Misplaced Pages

• Analysis
• Citation bot
• External links

• I've made a few tweaks during my look through, please feel free to revert if you don't like these.
• In a lot of places you have multiple references together where they might be better consolidated into one reference ("The years of Jesus' ministry have been estimated using several different approaches." for example)

• 4 citations for one statement is overkill in my opinion. I've removed two of the refs in the example you mentioned, and I believe that was the only incident of 4 refs used together. There are still places where 3 citations are used for one statement, but I think 3 is acceptable. However, if you want, I can trim those as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, looks better now. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some references are out of numerical order; not terrifically important in a practical sense but I would have a quick run-through towards the end of this process just to bring them in line

• The reason for why some refs are out of numerical order might be that the article uses a lot of WP:REFNAMEs.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that is generally the reason why it happens. But it can be easily rectified by putting previously used refnames first where you have reference clusters. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're right. I went ahead and fixed all the numerical ordering ref issues I could find.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nice one —Cliftonian (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• One thing I noticed on my first read-through is that the word "states" (as in "Evans states that") is used very often, creating jarring repetition in places. If I were you I would try to reword in places where this construction appears more than once within a few sentences or within a single paragraph. This problem is particularly evident in footnotes a, b and c, which, while informative, are somewhat clunky prose-wise, using "X states" repeatedly. I appreciate the intent might have been to lend equal weight to each statement by avoiding equivocal wording, but perhaps alternatives can be found; "X says", for example, or "X writes" or "according to X".

• You're right. In my copy edit I overlooked the footnotes, but have had a go at them just now. Please take a look. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• This has helped, nice one. I've tweaked footnote a a little bit, I hope this meets with your approval. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• It does, thanks, as do your improvements in the main body. --Stfg (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Great stuff, thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've moved a lot of wikilinks around and added some; the first time a topic of interest is introduced, such as God the Father or the Crucifixion, it should be linked there, and preferably not again.
• In "Relics associated with Jesus", the Shroud of Turin image is a bit big for my liking. On my screen I have a lot of whitespace. Do you think we can rearrange this somehow?

• I agree. I've removed the image, because I couldn't think of better solutions. It's probably not very necessary anyways.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. I think that losing that whitespace has really helped the article as a whole —Cliftonian (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• One last thing—I noticed that most of the images lacked alt text, so I went through and added it.

I hope this helps. I will come back to this review later as well. Well done so far and keep up the good work! —Cliftonian (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion: I know there are already a lot of pictures here and Peter's denial is an important part of the gospel, but I think in the "Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate" section, an "ecce homo" image (that is, one of Pilate presenting Jesus to the mob) might be better than the present image of Peter denying Jesus, both as an illustration (the present denial image, when thumbnailed, is far from clear) and as a complement to the narrative. I was thinking particularly that Antonio Ciseri's depiction, linked here, might be suitable. What do you think? Have a great Sunday and a good week ahead now. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea. Image switched.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nice one. I moved the image down slightly to better fit the narrative, I hope you don't mind. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• The infobox gives the year of death as "30–33 AD" while the first sentence of the lead gives "30–36 AD". I presume the former is what we are going with, judging from the footnote, but I just thought I'd bring it up here to be sure. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah. Although many scholars agree that Jesus died under the reign of Pilate (26–36 AD), very few scholars estimate 36 AD to be the year of his death. I've fixed it now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay nice one. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• The first sentence of "religious perspectives" says that "Apart from his own disciples and followers, the Jews of Jesus' day generally rejected him as the Messiah, as do Jews today." But then lower down, in "Jewish views", we briefly mention Messianic Jews. As the article says, whether these are part of Judaism or not is open for debate, but they certainly claim themselves to be Jews, and most of them are indisputably of Jewish ethnic stock. What with the equivocal nature of the word "Jew", we also have to consider Christians of Jewish descent, and Jews who convert to Christianity. I could go on but I think the point is made.
• I think we should look at alternative wording on the last clause of the sentence. Perhaps "as do most Jews", "as do the vast majority of Jews", "as do mainstream Jews", "as do adherents of mainstream Judaism" or something along these lines? Just a suggestion as always.
• I'd just like to say also that I feel a lot of progress is being made on this article, well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. The article is getting better. Thanks for your comments and copyedits. As for the "religious perspectives" sentence, I think the best solution is to change the wording to "as do the vast majority of Jews today". The numbers for Messianic Jews are very small, and I am guessing ethnic Jews who have converted to Christianity are in a similar situation.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't "the vast majority of" a bit peachy? Would either "most" or "almost all" be better? --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• You can change it if you want. I don't have much preferences.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the caption for the Transfiguration image. The caption is presently "Transfiguration of Jesus depicting him with Elijah, Moses and three apostles, by Carracci, 1594", which seems to imply grammatically that it is the transfiguration that is by Carracci rather than the depiction. Perhaps something along the lines of "Carracci's 1594 depiction of the transfiguration of Jesus; he converses with Elijah and Moses while three apostles look on, amazed"?

• Fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nice one. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Peter's denial is mentioned twice; first at the end of the "Agony in the Garden, betrayal and arrest" section, and then again at the end of the first paragraph of the following section. It isn't necessary to recount the denial twice in such a short passage of text. I have altered this myself as I think explaining it here would be overly complicated, I hope you don't think this presumptuous; feel free to revert if you disagree

• Good point. I've removed the second mention completely.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's still worth mentioning that all four Gospels mention Peter's denial, and I felt that little sentence bookended the paragraph quite nicely, but I don't feel too strongly on it. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hope these help and that you are well —Cliftonian (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As an amateur but serious New Testament scholar who has read many of the article's more important sources, I can attest that the material and tone fairly represents the scholarly consensus, while giving fair weight to the majority Christian interpretation of history. I'm very pleased with this, and it must have taken a lot of work. Well done. The prose is excellent overall. It is difficult to find unclear or clunky writing in this article. Thanks to FunkMonk for the image review.

Lede

• Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize all parts of the article and should not include important information not covered outside the lede. As such, many ledes do not require any citations, since the same facts are cited where they are more fully expressed in the article body. This lede has a lot of citations, far more than other controversial FAs. (Compare Evolution, L. Ron Hubbard, Psilocybe semilanceata, Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, etc.) Most worryingly, most of the cites used in the lede are not used outside the lede. Should these citations instead be placed in the body wherever the statements they support are most fully expressed?

• Done. I've removed most of the citations from the lede, and moved some of them to the body of the text.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent! This is a dramatic improvement. It's heartening to see one of the two most important problems with the article resolved so quickly. – Quadell 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of names

• A mention is made of Jesus being called "Joseph's son" in Luke 4, but not of his being called "Mary's son" in Mark 6. Most scholars deem Mark 6 to have been written earlier, and it is a more unusual way of referring to a Jew in that time period... wouldn't it be more worth a mention?

• I've added a footnote quoting Mark 6:3. I don't think the designation "Mary's son" is used frequently in the New Testament.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Due to the criterion of embarrassment and Marcan priority, I think the designation "Mary's son" is more important. But this is just my view, and I will not withhold support based on this detail. – Quadell 16:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • <interjection from another reviewer> i agree with Quadell on this. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, fine. I've now added a sentence about Mark 6:3.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Yahweh saves", "Yahweh will save", and "Yahweh is salvation" are all extremely close in meaning. Do we need all three? Also, I believe the etymology to be fairly uncontroversial. Are three cites needed?

• Done. I kept "Yahweh is salvation" and removed the other two. I also carefully removed two of the three sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Chronology

• Everything in the first paragraph represents scholarly consensus. Why is Levine named and singled out? You could find dozens of scholars as respected (Meier, Brown, and on and on) who would fully support the sentence.

• Done, removed the attribution.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• "According to many scholars, the Crucifixion occurred before the conversion of Paul..." Do any scholars doubt this? All early sources, including Paul's own description of his conversion, are unanimous in this.

• Fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Related: the sentence implies that we know the crucifixion occurred in 33 or earlier because it came before Paul's ministry, which started in 33-36. But both sources estimate the start of Paul's ministry based in part on the understanding that it couldn't have started before the crucifixion in 33 or so. The causation is backwards.

• Fixed? I reworded that part. The date of Paul's conversion can be determined independent of the date of Crucifixion. Köstenberger, for example, uses 2 Corinthians 11 (his escape from Aretas IV), sources for the dates of Aretas' reign, and the Book of Acts.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's all accurate and well stated. – Quadell 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Life and teachings in the New Testament

• Nowhere in the article are extrabiblical Christian accounts of Jesus mentioned. (Gospel of Thomas, infancy narratives, Gospel of Mary, etc.) They don't deserve detailed treatment in this article, but I do think it would appropriate to mention their existence, and the end of the introductory section of this supersection is probably the best place (after "...than the canonical gospels do.") Might I suggest the following? "Some early Christian groups had separate descriptions of the life and teachings of Jesus that are not included in the New Testament. These include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and the Apocryphon of James, among many other apocryphal writings. Most scholars consider these much later and less reliable accounts than the canonical gospels." One possible source would be Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (1997), pp. 835-840.

• Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  Great. – Quadell 22:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• This supersection gives almost no space to Jesus' miracles. It only mentions his healing the sick in a single sentence as a way of describing his teachings, and the same is true for his driving out of demons. These miracles make up a large section of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, and are the subject of voluminous critical commentary (much of Meier's A Marginal Jew volume 2, for example). It seems a lack of balance to not have a section on Jesus' miracles, as we do for his teachings, transfiguration, arrest, childhood, and other less-prominent facets of Jesus' life.

• I've added some more info on miracles to the "Canonical gospel accounts" section and the "Teachings, preachings, and miracles" section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  I'm torn here. First off, the material you added is excellent. But I still feel like Jesus' miracles deserve their own section. (I'm sure I don't have to convince you of their importance.) On the other hand, the text incorporates it well with Jesus' teachings in the last sentences, and the section is excellent. So I still think it would be better to have miracles in it's own section, but I think it deserves to be featured either way, so it's not an objection. – Quadell 22:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canonical gospel accounts

• This sentence is very important, and it's important to get it right: "Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity, as well as the Resurrection and certain details about the Crucifixion." The sentence could be improved. It's not wrong... but the strong majority of scholars believe the infancy narratives contain no historical information, while most believe the crucifixion depicts in broad strokes a historical event. ("Certain details about" are almost weasel words, in that they could be used to show scholarly doubt about anything in the gospels.) I would instead mention the elements that the largest majorities of scholars feel are historically unreliable, which could include birth and infancy stories, the ascension, narratives of speeches in John, (much of John, actually), the last supper, and the Sanhedron trial. (I don't mean to insist that these specific details be used, but only to show that the sentence can and should be improved.)

• I changed it to: "Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the Nativity, the Resurrection, the Ascension, some of Jesus' miracles, and the Sanhedrin trial, among others." Is this good enough?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It is better. Still, I have two suggested improvements: (1) Consider linking these terms if it is the first time they are mentioned outside the lede, since the reader might not be familiar with them. (2) Consider wording it as "Most scholars give less historical weight to descriptions of...", which I think is a slightly more accurate and smoother wording. (Afterall, no one disputes that they are "authentic" in the sense of being authentic 1st-century Christian narratives.) – Quadell 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done and done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• "John 14:10 stresses the importance of the words of Jesus and attributes them to the authority of God the Father." While true, this seems out of place. Other sentences around it concern the overarching similarities between gospel accounts, not individual statements in just one. I think the idea is covered in "Teachings and preachings", and so can be omitted here.

• Done. Sentence removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Baptism and temptation

• I'm not sure Redford's interpretation here is particularly notable. Perhaps it would be more pertinent to mention this desert temptation was situated by the synoptics as an important prelude to the beginning of Jesus' teachings. There would be many citations one could find for that.

• Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think it would flow better logically if "The gospel of John does not mention the baptism or the temptation." were placed at the end of this section. It might be useful to include a statement that John depicts Jesus' conversations with JtB (though not his baptism) and his calling of the disciples as the relevant preludes to Jesus public ministry -- if a good cite for that can be found. Raymond Brown's ABD volume on John makes that observation, I'm sure. Or you could not, your call.

• I moved the Gospel of John sentence to the end of the paragraph, and added the Baptist's testimony (John 1:32). Jesus' first disciples according to the fourth gospel is already described in the Public ministry section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Public ministry

• The sentence beginning "However, John's Gospel..." is also covered in the "Final entry into Jerusalem". It fits better there, and really doesn't add anything here.

• Good point. I've removed the sentence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Teachings and preachings

• Paragraph 2 is problematic. Let's start with "The New Testament presents the teachings of Jesus not merely as his own preaching, but as divine revelation." The New Testament as a whole rarely mentions the teachings of Jesus outside of the gospels, so this should be "The gospels present...", but the gospels do not present the teachings of Jesus in a consistent way. This really should be "John's Gospel presents...". That would be accurate. Three of the four quotes in this paragraph are from John, after all, and the fourth is presented in a somewhat misleading way. (It leaves off the second half of the sentence where Jesus describes this "divine knowledge" as shared with others. Besides, it concerns his knowledge more than his "teachings and "preachings", and is only obliquely related to the section.) The wording of this paragraph also leads the reader to believe that the gospels do not show Jesus as having a less-than-divine knowlege, as is stated in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32. So I would make the paragraph limited to John's depiction of Jesus' authority, and perhaps it could mention the synoptics' characterization of Jesus' teaching as consistently inspiring awe in those who heard them, if you want to include the other gospels.

• Done. Changed "The New Testament" to "John's Gospel". Removed the Matthew part.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proclamation as Christ and Transfiguration

• It would be more accurate to say "In Matthew's Gospel, " before "Jesus replies" in paragraph 2. The other synoptics do not have him acknowledging the title, and both cited sources mention only Matthew in their analysis.

• Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate

• "make fun of" is a little trite. "Mock", perhaps?

• Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the "purple robe (which signifies royal status)"... that's an interpretation, not found in the gospel accounts, and is not sourced. Besides, Matthew calls it "scarlet". I think it's best to omit. It would be fine to simply say they ridicule him by placing a crown of thorns on his head.

• Good point. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I was about to object that it the article still surmises "to make him look like a king"... but then I saw that the source, Niswonger, states that motive explicitly. So, no problems, and well done. – Quadell 11:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Crucifixion and burial

• "a Roman centurion affirms that Jesus was the Son of God"... the word "affirm" assumes that the statement is true, which is a POV. The centurion's statement is more of a surmise, in context. One source the article cites, Köstenberger, Kellum & Quarles, clearly advocates that POV. (The pages in the cite include inspirational language like "Will you and I worship, or will we doubt?") It's fine to use as a source, but I don't think "affirms" is a NPOV term here.

• Changed "affirms" to "states".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Existence

• Van Voorst should be fully named and linked at the first mention, not the second.

• Fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Historicity of events

• Biblical maximalists do not accept the truth of the gospels "in their entirety"; they accept the gospels as reliable evidence wherever a statement is not clearly contradicted by better evidence. (Keener, one of your sources for this statement, says "A maximalist approach to the sources grants as evidence whatever is possible"; Chilton and Evans do not define the term.)

• Agree. I've reworded the sentence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Although no totally maximalist view is accepted as historical..." Since "totally maximalist view" is not well defined, it would be better to say "Although a belief in the inerrancy of the gospels cannot be supported historically..." (or some other wording)

• Good suggestion. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think there are better sources than Wright for Mark's reliability and date. I would recommend Mark 1-8 by Joel Marcus (2000, ABD) pp. 37-39 for the date, and Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (1997) pp. 114-166 for Mark's primacy and relative reliability. You may know of even more reliable summaries of scholarship on the issue. (Bauckham, perhaps?)

• Done. Replaced Wright with better sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Religious perspectives

• It is very difficult to choose which perspectives merit treatment here, and which can be left out. I think the current article could be improved in its balance, however. I accept the decision to treat "Christian views", diverse as they may be, in one section that stresses common features. Non-trinitarian perspectives, such as those of Jahovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and many Quakers, are given a single sentence about nontrinitarianism. I accept that. But then why does Ahmadiyya Islam, a minor and recent sect of Islam, merit its own section? I think that section should be omitted entirely, or treated in a sentence or two within the Islam section.

• Done. I removed the section and added a sentence about Ahmadiyya beliefs in the Islamic views section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Similary, Buddhism does not have any generally-accepted view of Jesus; that section consists of the personal opinions of two Buddhists, followed by an unrelated digression into a discarded theory about Jesus in India. Neither has to do with mainstream Buddhist views of Jesus, because there really aren't any. I believe that section should be omitted as well. If you like, it could be adequately encompassed as a single sentence in paragraph 2 under "other views".

• Done, see below.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm undecided about the Bahai section. It would probably be better to roll it into "Other views", but I won't object if it stands on its own the way it is now. (At least mainstream Bahai explicitly has a teaching about Jesus.)

Christian views

• A source is needed for the statement that Christian veiws about Jesus are derived from the NT, and that these include his divinity etc. (The source listed only covers the differences between Eastern and Western christologies.)

• Done. Source added.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Legitimate question: is it correct to say "Christians worship not only Jesus himself, but also his name"? Or would a different word, such as "honor" or "revere" be more appropriate? I'm not very familiar with this aspect of Christian doctrine, but it sounds odd to me.

• I'm not sure. Anyways, I've changed "worship" to "revere".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Islamic views

• "Islam considers that Jesus was..." would be smoother as "Islam considers Jesus to be...". (Note the present tense: Jesus rose to heaven and will return, according to Islam, and so currently exists.)

• Good suggestion. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• "physically raised" should not link to "Jesus in Islam". That's already the main article.

• Good point. Delinked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist views

• I think this section should be removed. It is by far the weakest section in the article.
• But if it is kept, "Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that denies the existence of a Creator God" is a flatly untrue statement. Most Theravada Buddhists philosophically consider questions about the exitstence of gods to be useless distractions (thus nontheist, not atheist), while most Mahayana Buddhists believe in many gods, some of whom are creator gods in one tradition or another (e.g. Brahmā (Buddhism)). The source given, a manual by De Noie on how to proselytize to Buddhists, claims "In folk Buddhism, adherents do worship Buddhist deities. But none of these is seen as the Supreme Being, the Creator God, as presented in biblical revelation." All this means is that Buddhists don't believe in the god De Noie believes in.

• Done. Section removed. Added one sentence in Other views section concerning some Buddhists who consider Jesus to be a bodhisattva.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Other views

• Minor: The Ehrman p.124-125 reference is used three times in a row, which really isn't necessary.

• Fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• It seems odd to have Dawkins, personally, express his views alongside the teachings of several entire religions. Would it be more appropriate to reword it to cover atheists in general? "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity, but many hold a positive estimation of him; Richard Dawkins, for instance, refers to Jesus as 'a great moral teacher'."

• Good suggestion. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Depictions

• Since the article says "in the East" twice in two sentences, it would be a marginal improvement to turn the second into "in Eastern Christian art".

• Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Relics associated with Jesus

• It is probably worth a mention that modern scholarship is nearly universal in strongly doubting the authenticity of all relics.

• Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

External links

• Some of the links are important and useful, but I don't think the link to Encyclopædia Britannica is needed, and "The Jewish Roman World of Jesus" looks like a page regarding just one scholar. I would omit it as well.

• Done, the two links have been removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

others

• The persondata includes a date place of birth, though the FAQ discourages this.

• Good point, place of birth removed.

• The categories include many dubious designations (e.g. People from Bethlehem, Creator gods)

• Agree. I removed the two you mentioned along with "carpenter".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• In preparing this review, I have checked a dozen or so sources, and in every case the statement in the article is fully supported by the source. I can do a more full spotcheck if requested.

Language, ethnicity and appearance

• This section is under the supersection "Historical views", so I don't think it's appropriate to give lengthy examples where Jesus is called Jewish in parts of the gospels that do not rank highly among scholars for their reliability. I think that paragraph should be largely rewritten. It goes off on a tangent to show what is obvious and no longer contested: that Jesus is portrayed as Jewish. I think the paragraph should be rewritten to say that it is the view of modern scholars that Jesus was Jewish (Meier, passim, or any other RS), and then have that interesting statement by Levine... and that's really all that's necessary. (It could possibly be merged into paragraph 3 at that point.)

• Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

All in all, this article is excellent and has exceeded my expectations. I hope my concerns are appropriately addressed, as it would be personally very satisfying to see such an important article featured. – Quadell 19:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment on this: All seem good points I'd endorse, except I still hope to rejig "Depictions" a bit anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Query - I went to review this article today and noticed all the disruption and edit warring. FutureTrillionaire, would you say the stability of the article is affected right now, or is this just par for the course? I know bringing articles like this to FA standard is very difficult for this very reason, and I admire you for trying. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it. The troubles are caused by one user (user:Strangesad) with a fringe viewpoint. A discussion concerning his disruptive edits has been started at WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like a frustrating situation to deal with. Congratulations on keeping the article quality high. (If this article gets featured on the main page, you'll certainly have your work cut out for that day.) – Quadell 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)