Talk:Jesus/Archive 126

I'm Leadwind
Today i returned to the page and saw that last week I had logged in under my old handle, Leadwind. It seems that I switched back to using Safari, which had my old login credentials stored, and I logged in as Leadwind without realizing it. So the editor who appeared briefly a week ago was me. I'm sure that you editors judged my edit based on its merits rather than by who wrote it, so it didn't make any difference. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I don't have any problem with judging your edits by their merits, but I think in the interest of complete transparency and avoiding any suggestion of sockpuppetry to tilt the weight of arguments on this page, you should change your signature on all of the Leadwind posts, and you should make it clear on both user pages that you are the owner of both accounts. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for being upfront it. I see absolutely no problem whatsoever. Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose, thank you, those are good suggestions. This topic is a touchy one, and we should all be on our best editing behavior so we can all work together despite our differing opinions on who Jesus really was. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a sentance:
"In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah." Prepositional phrase at the end of this sentence should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.96.66 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus was the only semiracial person
According to the Bible Jesus was the only semiracial person, for he was at the same time God and genetically completely human, but only the 50% autosomal DNA and his (100%) mRNA were of human race. The other 50% autosomal DNA wasn't derived from any race but God himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.172.102 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "According to the Bible" If there are any respected scholars that have studied this and concluded he was indeed semiracial, come back with that. HalloweenNight (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

why Caiaphas had Jesus killed
BRD means that now my material has been deleted we discuss it. My question is, under what circumstances would I be allowed to restore this material or something like it?

Editors who oppose a historical treatment of Jesus have deleted my latest contribution to the historical treatment of Jesus. The Gospels say Jesus was killed for blasphemy, but historians disagree. If we're going to report the Gospel version, then we are honor-bound to give the reader the historical version, too. Otherwise we're committing a POV error. Of course, the entire Gospels section is already a POV error, so the need to balance its account with historical scholarship is especially strong. I cited the world's top scholar on the topic. When Britannica needs someone to write their article about Jesus, they turn to Sanders. Theissen lists him, along with Crossan and Vermes, as top scholars on the topic.

According to E. P. Sanders, Caiaphas, the high priest, probably had Jesus arrested and turned over for execution to prevent him from inciting riots, which Roman troops would have put down with much bloodshed. The disturbance that Jesus caused in the Temple was likely the deciding factor, although other factors, such as his entry into Jerusalem, would have contributed to Caiaphas's decision.

Historically speaking, if this isn't why Caiaphas had Jesus killed, what is? The editors who don't like treating Jesus historically would be happy for us not to mention any historical opinion on this point. They want the reader to know less of what historians say because they don't approve of it. But that's not the WP way. Sanders is the most mainstream scholar out there. So I ask the editors who want to leave this material off the page, under what circumstances would I be allowed to restore it? If it truly is undue weight, what other opinion should be included for balance? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The only way I could see that material being restored is by seeing that an existing academic overview on the topic of Jesus, which is to basically say something like an encyclopedia article,or in this case by averaging some of the remarkably numerous encyclopedia articles of great length on this topic, which give that material sufficient weight in their own articles for it to receive roughly proportional weight in this article. That would mean that I am basically requesting that it be demonstrated, as per WP:BURDEN that this content receives roughly enough "percentage" coverage in those articles for the proposed addition here to be of basically the same broad "percentage{ weight. Otherwise, I very much believe that I may be seeing a possibly tendentious refusal to get to the point regarding this matter, and I would regret having to raise concerns about such issues. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, JC. When you yourself look up what historians say about why Caiaphas had Jesus executed, what do you find, and what are your sources? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which I have in front of me. The outline of that article, of which this matter is only a rather smallish part in the section "The Why and the How of Jesus' Death," can be seen at WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Prospectus.
 * The summary of the first paragraph of that section, which is the only part relevant to your question, can be said to be Jesus never reserved a place for the scribes, elders, and priests in his scheme of the new world, that there wasn't room enough for this aristrocracy and this individual possible messianic contender, and that the Sanhedrin (Caiphas is not mentioned by name) took the initiative and brought Jesus down. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 Encyclopedia of Christianity(2003) 27 "Finally he invaded the temple precincts in a public act. He banished commercial dealings from the sanctuary and thus achieved proleptically the eschatological purity of the place of worship (Other interpreters hand understood the act as his symbolically destroying the temple to make way for a new eschatological temple made by God)" The person of the High Priest might be referenced in this source in preceding sentences. Scholars like C. Fletcher-Louis discuss the High Priest as representative of God in the Temple worship of the times. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JC. The Anchor Bible project looks like a religious work. I'm not sure why we would be citing it in the historical section. If you look up Jesus' death in secular, historical sources, what do they say about the Sadducees' motive for having Jesus killed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Anchor Bible itself is more or less religious, but the ABD is a very long very highly regarded work which deals with issues of archaeology, biblical history, and other topics broadly related to the Bible from a primarily academic viewpoint, including peripherally related topics like descriptions of other cultures and religions from a primarily academic viewpoint. It is regarded in the field of reference as being one of the outstanding sources in the field of Biblical studies. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No one but me looks at what the secular sources say about Caiaphas's motives. If you don't have any evidence on your side, please stop reverting my work. I don't mean to be cross, but there seems to be a pattern of editors reverting my work and not providing anything better in its place. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you privileging "secular" sources? What's wrong with quoting the Anchor Bible in the historical section? StAnselm (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, you yourself have seen me repeatedly cite Christian scholars and Christian sources. Here I'm thinking of the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Gerd Theissen, J D Crossan (a founding member of the Jesus Seminar), and Marcus Borg (also on the Jesus Seminar). I'm not a Christian, but I'm happy to cite Christian sources that promote mainstream views. Wouldn't it be nice if Christian editors on this page were equally happy to cite secular sources? Especially in the "Historical Jesus" section? In this case in particular, what do secular sources say about Caiaphas's motives for having Jesus executed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, as per WP:BURDEN, you could produce such sources yourself? John Carter (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm challenged me about using Christian sources, and they bring up a good point. We should all be willing to use a variety of sources because we're all here to improve the page and none of us are here to defend a particular POV. Myself, I work on both the historical and gospel sections, and I've worked on neutral sections like the one on depictions of Jesus. Certain editors come across as opponents of the historical view, which is actually the predominant view among the RSs. I'm sure this is just a misunderstanding. Luckily we have a great source that could really benefit our page, a source that has impeccable credentials, that is free online, and that covers both the historical and the Christian viewpoints. I've used it, and any editor reading this could benefit the page by using it. It's the Jesus Christ entry in Encyclopedia Britannica. Here's the link (Jesus Christ). I'd sure love some help tapping this fine resource to improve our page, and it would be a great show of good faith if we could use the same source even though some of us might have sharp disagreements over whether the Gospels are the Word of God. John Carter, Mangoe, StAnselm, LittleJerry, any interest in helping out? I'm sure none of you have objections to using a secular RS when editing this page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, and here's why: Wikipedia is based primary on reliable secondary sources. Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source. In regards to neutrality, the whole article should be neutral: The gospels section should not have a Christian POV, nor should the historical section have a secular POV. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for referring to policies. That's a great way to reach a compromise with editors whose religious beliefs differ from one's own. According toe WP 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." I'm familiar with that line because I helped write it. When I cited Sanders in a secondary source, I was reverted because (I was told) I hadn't proved due weight. Now when I suggest citing Sanders as the author of an article in the world's most prestigious encyclopedia, and I'm told that that's bad because it's a tertiary source. I'm starting to wonder if people just don't like what Sanders has to say, no matter what text he's saying it in. As for this statement of yours, "The gospels section should not have a Christian POV, nor should the historical section have a secular POV," I'm going to remember that as we talk about the Gospels section and how it has a distinct Christian POV. Maybe we should just merge the gospels and historical sections, as Sanders does in his EB article. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

More detail needed on crucifixion of Christ
There seems to be a severe lack of detail on precisely who crucified Christ. The second paragraph of the first section of the article states:

"Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean, Jewish rabbi[24] who preached his message orally,[25] was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[26]"

The role of the chief priests has not been included in this section. Since it was the chief priests that crucified Christ after Pontius Pilate gave the permission, it seems logical to also include this important fact in the narrative.

The gospels give clear indication of this fact related by numerous authors and not just one. For example:

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! 15 "But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 ¶ "Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 17 "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst." - - - John 19:14-18

Paul, in his letter to the Thessalonians, confirms this:

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: "15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:" - 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

- - - To give more context, I therefore request permission from an admin for these verses to inserted, or quoted indirectly with citations to the specific verses above. I would like to also request the option to add this to other sections of the article where appropriate with regard to the parts detailing the crucifixion.--197.229.0.187 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We go by what academic sources say, not what Paul or the Gospel authors say. Jeppiz (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How does this quote then fit in? "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus.[20][21][22][23]"--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not true Jeppiz. I agree with MarlinespikeMate above. You can't have it either way depending on what suits you at the time on particular issues. As per NPOV both historical and biblical sources have to be given (if both are available and each to the extent of the amount of relevant info they supply).
 * This article already contains references to how the Koran (Quaran) views the life of Christ.
 * You don't seem to have a problem with that.
 * Then in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Gospel_harmony
 * In the fourth paragraph of the section called Gospel harmony:
 * "According to Mark's Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion for some six hours from ::the third hour, at approximately 9 am,[34] until his death at the ninth hour, corresponding ::to about 3 pm.[35]" These citations are directly from the gospels. Go and have a look.--UPDATED: --41.151.117.104 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#Pharisees_and_Christianity
 * Should we remove half of Wikipedia due to your concerns?
 * What about if a historian actually disagrees with the gospel and quotes the parts he disagree with? Do we not allow ourselves to include those quotes, if we are quoting his quotes? Ridiculous!--197.229.0.187 (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am assuming we have a majority in favor of my proposed edit?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not WP:VOTE at Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We also don't try to sway the weight of an argument by editing from multiple accounts or IP addresses. That may not be what's happening here but it needs clarification. Dayofrest12, are you the same editor as anon 197.229.0.187 and anon 41.151.117.104? For the record also let me say that I oppose Dayofrest12/197.229.0.187/41.151.117.104's proposed edit, so thus far there is no consensus for it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's true, you do not vote at Wikipedia, but you do require consensus, which is almost the same thing. By consensus I assumed it was meant a consensus of the majority of editors who leave a comment here - as you will never have 100% consensus on most topics I am sure.

For the record, by "majority" in favor of my proposed edit, I only meant MarlinespikeMate and myself, which was already a majority as nobody else responded yet.

I did NOT try to appear to give myself extra support under different names for the following reasons: My ISP only issues dynamic IP addresses, so my IP address always changed automatically every X hours since it is a dynamic IP. Secondly, I did then register an account on Wikipedia as "Dayofrest12" and made no attempt to pretend I was a different person BY ADMITTING IT WAS "MY PROPOSED EDIT" in question. "Dayofrest12" had no proposed edit under that name, only above that comment under the IP addresses I mentioned.

Why do you oppose my proposed edit? Do you not ever give reasons for disapproving of proposed edits?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see your reasons below this, you made things a little confusing by starting a whole new section below. Please see my response below your section below:--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not "almost the same thing" as a voting majority. If it was every content dispute would have a poll in which the majority decided the content of the article. Please read WP:CON and WP:VOTE. And I oppose your proposed change generally for the same reason given by Jeppiz: it lacks reputable, verifiable scholarship from sufficient sources to indicate that it is the prevailing and mainstream opinion of Biblical scholars. And BTW, please read another policy, WP:AGF, before suggesting to another editor that he/she does "not ever give reasons for disapproving proposed edits?" Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Gospels and historians agree that it was the Sadducean leaders of the Temple who decided to have Jesus killed. John the Baptist had a ministry that implicitly challenged the authority of the Temple, and so did Jesus. For those reasons, we should mention the involvement of the Temple leadership. On the other hand, there's something of a gentlemen's agreement in place that we downplay any anti-Semitism found in the Gospels. With that in mind, this change isn't one that I'm keen to fight for. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point that many of us (by "us" I mean people in general, not just Wikipedians) try to avoid even hinting at any anti-Semitism, has this been an issue regarding the crucifixion in previous discussions for this article? I would agree that it can be a sensitive issue, but I'm not sure that it has been much of an issue here. I want to be sure we don't confuse the issue of scholarly sources with the issue of anti-Semitism. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for prompting me to clarify my point, Sundayclose. TNo. the anti-Semitism issue first came to my attention in another area, maybe Jesus' ministry. It doesn't come up often, but when it does there's a clear preference on the Talk page to avoid the topic. There's a whole current in the Gospels about Jesus hiding his message from the Jews so they don't repent, and then God turns his back on them and designates the Christian Church as his new chosen people. When I read a secular account of the Gospels (e.g. Harris's textbook, Understanding the Bible), anti-Semitism gets treated, but it's probably best to leave it off this page. Any anti-Semitism is more about the Gospels than about Jesus himself, so it's a point I'm happy to let slide. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Basic policies
I see we have several new users, so let me explain some basic policies. First, WP:NPOV does not mean all views should be heard. If you read the policy, it says a lot about which views we don't include: we do not include views with no academic support. So appealing to NPOV to use the Gospel's as a source is a non-starter. As for the quote that MarlinespikeMate uses, I suggest reading it again. It says that scholars (not Wikipedia users) use the Gospels to investigate the life of Jesus. That is perfectly correct, and we then report what the scholars say. But we do not use Gospels to make our own investigation, that is what WP:OR is all about. Jeppiz (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Quoting the Bible outside the context of scholarly interpretation is fine for a sermon, but not for an encyclopedia. I also think newcomers should know that administrators on Wikipedia do not dictate or control content any more than any other user, so appealing to an administrator for anything except clear vandalism or policy violation is pointless. There are other ways to resolve disputes on Wikipedia, which includes this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Quoting the Bible outside the context of scholarly interpretation is fine for a sermon, but not for an encyclopedia" Then why is this already accepted in numerous places already on Wikipedia as per the examples I already gave above? How did those edits pass consensus?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have updated my comment directly above this section and am commenting here as well to acknowledge that this section has been somewhat of a response as well, although I still do not agree. Here is a scenario, what if I were to quote a verse from the gospel and then write straight after that, that secular historical scholars have not found any evidence to support that, or historians have found not other records outside of the gospel to corroborate this which makes it unlikely to be true. What if I more, or less say that in the article? Is THAT allowed by Wikipedia policies?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles in which you state that Bible quotes alone are "already accepted on numerous places" as sufficient (Crucifixion of Jesus and Pharisees) have considerable scholarship referenced in them and do not rely simply on Bible quotations. So far you have produced very little scholarship for your arguments. The wording of your question about the "scenario" is very confusing. I think it would be best if you would provide citations to the sources here along with the Bible verses. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is ridiculous. As said, "appealing to NPOV to use the Gospel's as a source is a non-starter" makes zero sense. We can't use original scholarly sources? This is not original research, as it is plainly written.--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If by "original scholarly sources" you mean your own ideas, the answer is no unless you are a recognized Biblical scholar and you use one of your own publications as a source. If you mean sources by authors who are recognized as Biblical scholars and published in reputable journals or books, such sources might be used to provide interpretation of Biblical passages. But the Biblical passages alone are insufficient. That's not ridiculous. It's Wikipedia policy. Sundayclose (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose is perfectly right. No offence MarlinspikeMate, but if you cannot tell the difference between the Gospels and "scholarly sources", then I'm afraid Wikipedia might not be for you. What contemporary peer-reviewed scholars say about the Gospels, Quran, Tanakh, Edda or Epic of Gilgamesh is relevant and we can cite what those contemporary peer-reviewed scholars say. Whatever the Gospels, Quran, Tanakh, Edda or Epic of Gilgamesh say is not reliable in itself. Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a bad job of explaining my stance, I'll clarify. Jeppiz, I should have said 'primary source'. Here is my argument as plainly as I can say it. According to the scholars, we know the biblical texts to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus. This text is a primary source. We are by no means offering up our own research on behalf of the primary sources, but how is it in any sense fair to the article "crucifixion of Christ" to not include this stance, knowing what I just said?MarlinespikeMate (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So just to clarify, I'm not saying we couldn't include it (though no case for its inclusion has yet been made), I'm just explaining how we use sources at Wikipedia. If you provide good academic sources in support of your version, then of course those sources will be considered. I'm merely pointing out that the Bible is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, and we won't make changes based on "The Bible says so". Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just speaking in general without reference to the crucifixion issue specifically, even with scholarly references, a general conclusion about the role of biblical texts in understanding the historical Jesus doesn't necessarily support conclusions about specific events in the life of Jesus (e.g., nature miracles) because scholarly interpretation of the biblical text may differ from the literal interpretation of the biblical text. If scholars view biblical texts as the best source in general, we can't jump to the conclusion that everything in the biblical text must be accepted at face value. See WP:SYN for details. Scholarly interpretation of specific events is necessary. To make this even more complex (which is unavoidable with an article on Jesus), every scholarly point of view isn't given equal weight on Wikipedia (or any unbiased encyclopedia). If there is a preponderance of scholarly opinion, that perspective is given more weight. Sometimes the scholarly opinions are diverse enough that several explanations of an event are discussed. If Wikipedians disagree on how much emphasis a particular scholarly perspective should be given, then there needs to be a decision by consensus, and if that is not successful an editor has the option to pursue other legitimate means of dispute resolution. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jonathan Tweet, you said above: "On the other hand, there's something of a gentlemen's agreement in place that we downplay any anti-Semitism found in the Gospels. With that in mind, this change isn't one that I'm keen to fight for." --- Sounds like the ultimate in political correctness to me. Who says that?!!! Who says, if a source sounds anti-Semitic, then downplay that part of it and pretend it doesn't exist?!!! Are you hearing yourself? I am not assuming bad faith here, I am observing it in front of my eyes!!! If the Gospels are anti-Semitic, how is it right to pretend they are not!!! - - - I will reply to the historical scholars perspective, which right now is more important - below:--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dayofrest12, I think you misinterpreted Jonathan Tweet's comments, and there's no need to shout at us by using bold print. Read JT's comment again. My strong impression is that he is commenting about society in general which can be reflected on Wikipedia talk pages. Many people are sensitive to the extremist minority who consider Jews "Christ killers". If you want an example, look at the furor over the film The Passion of the Christ; read about it at The Passion of the Christ. I'm not espousing any point of view here, just pointing out how controversial some issues can be. Wikipedians are no different than most people in that respect; we don't like getting embroiled in a controversy. I don't think Jonathan Tweet was arguing that we should be "politically correct"; he was simply pointing out the sensitivity of an issue. And when I asked him for clarification, he made that even clearer. If you don't mind getting into controversial areas, that's fine. But until you see someone in an article (not a talk page) add incorrect information because of political correctness, don't be so harsh about talk page comments. Talk pages are for discussing, and that's all Jonathan Tweet was doing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dayofrest12, I'm hearing myself. I don't like deviating from WP policy either, but it's not worth my while to buck the consensus and get reverted over and over by editors who are protecting the page as it is. I pick my battles. If you think you can get anti-Semitism into the Gospels section, go for it. Your best bet is to find a secular religious dictionary or encyclopedia. Stephen L Harris's Understanding the Bible might work for you, and I would recommend both those books just in general. Find what you're looking for, add it to the page, and then (this is important) cite both the chapter and verse and the Reliable Source. I'm curious to see what reaction you get. Good luck, and once again welcome to the Jesus page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

New References
I think the article forgets important new trends in the field of New Testament Studies
 * Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses has to be included. Cf. the discussion above ("POV Tag on Gospels section").
 * Richard Burridge's book What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography needs also to be included in the article. It played a key part both in establishing that the Gospels were read as biographies in the first centuries after Christ and that they belonged to a recognized literary genre of biographies rather than being unprecedented writings which reflected the faith and life of the post-Easter church.
 * The importance for contemporary scholars of the Pre-Pauline creed (1 Corinthians 15, 3-7) must be emphasized. Thucyd (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, some of those are indeed important new trends, but not all. The fact that it is a new trend does not make it important. Jeppiz (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

follow encyclopedias or WP pages?
In a section above (link), St Anselm and I are at an impasse. SA says we should follow other WP pages as our examples, and I say we should follow the examples set by RSs, especially other encyclopedias. Anyone want to break the tie? Meanwhile, I have evidence that we should follow RSs.: that's what WP policy says. I've invited St Anselm to share his evidence that we should follow other WP pages, and if you disagree with me, I would appreciate hearing your evidence as well. Thank you.

This topic is serious. Currently we favor the New Testament account. We put it first, we follow Christianity's canon, and we detail the Gospel accounts at great length, all while excluding scholarly opinion from the description. If this sort of favoring is against best practices, then the page is POV.. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you start an RfC on this subject. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. Would you please first offer some evidence that we should follow the examples of other WP articles over those of other encyclopedias? If you don't have any evidence on your side, then an RfC is hardly necessary. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello JT, could you please clarify which is the WP policy you are referring to? Is it WP:RS only or others? could you explain what relevant passages or content of the policy/ies would force, or invite, WP editors to follow the same article layout used in some external RSs? Sorry to ask but, at a first glance, it isn't that evident to me... Bardoligneo (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. In addition to reliable sources, there's article structure and due and undue weight. I would love for editors who like the current format to read these policies, but here are some excerpts for editors who don't have that kind of time.
 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. We should follow RSs, which is what I propose.
 * Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. In other words. the way we handle the Gospel stories is against policy.
 * Thanks for helping me clarify my point. Now I'd like to know what policies support St Anselm's view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See also WP:CIRC, cited below. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm with StAnselm, here. It is better for us to maintain our internal cohesion. Articles of a similar type or on similar subjects should, wherever possible, keep the same structure, for the sake of our readers. When it comes to matters of style and presentation, if it isn't in the MOS then consensus of the editors decide what the structure should take. As this article has already achieved FA status the community has already decided on the issue. tl:dr The structure is fine. --Adam in MO Talk 16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. Opinions are wonderful. Do you have any evidence that we should follow your opinion? I'm asking specifically for evidence, for reasons that I hope are self-evident. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy on circularity has something to say in this particular instance: Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources. That prohibition is clear to me. I'd love to see your evidence that we should make an exception here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When editors resist a change to a page but don't have WP policy on their side, they often appeal to consensus. Please read "consensus can change," especially this line: Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). A consensus is only as good as the reasoning that led to the consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the way we're treating this topic is in direct violation of WP policy, I'm inclined to put the historical section back before the Gospels section. If that edit gets reverted, then I'll put a POV tag on the Gospels section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's certainly not a direct violation. You're being very snarky ("opinions are wonderful"), and to make that sort of edit again when the consensus is against you would constitute tendentious editing. The fact that you don't want to start an RfC suggests to me that you're not really interested in gaining a policy-based consensus after all. StAnselm (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to have any opinion you like of me and my motives, but can you please at last offer some evidence to support your view that we should follow WP articles to guide us in editing this page? And if you think an RfC is a great idea, by all means please start one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if the editors of this page really did reach a consensus that the Gospels section should go first and not the historical section, kindly point me to the discussion where that consensus was reached. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not have to come through discussion - see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I see the issue was raised way back in 2007, but there was no consensus to change it: Talk:Jesus/Archive 80. There might have been other discussions, too. StAnselm (talk)
 * Thanks St Anselm. In 2007, as you say, there was no consensus. The issue was raised, editors exchanged differing opinions, and there was no consensus to keep the page the same or to change it. Opinions are terrible for forging consensus, which is why I keep asking to see your evidence. In 2007 the editor who proposed the change based his argument on reason and got nowhere. Today, I'm basing the same suggestion on WP policy. Policy trumps opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no policy on WP to follow the layout of paper encyclopedias. So the only policy you can really appeal to is NPOV, but it is hard to see how the current layout is non-neutral. StAnselm (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a layout issue, it's a due weight issue. I have shown evidence that we are putting too much weight on the Gospels section. What's your evidence that our page follows previously published sources, per WP:V. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

POV tag on Gospels section
I've put a lot of work into both the Historical section and the Gospel section. This issue is about what order the sections come in. The Canonical Gospels section has a POV tag because it should appear after the historical section. RSs treat Jesus primarily as a historical figure. They do not summarize Christianity's four Gospels first. When we put this section first gives undue weight to the Christian perspective. Some say that there's a consensus to put the Gospels first, but no one has provided evidence for such a consensus. The section has other issues, but I'll be happy to take the tag off when the historical section is first. In fact, I've only had a problem with one editor, and this seems like it should be a simple issue. We should match the RSs better.

For comparison.


 * Here is Encyclopedia Britannica Online.


 * Here are Jesus entries from several online encyclopedias.

The issue has been covered in these two discussions on this talk page.


 * historical account first


 * follow encyclopedias or WP pages

If you're new to this controversy, also consider how the entire Gospels section meets our neutrality standards, or doesn't meet them.

Christian canon: Why is it based on the four canonical Gospels? Historians don't have much use for John, so including it gives the Gospel a value that it has only within the boundaries of faith. A popular explanation is that the section header references the canonical Gospels, so naturally that's what that section has to be about, but that's begging the question. Maybe it's inevitable that we favor the Christian canon, but the section shouldn't be first.

Structure: Why is no scholarly commentary allowed in the Gospels summary? When I started editing WP 9 years ago, there was no scholarly commentary anywhere in this section. I worked against resistance to get it added to the introduction, and the introduction is in reasonably good shape. Even so, prohibiting scholarly commentary is a violation of WP:STRUCTURE. As someone who was in on the original compromise that got the section into this shape, I don't like it but I'm OK with it.

Purpose: The big question is, why do we have this section at all? RSs don't, why should we? In any event, it certainly shouldn't be first.

I hope to hear more voices on this topic. I have provided RSs and policy references as my evidence for you to judge. If you disagree with me, please share your opinion and then back it up with actual evidence. If we stick to the evidence, we should be able to clear this up. Thank you for your help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to provide an answer to your question :" Why is it based on the four canonical Gospels? Historians don't have much use for John, so including it gives the Gospel a value that it has only within the boundaries of faith."
 * You should take into account (and this article is sometimes quite outdated) recent paradigm shifts in New Testament Studies.
 * Richard Bauckham's seminal book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses published in 2006 has to included in the article. Based on historical arguments, Richard Bauckham argues, against the current consensus, that the synoptic Gospels are based "quite closely" on the testimony of eyewitnesses, while the Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness.Thucyd (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what paradigm shift? Bauckham's book was published almost ten years ago, it has not had any influence on mainstream scholarship, so even though Bauckham's book is WP:RS it is also very much WP:FRINGE. Jeppiz (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you really think Bauckham's book "has not had any influence on mainstream scholarship", you should at least read the special issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (vol. 6, 2, 2008). Thucyd (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Thucyd. Looks like we can agree to leave this section treating the four canonical Gospels, as it does now. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

On the NPOV Noticeboard, an editor said we should put the historical section first. Unless someone objects, we evidently have a new consensus to put the historical section first. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well another one is against it, so there's no new consensus. I think user:Mangoe on NPOV Noticeboard summarizes it well: it's not a POV issue, only a matter of rethoric; one should present the various claims and then discuss them. On the contrary, starting directly with the historical section would be like jumping to the discussion part without adequately presenting the claims: this way an ideally "ignorant" reader (say different cultures/religions) might not have a clear picture or even be totally clueless about the accounts the historians discuss. Other online encyclopediae do a great job interweaving historical perspectives and Gospels accounts but here they're quite separated, so it would need a complete rewrite to follow that way. Simply swapping the sections wouldn't achieve the same result. It seems, though, that the Gospels section is too bloated and redundant for the scope: a much shorter summary would suffice. I propose that. Bardoligneo (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would love to do away with the Gospels section and instead interweave the Gospel and historical information as the RSs do, but there's fierce resistance on this page to changing the Gospels section. Do you think that result is even possible? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus is primarily known for his portrayals in the gospels. The article even introduces him as "the central figure of Christianity" and them discusses historical issues later. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the conversation, LittleJerry. And thanks for sharing your opinion. Other encyclopedias lead with history.. Do you have any evidence that we should do it differently? Opinions are great, but do you have evidence? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's why it's a POV issue. The Gospels section presents the Christian answer to the question of who Jesus was. Putting it first gives that view a preponderance that it doesn't get in the RSs. Maybe the RSs are wrong to give short shrift to the Word of God, but they do. NPOV doesn't mean describing all viewpoints as comparable. It means describing all viewpoints the way RSs describe them. How do RSs describe Jesus? RSs strongly favor the historical approach to understanding who Jesus was, and we should favor it to. By putting it first. If we don't strongly favor the historical view like the RSs do, we're being biased. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is where we disagree - categorizing the gospels as the "Christian answer" to the question. The thing is, virtually everything we know about Jesus is from the gospels - either directly or indirectly. The handful of other independent primary sources (such as Josephus could also be placed there as well. But all the historical analyses are using the gospels as their source materials. StAnselm (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion, St Anselm. Do you have any evidence that we should treat the Gospels the way you want to treat them? The evidence I offer shows that RSs don't summarize the Gospels like we do. Maybe they're wrong, but our job as editors is to follow their lead. We can disagree about how we'd each prefer to see the material treated, but can we really disagree about how the RSs treat the topic? Or that we should follow the lead of the RSs? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can disagree - we are under no obligation to follow the layout of other tertiary sources. StAnselm (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Present evidence that we have to follow what other encyclopedias do. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, LittleJerry, for discussing instead of just reverting. The POV tag says it should stay there as long as the issue is under discussion. And thanks for asking about evidence. Lots of editors seem interested only in opinions, probably because they don't have any evidence of their own. Here's my top piece of evidence: WP:DUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The Due Weight issue is part of the Neutral Point of View policy. A violation of the policy is a violation of NPOV. Our article gives the canonical Gospels far more weight than RSs give them, so that's a violation of the Due Weight policy. RSs strongly favor the historical viewpoint, so we should, too. Let's put the historical section first to make our page more in line with the RSs. Now, can you offer any evidence (not just opinion) that says our article should put the canonical Gospels section first? Two editors have pointed to other WP articles, but WP pages are not RSs, and that's a violation of WP:CIRC. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not giving them any undue weight. Jesus is known primarily through the gospels and so it is perfectly reasonable to relate their narrative about him and present it first. We are not stating these accounts are fact, just that this is what they say about them. There is nothing POV about it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion. Now do you have any evidence to back it up? According to WP:V, we should be able to verify our edits. Can you verify that we should put a large Gospels section in front of the historical views section? If you don't have evidence, then please humbly accept the direction we are all provided by WP policy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree to stop trying to get the POV tag to stick. It looks like a POV issue to me, but there's enough resistance that I'm dropping it. That closes this thread. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Expanding our options
How can we edit this page to make it and the canonical Gospels section better match the way RSs describe Jesus? RSs describe Jesus as primarily a historical figure, and we deviate from that standard by describing him as primarily a Bible character. How can we fix it? The Gospels section also violates WP:STRUCTURE because mainstream scholarly opinion is excluded from the body of the section. For comparison, here's how Encyclopedia Britannica describes Jesus.

Put historical section first: That's my suggestion. It's simple, and it goes a long way to putting the proper emphasis on historical views. An editor on the NPOV noticeboard agreed, so I'm not the only one to favor this solution.

Reduce the Gospels section: This option came up a year ago from another editor, and Bardoligneo suggested it above.

Combine Gospels and historical section: An editor on the NPOV noticeboard suggested this one. The RSs do this. They don't have a separate Gospels section like we do. They refer to gospel accounts as part of the historical narrative. In so doing, they leave out the Gospel of John most of the other material considered legendary. Obviously this is the best answer because it best matches the RSs. But if there's a huge fight over moving the Gospels section, can realistically think about eliminating it?

Leave it as is: No one has offered any evidence that we should leave the section as it is. Certain editors are firm in their opinions but reticent when asked for evidence.

I framed this issue as whether to put the Gospels section second, but obviously there are more options. The dispute isn't resolved, and there's no consensus. I'd love to hear thoughts on how we can match the RSs better. Or if someone has evidence that we should leave the page as it is, I'd love to hear it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You keep mentioning "evidence". We are not debating facts, we are debating how an article should be structured. Hence we have to use reasoned arguments and it has been explained to you why the current structure is preferred. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do keep mentioning evidence, and I don't put it in scare quotes. It sounds like you're admitting you have no evidence to back up your claims. Please see WP:VERIFIABILITY, where we learn that WP's content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Thanks for sharing your opinion, but do you have any evidence that our Gospels section reflects previously published information? Or any evidence that we are giving due weight to the Gospels section and the history section? If you disparage evidence, well, that says a lot. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, content not structure or layout. LittleJerry (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does WP policy instruct us to make that distinction? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New image
Hello everyone. I think it's about time we replace the old image used to depict Jesus. It's a 2011 picture of a random stained glass in a Sydney Church with little to no historical significance. Besides, the picture is HDR-filled and very poorly lit. The main reason it was used is because it was one of the first images of Jesus available on Commons at the time, alas nobody has taken the time to replace it. Besides, He is portrayed as The Good Shepherd in the stained glass, which is a very specific depiction of Jesus that a lot of scholars would disagree with. I suggest to replace it with the iconic depiction of Jesus in "Christ And The Rich Young Ruler" that I recently made available in higher quality.

Hoffmann is one of the most iconic Jesus painters in history, and this painting was bought by Rockefeller and placed in the Riverside Church in New York City in the 20th century. It's also a fairly neutral portrayal of Jesus that doesn't directly depict him as a shepherd and one of the most recognizable portrayals of Jesus. HalloweenNight (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC).


 * This is all a matter of personal preference, of course. I prefer the Hoffman image over "stained glass" Jesus. The arguments "it worked so well for so long" and "it's a longstanding version" don't have any more merit than "almost all the other language wikis use it". Wikipedia is always a work in progress and, unlike print encyclopedias, can be improved on a frequent basis. Sundayclose (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, that is a nice image. Why does it look so different when it was in the summary box ? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a picture showing some more symbolic attributes, pose, situation, or whatever would be more appropriate than a dry portrait, especially since it is based on nothing. Also, and older painting (renaissance or older) would probably also be more appropriate. Nothing about the current picture says "Jesus" to me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The "new image" seems, at first glance, historically inaccurate as it depicts a Caucasian man. It can get a bit dodgy trying to chose an image of Jesus; many would argue that he was likely dark skinned, for one thing. Wikipedia shouldn't be arguing otherwise without a reliable source, and with this depiction, that is exactly what we are doing. I've reverted until consensus for change emerges here.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense, Petrarchan47, but that's a weak argument. Most people would consider people native to the Middle East to be Caucasian, just not as light skinned as some other Caucasians. Both images depict a Caucasian. If the current image is darker skinned than the proposed image, it's certainly not by much. And there's more to ethnicity than skin tone. The proposed image looks as Middle Eastern as the current one. If we require a reliable source for how Jesus looked, where's the source for the image currently in the article? Sundayclose (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The stained glass image is already also depicting a seemingly-Caucasian person, so I don't see how this argument is relevant. Also, there are obviously no "pictures" of Jesus, so all we have are depictions of him made by various cultures that follow the Christian religion. The primary race adhering to Christianity has long been Caucasian, and some of the foremost Western art of the last millennia depicts Jesus in this way, so I see Caucasian depictions as completely fine. Crumpled Fire (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree Tentatively agree to use the new image for reasons outlined above. Crumpled Fire (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Unless we can find a better alternative regarding symbolic attributes, pose, etc., per FunkMonk. But I do think we need a refreshed image, and prefer a painting to a stained glass. Crumpled Fire (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why there is a need to refresh the Lede image, but I looked through the archives and indeed the current one has been in use a long time. Previously, it was a mosaic. I would prefer this mosaic for the same reason I prefer the stained glass over the portrait: since we don't know exactly how he appeared, these less realistic depictions are more encyclopedic. The image above looks as if he is from Ireland, while the stained glass and mosaic aren't as clear with regard to features and skin color, yet the essential message ("this is Jesus") is retained. I agree with CrumpledFire, however, that "some of the foremost Western art of the last millennia depicts Jesus in this way". If it could be shown that in fact most notable art depicts him with very light skin, and that this portrait represents the norm, I would support its use.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Petrarchan47, once again, neither image is a "less realistic" or "historically inaccurate" image except in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, no one has a clue what Jesus looked like, although there are some assumptions based on his ethnicity. You have used these invalid descriptors of "realistic" and "accurate" several times with no basis. I think most people agree that Jesus was not the silky-blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus that a few artists have imagined him, but beyond that we simply don't know what he looked like. Both images have a Middle Eastern look, although I think if you compared either of them to a typical Middle Eastern man both would fall short. It's all very subjective. You think the proposed image looks Irish. You say potato I say potahto. I don't think either image looks Irish. Others may think they both look Lebanese, or American, or Egyptian. If you have a source that the current image is "more realistic" or "historically accurate" please provide it. Otherwise this consensus discussion will be determined by the general weight of opinion about personal preference, not historical accuracy, realism, or how "long-standing" the current image is. Sundayclose (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm just adding my two cents. I'm well aware that consensus will determine the image chosen. Likely it will need an RfC. There was probably some basis for having chosen non-portrait versions in the past. I don't think a portrait has ever been used before. It would be interesting to look through past discussions about this. Anyway, thanks for letting me say my piece.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I don't think an RfC will be necessary, although anyone has a right to seek one. I realize consensus is not the same as voting, but right now yours is the only opinion that is solidly against the new image (if I understand your point of view correctly; don't want to put words in your mouth). So far several opinions have been expressed either strongly or tentatively in favor of the proposed image. If we include presumed opinions from editors who have not contributed to this discussion, I know one of other editor who has reverted the change and one other editor who expressed agreement with the change on HalloweenNight's talk page. It's prudent to give this some time. But this is a high traffic article; my personal opinion is that an RfC likely is not necessary and could simply delay the inevitable. But as I said, let's give it some time. Sundayclose (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree the stained glass has had long enough as the lede image, but I find the Hoffman especially yukky, and would certainly not want that. The oldest high quality survival of the conventional depiction is this one, which would work very nicely imo. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that we have four competing images, does anyone have a suggestion as how to organize a "straw poll", designating each image with a descriptor such as "Hoffman", "Pantocrator" etc., with all of the images made approximately equal in size, labeled, and arranged together? If any more images are suggested we may very well need the RfC just to narrow down the options. Sundayclose (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Make a gallery where one can sign underneath, perhaps. Like the one here, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Poll

 * Here's an attempt at a poll, feel free to add more pictures. I vote for the cropped Cefalù Pantocrator. Recognisable as Jesus due to posture and symbols, as well as having an appropriate "Mediterranean" appearance. I vote for Christ Pantocrator, very much against Hoffman, for reasons outlined above. Mosaic is my second choice. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cefalù Pantocrator retouched, since it is historical and doesn't pretend to be accurate.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoffmann. Sundayclose (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am compelled to add a comment based on some of the other comments. Descriptions of Hoffmann by editors here range from Irish to Japanese and sub-Saharan African. This definitively illustrates my point that perception of ethnicity and even skin color is utterly subjective. This isn't surprising, but what is astounding is that editors espouse these opinions as facts as if anyone has a clue what Jesus looked like. Sundayclose (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My problem is that it does not display any features that would identify it as Jesus, such as posture, symbolism, or situation. It also seems this image is mainly identifiable as Jesus to Americans, who know this exact image beforehand (probably unknown to the rest of the world, which is more used to Renaissance or Orthodox depictions). The ethnicity is really irrelevant if it isn't identifiable as Jesus to most people from other features; it just looks like a naturalistic portrait of a random dude with long hair to me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose, I assume good faith, but rou claim that "perception of ethnicity is utterly subjective" and claim that "Descriptions of Hoffmann by editors here range from Irish to Japanese and sub-Saharan African. This definitively illustrates my point" is not correct. Nobody has said that the silly Hoffman picture looks anything other than Northern European, but I said it would be "equivalent of an image of Jesus as Japanese or (sub-Saharan) African". In other words, my comment about "Japanese or (sub-Saharan) African" undermines your point, it does not illustrate it at all and I'm really at a loss trying to understand how you could come to any other conclusion. The Hoffman picture is of a Northern European, and ethnicity is not "utterly subjective". Keeping with AGF, I'll take it you just read my comment badly, but in no way does it support your point. Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Pantocrator, Mosaic 2nd. Anything but Hoffman. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoffmann, Pantocrator 2nd. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoffmann. HalloweenNight (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, any mosaic or icon would be fine with me. I would not support the use of a portrait or any realism.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support Cefalù Pantocrator
 * Weak support: Mosaic
 * Weak oppose: Pantocrator (agree with FunkMink on the asymmetry problem)
 * Weak oppose: Stained glass (agree it is time for a change)
 * Strong oppose: Hoffman (for reasons stated earlier)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hoffman. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mosaic! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cefalù Pantocrator, Mosaic 2nd, Pantocrator 3d. Thucyd (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely Pantocrator, the only image that at least may bear some resemblance. Very strong oppose to Hoffman, which would come close to revisionism. Yes, everybody understands the image is not real, but there are limits. Hoffman is the equivalent of an image of Jesus as Japanese or (sub-Saharan) African, it's purely political and utterly misrepresentative. Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  Mosaic Cefalù Pantocrator cropped: Agree with Jeppiz about Hoffman being revisionistic; agree that Pantocrator has a symmetry problem; Cefalù Pantocrator is too small a picture compared to the whole image - essentially having a huge border. StAnselm (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Changed vote based on new image; Moasic is now my second choice. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a large version of Cefalù Pantocrator that possibly could be cropped to removed some of the border. Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The supposed "symmetry problem" of Pantocrator is greatly reduced at a larger size. But a crop of the Cefalù Pantocrator is certainly a possibility, and I would accept that. Done - there are of course any number of similar EO depictions that could be used if we go that way. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the cropped Cefalù Pantocrator, but perhaps someing could be done to the contrast and colour balance? Seems it is tinted due to bad lighting. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have checked the Commons category; "Cefalù Pantocrator cropped B" added above - quality is ok I think, and much lighter, perhaps too much so, Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cefalù Pantocrator cropped - we don't know what he looked like exactly, but we can make a guess, and a Western European man would not be my first choice. Jesus was a Jew prior to the Diaspora, so he was certainly dark haired and swarthy of skin - otherwise we'd have some comment in the gospels on his remarkable appearance. I'd prefer our primary representation to be somewhat abstracted to show that it is not representational imagery. People might otherwise think we had some sort of Time-o-scope. I detest the idealised images, such as Hoffman. Pure propaganda and misleading. --Pete (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cefalù Pantocrator retouched, but anything but Hoffman. I think all of the proposed images except the stained glass and the Hoffman are a step forward. These images convey a large amount of information through symbolism. The stained glass says Sunday school. The Hoffman says nothing, is not recognizable, and attempts to be realistic which is misleading. --JFH (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cefalù Pantocrator cropped - Cefalù and Hoffman are the most artistically appealing of the listed images. I prefer infobox images to focus on the face, which is why I didn't choose the stained glass one. The Mosaic and Pantocrator images are unappealing. Jesus looks somewhat unfriendly and disturbing in those pictures. I don't like the Divine Mercy one due to its lack of colors. The Hoffman one is looks good, but I agree with the above contributors that it's misleading. In the Cefalù pictures, Jesus looks less White and more Middle Eastern. While I think the Hoffman picture is the most appealing image, I it's better to go with Cefalù.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: "Cefalù Pantocrator cropped B" added above after all these comments. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - We seem to have narrowed things down to some version of Pantocrator (including various versions of Cefalù Pantocrator). Any ideas about how to select a specific one? Sundayclose (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The B version seems to be less grainy, so that one might be best, but I think it may be a bit too light. Perhaps fiddle with contrast? It also seems to have been taken at a lower angle, so might need some perspective correction... Compare with this higher res close up: FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's my Photoshop attempt, based on, higher res, less intrusive crop, fixed perspective, intermediate contrast and lighting. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Support that. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent! StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus? - I suggest placing "Cefalù Pantocrator retouched" in the infobox, and if no one objects in the next few days we have reached consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. There was clearly a consensus to replace the current image with something, and a consensus against Hoffman; it has been pleasing to see a solution emerge with the latest image. StAnselm (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I previewed what the Cefalù and Mosaic look like and the latter seems like it would be a better size. I wouldn;t make a big deal though. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The size can be adjusted (add | image_size = or some such). Now it is just default, small size. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend a 300px size. LittleJerry (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd been thinking of the Cefalu Pantocrator myself, so I would support either "cropped B" or the retouched version. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and put Cefalù Pantocrator retouched in the infobox. Feel free to resize or rewrite caption. Sundayclose (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Made it 300px per LittleJerry, it is horizontal, so not as "intrusive" as the old, vertical image. Plenty of white space to fill. Oh, and I just noticed that the full Hoffman image is already used in the article, so another reason not to use it in the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't know this dialogue was going on until I saw the old stained-glass picture come down, but I'm very partial to the old one. I don't really understand why the passage of time necessitates changing the image, especially since we obviously haven't learned anything new about Jesus's appearance and these are all traditional depictions anyways. If we were going to use the Christ Pantocrator we should use the historically significant one from St. Catherine's, in my opinion. But not sure why the old one needed changing. Aperiarcam (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, it seemed inappropriate because it is not a very well known image, and it is of little historical significance. Also, all the black lines across the image makes it a bit unfit for the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a vote
In the poll above, it seems as if several users fail to understand how Wikipedia works. We do not WP:VOTE, we discuss. Just saying one word (the preferred option) and signing counts for absolutely nothing, and we won't add a new picture just because it gathers the most "votes". Jeppiz (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct that consensus is not a vote. Thanks for raising a good point for those who may not be familiar with straw polls on Wikipedia, but with all due respect, in a consensus discussion about personal preference for an image, one word designating preference is not inappropriate. If we were discussing a very nuanced issue, such as interpretation of a scriptural passage, a more detailed explanation of opinion might be necessary. But which image of the five best fits one editor's opinion of how Jesus should be represented can be expressed in one word. Someone can say Pantocrator, or Mosaic, or whichever is the choice without having to elaborate that "Choice X captures the essence of my understanding of the perception of Jesus as portrayed historically in art". You are correct that we will not count the votes. But we will consider everyone's personal preference whether expressed as one word or as a paragraph. WP:NOTVOTE states "Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored" (italics added), not "always ignored". It's not always the case that "one word and signing counts for absolutely nothing". And if there's any doubt about consensus and the usual WP:DR methods are used to decide, I have no doubt that one-word preferences will be considered. A straw poll is only one step used in eventually reaching consensus. If the weight of opinion is overwhelming for one point of view (so far not the case in this straw poll), whether expressed as one word each or one paragraph each, consensus is more easily achieved. If consensus is less clear-cut, then editors who have stated one-word preferences have a choice to expand their comments. But at this point in the process no opinion is being ignored. Sundayclose (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course, and I didn't intend to say opinions would be ignored. Just wanted to point out that it is still a discussion, and a well-reasoned argument for whichever option carries more weight than just mentioning an option without any argument. Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Perfect image
This is the image we should be using for Jesus.



The Divine Mercy image has been approved by the Pope, has over 100 million followers, and garnered its own holiday Divine Mercy Sunday. Jesus told the person who envisioned Him in this painting "I desire that this image be venerated, first in your chapel, and then throughout the world. I promise that the soul that will venerate this image will not perish."

It even includes a Halo, a red ray representing the Blood of Christ and a pale ray representing Holy water. It's the perfect representation. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalloweenNight (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense, but please wait for the first image discussion you started to reach consensus before proposing different images. That's just not good practice and it's very confusing. I really would prefer that you remove this section until the other discussion is finished. If you do remove it, you can remove my comment as well. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that discussion kinda went down the gutter. Wikipedia doesn't work through a voting system, and somebody started that in there with good intent. The problem is, as somebody did point out, it's not a good way to reach a consensus, and most people just gave a one-word answer, which isn't helpful either. Besides, this picture is the one Jesus asks us to use, so why would't we use this one. HalloweenNight (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Much like the rest of us, Jesus has a number of favourite images of himself, several of which have received strong church backing over the centuries - see Acheiropoieta. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is pretty much the only one that's already in the public domain. It's only been in it for a couple of years too. HalloweenNight (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , all of the images are freely available for Wikipedia to use. All except one is in the public domain, and that one has a free license. Sundayclose (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please add the image to the previous discussion. No reason to add a new section, it was still ongoing, and "mosaic" seems to have the strongest backing. As for only one that is PD, see the many older examples at Acheiropoieta. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No image currently has the most backing, not even with the (inappropriate) vote count. I think an RfC may be needed. Sundayclose (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you count second choices, it seems to be Mosaic. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you know, we aren't counting votes. There is no consensus at this point. Sundayclose (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't think you understand the consensus process. It didn't "go down the gutter". You're too impatient. Starting multiple discussions on the same topic interferes with the consensus process. Consensus takes time. Read WP:CON. If the discussion at first doesn't produce a consensus follow the procedures at WP:DR and there's a very good likelihood that eventually one image will emerge. If you want anyone to take you seriously here, let me also suggest that you avoid making such bold assertions that Jesus wants us to use a particular image, or that an image has been approved by the Pope. Decisions about Wikipedia are not determined by what one or two editors think Jesus is telling them or what the Pope says. It also hurts your credibility to declare that an image "won" when there is no consensus, or adding a different image with no discussion. I'll ask you again to remove this section to make the consensus process more manageable. But you have to make that decision. Sundayclose (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww, everybody here hates me :( But at least thank you for being so clear and concise with me. HalloweenNight (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * HalloweenNight, editors are resistant to changes on this page, and they don't like being told what to do, so the first impression you made put them on the defensive. If you want to improve the page, please hang out here and join in. Maybe we can revisit the image issue after you've shown that you edit in good faith and other editors have come to appreciate your contributions. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Life of Christ"
The usage and topic of Life of Christ is under discussion, see talk:Life of Christ -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

historical account first
I put the historical account of Jesus before the Gospel accounts. Chronologically, Jesus' ministry took place first, and then the Gospels were written a generation or two later. Now the material is in chronological order. Also, Britannica follows this same pattern. First, E. P. Sanders gives the historical account of Jesus' life and ministry. Then a second author addresses early Christian views about Jesus, such as the virgin birth. That's evidence that we should put history first and Gospels second. I'm sure that many editors will be happy to share their opinions about why we should put the Gospels first, and opinions are great, but let's decide what to do based on evidence. No editor has offered any evidence that we should have the Gospels section at all, let alone evidence that it should go before the historical account. If you want the Gospels to be first, please offer evidence for your position. Opinions differ, but if we stick to the evidence we can agree on how to treat this important topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that over the last weeks, no opponents of the historical account have offered any evidence in support of relegating it to second place. Instead, an editor who doesn't like the historical account reverted my edit and didn't explain themselves here on Talk. WP:BRD means i boldly edit, a detractor reverts it, and then that detractor provides evidence for their reversion. Does anyone have any evidence that the Gospels section should come first? Editors without evidence love long arguments, but how about we agree to stick to the evidence? Britannica leads with an historical account, followed by Christian beliefs, such as the virgin birth. Harris's textbook Understanding the Bible gives a chapter to each Gospel, but not until after an account of the historical Jesus. If there's no evidence for putting the Gospels first, let's put history first. Seems simple. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How do other encyclopedias treat the Gospels when describing Jesus? Here are Jesus entries from several online encyclopedias. How many of them, do you think, summarize the Gospels before establishing the historical account? Take a look. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't reply here. Obviously, though, this is a massive change, and for a FA you should expect a reversion on something like this. I hadn't actually seen this thread before - this was before the initial reversion. In any case, rather than look at other encyclopedias, I'd be much more inclined to look at comparable articles here - David, Moses, Abraham all start with the biblical narrative. There is no reason why Jesus should be treated differently. StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying here, and thanks for actually supplying evidence. Your evidence is other WP articles. My evidence is other encyclopedias. Now we weigh the relative weight of your evidence and mine. Is that fair? As long as we're comparing evidence and making decisions on that basis, I'm happy, and if the evidence says to put the Gospels first, OK! So that's what we editors are considering, how to weigh the evidence of outside encyclopedias versus the weight of other WP articles? If that's the issue, let's discuss it. Before we begin, is there any other evidence in favor of putting the Gospel accounts first? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree StAnselm, however the most important thing (in my interpretation of Wikipedia policies) is that both sides are given adequate publicity, regardless of which order. I too would prefer the Biblical versions first and then the so-called "secular historical versions" due to the fact that the gospel versions are first hand accounts and the existence of the author's (of the gospels) belief that Christ was God, whether true, or not does not invalidate their first hand, eyewitness testimonies on other non-supernatural details surrounding the life of Christ. We wouldn't discount Roman historians view on Roman leaders simply due to the fact those Roman historians believed in Pagan gods, so why should we treat the gospel writers any differently that Tacitus for example. In fact their testimony should carry more weight than non-Hebrew sources as they were contemporaries of Christ, lived in close proximity to Christ and actually met Christ. And if it is possible that they were lying, it is also possible other ancient authors were lying too. You at least have to give them equal weight and present their views as the truth, unless there are secular historical sources that can PROVE their inaccuracy. Innocent until proven guilty, but it there are differences of opinion and neither can DISPROVE the other, then list all of them, at least with the biblical versions last, although I think they should be first due to reasons listed above--41.146.191.17 (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion, Anonymous. We're also interested in actual evidence for how the topic should be treated, if you have any to share. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"unless there are secular historical sources that can PROVE their " That's weird in the real world, its you prove you claim. Until then nobody needs to disprove it. The Jews can tell you how jesus fails to be their messiah, but you wont listen that (Not being born in Bethleham for DISPROVEN)§.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trrrrrrtttrrr (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Historical account, you mean things taken from the bible stories! best scenario, its stories written by unknown people about unknown people, after being passed thru people in between, written 40 alot 70-110 after. Now if you believe thats true, you should apply at Hogwarts the books by Rowling are the best source for investigating the historical harry potter! There was not one word written about the JEWISH messiah (Which is an honest description rather than old test!) about this character until the bible stories, The romans didn't record him, nothing its like the jewish exodus story. Also the census is just a lie, it never happened, thats know. The reason it says that is to try and match the requirements for the messiah (Which jesus fails to meet Ref:Bible). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trrrrrrtttrrr (talk • contribs) 08:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"is that both sides are given adequate publicity" Ah I don't think so, Wiki has a preference about the quality of the ref, which is kind of irrelevant on this topic. That's why the page on earth here is accurate and not the primate false stores from the bible.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trrrrrrtttrrr (talk • contribs) 08:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

jeppix is busy deleting facts to protect his baseless belief. "unless there are secular historical sources that can PROVE their " That's weird in the real world, its you prove your claim. Until then nobody needs to disprove it. The Jews can tell you how jesus fails to be their messiah, but you wont listen that (Not being born in Bethleham for DISPROVEN)

Historical account, you mean things taken from the bible stories! best scenario, its stories written by unknown people about unknown people, after being passed thru people in between, written 40 alot 70-110 after (THIS IS FACT). Now if you believe thats true, you should apply at Hogwarts the books by Rowling are the best source for investigating the historical harry potter! There was not one word written about the JEWISH messiah (Which is an honest description rather than old test!) about this character until the bible stories, The romans didn't record him, nothing its like the jewish exodus story. Also the census is just a lie, it never happened, thats know. The reason it says that is to try and match the requirements for the messiah (Which jesus fails to meet Ref:Bible).

"is that both sides are given adequate publicity" Ah I don't think so, Wiki has a preference about the quality of the ref, which is kind of irrelevant on this topic. That's why the page on earth here is accurate and not the primate false stores from the bible.Reterterterter (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, [User:Reterterterter|Reterterterter]], most of my recent religious-related activity on WP has been arguing against Christian beliefs, I've written at least 30-40 posts and done several edits in the last month to oppose an effort to portray the exodus as factual or to change this article to rely more on the gospels. I opposed those changes as they were not supported by WP:RS, the very reason I oppose your changes. But at least those users were honest enough not to create multiple socks and violate WP:NPA all the time. . Jeppiz (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, St Anselm and I are at an impasse. SA says we should follow other WP pages as our examples, and I say we should follow the examples set by RSs, especially other encyclopedias. Anyone want to break the tie? Meanwhile, I have evidence that we should follow RSs.: that's what WP policy says. StAnselm, would you please share your evidence that we should model this page after other WP pages? Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * StAnselm, are you still saying that we should follow the examples set by other WP pages? Do you still maintain that WP:CIRC doesn't apply? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. StAnselm (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

single scholars OK?
When I cited E. P. Sanders on the crucifixion of Jesus, Farsight and St Anselm reverted me. Farsight said: "A scholar is not the same thing as scholarly CONSENSUS, thus undue weight." Above on this page, John Carter confirmed that it would be wrong to add what I added without evidence that it represents proportionate treatment, as seen in overview sources, and that the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to cite a single author. How do editors take that criticism? I thought that citing individual scholars would be OK, but three other editors say it's undue weight unless one can show that there's a consensus on the point. I'm happy to live with this rigorous standard, if that's what we decide. Should we as editors agree to follow this standard in the Historical Accounts section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Without reference to the particular Sanders issue, I think the idea in WP:NPOV is that we have to be careful not to give a minority perspective among scholars equal weight with a more prevailing opinion of scholars. That idea can be slippery to define. I think it would be unwieldy to cite 20 scholars simply to demonstrate that something is a widely held opinion. If one scholar summarizes the consensus of other scholars that would seem appropriate to me. But then what if there is disagreement on Wikipedia that the one scholar's summary accurately captures the consensus of scholars? Then consensus here would be necessary. On many Wikipedia articles that never is a problem. On controversial articles such as this one it occurs more often. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To chip in on this - In interpreting this policy (directly above) it would make sense to allow an editor to quote a particular scholar alone, if it is not obviously a point rejected by the majority of other scholars already. Not all scholars openly declare consensus with other scholars on every point they write and it would be unfair to expect an editor here to find PROOF of that for everything they quote from scholars. Thus, it should be "innocent until proven guilty" of offending on this point. Just my opinion on the interpretation of the policy.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * But getting back to my complaints above. Let me ask this, if we cannot quote scriptures alone, without scholars views on those exact same scriptures, where in the article should the scholars views be inserted? Must they be inserted directly after the scripture you inserted/quoted/refered to? In the same sentence? Same paragraph? Same article?
 * I ask this because there seem to be cases where this is NOT happening already (at least not in the same paragraph - and nobody has objected).--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My second question is as follows: (Please treat this totally separately as I am not using it to support my first point in any way). - - - What if there is an event mentioned in scripture, but not a single scholar throughout history has commented, or interpreted the verse in their own writings (or not to the knowledge of a particular Wikipedia editor). Should we not even quote that verse with "quotation marks" and no interpretation of our own attached? Should we automatically treat the verse as unreliable and unverifiable because it is not already uninterpreted by anyone? I am not saying we should be allowed to interpret the verse ourselves on Wikipedia and present our interpretation as truth. I am talking about merely quoting the verse in view of lack of analysis of the verse by scholars, with no analysis of our own either. If another editor THEREAFTER finds proof of adequate expert analysis of the said verse, instead of reverting the edit, the editor can insert analysis in addition to existing quote of the verse in order to improve the article rather that make it worse by just reverting the edit. I am sure it is not the intention of Wikipedia policies to restrict expansion of knowledge using such restrictive and unreasonable measures. - - - Regarding my proposals of certain scripture further above these paragraphs, to quote the scriptures I mentioned (without analysis in my own words, lets agree) - can anyone here find a single scholars interpretation which disproves the view presented in the quoted scriptures I mentioned, using secular historical sources, or archaeology, etc to disprove them. If not, then I don't see why they can't be quoted directly - as long as their is no analysis of my own present and scholarly analysis in included by anyone who can find any - if it even exists. Quoting scripture, does not mean the same as using it as proof that something occurred. It is simply using what you have got, opening it up to others analysis, when nothing else can be found.

Please can the editors commenting above answer both of my questions above.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In answer to your second question, never state your own opinion on anything in any article on Wikipedia unless you are a recognized scholar and you are using your own publication as a source. And I can't think of any circumstance in which you would quote scripture if it was not in the context of scholarly interpretation. At best that would be a very odd non sequitur that adds nothing to the article; more likely it would suggest that the scripture supports some point but without scholarly support. As for not being able to find a scholar who "disproves" your personal point of view, it would then be unacceptable to conclude that your perspective can be included in a Wikipedia article since no one has provided sourced information that refutes your opinion. That would be a logical fallacy. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. We can never prove a negative because there is always the possibility that the negative exists but has not been found. If I say the moon is made of cheese and no one can find a sourced statement to the contrary, I cannot state in a Wikipedia article that the moon is made of cheese. I cannot state that scripture X has a meaning of Y simply because no one provides sourced evidence that refutes it. I have to find a source stating that scripture X means Y. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Sundayclose (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "where in the article should the scholars views be inserted?": Read WP:CITE.There are different ways to do it. The most important thing is, wherever you put the citation, make sure it is clear which part of your edits the citation supports. If you think you need a citation after every sentence you edit, that is far better than providing no citation at all. There may be stylistic problems, but those are easily fixed. If in doubt, give the example on this talk page and I'm sure someone can help you out.
 * "I ask this because there seem to be cases where this is NOT happening already": If you mean that there are places where citations are not provided but should be, Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and there will always be bad edits (sometimes horrible edits) that go either undetected or unchallenged. We are all volunteers here, and none of us has the time to pore over every detail of every article trying to find problems, challenging them, or fixing them. But as the old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Pointing out bad editing as an excuse for adding to the problems is the weakest excuse anyone can find for making bad edits. Feel free to point out where the problems are; if you feel strongly about a bad edit, try to fix it yourself; place a "citation needed" tag on anything that you think is inadequately sourced. But don't make poorly sourced edits simply because someone else did. Sundayclose (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I hear you Sundayclose. But then let me ask this: If these examples are allowed, as long as you include the disclaimer "citation needed" after each one, does that mean I can do the same and can also include quotations of scripture alone like others have done, but also include "citation needed" after the quote?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you intended what part of your question suggests, so first let me clarify something. The examples you mention are not offically "allowed". They just haven't been addressed (for the reasons I gave above about Wikipedians being volunteers). The answer to your question about adding a "citation needed" tag to your own edit is no, the "citation needed" tag is used when you find an unsourced edit by another editor and you are asking for someone to produce a citation or risk getting the edit reverted. It is simply a courtesy to give someone a little time to find a source before you remove the edit. The tag is not intended to allow an editor to add unsourced information at will merely by adding the tag, in effect trying to shift the responsibility for sourcing to another editor. As far as I know, adding a CN tag to your own edit isn't a policy violation, but it is very poor editing and in many cases pointless because the edit will be reverted. I don't mean this to be directed at you personally because you asked a legitimate question, but an editor who makes an unsourced edit with a CN tag is very likely a lazy editor who doesn't want to bother to find a source, or that editor may be hoping the edit will linger in the article for a period of time unsourced (in low traffic articles that could very well happen). Occasionally I have seen sincere editors put a CN tag after their own edit stating in the edit summary that the citation is pending. But "pending" does not mean indefinite. If I see an editor add a CN tag to his own edit, I usually will send a courtesy message explaining the above. If the source isn't added in a day or two, I revert the edit. So to summarize, don't quote scripture with no sourced scholarly context and then add a CN tag. As much traffic as this article gets and as controversial as it is, your edit probably won't stay in the article more than a few hours. Once again, feel free to add CN tags if you see unsourced edits made by others; that can be very useful in alerting others to find a citation, or to revert the edit if a source is not provided in a reasonable time. Thanks for asking for clarification. Sundayclose (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sunayclose - for taking so much time in addressing my concerns and for the clarity used in your responses as well!!! I will make an effort to add CN tags to these sections when I find them quoting Bible scripture without following with scholars interpretation of that scripture. I will likewise remove those verses if the scriptural citations are not followed up by scholarly citations covering those same scriptural verses within a "reasonable amount of time". One a different side note: What is considered as a more reliable source, a gospel account of an event by first century Christian(s), or a Pagan/Roman historian(s) account of the same event. Assuming consensus among either group. I would like to know if either of them ALONE count as enough evidence to use ALONE as consensus in the same way as modern historian's consensus is enough to cite ALONE as evidence. Of course I ask this in light of yours and other editor's interpretation of existing Wikipedia policies on these matters.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to give an answer about which source is considered more reliable. I'm not a theologian or religion scholar, although I have developed some knowledge in those areas over the years. I believe, however, that modern scholars are much better equipped to provide the best interpretations of the scripture as well as the ancient sources simply because of all the advances in methodology over the last 2000 years. But I'll let others who feel more comfortable with that expertise address your question. If I personally doubted the reliability of a source in this article, I would discuss it on this talk page before challenging it. For more general information on reliability of sources, see WP:RS. Sundayclose (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dayofrest12. I'm not sure what to tell you. The whole Gospels section is the result of a unique compromise on this page, and it doesn't reflect Wikipedia policies or standards. so it's hard for me to answer questions about citing Scripture. It sounds like there's material you would like to add to the page, although I'm not sure what it is. Your best bet is to find a Reliable Source and read up on what it says on the topic you want to address. Dictionaries of religion and textbooks are especially good, at least if they're reasonably secular. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone else. I'm happy to start applying Foresight's strict citation policy. I can live with it. Farsight and St Anselm are usually on the opposite side of an issue from me, so I'm happy to conform to their preferences in this case. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I just made my first two edits using this strict citation policy. I think it will improve the page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan and everyone. There are scholars besides De Sanctis who saw the Nazareth Inscription as evidence of the empty tomb of Jesus, such as Leopold Wenger(the preeminent Roman legal expert of the first half of the 20th century).Bruce Metzger also said, in New Testament Tools and Studies Volume 10,that Lagrange, Stauffer, L.Herrmann. S.Losch, Guarducci, Sordi, and Blaiklock held this view. E.Grzybek, C.Billington and M.Green hold this view too. According to Metzger, F. Cumont and even Zulueta said there was a possibility that the Nazareth Inscription was evidence of Christ's empty tomb. I hope I've shown to your and everyone's satisfaction that the position that the Nazareth Inscription is evidence of the empty tomb is not just a single scholar one, and so I would like to restore to the Historicity of Events:Resurrection section what you deleted.Buckrogers24 (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for presenting evidence for your case. Please feel free to restore the reference I deleted. I wrote most of that reference anyway. The Nazareth inscription doesn't appear in any of the sources I've read on the topic of Jesus, so I doubt that it's really a notable viewpoint, but I won't object if you restore it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Little Jerry, the view that the Nazareth Inscription proves that the empty tomb of Jesus existed has "sufficient weight"- WP:NPOV. The best Roman historians believed this, as I hope I have shown above. Accordingly, I would like to restore what you deleted from: Historicity of Events:Resurrection section.Buckrogers24 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In good faith I am restoring what was deleted about the famous Nazareth Inscription.Buckrogers24 (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, the De Sanctis, Blaiklock, Michael Green view on the Nazareth Inscription and Jesus's empty tomb belongs in this article because it is based on many RSs and it is an important view among scholars as Metzger shows( sufficient weight and NPOV)- not just "a" mere scholarly opinion.I am asking you to reconsider your stance and stop reverting,thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckrogers24 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing a paragraph

 * Change: In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah, second in importance only to Muhammad.[37][38] To Muslims, Jesus was a bringer of scripture and was born of a virgin, but was not the Son of God. According to the Quran, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God. Judaism rejects the Christian and Islamic belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.
 * To become: In Islam, Jesus is considered to be a Jewish messiah and a prophet sent by God to the children of Israel with the message of the Gospel and the Good News about Muhammad. To Muslims, Jesus is less important than Muhammad and Moses and his mission was only temporal. According to the Qur'an, Jesus was born of a virgin, but was neither God nor the Son of God. The Qur'an denies that Jesus was killed or crucified. However, it does affirm that he died after all. Islam and Judaism reject the Christian belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

Religions Explorer (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide a reliable sources (written by recognized scholars; quotes from the Qur'an or other scriptures are not sufficient). Also, provide a rationale for why you want to remove specific material (commonly transliterated as Isa; physically raised into Heaven by God) Sundayclose (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rationale: The paragraph I want to change contains unsourced information that are plainly false. For example, this sentence: "Judaism rejects the Christian and Islamic belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh." is unsourced false sentence. Muslims, unlike Christians, don't consider Jesus to be the fulfiller of the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. Instead, they consider Muhammad to be the fufiller of these prophecies. This sentence: "According to the Quran, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God." is also problematic. Please specify which verse in the Qur'an allegedly supports this sentence. The Qur'an says that Jesus was raised unto God, but it doesn't say that he was raised "PHYSICALLY" and it doesn't say that he was raised "ALIVE". The Qur'an says: "Lo! God said: "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me, and cleanse thee of [the presence of] those who are bent on denying the truth.."

- Qur'an 3:55 The Message of The Quran. translated and explained by Muhammad Asad. Page 120


 * So, according to the Qur'an, Jesus was exalted in rank after his death. In Qur'an 3:55, God says to Jesus: إني متوفيك. The Arabic word متوفيك means "cause thee to die". You can check the root of this word here on Wiktionary and you will see yourself that it means: to die.--Religions Explorer (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (Please don't remove others' additions to the talk page.) Again, quotes from the Qur'an or other scriptures are not sufficient. Please provide reliable sources written by recognized scholars. Please note that material that is sourced elsewhere in the article does not require redundant sourcing in the lead. If you wish to challenge something that is unsourced, be sure it is not sourced after the lead and let us know the specific text that is unsourced. But you need to identify sources for any changes you wish to make. Sundayclose (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a "citation needed" tag to "Islamic belief" in the lead. This has been discussed previously on this talk page (it is somewhere in the archives), but you are correct that it is unsourced. There is more extensive discussion of Islam's view of Jesus as Messiah in Jesus in Islam. Sundayclose (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both sentences are unsourced false sentences. The sentence "According to the Quran, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into the heavens by God" in the Islamic views section is falsely sourced by the Qur'anic verse 4:157. This verse doesn't say that Jesus was raised PHYSICALLY and it also doesn't deny that he died. It only denies that he was killed or crucified, but it doesn't deny that he died. The other sentence "Judaism rejects the Christian and Islamic belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh." is also unsourced false sentence that should be deleted instead of being tagged.--Religions Explorer (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I am not a fan of Wikipedia's articles, I checked this article: Jesus in Islam and I didn't find any sentence in it suggesting that Muslims consider Jesus to be the fulfiller of the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. They do consider him to be a messiah, but not in a way different from the other Jewish messiahs.--Religions Explorer (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of things I'm not sure you understand about Wikipedia, and that's perfectly OK since you are a newcomer. Tagging unsourced material is preferable to removing it because it alerts other readers who may find appropriate sources and add them. The other point is that a cornerstone of Wikipedia is that it is based on academic scholarship, not one editor's interpretation (in this case, interpretation of scripture). I am not stating that your interpretation of the Qur'an is wrong; I am simply saying that it is insufficient for making changes to Wikipedia. To make a change, the change must be backed up by scholarly sources. There are many opinions about scriptural interpretation; sometimes there is consensus among scholars, sometimes there is not (again, look at Jesus in Islam). Unless you are a published scholar and are citing your own publication, your opinion (or mine) is not sufficient to make a change. We have had numerous instances in this article in which editors have wanted to make changes because "the Bible says so". But that's not how Wikipedia works. Sundayclose (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Jesus page, Religions Explorer Like Sundayclose says, being right isn't enough, you also have to be able to reference published sources. I bet there's plenty of room for you to improve the page's treatment of Jesus is Islam. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Historicity of the resurrection
The following sentence appears in the article:

It is likely that the different accounts of his resurrection appearances resulted from competition among those claiming to have seen him first rather than deliberate fraud.

And, yet, scholarly understanding is that the Matthew and Luke were derived from Mark, see the section on the Canonical gospels in this very same article or, for that matter, Q source. Furthermore, despite the citation added to the sentence above, Sanders does not actually claim that the resurrection is "historical". Therefore, for all of these reasons, the sentence should be removed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This section isn't claiming the resurrection is historical either. And there are more reports of the resurrected Jesus then just the Synoptics. LittleJerry (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We are talking about a section in the article that is entitled "Historicity". Please provide a reliable source of the historicity of the resurrection. Otherwise, this section needs to be removed. Also, for the umpteenth time, Sanders doesn't claim that the resurrection is historical. In fact, he goes out of his way to emphasize this. Have you read Sanders? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, the section doesn't claim the resurrection is historical either. Have you read the section? LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An attempt to appeal to consistency in the gospels of Matthew and Mark ignores the prevailing interpretation that they are not independent, but actually derived from Mark. I've put revised text into the article to more fairly represent what Sanders actually says, which is in line with prevailing scholarship. That is, resurrection is not historical.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sanders mentions Paul too. I'm not going in these circles with you. Stop edit warring or you'll be reported. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are welcome to report me. I have tried to offer compromise and explanation. You have reverted me three times, twice without explanation. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source on the historicity of the resurrection? If we want to use Sanders as a source for this section, then we should note that Sanders himself says that the resurrection is not historical. What is your objection to this? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * *sign*, the section does NOT say that the resurrection is historical either. I'll repeat what I said above. There is near scholarly consensus that Jesus's early followers believed that he rose from the dead and did not deliberately make it up. That is different then saying that it actually happened. This section recounts Sander's opinion on post-Easter events. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So you do not object an accurate statement, and supported by Sanders, that the resurrection was not historical? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He don't say that exactly. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, so in a search for some compromise, you want us to directly quote him? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He stays that the resurrection is not part of the historical Jesus story, but belongs to the aftermath of his death. The section treats it like that. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, in a search for compromise, we can insert a quote. You seem to be amenable to this. Sanders says, on page 276: "The resurrection is not, strictly speaking, part of the story of the historical Jesus". This is not what I prefer, but I can accept it, as it makes it clear, in this section on the historicity of Jesus that the resurrection is not considered to be part of that historicity. I'm just trying to find some text that is an accurate representation of scholarly opinion. Sanders being one of those scholars, and one that you seem to accept as a source. So, I believe you are okay with the quote being inserted? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Simple statement: Christians, and some other groups which are not specifically "Christian" (Ba'Hai, and, in a sense, Muslims who believe Jesus was raised bodily into Heaven, etc.), believe that the Resurrection occurred. Other non-Christians do not believe the Resurrection occurred. It is impossible to prove either group is correct. What is true is that the belief in the Resurrection, as a belief, is historical. In fact, alas, almost all we know of the ancient world is not "historical" in the sense of being provable in the first place. On the other hand saying that something was not historical would also be in error. Sanders specifically states "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know." In short - those who asserted that there was a Resurrection did believe the Resurrection was a fact, and they believed they saw a resurrected Jesus, according to Sanders. Collect (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are a variety of beliefs held by a variety of people. I also agree that there is no "knowing" about the resurrection, and, indeed, what we understand about what the followers of Jesus believed comes from the New Testament, but this is not considered to be a reliable source by hashed-over Wiki standards. So, in proposing a quote from Sanders on the a-historicity of the resurrection, I am seeking a statement that represents the scholarly view. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The section is fine the way it is. Let it go. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * After repeatedly reverting me, often without explanation, you invited me to come and talk about it. I have done so. Please offer response. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, after saying that the section is fine and that I should let it go, you change things without consensus? Please explain. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you want the compromise or not? LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jerry, I offered up some text for discussion. You suggested that I drop it. That doesn't sound like a discussion. But, now, you change the article after repeated reverting me, often without explanation, accuse me of edit warring, threaten to report me. I'm not sure what you are doing, honestly. IsambardI Kingdom (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of edit warring. You did. And the last time you where here you removed information whole cloth. This time, I tried to compromise by changed the name of the section from "Resurrection" to "Post-death events" and added a Sanders quote and you demand more. I done going in circles. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your accusation of warring and threat to report me is here:. As for the last time I was here, yes I removed material "whole cloth". I was (and still am) trying to fix the section on "historicity". I am allowed to make edits. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why mentioning that the resurrection is not "part of the story of the historical Jesus" is necessary. In fact, I think it will confuse readers. I myself am not sure what that quote even means. I'm guessing it just means that there's no way to "prove" whether the event happened or not.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What certainly will mislead readers is to see the resurrection discussed as a "fact" (albeit as an experience) in a section of the article entitled the "historicity of events". The resurrection is not a fact in the sense that historians would consider documented. This issue, so central to the discussion of Jesus, is worthy of clarification. I didn't put this material in this section. I'm just saying that it needs to be fixed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that sentence discusses the resurrection as a fact. It proposes an explanation for why the accounts of the resurrection are inconsistent. It doesn't suggest that the resurrection actually happened. But if you think that sentence is not worded well, I'm open to suggestions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In the long dialogue above, I've suggested that the sentence "It is likely that the different accounts of his resurrection appearances resulted from competition among those claiming to have seen him first rather than deliberate fraud." be dropped from this section. Even if Sanders actually said something to this affect, the overwhelming consensus of scholars is that the gospels were written long after Jesus lived, that they are not first-hand accounts, etc., and, indeed, are not independent (please see Q source). For all these reasons the sentence about not constituting "deliberate fraud" is meaningless. But even more to the point, as long as this sentence is in there, a certain legitimacy in the context of the resurrection is implied, a legitimacy that is just not consistent with scholarly views. Therefore, in my opinion, this sentence should be removed (I don't see a way to fix it). Then, and again in my opinion, there needs to be some statement to the point that the resurrection is not reliably documented by independent sources; like it or not, the Bible is not a reliable source by Wiki standards. If this point, about independent reliable documentation, can be made clear, then we are fine. My approach, in the past, has been to simply gloss over all this by just removing this section entirely. Still, I'm open to some clear text. Again, thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I see what you mean. I haven't read Sander's book, but I'd imagine that he said that because some people would use the inconsistency between the four gospels' accounts of the resurrection as argument against the historicity of the resurrection. Sanders would be saying that the inconsistency is not necessarily an argument against the historicity of the event. Anyways, it would interesting if someone can find out what other scholars think is the reason behind the inconsistency of the resurrection accounts. I think the sentence can stay if someone can find other sources that share Sander's opinion. However, I do think it's best to just remove that sentence. That sentence is not really important.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The gospels of Matthew and Luke differ from each other and from their source of Mark because the (unknown) authors of those books had different agendas. See, for example, White . But, again, this is not what we need to go into in the section's short little section about the historicity of the resurrection. Main point, the gospels are not first-hand accounts, so this sentence by Sanders is nonsense; Sanders clearly has his own agenda and his sentence, here, is not mainstream among biblical scholars. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Isambard Kingdom. Our opinions don't matter much. What counts is what the RSs say. Sanders is a reliable source on this topic. Can you please find other reliable sources that say other things about Jesus' "resurrection'? It wouldn't hurt to have other viewpoints. If you're right that Sanders' statement isn't mainstream, then you should be able to find other sources that contradict it. Please do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

follow example set by Sanders and Britannica
E. P. Sanders is perhaps the world's leading expert on Jesus as a historical figure. Britannica is perhaps the highest-esteemed encyclopedia in the world. When Britannica needed the best authority to write about Jesus' life, they got Sanders. The article is free online for anyone to read. It is the best RS for us to use as an example as we come to consensus on how to describe Jesus. It's well-written and packed with good information. Personally, I disagree with some of the stuff Sanders says, but WP isn't about editors' opinions, so I'm happy to promote the article. Read it here.

Let's just match Sanders' format for how to treat this controversial topic. It's hard to agree on how to handle the Gospels section because it's a compromise between editor preferences on one hand and Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the other. My guess is that most editors would like the Gospels section to be different. Since we're not following WP guidelines all the way, there's no clear idea of how far to follow them and how far to ignore them. We can break the deadlock by agreeing to follow guidelines all the way. Let's emulate how Sanders and Britannica approach the topic.

Let's leave aside the POV issue and the Due Weight issue. The structure of our page is a violation of WP:STRUCTURE. We cover the same material in two different places, such as Jesus' baptism, ministry, miracles, death, etc. One section gives the Gospel versions of each topic, and the other gives the historical accounts. RSs don't do that. I was OK with just putting the history section first, which would have been an easy way to take some of the weight off the Gospels section. But it looks like the only stable solution is to stop trying to forge a compromise between policies and preferences and just match our best example of a great Jesus article.

When I took the Gospels issue to the NPOV board, one suggestion from an uninvolved editor was to merge the Gospel and history sections. Other editors have said the same. That approach is what Sanders does, it's what other RSs do, and it's what we should do. At the time of the suggestion, I thought it would be too much work, but now I think that the work would be worth it.

If you don't want to follow Sanders' example, would you please explain why, preferably with reference to guidelines or RSs? I would especially love an example of an RS that, in your estimation, describes Jesus better than Sanders does. If instead of providing evidence, you want to just give an opinion, that's fine, too. Here's an idea. If you don't name any evidence in your own favor, I'll take that as your message that you don't have any evidence, and I won't bother to ask about it. And if you do have evidence, please share it.

I know a couple editors who are going to say no way. I hope someone else out there thinks that following Sanders and Britannica is a good idea. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I oppose the motion. The gospel section as it is does not violate any Wiki policy. They are the primary sources on Jesus' life and their portrayals of him are discussed extensively in scholarly circles (see the cites for the section) regardless of their historicity, as such they are not UNDUE. Wiki:STRUCTURE states that "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". This policy is clearly referring to the viewpoints of experts and scholars, not to subjects like the gospels. Furthermore, this article is not the Historical Jesus article. It is about the figure of Jesus in general who is treated as a person not just of history but of biblical literature and theology. All aspects discussed in scholarly circles. Both Jesus' depiction in the gospels and the historical reconstructions by scholars deserve to have their own sections. While we are obligated to cite RS and give a subject the some weight they do, we or not obligated to copy their exact layout. LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think that you know how to describe Jesus better than Sanders and Brittanica? I don't think that's true of you or me. That's why WP says we should base our editing decisions on RSs, not personal opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd just want to say that I disagree with the more or less explicit assumption that reporting a Gospel account is automatically some kind of "Christian-biased POV". Anything said in a form similar to "the gospel X narrates Y" is perfectly neutral and NPOV. Same would go for "the Quran narrates the story of Saba". Those are totally neutral facts on which everybody can agree and saying that doesn't violate NPOV policy. Therefore I don't think that the article segregates different POVS in different sections. Bardoligneo (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Bardoligneo. There's nothing wrong with reporting a Gospel account, per se. It's only a problem if that viewpoint gets more prominence than it gets in RSs. RSs treat Jesus as primarily a historical figure, and this page treats him primarily as a Bible character. No one has offered any evidence that we should diverge from the RSs in this way. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with using the gospels as sources so long as we make it clear that those sources are telling a story, one that is manufactured to suit various audiences. For example, Jesus was unlikely to have been born in Bethlehem, but it was expedient at the time to present him thus. I think it is important to divide the facts of his life, so far as we can determine them, from the fictional aspects. The fiction is important in its own right and should be presented. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the fray, -Pete. I would tend to agree with you. If we bring up Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, it wouldn't hurt to also mention what the RSs say: that the two stories about Jesus being born in Bethlehem were evidently both invented to satisfy Messianic expectations. Would you support adding more scholarly commentary to the Gospels section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Observation: Whenever a "fact" from the Gospels is mentioned, it should also be stated which one or which ones do include it. The birth in Bethlehem is stated only by the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, which each provide different accounts on how Jesus' parents ended up there. The Gospel of Mark, one of the apparent sources of the other two, does not contain any information on either Bethlehem or the birth and childhood of Jesus in general. The Gospel of John belongs to a different textual tradition and also does not mention anything about Bethlehem, the birth, and the childhood of Jesus.

Whether history or fiction, which is not something for Wikipedia to decide, these four books do not actually present a single, unified perspective on their subject. Dimadick (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The gospel section doesn't present it as such. LittleJerry (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Like LittleJerry says, a lot of work has gone out to make sure that the Gospels section doesn't present a single, unified perspective. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Dimadick, how would you feel about adding historical commentary to the Gospels section so the reader would have a better idea of which parts of the Gospels are regarded as historical and which legendary? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Which should go first: the historical account or the canonical Gospel account?
Which section should go first, the historical account of who Jesus was or the canonical Gospel account? RSs do not include the Gospel account, but other WP pages about Bible characters start with Bible summaries. The topic is under discussion above. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gospel account would come first logically, as the primary source of information - any historical conclusions come from that, whether directly or indirectly. The fact that other tertiary sources don't have a separate section for gospel accounts means we can't really compare them on this particular issue - they might suggest blending the two sections together, but that's a separate discussion. In any case, while we follow reliable sources on content, we don't have to do so on layout or style. StAnselm (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence that WP policy supports you? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Historical account first, as we can then establish the historicity of the man without needing to rely on necessarily partisan Christian accounts. Otherwise, it's like using canon sources to discuss the life and deaths of Sherlock Holmes before turning to historical accounts and dropping the punchline. --Pete (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A completely nonsensical comparison. There are no historical reconstructions of Sherlock Holmes. LittleJerry (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed the punchline there. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gospel accounts first. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general populace which knows Jesus primarily through the gospels. It makes sense to present them first before introducing them to historical reconstructions. LittleJerry (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Professional editors of encyclopedias disagree with you, and you're an amateur. Do you have any evidence that we should credit your opinion? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop rudely badgering comments with the same talking points. LittleJerry (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm just an amateur myself, so I didn't mean that as a jab. We're all amateurs, which is why WP policy expects us to back our opinions up with evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * LittleJerry, when you asked me for evidence, I offered it readily. You won't return the courtesy? If we don't use evidence to resolve this dispute, then how do you expect us to resolve it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LittleJerry, maybe you missed this question. If we don't use evidence to resolve this dispute, how do you expect us to resolve it? If we don't use policies, guidelines, and RSs to reach consensus, how do propose that we reach consensus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gospel accounts first, per both of the same view above. The historical section has been written to follow the gospel account (in sequence I mean) and assumes knowledge of it. Without that coming first it would need very major rewriting.  Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a policy that says, "It's OK to give undue weight to a viewpoint provided it would take very major rewriting to fix," please point us to it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But it isn't undue weight. All historical accounts start from the gospel accounts, in the absence of any other detailed evidence. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that it's not undue weight? The RSs provide evidence that it is. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Historical account: Never mind my personal opinion. Let's stick to the evidence. RSs treat Jesus as primarily a historical figure, so we are obligated to humbly do the same, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. None of these apply. It would be undue weight if we gave too much room to scholars who have an extremely traditionalist or liberal view when reconstructing the historical Jesus. It is not a violation of WP:DUE to recount the narratives of the very sources that scholars look to find information on Jesus. Same with WP:NPOV. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a violation of WP:DUE to give the Gospel accounts more prominence than they get in published sources. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They are very prominent in published sources. Your argument is that we shouldn't give then their own section and first because critical scholars don't recite the entire accounts before getting into their analyses? That's just silly. LittleJerry (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gospel accounts - Difficult question, but I think that the standard WP approach to exposition is to convey the most commonly known info on a topic and then move on to more specialized treatment. The historical accounts simply wouldn't exist were it not for the endurance of the Gospel accounts, so I think they should follow. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is the standard WP approach, then that would be evidence in your favor. Can you show that it's actually the WP approach? I think the WP approach is to follow the lead of RSs Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * start with gospel accounts There really isn't any historical "account" per se; there is historical analysis based upon setting the gospel accounts in a historical context, but that analysis is predicated on the gospels to the point where it boils down to picking which parts of the gospel accounts to disbelieve— well, and just guessing. What Christianity and in particular the gospels say about Jesus is therefore the necessary predicate to talking historically about Jesus. Besides, not everyone comes to the article to see what a bunch of non-believers (or the marginally orthodox) hypothesize about Jesus in reaction to orthodox Christian teaching. It just makes sense to state Christianity's claims before picking them apart. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it makes sense to you, but do you have any evidence to back that up? Editing Wikipedia is about published sources, not the experiences and beliefs of the editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gospel accounts first per above views, particularly StAnselm and Mangoe. It makes much more sense to me to start off with what Christianity says about Jesus, then compare that with what historians and other scholars say in reaction. Starting off with the scholarly reaction and then coming back to the Gospels seems to me a bit backwards. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  08:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't happen to have any evidence that you'd like to share, would you? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gospel accounts first What "historical account"? As above, extant textual tradition would always come first logically, as the primary source of information - any historical conclusions and opinions come from that. This is what we do in other subject areas. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The statement in the initial spiel that "RSs do not include the Gospel account" does not reflect the content at links to EB etc in a higher section. Their starts are similar to ours, but with much less detail. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, no one has offered any evidence in support of this position. Would you like to be the first? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No thanks - editing in 2 sections on this age is more than enough. You provided the link yourself. And please stop heckling every comment here which disagrees with your position (ie almost all of them). Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jonathan Tweet, this is getting very tiresome. With this issue, at least, you obviously have not been able to gain consensus for your desired change, and this is becoming tedious and tendentious. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gospel accounts first as most are familiar with the Jesus of canon. Partisan or not, the canonical account is the primary account.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you happen to have a reference to policy or to an RS that backs up your opinion? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating "evidence". What evidence do you want? Here's a fact, the gospels are the primary sources for historians on Jesus. Hence it is nor undue weight to devote a section to them. We have explained this point over and over again but you still keep ignoring and repeating "evidence". What evidence do you have that the gospels are undue weight? LittleJerry (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What sort of evidence do you think we should be looking at as WP editors? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LittleJerry, what sort of evidence do you think we should look at, if not RSs, policies, and guidelines? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that Jonathan Tweet's RS doesn't help his case. E P Sander's Britannica article talks quite a bit about the Gospel narratives and how they portray Jesus. He does interject with scholarly commentary but that's just a difference in layout. Jon has no evidence that the Gosepl section is undue weight. LittleJerry (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly - it's the same with the other example he links to above. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I didn't read the other encyclopedia entries, so maybe they work against me. I don't care, and I'm still glad I linked them. Why? Because this isn't about my opinion. It's about published sources. Please make our page more like those pages. And if I don't like the result, it isn't about me, is it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think our point is that the page is already rather like those pages, if you can be bothered to read them. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? OK. Which encyclopedia article is most like our page? Which one treats Jesus as primarily a Bible character and only secondarily a historical figure? Which summarizes the canonical Gospels before explaining who Jesus was, historically speaking? I'd like to read that one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like you missed my question. Johnbod and LittleJerry, which encyclopedia article would you like me to read to show me that we are treating the Gospels correctly? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but you've obviously failed to convince anyone much, & I don't like to hang around here. Try any of the ones you cited as "evidence" without reading. They don't have the detailed account of the gospels, but they start with them, and look very little like our "historical" section. No further correspondence please. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I won't ask you for evidence any more. You put the word evidence in scare quotes as if you don't believe it's real. I can respect your request not to be questioned. Honestly I hardly know how to have a productive conversation with someone who doesn't consider evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I take the RfC down? It does't look like we are getting much new action on it. We got some new opinions but no new evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly the consensus is against you. Time to move on. LittleJerry (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinions point mostly in one direction. Evidence points in the other direction. How should we weigh the relative value of opinions versus evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of your "evidence" actually support your claim. E P Sanders extensively discusses the gospel portrayals, including John's. Your claims are just as much of an opinion as anyone else's. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, let's look at the RSs like you're doing here. Let's change our page so it looks like Sanders' article. You will be happy because "Sanders extensively discusses the gospel portrayals." I will be happy because our article will look like those of RSs. Do we have a deal? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Start another discussion and get consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While your at it, find a policy that states that Wiki has to follow the format and layout of other encyclopedia articles. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE says to give viewpoints comparable weight to what they get in RSs. WP:STRUCTURE says don't segregate different viewpoints into different sections. If you like Sanders' article, let's just match it and we'll all be happy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC).

breakthrough? merge history and gospels
LittleJerry likes how Sanders treats the Gospels in his Britannica article. I just want us to match RSs better. It looks like we can both be happy if we just match Sanders' format for how to treat this controversial topic. It's hard to agree on how to handle the Gospels section because it's a compromise between editor preferences on one hand and Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the other. Since we're not following WP guidelines all the way, there's no clear idea of how far to follow them and how far to ignore them. We can solve the deadlock by agreeing to follow guidelines all the way. Let's just match how Sanders and Britannica approach the topic.

Let's leave aside the POV issue and the Due Weight issue. The structure of our page is a violation of WP:STRUCTURE. I was OK with just putting the history section first, which would have been easy. But it looks like the only stable solution is to stop trying to forge a compromise between policies and preferences and just match our best example of a great Jesus article. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I "liked" Sander's article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I oppose the motion. Wiki:STRUCTURE states that "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". This does not apply to the gospel accounts, as they are not merely a "POV" but are primary sources which of themselves are subject to scholarly discussion regardless of their historicity. The policy is clearly referring to the viewpoints of experts and scholars. Furthermore, this article is not the Historical Jesus article. It is about the figure of Jesus in general who is treated as a person not just of history but of biblical literature and theology. All aspects discussed in scholarly circles. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have put words in your mouth. You said positive things about Sanders/Britannica, and I over-interpreted those positive things. If you feel that Sanders/Britannica doesn't promote the Christian view strongly enough for you, please name for us a better RS than Sanders/Britannica, and we'll look at that RS as a potential model for us. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your making assumptions about what I think again. LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right and I'm wrong. You said positive things about Sanders' article in Britannica, and I concluded that you liked the article. i'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. Maybe I should have known that you would dislike Sanders and Brittanica because they promote the mainstream view. You oppose the mainstream view, which is why you and I keep running afoul of each other. Please name an RS that treats the topic of Jesus in a manner suitable to you. Then let's look at that RS together. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Its getting infuriating dealing with your heckling. I never said I disliked them either. Just because I think the section is fine the way it is doesn't mean I'm a biblical literalist or that I'm trying to promoting the "Christian viewpoint". I explained to you two billion times why the gospel portrayal section is not UNDUE or STRUCTURE. Wikipedia is not obligated to follow the layout of books or other encyclopedias so no, I'm not going to waste my time finding a source for the article to copy off of. Goodbye. LittleJerry (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Tweet, you must stop this now. Groundless assertions about what other editors believe is a serious breach of wikiquette to the point of being a personal attack. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. You're right that I shouldn't have made any inferences about another editor's beliefs. You and LittleJerry want our article to be more about the Gospels than about history, but I shouldn't presume that I know why. LittleJerry liked how much Sanders referenced the Gospels, which is the heart of our disagreement, so I thought he liked Sanders' article. I'm going to restart this thread without referencing LittleJerry. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Tweet, I suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * St Anselm, you could make my life a lot easier by offering some evidence that shows that I'm wrong. Then I could apologize for my error and move on. Would you happen to have any evidence to support your opinions? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

miracles in the historical section
StAnselm reverted my addition to the page, and reverted MarlinespikeMate when they restored it (diff). Once again, an editor removes historical information cited to a reliable source and provides no better information in its place. It's almost as if certain editors have a problem with the historical perspective on Jesus. What should we say about Jesus' miracles in the historical section? We should say what the RSs say, naturally. StAnselm, how about you find a historical RS you like and cite what it says about Jesus' miracles? If you won't do that work, please don't stop me from doing it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a talk page discussion. There were multiple problems with the edit - perhaps the most important was that its presence in the "historical views" section means that it is classified as part of the "limited consensus on the basics of Jesus' life". But it is not clear that all/most/any other scholars would accept the exorcisms as historical. StAnselm (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What would you like the miracles section to say? How about you take a crack at writing it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point: the "historicity of events" section focuses on those (few) areas where there is scholarly consensus. Is there any reason to think that the miracles constitute one of those areas? StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I bet you're tired of hearing this question, but what's your evidence that we should diverge from the RSs in this way? My evidence to include the material is that it appears in great RSs. What's your contrary evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added material cited to a top RS. You reverted it and now offer no evidence to support your reversion. Is that good editing? It seems contentious. I don't revert another editor's work unless I have evidence that it's a problem. You revert my work on your own discretion. If you don't have any evidence that the material I added is a problem, will you revert it again if I re-add it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * StAnselm, if you don't have any evidence that this material should be excluded, I trust you won't mind if I restore it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be treated according to what the sources say about the reports of miracles. I doubt we can have a clear consensus on either accepting them as true or rejecting them. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should go without saying that we should treat the topic the way our sources do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Miracles don't belong in the historical section at all, not reliable, no more than any other fabulous claim in history can be treated as historically reliable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that we should diverge from how the RSs treat the topic? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest removing the historical section material on the resurrection. This is quite biased and I don't think it is derived from any reliable source. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as we are fairly representing what the RSs say, it's not biased. What RSs would you like us to refer to in deciding how to treat the resurrection? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not biased. There is near scholarly consensus that Jesus's early followers believed that he rose from the dead and did not deliberately make it up. That is different then saying that it actually happened. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LittleJerry and I agree on something! Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

historical commentary in the Gospels section
FutureTrillionaire removed this information from the "miracles" section:

Other miracle workers were also well known, but not common.

What's the evidence that this line should be removed? Is there an RS about Jesus that treats the Gospels the way we do? Is there a WP policy about letting primary sources speak for themselves? Or a policy about how to treat the same topics in two different sections of a page (baptism, miracles, crucifixion)? I understand that the beliefs and experiences of certain editors lead them to expect this material to be removed, but WP is about published sources, not editors' opinions. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We already have a section dedicated to historical reconstructions of Jesus. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for evidence, like maybe a WP guideline or policy? I'm already familiar with your opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no policy that says we should or shouldn't merge the sections. The consensus now is to keep them separate. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the opinions of editors. I'm asking about evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, WP is about reliable sources, not published sources. See Identifying reliable sources. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's right, Isambard Kingdom, reliable sources. We should definitely pay more attention to RSs. I picked up the "published" wording from WP:V, which says that WP content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." If you'd like me to stick with the phrase "reliable sources" to avoid confusion, I can do that. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The distinction is important, and I've perceived that you might have mixed the two up. For example, you seem to accept Sanders as a RS even when parts of Sanders's own arguments are based only on religious texts. In this respect, you seem to be going in circles. Just saying. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You think Sanders isn't an RS, but do you have evidence to that effect? Is there a WP policy or guideline that supports your opinion? I'm sure it makes sense to you that he's not an RS, but do you have evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Sanders isn't a reliable source per se, but any conclusions that Sanders draws from only the gospels (like his inference based on inconsistencies of the gospels) are not considered to be "historical" and, so those parts can't be considered RS. Again, you are going around in circles. I encourage us to think about it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can think about it, but who cares what I think? What matters is WP policy. Can you show me the WP policy that would get me to agree with you about Sanders? If you don't have policy backing you up, then your opinion of Sanders is worth as much as mine: precious little. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry keeps removing scholarly commentary from the Gospels section. Is there a consensus somewhere that we shouldn't have historical commentary in this section? Or a WP policy? Or even an RS that does it this way? If there's no evidence for keeping this information out, then it should go in. The beliefs and experiences of the editors don't determine WP content and structure. Policies and RSs do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, maybe because we already have a historical section and you haven't gotten a consensus to merge them? BTW, I have no problem with scholarly commentary that focuses on the texts themselves (Eg. Matthew's use of the Old Testament). LittleJerry (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this seems obvious to you, but do you have any evidence to back up your opinion? Is there a policy that says we should treat the topic this way? Or good RSs that treat the topic this way? It seems like you're inventing a special rule for us to follow about limiting commentary to that which focuses on the text itself. Is there any evidence that we should follow your criteria? It sounds like you're making it up. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request for improving Chronology section 3.3
Hi everyone. The Chronology section 3.3 is disappointingly uninformative:


 * "Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean, born around the beginning of the first century, who died between AD 30 and 36 in Judea.[242][243] The designation for the first century, anno domini, or "in the year of the lord", is in reference to the birth of Jesus,[244] despite modern consensus that he was born before this time. The general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who held office from AD 26 to 36.[25]"

Could a registered editor please substitute this vague paragraph with the more informative lead of Chronology of Jesus, which is as follows. A simple copy/paste job. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.41 (talk • contribs)

Hi FutureBillionaire,

Thanks for fixing the Chronology section, much better now. However, can you please delete this rather pointless sentence:
 * "Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere.[244]"'

This sentence is irrelevant to chronology. And as far as I am aware, nobody is claiming that Jesus preached or studied elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.41 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should go. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem, however, I haven't checked whether all the references in the content I added actually work. Some are short citations and might be missing the corresponding full citation.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Due Weight dispute? Reliable Sources dispute?
What is the proper tag that we should use to name this dispute? I put a POV tag on the Gospels section, but that was repeatedly reverted. If it's not a POV issue, what is it? How about a Due Weight issue? The Gospels section gives more weight to the Gospel view than RSs do. Or is it a Reliable Sources issue, since we don't follow the RSs? It sure looks like a POV issue to me, but I'm happy to compromise and call the dispute just about anything. Any preferences? Due Weight seems the clearest. Anyone mind if I put a Due Weight tag on the Gospels section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has offered an objection over the last 3 days, I'll go ahead and add the Due Weight tag to the section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry says that the dispute over the Gospels section is not about facts. I think facts are wonderful. Here are some facts that I think no editor will disagree with, all related to the Due Weight issue.
 * WP:V says that WP should be based on published sources, not on the experiences and beliefs of editors.
 * Yes.
 * Hey LittleJerry, thanks for discussing this with me instead of just reverting me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:DUE says that we should give viewpoints the same sort of prominence that they get in RSs
 * We do. And RS give extensive attention to gospel portrayals of Jesus.


 * RSs, particularly other encyclopedias, favor the historical account over the Gospel accounts.
 * As stated below, there are no "historical accounts", only reconstructions based on examining the gospels. The encyclopedias you cite give extensive attention to gospel portrayals.
 * There are no historical accounts? Citation needed. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * *sign* Read the sentence again. LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Our Gospels section is longer than our historical section, and it comes first. RSs don't do this.
 * There is very little we can establish about the historical Jesus, hence why the section it is so small.
 * That's a Yes, I take it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We give the Gospel accounts, especially John, more prominence than they get in other encyclopedias.
 * No, we give them the same prominence. Even if John is considered not as useful for history, its portrayal of Jesus is extensively studied and discussed. LittleJerry (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I like that you are now comparing our article to RSs. That's evidence. Could you please choose any of the encyclopedias that I linked to, and let's compare how our article and theirs cover the canonical Gospels, OK? Let's look at the evidence together and see how closely our page lines up. If you're right and I'm wrong, we'll see that our page is fine and nothing needs to change. Which encyclopedia article would you like us to look at together? How about Sanders in Britannica? The world's leading expert in the world's leading encyclopedia. How could we go wrong? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not obligated to follow the format of other encyclopedias. You keep bringing these tertiary sources but what about secondary scholarly sources? Take a look at the gospel section and look at the cites. They are all to RS's. The fact that scholars talk extensively about the gospel portrayals, regardless of their historicity, is evidence that they are not "undue weight". LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for referring to RSs. It's true that scholars talk about the Gospels a lot. All this material would be great on a page about the Gospels. It looks like most of those scholarly citations are about the New Testament, not about Jesus. When experts describe Jesus, they don't summarize the Gospels first. Sanders' Historical Figure of Jesus doesn't. Neither does Vermes' Authentic Gospel of Jesus. Can you name a great secondary source about Jesus that starts with summaries of the Gospels? But maybe this discussion is moot. You like how the Gospels are treated in Sanders' Britannica article, so let's agree to follow that example, OK? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is not the Historical Jesus. Is is about the figure of Jesus in general, who is as much of a figure of theology and literature as he is of history. You'll find plenty of scholar who discuss these different aspects. Citing two books on the historical aspects doesn't prove your point. And I never said I "liked" Sander's article. Don't put words in my mouth. LittleJerry (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad. Sorry that I misunderstood you. Please clarify. Please show us an RS that treats the Christian Gospel stories the way you would like us to treat them. In a word, evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You say that "we give them the same prominence," but you offer no evidence to back up that assertion. Sanders in Britannica doesn't give the Gospels this amount of attention, especially not John. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LittleJerry, if you don't offer any evidence that we give the Gospel accounts "the same prominence," it's like admitting you're wrong. Would you mind if I restore the dispute tag now? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to keep up this nonsense. I already explained why the gospel section is not UNDUE and I'm not going to explain it a billion more times. I'm also not going to spoon-feed you evidence that scholars discuss the gospels and their portrayals of Jesus. You know where to look. Conversation over. LittleJerry (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How to improve the page? Some editors say we should shorten the Gospels section a lot. Some say it should be blended into the history section because that's what the RSs do. I'd be happy to just put the historical section first, since there was a historical Jesus before there were Gospels, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, etc. Those are all different interpretations, of the facts, but we should be able to agree on the above facts if nothing else. No evidence has been offered that we should keep the article the way it is Can we start by agreeing to the facts? Are the other important facts that I missed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I added a Due Weight tag. LittleJerry says that the dispute isn't about Due Weight, so he reverted the tag. What tag should be there? There is a dispute over the Gospels section. It's a dispute of some type. I'm not the only one who said we should put history first, and other editors have said we should shorten the section or merge it with the historical section. I'm happy to compromise and make one or more of those other changes rather than moving history first. This issue has come up repeatedly over the years,. Maybe it's a Reliable Sources dispute? I don't know, what do people think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a the tag I would like to put at the start of the Canonical Gospel Accounts section.

LittleJerry didn't object when I suggested adding the tag but reverted me once I added it. Now, per WP:BRD, LilttleJerry should explain why they reverted me. LittleJerry, do you disagree with the assertions I make above as facts? Why isn't this a Due Weight dispute? What sort of dispute do you think it is? The tag says that the dispute should be resolved before the tag is removed. What does that mean to you? If you could cite any WP policy or guideline,s that would be helpful. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, it's bad practice to revert my tag and then refuse to discuss it on the Talk page. If no one has any objections, I'll restore the Undue Weight tag. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, let me ask you this. If I can convince you that the Gospels get undue weight, then would you allow me to put a Due Weight tag on the section. I know it's a longshot, but hypothetically is that would it would take? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done going in circles with you. LittleJerry (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you revert my tag, WP:BRD says you should be willing to discuss your reversion on the Talk page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Farsight001, you deleted the dispute tag I placed on the Gospels section. Can you please explain why? Are you saying that there's no dispute? Or what? Is there a WP policy that you were following when you deleted the tag? Maybe you don't want there to be a dispute, but it looks to me like there is one. So far there are suggestions to shorten the section, move it second, or merge it with the history section. If you're going to revert, you need to be willing to discuss your evidence that it was the right thing to do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have at least 4 threads going on about essentially the same thing and every time you fail to get consensus in one of them, you just start another one. Now you're switching back to an older one.  This is a pointless waste of everyone's time.  It has all been explained to you before.  Jumping to a different thread doesn't make the explanations in the other threads magically invalid.  This is probably the largest case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I've ever seen.  You have your answers, Jonathan.  You don't like it, but you have it.  Deal with it and quit wasting everyone's time.Farsight001 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you revert an edit, you should be prepared to explain why on the Talk page. I'm not the only editor who thinks that we should change the way we treat the Gospels so that our page is more in line with RSs and WP policies. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An editor doesn't need consensus to add a dispute tag to a section. If there's no consensus, then there's a dispute. The tag is designed to generate more discussion so editors can resolve the dispute and reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's evidence of a dispute, NPOV noticeboard comments from November in which three editors offered suggestions for changing this section, and none said we should keep it the same. Anyone have a good reason that i shouldn't return the dispute tag? Like a reason from policy rather than opinion? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)