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's 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 once used the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's, as decided in this discussion in 2014. Following changes to the MoS, it was decided in 2025 to fully move to Jesus's. The article had already been changed most of the way. This was discussed here. Do not change usage within quotes or the titles of works.

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

Proposal: new image

I propose to change the image in the infobox to:

JacktheBrown (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Support, I agree that the eye of the current one looks weird --FMSky (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That image has been proposed and discussed here before. The reasons we went with the Sinai image were:

1. It is far older and far more historically significant (being among the oldest and most well-known images of Jesus in existence, as opposed to the Cefalú image which is 500 years younger and a minor point of interest in a cathedral that is no particular special importance).
2. The background architectural elements in the Cefalú image are at least as distracting as the asymmetry in the Sinai image.
3. The Christ_Pantocrator_(Sinai)#Interpretation_and_meaning symbolism of the image (including the asymmetry that causes the eye weirdness) is an important part its historical significance and helps capture the aspects that have made Jesus so important to so many people.

In light of those reasons, I would advocate for keeping the Sinai image in the article. -- LWG ^talk 18:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the change and support the current image of the Sinai Pantocrator. It may be helpful to review the discussion which was held just a few months ago, where a few alternatives including this one were proposed, and consensus was to stay with the Sinai image. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any change that doesn't address the arguments put forward in previous discussions of the topic. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I would support a new image. What about Head of Christ (File:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg)? According to that article, the portrait painting had been reproduced over half a billion times worldwide by the end of the 20th century. ... The painting is said to have "become the basis for [the] visualization of Jesus" for "hundreds of millions" of people. Granted, it's a non-free image, but someone could fill out a NFU rationale for use on this specific article. Some1 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That image was also considered in previous discussions, but dispreferred due to being far younger, non-free, and a worse case of the "white Jesus" phenomenon. I will defer to consensus of course, but I personally strongly oppose replacing the current image with the 1941 Sallman one. -- LWG ^talk 04:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That one is a no-starter since there is an abundance of "free" work to pick from. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This maybe-da Vinci Jesus is pretty nice

I support switching back to the other pancreator for awhile, based pretty much on personal taste. However, if we're going to have a proper go at this at this time, we should probably start with a "What pics should we include in a WP:LEADIMAGE-rfc" rfc, and then move on to the "Should we change the leadimage to any of these pics?" rfc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be open to that as well. I've been watching this article for over a decade and I've seen a number of image discussions come and go but they've pretty much all been between the same half dozen options. It would be interesting to see if any fresh free images are available that might be superior to all the present options. -- LWG ^talk 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reiterating from the last discussion the qualities that I think make the Sinai image such a strong candidate:

• 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.
• Not mentioned before but relevant: as an ancient artwork it is of course totally free of copyright concerns.

For any replacement image I would want to see an argument for why it is superior to the Sinai image in these areas. -- LWG ^talk 04:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment One aspect I don't think has been mentioned before (it came up in this discussion): when previewing/hovering the cursor on the Jesus WP-link the rather "tall" leadimage is noticeably cropped. Not as much as this one, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point, and a point in favor of a more square image. Article hover previews don't work properly at all on my browser so I will take your word for it. -- LWG ^talk 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I just tried it on a browser that can display the previews and it actually seems totally fine: it's cropped, but it's cropped right above the face and below the hands, which is pretty much ideal for this image. -- LWG ^talk 21:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I doubt this is a consideration but I also think current Sinai image works well with images of the Apostles from the same site, creates a consistency across the multiple articles which is aesthetically pleasing. That being said, oldest extant depiction sounds like by far the most sensible suggestion. 2A01:4B00:D12F:1500:CEED:EFB2:9A78:62F7 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC: new image

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.

---

In the previous discussion, one or more users recommended starting an RFC. The proposed image is:

You're of course free to propose other images, or vote for the one already in the infobox. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support for "Cefalù Pantocrator retouched". JacktheBrown (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  @JacktheBrown If you want to start a WP:RFC, you have to format it correctly. The point of an rfc is that it's "advertised" as instructed and is noticed by uninvolved editors. Read the manual and try again. If you start it correctly, it looks something like this:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Why would we change it? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I thought we were going to have some preliminary discussion to perhaps generate a list of alternate candidates. On the question proposed here, I oppose the Cefalu Pantocrator, and support the retention of the Sinai Pantocrator. The Sinai icon is: ~500 years earlier than the proposed replacement, and as such it's perhaps the earliest known depiction which fits with readers' general expectations of what the lead image should look like, and it's hitorically significant, while the Cefalu Pantocrator is simply an example of the type; the flat image of the Sinai icon lends itself better to the form than the curved image from the dome of the Cefalu apse; personal opinion, but I consider the Sinai image aesthetically superior; and there is the possible theological reading into the Sinai icon's face which some commentators have noted and illustrates something about the article the Cefalu icon doesn't. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – the Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) is older and IMO looks better. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I stated in the earlier discussion, as well as those mentioned by Seltaeb Eht. The Sinai image has the advantage in age, historical significance, artistic excellence, theological meaning, and photo quality/shape. The Cefalù image doesn't have any advantages that come close to outweighing these factors. -- LWG ^talk 13:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per LWG's comments in the previous discussion. From Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)#Interpretation and meaning can we add Christ's features on his right side (the viewer's left) are supposed to represent the qualities of his human nature, while his left side (the viewer's right) represents his divinity. to the caption, as most people unfamiliar will assume it's a poor attempt at imitating physical nature. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Kowal2701: description added, thank you very much. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Cheers, if people think it's too wordy we can make it a note instead Kowal2701 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Seltaeb Eht here and LWG in prior thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• What I'd really prefer is to not pick a single image for all time. Can't we come up with half a dozen, and rotate them every couple of months? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really seeing a reason to move on from the status quo. Nemov (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated above. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The current image works. The proposed image itself is nice, but I don't see how it's an improvement or why it's necessary to change the image just for the sake of changing it. pillowcrow 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose not an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support The current image is too long and has a glare at the bottom. Also, Jesus's eyes look strange. I find the proposed image to be more aesthetically pleasing. ~~~

Rainsage (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• • @Rainsage: that's exactly what I wanted to point out, but very few users understood it. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Are you aware that the asymmetrical depiction is intentional and a significant part of the image? From the article on the depiction, Christ's features on his right side (the viewer's left) are supposed to represent the qualities of his human nature, while his left side (the viewer's right) represents his divinity. See also Chatzidakis, Manolis (1967). "An encaustic icon of Christ at Sinai". The Art Bulletin. 47 (3). Translated by Walters, Gerry: 199. doi:10.2307/3048469. The two great eyes are not, themselves, completely identical either in dimension or in shape. They are not placed on the same level, and through the difference in movement of the eyebrows, each acquires a slightly different nuance of expression: the right eye is more calm, while the left, larger, is more lively. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
      • @Dan Leonard: this description is currently included in the Jesus article thanks to this RfC, so opening it was helpful. Thank you very much for the reference, I just added it. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have to say I like the idea that @Seltaeb Eht has mentioned of maybe generating a list of other potential candidates for discussion. I would have to say this doesn't drive me to vote to change from the current one in the article.

MaximusEditor (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC as premature and Oppose for all the reasons stated by LWG. The Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) image is excellent and the article benefits greatly from its inclusion and – something I don't think others have noted – the detailed caption full of wikilinks. We don't even have an article on the proposed replacement. What would the caption be? "Second-millennium depiction at some church of no other notability"? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: the present image is a high quality, neutral portrait with its own Wikipedia article. I see no improvement in the propose image. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on the whole. The present image won out in a long discussion (Rfc?) a while ago, which is not I think linked here. It should be. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  There was Talk:Jesus/Archive_137#RFC:_Changing_picture_(or_picture_caption)_in_infobox but that was crap, don't know when the last "proper" one was, but I thinks it's been a few years. I suggested at Talk:Jesus#Proposal:_new_image

  "if we're going to have a proper go at this at this time, we should probably start with a "What pics should we include in a WP:LEADIMAGE-rfc" rfc, and then move on to the "Should we change the leadimage to any of these pics?" rfc"

  but the OP didn't go with that idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  Because apparently I want to research this instead of do anything useful I did a deep dive through the archives. We've never really had a proper RFC on this, just many discussions. The first stable image in this article was the Christus Ravenna Mosaic, added when the infobox was first created in 2008. Two years later it was changed to a random stained glass window without discussion or fanfare. That stayed for about 5 years despite occasional squabbles on the talk page. Then in 2015 someone tried to change it to this Hoffman image, only to face significant pushback, leading to an extensive discussion that landed on a consensus for the Cefalù Pantocrator. That stayed up for about 5 more years, until in 2020 it was boldly replaced with the current image, leading to another discussion arriving at a consensus for the Sinai Pantocrator. Since then the image has been discussed a few times but consensus has remained strong for the Sinai image for the reasons given in the above discussion. So I suppose by sheer time we are due for a replacement, but I don't think we should do so unless it's actually an improvement. I actually forgot that the Cefalù image was previously the image before the current one. That doesn't change any of my reasons for preferring the Sinai one though. -- LWG ^talk 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  WP-archaeology, you gotta love it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2025 (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.

"Most" language in the lead.

As User: Invincible767 said in this revision, the language that Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son... is longstanding and has been discussed repeatedly, eg. [2]. It even has an entry in the FAQ at the top (Q10.) While consensus can change there's no real indication that it has here. And I tend to agree that the longstanding Most Christians... wording is best; it's simply not true that all Christians believe that. The precise wording matters in this case. Saying "Christians believe X" and then adding a footnote saying that not all of them believe it is a bizarre and confusing way to convey the much more accurate and straightforward statement that only most of them do so. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

My issue was mainly the longstanding ‘incarnation of God the Son’ being changed to ‘Son of God’ as the incarnation is a critical part of Jesus in Christianity. But thank you for your input and realising that this was the longstanding version that has been changed recently without consensus. Invincible767 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I do personally believe the word ‘most’ can be removed as it has been perpetuated by multiple Christian Scholars and reliable sources that Non Trititarian and therefore non Nicene Christianity is not technically classified as Christianity. It’s almost like saying one is a Muslim yet rejects the prophethood of Muhammad - a clead contradiction. However, the previous consensus was that ‘most’ should remain. Invincible767 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Nontrinitarians consider themselves to be Christians, and broadly speaking, Christianity only requires a profession of Jesus as Christ and/or a belief in his teachings. Debates over exactly WHAT he taught are the main reason for disagreement here. From that perspective, "most" is correct, and the stable lead is preferred. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we add links to how his name was written in the scripts of his time?

In the "Name" section I'd like to add reference to how his name was written in the scripts of the languages of his time.

Greek: Ἰησοῦς, Hebrew: ישוע, and Biblical Hebrew: 𐤉𐤔𐤏 MattQuarneri (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Matt, the note on the name at the beginning of the article already includes the Greek and Hebrew names, but I added them to the name section as well. I'm curious what your source is for the 𐤉𐤔𐤏 name. -- LWG ^talk 20:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: Per above. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Early Christianity and historical views sections missing from lead?

Hi there, the early Christianity and historical views sections of the body appear to be missing from the lead. I added those and deleted a sentence about oral transmission that’s not verified in the body. These were recently reverted.

Wanted to check in and see if there are any objections to me restoring my edits? I think they adequately summarize the extant content of those two sections. AintItFunLiving (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chintu89 Birjeta01 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I too am confused by your reason for reverting. My edit regarding the portrayal of Peter in Mark is as relevant for Jesus as Sanders’s claim about Mark’s views on the disciples. I do not see why adding summary of the Historical views section is entirely unwarranted either, though I disagree with the wording. Birjeta01 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course everything in the lead must be verified in the body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but it would be better if Dunn’s sentence about oral tradition was moved to the body rather than being removed. The lead section of this page is the result of a consensus by various editors, and string reasons should be provided for changing removing anything there. I’m afraid I disagree with your rendition of the Historical views section as well. The criteria of authenticity have faced growing criticism in recent years and many scholars are moving away from them, as the Quest for the historical Jesus page describes. The lead already mentions scholarly views on the reliability of the gospels too. Birjeta01 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you propose as next steps? AintItFunLiving (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, if I’m understanding the notes correctly, only the first paragraph was established by consensus. AintItFunLiving (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

My proposal would be copying Dunn’s quote to the body, perhaps the First paragraph of the Sources heading of the Historical views section. I think adding that the criteria have been subject to more critique would be good as well, with the sources for this already being available on the aforementioned page about the Quest. I think that the summary of Historical views, if added, should mention the three quests, the ‘basic consensus on the general outline of his life’, and the differing portraits of Jesus. Birjeta01 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophe, again

I see that this was discussed in 2013 at Talk:Jesus/Archive 121#Possessive of Jesus. I also note that there seem to be instances of both possessive forms currently in the article, Jesus' and Jesus's. I'm fairly agnostic on which type to use, but I think this article should only use one. Does there need to be another discussion? John (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I saw this in a MOS somewhere, but can't find it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:'S says to use Jesus's but to reword where possible if that would make pronunciation difficult. -- LWG ^talk 19:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think what's happened is that the MoS has changed; I've a feeling it used to allow the no-s possessive in some cases but now does not. So we should standardise on "Jesus's" then, I think (or, as you say, reword if it becomes awkward). John (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the article; there were only two instances apart from titles and quotes which obviously we retain. I've edited the FAQ to reflect the change, and requested that the edit notice also be adjusted. John (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Rooster, cockerel, or cock?

This article is written in British English, Oxford spelling. This dialect doesn't usually use "rooster" to describe a male chicken, but either "cock" or "cockerel". Seeing the American word "rooster" doesn't seem quite right to me in this context. I am more familiar with the King James version, in which Matthew 26 is rendered as "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." The New Revised Standard Version version is similar. I've been reverted by Jtrevor99, and I don't quite know how to proceed in a way that is consonant with WP:ENGVAR. Any thoughts? I'd probably prefer to avoid "cock" for obvious reasons! Could we compromise with a piped link, [[rooster|cockerel]]? John (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with using cock for New Testament texts, and the strange word "rooster" brings to mind Foghorn Leghorn instead of scripture. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I've restored the cockerel language. I really don't think "rooster" sounds right. Happy to discuss, obviously. John (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

All three terms are understandable to me as an American English speaker who is literate enough to know they refer to a male bird in this context but not educated enough to know that "cockerels" don't typically crow. I don't have a good way of gauging what proportion of our readers would be confused by "cock", or if is a big enough deal to make an exception to English dialect consistency. The possible confusion between the bird name and the vulgar slang isn't exclusive to American English and existed even when the King James Bible was written, but even more recent translations like the CEV, ESV, and NIV still use "cock" in their anglicized editions. I haven't found "cockerel" used in any translation of the NT texts. I think using "cock" and piping it to rooster might help any readers that aren't familiar with the term as referring to a male bird. -- LWG ^talk 16:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Thanks for your time. Done. John (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with "cock" either. "Cockerel", however, does carry the connotation I noted in the revert - or at least, it does in the American Midwest where I live and where chickens are abundant. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

just to note that I think it would be easily demonstrable that the standard Br Eng translation of the passage would be that that the three denials come before the "cock" crows, rather than anything emanating from either a "cockerel" or "rooster". It's pretty much used without exception, for this passage. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Talk:United_States_v._One_Solid_Gold_Object_in_Form_of_a_Rooster#Usage_of_"cock"_repeatedly_in_the_article.. Which became part of a ANI discussion. That said, I see no problem with "before the cock crows." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

That's funny and just the sort of issue I was thinking of in using "cockerel". Like you and Jtrevor99 I too have no problem with using "cock" as that's what the primary sources use. John (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Word choice

Jesus often debated with his fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables, and gathered followers, among whom twelve were appointed as his chosen apostles. (my emphasis)

Chintu89, tell me why we need "chosen" as well as "appointed". See, to me, the two words mean pretty much the same thing, so why would we say it twice? It gives our time-poor reader more work to do for the same information. It looks clunky. More than that, it lends a sort of dreary churchy tone to the article. Articles like this always need to be very careful not to be too "in-universe"; we are not writing (exclusively) for Christians here, but for readers of all religions and none. I'm actually rather impressed at how good a job it does of that (though less so about how spelling and linking have been used but that's relatively easy to fix, and I have been doing). Word choice is important, and this is not a church newsletter but a general encyclopedia. What do you think? John (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and since there was no explanation given for the edit, which was also mistakenly marked as minor as it affects meaning, I've reverted it for now.

I would also consider changing the remaining appointed to merely chosen. Remsense ‥ 论 19:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I think appointed works since membership in the twelve apostles is generally considered to have been an official position or status. -- LWG ^talk 20:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. Remsense ‥ 论 20:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for raising an important point about word choice and the tone of the article. I understand the concern about avoiding overly "churchy" language in a general encyclopedia, but I’d like to offer some context on why terms like “chosen” might still be appropriate, even necessary, in this case.

Jesus is, by nature, a religious figure. The Gospels are not neutral biographies in the modern sense; they are theological texts, preserved and transmitted by the early Church. They represent the only substantive sources we have about Jesus’ life, teachings, and actions. As such, any reference to events like the appointment of the twelve apostles carries inherently theological language, because that’s the language of the source material itself.

To suggest we "neutralise" expressions like chosen may unintentionally impose a modern, secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative. Terms like appointed and chosen may seem redundant at a glance, but within the Gospel context, chosen conveys a spiritual selection or divine calling, not just an administrative appointment. This nuance matters to accurately reflect the original texts.

Of course, I agree that this isn’t a church newsletter, and editorial neutrality is important. But in the case of religious figures, neutrality shouldn’t mean stripping away the essential nature of their religious identity. It should mean presenting what the source material says, faithfully and clearly, while making it accessible to all readers. While I understand the article isn’t written for Christians, we also can’t overlook the fact that Jesus is a religious figure known through Christian sources. The Gospels — the primary accounts of his life — are not secular or neutral texts. They were written, preserved, and interpreted within a religious framework. So terms like chosen aren’t just poetic or redundant — they carry theological weight. They reflect that these twelve were not just selected for a role, but were of deep personal and spiritual importance to Jesus. Appointed might cover the functional aspect, but chosen conveys intentionality and significance.

Even for non-Christian readers, understanding Jesus accurately means acknowledging his identity as a religious figure.

Appreciate the work you're doing on readability and clarity – just thought it was worth highlighting how, in this case, the "churchy" tone might actually be part of preserving historical and theological accuracy.

Happy to hear your thoughts further. Chintu89 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

may unintentionally impose a modern, secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative

I appreciate the general concerns raised here, but it's worth explicating that the bulk of our reliable sources are secular in nature, and almost all of them are not only modern, but from the last fifty years of scholarship. Remsense ‥ 论 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

However, I believe we need to distinguish between secondary modern scholarship and primary source material, especially in the case of religious figures like Jesus.

While it’s true that many modern scholars approach these topics with secular methodologies, the core sources for Jesus’s life — the Gospels — are not secular in nature. They are explicitly religious texts, composed and preserved by the early Christian community. Nearly everything we know about Jesus, whether scholars interpret it as history, theology, or myth, ultimately traces back to Christian tradition. Here it is the context to explain the readers the summary of gospel. If you go with a scholarly framing we're left with nothing that wouldn't save anything for the article of Jesus.

That means an encyclopedia entry about Jesus must take this into account: the language and terminology (such as “chosen”) reflect how the source texts present him, not how modern editors might reframe that narrative in secular terms. Even secular scholars cite the Gospels as their primary textual basis. To edit out or reword theological language simply because it sounds “churchy” runs the risk of imposing a modern secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative, and that may in fact obscure the historical and cultural reality of how Jesus was understood. Chintu89 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

While it’s true that many modern scholars approach these topics with secular methodologies, the core sources for Jesus’s life — the Gospels — are not secular in nature.

We are not citing the Gospels directly. We are a tertiary source that mainly synthesizes secondary sources—here, the aforementioned modern, critical, largely secular scholarship.Remsense ‥ 论 23:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Saying we shouldn't write "exclusively for Christians" misses the point: the article isn't for Christians — but it is about a person whose story is inherently and unavoidably Christian in origin. Presenting that honestly doesn't make the article biased; it preserves theological and historical accuracy.

Recasting the narrative to suit readers of “all religions and none” risks distorting the very sources that make the subject notable in the first place. Chintu89 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Chintu89 for explaining the background to your views. I'm still not quite seeing just why we need to use both these near-synonyms or why omitting one threatens to "[recast] the narrative" or makes it somehow less "honest". To me it's a choice of language, and it seems very simple that as a secular encyclopedia we use the simplest, shortest form of words that adequately sums up the sources. I think you may be confusing the "narrative" (the story) with the "register" (the exact words chosen to tell the story). We don't need to adopt a churchy register to tell the story of Jesus honestly, sensitively, and in a way that will be appealing both to believers and non-believers, in my opinion. John (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Modern scholarship

There's a reference to a book from 1977 under modern scholarship position. By Michael Grant. Maybe it should be removed, because it is too old to be relevant for what modern scholarship thinks? 60.250.44.227 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Depends on the field generally and the specific claims we're citing it to verify. Given Grant is being cited as part of a survey of different scholars, which specifically emphasizes the time when he was writing, and the footnote is making a rather clear point that a position has had staying power over time—there's less than no reason to refrain from citing Grant (1977) here. Remsense ‥ 论 16:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm just wondering where the cut of point is? Because we could go further back to, I suppose? 60.250.44.227 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It definitely depends, like I said. We'd likely never cite any paper from the 1970s in many computer science articles, but that's often totally fine for more evergreen claims in fields like history or mathematics. Remsense ‥ 论 16:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It just seems a bit out of place since all the other references are post 2000. But I suppose it is ok. Another question:

The reference to Robert M. Price doesn't reference a specific page and i couldn't find confirmation about the specific view expressed, can someone find it and add the page reference? 60.250.44.227 (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There are many citations to works published prior to 2000, actually. There are even several others also published in 1977!

Thanks for noting the Price issue also. Remsense ‥ 论 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries! 60.250.44.227 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• I suppose in a nearly 2000 year story, 1970 does count as recent! John (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Michael Grant's work has gone through numerous editions since 1977. In "Jesus" (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200", his claim still stands in the 2000s. I updated it in the article. I also see a 2011 edition. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of BC/AD instead of BCE or CE on article?

I understand BC/AD may be used due to regarding a Christian subject, or that the article is talking about a person (though my Christian beliefs are adverse to calling him simply that, this is a point of dispute historically) who lived prior to a modern time (similar to Alexander the Great, whose article also uses BC), but this seems...odd given the article places his birth as 6-4 BC and BC means before Christ. So we're saying Jesus was born before he was born. 199.101.33.173 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)