Jump to content

Talk:Jesus/Archive 137

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137

Rephrase "Most Christians"?

Original Text: Most Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Proposed Changes: All Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son, though there is a minority, which have been deemed heretical by many major denominations, that recognizes neither Jesus as God the Son nor the Holy Trinity. Christians also believe Jesus to be the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.


Reason Why: Belief in Jesus of Nazareth as God the Son is quite literally one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith. To say that "Most", but not "All", Christians believe in him as God the Son and still refer to them as Christian would be wrong. You are removing a key factor of the faith and acting like it has not been removed. Vilo2023 (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You have provided to reliable source for this. The current text is sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Obviously we're not adding in a logically inconsistent "all, except..." language that contradicts the cited source (Ehrman). Please remember not to inject your personal beliefs or synthesis into editing. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Granted, it could be amended further, yet changes should still be made.
As I have said first, the Trinity and belief in Jesus as God the Son have been established as cornerstones to the Christian faith by multiple different events, such as the Council of Nicea and the Athanasian Creed. To say that a denomination is still Christian while it rejects a fundamental part of Christianity makes no sense. So, the inclusion of "Most", rather than "All" seems quite silly and is the main thing I see needs to be changed.
This isn't merely because of personal beliefs, though I am quite biased as a Christian myself, but because it is part of the doctrine of every major Christian denomination. It would be the same as an anti-Fascist organization participating in Fascism. The bedrock of the ideology has been removed, therefore it no longer fits the grouping. A denomination cannot be both Christian while rejecting the guiding principles of Christianity, which is what denying Jesus as God the Son and the Trinity.
Even the Wikipedia article on Christianity contains neither "Most" nor "All" in a portion of text, which seems to have been copy and pasted over. Either "Most" needs to be changed to "All" in this article, or it could be removed as was in the article the text was taken from. Vilo2023 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate you coming here to condemn other faiths as heretical, but the reliable sources tend to disagree with you, and that's a pretty important thing around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Please read Nontrinitarianism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
And No true Scotsman. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Good idea; I took a shot at it (as Q10). Feel free to modify/improve. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

Intro section:

"He was arrested in Jerusalem and tried by the Jewish authorities turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judaea."

I suggest to change "He was arrested" to "He was eventually arrested". It's a very minor edit but this text is preceded by a description of Jesus' activities and adding "eventually" will show more clearly that there is quite a bit of time between him starting his own ministry and his arrest. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:8D40:6944:3880:BC12 (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this change is necessary. The text's statement that Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem does not imply that he was immediately arrested upon arrival.
The length of his ministry is irrelevant to this section of the article, the purpose of which is to highlight the scholarly agreement that Jesus was a real, historical person. Zoozoor (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Understandable, thank you for responding. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:6965:6918:9D4D:3E40 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: per above. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

All Christians believe in Jesus as the Messiah

In the introduction paragraph, I can understand the phrase "Most Christians" for the belief in the Son of God, however universally all Christians believe in Jesus Christ as the awaited Messiah of Judaism, as that is a central tenet of Christianity. Augustus2714 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see FAQ#10: 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. While it may be true the vast majority of Christians hold the belief, there are some sects that do not, therefore "all" is not entirely correct. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed a duplicate link in the lead. Ordinarily duplicate links should be removed, but I wanted to ask out of consideration of the note requesting discussion before edits.

The duplicately linked page is Second Coming, referred to in the 4th paragraph from both "will return" and "Second Coming." The MoS cautions against repeating links within a major section.

I suggest an alternative way to indicate that "will return" is referring to the Second Coming: "...from where he will return (known as the Second Coming)." abcasada (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggest linking to "itinerant teacher"

In the third paragraph of the lead, it's mentioned that Jesus was an itinerant teacher. I'd recommend linking to the appropriate page. abcasada (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Please

Please, put that Jesus has central role in Christianity AND SPIRITISM. It's so annoying how christians think they are the only who beieve in Jesus. Fix it, please. João L. Paiter (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

While Spirits certainly can be Christians, that isn't a requirement. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean, the majority, more than 90% are christians, so it is better to put something like "Major role in christianity and spiritism (most cases)", or something like that. João L. Paiter (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The lead is a summary of the article and the article makes no reference to this. We don't add stuff to articles without reliable sources even if we know it to be true. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 22:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm brazillian and I live and convive with lots of spiritists and in spiritism (not just here I live) Jesus is treated EXACTALY like in christianity. What do you want as a reliable source? João L. Paiter (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Click on blue link in my reply above. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant "Spiritists". Sometimes the spellchecking means trouble. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

TRUE NAME OF MESSIAH

The Messiah was a Yahudim (Hebrew). He had a HEBREW name, it is YaHushua or in short they wrote "Y'shua", they commonly shortened many long Hebrew names then and now. He never used their Greek name, "Jesus or Ie'sus" as they typically call him. He was a Yahudim, not a Greek. He was raised Yahudim and practiced as such whether He agreed with the Pharisees or not, He practiced and lived as a Yahudim. The Hebrew inscription of his name says "YaHushua", not Jesus or Iesus. His true Hebrew name was YaHushua and it means "salvation of YaH". Shalom Bobdanyels (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all this, however if you'd like it included in the article you will need both reliable sources and a reasonable amount of context in relevance and notability. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Reliable Sources: "The Hebrew New Testament"; "The Cepher Besora'oth"; "The Peshitta, Aramaic English New Testament"; "Y'SHUA (YAHUSHUA), the Jewish Way to say Jesus"; among many other resources. 64.224.81.174 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
You may or may not find something interesting in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

Please re-add the line "Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of 1st-century Palestine." that was removed on November 11th 2023‎ by "Baruch Benedictus Spinoza."

Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of 1st-century Palestine.[428] Ioudaios in New Testament Greek[r] is a term which in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both.[430][431][432] In a review of the state of modern scholarship, Amy-Jill Levine writes that the entire question of ethnicity is "fraught with difficulty", and that "beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish', rarely does the scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means".

I think it is fairly obvious what Baruch's edits are intended to subtract here. Zuberii (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Afaict, that text is found at Jesus#Language,_ethnicity,_and_appearance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

HAIR OF WOOL, SKIN OF BRONZE. Get an accurate picture. The source is the friggin bible’s description of Jesus. Get real! 2600:1017:B8B6:A8F4:20A7:CBDB:228F:DA59 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And where, in your opinion, is an accurate picture of this person of which there are no surviving depictions from his lifetime? WP:LEADIMAGE may or may not be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
feet like bronze glowing in a furnace. And don't forget the sword coming out of his mouth. Anyway, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Are you mad his “hairs are [not] white like wool” as stated in the translated passage you’ve cited?
In any case, the oldest known depiction of Christ is the likely most appropriate iconography if one is to be supplied. It’s historically interesting and the least controversial. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to forward your individual historiography or messianic race theories. Palmetto Carolinian (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Harrowing of Hell in the lede/article

There's no mentioning of the harrowing of hell even though it is a pretty substantial piece of early Christian theology that is still taught today. Is there a consensus on not having this in the article? Ayyydoc (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently some previous discussion exists: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The Harrowing is a bit of a funny one! As you say, it is certainly early and attested, but exists basically non-canonically one might say. I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned in the article, but I tend to think including it in the lead would be a bit much. As ever though, reasonable minds can certainly differ on the issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
You can start with proposing (or WP:BOLDLY add) a cited WP:PROPORTIONATE text for Jesus#Christianity. If that gets accepted, we can look at if it's reasonable to mention it in the WP:LEAD. Hopefully, there are some usable sources at Harrowing of Hell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we rename Jesus' entry "Jesus of Nazareth"?

Hello,

Thank you for not calling him "Jesus, the anointed one", and I don't think we would confuse him for some other Jesus, but a name change might suggest a nontrinitarian stance and that Wikipedia sees him as no more or less divine than anyone else. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:134F:919:A36B:DBFC (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

General Wikipedia policy is to refer to subjects by the name which they are most commonly called. When you say "Jesus", almost everyone would assume you're talking about Jesus Christ. And similarly, he is most often referred to simply as "Jesus".
We also refer to Muhammad, Buddha, Moses etc. mononymically. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the current title fits WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

sentence structure correction

First sentence of the third paragraph:

Jesus was circumcised at eight days old, was baptized by John the Baptist as a young adult, and after 40 days and nights of fasting in the wilderness, began his own ministry.

The above sentence is clunky/confusing to read. I suggest rewriting into several sentences, e.g.:

Jesus was circumcised at eight days old. When Jesus was a young adult, he was baptized by John the Baptist. After 40 days and nights of fasting in the wilderness, Jesus began his own ministry. 2600:6C55:69F0:7EB0:49BA:41CB:A27B:2D76 (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes

I'm waiting. What is your reasoning for reverting my changes? Khassanu (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The existing infobox is fine: this is a featured article and it's been laid out with relative care. In my view, and likely in the view of the editors who added that note, these additions are contrary to an infobox's purpose, which is to relay only key facts at a glance, as briefly as possible. Please be receptive to this attempt at concision and parsimony in your numerous highly visible edits you've made recently across many highly developed articles: less is more with infoboxes. Remsense ‥ 论 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I understand. Khassanu (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
So why did you add many changes to the infobox again without prior discussion, as both I and the article specifically asked you to do? Among other unexplained edits, it's not clear what point these template swaps are doing. You need to explain these things and ask beforehand if you don't understand as a new editor—on featured articles, especially ones as highly visible as this one, many things are the way they are for good reasons. Remsense ‥ 论 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
(One more thing, for when you should be adding one, please do not just put line breaks between the items of a list, per WP:NOBR) Remsense ‥ 论 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Baháʼís and Druzes has a population that is incomparably smaller than Islam. The infobox should be accordingly. Who knows him because he is a Baháʼí and Druze prophet? The infobox is already pretty simple.
  • One of the most familiar things about Jesus from the Islamic perspective is that he performed miracles and had the Gospel (Injil) revealed to him.
Khassanu (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
So, what is your objection? Khassanu (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
It's fine the way that it is. The lead summarizes the body of the article proportionally, which reflects the cited sources proportionally. That can't just be crudely measured by raw word count, especially when dealing with passages as brief as this one. The summary is perfectly concise and fair. The distinction is slight, but the article is about Jesus, not the Gospel, so an aside about the Gospel in Islam is unwarranted in such a broad summary, reflecting the relative importance of Jesus and the Gospel in Islam versus in Christianity. Remsense ‥ 论 05:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand, what do you say about the infobox? Khassanu (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
On top of changing what was already well-weighted, you seemed to destructively remove formatting templates that serve a purpose. Remsense ‥ 论 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
It is not. Baháʼís and Druzes has a population that is incomparably smaller than Islam. Who knows him because he is a Baháʼí and Druze prophet? Khassanu (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
This is what I was getting at above about "representation ≠ raw word count": these are brief passages, and the idea that you're making it "more fair" by adding more detail to something that's not meant to be detailed at all is not good editing. Remsense ‥ 论 06:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you're talking about the edit I made before. I'm not talking about that. The edit I made is extremely short and simple. Khassanu (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Baha'i, Druze and Rastafari are already gathered in one place. ("Imporant figure in Baháʼí Faith, Druze Faith, and Rastafari") Khassanu (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing Word

Near the top of the article, in the Islam section, the article currently reads: In Islam, Jesus is considered the messiah and a prophet of God who sent to the Israelites and will return to Earth before the Day of Judgement.

Isn't this missing a word? Should it read as follows: In Islam, Jesus is considered the messiah and a prophet of God who was sent to the Israelites and will return to Earth before the Day of Judgement.

I have not just gone ahead and changed it because it is near the top of the article.

I think you're right, so I added it. Thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think his position in Islam should at least be mentioned once in the paragraph

If the first paragraph is supposed to be summary then I think it should include what around two billion people think he is SpartanWarrior197 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, not the first paragraph. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
It is acutely tiring when editors assume a mindset that any active engagement being required to locate a given bit of content is tantamount to its censorship. No, it's just that there's an entire article here, not only the prose we can fit onto a postage stamp. What else do people do on here, if not read? Remsense ‥ 论 06:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, OP didn't say anything about censorship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I retract my polemic for clarity's sake. Remsense ‥ 论 08:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
No fighting in the war-room ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@SpartanWarrior197, the lead section does actually have that. At the bottom of the lead section, it states:

In Islam, Jesus is considered the messiah and a prophet of God, who was sent to the Israelites and will return to Earth before the Day of Judgement. Muslims believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.

So it is actually in there, you just had to read a little bit further. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Revised Edit on Mark/Matthew

After a previous talk above I believe there is agreement that my edit adding Michael Barber, Dale Allison, and Matthew Thiessen was too detailed. My new edit is far less detailed and flows better with the rest of the article while providing the key information on Matthew's historicity, which challenges the claim that Mark is considered the most reliable by most scholars. I did not want to add any controversial edits without consensus, so I have justified and contextualized it in this talk and will consider any objections if they arise. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You're ignoring what's been said to you. You've now been given a 3rr warning on your talk page and you've been warned by an admin here. Don't attempt to restore any part of your edits until you have agreement on the talk page. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Your concerns have been noted. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I was already worried my edit was premature; thank you for confirming this. I will not edit the main page again until I find agreement.
This is my edit, which has taken into consideration a previous discussion regarding detail:
Mark, which is most likely the earliest written gospel, has been considered for many decades the most historically accurate, though this view has been strongly challenged in recent years. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Most of the first part of the sentence was already present, and I have not included my sources in this Talk page. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I also propose an edit that goes this way:
Scholars have suggested an oral relationship or dependence emphasizing memory rather than visual copying. The care with which Matthew handled his sources means that the Gospel is not significantly different theologically or historically.
Although I disagree that my other edits were too detailed or that naming a scholar is bad, I hearkened to feedback to create this edit. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I can provide my sources if anybody wishes. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
It has been a full week since I first proposed my two edits in the Talk page here and have not received any objections to my changed content, so I assume agreement has been reached per WP: TALKDONTREVERT. I will thus insert my edits if there are no issues. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Nope, that would be you ignoring the clear consensus that exists against your proposals. The interest others had in replying has dried up because you've argued a considerable amount here already but haven't engaged with the core objection others have heretofore raised. You have been told "no, this is a biographical article with a very broad scope, and a discussion of this kind would constitute excessive detail about what are ultimately metatextual topics in that context" multiple times—with various explanations and references to site guidelines given but more or less dismissed out of hand each time. Your stance is not one that seems interested in establishing consensus; rather, you're attempting to ram through what you've wanted from the start with changes that do not actually address the core point you've been told. No one else wants to spend more time trying to chip away at that. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll try articulating it in a more concrete way, because that sometimes brings it into clearer focus. As an extremely rough ballpark figure, we want encyclopedia articles that don't stray far above 10k words. That may sound extremely one-size-fits-all to the point of farce, but I ask that you take me seriously when I say 10k is rather useful as an extremely preliminary benchmark. This article is currently 13.3k words—safely past the point where every single article on the site needs thousands of words chopped out in my opinion, though that would be a bit strong for some others' tastes. Think about how much we have to cover about Jesus in those 10k words—we simply cannot afford to branch out from discussing him, his life, his ideas, his global impact directly, to second-order discussions of how scholars analyze the sources about him. That is how broad we must be. That's pretty clear in how I see it, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 08:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. This latter explanation is quite informative, though I do not think my edit of less than 150 words contributes much to the overflow of info here. Can I start editing some things down from this article without making proposals? I can see material here that is probably not absolutely necessary to understanding Jesus or is not directly connected to his career. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
It would actually be very much appreciated if some actionable ideas for how to slim this article down came out of this discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 19:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you think I should create another Talk topic? This one already looks kind of cluttered. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I do not see any consensus against my newest proposals (not the original) since no one before today replied with any objections, and this edit actually does respond to the objection on the previous Talk that my old edit was too detailed. I do not see what issue I am not addressing. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
You do see it, because there is no reason to assume you have adequately addressed previous objections. You have been told that an added discourse in this vein is categorically unwarranted for this article, so why would your new slimmer revision of said discourse be assumed acceptable? I do not think you are unaware of this—in fact, you've bluntly rejected the validity of these concerns multiple times above. That is to say, if you add your changes again, it will be an indication as clear as the last time that you are uninterested in actual consensus, because you feel you are simply right where others are wrong. That's all. Remsense ‥ 论 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I saw the need to compromise based on the objections I received whether I am necessarily convinced or not. A slimmer version is less detailed and takes less reading time, which was the main objection all along. At this stage of the discussion however I think I agree that cutting this article down is much more worthwhile than trying to add more content. I think that's what I will look into rather than pursuing my current proposed addition any further. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Remsense that the extreme length of this article means that there is a higher bar for inclusion, especially for content that already exists in other articles. The bar is not "is this information sourced and true", the bar is "is this information absolutely central to the subject of this particular article." -- LWG talk 15:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
"the key information on Matthew's historicity" With the main exception being the two contradictory Nativity narratives, I am not aware of differences in historicity within the Synoptic Gospels. Their narratives are similar enough to point to common origins, and there are few details than can be either directly confirmed or contradicted by other sources of the era. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed scholarly info

@Golikom Removed various information I posted from scholars, namely Alan Kirk and Michael Barber, that are well sourced and highly relevant to the sources for the Historical Jesus, claiming that they are "unnecessary". As far as I can tell there is no rule saying that supposedly unnecessary material can be removed from Wikipedia (the info is well-sourced and relevant). I would appreciate feedback and consensus on this matter. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You've added these significant bits of text to multiple articles already. They don't need to be added here as well Golikom (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure how anything I put in other articles say has to do with my edit on this page. My edit provides good information that improves this page, which also likely has much more traffic than almost any other Christianity-related articles on Wikipedia.
I also do not think that Wikipedia articles must limit themselves to the bare minimum that is absolutely necessary. As long as information is properly sourced and relevant I do not see the issue in adding it. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
On that basis there might as well be one article for The universe that contains every bit of information ever. There are articles about the gospels, and copy pasting your text here is over detail. The level of traffic of a page does not have a bearing in this. Golikom (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I would presume that an article on the universe would include much of the characteristics in detail throughout the known universe, such as its formation, stars, and galaxies, future, etc. In this case the transmission of material and historicity of the canonical Gospels, our primary sources for the historical Jesus, is highly pertinent, especially given how prominent the particular scholars I have cited are.
I still have not found any rule preventing my edits from being confirmed; is there some kind of limit to how detailed an article can be? Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
It's WP:TOOMUCH here - we don't need a load of this scholar says, that scholar says about the sources gospels when it's sufficiently covered in those articles. It's notable for those articles - it's not critical to have this level of detail here Golikom (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
In this case Derico and Kirk provide key insights on the oral/mnemonic nature of the transmission of the Jesus tradition; media criticism is absolutely key to researching the Synoptic Gospels, and there is no coverage on this page regarding how the authors used their sources. If anything I could provide much more detail (the entire book and Brill article in fact!), but I only chose to include the bare fact of oral dependence and Kirk's single quote, so I find it difficult to claim that I have added too much detail.
Barber's work has provided several major contributions as well, so I find it fitting to be included, though I am considering removing Allison's quote. Finally, this article already has "a load of this scholar says, that scholar says", several from much less prominent scholars than the ones I give. It is odd to single my edit out in particular. Silverfish2024 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
The fact that the whole article needs a clean up is not a justification for adding more. Details about researching the gospels belongs in the articles about the gospels, not in the article about Jesus. Golikom (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
The article does not need a "clean up"; citing academics by name is what you should expect in a field as contentious as historical Jesus studies. There is no requirement that everything in Wikipedia be in Wikipedia's own voice.
Information about the Gospels can be in an article about Jesus, since they are the main sources. Why include the notion that Mark is the most reliable Gospel if we are talking strictly about Jesus in the first place, for example? Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
The article Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, which is just one random example from a very different field, cites various scientists like David Deutsch, Jeffrey A. Barrett, and Leon Cooper by name. I highly doubt all these articles need any kind of clean up because of this. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Silverfish2024, see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This is an overview article. There are subsidiary articles where more detail may be better suited. Apart from one post, you seem to be focussed on 'why shouldn't' your material be added. That's the wrong perspective. Per WP:ONUS, you need to persuade others why it should be added. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Golikom deleted my edit, which is itself an edit, so he must have a good reason if he is to maintain it. I already showed my justification; the manner of Gospel transmission and some homage to the Synoptic Problem, key to understanding the Gospels and henceforth Jesus himself, deserves inclusion. Barber's work has already convinced other top scholars and has not received much (if any) dissent as far as I can tell, so the claim that Mark considered the most reliable should not be trusted uncritically. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I linked to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the other editor linked to WP:TOOMUCH. Did you read them? They are making similar points. That's what you need to answer. The reason why you need to answer them is because of WP:ONUS. Did you read that? "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I suggest you address the issues raised. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I have indeed read these articles, and I have already justified my edits twice. I have already responded to all the issues @Golikom has raised. Is there any issue you wish I dealt with? @DeCausa Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Your edit is too much detail for this article, IMO. The other editor seems to be saying the same thing. As far as I'm concerned you haven't addressed that so currently you have no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material, so you can't add it. Maybe other editors will join this thread and agree with you, in which case consensus will change. If you still want to add the material you can either wait until that happens or seek to persuade me and the other editor that it's not too much detail. Up to you. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I have already explained that the transmission of the Gospels is important for studying the Gospels and Jesus, so I do not understand why you still believe my edit is too detailed.
As for my other edit, I do agree now that it was too detailed, though it supplies needed information against any supposed agreement Mark is more reliable. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I would say that if the scholarly info is kept short and sweet, (1-2 paragraphs with all important info) then it should be added. of course, if it fits better in another article then you should add it there instead. you're grown people, be responsible and keep the edit wars to a minimum. DarlingYeti (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The birthplace of Jesus

It should be clarified in the infobox that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Palestine. It adds important detail that allows people to understand where his birthplace is in the modern world. Wikieditor969 (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's fine the way that it is. Moreover, another comment that you blew through should've given you a hint: there's actually no consistent contemporaneous textual evidence stating Jesus was born in Bethlehem; the evidence we have is the longstanding tradition that he was and the relatively late accounts in Matthew and Luke, which are understood to contradict each other. See Bethlehem § Classical period. Remsense ‥ 论 03:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
There is no scholarly agreement that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Some scholars think that this detail was invented to connect Jesus to the King David who was supposed to be the ancestor of the Messiah. Also it is not the common practice in Wikipedia to put anachronistic data in the birth or death place of ancient historical figures. For example we don't say about the birth place of Alexander the Great that it is now in Greece and that his death place is now in Iraq. Vegan416 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Should Jesus be described as a Roman Subject?

The discussion on describing Jesus as a Jew has most recently and voluminously changed topic. Setting up this section for further discussion. This also includes whether Jesus paid "Roman taxes". I'll let the various sides layout their arguments. Erp (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course Jesus was a Roman subject. That is crystal clear except to the small minority who believe that he is mythical and never existed. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Except he was a resident for almost his entire life in a Roman client-state, Galilee, ruled by Herod Antipas. He was indirectly subject to Roman rule there and directly subject to Roman rule when visiting Judaea. His legal status when in Judaea would have been that of a peregrinus as would any other free foreigner visiting there or any non-Roman citizen resident there. The problem is that "Roman subject" may given the wrong idea of his status given the more modern use in terms like British subject so we should we use that term or different wording? Erp (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
We have RS saying that he was a "Roman subject". M.Bitton (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@AndreJustAndre@M.Bitton On taxes. Jesus would not have paid the taxes owed by a Roman citizen since he wasn't one. I think we can agree on that. He also would not have paid the Roman poll tax and land tax paid by peregrini resident in Roman provinces as he was resident for the most part in the client state ruled by Herod Antipas. He may have paid the Roman taxes on goods in transit or similar taxes. He likely paid taxes to Herod Antipas (I'm not sure there is a record of what type of taxes Antipas levied). He is stated to have paid the temple tax. Erp (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
He was a Roman subject and he did pay the poll tax. M.Bitton (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
To take a wider step back, there are sources which, as Cullen328 rightly points out, do not necessarily grant the historicity of a person called Jesus that we can point to in the historical record. There are also a range of sources between sources that are dissecting the primary sources somewhat more credibly, and there are sources reconstructing using the tools of history rather than literary criticism. I would say that "Roman subject" is an ambiguous term, but in the sense narrowly were colonial subjects of the Roman Empire comparable to British subjects such that their nationality could be described as Roman - I would say no. I do not think Roman is defining, I do not object to the statement that Jesus was a colonial inhabitant and in a technical sense subject to Rome, assuming such a person existed, I do not think "Roman subject" is the best way to describe the status. It's imprecise and as another source above points out, anachronistic. In the primary sources the term sons is used where we would say subjects today. Nationality, religion, and ethnicity are also anachronistic. The bottom line in my view is not whether Jesus was subject to the Roman Empire, but whether we should use that as a defining description in the lead. I would say no, it's anachronistic, and maybe not an error per se but potentially unclear and misleading. Jesus was treated as a Jewish person which came with a special status, in taxation and other things. Andre🚐 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No as long as we are still talking about the lead, which must summarise the main text and should not contain novel information that is not there. That one is a no-brainer. Should we discuss it in the main? Well the relevant section would be Judea and Galilee in the 1st century, where we do discuss the status of these. I think what we have there is sufficient, and introducing a discussion of Jesus' status within that carries risks unless we have a good secondary source that answers that exact question. We need to avoid OR. Now the above discussion mostly has one editor repeating that sources do call Jesus a Roman subject. But the source assessment is very weak and Erp and others have already addressed that. We have an enormous number of sources on Jesus, calling him all kinds of things, but sources must always be dealt with critically, and just listing a few sources (some of them clearly not being from subject matter experts) that make the claim is not what should be in this article. If we don't have sources looking at the exact question being asked, it adds nothing to the article to add it. But regardless of whether it is added to that section, it does not belong in the lead.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I note the section on Judea and Galilee though it describes Judea, Samaria, and Idumea as becoming a Roman province, it does not describe the status of Galilee (and Perea) which become a client state under Herod Antipas. I would consider that as fairly significant given that Jesus by all accounts spent most of his life there. I would suggest adding a sentence just before the sentence on the Gentile lands: "Galilee with Perea was a Herodian client state under the rule of Herod Antipas since 4 BC." with appropriate reference. Does that sound reasonable? Erp (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I don't think the matter is needed in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. That would be a good edit. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Vegan416 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Andre🚐 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. I did check my new reference to see if it could support all the claims in the paragraph. It could do for some but not all; not the prefect visiting Jerusalem during religious festivals nor "Gentile lands surrounded the Jewish territories of Judea and Galilee, but Roman law and practice allowed Jews to remain separate legally and culturally. Galilee was evidently prosperous, and poverty was limited enough that it did not threaten the social order". Erp (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the map and checking some stuff, another Herodian client state that existed for most of Jesus's life was that of Philip the Tetrarch (d. 34 CE) who was ruler of Iturea, Gaulanitis, and Batanea (visible on the map). The client state is described in the article Herodian tetrarchy. It is mentioned in Luke and at least some of it had Jewish settlements (Bethsaida was in Gaulanitis or at least on the border [scholarly debate about where it was]). Perhaps a sentence after the Galilee sentences stating something like "Philip (d. 34 CE), half-brother of Herod Antipas, ruled as Tetrarch yet another Herodian client state that included Gaulanitis, Batanea, and Iturea."
Also the Decapolis should perhaps be mentioned since this was one of the two mostly non-Jewish regions Jesus is stated to have visited and is on the map (these were a collection of Hellenistic city-states that were clients of Rome). The other region was Phoenicia which at that time was part of the Roman province of Syria; cities in it mentioned in the gospels as places Jesus visited or was near were Sidon and Tyre. Erp (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No to including this in the lead section. Wow, lots of digital ink spilled on this since the last time I checked in. I did my best to read through the discussion, and I applaud all of you for devoting the time to engage in it. Frankly it seems like hair-splitting to me, but in any case, here's my thoughts:
  1. The concept of "subject" is ill-defined and varies from time to time and author to author. It will also vary from reader to reader. For many readers, describing him as a Roman subject would imply a similar relationship between Jesus and Rome to that between a British subject and Britain or an American citizen and the United States, which would be a misconception. In particular, calling Jesus a Roman subject would suggest to many readers that Jesus was a Roman citizen, which was not the case.
  2. Summarizing and organizing the claims of RS is not WP:OR. I noticed in the discussion above a lot of mention of WP:OR. Some of those concerns I agree with. WP:OR is using the claims of sources to support a further implication not asserted in those sources. Examples of WP:OR would include "Jesus was born in the Roman Empire, therefore he was a Roman subject" or "Jesus paid Jewish taxes, therefore he did not pay Roman taxes." if the sources only assert the bolded material. Choosing to include "Jesus was Jewish" in the type of information described in point 3: Context in MOS:FIRSTBIO is not OR, it's the kind of editorial decision that should be made through the consensus process.
  3. Consider whether to include this information in the article body, based on WP:DUE and WP:RS considerations. If the available reliable sources have a consensus that Jesus should be described as a Roman subject, and if Jesus' legal relationship with the Roman Empire is prominently featured in the available RS, then it should be considered for inclusion in the appropriate section of the article body. This is already a very long article, though, so it might also be necessary at some point to fork out that information into Ethnicity of Jesus or into a new article called something like Nationality of Jesus. -- LWG talk 18:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I reverted a bold change to citizenship in the info box. It doesn't make sense when Judean citizenship was not a thing. Golikom (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Citizenship (and birthplace) in Info box

I note that it would be wise to omit citizenship in the infobox given that he wasn't a "citizen" of anywhere in the Classical world sense of the word (currently it has been set as Judean though this is being disputed). In addition Infoboxes#Nationality_and_citizenship_in_infoboxes says not to use a demonym like 'Judean'; it also says not to use unless not clear from other information such as birthplace. Add in that Judean links to Herodian kingdom which ceased to exist in 4 BCE. I also note the addition seems to be new. On birthplace, I would drop Roman Empire since it seems most probable he was born in a client state not the empire proper whether that of Herod the Great or that of Herod Antipas or even, though unlikely, that of Herod Archelaus. The only way he was born in the Roman Empire proper would be if he was born in Judea not Galilee after 6 CE when Judea came under direct Roman control. One could use "c. 6 to 4 BC Herodian kingdom (client state of the Roman Empire)". Erp (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything Erp said here. Vegan416 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
He wasn't a "citizen" of anywhere in the Classical world sense of the word
Actually , he was a citizen in the "classical world sense" . He was a subject of the Herodian dynasty and its realms , both politically and legally , as clearly seen in his trial when Pilate at first turned him away. Historically : being a subject (The "Citizen" of the time) didn't necessarily involve having inherent clear-cut rights and obligations between a centralized government and its populace. That itself is an Enlightenment-era innovation.
Pre-modern states beyond city-states were much like the Mafia in The Godfather. It was a loose network of relationships between notables , and client-patron relations between commoners and whoever strongman or dynasty that came to dominate them.
The Roman Empire was the ultimate power in the area , but had implemented a separate regime which relegated civil government duties and authorities to it , which was the Herodians. As Jesus was neither born in the Empire , nor was his father a Roman citizen , he was under their authority , and so he was their subject.
Says not to use a demonym like 'Judean'; it also says not to use unless not clear from other information such as birthplace
The Help:Infobox doesn't mention anything on the inclusion of nationality. It says Trivial details should be excluded , while Materially relevant to the subject should be included.
If anything , the citizenship field helps readers understand Jesus' trial better , as "Citizenship" at the time referred to being under someone's authority , and thus being responsible for their actions.
Had Jesus was a Roman citizen , he would have been sent immediately before Tiberius in Rome for trying to start another bloody civil war like that that came later in the Crysis of the Second Century. Instead we see it's the Sadducees who were angrier about Jesus than Pilate , who only cared about getting the taxes to Rome than dabbling in the squabbles of petty Kings of a culture that was widely dismissed as deviant.
'Judean links to Herodian kingdom which ceased to exist in 4 BCE'
Then we'll just link to the Herodian dynasty. That will include the holds of both Herod's Kingdom and his successors. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
We're not talking about post enlightenment citizenship. Subject and citizen are very different things, particularly in the Roman world. To claim that the subject "was the "Citizen" of the time, or that it " didn't necessarily involve having inherent clear-cut rights and obligations" is nonsense. Rights and obligations were foundational to ancient citizenship just as they are to modern. Golikom (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
You say "very different things". It's true , but practically at that point being a "citizen" in Roman times signaled a special political status that most common people didn't have , which only became widespread after Caracalla's edict. That's besides that Roman citizenship had various levels with different privileges and rights, and wasn't uniform , making it more of a socioeconomic class. Proper legal status is separate from these contexts.
Seeing we are talking about a filed in infoboxes here rather than proper history as in the above discussions , and we don't don't have "Subject of" field for the info boxes of historical figures , then the two terms are interchangeable when it comes to it. Sorry if I couldn't say it more obviously earlier. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
But the terms are not interchangeable, and if the infobox parameters are imprecise then they should be omitted. What you added was not Roman citizenship either, but Judean, which simply didn't exist. Golikom (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
If the infobox parameters are imprecise then they should be omitted
Either that field is valid here , or it's not, the proper value is another matter. And here you are saying that if he was Roman it would've been fine to keep the field , and if he wasn't , it should be removed . It's as if only Romans had a concept of "citizenship" at the time , which as already said is of a different character in every political entity at the time then how we understand it today.
Seeing some are quite pedantic over these terms ,and the conceptions and impressions are getting hairy : then its best to remove it..I can't really recall a pre-modern figure whose infobox has the citizenship field anyway, as it likely assumes the modern sense of "citizenship" at mind whenever it's used. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, exactly.
There might be an argument for including it if he was a Roman citizen, but he wasm't, so best to remove altogether Golikom (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Jesus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin

Several reputable academic sources support this statement, however certain editors are engaging in prohibited edit wars in order censor this relevant fact. Danishdeutsch (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from citing site policy that you have not read; it is embarrassing.
The lead is perfectly fine as it is; for what it's worth, it has been the subject of careful crafting by many editors over the years, and it seems to fulfill its function as a balanced summary of the contents of the body. As such, you shouldn't even be trying to add newly sourced material directly to the article lead. As it is already made clear that he is tried, and made clear that he is executed after being turned over by Jewish authorities, the addition adds remarkably little to the reader's understanding of the subject, and is essentially wasted space in the most important location of a vital article.Remsense ‥ 论 22:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@Danishdeutsch first stuff in the lede of this article has been discussed a fair bit so it is best to bring up in this talk page what you want to modify and allow discussion here before making changes. Second, the lede summarizes what is in the body and the body does not state the Sanhedrin condemned him to death. Even the main article Sanhedrin trial of Jesus describes the various gospel accounts some of which did have the Sanhedrin find him worthy of death and also notes that the accuracy of the gospel accounts has been doubted. Third your source when looked at (Prior, Vivian (2024-04-17). The Trial of Jesus: A Historical Look at the Jewish and Roman Trial Proceedings Trial Proceedings (honors thesis). Ouachita Baptist University. Retrieved 2024-12-25.) is apparently an undergraduate honors thesis and these are not considered reliable sources barring very unusual circumstances (e.g., cited by undoubted reliable sources as reliable or later publication in a peer reviewed journal). Erp (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
OTQ: several mainstream scholars deny that Jesus even had a trial, whether by the Sanhedrin or by Herod or by Pilate. They state that after he got snitched, presumably to the Roman authorities, since Jewish authorities could do nothing against Essenes in Jerusalem, who were mocking them openly, he got summarily executed, with no trial at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey

@Remsense do you enjoy reverting my edits for fun of something. What's wrong with changing the first picture, the image I added looks more beautiful. Why do you care so much too? My edit didn't violate any rules HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a watchlist with many pages on it. I don't quite understand why you feel entitled to make significant changes to the most visible parts of our most vital articles without particular care for consensus or site guidelines—and then expect to not hear anything else about it. That you are consistently taking personal offense at these changes being challenged perhaps says more about your habits and priorities so far than anyone else's. Ultimately, many things are the way they are on articles like these for pretty good reasons, and like it or not it's often reasonable to expect you haven't taken everything into account if you find something amiss, and thus it's more productive to ask first. Precious little is infallible, but I think the accumulated work of others deserves a bit more care than you are affording it. Be bold, but allow that others will be too, perhaps in restoring the status quo. The attitude you have towards the concerns of others is pretty unacceptable.Remsense ‥ 论 09:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
i didn't know you needed consensus for every single edit. Most people make edits without getting consensus first. Next, you said something about site guidelines. My edit didn't violate any site guidelines. Replacing an image with another image violates 0 guidelines. Also the reason I Started taking offense is because you reverted multiple edits of mine in a very short timeframe period. It just seems you like reverting edits, even if the edit is harmless, violates no guidelines, or is historically accurate, like when someone added John the Baptist was Jesus cousin, and you removed that, like what's the point? Can I please get consensus so I can add that image back? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I just think the picture of Jesus in the infobox looks ugly. The 1880s painting looks beautiful and is a glorious piece of art. Can I please have consensus. Do you like Christianity or do you not? I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out your motive for reverting good edits about Jesus Christ and Christian empires and stuff like that HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The present image is fine. I cannot single-handedly give you consensus that I explicitly articulated was the result of dozens of editors' work. Your behavior has been pretty gross and self-centered. and you frankly need to grow up. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 10:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
you said you stopped replying because you had to take a shower or something. It usually doesn't take an hour for that, and I saw on your recent contributions that you made an edit 20 minutes ago. You could've replied then. And can you please tell me why we must keep the current image. The other image is fine too. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok I just checked and you edited your most recent reply. How is an ugly depiction of Jesus, that is thousands and thousands of years old, dozens and dozens of editors work? The person who put that image in Wikimedia Commons, that wasn't there work. Also you say my behavior is self-centered. How? How is wanting to add a nice picture of Jesus Christ self-centered, one of my favorite depictions btw and one of the most beautiful artworks that German man has ever produced HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
What did the depiction look like? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@DisneyGuy744 look at my edits on this page. It was a painting in the 19th century by a German painter. Crazy how he has the same name as one of Adolf Hitler's personal photographers. But they're two different people lol. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I will reply exactly when I am able to, and it is not acceptable for you to immediately justify disruptive editing like what you've consistently been trying to pull.
I'm not going to pretend that "I think it's beautiful" is an argument that has any merit in itself for our purposes, or how it is one I'm even meant to endorse or argue against. I think the present image is beautiful. That's why we make actual arguments, and fall back on some deference for the status quo to avoid totally subjective arguments like the one you seem to be keen on here.
For what it's worth, there is a positive, substantial argument here too, though I've not been able to make it yet for all the heartburn: we attempt to use depictions that are universally representative—in this case across Christendom, to the extent that is possible—and given yours is from the 19th century, with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe during the late Renaissance (if I were an art scholar I may have a more specific characterization), it is pretty clearly not a depiction of Jesus that is very representative given the scope of the article. Remsense ‥ 论 11:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense disruptive editing? I knows that's a name of a Wikipedia guideline and that's what your referencing, but I don't see how I'm disrupting anything. I just made edits you disagree with, not disrupting anything or harming anyone or anything. Also you made a good point. Me saying "the painting by the German guy" is beautiful, is an opinion not a fact. Since the painting I added is from the 19th century, with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe during the late Renaissance, how about I replace the current image with another one similar to it instead. from thousands of years ago that universally represents interpretations of Jesus, not a modernized European twist? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok Remsense, how about this. It's basically the same image but more colorful. What do you think https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg can I replace the current image with this HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
looks nice, i'm going to add it for you. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Unbelievable. I'm done here, because you clearly are not going to respect any argument or understanding that implies you cannot immediately get your way. If I catch something because I technically violated 3RR spread across two discrete instances fending off independent instances of the worst faith editors possible in an article that gets 300k views a month, then so be it. You do not seem to accept that you are not entitled to publish changes to the encyclopedia against consensus—which for the third time I clearly do not unilaterally represent—and that does not bode well. Remsense ‥ 论 11:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't do anything. @DisneyGuy744 added the image, I was waiting for your response to the new image i proposed but he went on ahead and added it, probally cause he or she felt bad for me lol. your argument for the first image i proposed was it wasn't universally representative. So i found an image on wikimedia commons that is the exact same, except it's a little brighter. what do you think about it, can we add it. ignore disneyguy, he acts weird, and sometimes he follws my account, he said he's catholic and i guess he's interested in editors who edit stuff about religion. if he stalks you next get an admin and block him. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense lol just saw you edited your latest reply to say "'You do not seem to accept that you are not entitled to publish changes to the encyclopedia against consensus—which for the third time". i'm not disneyguy lol. you can check other talk pages i'm involved in, he's some guy who followed my account a few times. why are you accusing me of being other people lmao. also you say if i don't immediately get my way i throw a fit. it's kinda the opposite. you revert peoples edits on religion, even if there's nothing wrong with the edit or if it's a slight improvement, and you tell me to go to the talk page, then ghost me half of the time claiming you're taking a shower, when i see your making edits on other pages. once me or disneyguy replace the image on this article, you're quick to revert but not reply to messages when i see you're online clearly not taking a shower lol. hopefully we can get an admin or someone in here to make a decision, because clearly you're not willing to discuss, and your acting like those people who get blocked for the "not hear to build an encyclopedia" rule. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to the editors involved in this discussion. Yes, the long-term image was arrived at per consensus and should not be changed without another full discussion, selection process, and consensus. Remsense has been very patient in explaining this and protecting the page on Christmas, the essence of volunteer editing. It may not be an image everyone likes, those are the pitfalls and twist and turns of consensus. Many do like it and appreciate its historical significance, which is why it's the first image on the page. I like pineapples on pizza but wouldn't make them mandatory to serve my guests. Thanks, and hopefully an edit war can be avoided. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I've been trying to have a discussion, but remsense keeps ghosting me, they say they took a shower, it doesn't take an hour to shower and get done right when i make an edit to this article. when remsense said they were taking a shower, they were making edits to other pages lol. remsense made some good and bad points on why we should keep the same image or not. the bad point was this is "the result of dozens of editors' work". wikipedia editors didn't make that depicion of jesus thousands of years ago, and putting an image onto this article from wikimedia commons isn't work lol. a good point remsense made was the first new image i proposed, was with a style that is localized very much to Western Europe and isn't universally represented. so i proposed this picture https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg it's the exact same, just more colorful and easier to look at, and still has the same historical significance since it's the same. and without replying to the talk page for a very long time, remsense accuses me of being another editor who agreed with my proposal and reverted their edit. what do you think, since remsense isn't willing to have a constructive conversation, thank god you're here. what do you think of this image https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@DisneyGuy744 AHHHHHHH!!!!!! it happend again. i just got ghosted again. lol. while people in this discussion make edits on other articles, they ignore me for an hour or more, and totally would longer, maybe days if i didn't point out i get ghosted. "GET CONSENUS, NOW!!!" is what they say, and i'm like "im trying", and they say "YOU WONT STOP TILL YOU GET YOUR WAY!!!!" and im like "you told me to go to the talk page, now you won't let me get consenus?, guess i have to edit the article again to get your attention". you mighv'e been on tons of other talk pages since you probally follow multiple accounts, not just me, is this how every wikipedia editor acts? hopefully not. anyone who's reading this, do i have your consenus for this picture. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree the image should be changed. so, i guess you hae a little consenus. i might add the image back in a few hours. but maybe you should be nicer to the other editors, now matter how unreasonable they can be or even if they lie about you, you should still treat people with respect and maybe then god will bless you. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Please don't edit war by adding it back, in this case consensus means a full RfC with options, arguments, and choices attended by many editors. Consensus in this case (a contested change in a longterm opening image of a major topic page), may be a waste of time for everyone except in the learning curve capacity, as the image that you and the other editor are lobbying for is just a later copy of the present historical artwork. Your comment above about being nicer is commendable, thanks. WP:CIVILITY has its role in Wikipedia communication, and understanding that discussions take time, that we are all volunteers here, and that if an editor takes a bit of time to come back to a discussion that's their business and should not be a concern (for example, please note the Wikipedia logo of an open globe - that means the encyclopedia is never done and that criticism of a volunteer's time and their editing route and habits - or if they are or are not taking a shower - should not be an aspect of editing). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
i know me and disneyguy are lobbying for a later copy of the present historical artwork. but the later copy just looks 1,0000,000000,00000x better. remnense said they were done with this conversation, so it's just us three, if you give us consensus, all three of us agree and it's done. if you wanna start an RfC however i'm up for it. we need the later version, it's brighter, more colerfull, the painting doesn't have scratches like the orignal, and jesus honestly deserves better. im saying this as a non-christian who's extremly inerested in jesus's teachings. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
HumansRightsIsCool, happily or sadly that's not how consensus works on a contested topic such as this, three editors can't cook in a change in a long-term opening image. I'm not starting an RfC, as I don't mind the present image (the image you suggest is just a later copy) and its historical background. The fact that other people have copied it goes to its notability. As for what Jesus deserves, I don't think he'd mind the present image but who can say? It's been on the page long enough that complaints have been few and far between (I'm guessing, not having kept track of the image placement's history and criticism). As for Jesus' teachings, yes, his Sermon on the Mount in particular, as a summary of what he had learned up to that point, has few if any equals. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
where in wiki's guidlines does it say three people can't determine consensus, if there was only 3 or 4 people involved in the discussion then they can. and please start an RfC you don't have to be a part of it. this really matters to me. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
If a change in the opening image was made without anyone reverting for a few weeks, then it could be said to have gained a consensus of some sort. But in this case an image was changed and then, importantly, quickly reverted. A similar case may be at Mary, mother of Jesus, where the opening image is also an ancient painting comparable to this one (kind of bookends of the Jesus-Mary topic). Consensus for the Mary image was a long multi-stepped process attended and commented on by many editors. In both cases I think an RfC to change either would fail. On this one specifically, the semi-modern copy of the ancient image may be crisper and clearer, but seems to lack the import and emotional quality of the original (just my opinion, of course, but one I would express in an RfC with multiple choices). I'm feeling for you in wanting to present the topic in a favorable light, just that we differ on which image does that better. Make sense? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
As one of the editors who participated in a very lengthy and detailed discussion several years ago that involved many editors and considered many images before arriving at a consensus for this one, I would want to see very strong reasons for changing it. The current image has numerous strong points in its favor:
  • It is of great historical significance (being one of the oldest detailed depictions of Jesus still extant).
  • It is more ethnically ambiguous and stylized than some other options, helping mitigate the "white Jesus" phenomenon.
  • Notwithstanding the above, it is sufficiently aligned with the iconography of Jesus many readers will be familiar with to avoid unnecessary confusion.
  • It is artistically excellent (though not aesthetically pleasing in the typical way).
  • Related to the above, it includes symbolism that is of significance to both historical and modern theological understandings of Jesus, which regardless of our various personal perspectives is undeniably a central aspect of this article's notability.
I would strongly oppose replacing this image with a more recent, unknown image as was suggested above, and would want to hear the case for other alternatives, with a presumption of keeping the present image unless a consensus emerges of similar strength to the consensus that put this image in place originally. -- LWG talk 19:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Changing picture (or picture caption) in infobox

  • Result on RFC to change infobox picture: unanimous oppose and withdrawal of RFC by proposer
  • Result on RFC to change infobox caption: discussion underway

Picture

RFC on picture change unanimously opposed and withdrawn by proposer

i suggest the current image be replaced by this https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_de_Nazare.jpg it's clearer, and is easier to look at. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose As the editing info for the page states "The lead paragraphs and infobox were created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it." so we are free to discuss changing it. The infobox picture has been discussed many times before such at at Talk:Jesus/Archive_134#New_image (September 2021); Talk:Jesus/Archive_133#Infobox_image (October 2019); I suggest people read these as well as searching in the talk page archives for picture or image. I've seen nothing to justify changing the picture from the current one that is well known, ancient, and highly significant in its own right.
Erp (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. the current image is much better, more signfiicant, and is dated more closlely to the time period historicaly associated with Jesus.
Sm8900 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I don't see anything very wrong with having a "Should we change the WP:LEADIMAGE, it's been awhile?"-rfc at this point. And of course the result may turn out to be "No.", after we talked about it for 30 days (I assume you know that a WP:RFC is usually 30 days at least) But the OP:s only alt is a non-starter IMO, so we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

woah. that's quit a while lol. well to make some sort of progress right now, do you agree with disneyguy or do you oppose the second image. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
IMO, not obvious improvement. The thing about the current WP:LEADIMAGE Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) is that it's quite interesting, and a noted historical artwork. That doesn't mean we must have it there, but it probably means that editors will not agree to remove it without what they consider good enough reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång my reasoning for removing the current image is - it's hard to look at - as you pointed out there's other depictions like the second one disneyguy was talking about, that are the same age or even older, and that are 100x better - and i think i see scratches on the painting? basically the image isn't high quality like at all. that's probally why people remade it more often then some of the other depictions lol. how about you @Randy Kryn, your thoughts one the second option, agree, oppose, or neutral like grabergs. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Late 19th century by James Tissot, an interesting painter
I don't find it hard to look at. It's worn because it's old and that is one aspect to consider here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed change. The current image of the Sinai Christ Pantocrator is the best of the options presented in this RFC, and vastly superior to the Hoffman painting that was attempted. It's immediately recognizable, has historical value as (one of?) the earliest extant Pantocrator, and artistic value. If there is a better option for the lead, it hasn't been presented in this RFC. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    sorry bro but we're actually closing this RfC rn. you came late. basically me and @Randy Kryn made a deal. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    i don't see any deal indicated above with @Randy Kryn: Sm8900 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    unles you mean keeping the status quo, which is fine of course. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, Rfc's are a very public thing - once you launch one, nobody is "late" commmenting after 3 hours, nor can they be closed early after a "deal" with one editor. It was a mistake to launch it. It is arguably clearly failing, so can be closed on those grounds, or you can withdraw it. Is that what you want to do? For next time, if you really feel you want to launch one, wait until the holiday season is over. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Caption

Proposed: Change current caption, which reads The Christ Pantocrator of Saint Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai, 6th century AD by appending ... analyzed as depicting Jesus' duality of God and man as two sides of the same face, or similar. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes, the image can be seen and described from an "it's ugly" point of view because, so I'd thank HumansRightsIsCool and DisneyGuy744 for making me "see" the obvious. Since the caption did not explain the duality in the caption, I've added "analyzed as depicting Jesus' duality of God and man as two sides of the same face." Does reading that in the caption change your opinion of retaining the image? We have to trust readers to read the caption as well as view the image, two sides of the same coin itself, and a more descriptive one, hopefully with an economy of words, also acts as an inspiration to readers to take a second look at the artwork. Two editors saying that it's an ugly image means that many thousands of readers have the same impression. Thanks for pointing that out. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Randy Kryn reading that caption changed my opinion of retaining the image. close RfC. we're done here. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    someone removed it add it back HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    The attempt at horse trading, when you have no leverage whatsoever what the caption says if it goes against consensus, is not a good look. Remsense ‥ 论 17:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose if that particular wording since current wording implies a general belief in Jesus having two natures (Dyophysitism or Hypostatic union). I would also feel a lot happier if the sources (footnote 7) cited in Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) actually supported the statement; it isn't as far as I can see in Chatzidakis, Manolis and Walters, Gerry. "An Encaustic Icon of Christ at Sinai." The Art Bulletin 49, No. 3 (1967): 197–208. Galey, John, Forsyth, George, and Weitzmann, Kurt. Sinai and the Monastery of St. Catherine, Doubleday, New York, 1980 mentions the icon as showing the two natures but not as each on one side of the face. I can't quickly check the third source (Manaphēs) or fourth source. Erp (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I was able to access a copy of Gale, Forsyth, and Weitzmann (1980), and it does explicitly link the two sides of the face to human and divine nature as cited in the article:

One represents the nearly life-size bust of Christ Pantocrator, blessing and holding a jewel-studded Gospel book. The hieratic frontality and the impression of aloofness on the one hand and the avoidance of strict symmetry and the enlivenment of the face achieved by different arching of the eyebrows on the other, strike a harmony between the divine and the human nature of Christ. (p. 92)

For a contrasting view, I found Trilling, James (1983) "Sinai Icons: Another Look" (available here for WPlibrary/those with JSTOR access)

It is tempting to equate the volumetric and linear aspects of the painting with the human and divine natures of Christ. Unfortunately, in the absence of confirming texts we cannot know whether Byzantine artists expressed theological ideas at once so subtle and so concrete, and above all so exclusively stylistic. (Footnote: Weitzmann sees the asymmetry of the face as a way of representing Christ's two natures (Weitzmann. 15). Again, it seems doubtful whether a Byzantine would have interpreted the image in this way.) (p. 303-304)

Also cannot find anywhere to access Manaphēs or the other work by Weitzmann. Should probably take this over to the icon's talk page, but I wonder if the interpretation is mostly Weitzmann's. I don't have the necessary background reading in the field to evaluate between Weitzmann and Trilling, though. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I think there is insufficient support to include it here in the caption. I agree we should bring it up on the icon talk page. Do you, @Seltaeb Eht, want to copy or shall I? Erp (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I started a discussion there. Courtesy pings @Randy Kryn @HumansRightsIsCool @Erp @Jtrevor99 @Remsense @Moxy @ClaudineChionh @DisneyGuy744 @LWG that I've started a discussion about the relevant sources at the icon's article. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

(Note from jtrevor99: the following was originally in response to Seltaeb's Oppose vote on the first RfC. The portion of the conversation pertinent to the picture is preserved in that section above; the portion pertinent to the caption is below.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  • @erp please stop removing captions in the infobox. i'm literlly willing to close the RfC is if those captions stay because i like them so much. if you disagree with it start a new discussion. or else please stop. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Remsense i saw your newest revert. first of all i wasn't edit warring, i made 2 reverts about the infobox image 2 times, yesterday. if i revert you about something completely different, after a day, that's not edit warring. i know your probally going to ignore this message claiming your busy taking a shower or something, but if i make an edit to this page your quick to revert. why do you oppose the captions? please evrybody tell me, that's what this discussion is about from now on. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is disheartening that, while you've been linked it multiple times, and have also been directly told what it says, you have not bothered to even skim the lead of Wikipedia:Edit warring. Remsense ‥ 论 01:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • HumansRightsIsCool, thank you for your comments and agreeing that the proposed caption is better, and that it solves a major concern. But no, we can't force caption language against other editors who have removed it. That's edit warring. The caption is being discussed here, but for the time being it has to stay as it was before my edit. Wikipedia has survived for 24 years with rules like this, which shows their value. No edit warring seems a bright line, and some admins jump the gun in blocking without discussion. So best to keep away from it. As for the caption change, it seems an obvious addition with, as I say, an economy of words explaining to the many readers who find the image ugly what they are actually looking at. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    ok me and @Randy Kryn agree to add the captions. i think moxy opposed, i didn't read his full message yet just saw the word oppose, anyone agree or oppose adding captions? from this point on that's what the RfC is about. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's pretty clear that @Erp also opposes the longer caption. I haven't stated so explicitly, but I decidedly prefer the status quo here as well. Remsense ‥ 论 01:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Remsense and Erp, it really doesn't make the caption that much longer, and the opening caption would also act as a page topic descriptor (Jesus, as encyclopedically defined, is perceived as both a God and a man, which is what he himself taught). It tells readers who experience the image as ugly that there's more to it than that, offering encyclopedic information about this sometimes-controversial opening image. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate hearing more about the motivation here. Let me sleep on it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Note also if we are moving to a discussion about caption change, I suspect the opening statement should also change. I oppose the addition because it is digressing into an analysis of the particular painting which the reader can get by following the link. I also note that the discussion of the belief that Jesus is both man and god (a belief not held in Islam nor by some Christians) is a relatively small portion of this article. However if we do want to include it there should be a link to where the duality belief is discussed (possibly Incarnation (Christianity)). Erp (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed change..... Can stick the meaningless text that is being editwared over as a note would be okay with me. New text needs to be explained either with a link to an article or a source.Moxy🍁 01:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Claudine, humans doesn't wanna change the image anymore, editors are now fighting about if the captions in the infobox should change or not. i haven't said anything in hours, i've been slowing down. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, and per Erp I think the opening statement should be modified to refer to the proposed caption change, so that others don't miss that key detail as I did while attempting to digest all this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 03:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure of the proper protocol for changing opening statements; does the opener @HumansRightsIsCool have to do it? I have changed the section header again. Erp (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @ClaudineChionh well what do you think, oppose to caption change or not? i'm honestly tired of human's nonsense and i have commitments in real life too. he's starting to act childish. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I think that the proposed phrasing makes this less succinct, but I haven't got a better alternative to suggest... maybe, like Randy, I should come back to this in a few hours. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed wording on a few grounds. 1), to me a a reader it creates more questions than it answers - analyzed by who?. 2) Per Erp, is the sourcing on the statement solid? Is it a general consensus on the piece or the opinion of a few scholars? 3) As others have noted, it assumes the orthodox Christian belief up front, as one of the first things readers see. 4) It's apologizing for the use of an image a few users here see as "ugly", and trying to explain a reason we're using it anyway. I don't think it's ugly, but an aesthetic judgement like that is something we can come to a consensus on. But if we come to a consensus it's ugly, why use it? Either it's the best image to use (which I think it is, of the options presented), and it doesn't need extra explanation. Or it's "ugly" and needs apologizing for, and we should find a different image. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak support The duality in the depiction is worth mentioning if and only if it can be grounded in good third-party sources, since as mentioned above its not the only possible interpretation of the image (though it is an interesting one!). If such sources are found the main article Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) should also be expanded accordingly. -- LWG talk 19:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus as a historical person

It strikes me as an issue that the sources being used as evidence for the near-universal scholarly acceptance of Jesus as a real historical person are generally not drawn from academic historians, but primarily from theologians, and sometimes even priests. DZDK (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Modern academic scholars of that era whether Christian or not generally consider Jesus to be a real person. See Christ myth theory. The more established proponents of mythicism such as Robert M. Price even agree it is fringe. Erp (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Could possibly avoid this by qualifying the sentence with a follow up sentence as seen at Historical Jesus. Moxy🍁 02:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
You mean like what already exists at Jesus#Christ_myth_theory? Erp (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The word virtually is always been odd to me..... Virtually (as the word virtually is simply not an academic term used in this context). To confront the topic of this post and what I perceive as an non-academic term in this case we should say something like Although, there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, the majority of scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically. Moxy🍁 03:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
"Majority" is an understatement; "virtually all" is more to the point. But this has already been duscussed endlessly before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
It is a bit like the argument about whether Shakespeare wrote any of the plays attributed to him. Erp (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Virtually has a specific academic use - thus sounds out of place...perhaps ..Although there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, there is general scholarly agreement that Jesus existed historically. Moxy🍁 06:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Specific academic use within mathematics not history or Biblical studies. We could replace 'virtually all' with 'almost all' though I think 'virtually' conveys better how minuscule the number of scholars in the field who hold this view are. Erp (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
"General scholarly agreement" would also be fine. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
"General scholarly agreement" is not the same as "virtually all [scholars]". If the latter is accurate but the phrase is not acceptable because of other connotations of virtually, one could say, "With few/rare exceptions, all ...". Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Since as pointed out above the Christ Myth view is fringe, and rejected by all but a very few proponents (who as mentioned above themselves acknowledge the view as fringe), we need stronger wording than "majority" or "general" to avoid giving undue weight to the myth hypothesis. -- LWG talk 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Lets deal with this in a blunt manner then. lets lead our readers to more info on the topic. As we know most only read the lead..so lets deal with the topic head on. Although there is academic debate about the meaning and accuracy of the biblical accounts, there is general scholarly agreement that Jesus existed historically. The Christ myth theory is considered fringe, and finds negligible support from scholars. Moxy🍁 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
That's not an awful option, but the lead is already crowded and I think the current wording (especially with the footnote) gets the message across. We already link to the Christ myth theory and discuss its fringe status in the historical views section, which I think is the appropriate amount of weight to give that issue in this article. -- LWG talk 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Saying this in the lead will explain why its not covred in the alticle much and will lead readers to infomation fast. Moxy🍁 18:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Not unthinkable, but seems to give christ myth more lead-attention (any) than it should have per the article content it has. I think the current "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." is alright. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Just my view I believe we should mention in the lead multiple sections from the article.... Those about academic debate about accuracy etc...as seen in historical and religious view section and of course to indicate to our readers that this is not a debate about historical Jesus off the bat. Moxy🍁 20:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
We should not give undue weight to fringe theories by including them explicitly in the lead. It is sufficient to say what we do now in the lead and expand with the Historical views section of which Christ myth theory is a subsection. Erp (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Archive_137&oldid=1272201869"