Talk:Jesus#Gospels not history paragraph

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1985873230}}

{{Talk:Jesus/FAQ}}

I propose to change the image in the infobox to: thumb JacktheBrown (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Support, I agree that the eye of the current one looks weird --FMSky (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:That image has been proposed and discussed here before. The reasons we went with the Sinai image were:

:# It is far older and far more historically significant (being among the oldest and most well-known images of Jesus in existence, as opposed to the Cefalú image which is 500 years younger and a minor point of interest in a cathedral that is no particular special importance).

:# The background architectural elements in the Cefalú image are at least as distracting as the asymmetry in the Sinai image.

:# The Christ_Pantocrator_(Sinai)#Interpretation_and_meaning symbolism of the image (including the asymmetry that causes the eye weirdness) is an important part its historical significance and helps capture the aspects that have made Jesus so important to so many people.

:In light of those reasons, I would advocate for keeping the Sinai image in the article. -- LWG ^talk 18:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose the change and support the current image of the Sinai Pantocrator. It may be helpful to review the discussion which was held just a few months ago, where a few alternatives including this one were proposed, and consensus was to stay with the Sinai image. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose any change that doesn't address the arguments put forward in previous discussions of the topic. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would support a new image. What about Head of Christ (:File:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg)? According to that article, the portrait painting {{tq|had been reproduced over half a billion times worldwide by the end of the 20th century. ... The painting is said to have "become the basis for [the] visualization of Jesus" for "hundreds of millions" of people.}} Granted, it's a non-free image, but someone could fill out a NFU rationale for use on this specific article. Some1 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::That image was also considered in previous discussions, but dispreferred due to being far younger, non-free, and a worse case of the "white Jesus" phenomenon. I will defer to consensus of course, but I personally strongly oppose replacing the current image with the 1941 Sallman one. -- LWG ^talk 04:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::That one is a no-starter since there is an abundance of "free" work to pick from. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Leonardo da Vinci, Salvator Mundi, c.1500, oil on walnut, 45.4 × 65.6 cm.jpg

:I support switching back to the other pancreator for awhile, based pretty much on personal taste. However, if we're going to have a proper go at this at this time, we should probably start with a "What pics should we include in a WP:LEADIMAGE-rfc" rfc, and then move on to the "Should we change the leadimage to any of these pics?" rfc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'd be open to that as well. I've been watching this article for over a decade and I've seen a number of image discussions come and go but they've pretty much all been between the same half dozen options. It would be interesting to see if any fresh free images are available that might be superior to all the present options. -- LWG ^talk 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reiterating from the last discussion the qualities that I think make the Sinai image such a strong candidate:

• It is of great historical significance (being one of the oldest detailed depictions of Jesus still extant).
• It is more ethnically ambiguous and stylized than some other options, helping mitigate the "white Jesus" phenomenon.
• Notwithstanding the above, it is sufficiently aligned with the iconography of Jesus many readers will be familiar with to avoid unnecessary confusion.
• It is artistically excellent (though not aesthetically pleasing in the typical way).
• Related to the above, it includes symbolism that is of significance to both historical and modern theological understandings of Jesus, which regardless of our various personal perspectives is undeniably a central aspect of this article's notability.
• Not mentioned before but relevant: as an ancient artwork it is of course totally free of copyright concerns.

For any replacement image I would want to see an argument for why it is superior to the Sinai image in these areas. -- LWG ^talk 04:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment One aspect I don't think has been mentioned before (it came up in this discussion): when previewing/hovering the cursor on the Jesus WP-link the rather "tall" leadimage is noticeably cropped. Not as much as this one, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Strikethrough|That's a good point, and a point in favor of a more square image.}} Article hover previews don't work properly at all on my browser so I will take your word for it. -- LWG ^talk 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I just tried it on a browser that can display the previews and it actually seems totally fine: it's cropped, but it's cropped right above the face and below the hands, which is pretty much ideal for this image. -- LWG ^talk 21:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I doubt this is a consideration but I also think current Sinai image works well with images of the Apostles from the same site, creates a consistency across the multiple articles which is aesthetically pleasing. That being said, oldest extant depiction sounds like by far the most sensible suggestion. 2A01:4B00:D12F:1500:CEED:EFB2:9A78:62F7 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

In footnote 'f' we are given multiple academic sources to support the statement that the historicity of Jesus is accepted by the majority of scholars, the last citation in this however is the WP:DAILYBEAST. I don't see how the inclusion of a low-tier tabloid is helpful for confirming the statement. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive top

|status = consensus against

|result = It is snowing with a clear consensus against changing the image, with strong arguments made for retention. {{nac}} ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

In the previous discussion, one or more users recommended starting an RFC. The proposed image is: thumb You're of course free to propose other images, or vote for the one already in the infobox. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support for "Cefalù Pantocrator retouched". JacktheBrown (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@JacktheBrown If you want to start a WP:RFC, you have to format it correctly. The point of an rfc is that it's "advertised" as instructed and is noticed by uninvolved editors. Read the manual and try again. If you start it correctly, it looks something like this:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asquith_Xavier&oldid=1075985278#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Why would we change it? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I thought we were going to have some preliminary discussion to perhaps generate a list of alternate candidates. On the question proposed here, I oppose the Cefalu Pantocrator, and support the retention of the Sinai Pantocrator. The Sinai icon is: ~500 years earlier than the proposed replacement, and as such it's perhaps the earliest known depiction which fits with readers' general expectations of what the lead image should look like, and it's hitorically significant, while the Cefalu Pantocrator is simply an example of the type; the flat image of the Sinai icon lends itself better to the form than the curved image from the dome of the Cefalu apse; personal opinion, but I consider the Sinai image aesthetically superior; and there is the possible theological reading into the Sinai icon's face which some commentators have noted and illustrates something about the article the Cefalu icon doesn't. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – the Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) is older and IMO looks better. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I stated in the earlier discussion, as well as those mentioned by Seltaeb Eht. The Sinai image has the advantage in age, historical significance, artistic excellence, theological meaning, and photo quality/shape. The Cefalù image doesn't have any advantages that come close to outweighing these factors. -- LWG ^talk 13:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per LWG's comments in the previous discussion. From Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)#Interpretation and meaning can we add {{tq|Christ's features on his right side (the viewer's left) are supposed to represent the qualities of his human nature, while his left side (the viewer's right) represents his divinity.}} to the caption, as most people unfamiliar will assume it's a poor attempt at imitating physical nature. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{Ping|Kowal2701}} description added, thank you very much. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Cheers, if people think it's too wordy we can make it a note instead Kowal2701 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Seltaeb Eht here and LWG in prior thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• What I'd really prefer is to not pick a single image for all time. Can't we come up with half a dozen, and rotate them every couple of months? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really seeing a reason to move on from the status quo. Nemov (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated above. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The current image works. The proposed image itself is nice, but I don't see how it's an improvement or why it's necessary to change the image just for the sake of changing it. pillowcrow 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose not an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support The current image is too long and has a glare at the bottom. Also, Jesus's eyes look strange. I find the proposed image to be more aesthetically pleasing. ~~~

:Rainsage (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Ping|Rainsage}} that's exactly what I wanted to point out, but very few users understood it. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Are you aware that the asymmetrical depiction is intentional and a significant part of the image? From the article on the depiction, {{tq|Christ's features on his right side (the viewer's left) are supposed to represent the qualities of his human nature, while his left side (the viewer's right) represents his divinity.}} See also {{cite journal |author1-first=Manolis |author1-last=Chatzidakis |author1-link=Manolis Hatzidakis |translator1-first=Gerry |translator1-last=Walters |language=en |date=1967 |title=An encaustic icon of Christ at Sinai |journal=The Art Bulletin |volume=47 |issue=3 |pages=199 |doi=10.2307/3048469 |quote=The two great eyes are not, themselves, completely identical either in dimension or in shape. They are not placed on the same level, and through the difference in movement of the eyebrows, each acquires a slightly different nuance of expression: the right eye is more calm, while the left, larger, is more lively.}} Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{Ping|Dan Leonard}} this description is currently included in the Jesus article thanks to this RfC, so opening it was helpful. Thank you very much for the reference, I just added it. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have to say I like the idea that @Seltaeb Eht has mentioned of maybe generating a list of other potential candidates for discussion. I would have to say this doesn't drive me to vote to change from the current one in the article.

:MaximusEditor (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC as premature and Oppose for all the reasons stated by LWG. The Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) image is excellent and the article benefits greatly from its inclusion and{{spaced en dash}}something I don't think others have noted{{spaced en dash}}the detailed caption full of wikilinks. We don't even have an article on the proposed replacement. What would the caption be? "Second-millennium depiction at some church of no other notability"? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: the present image is a high quality, neutral portrait with its own Wikipedia article. I see no improvement in the propose image. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on the whole. The present image won out in a long discussion (Rfc?) a while ago, which is not I think linked here. It should be. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :There was Talk:Jesus/Archive_137#RFC:_Changing_picture_(or_picture_caption)_in_infobox but that was crap, don't know when the last "proper" one was, but I thinks it's been a few years. I suggested at Talk:Jesus#Proposal:_new_image
• :"if we're going to have a proper go at this at this time, we should probably start with a "What pics should we include in a WP:LEADIMAGE-rfc" rfc, and then move on to the "Should we change the leadimage to any of these pics?" rfc"
• :but the OP didn't go with that idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Because apparently I want to research this instead of do anything useful I did a deep dive through the archives. We've never really had a proper RFC on this, just many discussions. The first stable image in this article was the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christus_Ravenna_Mosaic.jpg Christus Ravenna Mosaic], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=204225284 added] when the infobox was first created in 2008. Two years later it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=400448640&oldid=400207846 changed] to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StJohnsAshfield_StainedGlass_GoodShepherd-frame_crop.jpg random stained glass window] without discussion or fanfare. That stayed for about 5 years despite occasional squabbles on the talk page. Then in 2015 someone tried to change it to this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christ,_by_Heinrich_Hofmann.jpg Hoffman image], only to face significant pushback, leading to an extensive discussion that landed on a consensus for the Cefalù Pantocrator. That stayed up for about 5 more years, until in 2020 it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=987953966&oldid=987681748 boldly replaced] with the current image, leading to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_133#Updated_infobox_image another discussion] arriving at a consensus for the Sinai Pantocrator. Since then the image has been discussed a few times but consensus has remained strong for the Sinai image for the reasons given in the above discussion. So I suppose by sheer time we are due for a replacement, but I don't think we should do so unless it's actually an improvement. I actually forgot that the Cefalù image was previously the image before the current one. That doesn't change any of my reasons for preferring the Sinai one though. -- LWG ^talk 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::[https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/wikipedia-penis WP-archaeology, you gotta love it.] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

Just noting (not with any urgency) that the 'Attention' warning message on the edit screen specifies: "This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus' not Jesus's Do not change usage within quotes."

This reflects a talk page discussion from 11 years ago, and also the FAQ. However this is not the case at present. I attempted to correct this en masse but there are too many links and quotes to navigate without causing errors (and erroneous article links). I am not sure how long the double " 's{{'"}} form has been in place but ideally the preferred form needs to be decided and made consistent throughout the article, as currently both forms are used in the article, i.e. "Jews{{'"}}. --Hazhk (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just noting that "Jews{{'"}} is plural, thus by MOS:PLURALNOUN the apostrophe-only possessive is preferred, which is a separate issue from singular nouns ending in a sibilant or proper names like "Jesus". -- LWG ^talk 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't particularly care either way. Based on a quick glance-through, the serious academic sources cited in this article seem to use "Jesus{{'"}} (no extra s) almost without exception. That also used to be what MOS:POSS specified, but it seems the MOS has been updated sometime in the past 11 years. I guess my default would be to follow the convention in scholarly sources and use the apostrophe-only form. -- LWG ^talk 19:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

As User: Invincible767 said in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=1288154301 this] revision, the language that {{Tq|Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son...}} is longstanding and has been discussed repeatedly, eg. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_135#%22Most_Christians%22]. It even has an entry in the FAQ at the top (Q10.) While consensus can change there's no real indication that it has here. And I tend to agree that the longstanding {{tq|Most Christians...}} wording is best; it's simply not true that all Christians believe that. The precise wording matters in this case. Saying "Christians believe X" and then adding a footnote saying that not all of them believe it is a bizarre and confusing way to convey the much more accurate and straightforward statement that only most of them do so. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:My issue was mainly the longstanding ‘incarnation of God the Son’ being changed to ‘Son of God’ as the incarnation is a critical part of Jesus in Christianity. But thank you for your input and realising that this was the longstanding version that has been changed recently without consensus. Invincible767 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I do personally believe the word ‘most’ can be removed as it has been perpetuated by multiple Christian Scholars and reliable sources that Non Trititarian and therefore non Nicene Christianity is not technically classified as Christianity. It’s almost like saying one is a Muslim yet rejects the prophethood of Muhammad - a clead contradiction. However, the previous consensus was that ‘most’ should remain. Invincible767 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Nontrinitarians consider themselves to be Christians, and broadly speaking, Christianity only requires a profession of Jesus as Christ and/or a belief in his teachings. Debates over exactly WHAT he taught are the main reason for disagreement here. From that perspective, "most" is correct, and the stable lead is preferred. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Jesus|answered=yes}}

In the "Name" section I'd like to add reference to how his name was written in the scripts of the languages of his time.

Greek: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B8%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CF%82 Ἰησοῦς],

Hebrew: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A2 ישוע], and

Biblical Hebrew: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%90%A4%89%F0%90%A4%94%F0%90%A4%8F 𐤉𐤔𐤏] MattQuarneri (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Matt, the note on the name at the beginning of the article already includes the Greek and Hebrew names, but I added them to the name section as well. I'm curious what your source is for the 𐤉𐤔𐤏 name. -- LWG ^talk 20:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{partly done}}: Per above. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)