Talk:Jesus

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What should this article be named?

A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname.

Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?

A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format.

Q3: Did Jesus exist?

A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus'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:

• Based on this Wikipedia search the phrase is widely used in Wikipedia.
• The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
• The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

• Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
• Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to 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. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty." 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 there is less agreement on that than on 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

Are we allowed to say in Wikivoice that Christianity considers Jesus Christ to be the Christ?

Hello Objective3000, I do see the sentence in the lead that says Most branches of Christianity consider Jesus the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah or Christ. but I don’t see anything in the article body on this point besides These documents outline the key Christian beliefs about Jesus, including his divinity, humanity, and earthly life, and that he is the Christ and the Son of God. Despite their many shared beliefs, not all Christian denominations agree on all doctrines, and both major and minor differences on teachings and beliefs have persisted throughout Christianity for centuries.

I’ll put my cards on the table and admit that I’m not aware of any extant branches of Christianity that do not consider Jesus Christ to be the Christ. Which branches are we talking about? Mikewem (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Much of Nontrinitarianism. There exist a quite large set of different views within Christianity. For that matter, you can be an atheist and believe in the teachings of Jesus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I left out Son of God in the ‘known for’ in an attempt to account for nontrinitarianism. Though having (briefly) reviewed the list at the article, I now think that may have been too hasty on my part. Every single one listed holds Jesus to be both Son of God (by their definition of the term) and Messiah (the Christ). I still haven’t identified a single extant branch of Christianity that doesn’t know Jesus for being Son of God (as that branch understands the term to mean) and Messiah. Mikewem (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe this was already discussed right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_139#RfC_on_what_most_Christians_believe JasterOmega (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Opened and bludgeoned by a now-blocked disruptive editor Mikewem (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Unitarians generally do not believe that Jesus was a deity, nor Universalists, The Way International, Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians. What it comes down to is that we have no right to tell a person or group who believes in the teachings of Jesus that they are not Christians or that they are wrong about Jesus because they do not follow what we may think. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

In the sources I looked at, according to those branches (except Universalist Unitarianism, which in the sources I saw, does not consider itself to be a branch of Christianity) the terms ‘Son of God’ and ‘Messiah’ do not necessarily connote being a deity, and it appears those branches do use these terms. The known for in the infobox is phrased as “in Christianity”, not “among Christians”. It’s about Christianity, not individuals who identify as Christian.

It strikes me as clear cut NPOV vio to use the cultural terms of each religion in the known for except those of Christianity, but I didn’t realize there was a relevant rfc so recently, I wouldn’tve jumped to the bold edit if I knew about the rfc.

Either way, any objection to changing the whole known for to “Central figure in Christianity, Islam, Druze faith, and Ba’hai Faith”? Mikewem (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Jesus is a central figure in Islam; that place is occupied by Muhammad.JasterOmega (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Jesus is certainly an important figure in Islam. But I don't think you would call him the central figure. You could argue about the difference between "the central" and "a central". I don't think we want to debate that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I hadn’t considered that “the central” is implied by our text, but I think it is, because our text says “of Christianity”, not “in Christianity”. If that is the case, then that seems problematic for our inclusion of the Jesus-as-non-deity branches, because from my reading, they seem to strongly stress that God and only God (they use terms like Creator God, Almighty God, etc) is the central figure of their faith.

Either way, for the npov issue, does this work?:

• Central figure of Christianity
• Revered figure in Islam, Druze faith, and Baháʼí Faith

Mikewem (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

they seem to strongly stress that God and only God (they use terms like Creator God, Almighty God, etc) is the central figure of their faith. I disagree that this applies to all nontrinitarian constructs. They believe there is only one deity. But, for example, Unitarianism is more focused on the teachings of Christ. That is, New Testament. Although they don't subscribe to the miracles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Moratorium

I propose a temporary moratorium on this article. That is, no changes be made to the article without agreement on the talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose moratorium, but I realize that in focusing on instituting the rfc in a way that maintained prior content, I mistakenly maintained a major error by saying the Quran describes Joseph as adoptive father. It does not. We should fix that.

That being said, any objection to changing the last sentence of the infobox note on Joseph

from: Traditionally, Christians believe that Mary conceived her son miraculously by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Muslims believe that she conceived her son miraculously by the command of God. Joseph was from these perspectives and according to the canonical gospels the acting adoptive father of Jesus.

to: From the Christian perspective and according to the canonical gospels, Joseph was the acting adoptive father of Jesus.

In your revert, I don’t understand maintaining the “Christians believe” language, and I don’t think Jesus is definingly known as a 1st century BCE person, but I’m not particularly concerned about it. The current wording of the note, which ascribes things to the Muslim perspective that it should not, is the bigger issue.

Source for ‘Joseph is not in the Quran’: p122-123 available in the preview for The Islamic Jesus by Mustafa Akyol. Mikewem (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Protected Status?

Trying to understand why this page is not protected against vandalism, whereas for example, the page for Muhammad is. Seems very peculiar and like it ought to be considering Jesus is the central figure of a major world religion, of which there are many who hold contempt towards. Jmorley13 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Protection is not applied unless continuing vandalism or edit warring occurs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah so what he said. It's not preventative.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I would add to that why this is likely less of a problem here than in the Mohammad article. Islamophobia is prevalent in the Western world. Indeed, The US president has recently, reputedly referred to a Muslim running for the US Senate as a Jihadist with no evidence. OTOH, Jesus is highly respected and considered the penultimate prophet by Muslims. While it is true that there are worldwide heavy criticisms about the Catholic Church, as an example, this article is not about a particular religious sect. It is about a biography of a particular person. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I concur with this statement although I was a bit frightened to explicitly type this myself.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

As someone who lives where said senator does: I will just comment that the truth, as reflected by said senator’s live statements to her constituents that have repeatedly been ignored by national media, is murkier than you think, and leave it at that as I’m getting off topic. Regardless, history proves Mohammed needs a protection status that Jesus does not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think O3000 is talking about a her, but I could be wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I could be as well. Regardless I don't support the president's juvenile mud-slinging! Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

There are also the recurring image and "not the founder" issues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Which makes you wonder: is it more worthwhile to just improve the rest of the encyclopedia? LightningThrower (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Muhammad is obviously an important article and anyone who wants to try to GA it has my moral support, though probably not much actual help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the recurring image and "not the founder" issues will never go away. Much like the claims the Great Replacement theory must be valid because "statistics". But I'm getting forumy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Ideas to apply the ‘Christians believe’ rfc to the infobox note on Joseph?

Note d on Joseph in the infobox currently says

Traditionally, Christians believe that Mary conceived her son miraculously by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Muslims believe that she conceived her son miraculously by the command of God. From the Christian perspective and according to the canonical gospels, Joseph was the acting adoptive father of Jesus.

Does the outcome of the ‘Christians believe’ rfc have any bearing on this text? Should we make any changes to this text? Mikewem (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)