Talk:Jesus

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What should this article be named?

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

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

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

Q3: Did Jesus exist?

A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Wikipedia?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

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

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

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

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

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

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

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

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

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

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

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?

A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:

• Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
• Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
• It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."
• Finally, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?

A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

• Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
• A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
• More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc.

Q6: Why is the infobox so brief?

A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?

Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.

Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?

The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?

A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions.

Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?

A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.

Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus?

A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.

Q10: Why does the article state "[m]ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this?

A10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence

I am going to make a bold suggestion, aware that I might be picking a fight with some long-standing consensus here. I am focused here on the first sentence of the lead. Do not call him Jewish in the first sentence. Call him that elsewhere in the article, even elsewhere in the lead, but not in the first sentence. This is not right.

Yes, as a factual matter, he was an ethnic Jew, no doubt. But the question we have to ask is how relevant his Jewishness is to his life and notability as a figure. Is his ethnic identity so important that it needs to be in the lead sentence? It is interesting that most Jews on Wikipedia (e.g., Albert Einstein) are not explicitly described as such in their lead sentences. But Jesus, of all people, is.

Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, regarded as the son of God. He is a prominent prophet in Islam. In contrast, in Judaism, he is, in the words of American political commentator and orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro, "just another Jew who tried to lead a revolt and was killed for his troubles." Yet the first sentence of this article makes a point of emphasizing the Jewish identity and only the Jewish identity.

I want to emphasize again that this is not a factual error as by blood he was a Jew, but the emphasis on this is misleading in a pernicious way that makes it inappropriate for the first sentence. Writing that he is a "Jewish religious preacher" vastly understates the scope and nature of his role in human history. He is notable precisely because he was not a mere "Jewish preacher", but rather someone who made claims regarded as heretical in Judaism (and for which he was thus executed for by the pressuring of the local Jewish community), ultimately founding a new religion distinct from Judaism and from which the Jewish nation has clearly separated itself for the past 2000 years.

I also note that that many other encyclopedias, like most non-English WPs and Brittanica, seem to agree with me on this and have far better lead sentences. JDiala (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What nonsense. He was a Jewish Rabbi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.107.57 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this strikes me as incorrect, and underplays both Jesus' own Jewish context as well as the fact that Christianity itself emerges from an explicitly and quintessentially Jewish background. Jesus attends the Temple. He cites the tanakh. He is referred to as the telos of the law--the law being obviously the torah. Certainly, he began a new religion, but I think any devout Christian would argue that it was, in fact, the same religion--that is, the prophets and Jesus are both theologically relevant. To say that Jesus was Christian, and therefore should not be described as Jewish (in the first sentence, at least) strikes me as a category error regarding the relationship between the faiths. Jesus did not say he was starting a new religion, he claimed to be the fulfillment of the existing one. The lead as we have it strikes me as both factually and theologically sound, but I will trust to the wisdom of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Dumuzid makes sense to me. According to Luke, he was circumcised as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As one of the major figures in religious history, I'd say his 'Jewishness' is pretty important to his identity. --Onorem (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not so much his Jewish ethnicity that is important, but his Jewish religious identity and background. Christianity still very much sees itself as a continuation of the Israelite religion, and it was not until some years after Jesus' death that the leaders who succeeded him decided to allow gentiles into their movement. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The suggestion to remove this from the first phrase was strange. The entry in EB is good, but our page says practically the same. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion except calling the suggestion "strange", best not to contribute. The EB entry doesn't say the same as I've indicated. JDiala (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The strange for me was you treating Jesus solely on the basis of his ethnicity ("Is his ethnic identity so important", "as by blood he was a Jew"). I would also advise you not edit Judaism or Islam subjects since they are obviously related to the Arab-Israel conflict, broadly construed [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Policing TBANs isn't what an article talk page is for. I'm allowed to edit Jewish topics as implied by the banning administrator. JDiala (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

He is agreeing with my comment just before, which is a perfectly valid contribution. Heckling when your proposal is sinking like a stone is not a good look! Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For context, this particular user and I have had past disagreements (to put it lightly) in another topic area, which made their way onto ANI. I have a suspicion that he's following me around and it's personal, since he's never contributed on this article before and conveniently his first contribution here is hours after I suggest something to shoot it down. But you're right insofar as this would have been better addressed on his user page than the article talk page, which I have now done.

I have no objections to the many others who disagree with me on this and am fully prepared to humbly accept a defeat. JDiala (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Jewish identity was central to Jesus as well as to the first members of the Christian sect. It is critical that that context be established in the first sentence. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; his Jewish ethnicity, culture and religious background are integral to understanding who he is, regardless of one’s personal beliefs. Does it need mentioned in the first sentence of the lead? While I’m not sure it does, neither am I persuaded that it causes any harm. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Albert Einstein is not a religious figure. Jesus is. Seems rather important to start with at least a bit of his religious background. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: need a Religion of Jesus page, much along the lines of Sexuality of Jesus page. One examining the whole array of theories to be found. Seen it claimed not only that Jesus was Jewish or Jesus was gnostically proto-Christian, but even that Jesus was Hindu, or proto-Muslim], or functionally Pandeist. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds doable, there are likely good sources, Category:Religious views by individual may have some inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are libraries of sources, but the fringy theories won't feature much. But this is pretty much totally irrelevant here, and won't alter the first sentence. We seem to be done here. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What does it take for a theory to be fringy about a metaphysical figure for whom literally every aspect of their existence is thoroughly disputed? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jew. He was a rebel Jew and a dissident Jew born into and raised in an entirely Jewish context. Nothing reliable that has come down to us today about the historical figure calls that into question except for the small number of scholars who argue that he never even existed. His Jewish identity was central during his life on Planet Earth that we all inhabit 2000 years later. People can believe if they will that he is/was immortal or God in human form or capable of performing miracles or that he arose from the dead or that his mother was a never ending virgin or that the whole family rose to heaven in a fantastical way. Or believe that he was an impressive charismatic human guy very much like we might call a modern stage musician who put together an impressive performance to attract followers to his religious reform movement. Unsuccessful except for a handful when he was alive but fabulously successful in the centuries after his death Believe any competing theory that you want, but he was born a Jew and lived his entire life as a Jew. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion to downplay Jesus's Jewish identify and background is completely without merit.

1. It is common practice in Wikipedia to note the ethnicity of ancient religious-figures/philosophers/scholars in the first sentence, even when their influence and fame went far beyond their ethnic background. Here are some examples: Muhammad "was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam"; Socrates "was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy"; Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher; Zarathustra "was an Iranian religious reformer who challenged the tenets of the contemporary Ancient Iranian religion, becoming the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism"; Confucius "was a Chinese philosopher". Even in more modern religions (or sub-religions) we find: Martin Luther "was a German priest, theologian"; John Calvin "was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation"; Baháʼu'lláh "was an Iranian religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith"; Joseph Smith "was an American religious leader and the founder of Mormonism"; Leonard Howell "was a Jamaican religious figure".

2. Further as many before me commented, Jesus was not only Jewish "by blood". He was Jewish also "by soul and intellect". All the sources tell us he identified as a Jew, practiced Judaism (with some modifications) and the traditions about him and the teachings attributed to him are deeply rooted in the Judaism of his days (e.g. Monotheism, Messianism, the claim of Davidic lineage, the importance of the Torah and Old Testament etc). Vegan416 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The part about Muhammad being emphasized as "Arab" leader shouldn't be there. I'll start a discussion at Talk:Muhammad.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Why? Vegan416 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that it should be removed however I do think it's very silly that the fact he was Jewish is mentioned in the first sentence but not that he was the prophet and representative of God on earth in the Christian faith. Comparing these two it's not up for debate that he is far more heavily associated with Christianity and primarily Catholicism than Judaism, I'd expect no one to suggest Abraham's post first mention he's important in Christian faith comparative to Judaism after all. Galdrack (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Meh, that's the 2nd sentence. There's no real benefit to be had to try to cram the information in those two sentences together into an overburdened single first sentence. I'm not sure the article text or facts of the matter support the implication that Jesus is more central to Catholicism than to Orthodox or Protestant sects. VQuakr (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

"I'm not sure the article text or facts of the matter support the implication that Jesus is more central to Catholicism than to Orthodox or Protestant sects" - In terms of text no I wouldn't say but the Catholic Church is much more associated with Jesus symbolically, pretty much every church in Catholicism features Jesus on the cruxifix as the central feature while also commissioning art largely based around Jesus and Mary. Orthodox churches by comparison don't have the same central shape or design and while they can often feature him as a central piece it's more often shared with many other saints. It was a specific aim of the Catholic Church to be more directly tied to Jesus too.

That said he's clearly more prominent in Christian faith than any other which for a start makes it odd referencing his Judaism but I think a large part of this is also how it's more centrally referring to him as a person first rather than a religious figure which is what he's much more commonly associated. Put it this way if I opened a physical Encyclopedia that was arranged this way while most of his entry was talking about him as a religious figure, I'd find it oddly structured to say the least. Galdrack (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree to disagree on the Catholicism thing since it isn't relevant to the rest of this discussion, but it seems you're confusing veneration/centralism with iconography. Yes, the subject of this article is the individual, not Christianity. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"but it seems you're confusing veneration/centralism with iconography" - no I was using that as a brief example of how the association is more closely/directly tied with him, a part of this also comes from the fact that the major protestant factions have their own founders and even the central focus of Orthodox churches not being Christ. Though I'm not arguing either way which Christianity is more associated with him I just wrote it in response as yes iconography of a religion deeply impacts the veneration/centralism which are concepts that largely can't be measured so asking for which is most important is impossible to answer.

There's no saying to which religious believer has the most veneration of Jesus cause that's subjective but I'm referring to the physical world associations which yea he's overwhelmingly associated with Christianity and it's bad phrasing to associate him with a different religion first.

"Yes, the subject of this article is the individual, not Christianity." - ok, don't see how that's relevant to my comment. Galdrack (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

a part of this also comes from the fact that the major protestant factions have their own founders no one is confusing Martin Luther with Jesus. This is nonsense. the central focus of Orthodox churches not being Christ this is unequivocally incorrect. physical world associations so...iconography? Yes, that seems to be where you're hung up/confused. ok, don't see how that's relevant to my comment because Jesus is central to the religion of Christianity, but Christianity isn't the subject of this article. The subject of this article, the historical/mythological individual Jesus, was Jewish. He's not particularly important to the religion of Judaism except perhaps in how it's impacted Jewish-Christian conflict and relationships over the last couple of millenia, but Judaism was critically important to Jesus and his identity. We of course go on to mention Christianity throughout the lead and article, but it isn't critical to mention it in the first sentence. We can't and shouldn't cram everything in to sentence one per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"no one is confusing Martin Luther with Jesus. This is nonsense." - This is the second time you've responded with a very snide answer that has nothing to do with what I wrote, reminder of Wikipedia:Assume good faith as you're responses really aren't good faith interpretations of what I've written.

Frankly I've been the one arguing to follow the standard format of Wiki pages, as you pointed out he's a "historical/mythological individual" and the overwhelming bulk of the article derived from those Christian accounts as he is in foremost associated with that religion in our world and the first sentence doesn't reflect that.

Per MOS:LEADCLUTTER "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." and currently this sentence places a higher value on ascribing his racial/religious heritage than the religion built around his life. Assuming you were an alien then reading the first two sentences is just misleading: "He was a Jewish preacher but is the central figure of a different religion? Did the Christians just get it wrong or what?" is a completely valid reading of this entry in it's current state. Galdrack (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Since we can't seem to find common ground on much of anything including the intent behind my own words and the text of WP:AGF, probably best for us to agree to disagree. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ponder for a moment that one can be deeply important to both the history of Judaism as well as any number of other things. While time is limited, the contents of these arguments amount to false dichotomies imo. Remsense ‥ 论 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

"Ponder for a moment that one can be deeply important to both the history of Judaism as well as any number of other things." let's not be disingenuous I clearly addressed both points.

It's a very strange way of reading an opening sentence about an article on Jesus which is really the point being made here and frankly it is strange to arrange it this way. Typically articles are arranged by referencing what the person or topic in question either is or is most well known for and on that end Jesus is very obviously more associated with Christianity than Judaism.

Though really I think it's more odd because it frames him first as a person rather than a spiritual figure which he's much more commonly known for. Galdrack (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We also have many articles about fictional characters. Captain Ahab says in the 2nd sentence he is a monomaniacal sea captain. Andre🚐 18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct, in the second sentence. Which is my point here's the first: Captain Ahab is a fictional character and one of the protagonists in Herman Melville's Moby-Dick (1851).

It's extremely clear who he is and where he's relevant followed by a specific description of him. Compare this to say the article on The Buddha:

"Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha (lit. 'the awakened one'), was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia, during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism."

"Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader."

See in The Buddha article it also refers to him as a person but it just makes direct reference to what he did and the religion he's primarily associated with, it's not until the second and third sentences we start describing where he's from and what religions he was associated with before founding Buddhism. It should follow the same structure he first emphasising what he did "Religious Leader" and then what (of the varying) religions he's most heavily associated with which would be Christianity, also the sentence structure is misleading this way as it implies it was Judaism specifically that he was preaching which isn't accurate considering he was rejected by them for his preachings which became the foundations of Christianity cause that's what he was preaching, influenced and inspired by Judaism of course. Galdrack (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"he was rejected by them" Who the heck are them? The narrative about the Apostles points out that his followers were also Jewish. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

One assumes he means that Rabbinic Judaism doesn't consider Jesus to be the Messiah. Andre🚐 23:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I thought that was clear when I linked to the event to be honest. There isn't specifics on whether or not all the Apostles were Jewish though they likely were in terms of culture but they're consistently referenced as The First Christians which their pages also reflect since they like Jesus have a much greater association with Christianity than Judaism. The more I read the opening lines of the page from talking about it the less sense the opening sentences make. Galdrack (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't quite articulate my thoughts in the clearest way, but luckily I've just happened upon a little thought experiment for you. If you had to pick one word that says the most about Jesus's biography, what would it be? I think you could plausibly pick either "prophet" or "preacher" here, so I'll go ahead and lock that in for us. What is the second content word one could add that fills in the absolute most about him? (You can use whatever linking or grammatical words are necessary, like "from Bethlehem" is valid here.) I have racked my brain, but cannot think of a second word that even comes close in core additive information than "Jewish". Remsense ‥ 论 18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I replied to Andre above with a comparative to The Buddha article that honestly reads better. I get what you're going for cause none of this is wrong and I think maybe the initial posters tone here has implied a sorta reading for supporting comments.

" I have racked my brain, but cannot think of a second word that even comes close in core additive information than "Jewish"" Christian? Like even writing "was the a prophet of Christianity and it's central religious figure" would make more sense. Then background in the second and third would still mention his Jewish background and teaching etc. Galdrack (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It is common practice in Wikipedia to note the ethnicity of ancient religious-figures/philosophers/scholars in the first sentence, even when their influence and fame went far beyond their ethnic background. Here are some examples: Muhammad "was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam"; Socrates "was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy"; Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher; Zarathustra "was an Iranian religious reformer who challenged the tenets of the contemporary Ancient Iranian religion, becoming the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism"; Confucius "was a Chinese philosopher". Even in more modern religions (or sub-religions) we find: Martin Luther "was a German priest, theologian"; John Calvin "was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation"; Baháʼu'lláh "was an Iranian religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith"; Joseph Smith "was an American religious leader and the founder of Mormonism"; Leonard Howell "was a Jamaican religious figure". Vegan416 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair comment treating at the point I mentioned however it's missing the major problems with this opening sentence. Judaism is both a religion and ethnicity but a religious preacher is a specific role pertaining to religion. As far as Jesus himself is concerned we can't say what he preached per-say but I'm sure each religious group he's associated with would say he preached their religion at the time though of course he is far more commonly associated with Christianity today.

Which is the glaring difference between this post and all the others you mention the main religion he's associated with is relegated to the second sentence, it's very strange to not mention Christianity in the opening sentence for Jesus. The ordering of the sentence itself is an issue as it states "was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader." which is just openly misleading, his ethnicity should be mentioned but it shouldn't be written in a misleading manner and the fact he's the central figure of Christianity should absolutely be there, it's by far what he's most associated with. Galdrack (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim below that "preached a different religion to Judaism and said as much amongst his apostles", but that's a different discussion to my point here. I wouldn't object to changing the first sentence to "was a 1st-century Jewish man who became the central figure of Christianity" Vegan416 (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Also Jesus was not Christian himself, since Christianity was born only following his death and alleged resurrection. As the examples I gave show in Wikipedia first we give short description of the person then of his influence. Vegan416 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't true by any means, Jesus himself preached a different religion to Judaism and said as much amongst his apostles. It's a difficult point (looking at the history here too) but it's simply extremely dismissive to Christians to openly claim the main figure of their church was preaching a completely different religion and they just got it wrong. I don't know of any other article treated this way. Galdrack (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your factual claim and with your attitude. Wikipedia is not supposed to suppress the truth to placate religious feelings. But anyway to avoid a lengthy discussion I suggested a compromise version . We can change the first sentence to "was a 1st-century Jewish man who became the central figure of Christianity". Vegan416 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Or in full and without changing other things: "Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader who became the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion." Admittedly that is becoming a bit clunky so I would drop ", the world's largest religion". Erp (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Another alternative I won't object to: "Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish man who preached new religious ideas and became the central figure of Christianity". Vegan416 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that all three of these suggestions are worse than the present wording, with or without the mention of Judaism, since they essentially just weld the current first two sentences together while losing the "[NAME] was a [PROFESSION]" format that pretty much every article about a historical figure follows. -- LWG ^talk 15:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I'd have to agree with you there. ChrisgenX (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean claimed to be the jewish messiah. So his jewishness is important 193.173.45.71 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't when the Messiah was Cyrus the Great Golikom (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyrus didn't claim to be the Messiah. He probably never even heard this word. And nobody today regards him as the Messiah. Vegan416 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We call Jesus Jewish because mainstream scholars call him so. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not, but the statement is rather glib, and can easily be called out. And what we regard today about theological claims doesn't have much bearing on this either. There's no discussion about his Jewishness, just whether it should be in the first sentence, which seems to have got lost for several in this debate. Golikom (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole story of Jesus is about his Jewishness and his relationship to the Jewish sects and Jewish rebels in Rome at the time - Pharisees, etc. Andre🚐 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Golikom, I have shown somewhere above that it's the common practice in Wikipedia to mention the ethnic identity of religiously important historical figures in the first sentence of their article. There's no reason to do otherwise in the case of Jesus, EVEN if his Jewish identity wasn't important to his story, all the more so since it clearly is important to his story, as others have mentioned here. Vegan416 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 - I've not suggested it shouldn't be, just that certain parts of this discussion have degenerated into Blueskying his Jewishness and don't address the actual question at hand. But otherstuff isn't a very strong argument for this either - Saint Peter, Paul the Apostle, John the Baptist, Jacob, David, Miriam for example - none of these mention ethnicity in the first sentence. Golikom (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Golikom Well look at MOS regarding biographical articles (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#First sentence), according to which:

"The first sentence should usually state: ... 3. Context (location,

nationality

, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable."

Since Jesus Jewish nationality is clearly a part of the context for the activities that made him notable, then that should close the debate.

Furthermore from this follows that the articles that you mentioned should also include this detail in them in the first sentence (at least those about which there is a consensus that they are real historical figures). I'll make the neccesary corrections soon.

Vegan416 (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note it says "usually". It's not compulsory - only one of the four examples given actually states nationality. I don't think there's any need to change any of those opening sentences. Nationality is really a much more modern concept than the period we're talking about here - and certainly saying Jesus had Jewish "nationality"" is pretty anachronistic. Golikom (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Not true. The Jews were regarded ad a nation both by themselves and by others since the Old Testament times. Vegan416 (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Jewish is usually used for the post-exilic period and Jacob, Miriam, and David all pre-date that period.

For contemporaries within the first century, Josephus has in the first sentence "was a Roman–Jewish historian and military leader" and Philo has "also called Philō Judæus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt".

Jesus would have been identified as Jewish in his time much as the New Testament identifies people as Samaritans or Romans or Greeks. It is also important from the encyclopedic point of view to state that up front since there is a non-scholarly view that he wasn't.

Also John the Baptist should mention he was Jewish and did until October 13. Erp (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. With regard to Jacob, Miriam, and maybe even David, I would also add that there isn't a scholarly consensus that they are real historic figures that actually lived. But as for the rest they definitely should be name ad Jews in the first sentence. Vegan416 (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, As mentioned above, we should follow general academic practice and use "Israelite" for figures living (or supposedly living) before about 500 BC/BCE. But that should be in the start of the lead. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant here, since Jesus lived around 0 and sources refer to him as Jewish. Andre🚐 17:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done John the Baptist (reverted the opening sentence back to the version of Oct 3, "was a Jewish preacher active in the area of the Jordan River in the early 1st century AD"). Erp (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The argument that Jesus, "King of the Jews," wasn't notably Jewish is frankly, kind of silly. It sounds like someone who really hasn't studied the New Testament much. Andre🚐 01:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, lots of thoughts here. I've skimmed the discussion, so apologies if I missed the nuance in people's views. Here's the situation as I see it:

• The term Jewish can refer to an ethnicity and/or a religious faith.
• Jesus was in fact ethnically Jewish.
• Jesus was a preacher and religious leader.
• Jesus' preaching happened in the first century in a Jewish religious context.
• Jesus was and is the central figure of Christianity, considered by most Christians to be the incarnation of God the Son and the promised Messiah.
• Jesus was and is an important figure in many non-Christian faiths.
• While most Christians consider their faith to be a continuation and fulfillment of pre-Jesus Judaism, post-Jesus Judaism and Christianity are distinct faiths.
• Jesus cannot be described as a Christian, as that would be like saying that King James was a Jacobite or Karl Marx was a Marxist.

Taking all that into consideration, I think the current opening paragraph of this article is excellent. If it is changed at all, it should be by removing the word "Jewish", leaving the rest the same. Why should we do/not do that?

Reasons to leave it in:

• It would be consistent with the vast majority of similar articles. See for example Muhammad, Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates. The Buddha doesn't specify an ethnicity because we actually don't know.
• The Jewish context of Jesus' preaching is much-discussed by the sources and important for understanding the early history of Christianity.

Reasons to remove it:

• It could create confusion as Jesus is not an important figure in modern Judaism.
• It's debatable whether Jesus considered himself to be (religiously) Jewish.
• It could be undue weight if Jesus' Jewishness is considered a minor part of his significance.

Personally, I think the points in favor of leaving it outweigh the points in favor of removing it, but I'm interested to hear if people have further factors to add to the ones I enumerated above. -- LWG ^talk 16:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, except for 2 points. I think it's quite cleat that Jesus regarded himself as religiously Jewish. See for example in this Wikipedia article "He tells his followers to adhere to Jewish law". I could expand on this but I don't have time to delve into all the sources now. Maybe next week. I also don't understand how "It could be undue weight if Jesus' Jewishness is considered a minor part of his significance" is a point for removing the word "Jewish".

I would also add that keeping the word "Jewish" in in accordance with MOS as I have shown above. Vegan416 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing Word

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, not the first paragraph. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It is acutely tiring when editors assume a mindset that any active engagement being required to locate a given bit of content is tantamount to its censorship. No, it's just that there's an entire article here, not only the prose we can fit onto a postage stamp. What else do people do on here, if not read? Remsense ‥ 论 06:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, OP didn't say anything about censorship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I retract my polemic for clarity's sake. Remsense ‥ 论 08:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No fighting in the war-room ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@SpartanWarrior197, the lead section does actually have that. At the bottom of the lead section, it states:

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

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

Removed scholarly info

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

You've added these significant bits of text to multiple articles already. They don't need to be added here as well Golikom (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how anything I put in other articles say has to do with my edit on this page. My edit provides good information that improves this page, which also likely has much more traffic than almost any other Christianity-related articles on Wikipedia.

I also do not think that Wikipedia articles must limit themselves to the bare minimum that is absolutely necessary. As long as information is properly sourced and relevant I do not see the issue in adding it. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

On that basis there might as well be one article for The universe that contains every bit of information ever. There are articles about the gospels, and copy pasting your text here is over detail. The level of traffic of a page does not have a bearing in this. Golikom (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would presume that an article on the universe would include much of the characteristics in detail throughout the known universe, such as its formation, stars, and galaxies, future, etc. In this case the transmission of material and historicity of the canonical Gospels, our primary sources for the historical Jesus, is highly pertinent, especially given how prominent the particular scholars I have cited are.

I still have not found any rule preventing my edits from being confirmed; is there some kind of limit to how detailed an article can be? Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:TOOMUCH here - we don't need a load of this scholar says, that scholar says about the sources gospels when it's sufficiently covered in those articles. It's notable for those articles - it's not critical to have this level of detail here Golikom (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case Derico and Kirk provide key insights on the oral/mnemonic nature of the transmission of the Jesus tradition; media criticism is absolutely key to researching the Synoptic Gospels, and there is no coverage on this page regarding how the authors used their sources. If anything I could provide much more detail (the entire book and Brill article in fact!), but I only chose to include the bare fact of oral dependence and Kirk's single quote, so I find it difficult to claim that I have added too much detail.

Barber's work has provided several major contributions as well, so I find it fitting to be included, though I am considering removing Allison's quote. Finally, this article already has "a load of this scholar says, that scholar says", several from much less prominent scholars than the ones I give. It is odd to single my edit out in particular. Silverfish2024 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the whole article needs a clean up is not a justification for adding more. Details about researching the gospels belongs in the articles about the gospels, not in the article about Jesus. Golikom (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The article does not need a "clean up"; citing academics by name is what you should expect in a field as contentious as historical Jesus studies. There is no requirement that everything in Wikipedia be in Wikipedia's own voice.

Information about the Gospels can be in an article about Jesus, since they are the main sources. Why include the notion that Mark is the most reliable Gospel if we are talking strictly about Jesus in the first place, for example? Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The article Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, which is just one random example from a very different field, cites various scientists like David Deutsch, Jeffrey A. Barrett, and Leon Cooper by name. I highly doubt all these articles need any kind of clean up because of this. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Silverfish2024, see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This is an overview article. There are subsidiary articles where more detail may be better suited. Apart from one post, you seem to be focussed on 'why shouldn't' your material be added. That's the wrong perspective. Per WP:ONUS, you need to persuade others why it should be added. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Golikom deleted my edit, which is itself an edit, so he must have a good reason if he is to maintain it. I already showed my justification; the manner of Gospel transmission and some homage to the Synoptic Problem, key to understanding the Gospels and henceforth Jesus himself, deserves inclusion. Barber's work has already convinced other top scholars and has not received much (if any) dissent as far as I can tell, so the claim that Mark considered the most reliable should not be trusted uncritically. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I linked to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the other editor linked to WP:TOOMUCH. Did you read them? They are making similar points. That's what you need to answer. The reason why you need to answer them is because of WP:ONUS. Did you read that? "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I suggest you address the issues raised. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have indeed read these articles, and I have already justified my edits twice. I have already responded to all the issues @Golikom has raised. Is there any issue you wish I dealt with? @DeCausa Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edit is too much detail for this article, IMO. The other editor seems to be saying the same thing. As far as I'm concerned you haven't addressed that so currently you have no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material, so you can't add it. Maybe other editors will join this thread and agree with you, in which case consensus will change. If you still want to add the material you can either wait until that happens or seek to persuade me and the other editor that it's not too much detail. Up to you. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have already explained that the transmission of the Gospels is important for studying the Gospels and Jesus, so I do not understand why you still believe my edit is too detailed.

As for my other edit, I do agree now that it was too detailed, though it supplies needed information against any supposed agreement Mark is more reliable. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Revised Edit on Mark/Matthew

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

That's not how it works. You're ignoring what's been said to you. You've now been given a 3rr warning on your talk page and you've been warned by an admin here. Don't attempt to restore any part of your edits until you have agreement on the talk page. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your concerns have been noted. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was already worried my edit was premature; thank you for confirming this. I will not edit the main page again until I find agreement.

This is my edit, which has taken into consideration a previous discussion regarding detail:

Mark, which is most likely the earliest written gospel, has been considered for many decades the most historically accurate, though this view has been strongly challenged in recent years. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the first part of the sentence was already present, and I have not included my sources in this Talk page. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I also propose an edit that goes this way:

Scholars have suggested an oral relationship or dependence emphasizing memory rather than visual copying. The care with which Matthew handled his sources means that the Gospel is not significantly different theologically or historically.

Although I disagree that my other edits were too detailed or that naming a scholar is bad, I hearkened to feedback to create this edit. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I can provide my sources if anybody wishes. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been a full week since I first proposed my two edits in the Talk page here and have not received any objections to my changed content, so I assume agreement has been reached per WP: TALKDONTREVERT. I will thus insert my edits if there are no issues. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that would be you ignoring the clear consensus that exists against your proposals. The interest others had in replying has dried up because you've argued a considerable amount here already but haven't engaged with the core objection others have heretofore raised. You have been told "no, this is a biographical article with a very broad scope, and a discussion of this kind would constitute excessive detail about what are ultimately metatextual topics in that context" multiple times—with various explanations and references to site guidelines given but more or less dismissed out of hand each time. Your stance is not one that seems interested in establishing consensus; rather, you're attempting to ram through what you've wanted from the start with changes that do not actually address the core point you've been told. No one else wants to spend more time trying to chip away at that. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll try articulating it in a more concrete way, because that sometimes brings it into clearer focus. As an extremely rough ballpark figure, we want encyclopedia articles that don't stray far above 10k words. That may sound extremely one-size-fits-all to the point of farce, but I ask that you take me seriously when I say 10k is rather useful as an extremely preliminary benchmark. This article is currently 13.3k words—safely past the point where every single article on the site needs thousands of words chopped out in my opinion, though that would be a bit strong for some others' tastes. Think about how much we have to cover about Jesus in those 10k words—we simply cannot afford to branch out from discussing him, his life, his ideas, his global impact directly, to second-order discussions of how scholars analyze the sources about him. That is how broad we must be. That's pretty clear in how I see it, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 08:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This latter explanation is quite informative, though I do not think my edit of less than 150 words contributes much to the overflow of info here. Can I start editing some things down from this article without making proposals? I can see material here that is probably not absolutely necessary to understanding Jesus or is not directly connected to his career. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It would actually be very much appreciated if some actionable ideas for how to slim this article down came out of this discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 19:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think I should create another Talk topic? This one already looks kind of cluttered. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus against my newest proposals (not the original) since no one before today replied with any objections, and this edit actually does respond to the objection on the previous Talk that my old edit was too detailed. I do not see what issue I am not addressing. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You do see it, because there is no reason to assume you have adequately addressed previous objections. You have been told that an added discourse in this vein is categorically unwarranted for this article, so why would your new slimmer revision of said discourse be assumed acceptable? I do not think you are unaware of this—in fact, you've bluntly rejected the validity of these concerns multiple times above. That is to say, if you add your changes again, it will be an indication as clear as the last time that you are uninterested in actual consensus, because you feel you are simply right where others are wrong. That's all. Remsense ‥ 论 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw the need to compromise based on the objections I received whether I am necessarily convinced or not. A slimmer version is less detailed and takes less reading time, which was the main objection all along. At this stage of the discussion however I think I agree that cutting this article down is much more worthwhile than trying to add more content. I think that's what I will look into rather than pursuing my current proposed addition any further. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense that the extreme length of this article means that there is a higher bar for inclusion, especially for content that already exists in other articles. The bar is not "is this information sourced and true", the bar is "is this information absolutely central to the subject of this particular article." -- LWG ^talk 15:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"the key information on Matthew's historicity" With the main exception being the two contradictory Nativity narratives, I am not aware of differences in historicity within the Synoptic Gospels. Their narratives are similar enough to point to common origins, and there are few details than can be either directly confirmed or contradicted by other sources of the era. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)