Talk:Jesus/Archive 124

NPOV treatment of gospel accounts
The "Jesus in the Gospels" section contradicts scholarship in two ways. First, it privileges the canonical gospels. Second, it conflates the stories into one narrative. Both those practices are Christian practices, and they date back to the 100s. So how could we cover this material in a less orthodox and more scholarly way? The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church provides us a good example. First it has a paragraph on Mark, then one on Matthew and Luke, and then one on John. The paragraph on John points out its differences from the synoptics, such as Jesus not experiencing any human weakness (no baptism, no temptation, no Gethsemane, no agony). How about we follow that outline? I took it from a Christian source, and this outline still singles out the canonical gospels, but I'd be happy to keep the canonical boundaries if we can get a treatment that distinguishes among the gospel accounts rather than weaving them together. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the canonical Gospels. Would you propose that in a biographical article on some other historical figure, that we have a separate section for each potential source there was? Or would you suggest that we write a single biographical account citing the sources we have? ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Would you propose that in a biographical article on some other historical figure, that we have a separate section for each potential source there was?" If that's the way good tertiary sources treat the figure, yes. I'm proposing that we follow the worthy example of a reliable, scholarly source rather than following Christian practice. What are you proposing, that we stick with Christian practice? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not experiencing any human weakness? John is the gospel that has "Jesus wept". StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, Anselm. If we can find a reliable source that makes that point, we should include it.

I understand Jonathan Tweet but would disagree that it is not a scholarly practice (I'm not saying the scholarly practice). First of all, I think scholars all agree that the canonical gospels are the best sources as they are the oldest one. For the same reason, Mark is a better source than Matthew or Luke, which still are better than John. Most scholarly works on the historical Jesus largely pass over John for precisely that reason. I think Jonathan Tweet is right that it is a bit problematic to tell just one story. Which gospel do we go by. To take but one example: it's possible that Matthew is right about Jesus's early childhood, it's possible that Luke is right about it; it's very possible that both Luke and Matthew are wrong butit's absolutely impossible that they would both be right, as they contradict each other time and time again. So do we tell Luke's or Matthew's story? By dividing the story according to the gospels we avoid that problem, but it creates a bigger problem. It might give readers the impression that the scholars think each gospel is equally trustworthy (or not trustworthy). There is no consensus on every detail, but most scholars still agree on some basic aspects as almost certain, on some aspects as probable, on some aspects as unknown, some aspect as improbable and some aspects as almost certainly inaccurate. So I think we should tell one story, and make sure we stick to what modern scholarship, rather than both Christian and anti-Christian tradition, hold.Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz, I think I agree with you on just about every count. It would really help to find an example of a good tertiary source that handles the topic as one story. Here's one, the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Jesus Christ. But in this case the one story is a historical story, not the Gospel story. It makes sense to have a single historical account of Jesus, but that's not what this section is. This section isn't about the mortal preacher of history. It's about Jesus as he appears in the New Testament. My sense is that trying to create a historical account of Jesus would be a lot more contentious than "Jesus in the NT" because we can agree on what the NT says but not on who Jesus really was. If there's an example of a neutral, scholarly source that conflates the gospel accounts into one, that could be our model and guideline. But conflating the gospel accounts is a devotional practice, not a scholarly one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And here's my better answer to ReformedArsenal: "Would you propose that in a biographical article on some other historical figure, that we have a separate section for each potential source there was?" If we only had four sources, and they contradicted each other, and their contradictions were historically illuminating, then absolutely I'd want to have a separate section for each source. Why would one take four contradictory sources and merge them into one story? That's not how scholars approach the topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (I am playing devil's advocate with the following comment. I actually agree with Jonathan.)  True, but many, including most religious and many nonreligious scholars, argue that those four sources are not contradictory.  The two genealogies, for example, can be rectified by recognizing one as the biological genealogy and the other as the legal one, and the differing Holy Week timelines can be rectified if one considers there were two slightly different calendars in use during that era. If there is indeed no contradiction then there is no need for different sections.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, what we would do (and do do) in other instances, is make notes within the single biographical narrative when one source is contradictory, or where there is not agreement. We don't devote a section to each source. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ReformedArsenal, thanks for that information. I didn't know that what you describe is standard. Could you please point me to a good tertiary sources that treats the topic this way? You say that this is standard. If so, show me a source that follows the standard you describe. While you look for a reliable source that agrees with you, allow me to explain why I want to break the sources out individually. First, that's the way Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church does it. Second, according to the header, this section is not a biographical narrative of Jesus. Its topic is the NT's depictions of Jesus' life. That's a literary topic, or a religious one, not a biographical one. If you would prefer to change this section to be Jesus' biography, then that's a lot like what Britannica has. Honestly, I prefer Britannica's approach because it's historical instead of literary. But the literary question is a lot easier to answer, and this section has always been literary instead of biographical. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jtrevor99, thanks for giving me the opportunity to get ahead of your hypothetical objection. What if someone said, "The Gospels don't contradict each other"? I would say, so what? What matters is Wikipedia policy. Our responsibility is not to be right about who Jesus was. Our responsibility is to edit this page in accordance with WP policies and standards. Even if you convince every editor that the Gospels don't contradict each other after all, that doesn't change anything. The editors' personal judgments don't matter. They don't count. Only reliable sources count. All of us, even if we thought the Gospels were God's own Truth, would be honor bound to summarize what the RSs say. If the RSs treat the Gospels individually, then we should, too. Anyone who's arguing without referring to sources is not doing what WP editors are supposed to do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, this would be absolutely true in an article on the Gospels (as a whole, or individually). However, this is an article about the historical figure "Jesus." The gospels are historical sources for that individual, so if you can show me another article that devotes separate sections to what different sources say about that biographical figure, then we have a precedent to discuss... however, until then we should treat this biographical article like we treat other ones. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Show us a good tertiary source that treats this topic that way you want us to treat it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But Jonathan Tweet: I disagree that the current article consistently tries to harmonize the sources into one narrative. In each section, you have paragraphs starting "Matthew begins his gospel...", "In Luke...", "...the Gospel of Mark calls Jesus...", "John's gospel presents...". There are also places that do try to harmonize, however. Maybe we should keep the current breakdown, but be more consistent in not harmonizing sources. Bacchiad (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that this section doesn't completely conflate the topic the way a purely devotional work would. It's maybe half conflated. Years ago, I put a good deal of work in to differentiate among the gospels, but certain editors undid it. For me, it comes down to following scholarly practice. Is there a good source that treats the topic as you suggest? If not, let's follow the lead provided by the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, or the textbook Historical Jesus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why two randomly chosen sources should be dispositive. The ODotCC presupposes a level of familiarity with the subject - being somewhat more specialized - and the HJ textbook is a textbook, so it has more room. A general encyclopedia is different. Which is why Britannica treats it as one story. But if you want to mock it up on your own userspace I might be convinced. Bacchiad (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen an encyclopedia treat this in a different way than what I'm proposing. They present a biographical narrative of the subject, noting where appropriate where there are discrepancies among the primary sources. If anything, you would need to substantiate why we should depart from this when this is the standard. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't object to treating the biography in a primarily literary-historicographical-critical way. I think that's the right thing to do. Other articles whose subjects have similar problems do that - Homer and Pythagoras for instance. I'm just not convinced (although I could be by a good draft) that breaking it down by the four gospels is the only or best way to do that. Bacchiad (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for someone to show us a source that treats the topic of Jesus this way. If you don't like my sources, show us yours. ReformedArsenal, you seem to imply that multiple encyclopedias treat Jesus your way. Please point us to them. Arguments are nice, but show us a source. What secular source treats the topic of Jesus in this manner? If folks prefer the Britannica approach, that's fine, but that's "Jesus according to historians" and not "Jesus according to 1st-century Christians." I also have a text book called Historical Jesus. We could use that model, too. It discusses the synoptics together, and then discusses John together with other semi-gnostic sources. I'd be happy to follow that model. So far, no one else has offered a model to follow from a reputable, secular source. Alternatively, someone locate a WP policy that we should treat Jesus differently from how reputable, secular tertiary sources treat Jesus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. WP:BEBOLD, my friend. Bacchiad (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * JTweet... I'm not saying Britannica is a source... I'm saying that the typical model of how Encyclopedias handle biography is not to have separate sections for each primary source that contains discrepancies, rather it is to have a single section which tells the narrative information and comments regarding discrepancies along the way. The reputable, secular, tertiary encyclopedic sources treat him exactly as I'm proposing. I've showed you one encylopedia to support this, do you have any evidence of any other encyclopedias that treat it differently? ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your encouragement, Bacchiad. That might be enough to get me started. My first approach would be to edit one subsection to split it up by book. For example, Jesus' baptism is a great way for us to compare the historical event to the different ways that the four gospels handle that event. Currently the subsection conflates the gospel accounts, and it would be easy to split that out into how Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John each handles it. Once we get each subsection split into separate gospel treatments, then maybe we can re-org the material to put all the Mark stuff first, then Matthew, etc. But in the mean time, the section would get better one subsection at a time. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, RA, I must have missed something. Which encyclopedia did you show me to support doing things the way you prefer? Britannica handles the topic differently. Specifically, it takes a historical view (what the historical Jesus did) rather than a scriptural view (what the NT says Jesus did). Are you suggesting that we abandon the scriptural perspective and adopt the historical one? That would be NPOV, but it's a lot harder for us to agree on what historians say than what the NT says. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't handle the topic differently at all. It incorporates the information from all of the sources (Including NT documents) and synthesizes it into one narrative biography, making comments about discrepancies where necessary. Also, the contrast between "historical Jesus" and "Scriptural Jesus" isn't really what is in dispute here. Those who seek a "historical Jesus" do so with the NT as part of their historical documents. What is in dispute here is if we should have separate sections for separate sources, rather than a single narrative biography incorporating all of the biographies. Show me any encyclopedia that does that, and we can talk. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * RA, OK, I like the Britannica approach, too. It means changing the section from being about the NT to being about historical Jesus, which is fine with me. How about I start making this section more like the Britannica's article on Jesus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * RA, the Britannica account is based on the synoptics, not on John. To make our section more like Britannica's article, let's follow that lead and start removing material from John that is considered ahistorical. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting into dicier territory. We can present what scholar X and professor Y count as historical vs. not historical. But deciding for our own purposes what is historical and not historical would be original research. I don't particularly object to the paragraph you removed on John. It wasn't that great on its own merits - didn't flow well or fit in with its surroundings. But I think your original idea is better. I had misunderstood it as doing one big section on Mark, one on Matthew, one on Luke, one on John. But that wasn't what you were proposing, was it? It was a section on Genealogy and Nativity, with one pgph. Matthew, one on Luke...a section on Baptism and Temptation, with one paragraph on Mark, one on Matthew, one on Luke, one on John...etc., right? I fully support that structure. Bacchiad (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bacchiad, I know that Britannica's historical approach is dicey, which is why I didn't recommend it. But it's the only NPOV treatment that RA would approve. I was indeed suggesting one section on Mark, another on Luke, etc. That's what I see in my sources. The version you support, with each subsection treating each source separately, is new to me. I would prefer to follow the example of a trusted tertiary source, and I've never seen the topic of Jesus treated the way you support. But I agree with you that the historical approach is dicey. And I doubt that RA will continue to support the Britannica approach because it means removing the material about John. And what would Jesus Christ be without John? So I'm with you, I think. As a compromise, let's treat each source separately within each subsection. The Baptism subsection would be a good place to start, I think, since the gospels all treat Jesus' repentance under John differently. RA will not agree to treating the sources separately, but I bet they're not going to like following Britannica's example, either. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bacchiad, after thinking it over, I'd like to propose a simple fix that will make this section no longer in line with Christian POV. ReformedArsenal likes Britannica's treatment, and Britannica excludes the Gospel of John (as do historians in general). So let's change this section to "Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels," and take out everything that's not in the synoptics. That's a fix that's easy to do. It's not perfect, but it demonstrates that we are following a secular program rather than a devotional one. If editors want to treat the three synoptics separately in each subsection, that's a secondary effort. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a possible approach, though I would recommend at least a brief description of why John is excluded, in anticipation of possible criticism. To paraphrase Historical reliability of the Gospels, something along the lines of "According to most scholars, the Gospel of John intends to emphasize Jesus's character and teachings, rather than an accurate rendering of historical events" would probably be sufficient.  To wit, any argument in favor of excluding John from discussions that do involve Jesus's character or teachings would face far greater challenge. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose the outright removal of John from this article (the book is very significant), but I am okay having the John material separated into its own section. By the way, the "Life and teachings in the New Testament" section (specifically "Resurrection and ascension") also contains material from Acts and other books. Also, why are concerned about the historical reliability of John for this section? We have a separate "historical views" section that views Jesus from a historical perspective.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

(restart indents) Jtrevor, you are exactly right. Britannica explains why John, Thomas, and other gospels are excluded, and we would, too. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Future Trillionaire, your personal opinion is warmly welcomed, but can you point to a secular, authoritative, tertiary source that cover this material the way you would like? John may be important, but really only to Christians. The synoptics are important to secular historians, too. Maybe John could be treated in the Christian views section. The way we got to this solution (excluding John) is that we have an editor who was dead set against treating the sources separately. He supported doing it the Britannica way. Fine, the Britannica way is to exclude John. He doesn't like that way either, so he's been silent. Anyway, please show us a secular, scholarly, tertiary source that treats the topic the way you'd like it to be treated. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The description above may a bit black-and-white, I fear. Most historians use all available sources, meaning all independent material. John (as the non-canonical Gospels) is of course of far less value than the Synoptics or Paul, but a division into "historic vs Christian" is problematic. All the material is mainly "Christian", as I'm sure all agree, meaning that none of it is primarilu concerned with historical accuracy, but all of the early traditions contain at least some material that historians finds useful even when they don't find it reliable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz, thanks for your feedback. Can you show us a good tertiary source that treats the topic the way that you want us to treat it? I'm for making this section look more like Britannica. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I second the the motion for Tweet to be bold. Reformed arse can't have it both ways. The article seems to be trying to synthesise too much, I believe there is a policy about that? RA should read it if he thinks it is our job to synthesise, and he has already admitted that that is what's been done. Article seems to synthesise history with myth, the Christian way. This should be a secular article, not one for apologetics. That's what conservopedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, anonymous. Next step is, I'm going to be bold and change the section to be about Jesus in the synoptic gospels. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anonymous, name-calling is not the right way to go. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once I have a nice block of time, I'll take a first pass over this section, changing it so that it's like Britannica in that it's based on the synoptics. I've spent a lot of time trying to find an acceptable NPOV approach for this section, and I'm happy with where we ended up. The people who don't like my suggestions have only been able to name one secular tertiary source that they like, and that's Britannica. But we all know that a lot of our fellow editors have deep feelings about this topic. If I'm going to do the work to revise this section, I hope that other editors will support me if there's a conflict. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anonymous also falsely assumes that gospel accounts or Christian tradition = myth. It is only myth if it is fabricated or, at least, exaggerated beyond recognition.  Perhaps anonymous does not understand that "the Christian way" of conflating what s/he sees as myth with historical fact exists because, to a Christian, there is no delineation between the two, and attempting to introduce one is an attempt to introduce falsehood into facts. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Jtrevor, I'm with you. The gospel accounts are not myths, and conflating the four canonical gospels makes perfect sense from a Christian viewpoint. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly makes sense from a Christian viewpoint, but that isn't a POV that a secular encyclopedia would take. We should note it, certainly, but it would never be our editorial position.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kww, you are also right about not using Christian POV in this article. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So having been urged to be bold, I'm removing references to John (and Acts) from this section. When I'm done, I'll change the introduction and the title. The introduction puts John in the same category as the synoptics in terms of reliability, and that's definitely not the mainstream view. Luckily, the Britannica article is free online with lots of great material, so it will be easy to cite the new introduction. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've created a new section called "Jesus in John" and placed some of the removed content there. I'm okay with having the Synoptics and John separated to deal with the synthesis issue, but I'm not okay with removing John outright. John is important material that needs to be covered in this article. I think the new section could use some expansion.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FT, I'm reverting your addition of a new section to the page because it's not what we've agreed to after months of discussion. I'll be happy to restore it myself if that's what we agree to here on the talk page. To help us out, can you point us to a tertiary source that handles the topic the way you like? You say John is important, but Britannica leaves it out. It's Christian POV to treat canonical sources special but to leave out Thomas, etc. Maybe information about John can go in the Christian views section? I know that this is a touchy topic, but let's work things out on Talk before adding new sections to the article. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have reverted the removal of John. I think we need a much clearer consensus, probably through an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to do this, but I'm going to have to put a POV tag on this section now. It's such a good page, I dislike diminishing the readers' experience with a tag. St Anselm, do you have a tertiary source that treats this topic the way you want it to be treated? We have a duty to follow the examples of our best sources, and no one had offered a better example than Britannica. Can you cite a WP policy or standard that says we should include John? If we're following secular standards, on what basis do you reinstate John? Would you like to submit that RfC? And I hope it's not personal on your end. I totally understand why certain people would want to describe Jesus a certain way. And I hope you can understand that some of see little alternative but to follow WP policy, even on such a beloved topic. I'd like to revert Anselm's revert, since he has no support on Talk for it, but I'd prefer it if another editor would do me the favor of reverting for me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you will need to gain consensus for your proposed changes. Your bold edit was fair enough, but please read WP:BRD. I'm not sure Britannica is really supporting you, anyway - it treats John very differently to the way it treats Thomas, for example and cites both John and Acts. StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * St Anselm, thanks for pointing me to BRD, which I reread, plus Consensus. Our pattern isn't BRD. It's DDDDBR. In months of discussion, editors in favor of the Christian perspective haven't named a reliable source or a WP policy or standard in their favor. That's why I'm hoping some kind, secular soul will re-revert before I feel the need to put a POV tag on the section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see any consensus for your proposed changes, and a number of editors have specifically objected to purging John from the article. As it stands, the article is neutral; it's clear that it's talking about the life and teachings of Jesus *in the New Testament*. That is only a "Christian" perspective insofar as virtually everything known/thought about Jesus comes from the "Christian" Bible. So I'm not sure why you are making this a Christian vs. secular debate, and I don't know what reliable source or WP policy you have in your favour. StAnselm (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think that section is indended to be the Christian perspective of Jesus. A section for historical and secualr views is located right below it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * St Anselm, as Future Trillionaire says, this section is from the Christian POV. Secular scholars do not regard John as a source for Jesus' biography. Nearly everything historians know about Jesus comes from the synoptics, which contradict John on nearly every major point. The WP policies I'm trying to follow are NPOV and RS. WP should treat this topic the way other secular, tertiary works do, not the devotional way that Christians do. I've cited Britannica and Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and could cite Theissen's Historical Jesus (a textbook) and Harris's Understanding the Bible (another textbook). If your personal opinion is not in line with reliable sources or WP policy, then please don't try to stop other editors from following NPOV and RS. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The contradictions you suggest are highly contested, of course. In any case, I think you totally misunderstand what "Life and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament" actually means. It doesn't mean reconstructing what actually happened, etc., but representing what is described in the text. Indeed, if there are contradictions, they can be mentioned. That's what we currently have int he article: "John's Gospel presents the teachings of Jesus not merely as his own preaching, but as divine revelation." I fail to see what is currently non-neutral about the section. I don't think it should be moved to "Christian Views", as to some extent it is a primary source. StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that this section is intended as "the Christian perspective on Jesus." That's the problem. A secular scholar would write a very different "Jesus in the NT." I don't want to fight. Maybe the answer is to leave this section Christian. Like you say, there's another section that's secular. If we leave this section sectarian, as you prefer, then let's move it under the Christian Views section. Christian views are fine, especially about Jesus, provided they are labelled as Christian views. The Christian Views section is pretty slim and could use more material. How about I do that? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I sort of knew I would, I had to add a POV tag to this section. I've tried discussing this for months and have not gotten very far. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't gotten very far because you haven't successfully convinced anyone of your point! Why a POV tag on a section entitled "Life and Teachings in the New Testament", which tnen proceeds to describe the portrayal the New Testament gives of Jesus' life and teachings, is necessary is beyond me.  You have said in rebuttal that it's because sectarian authors see a different portrayal.  St.Anselm has already answered, and rightfully so, that the contradictions you have cited are highly contested and certainly belong to a small minority of sectarian viewpoints.  The vast majority agree that the New Testament portrays Jesus as described in this section; the question, instead, in their minds is whether the New Testament provides an accurate portrayal.  That question is covered elsewhere in the article.  A better response than a POV tag would be clearly pointing out in the Historical Views section your concerns.  Or, shall I start putting POV tags on every citation from every secular author in this article, since, even though the citation accurately reflects the author's text, it is from a specific POV that is countermanded by Christian theologians and historians?  And for that matter, perhaps we need POV tags on the Historical section, the Jewish section, the Islam section, the Bahai section, etc. since all of those are from distinct POVs that do not agree with secular or Christian views?  Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)  (Later edit:  Upon a reread, the above sounds harsher and rather personal.  I apologize if it does to you too as I assure you that isn't what I intended!  I nevertheless disagree that a POV tag is needed, or conversely, that there is any justification for a POV tag here and not in multiple sections throughout the article.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Jtevor, I know that this is an issue of great personal importance to you, so I understand how emotional you can get about it, and I appreciate your apology. And thanks for agreeing with me and with Future Trilliionaire that this section is Christian POV. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The POV tag is unnecessary, misleading, and misapplied. Let me restate: that section of the article accurately reflects what the New Testament states, from a Christian or any other viewpoint.  The vast majority of sectarians agree with this, though there are some fringe dissenters.  While the New Testament itself is by definition Christian POV, this synopsis of it is not.  (Or do you wish to argue that a different synopsis written entirely by sectarians would be substantively different?  If so, how?  You have thus far failed to convince me that it would be substantially different.  I am certain sectarians would challenge the veracity of some of the contents of the New Testament, but a simple summary, which is all this section is attempting, would not differ markedly.)  Since the POV tag is meant for Wikipedia text that is itself POV, rather than synopses of source materials that are POV, you have misapplied the tag.  You furthermore have not applied the tag to any of the other sections that would need it (i.e. all of them, including Historical perspective), based on your criteria.  I therefore urge you to correct this misapplication by deleting the POV tag; if you do not, I will be forced to do so.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I started a new section on the Talk:NPOV page to help us out here. If I incorrectly summarized your argument here or in that section, then please correct it so that we can get additional discussion from other authors and come to a consensus!  Thanks. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jtrevor, for soliciting some information from others. It's obviously a tricky topic, so we could use some extra help. The NPOV tag is here because the section treats the article in a Christian way rather than any of the ways that reliable, scholarly, tertiary sources do. Maybe we'll end up solving the problem by moving the material under "Christian Views." As for removing the tag yourself, could you remind us what the policy is on removing an NPOV tag before a dispute is resolved? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, touché :) You're correct, I won't be removing the notice till we have this figured out.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . This issue has been playing out for months now, so I'm not counting on a speedy resolution. Some editors have agreed with me and others definitely haven't, but there hasn't been a lot of progress, has there? If we're all following the same policies and guidelines, it's a wonder that this is so difficult. One thing I've learned really helps people understand each other is when two people on opposite sides of an issue each try to summarize the other's position, but in a positive way, the way that the other person would put it. Maybe we should try that if we stay stuck. I think I could summarize your position fairly well. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

chronology length
Here's a nice non-sectarian issue for us. Or at least I hope it's nonsectarian, and there isn't any particular reason that Christian editors should oppose it. I hope this effort on my part shows that I'm trying to improve the page, not just push a personal agenda. The Chronology section has a wonderful first paragraph that tells the reader everything they need to know about the chronology of Jesus, and then there follow three paragraphs of technical material that add little. This level of detail is great for the Chronology of Jesus page, where it already lives. Here, it's overkill. "Jesus" is a super-interesting topic, but this material is too much. It's these three paragraphs. Try reading the section without these paragraphs. It feels complete to me. In good writing, what you leave out is just as important as what you put in. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The gospels offer several clues concerning the year of Jesus' birth. Matthew 2:1 associates the birth of Jesus with the reign of Herod the Great, who died around 4 BC, and Luke 1:5 mentions that Herod was on the throne shortly before the birth of Jesus, although this gospel also associates the birth with the Census of Quirinius which took place ten years later. Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was "about thirty years old" at the start of his ministry, which according to Acts 10:37–38 was preceded by John's ministry, itself recorded in Luke 3:1–2 to have begun in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign (28 or 29 AD). By collating the gospel accounts with historical data and using various other methods, most scholars arrive at a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC for Jesus, but some propose estimates that lie in a wider range.

The years of Jesus' ministry have been estimated using several different approaches. One of these applies the reference in Luke 3:1–2, Acts 10:37–38 and the dates of Tiberius' reign, which are well known, to give a date of around 28–29 AD for the start of Jesus' ministry. Another approach uses the statement about the temple in John 2:13–20, which asserts that the temple in Jerusalem was in its 46th year of construction at the start of Jesus' ministry, together with Josephus' statement that the temple's reconstruction was started by Herod in the 18th year of his reign, to estimate a date around 27–29 AD. A further method uses the date of the death of John the Baptist and the marriage of Herod Antipas to Herodias, based on the writings of Josephus, and correlates it with Matthew 14:4 and Mark 6:18. Given that most scholars date the marriage of Herod and Herodias as AD 28–35, this yields a date about 28–29 AD.

A number of approaches have been used to estimate the year of the crucifixion of Jesus. Most scholars agree that he died between 30 and 33 AD. The gospels state that the event occurred during the prefecture of Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea from 26 to 36 AD. The date for the conversion of Paul (estimated to be 33–36 AD) acts as an upper bound for the date of Crucifixion. The dates for Paul's conversion and ministry can be determined by analyzing Paul's epistles and the Book of Acts. Astronomers since Isaac Newton have tried to estimate the precise date of the Crucifixion by analyzing lunar motion and calculating historic dates of Passover, a festival based on the lunisolar Hebrew calendar. The most widely accepted dates derived from this method are April 7, 30 AD, and April 3, 33 AD (both Julian).

De Sanctis
A while back I deleted a reference to De Sanctis because it sure didn't look relevant, and it was in the wrong section. Then, BuckRogers reverted me, pointing out that Metzger is our source. So I looked into it, and actually there's interesting material here. De Sanctis is an outstanding figure, and the Nazareth Inscription is an interesting item that you don't hear much about these days. So I added context about who De Sanctis and the Inscription are, moved it to the right section, and cleaned up the writing. Because I'm here trying to improve the page. Please don't revert me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one on stable ground would revert unbiased improvements to the article, so long as they pass the test of being unbiased :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I would hope, and I'm happy to see it's true. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleansing of the Temple
Hi,

I just noticed that there is a reference to 'Cleansing of the Temple', but this is not linked to the relevant Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

Cheers, Johnny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowjohnny (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's linked twice in the article - that's probably enough. StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Depictions
I've been working on the Depictions section, which still could use a little work I think. I added a bit about crucifixes because they have been central to a lot of Christian devotion. I just added something about the Christmas nativity scene. It's a notable depiction. How many great religious leaders are depicted by their followers as helpless infants? Not Muhammad, not the Buddha, not Confucius. I hope that my fellow editors will see that I'm trying to create a better experience for our readers. I'd like to add something about how Christians don't make idols out of Jesus the way adherents of other religions make idols out of the Buddha, etc. It seems obvious to us modern people, but it was unusual in ancient times. I just haven't been able to locate a source for that. Anyone else? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Other improvements?
Obviously I have some ideas on how to improve this page. Does anyone else? Maybe we can build some good will by working together on this page. Or maybe one of my detractors and I can work together to improve a related subpage? Ideas? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Who are your "detractors"? I suggest that if you want to work with others on improving this page you avoid that sort of battleground mentality. StAnselm (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe one of the editors who's angry at me over the changes I want to make to the page can work with me on improving it or a related page. Is there a subject that you'd like to see improved, St Anselm? Anyone? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A NPOV tag in the Life and teachings in the New Testament section still persists and the sentence "Ben Witherington states that "there are now as many portraits of the historical Jesus as there are scholarly painters" is marked as dubious. Since the article is featured and is of top importance to several wikiprojects, I think both issues should be resolved ASAP. Brandmeistertalk  22:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's easier said than done. There isn't any consensus as far as I can see that the Witherington quote is dubious or that the section is non-neutral. But tags like that can't simply be removed, can they? We would need consensus to remove them. StAnselm (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it resolved, too. Any ideas? Maybe if editors could look together at evidence instead of simply sharing opinions. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Tweet, I don't believe you've convinced other engaged authors that there is a problem with the article (at least the New Testament section) or that it needs improvement. To me, the only improvement needed in that section is removal of the POV tag, coupled with augmentation of the Historical views section, to which I am unable to contribute (though I will be very interested to see improvements others come up with for that section).  I'd love to help on Historical Views but can't, sorry.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jtrevor, I understand that that's your honest opinion, but do you have evidence? 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to prove anyone agrees with you, as you are the initiator of the allegation it's POV. Nevertheless, in response - the proof is on this Talk page and the NPOV talk page.  I don't see anyone responding in the affirmative that they agree that the "New Testament" section is POV. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * u|Jtrevor99, I'm sure it honestly looks to you as though no one agrees with me. Some other editors, however, do agree with me. They just haven't had the patience to wait out this months-long process. On the NPOV noticeboard, Mangoe suggested: "Perhaps John could be presented as a separate section, at least up until the passion narrative." Anyway, how about working with me using Encyclopedia Britannica to improve the Historical Views section? You said you would love to help, and it would be nice to be on the same side for once. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with Historical View Section. u|Jtrevor99, you say that you would like to help with the historical views section, and you can! So can anyone else. Here's a great online source; the Jesus Christ article on Encyclopedia Britannica. It's written by one of the top historical scholars of Jesus, and it carefully avoids going too negative on Christianity. Sometimes, working on a joint project can help people develop a better working relationship. so instead of just arguing over the gospel section, let's work together to improve the historical views section. Deal? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic scripts.
Should we not be adding his name in these scripts given that Aramaic was his native tongue and that he has been mentioned and discussed Hebrew and Arabic texts for centuries, including religious beliefs on him?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion many times before. The reason we only give the Greek spelling/transliteration at the beginning is because it is the earliest one we are sure of—there is no academic consensus regarding the original correct spellings in Aramaic or Hebrew, whereas Arabic of course came later. The Hebrew roots of the name (ישוע, Yeshua) are described in the "Etymology of names" section anyway. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Arabic came later in the sense of the language itself, or as in references to Jesus himself?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, both. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical Views section
Certain editors are very protective of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life, which is understandable. I'd like to think that just as much as they want scholarly analysis excluded from "their" section, they will be happy to let us secular editors have a relatively free hand in the historical section. I have several good sources that I can draw on for this section. Here's what I'd like to ask the editors who are in favor of the Christian perspective: What online tertiary source can we look at together to judge how well this section stacks up to scholarly standards? I can use my sources, but if there were a good source that we could all look at, wouldn't that be helpful in letting us agree how to cover this topic? So those of you who don't like the scholarly approach I'm trying to bring the "Jesus in the NT," what source can you point us to for the historical views section? Thanks in advance. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you do a disservice by characterizing the gospel accounts section as "our" section. That is neither true nor what we are arguing.  We instead have merely pointed out the intentions of that section: to summarize the depiction of Jesus in the New Testament, which is both informative of, and necessary to, proper understanding of Historical and other criticism.  I do not understand why it is contested that an article on Jesus should have a section that summarizes his depiction in the New Testament absent criticism of that depiction.  All that said, to answer your question: I have read around a dozen Christian scholarly sources that may be of interest but am not familiar with any secular sources that would be of interest.  I'm hopeful that others involved in this discussion will be, and wish you luck!  Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sort of thing is definitely not the way to go. I've heard other editors on other articles suggest similar things in the past: Christians can work on the Christian section, secular people (whoever they are) work on the secular section. No - all of the article must be neutral. I don't think this is necessarily a case of editors' personal beliefs - but I still think the "Jesus in the New Testament" section is neutral. In any case, Jonathan Tweet, it sounds like you think this page should never have reached featured article status - perhaps a featured article review is in order. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jtrevor, thanks for the good wishes. The Historical Views section is in poor shape, so it will be easy to improve. You say, "I do not understand why it is contested that an article on Jesus should have a section that summarizes his depiction in the New Testament absent criticism of that depiction." How about you try to state each others' opinions as clearly as we can? That sometimes helps people understand each other better. You say that it's just common sense that we would want this section on the Jesus page, telling Jesus' story from the Bible. You say it's not a "point of view" at all because it's just a straight summary. This section might not follow any policy, guideline, or scholarly tertiary source, but that's OK because there's a consensus that this is the right way to do this topic. How's that as a summary of your viewpoint? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * u|Jtrevor99, how was that as a summary of your views? I want to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * St Anselm, I like your idea of not letting one voice control the Jesus in the NT section. Glad we agree on that. You say, "I still think the "Jesus in the New Testament" section is neutral." It's great that you have a personal opinion about whether this section is neutral. I don't have anything against your personal opinion. For my part, I have reliable sources that say this section is Christian POV. What evidence, not opinion, can you offer that this treatment is neutral? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure the reliable sources don't discuss this page in particular, so I don't see how they can state that it is Christian POV. Is it just your personal opinion that the section is non-neutral? StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Think about the things I've said over and over again. That's where you'll find the evidence I have that this section is Christian POV. It sounds as though you have no evidence that it's neutral? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this article, the more I begin to think Jonathan Tweet has a point. This article actually is a mess. There's lots of excellent content, and by and large the content is neutral or at least reflects a variety of views. But overall, it's strange.
 * Partly this is the consequence of the subject - who are we writing about? Jesus Christ, the Saviour? Jesus, the spiritual figure presented in the New Testament? Or Jesus of Nazareth, the figure in history? The article should be about all three, but focus on the last, with forks to the others. Articles on historical figures normally have a logical structure: Intro explaining why they're important, birth, background, early life, what they did during their lives, what effect they had on history, how people reacted to them, cultural interpretations, and further reading. And a trivia section which keeps getting taken out and put in again. That is not the structure of this article.
 * Jonathan is correct to point out (sorry, I've just read myself back to early March so have missed anything before this) that the article in its current form does not go like that, and that's odd. I understand why - Jesus is as much a figure of culture as a historical one, and for most people, the NT portrait is the one they are familiar with. For most of the last two thousand years, the NT portrait was also the historical one. So it makes sense to have a section on how Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament. The only question is whether it should have a historical approach - Paul, then Mark, then Matthew, Luke and finally John - or a gospel harmony approach (which is the Jesus that was known and believed in by most Christians for about 1500 years). As far as I can see, the current version, Life and teachings in the New Testament, is neither. It deals with each aspect with a mixture of harmony and history, and avoids teachings that might be contested (for instance, in tradition Jesus taught the existence of the Trinity, explained his Christology, and foretold his atonement; these are not explicit in the NT but for over a thousand years have been read as present by Christians). Then we go on to a historical analysis of the text. But not the teachings.
 * To complicate matters, the NT picture has not always been the basis of Christianity, since the canon was only settled on well over a century after the death of Jesus. Five generations of Christians lived and died without this as their settled text. So we can't simply say the NT is the religious view of Jesus.
 * I would suggest we seriously consider taking a straight historical / biographical approach - based on the historical facts generally agreed, with reference to those believed by Christians - with a separate section which explains the theological Jesus (which should be short and link to a longer article which can expand on this with the degree of detail it deserves. Oh, and we should try to avoid religious jargon such as 'ministry' and 'Nativity'. We should use plain, neutral language wherever possible. --Rbreen (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But isn't that the purpose of the Historical Jesus article? I thought the purpose of the Jesus article is just an overview of various perspectives on Jesus, including the historical one.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with FutureTrillionaire. I thought the purpose of this article was to try to synthesize the various viewpoints on Jesus, of which the historical perspective is but one.  To be clear, I think the historical perspective is an important and necessary component of this article, notwithstanding the separate Historical Jesus article.  I also agree that we may not have achieved the intention of multiple viewpoints here - as you rightly pointed out, there are problems with the current text as an odd mixture of Biblical harmony and history.  (I do not find your point on "teachings that might be contested" particularly persuasive, as this article must by definition be streamlined and present a coherent, oversimplified, depiction.  Such teachings, it can be argued, are left out simply for this sake.  But I digress.)  Yet I cannot agree with your final paragraph.  We would do readers a disservice if we avoided discourse on other viewpoints, not only because some readers are undoubtedly coming to this article to understand those other viewpoints, but because those other viewpoints are necessary to properly and fully understand historical or secular criticisms, and thus, fully understand who Jesus is/was and his impact on ancient and modern culture.  That is why I am advocating for a "Jesus in the New Testament" section that intends to be a simple synopsis of how he's presented in the NT, followed by the historical/secular/bibliographical viewpoint - which, I believe, was the article's original intent.
 * Two more notes. First, if we do decide to go with a purely historical/bibliographical approach, the articles on other major religious figures - many of which also attempt to synthesize holy texts and history - will need reworked; and second, it seems I owe Jonathan Tweet an apology, as just yesterday I was saying he hadn't convinced anyone of his viewpoint yet!  You're the first as far as I can tell. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On reflection, the main problem with the historical approach is that there really is virtually no source for a biography except the NT. And the amount of information generally accepted as true is so small that it would be a small section. My problem is that right now we have just two perspectives - the New Testament and the Historical. And that's a problem, because the New Testament is a theological / political construct which represents only one view of how Jesus has been seen by Christians. I believe this is a survival of an earlier version of this article which was based on a fairly naive apologetic view. The result is that we really have two views of Jesus: the 'biblical' and the 'historical'. The real problem I have could be summed up with a simple observation - the theology of the New Testament is different from the theologies of the Gospels and other documents which make it up. In trying to be fair, the article's current presentation elides this difference. For instance, a plain reading of the Synoptics makes clear that the writers did not see Jesus as omniscient; divine, yes, but not quite fully equal to the Father. John's higher Christology represents a different view. Although the NT canon was in existence by around 150, what we call the "New Testament" with its classic theology didn't really exist until later. For most of the period of classic Christendom, Christians not only believed Jesus was omniscient but read that back into the Gospel texts; they were sure that Jesus asserted it. So the Gospels don't say it but the NT, as classically understood, does. Yet modern Christians tend not to think that. So what does the NT view say? It might be better to have a section which explains how the classic NT view interpreted Jesus. Right now we launch straight into the NT without any explanation of why that is done or what other views exist or how they fit together. Also, if we are trying to synthesise various viewpoints, why does the article not say that this is what this is about?
 * Apologies, by the way, I have little time to spend on this and my participation will be sporadic. But I think this is a long-term project. --Rbreen (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, u|Rbreen. Yes, this is a long-term project. Yes, the article is a mess. Neither the Christian view of Jesus nor the historical view really gets the clear summary that our readers deserve. Like you, I would prefer to see a historical, biographical account. Encyclopedia Britannica handles the topic this way. But I don't think it's feasible to expect us to achieve consensus on this account because there's too much resistance to the historical viewpoint. I would like the NT section to be self-consciously the devotional perspective. Right now it's implicitly the devotional perspective, but it leaves out a lot in its attempt to synthesize the texts into a narrative. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's important not to fall into the trap of seeing everything as a binary picture - devotional / historical. Christians have long used historical criticism to construct a modernised religious picture of Jesus, and secular writers are just as liable to construct a liberal Jesus to match their prejudices, and that is part of the story. Be wary of assuming there is a 'historical viewpoint' - every generation constructs their own. And as I have tried to point out, there are many 'devotional perspectives' as you call them. If you want to restrict the article just to the agreed historical facts, that would work but it would be a fairly short article and very close to the Historical Jesus article. I would not be averse to having a section that describes the classical understanding of the New Testament (c. 500 - 1800) if we also make clear that (a) the earlier understanding of Jesus was both evolutionary and very disparate, and (b) subsequent historical criticism has called much of this into question. What we don't want is an article which has just two versions ("For the Christian viewpoint, press 1; for the atheist version, press 2") --Rbreen (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * u|Rbreen, I pretty much agree with you. "It might be better to have a section which explains how the classic NT view interpreted Jesus." That's a great observation. This page's lead provides a nice summary of what historians think about Jesus. But does the page ever tell the Christian story of Jesus? The eternal Logos incarnated as a human born of a virgin, who reveals God's truth to the world but is rejected, gets crucified so that his blood can atone for the sins of humanity, rises from the dead and ascends to heaven, with his story written down in the gospels under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The article mentions Jesus being the redeemer and such, but does it ever provide a pocket summary of the traditional Christian view of Jesus? Maybe I missed it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

18 year old sectarian non-scholarly source
InterVarsity is a sectarian press, and not a scholarly one (as some sectarian presses can be), so their 18 year old book about historical Jesus is not an RS. Witherington is a Christian scholar who has published books from reputable presses. Let's stick to those books. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Baker Academic and David C Cook are also sectarian, non-scholarly presses. There is plenty of good scholarship on this topic. We don't need non-scholarly sources. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IVP can vary in its scholarly-ness; Baker Academic is scholarly. I think the Witherington book should stay, since he is such a significant scholar, and the book is germane to the topic, though a popular introduction. I don't think scholarship in this area has moved so fast as to make 18 year old books out of date. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned about this use of the word "sectarian". I don't think that word means what you think it means. St

Anselm (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, 'sectarian' isn't really helpful here. --Rbreen (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With the David Cook books, I think they vary: Craig A. Evans is a noted scholar; Warren W. Wiersbe, not so much. (Although Wiersbe has written lots of commentaries, they are slim, popular ones, and the only seminary positions he has had are in preaching and practical theology.) StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not surprised you reverted me. When you can't find solid, nonsectarian, tertiary sources that support your views, you are willing to use lesser sources. How about we stick to just the best sources? Witherington is not a historian, so how about we not quote him verbatim in the history section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Witherington is a Christian pastor, not a historian, and writing for a sectarian press. His quote is hyperbole and not supported by tertiary texts, yet he deserves a verbatim quote. Why? Because he represents the POV that certain editors want represented. It's Christian POV that the historical Jesus project is a failure. When I add sources, I trust that the Christian editors on this page won't question their significance or reliability, since this quote shows that our standards are really low. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How renowned does a scholar have to be to get treated like Witherington? Witherington warrants a verbatim quote while speaking outside his expertise and writing for a partisan press. That's highly favorable treatment. I'm going to start putting some information on this page that certain editors are not going to like, and they're going to challenge my sources. But I promise you, my sources will all be better than Witherington is as a commentator on the historical Jesus project.

{u:StAnselm}, if Witherington really is an important source for our readers to know about, could you please provide more than this quote? Right now, the reader is left not knowing what Witherington is implying. Is it that we'll never know anything about who Jesus really was? Is it that we should all believe the Muslim story about Jesus instead of listening to historians? Could you please add to the citation? If Witherington doesn't favor the historical Jesus, who does he think Jesus was? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as renown goes, I think Witherington is pretty close to the top, and I would dispute your claim that he is writing outside his area of expertise. I would like you to read and consider Consensus - certainly, threatening to add things that "certain editors are not going to like" raises a red flag. I suggest you gain consensus for your proposed changes here first. You may certainly be bold and add new content, but if your think editors will disagree, it is best to discuss first. StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the actual quote, I don't know who originally added it to the article, and you are in just as good a position to expand it as I am. But is that what you want? Are you really saying that we should have a longer Witherington quote? That might be undue weight. StAnselm (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with the Witherington quote? Is it not commonly accepted that there are many different portraits of the historical Jesus? That's surely not a uniquely Christian POV? --Rbreen (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If "sectarian" is not a helpful adjective, what sort of press is IVP? "Religious"? "Devotional"? And yes, StAnselm, I really do want the reader to know who Witherington thinks Jesus is. And no, the quote doesn't represent mainstream scholarship. It's clearly hyperbole. St Anselm, what is your evidence that Witherington is near the top? Opinions are one thing, but I like evidence. And if there's a policy about gaining consensus before making a change, I'd like to see it. Opinions are nice, but policies are better. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, IVP is clearly religious publisher - our WP article describes it as "a publisher of evangelical Christian books". Coming from a country with a bloody history of sectarian killing, I cannot say I regard the word as accurate to describe a publisher, except Jack Chick productions perhaps. The word definitely has a sense of deliberate bigotry and I don't think that applies here. But Witherington is a well-respected scholar, if one from the very conservative end of the spectrum. As for the quote not representing mainstream scholarship, I don't think you've got that right. What I understand you're saying is that there are certain details about Jesus that are well-known and generally agreed, and I think that's true; in fact I think WItherington would agree, though being a conservative he would no doubt add some more. But that does not contradict what he is saying. What he is trying to get across is that there is a huge variety of different interpretations of the agreed facts about Jesus. John Dominic Crossan saw him as a wandering Cynic philosopher; Geza Vermes discovered a Jewish holy man; Graham Twelftree, an exorcist; E. P. Sanders and Maurice Casey, an apocalyptic prophet; Gerd Theissen and Richard A. Horsley, a social reformer; John P. Meier, a figure on the margins of Jewish society; James D. G. Dunn, a Jewish Messiah; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, a radical prophet of women’s liberation; N. T. Wright, a Messianic embodiment of Israel; Morton Smith, a magician; and Marcus Borg saw him as a religious mystic. All of these are very different portraits, and everyone has their own. As the man said, there's a tendency to think you have found Jesus down a dark well and what you actually see is your own face staring back at you. This is bog standard New Testament scholarship, I think it's what Witherington is saying, and it doesn't contradict the fairly solid set of historical details most people agree on. --Rbreen (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If Witherington is right, then there should be a reliable source that agrees with him. Let's use that. Theissen & Merz have a nice summary of the variety of views of Jesus from their university-level textbook. It think that's a better source, and I'd like to use it instead. I would also be happy to summarize the 'bog standard' approach of seeing the Jesus you want to see, and I have a reliable source for that observation. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As a peace offering, I'll take the "dubious" tag off the quote. We have more important improvements to make to the page, and this issue can wait. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that Witherington is not a reliable source, but he's clearly expressing an opinion rather than a measured assessment. We could present it as the opinion of one biblical scholar. He is certainly a reliable source for that. --Rbreen (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added information about Witherington's view. The quote made it seem as though he was an opponent of the HJ project. He is quoted as saying the same thing that Jesus-mythicists say. But he's an HJ scholar himself, with his own portrait. So I added that in. Maybe someone who doesn't like the HJ project quoted him because they focused on less than half of Witherington's opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Christ Myth theory
The Christ Myth theory is minor so I put it at the end of the historical views section. I split off the sources paragraph because non-Christian sources do more than merely affirm that Jesus existed. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This section is long, considering that it's a fringe view. It's as long as the Christian Views section. Would someone like to trim it to a paragraph? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done - saved 2000k. Long way still to go. Wdford (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks great. Cutting is harder than adding, so my hat's off to you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Christian perspective on the NT
Christians have a notable perspective on the New Testament that doesn't seem to be covered here, at least not in any depth. The Christian perspective helps explain why Christians put so much stock in the texts that compose the NT. We cover how historians pick apart the gospels, but we never explain the Christian perspective on them. That seems like an oversight. For example, two of the evangelists were eye-witnesses to many of the events: Matthew and John. Also, the Holy Spirit helped the Church select the right texts to be part of the canon. Historians might not be able to tell that John is reliable while Thomas is not, but, with the help of the Holy Spirit, early Christians were able to make that distinction. Where would this perspective live? My vote is to turn the NT section into the "Christian views of the NT" section, and then we cover the material there. All the critical stuff about John not being as good as the synoptics, that sort of thing would move to the historical views section. After all, that's a historical view. But I've gotten lots of resistance to making this change, so now I ask, where does this material go? Does it get placed in the introduction of the NT section, along with the historical commentary that's already there? Does it get its own section after the NT and before Historical Views? Does it go in the Christian Views section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that there are some active Christian editors on this page, so it surprises me that they are not stepping up to agree that the Christian viewpoint on the gospels is notable enough to include on this page. I'm secular, but I sure think that the Christian viewpoint is notable enough to be covered here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the Christian view on the evangelists because that's certainly notable and not obvious from context. Our readers deserve to know. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Size problem
This article is way over the size limits, and seriously needs to be split. I understand that it is a featured article, but some of these sections heavily duplicate existing main articles already. For instance the section Jesus duplicates the main article Life of Jesus in the New Testament, but it is about 66k on its own. Surely this article would benefit if that section was summarized heavily, with links to the detail in the other article? I don't think that being a featured article is a license to massively duplicate other existing articles, especially when we have a topic as massively broad as this one? Wdford (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We definitely could combine and condense the following sections together:
 * Intro and "Canonical Gospel Accounts" into just an intro
 * "Genealogy and nativity" and "Early life, family, and profession" into "Early life"
 * "Baptism and temptation" would just be condensed into "Baptism"
 * "Public ministry," "Teachings, preachings, and miracles," and "Proclamation as Christ and Transfiguration" as just "Teachings"
 * "Final week: betrayal, arrest, trial, and death" and "Resurrection and ascension" merged into "Crucifixion."
 * The article says that "Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi from Galilee who preached his message orally, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem," so it'd make some sense to follow the structure of "birth, baptism, teaching, crucifixion."
 * "Depictions" and "Relics associated with Jesus" should probably just be merged with "Christian views," since those portions and the articles they're derived from only discuss Jesus's depiction in Christianity.
 * Why is "Chronology" separate from "Historical views"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that it needs to be trimmed back, but I also think it needs to be rethought. I suggest we take time to discuss this thoroughly before making major changes. These seem promising, though.--Rbreen (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wdford, for calling our attention to a major issue. As you note the New Testament section is far too long. If might be shorter if we were summarizing the material the way secular, tertiary sources do rather than citing the text itself all the time. Strangely, despite the section's length, it leaves our notable material, such as how Christians have traditionally viewed the NT. I recently cut the "Chronology" section way back, and there's more we can do to shorten the text. Ideally we summarize in such a way that the text is shorter, but there's more information packed into each section.
 * NT section could be replaced by brief treatments of how Jesus appears in each gospel, in Acts, and in Paul's letters. Start with Mark, which laid the framework for the other three gospels.
 * "Chronology" should be in historical views. It's probably on its own because this is one piece of historical research that is supported even by opponents of the Historical Jesus project. It should be under Historical Views.
 * Depictions & Relics can be in Christian Views. I'd like to add Holidays, since Christmas and Easter at least are notable culture elements associated with Jesus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make the article a lot smaller, but the latest edits have actually made it bigger. It's now at 176k. I will try some edits myself, and await the feedback. Wdford (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The readable prose size is currently 59 kB. According to WP:SIZERULE, articles of "> 50 kB may need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" and that articles of size > 6o kB "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". I don't think the situation is as urgent as you make it seem to be. That being said, I do think some parts of the article could be summarized.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Future Trillionaire. It looks like we are about as long as we can get. Unfortunately, this article is missing a lot of coverage.
 * Christian story of Jesus. We don't do a good job of explaining the whole story. It's an interesting story that starts in eternity and ends with Jesus returning to judge the living and the dead. The lead says he will return, but omits the context.
 * Christian perspective on the gospels. We give the historical view of the gospels but not the Christian view. How is the reader supposed to know that Matthew and John were eye-witnesses, and that the Holy Spirit helped the early church choose the right books for canonization?
 * Historical setting. Britannica gives this a section of its own.
 * Evaluation of sources. Not sure that the sources are given sufficient evaluation, and the historical-critical take on the gospels is not covered in the historical views section. The Gospel of Thomas doesn't get treated, and critical scholars think it has more authentic words of the historical Jesus than John does.
 * History of Christian beliefs. The article jumps from the gospels to contemporary Christian views. What about the 1st-century belief that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the apostles? What about the development of the creeds? We wouldn't have trinitarianism without the Nicene Creed. What about challenges to the creeds that developed out of the Reformation? There's no context given for the Christian groups that deny the trinity. Once people started reading the Bible for themselves and questioning the bishops' authority, the ancient creeds came into question, starting with Servetus. This section could be long. In general, the Christian view of Jesus should get more play than other religious views because there's a lot more to it than the Muslim view, etc.
 * Christianity and historical Jesus. Christian groups have distinct approaches to the historical Jesus project. This is short.
 * Contemporary mainstream historical view. The mainstream historical view doesn't get laid out in the historical views section. Instead, we get a collection of individual items, such as that he taught in parables.
 * There's a lot to add to the page. I've been trimming as well as adding material. To make room, I'd replace the New Testament section with a scholarly treatment summarizing the same topic. This section is long, it's the Christian approach, and it's now how other tertiary sources treat the topic. The section should be scholarly and shorter. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We cannot possibly include all this additional material - the article will go over 300k. There is a reason why wikipolicy calls for spin-off articles. This article needs to be cut down to under 100k - many featured articles are smaller than that. The requirement that a featured article must "include everything" doesn't mean literally including every sentence and quote ever written on the subject, it means that everything of importance must be mentioned at least in summary with a link to a detailed main article so that an interested reader can find the detail readily. Each of these important issues already has an article or four of its own that wallows in the minutiae - there must be at least 100 Jesus-related articles on Wikipedia already.


 * To take as an example the section Life and teachings in the New Testament. This is a section of 66k on its own, which directly duplicates an existing article of 70k. This is madness. The entire section of Life and teachings in the New Testament should be reduced to a 4-para summary, with clear links to help readers to find the 50-odd existing articles which already wallow in the full detail. Does anybody have a rational objection to cleaning this section up, for starters? Wdford (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * u|Wdford, trimming the NT section to 4 paragraphs would be a big step forward. Right now it's so long that it's hard for the reader to pick up the overall outline of the gospel stories. Once upon a time, other editors encouraged me to be bold, and no one could frame a coherent objection, so I started work on this section. Then I got reverted, and that's why I added the POV tag. I would encourage you to be bold. This section really needs work. The editors who have opposed reworking this section have grown a little quiet, but I bet they will speak up if you try to change the section that suits them so well.


 * My preference would be to cite scholarly sources that summarize the NT stories rather than constructing a conflated biography out of the four gospels. But a different solution that makes this section shorter is a good idea, too.


 * We can't possibly include the various topics I mentioned if the topics all get the expanded treatment that we see here. But I like your idea of short summaries that direct readers to subpages. We should be able to reduce the amount of treatment that each topic gets. Our main obstacle will be those editors who do not like to see any line that they like removed from the page.


 * See what you can make happen, sez I. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'll take a shot at summarizing this material better. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've started trimming material. There are plenty of places where the text goes into more detail than the reader needs. I could do more, but maybe someone else wants to pitch in, too? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The size problem is especially bad when you consider all the material left out, as mentioned above. There's hardly any mention of Paul, whose view on Jesus was clearly notable. For reasons that are unclear, the NT section excludes large parts of the NT from the discussion. With this in mind, I'm going to continue to cut. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Question: why does this article say Jesus is dead?
Hi, I was just wondering, why does this article say Jesus is dead? Jesus, my lord and savior, is surely alive, forever lasting, son of God! Jesus is alive, alive more than ever, with light immulating from him, Jesus is my lord and savior, amen!  CookieMonster755  (talk)   17:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does it say "Jesus is dead"? The article I'm looking at explains that according to the Bible he died, then rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- The Infobox says he is dead, which he is not. -- CookieMonster755   (talk)   18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the infobox says he died, which is true. It doesn't explicitly say that he remained dead. There is no academic consensus on whether the resurrection is historical.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Thanks for clearing that up for me About the Infobox (and yes his resurrection is historic and true, but it depends if you believe in Jesus or not, which I do).  CookieMonster755  (talk)   20:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A possibly harder (but necessary) to accept answer is that the resurrection is a matter of faith (which you seem to get with "depends if you believe"), and Wikipedia handles matters of faith and history as non-overlapping magisteria -- with faith as subjective belief and history as (at least seeking a state of) objective observation. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the topic of content for this page, I will agree with the OP that this article downplays the belief that Jesus will return (soon) at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead. There's a lot of talk about Jesus' life, but his impending return is a major element of Christianity that gets relatively light treatment here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because it's an article on Jesus, not on Christian eschatology. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

POV Tag. Separating sources for Jesus in the New Testament
Starting a new section to resurrect a line of thinking that is buried in the conversation above. You can see some of the history of this conflict under the header NPOV treatment of gospel accounts. The current section follows Christian devotional practice in conflating the four gospel stories rather than scholarly practice of distinguishing among the accounts. It also follows canonical boundaries in a way that secular historians do not. Earlier Britannica was the only tertiary source that we could reach any agreement on as a model for this section, and once I started to implement the Synoptic-focused format of Britannica, I was reverted. So let's go to Plan B.

There was some general support for treating each source separately. That's how textbooks do it. Each section would say how NT sources treat the topic, addressing them in chronological order. It wouldn't take much new information, just re-ordering it. How about we do that? I can pick one section to start with, and we'll see how it looks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As for whether this section is Christian POV, Jtrevor says that historical criticism should be excluded from this section and restricted to the Historical Views section. "A better response than a POV tag would be clearly pointing out in the Historical Views section your concerns." The Historical Views section is labelled historical views. Why isn't this section labeled "Christian story of Jesus"? And Future Trillionaire supports this section, too, stating "I think that section is indended to be the Christian perspective of Jesus. A section for historical and secualr views is located right below it." These people disagree with me on which sources to rely on when describing Jesus, but they agree with me that the section as it is represents the Christian view, not the historical one. We need to change it to match the best sources (my preference) or relabel it (which is the easiest way to resolve the dispute and ditch the POV tag). And maybe I'll try adding stuff to the historical section. I trust that we secular people will be given just as much leeway to describe Jesus our way as Christians get to describe him their way. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, I still don't understand what you mean by "secular". Do you mean "atheist"? In any case, there has been a greater focus on the gospel differences in recent years, but the idea of a overall narrative has not been completely abandoned, and in this introductory article, having an overview of Jesus in the NT is very helpful. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For example, Craig Blomberg's Jesus and the Gospels (2009) has both introductory chapters on each gospel and a several chapters on a "Survey on the Life of Christ". I think the overview vs. individual gospel portraits is an unwarranted dichotomy; we can, in fact, have both. StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend for anyone to think I believe historical perspectives should be overly restricted in this article. On the contrary, it is most welcome.  Rather, it's just a matter of recognizing the different functions and foci of the different sections.  In my opinion, "Jesus in the New Testament" is intended to be a synopsis - a mere summary, without critique or scholarly analysis - of the New Testament; such a summary is necessary before historical context or critiques can be properly understood and weighed by the article's audience.  Those critiques and perspectives can then, in turn, be presented in subsequent sections such as "Historical Views" that are clearly intended for such purpose.  I hope that makes sense. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * St. Anselm. By secular I mean the approach that would be taught at a secular university or found in a secular textbook or encyclopedia, such as Encyclopedia Britannica. All I want is for us to follow the example of good tertiary sources. That's the Wikipedia way, isn't it? And thank you kindly for your source, Blomberg. I have been asking for sources for months, and the only one that anyone on your side of the fence could offer was Encyclopedia Britannica. And we all know where that got us! Your Blomberg example is perfect. His book was published by a religious press. Conflating the four gospels into one account is a devotional practice, not a mainstream, neutral, scholarly practice. So maybe let's label the section such? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jtervor, "In my opinion, "Jesus in the New Testament" is intended to be a synopsis - a mere summary, without critique or scholarly analysis - of the New Testament;"   I know that's your honest opinion, and it's probably so obvious to you that it's hard to even see where I'm coming from! but can you cite a WP policy or standard to back you up? Can you show us a good source that treats the topic this way? Where's the policy on when to excluded scholarly analysis? WP is built on sources, standards, and policies. If you can't name sources, standards, or policies to back up your opinion, how much weight do you want us to give it? I might get behind your plan to get scholarship out of this section, but it would have to be labeled as such. By default, WP pages rely on scholarly analysis. If there's a section where that's excluded, the reader needs to know it. How about we just relabel this section so everyone knows that it's the Christian POV, not the scholarly one? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to cite a WP policy; it is a de facto argument. "Jesus in the New Testament" is about Jesus in the New Testament.  Something so obvious does not need a WP policy to back it up.  Other authors on the NPOV talk page have backed me up on this, as you know.  Besides, how can historical and secular criticism be understood if the nonhistorical, nonsecular background for that criticism is not first stated?  Do you really want to do readers a major disservice by only writing about the historical context, omitting one entire side of the discussion - and one against which the historical and secular criticism must be contrasted in order to properly understand that criticism?  Do you want to assume that everyone coming to this article already understands, and has read, Jesus's portrayal in the New Testament?  And if not, why are you trying to argue that that portrayal has no place here?  Finally, let me ask you - why is it acceptable to have a section on Muhammad in the Koran?  Vishnu in the Bhagavad Gita?  Abraham in the Tanakh?  All of these sections exist in their respective Wikipedia articles, and no one is trying to argue at any of those that the religious text against which historical and secular arguments can be understood, should be excluded.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jtrevor, It looks as though you've done some research trying to bolster your argument. Thanks for putting some work into it. Examples from other pages are nice, but they don't amount to a policy or guideline. Also, the Koran is one text, while the gospels are four texts. But I hear you about, "Why not state the noncritical view before the critical view?" That makes some sense. How about we make this section really be about the traditional Christian view? For instance, the section on the gospels should say that they were written by two eye-witnesses (John and Matthew), one associate of an eye-witness (Mark), and one associate of a prominent apostle (Luke). The reader deserves to hear that Matthew and John are eye-witness accounts. Let's put that sort of thing in, and remove all the historical stuff, such as the supposed dates that the gospels were written, and I'll stop complaining that this section is Christian POV. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that would make it *less* neutral - or at least, the claims of authorship would need to be reliably sourced. StAnselm (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, we'd have to source the claims. But this brings up the bigger issue of the Christian perspective on the gospels. See new section below. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Back in February, was behind a literary-historical approach, treating each source separately under each subsection. That's more work that removing John, but how about we do that? Lots of secular, tertiary sources take that approach. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I restored the POV tag because the conflict hasn't been resolved. This section treats the topic the way Christians have traditionally treated it rather than how mainstream tertiary sources treat it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , like you, I'd like to see this issue resolved and the POV tag removed. The easiest solution is to point out that this section takes the Christian approach and let this section be a "Christian views" section. A harder but better approach would be to address this topic the mainstream way, differentiating among the sources rather than conflating them. Any ideas? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. But why do you believe that all those tertiary sources in the section are biased by being Christian? That said, per WP:BIASED the reliable source policy doesn't distinguish between authors believing in Christian god and those that do not. The only possible concern I can imagine is the author's affiliation with Church by being a pastor, bishop, etc. In that case I'd expect some unaffiliated sources being offered instead. Brandmeistertalk  16:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. You seem to be keen to get the POV tag removed, and so am I, so I hope you can help us resolve the conflict. My issue is not with the sources cited in the section. The section purports to be neutral but it takes the Christian approach to the topic: following the traditional canon, holding John equivalent to the Synoptics, and conflating four accounts into a single account. That's not the mainstream way to approach this topic. The editors who want to keep the section the way it is won't offer a secular tertiary source to use as a model, nor a WP policy to use as a guide. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As already noted above, it takes Christian approach because the section is titled "Life and teachings in the New Testament", i.e. the sources relay and/or intepret what the New Testament says per WP:SECONDARY. The potentially problematic statements may be converted into "according to Funk...", "Dunn writes that...", etc per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. See also gospel harmony. Brandmeistertalk  13:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 'As already noted above, it takes Christian approach because the section is titled "Life and teachings in the New Testament"' So you're saying that this section has to be a Christian approach because that's what the title implies? You're not the first one to make that claim. In that case, you'll be fine with a scholarly approach provided we just change the title of the section. It's not like we're locked into the title, so we can change the title to fit the proper treatment of this material. Let's call it, "New Testament portraits of Jesus" and make this section scholarly. Then you'll be happy because the title and the content still match, right? I mean, your point is that the title and content need to match, but you're not claiming that the Christian viewpoint is more important than the mainstream academic one, are you? WP says that the mainstream academic viewpoint is preferable to a minority one. But somehow I expect that you're going to find another reason not to approve the mainstream academic approach on this topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it was the title that was causing this section to be POV, now that I've changed the title to reflect mainstream academics, I can remove the POV tag, which is what everyone wants. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Baptism and temptation" section picture
Hello. I have recently changed the picture in the "Baptism and temptation" section. I previously tried to change the picture in the same section with the same picture a while back. It was later changed back to the former image by an editor. The editor who brought it back said the former picture was "an image of greater value by a famous artist."

I would rather have images on the Jesus article that most accurately display what is written in Scripture about the concerning topic. Regarding the former image, Scripture does not say that God the Father and angels were visible during the baptism of Jesus. John 6:46 says that no one has seen the Father. Also, Scripture says in Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6 that John the Baptist's clothes were made of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist. I think it shouldn't be about which image is of greater value and from the more famous artist if the former image is not as factually correct as the new image. TheG3NERAL John 3:16 (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The point of having pictures is not to 'accurately display what is written in Scripture' - it is to illustrate the ideas described in the article. There is no one 'Scripture' - the Gospel of John reflects a somewhat different theology to the synoptics, and besides there is no reason why religious artists should aim for a 'factually correct' approach. Even if such a thing were possible - and remember that the Gospel narratives are theological constructs, not attempts at documentary realism - artists have always aspired to portray what, in their understanding, was the spiritual truth of the scene. The article will be impoverished if we decide that pictures must present an (entirely imaginary) factual portrayal instead of reflecting the way in which artists have attempted to express their aesthetic and spiritual understanding of the ideas. Otherwise we will have pages and pages of religious kitsch. --Rbreen (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * General, thanks for helping us try to improve this page. I would agree with Rbreen, however, that we are not looking for accuracy. In Luke and John, the spirit descends after Jesus' baptism, not during. Also, the Jesus in the new image is pale-skinned and bearded, plus his baptism (literally, "plunging, soaking") is not by immersion. The previous image is prettier and more famous. Anyway, that's my opinion. General, as you know, we make our editing decisions based on WP policies and guidelines, not personal opinion. Would you please do a little legwork and see if you can find a policy or guideline that would help us agree on what sort of image to use? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

depictions and relics to go away?
The sections on depictions and relics are nice, but there's a lot of more notable information that the page still lacks, such as Jesus' pre-existence in the NT, Paul on Jesus, the creeds, etc. I put some of my own work into these sections, but how about we just remove them and put links to the main articles under "See Also"? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm for retaining both sections as being essential for the article, but the depiction section may be shortened and further summarized from Depiction of Jesus (the Crucifix paragraph, in particular, may be removed as stray). Brandmeistertalk   13:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think we could find a secular, tertiary source that we could use as a guide for how much weight to give these topics? Then it won't be about our conflicting opinions but about our shared desire to reflect the best sources. These topics don't get a lot of coverage in my sources. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think either section is too long, but neither are very good, and the art one uses non-specialist references. Neither summarize their main articles very well. I don't see that using a single "secular, tertiary source" as a guide for weight is likely to be helpful, as these will vary hugely between authors, and different aims for the source. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , OK, let's find several sources. Here's the policy on using tertiary sources to assess due weight: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." See WP:TERTIARY. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. The sources used now are not so much "tertiary" as say 8th-20th level. As I said above, "Neither summarize their main articles very well". That is what the sections should do, and you will find much better sources, many available online, at those. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015
Please remove the "fictional character" words you have by this posting... Jesus is NOT fiction!! thank you!!

173.245.139.91 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As stated in the edit notice, Facebook's labelling of Jesus as a "fictional character" has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Several editors have previously asked to have this changed. Since it has no connection with Wikipedia or its contributors, please do not ask or start a section about this; doing so is pointless and inflates the size of this page unnecessarily. Please contact Facebook instead. Stickee (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospels
It seems as though the title "Jesus' Life and Teachings in the New Testament" has been giving editors the idea that this section should represent a devotional approach to this material, even though WP prefers a mainstream academic approach. To clear up this confusion, I've changed the title to "Portraits of Jesus in the Gospels," and now everyone should be happy to take the mainstream, academic approach to this topic, as with every other topic in WP. I expect pushback, but what I'd really like to see is the WP policy that says don't take the mainstream academic approach to this topic. Hint: There is no such policy. Next we can replace this overlong section with summaries of what Mark, Matthew, Luke and John respectively say about Jesus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

All this talk about Jesus in the NT has been very abstract. What's the big deal about conflating the gospel accounts into one story? Don't they basically tell the same story? Fair questions. To help make this discussion clearer and more concrete, I've added a table that summarizes the two portraits contained in the gospels: the synoptic version and John's version. Is it true that we should take these two portraits and merge them into one? I don't think so. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And for balance I added a paragraph specifying the main outline of Jesus' life on which John and the Synoptics agree. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Next up, it seems like the thing to do is to provide a summary of Mark, especially who Jesus is in Mark (the divinely designated Christ whose authority is revealed only in secret). This summary provides the Christ story in general outline. Then we discuss Matthew, its content, and its portrait of Jesus (the Jews' prophesied king, born of a virgin, founder of the church, etc.). Here we would bring in Q. Then Luke, and its picture of Jesus, the one who accepts the poor oppressed in the name of God. Finally, there's John, where Jesus is the incarnation of the eternal Word. The outline of Mark provides the basic biography, Matthew and Luke provide the bulk of Jesus' teaching, and John rounds it out with a different perspective. That approach is going to be clearer than the synthesis that we currently offer the reader. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

How do we organize discussion of the four gospels? One common method is to group the Synoptics together and then address John separately. The other common approach is to address each gospel in the order of its composition. I have provisional outlines for each approach in my sandbox, if folks would like to take a look. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

more on Christian views
As other tertiary sources demonstrate, the Christian views on Jesus are notable and deserve plenty of treatment. I've added a little to the Christian views section, mostly beefing up what's already there. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd just note that secondary sources are more preferable than tertiary ones per WP:SECONDARY. Brandmeistertalk  16:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tertiary sources are best not for citing individual facts but for helping editors agree on due weight: "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." WP:TERTIARY. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015
Died Good Friday. Rose Easter Sunday Jesus is not dead and is in heaven with God.

73.164.91.167 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see above where this has been discussed already a few weeks ago. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Historical Jesus and Inferno Doctrine
The article mentions the historical Jesus and considering his statements as such based on a divergence from Jewish and later church traditions. What is the general view from historians on Jesus and what we call hell? I've heard it both ways from the public and commentators. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I second the idea that we could use a treatment of what Jesus thought in terms of eschatology: the coming apocalypse, eternal punishment, etc. Would love a summary of Jesus' religious beliefs in general. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dale C. Allison's Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet estimates that Jesus believed in a 'hell' which he analogizes as the 'resurrection to judgement'. Of more interest, I find, is the belief in an interim period to which he speculates 'Jesus and later Christians might not have thought much about'. He references Luke 16:19-31 to suggest that Jesus may have believed in a somewhat common (he says) Jewish belief that the dead existed in a glorious interim state but that the text is a parable and such a suggestion is basically slippery ground.


 * I'll keep looking for more. Allison's work seems a bit dubious at times, if honest about his own short-shortsightedness. Hopefully something more stoic, less from the perspective of a theologian. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky topic. Thanks for looking into it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would particularly be inclined to say that anyone who says 'Jesus believed in hell' or even 'inferno' without first making stipulations I would view skeptically. These words appear hundreds of years after the writings' first appearance in Greek and have no direct connotation to any singular, uniform concept Jesus referred to. They're modern doctrinal substitutions for words which would otherwise be transliterations in English: 'Hades' and 'Geenna'. Forgive my linking to the same ecclesiastic dictionary on both accounts, all the secular ones I could find on onelook.com were very informal and nondescriptive. In any case, its quite falsifiable that the exact modern doctrine(s) were a later construction. One should keep that in mind when investigating the matter.


 * However, I think classically Catholics recognize Gehenna as an allegory for inferno, whereas Hades is just called Inferno. In English Bibles these are bother rendered as the same concept, Hell. The actual nature of all the doctrines is quite confusing: for example, the resting place of faithful Hebrews is also called inferno. Some argue this is more faithfully translated as the Catholic purgatory. I thought I'd just put out some background for anyone investigating, though.  --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe the historical section could use a section on Jesus' religious beliefs in general, and we could cover the afterlife and judgment day as part of that section. Also: guardian angels, free will, etc. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Jesus as fictional character on Facebook
Is there any way we can ask Facebook to show our article accurately, without the description of him as a "fictional character"? I don't blame people for thinking that it is an integral part of our article, as it certainly looks like one. Britmax (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We could petition as a group. Maybe contact Wikipedia's legal department if misrepresentation is that much of an issue. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Petition Facebook if you want. The WMF has nothing to do with it and it's not a legal issue (no idea why you think it would be). --Neil N  talk to me 13:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Neil N . Any individual can petition Facebook, or start a group petition, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia and I don't see a reason Wikipedia should get involved.Jeppiz (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not Facebook itself, but Freebase. There is also a means to start correcting it.  At the Facebook page on Jesus, you'll see a button that says "Edit" between the "Like" button and a gear button.  Click the "Edit" button, and it will open up a new page that says "Category" and to the right of that, "Edit."  Click that new "Edit" button, and it will display the "Fictional character" category with a "Yes" button and a "No" button.  Click the "No" button, then the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page.  If enough people do that, the page will eventually change.
 * One area they are royally fucking up is having Walmart under the "Related Pages." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't Freebase shutting down in a month or two? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hadn't heard it, but wasn't listening for it either. Article indeed says they are.  Hopefully that'll get Facebook to quit pulling data from it.  Or, if they transfer that bit of data to Wikidata, we'll be better able to get rid of it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just followed the suggestion above, and it's quite easy. I gave "Religious character" as an alternative category. Maybe if enough people give the same alternative category the change will be made. Britmax (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but from what I can tell, his description on the Jesus facebook page is essentially up to a vote. If enough people on facebook select "fictional character" as the preferred descriptor (over say, historical figure), then it automatically changes to fictional character.  If enough people vote for an alternative, I believe it will change automatically.  I'm sure some trollish hacker slaved a bunch of computers to vote him as a fictional character or some group got together and thought it would be funny.Farsight001 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw a petition several days ago on Change.org about this very topic your discussing. Interesting! I do agree, Facebook categorizing Jesus as a "fictional character" is not Wikimedia's problem. However, I do think somebody should do something about it.  CookieMonster755   (talk)   18:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Facebook categorizing Jesus as a "fictional character" is not Wikimedia's problem"

This^^. End of.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

was Jesus "really" Jewish?
would like the historical Jesus section to point out that the term for "Jew" in the New Testament could refer to ethnicity, not necessarily religion. I've removed this note three times because it was twice sourced to Christian source, not historical-Jesus sources, and a third time to another WP page. I'd be happy to see this note in the Christian views section. Something like "Christians acknowledge that Jesus was referred to as a 'Jew' in the Gospels, but they say he was not a Jew in the religious sense and point out that this term sometimes referred to ethnicity rather than religion." Is that a notable view? I can't say that it is, but I wouldn't object to it being in the Christian Views section if there are Christians here who really want to see it on the page. It just doesn't belong in the historical views section. Even if it's literally true, it doesn't get enough weight in historical treatments to warrant inclusion here. Historians regard Jesus as a religious Jew in the regular sense. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If I'm following this, the claim that Jesus was ethnically but not religiously a Jew is really far-out fringe. I would think that any vaguely competent historian of the era would call that distinction anachronistic to begin with, but I've never found anyone who claimed that Jesus wasn't observant. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any serious source that would state that the modern concept of being 'ethnically' Jewish existed at the time. In any case it is difficult to see how it would be relevant, since Jesus is clear that not 'one jot or one tittle' of the (Jewish) law is to be neglected 'until all is fulfilled'. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The idea of Jesus being "not really Jewish", either as an anachronistic "ethnic Jew" or not a Jew at all, is a fringe idea in my experience mostly propounded by anti-Semites who don't really understand Christian history or theology. If Jesus were not Jewish, how could he come from the line of David? Why would he be circumcised on the eighth day? Why would he be described in the gospels as going "up" to Jerusalem with his family at the Jewish holidays? (The concept of going "up to Jerusalem" is significant in Judaism.) Why would the apostles call him "rabbi"? Why would he be tried by the Sanhedrin? Why would "INRI" be affixed to the cross? The list really goes on and on. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Like the previous three commentators, I find this an extreme fringe view that would be WP:UNDUE in any section of the article. A large number of sources from leading scholars can easily be found stating that Jesus was a Jew, a religious, Torah-observing Jew. I don't know of any contemporary scholar in the field who have said the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems to be constructed out of antisemitism, very provably false from primary and secondary material. Not even technically correct for the time period. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We can cover antisemitic views if they're notable. Maybe the page could explain how early Christians saw Jesus as disowning the Jews in favor of Christians. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. I'm not finding your contributions here constructive, Jonathan Tweet. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. I'll try to be more constructive in the future. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ioudaioi
I agree with all of the above comments, except Jonathan's original post which looks to me like an accidental straw man. I do not have a view as to the question raised in the title of this thread by Jonathan, and frankly I don't even understand the question. What I am proposing to retain in the article is a clause, which has been in the article for a few years, stating "...a term which in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both". For anyone with passing knowledge of Koine Greek this is arguably a WP:BLUE statement. However, here are a number of sources:

Does anyone disagree with the statement? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was traveling. Oncenawhile, can you show us how this concept helps the reader understand historical Jesus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a section on "Language, ethnicity, and appearance". Without the sentence you removed (shown below in strikethrough), the paragraph on ethnicity currently states:
 * "Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of first-century Palestine,[246][247][248] (Ioudaios in New Testament Greek, a term which in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both ).[h] However, 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".[250]"
 * Without the struckthrough clause, a reader is left confused by what exactly Levine is referring to when she writes of the question "what being 'Jewish' means".
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * People today are still confused by what exactly "Jewish" means. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Whilst the article still pipes Levine's question to our wiki article "Who is a Jew?" (on modern Jewish identity), the spectrum of what it means to be Jewish today is very different to what the spectrum of what it meant to be Jewish / Ioudaioi 2,000 years ago. This is explained in detail in the sources above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a confusion about the relationship between the two statements (which both make sense to me)? i.e., we need to make it clear that "Modern scholars" and Amy-Jill Levine are not disagreeing with each other - AJL is not providing an opposing view, but adding historical nuance. 'Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew, but AJL points out that that's a complex designation' - or simply point out that while Jesus was undoubtedly ethnically Jewish, Judaism as a religion has changed in 2,000 years. But either way, it needs clarification. --Rbreen (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, do you have a strong view either way on this and has your question of 21 April been answered? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's well established that Jesus practiced the Jewish religion and was a Rabbi. Drsmoo (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * None of us are disputing this statement. (Although, Drsmoo, on Jesus as a Rabbi you might be interested to read Catherine Hezser The social structure of the rabbinic movement in Roman Palestine 1997 -Page 59: "Since Jesus was called "Rabbi" but did not conform to the traditional image of post-70 Jewish rabbis, and since pre-70 sages do not bear the title "Rabbi" in the Mishnah,29 most scholars assume that the meaning and usage of the term "Rabbi" at the time of Jesus differed from the meaning which it acquired after the destruction of the Temple: in pre-70 times, "Rabbi" was used as an unofficial honorary address for any person held in high esteem; after 70 it was almost exclusively applied to ordained teachers of the Law." I took this source from the Rabbi article and will add it here too.)
 * I am hoping Jonathan will explain his views either way on whether we should provide any information on the word Ioudaioi to help readers understand AJL's question.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to read that you're not disputing that Jesus practiced the Jewish religion. Regarding the term Rabbi, it is still frequently used in contemporary Jewish life as an honorary for a teacher of Jewish knowledge. A person does not need to be ordained to be referred to as a Rabbi. For example, in Jewish religious schools, the teachers who teach studies related to the Jewish religion are all called Rabbi. Your link shows an interesting link between ancient and contemporary Jewish life in that sense. Drsmoo (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The explication of the Greek word for Jew doesn't explain AJL's question. If anything, it confuses the reader by suggesting that maybe Jesus was ethnically Jewish but not religiously so. This fits the Christian narrative that Jesus founded a non-Jewish religion: Christianity. The approach of looking for the definition of a Greek word from the New Testament is what Christians do. Christians come to terms with the fact that Jesus is referred to as a Jew in their holy book. Historians have no such concern. They come to terms with the fact that Jesus was Jewish, but they are not hung up on the definition of a word from scripture. Let's talk Due Weight. What other treatments of historical Jesus point out the meaning of this word this way? I've never run into it in my considerable reading. I have run into this line of thinking among Christians. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must take exception with the assertion that the "Christian narrative" is that Jesus "founded a non-Jewish religion". He did no such thing. The Christian narrative is that Jesus formed the Church (that is, the collective group that would today be called Christians), which was originally Jewish in all senses of the word and identified as part of Second Temple Judaism, and that over the next century and a half this group became separated enough from mainstream Judaism that it defined itself as apart from, or in place of, Judaism, as Christianity. It isn't until AD 49, about two decades after the crucifixion, that the first step is made towards breaking away when the Church in Jerusalem decides not to make gentile converts be circumcised or observe Jewish law. (see Wilson, Marvin R. (1989). Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 87–90.) Even if you're going solely by what's in the New Testament, the council's decision at Jerusalem is in Acts, after the Gospels. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite. For more detail, see Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, you wrote: "The approach of looking for the definition of a Greek word from the New Testament is what Christians do... Historians... are not hung up on the definition of a word". Your statement is wrong. The term Ioudaioi is used in a vast multitude of historical sources, not just scripture, and historians of the highest caliber have focused on its definition.
 * You then ask for more sources, without a single comment on any of the 12 sources at the top of this thread. We cannot make progress here unless you are willing to read and comment on the sources provided so far. If you want to provide sources of your own in addition, that would be great. Or perhaps you want to make an argument regarding the specific relevance of each of the sources above. But please be respectful of other people's "considerable reading" as well as your own. Or if you just don't have time at the moment, perhaps you'd be kind enough to say so and we can pick this up again when you are ready.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to summarize the traditional Christian view, the one that was commonly held before modern historical investigation. If I got the summary wrong, it was an honest mistake. My problem with the sentence is that I don't see how it helps the reader understand the historical Jesus. Can someone tell me in one plain sentence how this sentence helps the reader understand the historical Jesus? I don't think anyone can. It looks to me like it will confuse the reader. That said, several editors have made it understood that they feel very strongly that the sentence should be included. I'm inclined to lift my objection as a show of good faith and a willingness to work together. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jonathan, I appreciate that. I have selected a handful of the above sources, returned the clause back into the article, and removed the word "However" before the AJL sentence. Without the "however" the paragraph flows better and reads more intuitively. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonathan, I appreciate the sign of good faith. A small point: in your last edit summary you refer to "non-religious 'Judaism'". This is a misnomer. I think what you mean is the modern idea of non-religious cultural/ethnic "Jewishness" that has come to the fore since the late 19th century, at least part because of anti-Semitism (as you said above, a lot of Christians found it hard to come to terms with the idea that their Saviour was one of those covetous Jews). —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand the arguments in this whole discussion; it's pretty obvious that in ancient times (and sometimes today as well) many peoples considered their religion and their nation to be the same. And if not the same then very related concepts. Yuvn86 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, u:Cliftonian. Looking back at it, I wish we'd tried to craft a compromise clause about Jesus being a "Judean," instead of struggling over whether to include that clause. Maybe there's a clause that would have made all of us happy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

eschatology
Jesus is the Savior. That role is fundamental to his identity as Christ, the Son. The lead and the article in general don't pay much attention to Jesus as savior. In Christianity, isn't "savior" a distinctive role for Christ? Isn't the point of Jesus that those who believe in him are saved and have eternal life? The lead talks about Christians worshiping him, but it's more than that. Christians rely on him to save them from hell, right? To gain eternal life? The lead talks about Jesus' returning, but it doesn't explain the circumstances. He's coming back to judge the living and the dead, right? Judgment Day. I know that these days lots of Christian groups don't talk about Judgment Day or hell as much as they used to, but it seems like we're missing a vital element in understanding Jesus. Or at least the Christian perspective on Jesus, which is notable. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Christians would almost universally call Jesus savior, but the meaning varies quite a bit from denomination to sect. I normally advocate looking through the sources and summarizing them, but Google books is glutted with, making it a bit hard to kind the stuff we'd need like Wiley-Blackwell or Brill Publishers.  Going through existing articles and citations, I managed to cobble together:
 * "Most Christians believe Jesus enables humans to be reconciled to God, (cite: Oxford Companion to the Bible p.649; found at Jesus in Christianity), and attribute important roles to him in Christian eschatology, including judging the dead (cite:Introducing Christian Doctrine (2nd Edition) by Millard J. Erickson (Apr 1, 2001) ISBN 0801022509 pages 391-392; found at Kingdom of God (Christianity)) before or after their resurrection, (cite: refs 6-10 at Christian mortalism) . Additionally, most Christians believe that Jesus either has established, is establishing, will establish the kingdom of heaven, with some modern and postmodern theologians positing that eschatology is largely symbolic, and Jesus's role in eschatology has more existential or societal implications than concerns about the afterlife. (cite: The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology By Millard J. Erickson, p. 95; found at Idealism (Christian eschatology)) "
 * Oddly, I've run into a lot of Christians discussing such matters, but I live in a region where a used book store would see no problem putting Left Behind somewhere between Karl Barth and Martin Luther in the "religious" section, while chucking the Tao Te Ching next to Tony Robbins and Think and Grow Rich in the "self-help" section. Admittedly, it's not as casual a conversation topic as it was from 1998 to 2002 and from 2010 to 2013.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to the wikilinks to Preterism, etc. - I think it's a bit simplistic to connect that to whether the kingdom has been or is being established, etc. I think the paragraph is a good start, but it seems a bit weighted towards eschatology. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * "Most Christians believe Jesus enables humans to be reconciled to God, (cite: Oxford Companion to the Bible p.649; found at Jesus in Christianity), and will judge the dead (cite:Introducing Christian Doctrine (2nd Edition) by Millard J. Erickson (Apr 1, 2001) ISBN 0801022509 pages 391-392; found at Kingdom of God (Christianity)) either before or after their resurrection; (cite: refs 6-10 at Christian mortalism) though some believe Jesus's role as savior has more existential or societal concerns than the afterlife, (cite: The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology By Millard J. Erickson, p. 95; found at Idealism (Christian eschatology)) and a few notable theologians have suggested that Jesus will bring about a Universal reconciliation. (cite: Richard Bauckham, "Universalism: a historical survey", Themelios 4.2 (September 1978): 47–54. ; found at Universal reconciliation) "
 * Would that work? Meant to include the universal reconciliation bit initially, but it got lost in the eschatology.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I was forgetting this was a section on eschatology! So there is no problem with that weight, of course. But I like your second paragraph better. "Judge the dead" could be wikilinked to Last Judgment; there should be something about coming back, too. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, how about:
 * "Most Christians believe Jesus enables humans to be reconciled to God,, and will judge the dead either before or after their bodily resurrection; (an event tied to the Second Coming of Jesus in Christian eschatology); though some believe Jesus's role as savior has more existential or societal concerns than the afterlife, and a few notable theologians have suggested that Jesus will bring about a universal reconciliation. "

...? Note that instead of the purposed references from Christian mortalism, I used different ones as the first I found did not discuss the intermediate state Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Just one last quibble: can we get rid of the Idiots' Guide as a reference? StAnselm (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm not going to put it in myself unless others approve it, but I won't revert anyone else adding it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's nice to work together like this, and I'm glad people agree that Jesus' eschatological role is notable. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Heavy Christian bias in article
The claim that virtually no scholars doubt that Jesus existed is absurd. Scholarly refutations of a historical Jesus are substantial and growing. And the statement that some have begun to question whether the Biblical account of Jesus is accurate is laughably understated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.177.134 (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See also Echo chamber (media), and the standards Wikipedia uses to determine what refutations are scholarly or not. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The refutations of a historical Jesus are anything but substantial and almost nothing on top of ta is scholarly. Its a VERY wide consensus among historians that Jesus was a real person.  Basically, the Jesus-myth theory is to historians what Intelligent Design is to biologists - a big giant joke given an air of credibility by a very small but very vocal minority.  And per WP:NPOV, fringe groups that are small enough do not even warrant mention in an article.  So the very fact that it is mentioned at all is, imo, undue weight for it.  All mention really should ideally be removed.Farsight001 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, anonymous editor, for sharing your opinion and demonstrating interest in this important topic. Please find a reliable source that confirms your opinion, and we will make sure that the viewpoint is given proper weight. Lots of people have opinions, but we really value evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And talking heads like your favorite celebrity anti-religion activist don't count. To sate your wary mind: David Copperfield, the magician, existed, but he can't actually fly without, say, an airplane. Claiming someone historically existed does not indicate any religious bias here. Last I checked, being a realist doesn't mean foaming at the mouth because inconvenient truths are being upheld by academically minded people. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Copperfield analogy is not apt in the slightest (and the analogy to Creationism is especially ironic). The primary documentation of Jesus comes from Christians who thought he really really was magical and would claim that Noah's ark, talking snakes, etc. were just as historically real as Jesus. There are no non-magical accounts of Jesus from even near his alleged lifetime. Note also the straw man argument here; having doubt that Jesus existed is not the same as claiming that Jesus did not exist per se.
 * The primary documentation of Jesus comes from several ancient texts written over 1900 years ago, in or near the lifetime of Jesus, supported by the fast majority of scholars of antiquity and historians. Sorry, but doubting that Jesus existed is about as reasonable as claiming he didn't.
 * And as an aside, people would be a whole lot more likely to take you seriously if you didn't use words intended to offend like "magical" or expose how little you know about Christianity by suggesting that they all think talking snakes really happened.
 * But in the end, this is all irrelevant. We report what scholarly sources say, even if we disagree.  They say he existed, so we say he existed.  If a significant enough minority according to WP:NPOV suggest otherwise, we describe that position too.  There is not, however, a significant enough minority.  The analogy to creationism is not ironic.  Is is precisely on point and thinking the Jesus-myth theory different and special just illustrates further how apt the comparison is.Farsight001 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't respond to the ad hominems, but 1900 years ago is by no stretch of definition within the lifetime of someone who was supposedly executed over 2000 years ago. Regarding Farsight's aside, the gospels unequivocally depict Jesus as magical (or if you prefer, supernatural). With regard to the issue at hand (the phrasing in the wiki article, which may be overly dismissive of doubts about Jesus' existence), I recommend replacing the mildly pejorative "virtually no scholars" with the nearly identical but less loaded "small minority of scholars" or something of the sort. Even Bart Ehrman--who is cited profusely in the article and opposes the Jesus-myth theory--has acknowledged that arguments for the Jesus-myth theory are "fairly plausible" and even represent the "dominant view" in some parts of the world. Source: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.177.134 (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to remind the IP in particular about WP:SOAP. Any further discussions about what some individual user believes about Jesus and about academia could be removed. This is not the place for explaining personal beliefs of any kind, neither about Jesus nor about scholarship about Jesus. This is where we rely of scholarly sources to discuss how to form the article.Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Virtually all" is true to what the source says, and we don't rephrase what sources say based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Jeppiz (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where'd you get the idea that anyone thinks he was executed over 2000 years ago? Again, we need wp:rs for your ideas and we need enough to overturn wp:npov.  IF you don't have that, you're wasting your time.Farsight001 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anonymous editor, I would like you to add something cited to Ehrman to the page. Especially if you try to summarize what Ehrman says rather than cherry-picking something you like. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The proper question is not "did Jesus exist or not?" but rather "did the Christian version of Jesus exist or not?". From a natural point of view, "the Christian version" of Jesus is not based on "reliable sources". None of the Gospels meet the criteria of a reliable source.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * According to whom does "none of the Gospels meet the criteria of a reliable source"? And neither this article nor any serious scholar has even proposed that the gospels should be taken at face value, so not sure what the point is here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article isn't based on the gospels, it's based on comparisons between them and known historical facts by professional academics, which is how Wikipedia defines reliable sources. The sources discuss the historical Jesus, and point out that the majority of professional academics expect that it's a safe bet some sort of Roman Judean messiah claimant with a then-dead-common name who was baptized by a guy with a still-dead-common name and crucified by a group known to do that.  Whether a Christian version of Jesus existed is a matter of theology, not history.  No historical Jesus?  There can still be a Christian Jesus.  Historical Jesus existed?  Doesn't mean He was divine -- because Jesus's historical existence and divinity are an example of Non-overlapping magisteria.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Human Chlorophyll, thanks for joining the effort to make this page better! There is plenty of room for improvement in the Historical Jesus section. That's a great place for the reader to learn in what ways the historical figure of Jesus is similar to or different from the Gospel versions and the version found in the Church creeds. If you are looking for a reliable source on historical Jesus, may I recommend Encyclopedia Britannica Online (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/303091/Jesus-Christ)? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

add section on Jesus' message
Since the historically probable Jesus was as preacher and the founder of an apocalyptic religious sect, can we please summarize his teaching? It seems like his religious message about the Kingdom of God deserves a section within Historical Jesus. He preached of an imminent revelation of God that would turn the world upside down, and he advocated radical forgiveness (turning the other cheek). His religious mission seems like a prime topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would repeat Jesus. I doubt that biblical scholars, particularly Christologists, offer a radically different view of his teachings. If anything is really missing in that section, it should be added in a succinct form as the article looks big enough. Brandmeistertalk  15:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that if the reader wants to know what the historical Jesus probably taught, they should read the section about what Jesus taught according to the Gospels? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If scholar view of Jesus' teachings radically differs from Gospel accounts, then that may go to Jesus, I think. Brandmeistertalk  20:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "can we please summarize his teaching?"


 * I think you'll find that various groups of Christians, schismatics and heretics have been trying to do this for the past 2000 years. Any attempt by Wikipedia to do so would doubtless result in Internecine Christian editing wars because everyone claims a different "message".


 * "if the reader wants to know what the historical Jesus probably taught..."


 * Then the readers should probably be looking at the "Historicity of Jesus" page rather than here.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. The reader ought to look to the Gospel section first for a summary of Jesus' teachings. There's no need to add another subsection to the historical Jesus section, at least not before the Gospel section is in good shape. So let's work together on the Gospel section. When you (all of you) look over the Gospel summaries, what do you think could be better? When I look at them, they seem to be missing a few big-picture themes: the messianic secret, the obtuseness of the disciples, John's and Jesus' predictions of an apocalypse, and the dichotomy between a successful mission in Galilee but a fatal mission in Jerusalem. To make room, I bet we could cut material of secondary importance. Anything else? I would say let's add in more about how the Gospels set Jesus against Judaism, but that's a thorny topic, so let's not touch it. What else would make this section better? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, I hate to pull you up on this, but I notice that you make reference to the Gospels "set[ting] Jesus against Judaism". The Gospels do absolutely no such thing. Jesus spoke from within Judaism and the Gospels make this very clear. The Gospels set him against other Jews and the contemporary leadership of the main Jewish sects, yes, but not against Judaism itself. Same applies to the Apostles and to Paul in other parts of the NT. (see Wilson, Marvin R. (1989). Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 92). —  Cliftonian   (talk)  01:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, Cliftonian. It seems as though we are in agreement that we shouldn't add material about Jesus being presented in some verses as opposed to Judaism. Since we agree on that, you and I could debate how certain verses portray Jesus and Judaism, but it would be beside the point and we have better things to do with our time. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)