Wikipedia

Talk:Jesus

Featured articleJesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2005Articles for deletionKept
October 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 21, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 12, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 28, 2013Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
August 15, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
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:
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.
  • Finally, 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] Likewise, 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

  1. ^ R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
  4. ^ 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.

“Became convinced” section

[edit]

Regarding this statement in the leading section:

"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 understandable that not everyone is a Christian, and thus saying "his followers witnessed that he rose from the dead" is not appropriate for this environment. However, there should be another word to use rather than "became convinced" to describe how his ascension because known. Using the statement "became convinced" likely implies that they must have had to be convinced to believe his ascension, implying that his ascension didn't actually happen. Because Wikipedia articles aren't a place to assume one truth over another (as we cannot prove that Jesus' ascension didn't happen), we should simply use a term that shows how his ascension became popular, rather than implying it didn't happen. Could we use "his disciples believed he rose from the dead" to show how Jesus' ascension became popular, without implying that it didn't happen? In addition, this suggested statement leaves, whether his ascension happened or not, to the reader's subjective interpretation. ~2025-40639-12 (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As recounted in the Gospel narratives, they actually did have to be convinced, since they fled in despair and hid until Jesus appeared to them, and even then they didn't believe it until Jesus offered them various proofs. So "became convinced" is accurate. Your suggestion of "his disciples believed" is also potentially problematic since it could be taken to mean that they just assumed it rather than being convinced due to the events they experienced. So basically , I think the current wording is an "ain't broke, don't fix" situation. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 05:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia articles aren't a place to assume one truth over another (as we cannot prove that Jesus' ascension didn't happen) - that's lousy logic; concluding that natural laws were suspended by divine intervention is not the same kind of "truth" as those natural laws; the question would rather be: can you prove that it did happen? No, of course; the 'fact' isn't even described as such in the gospels, no eye-witnesses. What they do narrate is that there were appearances of a living Jesus after his death. Which makes the suggestion we should simply use a term that shows how his ascension became popular, rather than implying it didn't happen off the point; it already presents a supposed resurrection and ascension as a fact. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia must assume a truth over than another, that is, assume that resurrection didn't actually happen, it must prove that Jesus' resurrection didn't actually happen. Because it obviously can't, we must give due weight to each worldview; the accounts that said that he did resurect from the dead, and the ones that remain skeptical. This is why I suggested my edit. Using "became convinced" gives the implication that the disciples had to be convinced because his resurection didn't actually happen, even if they actually did have to be convinced to believe. Using "believed" is problematic, so why not use "came to believe", to avoid this implication? Davidninjaking (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How should we rephrase "following his ascension" to avoid stating that it did happen? NebY (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "became convinced" refers to the resurrection not the ascension. This is consistent with the Gospels. This is what the Gospels say about their initial reaction:
"When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it." Mark 16:11
"But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense." Luke 24:11
"Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened." Luke 24:12
"Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) John 20:9-10
Mark, Luke and John. all have clear narratives of the disciples not believing but then they became convinced because of the appearance before them of Jesus (eg on the road to Emmaus). Matthew doesn't however. DeCausa (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the existing text so it is clear: "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 ..." The "becoming convinced" does not relate to the ascension. It's just saying what they did after the ascension. I see nothing wrong with the current wording. DeCausa (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "becoming convinced" relates to after his resurecttion not after his ascension. This wording gives the impression that the resurection didn't happen and thus the disciples had to be convinced. This is why I am suggesting using the wording "came to believe", as it doesn't give the impression that the resurection didn't happen, but still explains why the resurection was popularized. Davidninjaking (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Becoming convinced" doesn't give the impression it didn't happen. And the disclples, according to the Gospels, did have to be convinced. It's fine. However, I've just realised that the reference to the ascension is unqualified as though it's an actual event. In fact, it's unnecessary to the meaning because all the sentence is saying is that the Christian community was established after his death. The reference to the ascension is otiose. I've taken it out. DeCausa (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. Indeed, ascension, as an event separate from resurrection and distinct from a resurrection in which he was also exalted, may not have been central to the beliefs of all early Christians. We'd better not say that general belief in the ascension preceded the formation of the community that eventually became, etc. NebY (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wrote that as you were taking it out. Thanks. NebY (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place

[edit]

If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, why don't we add it in the infobox? Richie1509 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Richie1509 See Talk:Jesus#Frequently_asked_questions, Q6. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alt for lead image

[edit]

Should the lead image be added with alt text? Ahri Boy (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As in the "| image_alt = " param? I see no reason not to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that hidden warning is not to touch the infobox without consensus. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a reason not to. You can write your suggestion here, and if there is no protest for a few days, go for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of his name

[edit]

It says:

The name means "God saves" in Hebrew, literally "Yahweh saves",[1]

This is not what the source says. Yahweh is not in the short form of the name. The verb root as conjugated (yesu') means "salvation" or "he saves". God (the Lord) is implied but not named. Tiamut (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Strong's Hebrew: 3091. יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ (Yehoshua) -- Joshua". biblehub.com. Retrieved 2026-01-15. Both Joshua son of Nun and Jesus of Nazareth bear the name "Yahweh saves"

Ed Sanders claim that sources for Jesus's life are better than those for Alexander the Great

[edit]

The wording "Ed Sanders states that the sources for Jesus's life are better than sources scholars have for the life of Alexander the Great" is a near word for word copy of a sentence found in the source document at the bottom of page 4 (not page 3 as cited). This appears to be added to support the notion that there is more evidence for Jesus than Alexander the Great (AtG), which may indeed be the case. But Ed Sanders point is more nuanced than that, and I believe this sentence should be expanded to reflect this. Ed Sanders is here evaluating only textual evidence, and he qualifies the textual sources as "better", he explains as meaning as being written closer in time to the events they relate to.

Also, the quote as it stands may be interpreted to suggest Ed Sanders is commenting on the evidence for Jesus/AtG being real people, which is already a given in his argument. But Ed's comment is broader than this speaking about the sources being sufficiently well attested to allow us to peice together specifically Jesus's thoughts and life events in far more depth than can be done for AtG. He's not simply saying that there is more textual evidence that Jesus was real than AtG. It's the details of their lives that become more visible to historians. It might also be relevant to flag that AtG lived much earlier than Jesus which may play a part in how much papyrus with writting relating to him has survived. Sanders also explains that our earliest documents for AtG are based on now lost older texts that were contemporary with AtG's reign, whereas the Gospels are based on earlier oral traditions being passed down from person to person, lending weight to the argument that we have more evidence of AtG's existence and feats than Jesus but more evidence for Jesus's thoughts and ideas than AtG. Ed Sanders says "...in some ways we know more about Jesus than about Alexander", implying in other ways we don't. What ways were they? He continues "The superiority of the evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." In other words, we have more evidence for Jesus's thoughts than we do for AtG's thoughts, saying nothing of the evidence for their existance. "Alexander so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed." Again, Ed is not commenting on the evidence of Alexander's existance, which is a given, but of his life details.

I suggest replacing the word "source" with "textual sources" or "documentary evidence", and highlighting the exclusion of other acheological and inscription fragments from his evaluation, as well as highlighting why Ed thought this was the case.

"Ed Sanders argues that the documentary evidence detailing Jesus's thoughts and ideas is more reliable than the surviving manuscripts relating to the life of Alexander the Great living some 330 years earlier, owing to the texts about Jesus being authored closer in time to the events they relate to".

Perhaps a line should be added to note that the sources for AtG rely on now lost contemporary texts, whereas the gospels are based on oral tradition, complicating analysis and comparison. Dutoilette (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]


Change "Virtually all[1] Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant from the Davidic line that is prophesied in the Old Testament." to "Virtually all Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant from the Davidic line that is prophesied in the Old Testament.[2]"

WP:REFPUNC

~2026-23598-8 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population". Pew Research Center. 2011-12-19. Retrieved 2025-12-29.
  2. ^ "Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population". Pew Research Center. 2011-12-19. Retrieved 2025-12-29.