This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jacob article.
General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article.
Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here.
(Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page
or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)

  • Be polite, don't bite, have fun!
  • Admins are here to help
  • More discussion at the Forum
Article policies
Talk archives

23 AD

Where did we learn that he was born in 23 AD? Yes I saw the spoiler earlier in the season, but it was not revealed in the episode, or by Damon Lindleof or Carlton Cuse, so its not canon at this point. (MaxMoney37 04:46, May 12, 2010 (UTC))

  • It should be pointed out that the whole 'born in year zero' was also never said on the show and no citation has been provided that Damon or Carlton said it. Nor one that any cast member said it with any tone of knowledge. Making it just as much of a guess until a citation is added. --Jayerb 21:12, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent/brilliant man

Do we really have enough evidence to say that Jacob is the "magnificent/"brilliant" man who brought everyone on the island? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Islandx (talkcontribs) 2009-05-03T10:49:49.

  • Uum, yes? He's confirmed to be "Him", and "He" is a magnificent man.--Acolyt3 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Rework of "Jacob's Surrogate"

Given the revelation of "The Incident" it seems likely that Christian Shephard's ghost was not Jacob or his surrogate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pennyj (talkcontribs) 2009-05-13T22:43:29.

  • It is still very much a valid theory, and though we have new reason to question what we thought we knew about Jacob, Christian can easily prove to have been telling the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DesmondFaraday (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T01:42:22.
    • After further consideration, it does not seem possible that Christian was speaking on behalf of Jacob. Sun relates to Ben that Christian told her and Frank to wait for Locke, but that individual turned out to be Esau, indicating that Christian was not receiving his orders from Jacob (though he might believe that he is at the very least still). -DesmondFaraday 04:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • His name is NOT Esau. But I do agree with what you are saying. I think that Christian is as much an imposter as Locke is. Also I think that the monster telling Ben to do EXACTLY what Locke says is a furthur layer to this. Jacob's Nemesis is the (notably BLACK, like his tunic at the start) monster, he is Christian, he is Locke, he has been conspiring for many years to bring about events for him to take control of the Island. --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I second that. ANYONE who calls the dude in the balck shirt "Esau" is trying to appear loftier than thou (in snooty voice) "oh, you didn't know the name of Jacob's brother?" (to self) "I didn't either until I wikipedia'd it" - That being said, I had always envisioned this series having some "epic battle" between Christian/Jacob and Locke/XXX (because Locke and Christian are the only characters that have (seemed to) come back to life on the island - yes, I know that Yemi came back, but to he always seemed like a hallucination and not as if he actually came back to life as Locke and Christian seemed to have) - However, now it seems that Christian is quite possibly acting under not-Esau's orders and not under Jacob's.
      • I feel fairly certain, and, for all of the reasons stated above, am in agreement with the many comments that state that Christian is not Jacob, or acting under Jacob's orders. However I tend towards the belief that there is a very good chance that he is indeed the Man In Black; notably, 'feral' Claire when asked by Jin how she is sure that the Others have her baby says, "First my father THEN my friend told me." I'd like to highlight the sequential nature of her use of 'then' -- not my father AND my friend told me, but "First... and then..." I feel that Yemi was also the Man In Black as well.--Cfcincalifornia 05:46, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob's Touch

It seemed significant to me that in "The Incident", Jacob made sure to touch all of the Losties he encountered in the past. Does this seem like it is important enough to be put in the section about his connections to other characters? π = 3 40px (Talk to me, babe.) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, also the only one to not to be touched by Jacob in the flash was Juliet. Maybe Jacob's touch is what protects people. --Gluphokquen Gunih 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Rewatching, I noticed that Jacob does not touch Ilana, but since he already knows her, may have already. --Gluphokquen Gunih 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Jacob wore black gloves when he visited Ilana and did not touch her. Looks like a clue to me. Was it really Jacob?
There was something personal & touchy in their conversation. I won't become surprised if Jacob had had sex with her, she's irresistible. Smiley emoticons smile Iimitk  T  C  01:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I second that /\ --Integrated (User / Talk) 05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like a business deal though, as if his touch will completely heal her (it looks pretty damaging), but if she agrees to help him.Bwanartalk|contrib 12:10, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
My theory on Jacob's touch is that it determined who would come to the island together after the plane disintegrated. Everyone that Jacob originally touched that were on 815 weren't on the Aljira flight (Jin and Locke were missing) which is why they didn't come back to quite the right time. The people that Jacob touched (Jack,Kate,Sayid and Hurley) ended up in the same time when the Aljira flight crashed. Jacob didn't touch Illana, Ben or Frank Lapidus which is why they ended up with the other survivors of that flight in a different time. Jacob didn't touch Illana intentionally because she had to get Sayid on that flight but end up in the same time as Ben, Lapidus and Locke's body. Sun was touched but didn't end up with Jack's party because she was touched at the same time as Jin but they had been separated so the strength of Jacob's touch was lost.--Woodgeek 17:39, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob's and his enemy's disagreement

At some time in the past (there is a sailing ship on the horizon) Jacob's enemy accuses him of bringing people to the island to prove him wrong. The enemy says it always ends in violence and corruption. Jacob says it only ends once and what comes before is progress. From the events in the first five seasons it seems Jacob has not proven the enemy wrong. Jacob said to several people (including Ben) that they have the freedom to choose, and to Locke he said that everything would be allright. Is this part of their disagreement? He does not ask Ben to not kill him, nor does he explain to him that the man who appears as Locke is the enemy. How does Jacob control the enemy and what is the loophole? What is the fire in which Jacob is consumed? There is no wood there (and large flames for a bed of coals). Is it natural gas, or (more likely) a mystical fire. Jacob seems to be engulfed in flames immediately. Does Jacob actually have any powers or mystical abilities beyond his longevity, or do those powers come from the enemy? How does Jacob leave the Island? Did he actually leave the island? He said that if the enemy found a loophole he would "be here". Did Jacob weave the ripped picture of the statue which Ilana found in the cabin? --AllanJack 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Does their disagreement have something to do with the Valenzetti Equation? The enemy seems to be a fatalist, arguing against a recurring cycle of destruction, while Jacob has several times pointed out that people have a choice. Jacob seems unconcerned about the violent "progress", and focused on some end result.
Note that fate and free will is a common theme in Lost
Can we assume that one of them is good and the other evil? --AllanJack 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's words from the opening of "The Incident" struck me -- "it only ends once; everything that happens before that is just progress". This means that Jacob is engaged in a conflict or "Game" with the Enemy, played with people's lives, which has a definite End condition. It means that Jacob has no concern for who lives or dies or suffers in the Game (this is certainly reflected by his actions -- as he says to Ben, "what about you?"). Taken in context, it may also mean that it doesn't matter how often people choose to do Bad Things, and that the End is centered around people choosing a single Good Thing, or perhaps choosing a large enough number of enough Good Things despite a meaninglessly large number of Bad Things. --Sbrudenell 17:15, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Could we take the word "loophole" literally, i.e. the "loop" around the cabin with a "hole"? I really believe that black powder is used to seal something, something bad (because it's "black"). But this doesn't seem to be a very safe method. Or maybe it means a loophole in time: the Locke we have right now is in fact Locke himself but from a different time and is "converted" by Jacob's enemy. But since we can do time travel now, Jacob isn't really dead. He could have made enough difference before he is killed that altered some invariant, so that when the timeline changes again (probably cause by the nuclear explosion) he is back to life and his enemy is defeated.(Sounds like some movie.) 22:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The man in the chair / the eye in the Cabin

I combined a few related sections here. Nigelhenry 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As of The Incident, it's not clear whether the bearded guy in the cabin really is Jacob.. Luminifer 04:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Locke" and Ben both called him Jacob, the guy in the beginning of the episode called him Jacob, Richard said that Jacob lives there... we can be reasonably sure it's him. -- LightSpectra 21:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right Lumin, Illana said "someone else has been using" the cabin, implying Jacob may never have been there. --Integrated (User / Talk) 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) The bearded guy seen in "The Man Behind the Curtain" will likely turn out to be Jacob's enemy, but we'll have to wait for confirmation. Marc604 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we change the "First seen: "The Man Behind the Curtain"" thing? I don't think that was Jacob's eye, and after the S5 finale, it's almost clear (though NOT confirmed in any way) that Jacob's enemy was inside the Cabin, and not Jacob himself. And even if that wasn't hard evidence, can we considered his eye as the first time we've seen him? I think Jacob was first seen in The Incident. Thoughts?--Samus88 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it is speculation that that wasn't Jacob. This, like with a lot of things relating to Jacob, his nemesis, and Locke, are a wait and see situation. Given that, we should leave it as it is until we are shown directly that that wasn't Jacob.--Integrated (User / Talk) 09:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree, while the man in the chair we see inside the cabin may or may not be Jacob (I REALLY think it's his enemy though that was there and telling everyone what to do), we should probably just leave it as is, when this all happened we were told that it was Jacob. It may not be though, like I said above it looks more like his enemy to me, but these are just theories. Besides, It's most likely just because they hadn't cast the character to play Jacob when this was aired and it's just some fill in guy they found. Until we know more I'm with Integrated...hey Integrated btw XD .-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  05:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hey :P Yea personally Illana's comment that Jacob hadn't been in the cabin for a long time leads me to think that we have never seen him there, but until that is shown we will have to live with it. --Integrated (User / Talk) 07:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Before the finale, the only clear pictures we had of Jacob were "his eyes". When people were wondering if Jacob was Locke or Ben, the argument that Jacob had brown eyes and Ben and Locke don't debunked them. When asked in Season 3 if they had hired the actor to play Jacob, Damon Lindelof said false. Now I realise that it might not have been a factor in hiring him, but the actor who plays the Jacob we saw in the finale has blue eyes. Does this imply the eyes we saw in Season 3 and 4 belong to someone else? Perhaps the one "using the cabin", which Ilana says was not Jacob. I checked Jacob's nemesis and his eyes are greenish blue. The old eye shots were obviously put in for a reason, I'm just trying to figure out what. The writers said that they WERE Jacob's eyes, but they also said that Locke was resurrected. --Robbie 20:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

New Page?

Is there going to be page made for the brown eyeed shadowy figure seen in season 3 in the cabin? I have no idea what it should be called, but he probably should have a page. Iburnedthemuffins 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I don't think we should move or change the photo at all. While it looks more like Jacob's enemy to me (doesn't look like Jacob at all), that is who we were told/implied that it was. It's most likely because that character that plays Jacob now wasn't cast back then, so that's who they wen't with, then they either changed their mind about the actor or were never planning on using him in the first place. Until we're told/see otherwise I vote to leave it as is.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's season appearances

If Jacob is listed as only being in 2 episodes, why does it show him being in seasons 3 and 4? Yeah the person sitting in the chair in "The Man Behind the Curtain" could've been Jacob, and yeah we saw his eye supposedly in "The Beginning of the End", but if we're suggesting that those appearances were a fake Jacob, and it wasn't really him then we should either count those as episode appearances, or take away his appearances in season 3 and 4. --Joshtopher27 02:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Good point, however at this point those appearances should probably be viewed as Jacob, as that was how they were presented in the episode. True there is now very strong evidence to support a theory that Jacob was never seen in the cabin, but I think till that's confirmed we can leave his appearances in season 3 and 4. Anyone disagree?--Integrated (User / Talk) 05:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Source for Carlton as voice and Rob Kyker as actor

The voice is said to be Carlton, and someone had used the May 11, 2007 Official Podcast as the source for this on the Carlton Cuse article, but they do not mention it on that podcast. I did some searching and couldn't find an original source. --- Graft   talk   contributions  21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, although I think most people would agree that the guy in the chair looks to be Rob Kyker, I think we should leave it off the infobox until there is a definitive confirmation. I think it could be included as a trivia point if it's stated that it's fan speculation and unconfirmed. -- Graft   talk   contributions  21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They confirm both Rob Kyker and Carlton Cuse on the season 3 DVD extras. --Managerpants 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to exactly which feature has the confirmations? In the commentary for "The Man Behind the Curtain", they specifically state that they do not want to reveal who portrays Jacob. If the exact source can be found, it can be put in the trivia section, otherwise we'll have to leave it off the infobox. -- Graft   talk   contributions  21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Year & Ship

The year was never stated, nor was the name of the ship. Until it is, anything else is fan speculation and should not be put into these articles. There is no evidence the year is 1845 or the ship is the BR, that's just theory. -- Xbenlinusx 06:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Not every character or location on the show is explicitly named in every episode they appear in, yet we assume they are still the same people/locations by their identical appearance. I think we can use the same logic here, otherwise we have to start second guessing whether all the characters on the show are really their evil twins... --Jackdavinci 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Neither ship is shown in detail. You don't know enough to claim "identical appearance". Also, it seemed to me that conversation between Jacob and his unnamed enemy implies that there has been more than one shipwreck. § Right now the page says "19th century". Even that seems too specific. The first European sailing ships started exploring the Pacific in the early 16th century, and 100 years later they were all over the place, trading, colonizing, and conquering. For that matter, sailing ships were still used for some low-priority cargoes as late as the 1940s.--Isaac32767 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree. We do see the Black Rock in detail in previous seasons. There is evidence to back up that they at least appear similar. Early in the show we see that people have crashed on the Island and then later are filled in on details about how they got there. There is evidence to confirm that the first chronological event in this narrative based on what we know about the giant statue. I agree with Jack Davinci's reasoning.Mister vijay 19:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that we don't know enough to say for certain the ship we see is the Black Rock (I think it is) and until then we shouldn't be basing things off the assumption that it is.--ISawDivinity 18:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


He was stabbed and burn in the fire - but is there a chance for him to survive? He lived for (at least) more than a century, he had supernatural powers, but maybe his existance, his life and death have different conditions and rules from ours. Anyway this is just an idea which has a really small chance to be possible.--Paintbox 13:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Does Jacob actually have supernatural powers? We haven't seen any except for his longevity. His enemy on the other hand, DOES seem to have supernatural powers. --AllanJack 03:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, I think you're right that his life and death have different conditions and rules - one of them being that his enemy cannot kill him, which is why he got Ben to kill Jacob, so I think it's safe to assume that he is dead for good because of this. -Kaisle 15:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the rules were broken. Fake Locke kicked Jacob into the fire before he was dead. The fire most likely would have killed him before the knife wounds did. Maybe this is a loophole on the loophole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EvilLocke (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T16:02:58.

Let's not forget that the legend of the Phoenix originally comes from ancient Egypt as well. Jacob seemed to deliberately push Ben over the edge--maybe Jacob needs some sort of death/resurrection process to do what he needs to do. Which may mean that the Nemesis is still ultimately playing into Jacob's hands.Sevvina X 05:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • And let's not foget an even more important historial character that became more powerful in death than he was in life: Obi-Wan Kenobi ;)  superwesman   talk   blog   contributions  16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you said about Jacob pushing Ben over the edge. It seemed strange to me that he wasn't surprised to see Locke and Ben even though 'this is a man you just dont go and see'. And also Jacob out no fight up at all, it was like had been waiting for this situation to happen. Billy bones 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

With Hurley in the cab; -oh, so you must be dead? -I am definitely not dead. i think this might be a foreshadowing whether or not he is dead.--Noesis86 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed this: "It is unknown whether Jacob died, as right after this, the time-traveling survivors in 1977 detonated a hydrogen bomb, leaving the fate of everyone on the Island unknown." And changed it to: "It is unknown whether Jacob is currently alive." The impact of the hydrogen bomb on Jacob's death is speculation; as is the detonation of the hydrogen bomb itself; otherwise, we should amend every characters page. --LOSTinDC 13:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Juxtaposed with a character named Lennon, barefooted Jacob made me think of the "Paul is dead" fuss re the photo on the back of the Abbey Road album. Apparently in Britain dead people are left barefooted; come to think of it, did Jack take shoes off Locke before putting Christian's shoes on Locke's corpse? Is this a bad joke about filling someone else's shoes? In any case, Sir Paul wasn't really dead, so I am thinking Jacob has found a loophole, and won't stay dead, probably something on the order of the "Deep Magic" that the resurrected Aslan talks about in LWW. This in light of nothing being irreversible. Also: should we be looking for Beatles tunes? I nominate "All You Need Is Love." --Lana hibner 05:58, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sentence about dead or alive?

  • The first paragraph includes the sentence "It is currently unknown whether Jacob is alive or deceased." - I'm not sure why this sentence is here. Isn't suggesting he is alive merely a theory? We know that Mock Locke entered his chamber with intent to kill him, we know he was stabbed repeatedly and kicked into a fire. We have not been given any evidence he can survive that.. so can this sentence be removed? --Integrated (User / Talk) 07:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Also when a similar sentence was added on Caesar's page after he was shot in the heart with a shotgun it was quickly removed. I push for the same logic. True, Jacob isn't a regular human being, but fact is we haven't seen him ever survive this kind of major injury, therefore logically it is theory that he may be able to survive said injury. I'm not wanting to say "HE IS DEAD" all over the article, I just think saying he may be alive is theory. Any thoughts?--Integrated (User / Talk) 07:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a different picture?

Something that makes Jacob look a bit less douche-y? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pennyj (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T13:39:25.

  • Well, the picture that's up now (when he's sitting in the chair) looks terrible. Revert to the old one i say! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acolyt3 (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T15:35:56.

Sorry about that. I changed that. I'm a bit new to the whole wiki experience, and I haven't been discussing things on talk pages. My bad. I thought an on-island picture would've been good, but whatever floats your boat.--Series of Dreams 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


My mother-in-law who speaks fluent Russian says that Jacob was speaking a Croatian language to Ilana, but it was not Russian. --Tuttlemsm 04:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Too Many Biblical and Egyptian References

There is a lot of Biblical trivia on what is a relatively short article. Much of it is utterly irrelevant, especially when we consider that his name may not have strong Biblical connections. I think we should edit out all the extra text that has no reference point in Lost. For example, it says the Jacob was a descendant of Aaron, which (unless there's a big plot twist around the corner) is pretty impertinent information. Now, someone has put up a load of Egyptian references on the Jacob page. All of them seem irrelevant. Anyone else think we should delete them? Thefreebird 13:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • agreed. I will remove all but the first Egyptian reference ("Jacob lived under a statue of what appeared to be a dog-headed or crocodile-headed being with an ankh in one hand.") because EVERYTHING else under the Egyptian References section is Egyptian Lore/History. NOTHING else in there is an actual reference to Egyptian culture/history/religion from the show. It's sad really since there are so many ACTUAL Egyptian references that people could have chosen to post.  superwesman   talk   blog   contributions  16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I ended up removing the whole section because it didn't make sense to have a bulleted item with only one entry - especially when that entry states that dude lived under the statue and that the statue looks egyptian (because everyone knows that already from reading the rest of the article)
      • Maybe the people who seem pushed to add the references should add them to the Jacob/Theories page or create a separate page called 'Jacob, possible religious/historical connections' and have a link at the base of the Jacob page. Blender83 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think the Bible references are irrelevant. The producers, when asked what books would illuminate the direction of season 5, stated, "The Bible". It seems unlikely that these things are unrelated, especially with so many Biblical and religious themes present in the show. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
          • I haven't seen an article where the producers state that Jacob in the show and Jacob from the Bible are the one in the same or Jacob in the show is based on Jacob in the Bible. Where Jacob comes from can only theorized at this moment, same as Richard and Jacob's enemy. Comparison to the Bible is only theory until the show states that it is not. Blender83
          • Just because there are Biblical themes in Lost (Ben's conversation with evil Locke apparently resembles the book of Job), that doesn't justify most of the Biblical references on the page. The origins and biography of Biblical Jacob are irrelevant because they don't refer to anything in the show. The trivia section should be about trivia pertaining to the Lost character Jacob, not the Biblical character. Thefreebird 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem I have with the biblical references even now is that some are incorrect. Jacob's Hebrew name does not anglicize as James. It anglicizes as Jacob. The Hebrew is Yaakov. So I'm going to remove that line, because it is not accurate. I guess I'm just writing this to let you know.
  • Thanks for making a note so I can document the accuracy of my assertion. According to The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, updated 1988, published by Moody Press, Chicago, page 649, the entry for James says, "more correctly Jacobus" and indicates James comes to English via the Greek version Iakobus, which is to say, Jacob. Circumstantial evidence is that Scots loyal to King James during the 18th century were called Jacobites. I am sure you can find this online if you do a little research. I am happy to hear your suggestions for clearer ways to state that Jacob and James are the same name. IMHO, all the Egyptian and biblical references are great because they provide clues as to similarities among characters. For instance, Jacob the Patriarch pulled a lot of cons, just like Sawyer, but Jacob matured into one of the great men of faith, a founder of Judaism. From this I take hope that Sawyer will be redeemed/tamed (as in Little Prince) by his love for Juliet. Likewise Ben Linus is a terrible liar and has done awful stuff, but the facts that 1) Benjamin may mean "son of the South," and that 2) the southern tribes of Benjamin and Judah were not lost but returned to the Holy Land, may put Ben Linus (as in Lion of Judah?) on Team White Shirt Jacob with Sawyer (a southerner), and make me think that Ben Linus may be the one who saves them all in the end. --Lana hibner 05:37, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • The English name James is definitely derived from the Hebrew. The Hebrew word יעקב (Yaʻaqov) >> Greek Ἰάκωβος (Iákōbos) >> Old French Jaques>> Early Modern French Jacques >> Béarnese dialectical form James. ref: Origins by Eric Partridge. --Pixpixpix 17:42, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob is pretty much alive!

There's a consensus amongst at least Lostpedia's editors that Ajira Flight 316 departed in 2008, but arrived on the Island in 2007 due to a minor time shift when entering the Island's aerospace. Well, we know that Jacob was waiting for Hurley upon his release out of Jail. Jacob told Hurley that he should be on Flight 316, which leaves in 24 hours. That means a day prior to the flight, which is definitely in 2008. Now, if Jacob is alive in 2008, then he surely is in 2007. Actually that conversation had possibly an explicit reference to the fact that Jacob is not dead:

Hurley: What are you doing sitting outside of a prison in a cab?
Jacob: I was waiting for you, Hugo!
Hurley: Oh.. then you must be dead!
Jacob: I'm definitely not dead. — Iimitk  T  C  16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Richard last saw Locke in January 2005 (approximately 100 days after the Flight 815 crash). When he met fake Locke, he said it had been three years. Unless Richard is mistaken, that puts Jacob's murder in 2008. Now, I suppose there is counter evidence, as the title card says '30 years later' when flicking back from 1977 to the present (correct me if I'm wrong). If there is a time shift between the island and the rest of the world, would it really matter? When someone leaves the island, they'll surely enter the world a year later? Jacob telling Hurley that he is definitely alive tells the audience that Jacob is a living creature and not some apparition. This makes his death more shocking. I don't think it warrants mention in the article, as it is speculation and more suited for the theory page. Thefreebird 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • But Jacob isn't experiencing any time travel. All times are present time for him. Also there has been long discussions about how we should treat phrases like "it has been three years". People in ordinary life don't speak such time description phrases with the intention to be absolutely accurate, they're used rather relatively. Even though, from January 2005 to January 2008, it's exactly 3 years. — Iimitk  T  C  17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You misunderstood me (I think). I wasn't saying Jacob time travels. If their is a temporal discrepancy between the island and the world of approximately one year, then 2007 occurs on the island at the same time as 2008 in the real world. From this we can say two things: 1) the island is a year behind the real world or 2) coming to the island displaces people in time. If it's the former, then Jacob left the island in 2007 to go to 2008, talked to Hurley, and then came back to the island which was still in 2007. If it's the latter, then I we could guess that Jacob is still alive. I have to stress that this idea is only speculative, and speculative material belongs in the theory pages. Also, Richard's three years comment can't be discounted because people aren't accurate about these things; it could well be more than three years since they met. Thefreebird 23:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice argument. I wasn't however, trying to imply that Jacob is %100 alive. I was pointing out that this possibility is the one worth mentioning, or more accurately, the time discrepancy you've described. :-) — Iimitk  T  C  23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Original Poster: What evidence do you have to support your stance that 316 went back in time 1 year? All this talk that the Island is "one year off" from the rest of the world is silly. We noticed when the Kahana was near that there was clearly some time ambiguity, but it was on the order of minutes, not years.  superwesman   talk   blog   contributions  17:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I never said it's a year off at all. I said the time on the Island is in 2007, which is officially confirmed as canon in Lost: The Story of the Oceanic 6. It could be, however, December 2007, November, or so. I actually said the Island experienced "a minor time shift", which I do believe it's few months back, not a whole year. — Iimitk  T  C  17:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Gotcha. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, when I said "1 year" I meant "from 2007 to 2008" regardless of the number of months. In any case, I didn't see that recap episode, but now that you mention it, it brings up some discrepancies. Specifically, why did Richard say that it had been 3 years since he saw Locke when it had only been 2. Thanks.  superwesman   talk   blog   contributions  18:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This actually corroborates the assumption that is was rather a minor time shift. If the time on the Island is late 2007, I don't think Richard would say something like, "it has been two years and eleven months, John". — Iimitk  T  C  21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am one of the users who stood very strongly that Ajira 316 arrived on the island in 2007 due to all the reasons above. The article stated 2008 and I fought to get that changed and it was confirmed by the recap show. Also, in the newest recap show, D&C stated that the island is now in it's present. LP has all the info it needs to use both dates of 2008 and 2007. However, the more I read the continued arguments and as the show progresses, the more I think it was a continuity error, mainly due to Jacob's meeting Hurley off-island. Thefreebird makes a great argument above for how the island is in 2007 & the world is in 2008 at the same time. Unfortunately, I think that is the best answer we are going to get. They spent a lot of time in Season 4 explaining the time discrepancy and I don't think they're gonna go back to it to explain this new question. I just don't think they completely thought it through when tagging the present "30 years earlier/later", and with the other info showing the departure of Ajira 316 in 2008. The problem is now it raises the above questions, that will probably not be answered.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with one of the above theories that it is just a continuity error; something so minor as a one year discrepency is hardly worth going through the Whatever Happened, Happened business again. My hope is that next season will continue in the present and stay in the bloody present. --Pdtmathieson 08:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

The question “Who was the shadowy figure seen by Locke and Ben in The Man Behind the Curtain?” has a minor error as Ben admited that he never saw Jacob. --Jurrabi 11:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The man behind the curtain is TMIB/Nemesis.--Woodgeek 17:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the following unanswered question on the article: "Why did Jacob visit Sawyer, Kate, Sun, Jin, Sayid, Hurley, Jack, Ilana, and Locke?" I suggest we remove Ilana from that list for the following reasons:

  • The others on that list are all connected because they were on 815 except Ilana.
  • Jacob verbally gives a reason for visiting her, he says that he wants her to "help him".

Perhaps we can start a new unanswered question that reads "What help does Jacob want from Ilana?" Discuss?Mister vijay 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob didn't touch Illana because he didn't want her to time-travel w/ the other original 815's. She needed to get Sayid on the plane and then end up in the same time as Ben, Frank Lapidus, etc.--Woodgeek 17:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Going to do a little work on these UQs.

"Will he survive or come back to life, or is he dead?"  This is just like asking "What will happen next?" and is generally frowned upon so I am going to delete.

Dhalia 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive removed the question regarding the guitar, has been solved in LAX, the guitar case contained the Anke that was revealed at the temple. -- Nzoomed  talk  contributions  10:07, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

The leader of the others?

In "the Incident", didn't Ben say to Sun something like "I said he's the leader... but everyone answers to someone, and the leader... answers to Jacob". Also Jack asked Richard "What are you doing?" and Richard said "protecting our leader". Therefore we shouldn't call Jacob the leader, since "the leader" of the others refers to an actual rank in some order below Jacob. What do people think? Nigelhenry 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. Jacob shouldn't be referenced to as the leader. Maybe .. the controller? The head? --Integrated (User / Talk) 03:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I changed it to the 'head' in the opening paragraph and that fits well. --Integrated (User / Talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order or?

I think that the page should be in chronological order like this and not like this. I think that we should revert some of the edits, or make some things like before. What do you think? -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • 100% Agree. Chronological is far less confusing. It should also be made clear that the man in the cabin is not nessecarily Jacob, but for the time being that sould be left in order. --Integrated (User / Talk) 11:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've Seen That Dude Before

That was my first reaction when The Incident opened up. I think I saw the character playing Jacob in an episode from way back, probably a flash back. Anybody else feel that way? Annarboral 06:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Outside of Lost you may have. In Lost, you have not seen him before. --Integrated (User / Talk) 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It seem that JAcob is god and te enemy the devil no?

I think that the boy in the cab qhen Ben took Locke there is the enemy no Jacob cause you know Ilana said he has not been living there for a long time and somebody els has been using it and this man can be the nemesis no? and for this reason the man said HELP ME to Locke because he wants his help to find the loophold in the other hand you have the father of JAck that misterios revives he can be the nemseis to who was triyn to find the loophold no? another thing what happens with Claire???? where is shee??? The image of Jacob is like god because he said to Ben, you have a choice do whatever he said to you or go because he is tryins to prove his teory the people always have a choice the human existence is based in this on the things that we coose. what do you thing people?

Nomadic Shoes?

"In the opening scene where Jacob is spinning thread for his tapestry, it is briefly shown that he is wearing Nomadic brand sandals. Similiar pairs can be purchased here:"

This just looks like an advert for shoes that's been put into the article. A tad unprofessional, no? Terra_Homing 04:37, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

He isn't necessarily wearing Nomadic brand sandals. He could be wearing Gurkees. Do we know for a fact which brand he is wearing? If so, how? Marking as "citation needed." --Jaiotu 07:36, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Delete 'Back on the Island (2004)'?

I think we should delte the head "Back on the Island (2004)". Dind't Ilana confirm that someone else was using the Cabin and not Jacob? --Darth Stefan (Talk) 13:51, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

  • Since it is Jacob's cabin, and the details are still unknown to us about the entire deal, I think we should leave it until S6. Even if he didn't live in there, it's his property so I think it belongs in his article. Bwanartalk|contrib 14:07, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

I think the person in the cabin that Locke met was TMIB/Nemesis/Esau. The partial image that we have looks very similar to Nemesis' appearance. --Woodgeek 17:45, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

2007 or 2008

The part of the article discussing Jacob meeting with Hurley has the heading of 2008, but below it the section his death is labeled 2007. Which is it?--HaloOfTheSun 02:39, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, since time off and on the Island is erratic, we're still not sure did the people (Ilana, Sun, Ben etc.) from the Ajira flight travel through time or not when they came to the Island. We thought that the flight was in January 2008, but then when they came on the Island, it said it was 30 years from 1977. As you can see in the beginning of the 2007 section it says late 2007 or early 2008, because it hasn't been confirmed or anything. As you pointed out, if this was true, it would mean that Jacob can somehow time travel to a time after he died. Bwanartalk|contrib 03:18, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

An Old Friend...?

Jacob was "killed by an old friend who grew tired of my company." We all probably assumed this meant Smokey, but what if Jacob really meant Ben? What if this was his way of telling us that, though Ben felt ignored and neglected, that Jacob was really by his side the whole time? Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

That seems a little bit of a stretch, since Ben has never met him. It's hard to be old friends with someone you've never met. :-) -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  13:18, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
See, that's the "man of science" response; yet we know Jacob has a spiritual nature, so it's entirely possible that Jacob was with Ben in spirit, giving him the strength and guidance he needed, when he needed it the most. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
Hehe, touché. However, ask a Christian what Jesus is like and they'll tell you all about Him. They've never met Him, but they believe His spirit is still with them, so they feel like they have met Him. However, when asked what Jacob is like, Ben said, "I don't know, I've never met him." Not the reply of a "man of faith." :-) -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  13:27, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Main picture

I went ahead and changed the main picture because I feel this one reflects better the "essence" of who Jacob is. He is wearing white, he's on an ancient structure, he is barefoot, and he is even sitting in an old chair (where we first thought Jacob was). It is used right now in the spanish Lostpedia. Revert it if you don't agree with me, but please leave your reasons here.--Loganmac 06:32, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the picture you changed it to (someone else must have reverted it), but I, too, thought the main picture needed a change, so I went ahead and uploaded a better image. I agree with Loganmac -- if the image is changed back to the old one, reasons should be given. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

Removed trivia

I removed a bullet from trivia re: Jacob's and his nemesis' philosophy towards man. I followed the source material, which was an interview between TV Guide and the actor who briefly portrayed Jacob's nemesis. The specific response this information came from was the actor relating scene advice given to him by one of the writers, and shouldn't be taken as canon. If Lostpedia rules disagree with me, you are welcome to roll back.Mslade 17:01, February 12, 2010 (UTC)


Where did the exact deathdate come from for Jacob? --Crash815 Talk 03:10, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

So was his Korean actually any good?

Just curious. ESachs 00:43, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

"Previously believed to be Jacob, the identity of this shadowy individual has now been put into question."

This seems true; we don't actually know if the shadowy figure in Jacob's cabin from The Man Behind The Curtain was actually Jacob. Since the shadowy figure and Jacob are arguably different entities, I think the shadowy figure may warrant its own article. However, I haven't been able to find an article dedicated specifically to the shadowy figure. Please correct me if I am wrong. And if there isn't an article on the shadowy figure, shouldn't we create one? --Xanthom 06:23, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Connection to the god of dreams

I am a big fan of Neil Gaiman's Comic The Sandman(an awesome epic, if you haven't read it you should), in which the main character(often referred to as Morpheus) is the Lord of Dreams. A while ago I had looked up Morpheus, to see where the name came from, and I found Ovid's Metamorphoses, A tale of old greek/roman mythology. I recently looked into this again, now with thoughts of LOST in my mind, and discovered some interesting connections to some of the super natural characters & occurrences in LOST. In one part it references the God of sleep Somnus, and three of his sons Morpheous, Icelos (or Phobetor), and Phantasos. These three are said to be rulers of dreams.

Morpheus was excellent at imitating the human forms, and mimicking the clothes, speech patterns, of specific people. However he only appeared in the human form, never anything else. This could be similar to Jacob, and how we have never seen him appear in anything other than human form(such as Jacob, and possibly Christian). Icelos (or Phobetor, from which word phobia has its roots) was known for taking forms of beasts, birds and snakes, and associated with fear. This could be similar to the smoke monster, as it seems very snake like when moving through the forest, and much more beastlike(roaring sounds etc) when attacking/destroying things. He also inspires fear and terror in nearly everyone. Lastly, Phantasos was said to appear as rocks, trees, water, and other inanimate objects. (The Island?).

Unfortunately it does not go into much detail about them, and they do not seem to appear elsewhere in Greek or Roman mythology, but it is still an interesting tale. I am not trying to say that these three gods are in fact Jacob, MiB, and the island, I am just noting similarities, and as we all know how much LOST loves to use ancient mythology, it does not seem far-fetched that they would at the very least have known about this story. I am simply adding one more thing to the incredibly long list of things to think about in regards to Lost, and perhaps a third entity, with its own influences and designs.

Se the excerpt here: [2]

Kateneedstodie 01:48, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob touched Ben

5x17 DyingInBen'sArms

Jacob falls against Ben after being stabbed and touches Ben's arm. ("The Incident, Part 2")

Regarding my edit: Yes - Jacob touched Ben! See for yourself --->

Look at Ben's elbow! It was hidden in plain sight the whole time! Think about it, in flashbacks of "The Incident, p 1 & 2", our attention is explicitly drawn to the people Jacob touches (Jack, Hurley, etc) and those not touched (Juliet). We didn't notice Jacob touch Ben because it was the only touch that did not occur during a flashback! --Qwerty7412369 07:56, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Removed Richard entry in 'Post Death'

The paragraph described Richard's past experiences with & current feelings towards Jacob, along with a narrative of the Black Rock scene & an inaccurate quote at the end. Jacob did not have any post-death activity in the episode. Richard's activity & expressed feelings in 'Dr. Linus' are well covered on his page. Moved & simplified Richard's account of being touched to 'Jacob's Touch'.Duncan905 18:23, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob met Mikhail?

WhoShotWaldo just edited the page to include Mikhail in the list of characters Jacob has met. When was this implied/confirmed? To the best of my knowledge, we have never seen Mikhail interact with Jacob, nor claim to have met him. I know that, on the island, he referred to Jacob as a great man, etc, and I also know that Ben received lists from Mikhail, purportedly from Jacob, but I think it's presumptuous to assume that he ever met Jacob. Mslade 02:12, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Birth Year

I'm adding Jacob's brth year as between 450 BC and 900 AD. Latin was spoken as language only between those years. It's virtually impossible that it is anytime outside of those dates. In all likelihood, it during the period of classical Roman language, which is an even narrower window, but this wider window allows for any period of time when Latin was spoken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffcutt72 (talkcontribs) 15:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC).

Where do we get the year 1BC from? -JamesyWamesy 01:54, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Murderer ?

I see Jacob has been added to the 'Murderers' category - but do we have any evidence to suggest he has murdered anybody? The closest thing I can think of is him sending his brother to the source, though its not clear whether or not this 'killed' him or not, given his mother's comments that it would be worse than death and especially seen as Jacob supposedly cannot kill the MIB. Unless there is some other murder I've forgotten? MR IRISH 01:13, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

"Unnamed adoptive grandmother"

Who is that? I thought Mother was the only adoptive figure in his life. --Blueeagleislander 12:00, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

His mother mentions having a mother also :) Something like "you came from me, I came from my mother" --Integrated (User / Talk) 11:15, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Article "Protector of the island"

Now that Jack assumes Jacob's role, I suggest the creation of an article about the "Protector of the Island" function, along with a description, duties and people who ostented the role (Mother, Jacob, Jack).--Veracrux 05:03, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Some one had to say it..

So, basically, the all-powerful and mysterious Jacob turned out to be a virgin who lived in his mother's basement cave till he was forty?

  • How do you know he was a virgin?

--Shirp 10:18, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Birth year

I've found no source that says what Jacob's birth year is, and no one here seems to have an official source either. That said, however, the year O AD does not exist. There is no year 0. A timeline goes ...2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD,... With that in mind, I'm changing his birthyear to 1BC. David 23:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for raising the issue. You are correct that 0AD doesn't exist, but I also have no idea where the 0AD came from in the first place. I decided to browse the page's history and found the user that changed it to 0AD and left a message on that user's talk page asking about it. If we don't get a satisfactory answer, I say we change it back to "Classical Roman Era" as it was before. --Celebok 00:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • It turns out it came from an interview in which Mark Pellegrino stated that "Across the Sea" took place in 43 AD. According to the Lostpedia Canon Policy, interviews with cast/crew on unofficial channels are not considered canon, so I'm changing the date to "Classical Roman Era". --Celebok 17:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • I remember reading a set report for Across the Sea on DarkUFO. They were filming the scene with Mother and young MIB talking on the beach and it said how they were extremely careful to remove all footprints from the sand because that scene took place in 23 AD. I'll see if I can find the link and post it here. If that is correct and MIB and jacob were 13 in 23 AD, then their birth year would be 10 AD. --D Toccs 21:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • According to how I'm interpreting the canon policy, a set report on DarkUFO falls under the category of "leaked information", which is listed as non-canon, so it's no more reliable than the alleged Mark Pellegrino interview. -Celebok 21:35, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
          • According to the Lost Encyclopedia Jacob was born in the first century AD. Just like most of us thought. --LOST-The Cartographer 19:50, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

New profile picture

6x09 JacobDefendingHimself

I believe a new profile picture is needed of Jacob, from a more significant scene that shows more of his features. I believe this picture, taken from "Ab Aeterno", is suitable as the new profile picture. Your thoughts?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  22:42, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose While I wouldn't be opposed to changing the picture (perhaps back to the one he had following the airing of The Incident, you know, the one with the nice close-up on his face, for example) I don't like the one you're proposing. He's looking down, and in fact may have his eyes closed on the picture, it's hard to see... it just doesn't fit with the rest of the pictures we usually use... it's not even a headshot, there's too much of his lower body in the picture... I mean, it doesn't focus on his face. --LeoChris 22:52, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose - I agree with LeoChris. I'm not opposed to a new image, but I don't like this one. It's an awkward pose and he has a big shadow cast over one side of his face.--Baker1000 23:30, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Also, we generally don't care about significant scenes for character pics. Instead, we want a shot that portrays the character overall, preferably free of a single scene's context. --- Balk Of Fametalk 07:31, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose This pose is awkward. Stick to that we've got. Limitlessness 22:51, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Last native Latin speaker?

I got thinking about an interesting point that might be worth putting in the trivia section. Within the world of Lost, Jacob and his brother would have been the last living NATIVE speakers of Latin on Earth. While some religious, classical, or language scholars may speak it fluently, nowhere in the world is it anyone's first language (nor has it been for over 1000 years). I thought I'd mention it here first before adding it to the article in case people have strong objections to putting it in the trivia section. Mantisia 22:36, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting piece of trivia worth mentioning. It's a shame we never got to find out when they became fluent in English.--Baker1000 00:51, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.