Talk:Historical Jesus

Reference 7, a bit misleading

I just want to bring up that reference 7, by Stephen Law, is actually an article that question the historical existence of Jesus. So either it should be clarified or removed. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

From that source:

"The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt."

It doesn't matter what the ultimate point of the article is. If the very first sentence of the abstract supports the statement it's used to support, it's fine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory"

This is from the wikipedia article. Here it says scholars of antiquity, in the referenced article it says Biblical historians. It's different things. I still think this article doesn't fit in or the sentence in wikipedia should be improved to reflect the biblical scholars, otherwise it is wrong. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There are four references there, not just one. And I don't think that you've got compelling evidence that there are branches of historical scholarship in which the the historicity of Jesus is widely doubted. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say there are evidence that his existence is doubted. It is not. Please keep on the topic. This is about accurate referencing. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

So we can correct it? Because we should reflect the references accurately. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It does. It repeats a straightforward, unambiguous statement from the cited article—more faithfully than any other characterization of the scholarly community you'd suggest we write instead. In fact, it makes the claim stronger to cite scholars who are individually skeptical but admit Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. You have to actually articulate what is written that is odds with the cited source—there are four cited, and it's not actually a problem that each covers some part of the claim, not four identical copies of the entire claim. Remsense 🌈 论 17:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Because the source that I mention doesn't really say what is written now. It can be solved by adding "biblical scholars." Because that is what the source says, is it not? 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This only seems pertinent if you are trying to ignore the clear point of the statement. On nearly any article, we could freely cite merely scholars, and no one would take it to me that 1) we are interested in what theoretical physicists have to say about Shakespeare, or 2) that we are misconstruing the situation by not citing them. Likewise, there's no reason one could assume we've included archaeologists studying the Caral–Supe civilization under scholars of antiquity. The point, clearly, is we're signalling that virtually all "scholars that would know" are in agreement; Biblical gives an overly narrow impression. Remsense 🌈 论 17:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Jesus the rabbi

Jesus is said to be a rabbi. Did rabbis in his time need qualifications and training before they can be called a rabbi? If they did, then do we know how and when he was awarded his qualifications? ~2025-35203-50 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Rabbinic Judaism appeared after Jesus's death. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

"Nazarene Jesus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nazarene Jesus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13 § Jesus Nazarene until a consensus is reached. Abesca (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hilarious irony is that POV?

To say that baptism & crucifixion are the two universally accepted facts is hilarious because these are the exact two facts Catholic canon required to rest the mystical claims on. It's the same two things that any martyr must be: Catholic and killed for it.

So this is an ironic statement which is arguably POV. In any other biography that said "everyone agrees JFK was elected and was assassinated but on nothing else at all" we would have very grave doubts about all that was said about that person by anyone. Especially if he subsequently became a cult figure. ~2026-25940-89 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The JFK comparison seems like a rather weak one. We have a lot of solid, verifiable historical sources on JFK but virtually none on Jesus. It's not clear exactly what your complaint is, though. Are you saying it is POV to accept baptism and crucifixion as fact, or it's POV to not say more than that is accepted as a fact? ZebraGourd (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Under-covered aspects of historicism

This article needs a new intro that doesn't defensively cute an ever changing non consensus. Very many scholars say Jesus is "composite" figure which is a nice way to say totally fictional made up from real stories from other people's histories, which is exactly how Handmaids Tale or Game of Thrones are constructed. - Apollonius of Tyanas popularity and the political necessity to overwrite his cult is enough to explain "Jesus".

This needs more about

- sources mentioning Christianity in early 2nd century that make no mention of "Jesus" or "Paul" eg Pliny Trajan letters 111CE.

- evidence of modifying texts of Josephus & Tacitus to include anachronistic pious language that if not added would have originated with them in 95 and 102CE respectively, unlikely as they're not believers

- a total lack of any examination of the authenticity of texts by early Church for historical credibility - totally unlike Islam which devotes vast scholarship to the isnad structure of [[hadith][ citations so rigorous that it led to both fiqh and to modern scientific citation index. By contrast, 3rd to 5th century Church scholars are only debating the messages in the text theologically without caring about the "history", resulting in many different compilations eg Ethiopian Bible of 88 books of which the rest are subsets.

- other works by the so called sources that would or should have mentioned any historical figure eg Josephus early histories of 1st century, but do not. The 95CE reference is to a Jesus of Damnia.

- the onus of historicism shifting due to the discovery of overt pious fraud

- Serapis Christ and Ptolemy whose influence was profound in exactly the places early Christians rise, and are the Chrestos cult Nero blamed in 64CE.

- Marcion and Evangelion, the suppressed first Gospel describing Yahu-wahu as evil Demiurge fought by a strictly divine Jesus who isn't a human, the likelihood that this is the Q text that Mark draws on first, then later Luke bends blame back towards Jews and the edit described as Marcionism even more so, Occam's Razor suggests the author or sect who tried at least twice from 144 to 170s to define the core documents, were also somewhat responsible for the efforts and Gospels between those dates.

- similar parallels in how Torah is constructed by fusion of prior ideology and compressed stories eg Musa, Thera, etc compiled into "Moses" ~2026-25940-89 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

"Apollonius of Tyanas popularity" Apollonius of Tyana. There is no "s" in the city name of Tyana. Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The current intro reflects the consensus as seen in the cited sources. If you believe that the sources are not an accurate depiction of the current scholarship on the historical Jesus then you should provide your own to support this claim. Otherwise, the intro currently reflects what the sources say. ZebraGourd (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with ZebraGourd. It seems the IP is saying we need more original research. If so - no, we do not. This is not an article to present your view (or my view) on the topic, but to accurately reflect what reliable sources say about it. And no, there is no "ever changing non consensus". There is a clear consensus among historians that the person Jesus existed, was associated with the John the Baptist, preached an apocalyptical message to a group of followers, and was crucified by the Romans. If the IP feels there are relevant contemporary academic sources missing, do suggest them here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)