Talk:Jesus
Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 | |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jesus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jesus at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frequently asked questions edit
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
- 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.
- 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.[1] 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,[2] 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."[3][4]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
References
- ^ R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
- ^ Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
- ^ Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
"Herodian kingdom, Roman Empire" as birthplace in lead infobox edit
The Herodian Kingdom was a client state of the Roman Empire, and its territory would only be later annexed to Rome. The phrasing in the infobox seems to imply that the Herodian kingdom was a part of the Roman Empire. It's like when someone writes, "Ontario, Canada"- the phrasing is meant to show Ontario is within Canada.
I propose that "Roman Empire" be removed and an efc added that explains that the kingdom was a Roman client state, or that the line should read "Herodian kingdom (a client state of the Roman Empire)". Evaporation123 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
5 February 2BC Birth of Jesus Christ confirmation with 100 percent certainty edit
5 February 2BC , this is the new decisive date of birth of Jesus Christ. This is confirmed by Jesus Christ himself , known then as Jeshua of Nazareth , in his meeting with Governor of Judea Pontius Pilate , in his own words , "I was born the same day that Augustus Caesar gave peace to the Roman Empire" and this is confirmed by the letter Governor Pontius Pilate wrote to Caesar Tiberius. It is therefore decisively confirmed by the Government of Romans , directly by the writings to Caesar from the responsible Governor , that 100 percent accurate that Jesus Christ was born on 5 February 2 BC. 197.184.170.31 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- You need a reliable secondary source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm actually interested in seeing even a non-RS source for this, sounds like a good story. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Heh, you and me both. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pilate cycle#Letter of Pilate to Tiberius. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- tgeorgescu beat me to it -- this is a well known bit of (probably medieval) Christian pseudepigrapha. Thus, with all due respect, I'd say it's less than 100 percent certainty in my book. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- And Pilate cycle#Acts of Pilate. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks! I actually think I've heard of the Pilate cycle. I'm reminded of the Gospel of Barnabas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- And a reason for skepticism: unless they were highly literate, Ancient Jews probably had no idea which day
Augustus Caesar gave peace to the Roman Empire
, since it required knowing historical facts and converting between different calendars. There was no telegraph then, so news traveled slowly. And, if news traveled fast, they did so for client kings, not for illiterate peasants from a village in the backwaters of Galilee. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- And a reason for skepticism: unless they were highly literate, Ancient Jews probably had no idea which day
- tgeorgescu beat me to it -- this is a well known bit of (probably medieval) Christian pseudepigrapha. Thus, with all due respect, I'd say it's less than 100 percent certainty in my book. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pilate cycle#Letter of Pilate to Tiberius. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Heh, you and me both. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm actually interested in seeing even a non-RS source for this, sounds like a good story. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2024 edit
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
JulieLoz (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Jesus was never married.
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Probably not, but it's a fun topic: Jesus bloodline. Nothing to do with this article, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Use of “Became convinced” edit
This phrase in the lead seems a bit odd to me - it’s a convoluted way of saying “believed”, but also carries some potentially undesirable connotations (that belief in the resurrection is a later addition to the religion and not a central tenet, or that the earliest narratives were uncertain or ambiguous about it).
Is there an existing consensus regarding the use of the phrase?
—-Marchantiophyta (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- So, I am mostly with you--though I will say I see that usage as being temporal in nature, i.e., belief in the resurrection was not immediate. But being that it is already central to Paul, I am not sure that's the most important detail. So I would be fine with a change to "believed." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the meaning at all. It's clearly referring to his immediate followers i.e the disciples etc at the time of the crucifixion - not subsequent Christians. Per the biblical story they only "became convinced" after seeing his reappearances, putting fingers in holes etc. The wording is fine. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- My reading matches DeCausa's - that phrasing seems to point clearly to immediately after his death, before he reappeared to his believers. I would be okay with changing "After his death ..." to "A few days after his death ..." to better communicate this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was about to question why it needs clarification when no one has raised this before...and then I saw that this was only changed in December[1]. The editor, in that and other edits,[2][3] ignored the hidden message request to raise changes to that paragraph on the talk page first and marked them as minor edits. In fact, they seem to habitually mark their substantive edits to the article as minor.[4] DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from, although the accounts of the "convincing the disciples" bit come from said disciples or their fellow believers and probably don't meet the criteria for a WP:RS. From a purely historical perspective we know that the belief arose but nothing about the process by which it happened, so why add such qualifiers?
- That being said, I don't think the current wording is "wrong" and I'm not inclined to pick this particular nit much further. Marchantiophyta (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair the cited source for that sentence (Sanders, 1993) does say "His followers saw him [after the resurrection]. These resurrection experiences convinced them that Jesus would return and that in Jesus' life and death God had acted to save humanity." so I think the "becoming convinced" is supported. DeCausa (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- My reading matches DeCausa's - that phrasing seems to point clearly to immediately after his death, before he reappeared to his believers. I would be okay with changing "After his death ..." to "A few days after his death ..." to better communicate this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the meaning at all. It's clearly referring to his immediate followers i.e the disciples etc at the time of the crucifixion - not subsequent Christians. Per the biblical story they only "became convinced" after seeing his reappearances, putting fingers in holes etc. The wording is fine. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)