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

“Became convinced that he rose from the dead”

Wouldn’t it be less derogatory to say “followers believed that he rose from the dead”? I know it sounds pedantic, but “became convinced” sounds retroactive (and therefore pejorative). 136.167.36.34 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"Believed" appears more pejorative to me. That connotes an unverifiable religious belief or statement in-context, while "became convinced" more clearly indicates that the disciplies considered his rising factual and verified. A modification such as "were convinced" may be fine, however. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Place Jesus' Aramaic/Hebrew name first on the first efn in lede

The text of the first efn is currently:

Ancient Greek: Ἰησοῦς, romanized: Iēsoús, probably from Hebrew or Aramaic: יֵשׁוּעַ, romanized: Yēšūaʿ

Since Aramaic was his language, that version of his name should be placed first, together with the identical Hebrew, followed by the Greek version. Like this:

Aramaic and Hebrew: יֵשׁוּעַ, romanized: Yēšūaʿ; Ancient Greek: Ἰησοῦς, romanized: Iēsoús Evaporation123 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I support this change. Makes sense. Vegan416 (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to push back on this. While he spoke Aramaic, Greek is the language in which he was written about, full stop. His existence on paper is a Greek one. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Is that standard practice for Wikipedia though? Evaporation123 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

No such thing as standard for many choices like this, especially in exceptional or bespoke cases like this one. We have to discern which, if any, best represents our sources. Remsense ‥ 论 18:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case, I don't really see why the language in which he was written about should take precedence over his native language, as if it has inherently more value. Evaporation123 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Because we don't have anything he spoke in Aramaic. We do have, traditionally, his words in Greek. Really, it is the only language he can be said to have originated from, for our purposes. Remsense ‥ 论 18:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I still don't see why that ascribes it more inherent value. But you know what, in order to prevent this from just becoming a back-and-forth we need some sort of RM-style vote. Is there any way we can do this? Evaporation123 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Because he's never said a word to us in Aramaic; that is effectively an abstraction on top of the core we do have, which is fundamentally, archetypally, inextricably Greek in character. That is what I'm getting at. Beyond the concrete life and times of a poor preacher in Galilee, which we all would agree is the root component, most of what this article is about is what the idea of him is and what it has wrought. To maybe clarify: in a hypothetical analogous situation on Historical Jesus, Aramaic would clearly go first. But Jesus as we know him holistically, must be understood as a Greek phenomenon. (I hope I'm not approaching insensitive rhetoric for anyone.) Remsense ‥ 论 19:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I think there is absolute agreement among all scholars that he said most, if not all, of his teachings in Aramaic and Hebrew, and not in Greek. As for the order of names in the lead, since there is no clear rule or precedent to rely on, this becomes a matter of personal preference, so perhaps a vote should be taken. Vegan416 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course. There is also absolute agreement that we do not have those original teachings, and never will. They are ultimately almost entirely hypothetical and to be derived, to the extent they meaningfully exist for us. (I understand there are fragments that are more directly derivable than others.) Remsense ‥ 论 18:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

We need some sort of vote, this is becoming an increasingly abstract, subjective, and difficult discussion. Even though Remsense seems to be outnumbered right now, more users may join in later. Evaporation123 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what everyone is in such a rush for regardless, given it was this way for a long while and the change was a bit rushed packaged in with a flurry of others I questioned upon noticing. It's fairly clear how I popped in like I did, I think. Remsense ‥ 论 19:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not standard practice. The order should be Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek, then Arabic. Jesus' language and the two liturgical languages for the religions in which Jesus is the Messiah. Plumber (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe it's what I think. No use speaking with a tone best reserved for when there's some guideline that compels your position beyond reproach. Surely, since this is an extremely mature and highly visible article, the fact that it has stayed this way is expressly evidence of consensus, if the most fickle and prone to change kind. Remsense ‥ 论 18:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you certain it's consensus? Some things just happen to be overlooked... I mean, "Jewish" in the first line of the lede was unlinked for years before I noticed and changed it. Evaporation123 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You can skim backward through the diffs, though it's always a secondary point of importance. It's been this way as long as I remember, at least Remsense ‥ 论 18:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I spent some time browsing MOS to search for recommendations on this point (and made a bad CE on MOS while I was at it!), but found nothing. The most pertinent section appears to be MOS:NICKCRUFT, but the article already adheres to these suggestions. Frankly, I see no reason to change the current EFN: Greek first, to match all our oldest written sources; "probably from" the original Aramaic/Hebrew, which is likely but not testified to in written sources. Does it really matter which is first? Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

That is convincing enough. I cannot think of another figure who does not have their name first in their native language. --Plumber (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Except do we know for a fact what his name was in Aramaic? If we look at the article Yeshua we see that Yehoshua was a common alternative and it states "In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs) is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. The Greek Ἰησοῦς or Iēsoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua son of Nun in the New Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. (It was even used in the Septuagint to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun—Deuteronomy 32:44.)" Admittedly I have doubts on how well sourced that article is. We do know for a fact what his name was in Koine Greek, the common language of the eastern Roman Empire and of the earliest writings about him, the New Testament. Erp (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Messiah shall bring his final rule on Earth

In the begining of the paragraph, it be better if we completely mention the prophesy about the messiah " prophesied in the Old Testament who will bring his final rule of righteous and justice in the world to come". Both the Old and New Testaments point to a final, everlasting reign of the Messiah, where Jesus will rule with righteousness, justice, and peace. The OT lays the foundation through prophetic visions of a coming King, while the NT confirms the fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who will return to establish His kingdom forever. This reign is characterized by: Divine authority (Daniel 7:14, Revelation 19:16) Justice and righteousness (Jeremiah 23:5, Revelation 20:4) Global peace (Micah 4:3, Isaiah 9:7) Eternal rule (Psalm 2:8, Revelation 11:15) Are there any valid objections to not quote this statement? Chintu89 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This article concentrates more on the man. There are several articles related to Jesus in Christianity which you can find on the right side of the article. Keep in mind, Jesus is also a character in Islam and even Christians have differing views. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything in this article about a Christian view that Jesus is prophesied in the OT? The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the body. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Everything in the article is about Christian view that Jesus was prophesied in the old testament. Jewish orthodoxy does not accept any prophecies about Jesus in the old testament. As part of the summary of the body, it is essential to include the prophesy that is understood by Christian church. Chintu89 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"Everything in the article is about Christian view that Jesus was prophesied in the old testament." I don't think we're reading the same article.

However, I did find this in the article body:

• "Christians of the time designated Jesus as "the Christ" because they believed him to be the messiah, whose arrival is prophesied in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament."
• "Both Matthew and Luke describe Jesus's birth, especially that Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary in Bethlehem in fulfilment of prophecy."
• "The Gospel of Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is the fulfilment of God's will as revealed in the Old Testament, and the Lord of the Church."

The WP:LEAD states "Most Christian denominations believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant from the Davidic line that is prophesied in the Old Testament." Afaict, there is little support in the article body for "Most Christian denominations believe Jesus ... is prophesied in the Old Testament." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this not covered by "Most Christian denominations believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant from the Davidic line that is prophesied in the Old Testament" in the first paragraph of the lead and "Christian theology includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Christian Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement for sin, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven from where he will return" in the third paragraph? (Emphasis added by me.) -- LWG ^talk 20:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead description of Jesus as the messiah neglects to mention he is the seen as the messiah in both Christianity and Islam. There was a consensus developed many years ago to note the doctrinal similarities on the Christian and Muslim view of Jesus in the lead, but they instead were reverted in violation of that consensus. The lead is also insufficient because it is filled with sources that should be in notes or the body of the text. --Plumber (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Difficult to determine in this article. The Islamic definition of messiah is a bit different from the Christian view. My view is that this article should focus more about what is known historically about the man and leave it to the many other articles about the religious views. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to alter the current lead. It adequately covers the Christian and Islamic views, including links to both faiths' Messiah articles to clarify their differing interpretations of the title. Christianity leads in paragraph 1, as it should, due to Jesus' greater importance to that faith, while Islam and others round out the lead in paragraph 4. I don't think the general article should emphasize the historical Jesus over the religious one when we have Historicity of Jesus for that; a balanced article is preferred. That said, I'd support a short blurb such as "Jesus also is revered in many other religions" inserted prior to the "Virtually all scholars..." sentence, to tie paragraphs 1 and 4 together; I also could see starting paragraph 2 with the "Virtually all scholars..." sentence. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Then there is my neighborhood. We have "MESSIAH is here" posters all over on traffic light boxes from the Chabad-Lubavitch claiming their leader is the messiah -- the seventh I think since they keep dying. And Jews for Jesus and Beth-El named temples, of which there are both messianic and conservative congregations; and many other groups with various interpretations. How fertile the human mind. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ramen to that! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can't expect Michaelangelo to get it right painting while lying on his back for four years. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2025

in the wikipedia page of jesus christ it says "his followers became convinced that he rose from the dead, and following his ascension", i would like a suggest an edit and replace it with "it is said on the third day of his crucifixion he rose from the dead and ascended to the heavens" . Elvin Sabu (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Elvin Sabu, welcome to Wikipedia. IMO, that doesn't fit in this part of the article. First, we'd have to write it something like "According to NT, on the third day of his crucifixion he rose from the dead and ascended to the heavens." Or wherever this is said.

But consider the context here.

"After his death, his followers became convinced that he rose from the dead, and following his ascension, the community they formed eventually became the early Christian Church that expanded as a worldwide movement. It is hypothesized that accounts of his teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written Gospels."

The attempt here is to describe events from the perspective of mainstream historians, very briefly, per WP:LEAD. First he died, then his followers reacted, then they told and wrote, and then there was new scripture where it was said stuff. There are other perspectives too, like "Most Christian denominations believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant from the Davidic line that is prophesied in the Old Testament." but this paragraph is not about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done-fails WP:no weasel words. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)