he? 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). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Gotcha! 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. 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. 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. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2024 (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. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC) 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) @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) 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) 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. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC):::: @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 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. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC) 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) i don't see any deal indicated above with @Randy Kryn: Sm8900 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC) unles you mean keeping the status quo, which is fine of course. thanks. 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. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Oppose per Randy Kryn, Seltaeb Eht, and previous consensus. HumansRightsIsCool and 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. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 03:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Caption

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)

• 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)

  @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)

  someone removed it add it back 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. Remsense ‥ 论 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. Erp (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

• @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)

  @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)

  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 ‥ 论 01:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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 ‥ 论 01:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  I appreciate hearing more about the motivation here. Let me sleep on it. Remsense ‥ 论 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)). 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.Moxy🍁 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. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Consensus as a historical person

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)

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)

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)

You mean like what already exists at Jesus#Christ_myth_theory? 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 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

"General scholarly agreement" would also be fine. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 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, "With few/rare exceptions, all ...". 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. -- LWG ^talk 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)