Talk:Historicity of Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Tacitus' reliability

Why would Tacitus mistake the title of Pontius Pilate? Hes the foremost expert on Roman society and he refers to Pilate as a procuratorem (procurator) instead of a praefectus (prefect)? Prefect is a military position, and he certainly would have been aware of that, and based on his expertise probably when the positional structure was adjusted and began incorporating procurators during the reign of Claudius. It should also be noted that this mistake of Pilate's title is the very same mistake the gospel writers made. ~2025-40083-07 (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Criterion of Embarrassment

Regards diff, which remeoved

However, Rafael Rodriquez, Robert Stein, Dale Allison, William Arnal, and Michael Humphries all argue that the criterion of embarrassment, on its own, is problematic for authenticating events in modern reconstructions of the life of Jesus.

References

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

My reason for edit is a little bit longer than the box will allow, so I'll place it here.

First, the section noting challenges to the criterion of embarrassment does not belong collapsed in a note box, as @Joshua Jonathan placed it. The challenge to the CoE is an alternative point of view that clashes with the view that is primarily acknowledged in the article, which is that CoE is authoritative. The Dunn quote is especially bold because it denies that there even is a significant dissent. Including this Dunn quote in the body, while relegating the critics of CoE to a collapse box, would be a clear WP:NPOV violation.

Next, I first tried to keep my initial addition short in order to be conciliatory, but @Joshua Jonathan changed the wording from "other scholars" to only mention Rafael Rodriguez. That is misleading, because the Rodriguez source cited four other scholars who also challenged the CoE usage - and even more scholars who challenged the authenticity of the events on other grounds that were less clearly linked to CoE. I have added all five CoE-denying scholars to the body text. Still, with only one sentence mentioning the CoE challenge, this will not be too imbalanced against the much larger pro-CoE content in the article.

Next, @Ramos1990's contribution's are mostly friendly, with the minor modification that I will change "life of the historical Jesus" to "life of Jesus", because while none of the five scholars deny the existence of Jesus, there is a spectrum of comfort among them with the phrase "historical Jesus". Rodriguez and Arnal in particular dislike it. Ilvekset (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edit. But I am not sure what the point of the criteria edit is. The Rodriguez source says nothing relating to the existence of Jesus and nor does it doubt the the Baptism of Jesus. It seems to be WP:COAT as disagreement on any criteria are side tangents that do not intersect with the topic of the article nor the fact that the baptism of Jesus is nearly universally accepted by experts (including Robert Stein, Dale Allison, William Arnal, and Michael Humphries). Also, Rodrigues actually wants to expand historical approaches to see the gospels as "memorial artifacts" for 1st century contexts that give the "gist" of historical events rather than precise details (which is what the traditionally criteria try to do). Difference in views in methodology, not the facts, belong more in another article that focuses on the quest (which does discuss diverse views on criteria in detail).

I am sure you can see that difference in views on methodology (CoE) are not the same as differences in views about existence. And even if there were some scholars who for example did not accept the baptism (I am sure there are some), that does not impact existence of Jesus, it only impacts their view of events in the life of Jesus (reconstructions). But since multiple RS already note that baptism and crucifixion are the widely granted by experts e.g. "almost universal assent", such minority views would be WP:UNDUE. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that difference in views on methodology (CoE) are not the same as differences in views about existence. So why should the article be wiped of all reference to those who challenge CoE as a methodology? The current version of the article does not merely acknowledge the existence of Jesus. It specifically promotes CoE as a methodology. If the article notes several scholars who say X, then including also the scholars who challenge X is not WP:COAT or WP:UNDUE. It's WP:NPOV. Ilvekset (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Since the article is not about historical methodology and since the debates about criteria, whatever they may be, are not relevant to the existence - as all these scholars agree he existed while disagreeing about methodologies, then criteria should not be mentioned. That whole paragraph about the CoE can be removed or at least the part about the CoE. The remaining paragraphs about "almost universal assent" are enough to get to the point that scholars generally agree at minimum that John baptized Jesus and that Jesus was crucified. If reader wants to know more, they can read the sources. Also, scholars reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus using multiple methodologies, not just one so it is more accurate to simply not put weight on one particular criteria. Would that work? It avoids tangent debates. After all Ehrman, in the paragraph below the CoE stuff, says "Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus. But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large – disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was.". Ramos1990 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The article cannot answer the question "Did Jesus exist?" without answering the question "How do we know?". The first sentence of WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

There is heavy scholarship both for and against the CoE as an argument for the existence of Jesus. This scholarship directly involves the question of how people conclude that Jesus existed - which is exactly the subject of this article.

Granted, omitting all mention of CoE, or relegating it to a much briefer and less deferential status, would be preferable on WP:NPOV grounds to the status quo, in which all mention of criticism of CoE, but not advocacy for CoE, has been removed. But creating a local consensus that ignores broader principles like WP:DUE would be a prototypical WP:CONDD. The Rodriguez et al. citation should be restored, to acknowledge a contrary opinion to content that is already (properly) in the article.

It is true, of course, that even though Rodriguez is a Christian, Rodriguez' downplaying of the importance of the empirical elements of the life of Jesus may be an embarrassment (ironically?) for Christian apologists. But that is fine, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY for a specific religious viewpoint. This consequently means that it is no problem for Wikipedia to acknowledge that even scholars who believe Jesus existed disagree in their reasoning. Where this reasoning is directly relevant to the subject of the article, Wikipedia finally should be WP:NOTCENSORED. Ilvekset (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

How come you know so many policies after just one month of editing? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The article is not about CoE or debates on it. It is irrelevant to the topic because despite different views on it; existence, baptism, and crucifixion are minimally acknowledged by all parties even Rodrigues and others. The easiest way to compromise is to just do what Ilvekset said "Granted, omitting all mention of CoE, or relegating it to a much briefer and less deferential status, would be preferable on WP:NPOV grounds to the status quo". Just remove mention of it because even the sources seem to use multiple methods, not one. Some don't even mention any particular criteria or method but make other points and arguments. The Criterion of embarrassment article is where all the debating about the value of CoE takes place. Its is side tangent in this article and does not affect the consensus view that Jesus existed, was baptized and crucified. People can read the sources as to how any a particular scholar believes that Jesus was baptized an crucified. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:THIRD requested. I just don't think this approach respects WP:DUE at all. Historicity of the Iliad, Historicity of the Book of Mormon, Historicity of King Arthur, and Historicity of Muhammad all involve significant discussion of methodologies, even methodologies that are subject to scholarly debate or minority views. Consistency would require editing all of these articles to remove those discussions of methodologies. I'm not sure what would be left of these articles other than mere democratic scholarly averments of the existence or denial of the subject. It really doesn't seem encyclopedic. Ilvekset (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate the compliment. I always try to make sure that my edits are based on Wikipedia policy. As a minor factual refinement, my account has actually been active for 52 days, which rounds up to two months. Ilvekset (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Why would we remove the only argument that supports the "Existence of historical Jesus" from a section with that title? It seems that CoE in relation to baptism ad crucifixion is considered the most convincing argument for HoJ among biblical scholars (apart from appeals to authority and popularity). Is banning criticism really more important than explaining why the cited theologians believe in a historical Jesus? Joortje1 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

explaining why the cited theologians believe in a historical Jesus is precisely why the CoE is mentioned, if I remember correctly. I'll have to read the Rodriquez-article, but I still think I short note would be fine. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I've read diagonally through the article; I think it's relevant, and could be mentioned somehow. Yet, as presented in Ilvekset's sentence it lacks context and explanation; what I atke from it is that the CoE is actually a criterium if dissimilarity, and that dissimilarities may reflect developments in the gospel-narratives, with invented narrative slater superseded by other narratives, thus becoming embarrasing. The article on the criterium of dissmilarity may be the best place for an extended argument; here a short sentence could be added, but without the "however"; "however" implies a total reejction of the historicity of Jesus. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

It's more nuanced: Rodriguez acknowledges two scholars (Holmén, p. 136 and Polkow, p. 138) who consider a subset of dissimilarity, but Rodriguez also cites several other scholars who separate the criteria (such as Allison, p. 137 and Casey, p. 138).

The clash is still evident: the current article text writes favorably about CoE. These five scholars criticize the use of CoE. That is true regardless of the spectrum of whether they may categorize it independently or together with dissimilarity.

"However" is the correct word, because it marks the clash between pro-CoE views and CoE-critical views. "However" does not imply total rejection of the historicity of Jesus. In fact, all five listed scholars do affirm the historical existence of Jesus, but through other methods. Ilvekset (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua in that the wording implies rejection of historicity as if historicity depended on this criterion alone, which it does not. Everyone here including Ilvekset seems to agree that other (multiple) methods are used, not just one. So perhaps a compromise can be to replace "Based on the criterion of embarrassment," and "The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue" with something like "Though scholars disagree on which methodological approaches for reconstructing the life of Jesus are adequate, the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus are usually noted as events in the life of Jesus." And then add the refs and the Rodriguez as a foot note (like Joshua had it) with the other refs. This way it notes differences in views on methodology without getting into pointless debate (all agree on existence). Ramos1990 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I now think that a note does not suffice for the (narrative of) the baptism; Rodriquez gives sound arguments to doubt even this. Which leaves (only) death and resurrection; resurrection, obviously, belongs to the realm of religious imagination; death, also obviously, is easy to accept as a concrete fact, without any further details available, maybe not even the stake. Which aligns with the fact that the easter-narrative is so central to the gospels: an inspiring man dies, and his admirers take it that he was so righteous that God took him to heaven, becoming a hero - 'he died for our sins'. That's the nucleus. The rest is embellishment, with the burial being a realistic and logic, and problematic credo. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... Rodriguez is not arguing for revisionist reconstructions without the Baptism or demonic material. He just summarizes these and clearly states "In the end I am not persuaded by any of these revisionist reconstructions." (p. 145) after mentioning the revisionist narratives. He states "I would suggest that the problem lies not with embarrassment itself or with how historians have wielded our criterion in their research. Rather, the problem lies with the view of the Gospels and the Jesus tradition that we have inherited from our form-critical forebears." and also goes on to say "Permit me, then, to be so bold as to suggest what I think “the right project” might be. Jesus historiography ought to approach the Gospels as memorial artifacts, coherent instances of the performance of the Jesus tradition that present images of the historical Jesus in terms that either were plausible or could be rendered plausible in first-century C.E. contexts." His focus in on broadening rather than limiting historical methodologies. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I read the source diagonally; it's lying at my side to be read further, so, no definitive wording for me yet. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The wording simply does not imply rejection of historicity. Nothing in the text ever implied that. This suggestion is refuted even more through the wording that you added, "on its own". This is a clear implication that the scholars are free to reach the historicity of Jesus based on other arguments; and in fact all five of them do. That said, @Joshua Jonathan's edit is agreeable, noting the changes I will make to it.

There are now three editors who have objected to minimizing or removing discussion of CoE in the article: me (1 2), @Joortje1 (3), and @Joshua Jonathan (4 5). Based on the unchallenged content of these arguments (not their mere quantity, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY), I would argue that there is WP:CONSENSUS to include at lease some mention of the CoE, and scholarly analysis of it, in the article.

Your proposal to remove both (as of the version at the time of the talk post I am responding to) mentions of CoE from the body of the article deviates quite strongly from this consensus. It's even worse because the other mention of CoE that you did not propose is in the WP:LEAD, where, due to lacking the context of scholarly debate, it borders on WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV violation. You also have dropped multiple arguments from the five pro CoE inclusion diffs I mentioned: WP:DUE, WP:CONDD, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTCENSORED, consistence with articles on historicity of other historical documents and figures, "It seems that CoE in relation to baptism ad crucifixion is considered the most convincing argument for HoJ among biblical scholars (apart from appeals to authority and popularity)", and "explaining why the cited theologians believe in a historical Jesus is precisely why the CoE is mentioned". Here, you repeat your position without responding to any of these arguments. That is WP:STONEWALLING. Ilvekset (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Aren't the WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV problems in the lead even stronger in the last "Academic efforts" segment? The mentioned criteria are "widely recognized as bankrupt historiographical instruments", but this rejection seems sort of hidden away in note 11 or must perhaps be understood from the line "Reconstructions of the "historical Jesus" are broadly debated for their reliability". The Criticism section of the bluelinked Quest for the historical Jesus article contains many more arguments to not call these efforts "refined". Joortje1 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your helpful edits that mostly implement consensus from the talk page. As for the classification of CoE as dissimilarity or not, I feel like my input here was left out. I have edited the article to reflect that there is a variety of views regarding whether CoE should be classified as a subset of dissimilarity or its own criterion, as I noted in my previous response to your same comment on this talk page, with specific page numbers. You can feel free to make more edits to this section, but the article should not misleadingly indicate a scholarly consensus on this classification when the source reflects diverse views. Ilvekset (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Mistake

@Tokisaki Kurumi Thanks for helping out with the mistake I may have made; I checked the previous version and couldn't find the problem. Could you explain it? Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: Greetings. In your previous versions, a link-category, Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Good shepherd 02b close.jpg media, was added at the bottom of the page. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 21:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh I see now. Thank you once again for your help. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

A Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus is referred to in the New Testament no fewer than 14 times as Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος (Iēsoûs ho Nazōraîos) or Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ὁ Ναζωραῖος (Iēsoûs Khristós ho Nazōraîos).* Literally translated, this would be "Jesus (Christ), the Nazoraean", but the epithet is conventionally translated as "of Nazareth", based on other passages, such as that of Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." (No biblical passage has been identified that clearly corresponds to such a prophecy.)

Since this was most likely compiled from anonymous sources from the second generation of Christians, the factuality of the historically actual Jesus being known as "Jesus the Nazoraean" in his lifetime is not obvious (at least, to me); it is also not obvious that, again during Jesus' lifetime, "Jesus the Nazoraean" was interpreted as meaning "from Nazareth". (See also Nazareth § New Testament references.) While this may seem a minor issue, I feel that, as an encyclopedia, we should be particularly careful in an article on the historicity of a topic in clearly distinguishing the agreed-on historical actuality from the conventional narrative. (Note that many scholars think that the only reason Jesus is said to have been born in Bethlehem was to fulfill the prophecy of Micah that the Messiah would come from David's hometown, Bethlehem.) If the scholarly consensus is that the historical Jesus was referred to in his lifetime by a term meaning "Jesus of Nazareth", we should be able to cite this. If we cannot cite this, we should not formulate the synopsis of the scholarly consensus in the specific form "the general consensus among modern scholars is that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth existed".  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. We should expect that the citations (note 1) support the rather strong claim that "a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth existed in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea (specifically in Galilee) and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century AD, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed", but it mainly contains claims (mostly by theologians) that there's a consensus that Jesus existed, not that he was named "Jesus of Nazareth" in his lifetime, and not that he existed in the Herodian Kingdom (which ended in 4 CE) nor in a subsequent tetrarchy.

The associations of Ναζωραῖος with "branch" or "offshoot" and with messianic prophecies in Isaiah seem supsiciously meaningful for the name of a new messianic Judaic branch/sect, just like the name Yeshua/Iesous (meaning something like saviour/ Yahweh is salvation) for a figure who is supposed to be the saviour sent by Yahweh (and supposedly descended from David as prophesied in Isaiah. Joortje1 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note 1 already has a few sources stating "Jesus of Nazareth" (Stanton - "we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than...", Ehrman - "...Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure" even his book title has that name). All else is also there (e.g. Levine, Allison, Crossan - from Galilee, the founder of Christianity, etc). The the sources in Note 1 touch on all of this in other pages besides the quotes obviously and Dark does archeology of Nazareth of Jesus in 1st century. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you really believe that any of those sources claim that this "historical figure" had the name "Jesus of Nazareth" during his lifetime?

Maybe hellenistic peers from elsewhere would have called him "Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός", and this may have refered to Nazareth, but it's unlikely that anybody would go by that name when in Nazareth. That name is not in the oldest sources (for as far as the general dating is reliable) and it's not particularly common in the gospels. Don't most scholars believe that that Ἰησοῦς would have been derived from ישוע /Yeshua? When I searched for academic sources, the first result happened to be an article suggesting that "Yeshua ben Pantera" may have some historical value.

"other pages besides the quotes obviously": why don't we have the citations for the passages for the historicity of the name "Jesus of Nazareth" and for his existence in the Herodian Kingdom?

"Dark does archeology of Nazareth of Jesus in 1st century": Has he found even the slightest indication that the NT's protagonist's actual name was "Jesus of Nazareth"? Joortje1 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

---

* Matthew 26:71, Mark 10:47, Luke 18:37, Luke 24:19, John 18:5, John 18:7, John 19:19, Acts 2:22, Acts 3:6, Acts 4:10, Acts 6:14, Acts 9:5, Acts 22:8, Acts 26:9.