Featured articleJesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2005Articles for deletionKept
October 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 21, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 12, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 28, 2013Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
August 15, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

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.[1] 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,[2] 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."[3][4]
  • 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

  1. ^ R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
  2. ^ Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  3. ^ Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
  4. ^ Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

-zebul or -zebub?

User:Johnson524 recently noticed that this article used two different spellings for the demon Jesus was accused of working for by the Pharisees and edited the article to be consistent in spelling it "Beelzebub". I noticed this, checked several English translations and the original Greek, and corrected it to "Beelzebul" as that seemed to be the more accurate spelling. User:Golikom rightly reverted my edit as unsourced, since the cited source uses the spelling "Beelzebub". It's a minor point, but what does the community think? ASV and KJV follow the Latin Vulgate in spelling the name "Beelzebub", but the original Greek is Βεελζεβοὺλ (Beelzeboul) and virtually all modern English translations spell it Beelzebul. I know we tend to cite the ASV here since it's public domain, but the Berean Bible is also public domain and is more in line with the consensus of scholarship on the subject. I would support changing the citation to point to the BSB and the spelling to -zebul, but won't do so unless there's consensus from the community. -- LWG talk 14:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @LWG, I hope you're day is well 🙂 I phrased my edit description as "consistency" as that was all I was meaning it to be, but you bring up some really good points. The reason I chose -zebub over -zebul was because that was how the Wikipedia article on the topic is spelled. To keep consistency across all of Wikipedia, I feel like the best course of action may be to propose a renaming on the Beelzebub talk page to Beelzebul, and see how others react, unless you're fine with the -zebub spelling now. Cheers! Johnson524 14:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Johnson524, thanks for the response! The article Beelzebub is about the ancient Philistine deity, which is referred to using the -zebub spelling in the Old Testament (Hebrew בַּעַל זְבוּב Baʿal-zəvuv). It's not clear that the passages in the gospels describing the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees are referring to the same entity, though the possibility is discussed in the Beelzebub article and we currently redirect the name "Beelzebul" to that article. The two names have been variously equated, conflated, and distinguished by various authors since ancient times. In any case, renaming the other article would be inappropriate since the spelling for the Philistine deity is uncontroversially the -zebub one. I still think this article should follow modern English translations in using the spelling that conforms to the original Greek, without making a claim about whether this is or isn't the same referent as "Beelzebub". -- LWG talk 14:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LWG Oh in that case, seeing what others think on this talk page is the right way to go. Sorry for my misunderstanding, and I hope you can get some valuable input from the community here! Johnson524 15:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the lack of replies here it seems no one has strong feelings on the matter. I will go ahead and make the change since I think it clearly the better option, but if anyone objects please reply here with your thoughts as I am happy to hear them out. -- LWG talk 19:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Beelzebul, not that my personal experience matters. That spelling redirects to Beelzebub, which I am familiar with...so it just looks like you're piping links to get to the spelling you prefer? --Onorem (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with Biblehub, but it's not like searching Beelzebub doesn't return results. --Onorem (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biblehub is just one of many websites that host all the major bible translations and let you search, read abd analyze them, it happened to be the first one that came up when I googled for an easy place to show the version comparisons. See above the explanation of the difference between the two spellings. "Beelzebub" is a well-known ancient deity that is found in the Old Testament (the Hebrew part of the Bible) because the ancient Jews interacted with cultures that worhipped that deity. In the New Testament (the Greek part of the Bible) there's an account of an interaction in which Jesus is accused of using the power of a demon named "Beelzebul". Whether that is an alternate spelling for the ancient deity "Beelzebub" or a distinct entity has been debated by scholars and theologians since ancient times, and is above my pay grade to answer. However the overwhelming trend in recent scholarship is to transliterate the Greek name that Jesus used with the "Beelzebul" spelling. The search hits you find in the New Testament for "Beelzebub" are all from older translations that predate modern text criticism, and they spell it that way due to the interpretive decision to equate the two names (which is not something that has consensus among scholars). The article Beelzebub which refers to the ancient deity, has a section "in the Christian Bible" that discusses the two names and the debate over whether they are equivalent, so I thought linking to that section would be the most appropriate choice. Does that make sense? Let me know if there is anything I can clarify. -- LWG talk 21:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide some actual sourcing for the claimed scholarly consensus. It's certainly not in the Beelzebub article. Golikom (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will try to find some links so you can do your own assessment of the sources. First of all, here are the only sources we currently cite for that bit of the article:
  • A citation to the actual text of the American Standard Version translation of the Bible, which renders it with the -zebub spelling.
  • Britannica article on Jesus, which makes no mention of either spelling (instead saying Jesus was accused of working for "the Prince of Demons").
  • Zondervan King James Bible Commentary: which follows KJV in rendering it "Beelzebub but notes that the NSRV renders it Beelzebul.
That's not the strongest of sourcing for the -zebub spelling: just the actual text of one translation of the Bible, plus one commentary on a related translation.
I don't know of any reason why we should prefer the ASV over other translations, aside from its being public domain. The ASV is a revised version of the King James Version, which chose to respell Βεελζεβοὺλ as Beelzebub to harmonize it with the Old Testament name בַּעַל זְבוּב (Baʿal-zəvuv). Virtually all translations of the Bible other than the King James (and itsrevisions like the ASV or NKJV) render Βεελζεβοὺλ as Beelzebul. For example, NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, CSB, CEV, GNT, NRSV, and NET all render it as Beelzebul. As far as I can tell, in the last hundred years, no translation of the Bible has rendered the name using the -zebub spelling, and certainly no widely-used translation has done so. That strongly suggests that the scholarly consensus among translators is that Beelzebul is the correct way to render the name in English.
As far as academic references go, here's what I turned up:
  • In our article Beelzebub: "In Mark 3:22, the scribes accuse Jesus Christ of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons. The name also appears in the expanded version in Matthew 12:24,27 and Luke 11:15, 18–19, as well as in Matthew 10:25." Thus even in our Beelzebub article we use the -zebul spelling for the incident involving Jesus. Later in that article It is unknown whether Symmachus the Ebionite was correct in identifying these names... [discussion of various theories and of the translation traditions that chose the -zebub rendering].
  • Encyclopedia of the Bible and it's Reception: "Both an abbreviated form of the same name (Βεελζεβούλ, “Beezebul”) and a variant, in which the first part is identical (i.e., Beel-, “Lord” or “prince”) but the second differs in both spelling and sense (-zebub, “the fly”), are attested in the ancient manuscript tradition for each of the parallels; but the latter variant in particular has almost no support outside the Latin and Syriac version, and is widely recognized as an instance of assimilation to 2 Kgs 1:2–3, 6"
  • Encyclopedia of the Bible: "KJV and ASV follow the Vul. here, but RSV follows the Gr. of the best MSS and renders it “Beelzebul.”"
  • Encyclopedia.com: "Although Beelzebub, rather than Beelzebul, appears in older Catholic translations of the Bible, Beelzebub is found only in the Latin and the Syriac versions; almost all the Greek manuscripts have Bεελζεβούλ (Beelzebul). The New American Bible (1970) has Beelzebul, reflecting the orthography of the Greek manuscripts."
  • Dictionary of the New Testament: uses both spellings, extensively discusses the linguistic issues involved, describes the identification of Beelzebul with Beelzebub as a "common explanation" that has significant difficulties.
  • The Jewish Encyclopedia: Treats them as variants of the same name, points out that the older manuscripts used -zebul.
  • Catholic Encyclopedia: Uses the spelling Beelzeboul for the New Testament account, discusses but does not endorse the identification of this entity with the Beelzebub mentioned in the OT.
  • Britannica online: Identifies both names with Satan, but doesn't discuss the NT account in detail.
I feel like that's a pretty broad spectrum of sources that gives a decent picture of a scholarly consensus of using the -zebul spelling for the incident with Jesus. Let me know if you agree or if there are other sources you would prefer we look at. As far as my use of the Berean Standard Bible for my citation in the article goes, it is admittedly less well-known, as it was published quite recently, but I thought it was a good option because it agrees with the above sources while being public domain and accessible on Wikisource. -- LWG talk 20:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early Christians section omits North America

WP:DENY TarnishedPathtalk 13:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israelites who would become early Christians were also in the new world. This should be mentioned. True Blue Editor (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Sock of blocked user. FyzixFighter (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it'll be interesting to read a reliable source for that.... Golikom (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@True Blue Editor Are you talking about Mormonism#America? If not, bring your WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop ✋ I don’t like other recording information as regards to Jesus when not Jesus himself 2A02:8085:1240:9A00:4465:DAEC:1B53:3472 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit rude to say any information Jesus is if has not said himself false too as would not be if he is 2A02:8085:1240:9A00:4465:DAEC:1B53:3472 (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“Became convinced that he rose from the dead”

Wouldn’t it be less derogatory to say “followers believed that he rose from the dead”? I know it sounds pedantic, but “became convinced” sounds retroactive (and therefore pejorative). 136.167.36.34 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Believed" appears more pejorative to me. That connotes an unverifiable religious belief or statement in-context, while "became convinced" more clearly indicates that the disciplies considered his rising factual and verified. A modification such as "were convinced" may be fine, however. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place Jesus' Aramaic/Hebrew name first on the first efn in lede

The text of the first efn is currently:

Ancient Greek: Ἰησοῦς, romanized: Iēsoús, probably from Hebrew or Aramaic: יֵשׁוּעַ, romanized: Yēšūaʿ

Since Aramaic was his language, that version of his name should be placed first, together with the identical Hebrew, followed by the Greek version. Like this:

Aramaic and Hebrew: יֵשׁוּעַ, romanized: Yēšūaʿ; Ancient Greek: Ἰησοῦς, romanized: Iēsoús Evaporation123 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. Makes sense. Vegan416 (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to push back on this. While he spoke Aramaic, Greek is the language in which he was written about, full stop. His existence on paper is a Greek one. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that standard practice for Wikipedia though? Evaporation123 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No such thing as standard for many choices like this, especially in exceptional or bespoke cases like this one. We have to discern which, if any, best represents our sources. Remsense ‥ 论 18:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I don't really see why the language in which he was written about should take precedence over his native language, as if it has inherently more value. Evaporation123 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't have anything he spoke in Aramaic. We do have, traditionally, his words in Greek. Really, it is the only language he can be said to have originated from, for our purposes. Remsense ‥ 论 18:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why that ascribes it more inherent value. But you know what, in order to prevent this from just becoming a back-and-forth we need some sort of RM-style vote. Is there any way we can do this? Evaporation123 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because he's never said a word to us in Aramaic; that is effectively an abstraction on top of the core we do have, which is fundamentally, archetypally, inextricably Greek in character. That is what I'm getting at. Beyond the concrete life and times of a poor preacher in Galilee, which we all would agree is the root component, most of what this article is about is what the idea of him is and what it has wrought. To maybe clarify: in a hypothetical analogous situation on Historical Jesus, Aramaic would clearly go first. But Jesus as we know him holistically, must be understood as a Greek phenomenon. (I hope I'm not approaching insensitive rhetoric for anyone.) Remsense ‥ 论 19:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is absolute agreement among all scholars that he said most, if not all, of his teachings in Aramaic and Hebrew, and not in Greek. As for the order of names in the lead, since there is no clear rule or precedent to rely on, this becomes a matter of personal preference, so perhaps a vote should be taken. Vegan416 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. There is also absolute agreement that we do not have those original teachings, and never will. They are ultimately almost entirely hypothetical and to be derived, to the extent they meaningfully exist for us. (I understand there are fragments that are more directly derivable than others.) Remsense ‥ 论 18:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need some sort of vote, this is becoming an increasingly abstract, subjective, and difficult discussion. Even though Remsense seems to be outnumbered right now, more users may join in later. Evaporation123 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what everyone is in such a rush for regardless, given it was this way for a long while and the change was a bit rushed packaged in with a flurry of others I questioned upon noticing. It's fairly clear how I popped in like I did, I think. Remsense ‥ 论 19:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not standard practice. The order should be Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek, then Arabic. Jesus' language and the two liturgical languages for the religions in which Jesus is the Messiah. Plumber (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, or maybe it's what I think. No use speaking with a tone best reserved for when there's some guideline that compels your position beyond reproach. Surely, since this is an extremely mature and highly visible article, the fact that it has stayed this way is expressly evidence of consensus, if the most fickle and prone to change kind. Remsense ‥ 论 18:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain it's consensus? Some things just happen to be overlooked... I mean, "Jewish" in the first line of the lede was unlinked for years before I noticed and changed it. Evaporation123 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can skim backward through the diffs, though it's always a secondary point of importance. It's been this way as long as I remember, at least Remsense ‥ 论 18:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time browsing MOS to search for recommendations on this point (and made a bad CE on MOS while I was at it!), but found nothing. The most pertinent section appears to be MOS:NICKCRUFT, but the article already adheres to these suggestions. Frankly, I see no reason to change the current EFN: Greek first, to match all our oldest written sources; "probably from" the original Aramaic/Hebrew, which is likely but not testified to in written sources. Does it really matter which is first? Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is convincing enough. I cannot think of another figure who does not have their name first in their native language. --Plumber (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except do we know for a fact what his name was in Aramaic? If we look at the article Yeshua we see that Yehoshua was a common alternative and it states "In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs) is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. The Greek Ἰησοῦς or Iēsoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua son of Nun in the New Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. (It was even used in the Septuagint to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun—Deuteronomy 32:44.)" Admittedly I have doubts on how well sourced that article is. We do know for a fact what his name was in Koine Greek, the common language of the eastern Roman Empire and of the earliest writings about him, the New Testament. Erp (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus
No tags for this post.