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

Jesus's Death

On this wiki page it said that Jesus died of crucifixion. Jesus was crucified on the cross and he came back to life . He never died of crucifixion.Malaquia100 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

In order to "come back to life," wouldn't one have to die first? With apologies to Salman Rushdie. Dumuzid (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid. How could Jesus 'come back to life' if he didn't die? Sheanobeano (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

He did not die at all. He lived as much as his teachings live on.JohnEC Jr (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

So you deny the resurrection then? Dumuzid (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Other views exist: "who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The Miracle of Resurrection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some scholars, notably Scholem Asch, have re-interpreted the life of Jesus and described the crucifixion as a painful and bloody mock event, in which the Jewish and Palestinian followers rescued Jesus, while the Roman and Temple authorities were duped into believing that the crucifixion happened. In this regard it is worthwhile to re-read the book The Nazarene, by this author and re-interpret the Gospels. If the crucifixion was a mock event, then it explains how Jesus appeared again to his followers and disciples. To avoid recapture Jesus and John may have emigrated to Patmos, with friends of Luke to look after them. Such a re-interpretation would indicate Jesus as co-author of the four Gospels and his brother James (in Jerusalem) being the Editor of the New Testament. The early life of Jesus, as described in the four Gospels would have been written by Mary and Joseph, the parents of Jesus. JohnEC Jr (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Umm, Asch was a dramatist, and this is just the Da Vinci Code. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The content and story may be more relevant than the author per se. Also, of course they knew how to rescue a Rabi or lame the Roman Legions.JohnEC Jr (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This topic was already discussed conclusively and archived in June/July. Were you hoping for a different answer by posting the exact same thing again? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The history has not changed. Neither has medicine nor resistance against the occupying Romans. The latter were lamed with sweetened wine and much more.JohnEC Jr (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither has the fact that, as was discussed previously by every editor who replied, that this is a fringe theory by a non-expert. It only belongs here if you find reliable sources. The answer has not, and will not, change on this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Anything related to "the miracle of the resurrection" is story-telling. All we can do as an encyclopedia is provide the opinions of the most prominent scholars as to related events at that time period. Sholem Asch does not appear to be among those scholars. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The story is more relevant than the author.JohnEC Jr (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia, the source is always relevant. If this article was about the story of Jesus as told by a particular sect; that might be different. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

“The story is more relevant than the author.” By that maxim, we should include equally fringe theories by unreliable sources such as “Jesus was a space alien”. We are all trying to be patient, but your refusal to listen to the unanimous response from several editors that describes WP’s requirements for sourcing, especially on such an important article, and your bringing this up multiple times in the hope for a different answer, flirts with WP:POV pushing. For at least the sixth time, this only belongs if you can find reliable sources that cover this. Asch is, for reasons covered in the multiple prior responses by multiple editors, not a scholar or WP:RS in this field. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

this is a public place. please behave accordingly.JohnEC Jr (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I am. Are you? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

“Jesus was a space alien”. please decide for your self. JohnEC Jr (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Scholem Asch not a source. Why not? Was there only one Rabi to be rescued from the Romans? There was a system in place! Scholem Asch knew but why does no one else seem to know or want to know?JohnEC Jr (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a random novelist was undoubtedly endowed with an esoteric ken. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

mr iskander323, this is a public place. please behave accordingly.JohnEC Jr (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a community space, and you are currently wasting community time with your reliable source-deficient conjecture. So Asch dabbled in some bizarre ideas. Add it to his biography. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thinking of it this way, what are the implications for the past two thousand years, and the future?JohnEC Jr (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Which of you has read this book, or spoken with a qualified academic on this topic. Would you like to write to the Church in Jerusalem, instead of arguing here, and pretending to be learned scholars.JohnEC Jr (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You have proven you are only interested in wasting the community’s time. There is no point in discussing this further. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Accusations on your talk page of "unprofessionalism and racism" by those whose comments you tried to strike here, along with refusal to listen to WP policy and more experienced editors' unanimous responses, along with repeatedly posting the same content, are significant enough that I am raising an admin incident regarding this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Read the book, and then talk. Without knowing, what exactly are you saying? Scholem Asch wrote more than thirty books. Which ones have you read.JohnEC Jr (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. He's a novelist and it's a work of fiction. It has no place here and you are wasting everyone's time. DeCausa (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The official records with Pontious Pilate and the Temple have been lost over the centuries. The real story is retained through verbal and oral history, from generation to generation. May be the ancestors of Sholem Asch were also rescued this way from crucifixion. Many Rabis and sons were rescued from the Roman rascals, in a variety of ways, including sweet wine.JohnEC Jr (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What Jesus taught about money and wealth

I would like to edit this page in order to expound on what Jesus taught about money and wealth, as it was a large (although often overlooked) focal point of his teachings. The page even shows an image of Jesus speaking with the "rich young ruler", but it makes no mention of what Jesus said to this man regarding his need to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. Jesus taught this same thing to his disciples, the pharisees, and a large crowd of people following him. And in his sermon on the mount he talked extensively about money in relation to one's service to God, and God's ability to provide the things money normally buys (food and clothing). Brownt20 (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

We aren't interested in your personal opinions, not even in your personal reading of the Bible. WP:CITE WP:SOURCES for your claims. Meaning highbrow sources, the Bible won't do, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how my request to edit the article amounts to "personal opinion". I'm talking about simply inserting more of Jesus' teachings into the section labeled as "teachings". If the Bible is not a source of Jesus' teachings, then there are many other teachings in this article which should be considered invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownt20 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment re: The Bible is not a reliable source: In order to better explain this to new editors such as @Steven1107: it's probably best to define terms for them. When "we" (Wikipedians) say "reliable source", we mean that something is suitable for citing what is stated in an article. For anything that is interpretive in nature, a WP:SECONDARY source is necessary. In the instance tgeorgescu is refering to, the Bible is the WP:PRIMARY source and does not explicitly say what you're saying it says - it's an interpretation. If you intend to say anything other than "the mystery of God is fulfilled in the days of the trumpet call by the 7th angel", then you need a reliable secondary source. To say that "biblically" or "scripturally" this means "completion" is interpretive. Secondary sources must meet the qualification of WP:RS (although a minority viewpoint could potentially be included, but in such a case, it would have to be WP:ATTRIBUTION rather than simply stated as fact). To sum up, when writing about something the Bible says, unless what you are adding is explicitly stated in the text, then you must have a reliable secondary source to cite. If you don't understand why, then go back to what I stated above and read the linked policies until you do understand it.

That being said, some of what is in this edit is OK, because it's straight from the text and is verifiable without interpretation; but some of it is very clearly not. For example: "third trimester of her pregnancy" - the text does not say this explicitly. It would seem to be implied since she gives birth right away, but it's not stated. Some of the other things are OK because they are stated in the text. If you don't understand what's OK and what's not OK, ask. But don't simply re-apply your exact edits when reverted - that's edit warring and we take a dim view of that. We are a collaborative environment. If your edit was reverted, pay attention to the reason given, and discuss on the talk page if you're not sure. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Copy/pasted by tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Butlerblog above: the article Christian views on poverty and wealth may provide some secondary sources that would pass muster. The New Testament section of that article uses far too much primary sourcing, but several of the secondary sources appear reasonable. Alternatively, one could simply link to that article from this one. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There is also more detail on Jesus' teachings in the Ministry of Jesus article. This main article on Jesus is better suited for discussing scholarly attempts to summarise the key points and flavours of his teachings rather than individual tidbits. I'm not opposed to having more discussion of his teachings on this article, even though the article is rather long. But it needs to be reliably sourced from academic biblical scholars. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Surrendering one's life to Jesus

The article is missing the topic on surrendering one's life to Jesus, also called giving your life to Jesus (often in form of prayer, for example the so-called "Salvation Prayer" or "Sinner's Prayer"). And as an example see this message with the salvation prayer in 100+ languages: https://message-for-you.net/languages/ 77.8.49.228 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

See: Sinner's prayer. I don't think we want to get well into particular branches of Christianity in an article about Jesus. That's long after his time. And that is definitely not a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that the aforementioned website does not meet the criteria for a reliable source, but I would like to state for the record that I enjoy the image of a beagle carrying a letter with (presumably) a message about Jesus in its mouth. Connor Long (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)