The best road to progress is freedom's road. - JFK
Texas
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q 1: What should this article be named?
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.
Q 2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?
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.
Q 3: Did Jesus exist?
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.
Q 3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a term that can be used in Wikipedia?
The issue was discussed on the talk page:
Based on this Wikipedia search the term is widely used in Wikipedia.
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.
Q 3b: 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.
Q 3c: 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. Finkelstein and 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.
Q 3d: 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".
Q 3e: 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.
Q 4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?
No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (ISBN: 978-0-06-177818-6, page 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are 3 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, etc. are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 0800698010 page 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., John Dominic Crossan 2006 ISBN 0691009929" 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 #1 Bestseller Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.
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", pages 49-50. While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
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.
Q 5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?
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.
Q 6: Why is the info box so brief?
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.
Q 6a: 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.
Q 6b: 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.
Q 7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?
That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years, e.g. see the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the Nov 2010 discussion, etc. 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.
Q 8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?
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 hyper-links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.
Q 9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus?
This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Just in case anyone is confused, when the Bible speaks of Asia, that is Asia Minor, also known as Anatolia, which is today Turkey. The Seven Churches of Asia were actual churches in Western Anatolia (west coast of modern day Turkey). When the Bible speaks of Cana for the wedding feast, that is in modern day Lebanon. When the Bible speaks of Babylon, that is modern day Iraq. When the Bible speaks of Samaritans, those were people living in what is modern day Syria, because it was named for Aram, hence the Aramaic language. When the Bible speaks of graven images, it was referring to doing actual engravings of art, the specific context was to completely refrain from making idols and likenesses of things in the heavens, the earth, and the waters beneath the earth. The archaeology is everywhere. You have to be willing to research and admit when you've spoken a lifetime of ignorance to be humble scientists.Jakewayd (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 9 August 2019
"when the Bible speaks of Asia, that is Asia Minor, also known as Anatolia, which is today Turkey." My memory of the New Testament is hazy, but I was under the impression that the reference was to Asia (Roman province), covering areas of western Anatolia.Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't this simply demonstrate a poor, out-of-date translation? Would we accept it for any other book? HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Birthplace, again asked
I'm going to ask again, because the last time I asked nobody answered. According to the Bible and popular Christian tradition, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Therefore, Bethlehem should be listed as Jesus' birthplace. Yes, there may be no scholarly consensus on the birthplace of Jesus, but we could easily add a footnote reassuring the reader that the birthplace of historical Jesus is not confirmed.
Moreover, if Kim Jong-il's infobox can cite North Korean state records for his birthplace on Mt. Paektu, then surely this page can cite popular Christian tradition and the Bible as one record of Jesus' birthplace, in this case being Bethlehem.
Well, no. You're right that Kim Jong-il's article cannot do that, but two wrongs don't make one right. His birth in Betlehem is a matter of belief, not fact nor academic consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@HyettsTheGamer2: Did you know you may be able to answer your own question? At the top of this Talk page, there is a pointer to an FAQ that mentions this exact question (#6b). Also, in the Talk archives here, there are several discussions, along with a handy note: Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting..
Here are links to some discussions about this very question:
Regarding Kim Jong-il's officially claimed birthplace, I don't see a problem with it the way it's handled in the article now. Because an official DPRK document is cited, and two other likely birthplaces are listed, I disagree with the statement that Kim Jong-il's article cannot do that. (I'm not going to debate here how totally FUBAR the DPRK's government is, since that's a personal opinion.)
Please read the above material. After doing that, if you still have a question, come back here and discuss it. Cheers! — UncleBubba( T @ C ) 22:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Not "God the son" But the Messiah
The messiah according to the old testament. Christianity believes in ONE God. Small difference that goes a long way. If someone can change "God the son" to the Messiah. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31A9:8DC1:25BC:154:7A04 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the Holy Trinity (i.e. the Triune Godhead)? — UncleBubba( T @ C ) 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It is the same meaning Christ's disciples reffered to him as the "Messiah" the Son of God. There are many names of Christ such as: "I am" "the Messiah" "the son of man". Christ proving that he is the son of God comes from the famous biblical verse in John
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting eternal life" -John 3:16 Paokfc17 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Sensibility of CE/BCE dating system for birth date
What's your take on whether using the CE/BCE dating system would be more sensible to avoid the "Christ born 4 years "Before Christ"" thing
Finite Fleet (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The Anno Domini system is based on a 6th-century dating error, and is irrelevant to discussions on Jesus' birth date. Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I asked that question with existing and full awareness of Dionysius Exiguus's limitations. I was just thinking that based on the nominal ("relating to or consisting of names") significance on which AD/BC was founded, it might be more sensible to use CE/BCE, which in a sense, a sense proceeding from formality or precision, more strongly encapsulates the origins of the numbering system while also acknowledging the aforementioned limitations. Finite Fleet (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I see insufficient reason to change it. The BC dating was based on when scholars thought Christ was born in the 6th century, making it relevant here, and don't see that it creates confusion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Me too. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Can a pop up box for this page be made when searched. JohnathanJohantahn (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not quite clear what you're referring to, but if you're referring to the boxes shown on Google then that's not something we can influence, it's just something Google's algorithms decide on. – Thjarkur(talk) 14:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Updated infobox image
I boldly updated the infobox image. Realize that pretty much anything on this page could be controversial so just a brief summary of my thoughts: by moving to the Sinai Pantocrator we’re moving to arguably the most famous image of Jesus in art, certainly more recognizable than the previous one. It keeps the Eastern depiction so it’s status quo on that front, plus while Orthodox, the image is revered or at least appreciated in most Christian sects. For me the biggest factor was that the architectural distortion of a dome on an image that is usually akin to a portrait isn’t ideal for one of the more significant articles on the project. If you want to address the poor quality of the prior image for use as a primary biographical depiction (as compared to decorating a building), the Sinai Pantocrator seems to be the most natural and least controversial replacement. Plus it’s just more well known, which is a strong argument on its own. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is needed, considering that choosing the previous image, which I have now restored (you should start a talk page discussion first if you want to break with long standing stability and consensus, not after you've done it) took a long discussion, and has surprisingly left us with no complaints since (considering all the pitfalls of ethnicity, style, denominations, etc.), unlike many of the earlier images. Again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can already see reasons why the new image would draw complaints, so let's just spare us the bother. If we do want to get a new image, it should be by vote, with more than just one contender. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, it is broke: the current image really isn’t suited to be the main image in a biography. The impact of the dome is pretty bad. You don’t really need a vote if there can be agreement to use a different image without non-procedural objections. Also, WP:BRD is a perfectly acceptable way of getting consensus. Edit first then discuss has a much higher success rate at improving the project than discuss and vote before acting. Anyway, the stable image is not well-suited for this purpose and I think my edit was an improvement. Hopefully we can get a consensus for the change without the need for an RfC or formal multi-candidate vote. I’m open to options, but the existing one isn’t ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: we don't do process for the sake of process; rather than chiding someone for following our guideline, why do you think the existing image is superior? VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:Consensus. If a suggested edit goes against previous consensus, it is best to discuss it first. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, as there’s three people supporting the new image, one that’s neutral and thinks either works, and a procedural objection, I’m going to go ahead and restore it, as that’s how rough consensus works on most article talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
And in the absence of such reasons, my vote is for the new image. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion in that I think either image would work well and assuage most previously expressed concerns. But in the prior discussion (archive 126, about halfway down), one version of Pantocrator, and four of Cefalù Pantocrator (out of nine total), were considered in a straw poll. Pantocrator was weakly rejected due to perceived asymmetry, which (a) I do not find compelling, and (b) could be addressed with judicious cropping. Meanwhile, it is likely votes swung in favor of Cefalù Pantocrator simply because it represented nearly half of the considered images. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I don’t find the asymmetry that compelling to the point of needing to crop, and like I mentioned above, I find the dome effect on the Cefalù image to be worse. I also wouldn’t have any objections with someone doing a crop on the Sinai image and updating it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
If Jesus was born 4BC and died 30AD - a common scholarly position - he may not have had his 33rd birthday prior to the crucifixion, making him 32. In fact, as the crucifixion generally is held to have taken place in April, it is statistically more likely he was 32 than 33. Yet my edit to this effect was reverted, and the reason given was essentially “this is no place to do your own math”.
I have no problem with the revert if scholarly sources actually state he was likely to be 33 to 36 years old. But (1) I am not aware of any that explicitly state the age, only the birth and death years, and (2) even if they do, do they state “33 to 36” as we have in the infobox, or do they instead state “33 or 36”, to match the general consensus on 30AD or 33AD death year? This is a genuine request for info. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)