Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Suggestion from RS/N

In the efforts to find a source acceptable to use, a quote from Dawkin's The God Delusion has been suggested. It would seem to satisfy all parties by my looking at it, making the assertion that the view Jesus existed is 'widely held' as well as acknowledging that there is conflicting evidence. The exact quote is "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all...." available on Google Books at this link. Any thoughts on using this to end the squabbling and come to a mutually agreeable solution? -- ۩ Mask 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss ways of slicing it as well for the lede, something such as 'The view that Jesus did not exist is not widely held', or a more expansive cut to include more information (the one I would use, just to disclose) 'While there is evidence available to propose a serious theory that Jesus did not exist, the view is not widely held'. Both could be sourced to Dawkins, who would satisfy the problems many of us have with the sources used. -- ۩ Mask 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to stir the pot, but I don't think Dawkins is a good source for citing, in the article itself. Dawkins is not a biblical scholar or ancient near-east historian. In fact, he has never been formally trained in any sort of history. He is a biologist. His opinion, in a popular work, seems like a bad place to source content related to the historicity of Jesus. We can do so much better. It's like citing an MD in the evolution article. I really think we can do better, but I'm not outright opposing if it would keep the peace.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's always possible to cite more than one source. --RSLxii 21:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We aren't quoting him on his own thoughts on the matter though, we are quoting him on the current thinking. He is almost uniquely qualified to answer that question, actually. His main recent field, the first Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, is entirely geared toward distilling current academic thought and making it accessible to the lay public. Thats one of the beauties of using this as the source, its not a statement from someone with a dog in the fight commenting on their own research, it sidesteps the whole question and just talks about current thought on the issue. -- ۩ Mask 21:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So the fact that the man has admitted that he does not know any thing about history of theology and related issues and has said he has no interest in learning about his opponents arguments is a good source?! Hardyplants (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If he were to comment on those topics, you'd be right. But he's not. He's commenting on what the state of thought in the field is. You can re-read the statement if it would help, since you seem to be mistaken about whats being said in it. -- ۩ Mask 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How can "He's commenting on what the state of thought in the field is" if does not know any thing about the field. Hardyplants (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned, he held the Chair at Oxford for the Public Understanding of Science making different fields of thought accessible to lay people. A journalist can interview a chemist on the potential application of new organic chemicals without knowing how to make them. His entire job for a decade was being well connected and familiar enough with the processes and jargon of academics to explain them to the public, like the journalist publishing a story on whats happening even if he can't duplicate it. Was that a better explanation? -- ۩ Mask 22:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe him more than someone who believes in God, just because he'd love to say the opposite. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue aside, can you see the practical benefit of citing someone like Dawkins? Your average skeptical wikipedian is less likely to try to delete something that has Dawkins' implicit approval. And as I said before, we can always use more than one source. There are plenty to choose from. --RSLxii 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So we have Dawkins saying that the Jesus as myth idea is not a "view widely held" held by who? Hardyplants (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

SO does this mean it would be appropriate for us to cite in the Evolution page a prominent Christian Theologian stating "You can make a serious case against Evolution, but the argument isn't widely supported". The fact is Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about, isn't familiar with even basic mainstream historical and theological concepts and is probably largely just talking out of his ass. I would characterize this more as a grossly exaggerated mistruth aimed at pleasing his own audience rather then a point he would defend if he was pressed on it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I kinda think you could (barring what the evolution editors would do with your edit). A prominent Christian who opposed evolution, but had to admit that is was generally accepted, would be a pretty strong advocate in my opinion. Over there they probably have surveys of Christian's who are scientists and all sorts of ways of figuring out who thinks what. Here, we're more limited on sources, so we should take what we can get. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardyplants--good question. Dawkins says it's possible to make a case, but if you do, it wouldn't be widely supported. By whom? I imply he's talking about the people who would be liable to support such cases: "scholars in the relevant fields". A phrase I deprecated in my first post for being too ambiguous! But now I see that ambiguity in this case is unresolvable. There really isn't any hard evidence, just a general understanding that it's true, and a notable lack of scholars denying the fact. So whatever statement gets written up will have to be somewhat ambiguous. --RSLxii 23:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes Dawkins particularly significant? To my knowledge, he's never researched it. There are scholars who have researched the matter, like GA Wells. Elaine Pagels is also important:

"The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. But what we can investigate historically is how the "Jesus movement" began. What the new research shows is that we have a wide range of teaching attributed to Jesus." [1] --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)

AkMask, if it's skepticism you want, there was a starting point in this paragraph that I tried to add to Historical Jesus. [2]. The fact is, peer-reviewed secular academic sources simply don't address this matter. Doesn't it seem like our readers should know that? Noloop (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can let them know that they don't address the issue of whether Jesus was real or not because they don't think the matter is worth discussing because they all agree that he does. That would be fine be me.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are probably better Dawkins quotes to cover this - it's a little bit OR to extend what he said to the fact that most scholars agree he existed (call it.... implicit rather than explicit). It is fine for me but I suspect others would grumble :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the Fox and Grant works above seem far better sources, particularly for the lead (as their fields seem to be more directly related to the issue at hand), but Dawkins seems plausible. Dawkins may not be a historian, but he is, as others pointed out, an analyst of the field of science.Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We could probably find a Tillich quote also (Tillich was pretty skeptical of the legitimacy of the quest for a historical Jesus). I actually have in mind a peer reviewed essay about Tillichs work which basically ends up arguing that, while the wide consensus amongst religious scholars (inside and outside the church - it says this explictly) is that he exists, a small amount of people disagree; it then argues that theology should dissipate such doubt by looking at and debunking the theory rather than ignoring it. it's a great quote for our purposes but I hesitate to suggest it as a source though as it could be twisted to legitimize the Christ Myth theory (which it doesn't really do) - it is a little vague on details of who denies it ("the Historicity of Jesus has been and is denied by some") --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I would provide the source anyway if possible -the fact that people can "twist" it is no reason for hiding it. --Cyclopia^talk 09:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah, uh, I thought I had added a link (I'm sure I copied it in!!! sorry). Anyway here it is. Relevant quote:

“ On the other hand, although it is true that the consensus of knowledgeable historians outside as well as inside the church does not consider the non-existence of Jesus a question worth raising, ”

(it's on page 143 of the journal) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC

Thank you. I've read a bit the PDF and it is interesting also for another aspect of our debate: page 144 admits very clearly why Christian priests are biased sources on the subject:

“ For Christian theology to do otherwise would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility, which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character. ”

--Cyclopia^talk 11:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, theology is no longer an aspect of historical Jesus research. Someone brought secondary sources around that stated this clearly and emphatically. Who was that I wonder? Oh now I remember it was the same editor who is making the argument just above me. This is ridiculous. Please stop synthesizing arguments based on dated materials and otherwise hypothetical situations.Griswaldo (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're ranting about, but I simply was making the point that Christian scholars themselves (i.e. the author of the quote above) admit that Christians necessarily have a bias, since admitting the very remote possibility of the non existence of Jesus would make their faith crumble in pieces. Nothing to do with theology as a discipline. --Cyclopia^talk 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is an interesting points. I think the article is quite clear in suggesting that the Christ Myth theory is pretty groundless - but argues that theology is ignoring the theory outright because they are (possibly) scared it will affect the underlying Christian faith. There are 2 caveats. Firstly I am not sure that identifies a clear bias; they ignore the topic, sure, but many historians or scientists ignore marginal topics because they see no merit in them. I read it as being akin to an evolutionary biologist ignoring the creation story because it lacks merit (something of an extreme example, I admit). Clearly it is an interesting point to raise though - I just think we need a much more explicit identification of bias to call it that outright. Secondly remember this is an article about a skeptic who so no merit in discovering historical Jesus written by someone who, as far as I have researched, is "agnostic" about the whole thing. So in a sense there is possible bias in the piece itself. It is on the latter grounds I find the admission of wide consensus interesting --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I just realised I am on a different article to the one I thought (Historical Jesus). I actually somewhat agree with the argument that the lead is badly worded. I think that there is no need to highlight any bias due to religion but it could be reworded to something like: most scholars agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence[various citations here], although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.[more citations] We could base it on the above sources, seem reasonable? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you, it was only pointing out something relevant to the (meta) discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, yes I agree --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The author is a Christian theologian. These articles assert Christianity is right and cite only Christian sources. Please cite some peer-reviewed secular sources saying it's a fact Jesus existed. Also, that article is almost 50 years old, and sentence fragments are not reliable sources. They are particularly unreliable when the relevant clause begins "although..." Noloop (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your being awkward. There is no need for the source to be secular - this is discussed to death above - that is just your non-policy criteria. As a historical-jesus-skeptic this is a pretty good source from the perspective you have argued. and sentence fragments are not reliable sources. the whole article is there to be read - and has been by Cyclopia who seems to agree on it's veracity. I described what the article details and then provided the relevant direct quote. Just to be clear; this is not a Christian issue. It is a wording issue. There are a bazillion sources which discuss the wide consensus over Jesus' existence in some historical form. The idea he did not exist at all is an undeniably minor theory (again, as backed up in sources). There is a solid argument from removing "essentially all" from the lead and using "most" with a further qualification at the end of the sentence that a small number disagree that he existed at all. But there is not, as people far more qualified than me have told you, no reasonable rationale for demanding non-Christian sourcing :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, wait, there is a reasonable rationale for demaing non-Christian sourcing, and the source you provided above just demonstrates it: Christians admit explicitly that they can't even consider the possibility of the non-existence of Jesus, because it would simply imply they're no more Christians anymore. So the discussion above, if anything, makes it clear we need strongly secular sources. --Cyclopia^talk 15:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well; seeing as that source is be someone skeptical of the search for a historical Jesus doesn't that have the reverse set of issues :) There is no reason to demand strongly secular sources - just strong sources. Ultimately it is one line, a single sentence, that communicates the broad outline of the article. I think I proposed a reasonable compromise above --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(reset) There is a very strong reason not to have Christians as 90% of the sources for a claim that Christianity is right. Noloop (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the whole sentence; this is not a claim that Christianity is right. Rather, it is a statement about what consensus is held amongst scholars researching this area (i.e. the historicity of Jesus).... The issue of whether the Christian view is correct or not is a matter for the article. If the lead said "essentially all scholars agree that the Christian view of Jesus is accurate" then I would be with you 200% :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't quote a whole sentence. I don't have access to J-store, so I can't see the context of the quote, or even an independent clause. Noloop (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Islam

Ity would perhaps help matters if we has a efw Muslim sources. I reaslise thne I found was not that good, but so far its the best I have found. Any one else care to help (Noloop?).Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think Muslim sources would help much (after all, Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet). We need sources without a clear religious background and please please please your spelling --Cyclopia^talk 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

True but it would do some one to addressing the concearns about an inbalcne of christian views.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop

There is a ban/topic ban proposal at AN/I. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this is now defunct as it was rejected. Please also note that Noloop has requested mediation, which was rejected because not all involved editors supported mediation. - MishMich - Talk - 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead Rewording

I do actually dislike the wording of the lead :) It's not especially well written (from both a grammatical and "scan" perspective). In addition an important point exists that there is minor dissent over the histocricity of Jesus which requires due mention. I propose the following:

While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) most agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.[3]

This addresses most of the legitimate concerns raised elsewhere. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What does the ref that comes after "documentary and other evidence" say, I wonder. Gbooks doesn't have a preview. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea; it is the ref currently used in the lead. I'd support changing it for a more accessible source. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should use Michael Grant, as discussed a couple of sections above (the part that starts "This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination"). Something like:

Scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, and there exists a large amount of evidence contradicting the theory that he is a myth,(Michael Grant book[4]) although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.[5]

Well, that would need a good copyedit, but what do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to admit a preference for my wording :P but I agree the Grant reference is much better. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're wording is good, but it relies on that source we don't have access to. Mine still does a bit, too, unfortunately. We need a good source for the first part. Why don't you take a stab at a wording that uses Grant, if you want? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost positive I can find a citation for the first half in Ehrman, if you give me half a day (and if no one comes up with any silliness to discredit Ehrman based on his religious background, or lack there of ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

simply saying "most" is misleading; the sources on Bill the cat's FAQ page suggest it's an overwhelming majority of scholars that supports the existence of a historical Jesus. Flash 23:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stanton says "Today nearly all historians..." Grant says, while partially quoting someone else, "'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." These are strong conclusions, which I don't feel "most scholars agree" adequately sums up. Any other phrasing suggestions? The main Jesus article says "almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians...", this article currently says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields..." I'd be OK with the wording from Jesus, or just following Stanton with "Nearly all..." but I'm open to more suggestions. Do the two who were working on the above wording agree that "most" could be improved on? -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles E. Carlston, "a view that no one holds in any case"; Bart Ehrman, "I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus"; Nicholas Perrin, "It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one."; Graeme Clarke, "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." There are no contemporary academic works advocating the theory therefore scholars don't come across Price's latest polemic Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press), etc. It is not something current in the academic debate, and "essentially all" seems to sum up the sources quite accurately. --Ari (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying r.e. most. I think we can used Stanton directly though . e.g.: While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) nearly all agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.[6] --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am generally in agreement with the wording of Tmorton above. The main "dispute" is not about "did A Jesus exist", as we have correctly noted that mainstream scholarship overwhelmingly agrees that "A Jesus" existed. The area of dispute is about the extent to which the Biblical descriptions of the actions of that Jesus can be relied upon. Here scholars are more divided, with most accepting certain details to be true, but much disagreement over certain other details - the so-called "Christ of faith" aspects. To make the lead clear and unambiguous, I therefore propose a small tweak, as follows:

“Nearly all scholars agree that the Gospel accounts are based on a historical 1st century person named Jesus, whose historical existence can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that the character could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies. However, many scholars draw a distinction between what can be reliably known concerning the character and ministry of the historical Jesus, and the less-reliable assertions about the “Christ of faith”.Wdford (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That text does not explicitly say that nearly all historians believe that Jesus as a historical person existed, it is a bit ambiguous. Furthermore, I don't think it's a question of reliability in terms of the beliefs about the "Christ of faith", but what historians and scholars accept. Saying that one assertion is more/less reliable as a fact seems POV. Flash 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my proposed wording explicitly says it THRICE, and leaves no ambiguity whatsoever. Secondly, exactly what "historians and scholars accept" varies from individual to individual, as some accept that the Christian writings are fully reliable and others accept that the Christian writings have been heavily edited over the millennia to further a specific agenda, and that not all of what stands there today is factually reliable. The current lead points out that the biography of Jesus is based on certain records, but does not mention that "historians and scholars" are at odds over how reliable those records actually are. I do not propose that wikipedia take sides, merely that the lead should properly summarise the fact that "historians and scholars" are at variance over certain of the core details of the biography of Jesus. I feel that the current wording is here ambiguous, and that my proposed wording summarises the facts more clearly for laypersons. Wdford (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrating academic consensus and Graham Stanton's assessment

The lead currently states:

essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence

It cites "Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxii" as the source.WP:RS/AC establishes a fairly high bar for saying that there is academic consensus on a certain point. This is reasonable - after all, outstanding factual claims require outstanding support. Generally I imagine the ideal source is a survey, although consensus statement papers or National Academy reports might also squeak over that bar. Also, "all relevant fields" is vague and should be clarified. The Stanton source came up a while ago in Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_21#Historians.2C_Cont., where Stanton was quoted as saying on page 145:

Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

Does this demonstrate consensus? I certainly don't think so. Therefore, the statement should be attributed. However, perhaps page xxii has support for the statement, or perhaps on page 145 Stanton cites supporting evidence which was not in that discussion. II | (t - c) 22:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to debate and no survey that needs to be done. The fact is that the virtually all scholars reject the CMT and those scholars that do support the theory acknowledge that fact. Consider these citations, for example:

• [T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218

• It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed.

G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 27

• "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"

Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179

• "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."

Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

Whether any editor here is not convinced by statements from both sides of the aisle is irrelevant. We must report the current level of consensus per WP:Fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, II, what is your concern? That we say essentially all scholars and Stanton says nearly all historians? I'm all for tweaking, and would accept that our wording can be improved, but I don't see how you are questioning that Stanton doesn't somehow support the notion that most (or more than most) scholars/historians accept a historical Jesus. You say you feel it should be qualified, how so? Something like Stanton claims all scholars...? Then when we cite Grant, do we need to change the qualification to Stanton and Grant claim... and why not throw in Van Voorst and Tuckett and Charlesworth... I mean it goes on and on. The only instance where I think qualification would be necessary is if there is an actual conflict like scholar X makes claim Y, while scholar A makes claim B. Is there an actual controversy here? Do you have alternative sources to demonstrate that Stanton, Grant, Van Voorst, Tuckett, Charlesworth et al. need to be qualified for the sake of scholar A et al.? Who exactly are we talking about here? -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. The best part of this is one topic up, we are discussing adding (or replacing) the citation with Grant... so if that happens, your comments regarding Stanton would be moot. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would argue that "essentially" and "nearly" are certainly not the same, and neither is "all relevant fields" an appropriate synonym for "historians" (critics have included philosophy professors, e.g. Wells, Michael Martin (philosopher)). My comments on Stanton are only loosely-related to the fact that Stanton is a theologian, so I'm not sure why you would say that my comments regarding Stanton are moot if replaced by Grant. Check out WP:RS/AC again. It's good policy to not allow individual scholars to speak for the entirety of their field without attribution except when the source is outstanding or particularly substantiated. Collecting sources does not overcome this requirement. That means that we do not accept either Stanton nor Wells' assertions of such an outstanding factual claim as factual. It is easy to write "everyone agrees with me" or "everyone disagrees with me". Substantiating it, not so easy. The phrase also significantly oversimplifies the discussion of what the "historical Jesus" was and whether it's really fair to call that historical Jesus "Jesus". Read this book review of Burton L. Mack's book. Even if some figure similar to Jesus existed, or someone with the name Jesus existed, that does not mean "Jesus Christ" as imagined by Christians existed. This is the sort of subtle point which is debated by scholars and rather glossed over in a POV manner in this article. It's also particularly difficult to make this statement - and speaks enormously about POV - when you've even got a theologian scholar Robert McNair Price who is a skeptic and says, quite reasonably (unlike this article!), that it's impossible to know. II | (t - c) 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • . This is the sort of subtle point which is debated by scholars and rather glossed over in a POV manner in this article. And this is the sort of thing I want to get into, instead of arguing on and on about how the skeptical/mythist view is more prominent than it really is ;P What specifically in the article do you find problematic? This article is nearly exclusively regarding the ancient sources regarding Jesus, so I'm curious to see what points you find POV (outside of the already mentioned sentence in the lead).-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A fringe theory is discredited, not merely in the minority. Those authors are skeptical that Jesus existed. So, their statements don't mean they think skepticism has been discredited. Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for calling the Christ myth theory pseudoscience, on par with Holocaust denial. Noloop (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for calling the Christ myth theory pseudoscience, on par with Holocaust denial. "

Uh no, because we never said it was on par with Holocaust denial, nor is that point ever being made. A fringe theory is a theory that is held only by a fringe, therefore if only a few historians believe in CMT then it is a fringe theory. Period.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been quite common in Historical Jesus talk. You should also review the Wikipedia policy on fringe theory. Lack of acceptance is not evidence of a fringe theory. Rejection is evidence of a fringe theory. The meaning of declaring something fringe in Wikipedia is that it deserves virtually no mention in the related articles. A label of "fringe theory" justifies exclusion. So. Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for saying it's a fact Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 4 valid sources that say that directly above. I agree that we should be careful about who each of them refer to (i.e., "historians" ≠ "all relevant fields"). Now, I'm a Johnny-come-lately to this discussion, but you seem to be doing exactly what many people say you do--ignoring the valid sources that meet your concerns. Those 4 alone (I'm assuming they're reliable and accurate, having not looked at the originals myself) indicate CMT is a fringe theory. Your request for peer-reviewed sources has already been proven unnecessary per WP:RS, and your request for a secular one doesn't even really make sense--yes, we should reject strict reliance on sources published by church sources, but we should not reject sources by reputable historians/researchers just because they happen to hold a particular religious belief, assuming their peers accept them as valid researchers. I don't even know how we would know the religious beliefs of the people, unless they had self-identified. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment You may all wish to peruse the sources listed by a blocked editor on his talk page User talk:Eugeneacurry and that deal with this issue. The idea that something published by Oxford University Press would not be considered "secular scholarship" baffles the mind. For what it's worth I believe there is a Jewish source on that list that states "The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today." Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that finding reliable sources that even directly address Christ-myth theory is nearly impossible. Scholars simply assume Scholarship in this area starts from the premise that Jesus did exist to some extent or another, but does not necessarily agree on how much of the Jesus tradition is historically accurate. Basic historicity is taken for granted. This is true for the publications of specialists doing research on Jesus as well as more general religion publications such as text books and reference works. I just browsed all the 450 entries in ATLA Religion Database that were tagged with the subject heading "Jesus - historicity", and the Christ-myth theory is non-existant there (but for one essay discussing how Ernst Troeltsch had reacted to Drews' book and a couple of early mid century essays denouncing it). The fact that you cannot find any discussion of this theory, or this "perspective" on Jesus in major academic databases should be enough to stop this nonsense. Asking for a source that emphatically states this is a red herring.Griswaldo (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Scholars simply assume Jesus did exist to some extent or another" That is not very satisfactory for an article on the historicity of Jesus. The article would be rather short that way. "Did Jesus exist? Scholars simple assume he did. End of article." If we going to do it that way, it is probably better to delete the whole thing. Arnoutf (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Scholars don't simply assume. The fact that they can attribute a saying or deed to Jesus using the source shows that historical critical method not only demonstrates the existence of Jesus, but also his historical words/deeds. You cannot have a historical portrait of Jesus without establishing that Jesus existed. To expect scholars to say "I believe Jesus exists because of X, Y and Z" would be redundant as their work is already moving beyond that basic conclusion. --Ari (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Given what you both seem to infer from it, "simply assume" was a poor choice of words. I'm not sure why you both decided to pick on it though when the basic point is simply that no serious scholar questions the premise anymore. In other words the quote I found on the talk page I mentioned, "'The "Christ-myth' theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today," appears completely consistent with what I found when I looked at the afore mentioned database for peer-reviewed literature on historical Jesus research. If Christ Myth theories are "not ... even discussed by scholars today" one would be hard pressed to find the kind of quote Noloop is asking for. Arnoutf you also appear to assume something that is inaccurate when you suggest what this would mean for the entry. The point is that the "historicity of Jesus", as researched and debated in academia, does not concern the question of whether or not he existed but instead concerns what we can know about him based on the undisputed premise that he did exist. There is an extensive literature on his, and there appear to be several well defined movements in the "quest for the historical Jesus" as the field has undergone changes over the course of the last century. It should also be added that there is nothing strange about this at all, especially to anyone familiar with the sciences. Scholars, historians as well as scientists, don't reinvent the wheel ad infinitum Arnoutf.Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• The quotes by CMT proponents kinda settle the case that CMT has to be considered fringe for all WP purposes (regardless of the possible bias in the composition of the academic community, which is sadly something we cannot address at all). I would say these could be put in the lead with qualification (i.e. "Even CMT proponents like X and Y acknowledge that..." . On the User_talk:Eugeneacurry list: while 3 of the 5 authors are Christian pastors and/or theologians (Mark Stibbe, Charles Carlston, Schuyler Brown), the other 2 seem from a non-Christian background. However the position of George A. Wells is in the middle, because he today acknowledges the existence of "some" historical person that acted as a background for the Jesus story, but nothing more apparently (he is still considered a CMT proponent). After all, I would say that the Jewish source (Samuel Sandmel) is the strongest source, in terms of neutrality, in addressing the current concerns, even if having a proper, positive secular source is still missing. --Cyclopia^talk 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've explained why there are no "positive secular sources". I'm sure there are several "neutral secular sources" who work from the foundations I've described above but feel no need to make declarations about the inaccuracy of a fringe theory. How many geologists declare positively that the earth is spherical and not flat? Noloops request is clearly ridiculous. Do you want to have a look at the results I did? Go to ATLA, or similar religion database, and search peer reviewed publications for "Christ-myth theory" (you wont find more than a handful) and then browse all the other publications on the "historicity" question. This whole argument is simply moot in the relevant fields. Anyone can see this. No qualifications of religious background and such are needed here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, there is a whole discipline on measurement of Earth shape, so you can find a lot of positive declarations on the Earth shape. But that's not the point. I think we're close to settling the issue anyway -having a source not positively biased towards the existence of Jesus that declares such consensus was the critical point, and the CMT proponents above do the job of answering Noloop concerns with respect to WP:FRINGE. The Jewish source is a good non-Christian source as well. I would like to have also a secular (i.e. non-rabbi, non-imam, non-priest, non-theologian) working on the issue who is positively not a CMT proponent, because this would help to settle the issue also about scholarship bias, but that is not essential now (though I think it is a worthwile search). --Cyclopia^talk 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• You didn't read the entire sentence it seems. Geologists do not positively state that the earth is spherical and not flat. Everyone who does historical research on Jesus positively affirms that he was a historical person in every single paper they publish. They write about Jesus as a historical person and pay no attention to suggestions otherwise. That's not different than Geologists not paying attention to the notion that the earth is flat. Consider the analogy in a fuller sense as well. Is a flat earth within the spectrum of theories discussed in geodesy? No. Are other finer aspects of the earths shape still under scientific scrutiny, apparently. Compare this to historical Jesus research. Is the Christ Myth theory within the spectrum of theories discussed in historical Jesus reasearch? No. Are other finer aspects of Jesus' historicity still under historical scrutiny, apparently.Griswaldo (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is nonsensical to insist that advocates of any theory consider theirown theory "fringe" in the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's definition of fringe is "discredited". Not "minority" and not "lacking acceptance." Discredited. The meaning for editing purposes is that the theory can--should--be excluded from mention except in articles dedicated to the fringe theory in particular. The quotes above--which are being given without any context--show that the authors acknowledge themselves to be in a minority. Here is what those authors say about the actual topic:

• I quite agree with Earl Doherty that the most important result of research carried out by writers like Wells, himself, Freke and Gandy, and myself, is the demonstration that the Jesus figure of the New Testament Gospels and Acts is a fiction, without any real evidential support. -- Professor Alvar Ellegard,Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Goteburg
• Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth. -Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
• It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last." -Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)
• "...the earliest references to the historical Jesus are so vague that it is not necessary to hold that he ever existed; the rise of Christianity can, from the undoubtedly historical antecedents, be explained quite well without him; and reasons can be given to show why, from about A.D. 80 or 90, Christians began to suppose that he had lived in Palestine about fifty years earlier." Professor G.A Wells. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus)

To argue that the position of these scholars is that their own theories are discredited and deserve exclusion is incoherent. Noloop (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And, for good measure:

The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)

Please provide some peer-reviewed, secular sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Noloop: I defended you in the AN/I because you helped bringing reasonable concerns. Don't make this effort useless by being as stubborn as some of your opponents were. WP:FRINGE says nothing about positively discredited (I looked for the word "discredited" in the policy: there isn't). WP:FRINGE says: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study., and all sources above agree on exactly that, explicitly. So, as far as it goes for WP policies, we're ok. I have the feeling too that the field may be biased, but I'm far from being really knowledgeable on the field, so this remains just a POV of mine. Now, (to answer Griswaldo as well), I would really happy if we can find a peer-reviewed secular source who is positive on the claim of the existence of Jesus. Geodesy doesn't talk about the flat Earth, but when they release a new dataset on Earth 3D shape, it comes out it is not flat, so the question is directly addressed. This is more of an assumption here, as you stated: a very reasonable one, indeed, but it would be nice the same to come out with something clarifying the issue once for all. Call it an academic curiosity of mine, if you want: I feel Noloop concerns are mostly (if not perhaps completely) settled, stubborness of him aside. --Cyclopia^talk 16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is getting too confusing for me to follow, but I figure I'd make a few points before I head out the door:

• Noloop's quote of Elaine Pagels isn't that useful, in my opinion. She seems to say that the speck on the horizon is too small to make out if it's a boat or an island, without addressing the issue of whether or not the speck exists. Maybe she means more than this, but I can't tell just from the passage quoted.
• A lot of scholars assume, a priori, that Jesus exists in their writings. But this strong conviction is not evidence that "essentially all historians and scholars believe Jesus existed", particularly if they are writing in theological journals. The strong conviction of many people that chocolate is the best flavor does not mean that essentially all people believe chocolate is the best flavor.
• Saying that "historians and scholars widely believe that Jesus existed" is not the same as saying "the Christ Myth theory is not widely accepted by historians and scholars". After all, there may be many who are agnostic on the issue (UPDATE: or, they may be like me and think that he *probably* existed). The quotes in Bill the Cat's FAQ page tend toward the latter statement, and I think you're better off using some phrasing of the latter.
• Imperfectly Informed came in with basically the same reaction as I did when I walked into this conversation. I would consider using a source like Dawkins, and refrain from using language like "essentially all" for this very practical reason--it will help keep bypassers from walking in and requestioning the issue.

--RSLxii 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of doing a search for the word I used, actually read the policy:

Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether....Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic.... a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.... Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.

The idea of rejection is key. "Minority views are treated in the main article." It is untenable to designate departure from the Christian theological community a departure from the "mainstream" view. Please provide some secular, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. The most basic indicator of being fringe is a lack of reliable sources. Please explain why George Albert Wells, Elaine Pagels, and Alvar Ellegård are unreliable. Noloop (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you didn't give the full citations for those 3 individuals, but are they from "peer-reviewed" sources? I smell a double standard ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Noloop, the point is simple. The view is treated in the main article(s). The view is treated as being clearly minoritary in every source, including CMT sources. Therefore we can and must talk of it as such, everything else violating WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We of course should treat it, not hide it, but making it clear its status. And you have also been provided sources on such consensus that do NOT belong to the "Christian theological community": albeit more would be welcome, they are enough to settle that it is, indeed, a fringe view. Finally, no, lack of RS is not an indicator of fringe views. You can find tons of RS and Nobel prize statements on AIDS denialism, but it doesn't make it less fringe. What counts is academic consensus. --Cyclopia^talk 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• You are simply wrong. Being minority is not the same as being fringe. The guideline makes that clear. We don't exclude minority views from articles.
• I agree the point is simple. If something is a fact, you can find non-Christians who believe it. Please cite some non-Christian, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody argues to "exclude" these view. They have to be in the article, described explicitly as minority views.
• For Wikipedia purposes, it is fringe. Again: WP:FRINGE says: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study..

• The non-Christian sources have been given above. Have you read them? (I misread) We don't have that source yet, and I agree, it would be much helpful. But this doesn't change the point: the non-existence is considered by non Christian scholars as well a fringe theory (see above), and that's what we need to know to assess academic consensus. Is the academia on the subject biased? Perhaps. But we can't do anything about that. --Cyclopia^talk 18:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You lost me. The attempt to exclude the views has been the main issue for the last 10 days or so. Noloop (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the above. Exclusion has never been an issue, sourcing was. --Cyclopia^talk 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What is being excluded? Last time I looked: Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I took these from user Eugeneacurry's (talk) page. (long list removed; see link to Talk page if interested)

Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please just give a link. A long list like that disrupts the flow of the page, making it hard to read. It also sets a bad precedent, since others (like yours truly) will feel entitled to paste in their long list [7] and the whole thing turns into list-spam. What do you want say about the list? Most of those sources are Christian theologians. The exception, Bruce Ehrman, is probably the weakest agnostic you'll ever find. I don't think any of them are peer-reviewed. Noloop (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So, again, we have the unsupported and bigoted claim that scholars are to be accepted or not on the basis of their religion, and the downright humorous example of special pleading that the agnostic who disagrees with you just isn't agnostic enough!

It is abundantly obvious that your problem with the article is that it ISN'T biased and doesn't reflect YOUR POV.

Well, it doesn't reflect your POV because the scholars in the field don't Carlo (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, the relevant sources to settle the consensus issue have already been found. An agnostic source is even better, no matter how "weak" he is, still it is not a Christian source. So matter of consensus on CMT is settled. Now what we have to do is to put these sources in the articles to settle the issue for the next Noloops. I think once this is done we can happily close the discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It always amazed me how many times I have to point this out. If you don't believe all the sources cited here saying historians hold Jesus was a real historical figure, just check out any other encyclopedia, like Brittanica or an old version of the now deceased Encarta and you'll find they make the exact same claim, that historians and other relevant scholars hold to the historicity of Jesus. Roy Brumback (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite some peer-reviewed, non-Christian sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. Ehrman is hardly neutral: he got all his degrees from Bible colleges and seminaries; the source isn't peer-reviewed. This is tedious. When "virtually all" historians believe X is a fact, it is trivial to find non-Christian peer-reviewed journals that say X is a fact. Yet, there is no such source in any of the four Jesus-related articles under discussion. Produce some secular, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed, or stop claiming they exist. Period. Noloop (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself: I am not claiming they exist. I claim they're irrelevant to the point into question. The CMT is considered a fringe theory (for WP purposes) even by those who work on it, and by non-Christian scholars as well. That's all. I appreciate your quest for such a source, and I would enjoy immensely if this source comes out, but it has nothing to do with the issue into question. --Cyclopia^talk 23:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

People can't think their own theories are fringe in the Wikipedian sense. A fringe theory is rejected; it is deserving of exclusion. The CMT advocates who say they are in the minority are not saying their theories deserve to be rejected and excluded from serious discussion. That would be incoherent. They are not saying their theories are fringe in the Wikipedian sense. Noloop (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That a fringe theory "is rejected" factually is only your interpretation. It is not WP policy. I quote you for the third time WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3]" (emphasis mine). Please acknowledge this. You had reasonable concerns, but these have been discussed (not without difficulty) and finally settled. To continue seems a textbook WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT case.--Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not only my interpretation. The term "rejected" is in the policy, which I quoted above. Noloop (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

John Dickson

Ari89 has used this person repeatedly, as a factual source for claims about the fact of Jesus' existence, and the "consensus" among historians.:

John Dickson is ... current senior minister of St Andrew's Anglican Church, Roseville, Australia, and an Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University. He is also co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity, a media company that seeks to "promote the public understanding of the Christian faith".His books focus on the relevance of Jesus in the contemporary world

Ari has inserted this source despite previous objections, due to neutrality. It sure is odd that Ari keeps making claims about what all historians believe, but keeps sourcing them only to Christian theologians. Noloop (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit, I have used the consensus statements of various ancient historians, including John Dickson, repeatedly on Wikipedia. Of course, it is no crime but this personalised objection to Dickson seems like a serious charge for Noloop. I note that you complain when Biblical scholars are cited, and now that a professional ancient historian is cited you call him a "Christian theologian". I have accepted that the only way to please you would be to find a source that states that "the view that Jesus did not exist is the bees knees, and every free-thinking rational scholar who despises Christianity knows it to be true with complete certainty" but sadly, such a consensus does not exist. It does not exist according to scholars that identify as Christian, Jew, agnostic and atheist. Just some statements about John Dickson:

1. John Dickson has a PhD in ancient history from a secular university. (I know, not important to point out the latter but some editors define Christian education as an unforgivable sin.)
2. John Dickson is a Senior Research Fellow in the ancient history department at Macquarie University where he lectures and teaches Early Christian and Jewish studies. He also supervises theses on these topics including the historical Jesus.

I don't think any more needs to be said. --Ari (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can find creationists and AIDS denialists with much better credentials (including Nobel Prizes), so the Ph.D. or fellowship is not as informative as it seems. But we found above that there are non-Christian sources that give such consensus (despite Noloop stubborn refusal to admit that), and these should be added to the article to avoid further POV suspects. --Cyclopia^talk 00:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How flattering of you to again compare Dickson to pseudoscholarship. We can categorically reject anyone through such childish means. --Ari (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not rejecting him, I only pointed that your posting of credentials is irrelevant to the point. --Cyclopia^talk 00:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You only accept him when non-Christians agree with him, big difference ;). Credentials are quite relevant - that is why we can trust Dickson, Ehrman, Charlesworth and whoever else we cite in this article. If your criticism holds true, Ehrmam's credentials are meaningless because an AIDS denialist may also have credentials! I hope that this is the end of it.--Ari (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently nothing is relevant if you're religious. 1) Publishing in peer reviewed journals = irrelevant, 2) graduate degrees = irrelevant, 3) faculty positions = irrelevant, 4) the esteem of other scholars = irrelevant, 5) making claims that are so basic that they are repeated by pretty much every tertiary reliable source touching upon the subject = irrelevant. The only thing that appears to be relevant to when it comes to the study of religion is one's own religious affiliation. In academia that perspective = horse manure. Wikipedia is not academia of course, but thankfully Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us sort this type of stuff out. Pray tell us what policies and guidelines support such a perspective? It would seem that in terms of reliability and determining mainstream scholarly consensus WP:V and WP:NPOV emphasize the very things that don't appear to count when a scholar has personal religious beliefs so I'm a bit perplexed by this. Please help.Griswaldo (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No. 4) and 5) are very much relevant, instead, and that is the point. 1) , 2) and 3) can be relevant to a degree, but they're not indications that we have to take their position as golden truth, because you can find subjects verifying 1) , 2), 3) for all kinds of fringe claims. I live in Cambridge, UK: where also a Nobel prize who thinks that telepathy and ghosts exist has a faculty position and is fellow of Trinity College. What distinguishes Dickson from Josephson is that Dickson states what is the consensus, and Josephson does not. That's what I wanted to point: that credentials alone do not make a source relevant by fiat. Now, about Christianity, the argument has been repeated ad nauseam, and it's that a Christian has, by definition, a very precise bias on Jesus existence. But now, I don't see why we're still flaming about this. I am perfectly OK with Dickson as a source, if we also add sources with a non-Christian background, and since we have found these sources for this claim, all we have to do is add them, and put the issue to rest. --Cyclopia^talk 02:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason why you can make that list of irrelevancies, is that some people think that being a Christian makes you biased on the existence of Jesus. Almost all the comments on this page can be summarized in one of two ways. "I'm right because being a Christian does not make you biased with regard to this topic". "No, I'm right, because being a Christian does make you biased with regard to this topic". Rinse, repeat. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

PF, nobody here has asserted your fist "No, I'm right..." statement. Rather, being a Christian (or an Atheist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc) does not invalidate, or lessen, one's scholarship skills. Thus, one's religion/philosophy has no bearing on Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Those on the other side of this issue, such as Noloop, however, indeed do believe your second "No, I'm right..." statement, as is abundantly evident. Just FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's one problem, but it goes a little deeper than that. Editors are saying there is widespread consensus on the fact of Jesus' reality in the community of secular, peer-reviewed history journals. Then they cite almost nothing but non-peer-reviewed, non-secular theologians. There is a disconnect between what is being said and done. The disconnect matters, because if something is a fact--truly a fact--it is easy to find widespread attestation in peer-reviewed secular sources. Noloop (talk)

That's where you're wrong, Noloop. First, no editor here is saying "there is widespread consensus on the fact of Jesus' reality...." It's the abundant reliable sources that say that. Second, no one here but you (and perhaps a few others) thinks one's religion/philosophy has any bearing on one's historical skills and/or reliability. And I didn't think there was such a thing as a "secular, peer-reviewed history journal". What's it called? "Atheists & Agnostics R Us Historical Review—Trust Us And Not Theists (Especially Christians) Since They Are Obviously Biased And Are Thus Incapable Of Telling You The Real Truth"? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are asserting it as a factual statement in articles; therefore, you think it's a fact. Examples of secular, peer-reviewed journals of history are Comparative Studies in Society and History, Past and Present, and Journal of Social History. Noloop (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a rule where we use attribution for biased sources. That's where it comes into play. "Fox news said Obama is the worst President ever." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Since that's begging the question, I'll go ahead and ask. Are you saying that if a scholar is a Christian, then a statement, for example, should read, "Joe Blow, who is a Christian, says such and such"? Or if the subject is, say, a history of Antisemitism, it must read, "Jewish historian Joe Blow says such and such? Is that what is meant by attribution? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about your examples, but attribution means just naming the source, not describing them. "Fox News said...", not "Conservative media company Fox News said..." Then the reader can decide for themselves. Blue links that explain why someone is important are nice, but not required. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then how about we just stick to "historian Joe Blow said..." or "The scholar Joe Blow said..." and forget about "Christian", "Christian scholars", and "Christian historians"? Are you ok with that? Is everyone ok with that? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. It can just be "Joe Blow said..." as far as I'm concerned. The reader can look into whether they're a historian or a Christian or whatever on their own. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, can we stop that all? We reached an agreement, if I understand correctly. We can use both Christian and non-Christian sources, because both point in the same direction and thus in this respect they are equally valid. We can use attribution for both so that the reader is explicitly informed that there is consensus on the CMT being not the mainstream position as acknowledged from all the spectrum of backgrounds, so people like me, Noloop and others can sleep nicely. This is it. It seems we are not going to agree on the bias thing, but we can use both sources to make the issue moot, once for all. Is this OK? Can we finally put all this drama at rest? I would love to invite everyone to a beer discussing further the issue of religious bias on the subject, if you like, but can we now finish here? --Cyclopia^talk 02:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) What kind of beer? Ummmm...never mind. I'll drink any kind, even Coors Light. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We probably should stop, but I'm not sure this is an area of wikipedia where the drama ever stops. I've been watching it for six months, and it hasn't changed much in that time. Anyways, I can't even remember exactly what compromise we are going with. Is there a dif where it was implemented. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to concur. I can't follow the details of the discussion clearly enough to make the edit myself, but it is abundantly clear to me that consensus has been achieved. It is possible that Noloop still disagrees; luckily, consensus does not require 100% agreement. I recommend that someone (Ari or Cyclopia seem the people with the best grasp on what's going oon)add the sources you all seem to agree are sufficient; if one misses something, the other can add. At this point, it's nearly impossible to figure out what's going on, because nothing is actually changing on the page. Someone who thinks they understand what happened please please be bold, make the edit, and then after the edit is made we can figure out if further changes need to occur. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing, at last!

Ok, I started to implement the result of the last pain in this diff. It is not perfect for sure, but before reverting it/shredding it to pieces, please let's discuss peacefully here. Features of the edit I'd like to highlight are:

• Included the "from several backgrounds" wording, to clarify it is not the position of a single background
• Added Sandmel quote, as the one unambiguously coming from a clearly non-Christian source. Identified as such. to make it explicit to the reader.
• Added the CMT proponents quotes, to ensure the readers that they too, honestly, acknowledge their minority
• Substituted "essentially all" with "consensus": it is more accurate (it refers to the academic situation, not to mere numbers)

I think it is a step forward. Comments/suggestions obviously welcome. --Cyclopia^talk 19:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

hypothethical books as evidence?

How do theoretical books that may have existed count as evidence alongside the NT? Presumably this refers to the theory that there was a source which underlay the synoptic gospels - the evidence for which is mainly in the textual analysis of these gospels (but confined to the NT). In which case, the NT is the evidence for anything that might be concluded about them - and from them. So, the NT is the source. Why attribute these as being some other source for historical evidence beyond the source derived from? Or does this refer to some other documents? Either such documents are listed (in which case they are already listed), or not listed (in which case, why not list them rather than some hypothetical document the existence of which can presumably not be demonstrated beyond hypothesis?). - MishMich - Talk - 16:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a book would not be RS becasue we could not verify it. We could refer to sources that discuse such a work ,but we could not source the work itslef.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not about WP:RS - as it is not even a source - the issue is whether any WP:RS has claimed that a hypothetical source provides evidence beyond the documents used in developing the theory that such a source existed. I can grasp the heuristic potential of such a hypothesis, but not that it provides evidence that is not in the other sources (as that evidence is ultimately derived from those sources). Sources that discuss the existence of the source would not be relevant, as that would be WP:SYNTH, as that would be about the source rather than the topic (unless they discuss the source in terms of the evidence it yields - although as a hypothetical source, presumably this would be hypothetical evidence; in that case we would have to qualify the statement that the evidence derived is hypothetical evidence, rather than evidence per se). Shall I leave the hypothetical source, and clarify that it yields hypothetical evidence, or remove the hypothetical source and leave the evidence status for other sources as it is? - MishMich - Talk - 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We can find a source for that in all probability. It's one of my gripes with the whole Jesus historicity research field actually. With that said there is quite extensive research into the existence of such documents and they do form part of the evidence used; the sentence does not do a great job of explaining that. I think we need a) a WP:RS to source it and b) to tweak the sentence so it is more clear what is meant. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, so it probable that there is a source that will substantiate that a hypothetical source yields evidence beyond that available in the sources that stand as evidence that such a hypthetical source exists? Fine, I'll leave that up to you to find this. I think you would be best inserting something about that in the text, as it would make for quite a convoluted sentence in the lead, which would be undue as it would not be about the topic, but the evidence that a source is part of that evidence. In the meantime, I can delete the dubious comment, as it does not seem to relate to anything in the text itself, and stands without any citation to verify it. - MishMich - Talk - 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It;s been a while since I studied this - but I'll have a look through my bookshelf and see if anything springs out at me from memory :) Deleting it, for the moment, seems fine. I'm actually surprised it is not dealt with in the body --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I have clarified the text in the lead, as it keeps getting re-inserted with more references. if this is about Q, then we might as well say Q. Similarly 'gnostic documents' - which? Amongst later Jewish and other are we discussing Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls? why not say that? These things can be linked to, so if the reader wants to know what these are, he/she can follow the link. My books are all going to into boxes as I type, in preparation for moving to another continent, so I cannot look up my own books on Gnosticism, the Qumran community, Bible commentaries or theology - and it is several years since I read them.- MishMich - Talk - 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The sayings source Q and the historical Jesus has been added as a source, which I think is sufficient (I don't actually have the book but luckily know somone who did and they checked it out for me) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The cited chapter of one is about Q, and this is what I figured was meant. I think it works better now, as it is not so oblique. Logically, I am not clear how positing Q adds to what is in the sources it is deduced from in terms of evidence - although I do appreciate how establishing what Q might have said could help separate the wheat from the chaff of the gospel narratives. So, not providing new evidence, it could help focus on what is known and what is gloss. I am not convinced that calling Q a document is accurate, as there is no evidence for that, so prefer to leave it as a source (when I studied this stuff there was no evidence that there was a written document rather than an orally transmitted narrative), Q is still a term given to a hypothetical source which is treated as if it were a document. - MishMich - Talk - 22:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on progress so far

Sorry I've been missing the last few days, just started a new job that necessitated some 12 hour days for the first week. I just wanted to comment that it seems like you all have made substantial progress, and while there exists some tweaking still left to do, im actually quite pleased with how the lede reads now and just want to, well, congratulate us on hammering out a consensus. -- ۩ Mask 21:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything has changed. Could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of changes thanks to Cyclopia and others. A definite improvement on the ongoing fiasco.Griswaldo (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I see refs added, but not much change in the text.[8] Maybe you guys are talking about the refs, or I'm missing something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does "change" in the text have to happen to make progress? I believe the progress was made in the discussion and in clarifying various things like the fact that there are non-Christian references to use. Then those references were put in place.Griswaldo (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice you guys have completely ignored my points. Again, check any other encyclopedia and they make the exact same claims, and they are "secular peer reviewed sources". And we now have a claim with a cite to a source that probably doesn't make the claim as this article words it, making it an inaccurate citation. Can you find any source that claims "bible history scholars" only hold this position, if not it's not going to stand. And a new point: You are not going to find any polls of historians in peer reviewed history journals about how many hold to the historicity of Jesus as journals don't poll scholars generally, they publish new research about their subjects, and since the historicity of Jesus has been a dead issue for almost a century now, there are not going to be any articles on it period. However you can find articles on the historical Jesus, showing who Jesus "really" was is a live issue, which means those editing the journals clearly hold to his historicity in a minimum sense of his having existed. And again, no one has produced any source refuting the claims made, only complaints they are made by Christians or theologians, which ignore claims made by Grant for instance, who is neither.Roy Brumback (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand completely your complaint -Is a wording like "consensus between scholars" correct in your opinion? What is important is conveying the gist of the sources. --Cyclopia^talk 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, what is important is correct citation. The article currently says "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history believe". That's not what the original citation said, nor is it what the footnote regarding the source says. It says things like "no one" "scholars" in general, and that non historicity is "almost totally rejected". Now I don't have those sources so I don't really know what they say, but the current wording claims only biblical history scholars hold this view, and that probably isn't accurate. The footnotes for the sources seem to imply far more scholars than that hold to the historicity of Jesus.Roy Brumback (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That parts going to stay in, its actually my primary example of progress. My concern has never been to strip out historical jesus being accepted the lede, but to convey the point that the consensus he existed is derived almost exclusively from sources which seem highly likely to contain bias - not that they do, just that there is a distinct possibility. More information for the reader. Using biblical historians in the lede accomplishes this in a way acceptable to enough people on this talkpage to operate as the consensus agreement. -- ۩ Mask 22:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's going to stay in even though it might not be accurate because you like how it sounds? It will only stay in if you can find a source to back it up. Your move. Roy Brumback (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it might help if you read the earlier RS/N thread though. There was a strong consensus that 'scholars in the relevant fields' as a wording was much, much to broad. The original source we have from Stanton (as I mentioned a week ago, a book I actually took the time to go find) backs up biblical scholars agreeing. Sorry if that was longwinded, just catching you up to speed. -- ۩ Mask 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I missed your comment a week ago. Could you please review what Stanton says? Are you suggesting the he talks about Christian bias, or says only members of the Christian "boys club" agree about a historical Jesus? I know people can quote mine, so I'd like to know the full context of the highly quoted nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, which seems to suggest just the opposite of what you have been implying. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting a little confused! :) I do agree that there is a substantial minority position, but down here in this section we're just arguing about using the appellation 'biblical historians', which Stanton mainly concerns himself in the book, not historians at large. Using 'biblical historians' achieves the goal I was shooting for with attribution of the quote (i.e. a way to note potential bias in the source of that consensus. down a couple sections we're discussing the wording of the mention of the other view (that there isnt enough evidence to make a definitive statement on the hisoricity) in the lede. -- ۩ Mask 01:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems vastly better to use more of the other sources for the sentence, rather than limit ourselves to the direct wording of a single source. That seems a dangerous move. It also seems accurate to be specific over scholars/historians. In general there is no consensus amongst scholars or historians because the vast majority do not work in the field - in fact any consensus/opinion they do hold is entirely separate to a consensus amongst biblical scholars because they are not specifically authoritative in that area (so their opinion could derive from other means). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Why has the article just now been protected? I have not seen any obvious problems in the past 24 hours.- MishMich - Talk - 22:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop asked it on RPP. I asked the protecting admin to reconsider, given that we just reached some consensus, and he decided to keep protection but only for 24 hours. Let's not make a big fuss on this. --Cyclopia^talk 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be a bonus; we now have a 24 hour window to mull on the current wording (which seems a good improvement) and figure where to go next. I reckon we should seize this as an advantage. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached on the new version, and why not leave it as it was, which was the version that consensus had been reached on over several years of debating this topic? And by the way, we're not debating the neutrality of this article, we're debating whether it is factually accurate to claim the majority of historians hold to the historicity of Jesus, so maybe the tag should be changed. And again, you can't seem to produce any sources countering the claim that that is what the consensus among historians is. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I'm on your side of this..... and, yes, consensus was reached on most of those edits. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For one, it's abundantly clear the old version no longer has consensus. So no, we should not leave it at that version while we work this out. The article is a work in progress and will gradually emerge as a new consensus version. -- ۩ Mask 23:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But there is no consensus on any new version, so why leave them up? Why not leave it alone until some new consensus is reached? Roy Brumback (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The addition of more Chrisitan sources and publishers, in response to concerns, e.g. "essentially all historians"

The contested sentence in the lead has now become: "essentially all historians believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence.[1]"

• Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for such a sweeping claim. It is different from saying that most scholars believe Jesus existed.
• Sources haves been added, all of them Christian theologians. This, in response to widespread concern about near-exclusive sourcing to the community of Christian theologians.
• In addition to Stanton (a theologian, not peer-reviewed), the sources are:
• Charles E. Carlston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3, "a view that no one holds in any case". The sentence fragment "a view no one holds" is unclear. Again, saying "everyone" believes Jesus existed differs from saying everyone believes it "can be established using documentary and other evidence."
• John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23. This is the "co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity, a media company that seeks to "promote the public understanding of the Christian faith". The publisher, Lion, is a Christian press: " specialising in Christianity, fiction, the church, the Bible". [9]

Folks, it is one thing to have a different opinion from others. It is quite another to continue ramming your opinion down the throats of others. Concern has been raised about the near-exclusive sourcing to the theological community. Please respect the concern, even if you don't agree with it.

If "essentially all historians" believe this, it should be easy to find statements from the community of essentially all historians. Instead, there are only sources from the Christian theological community. Noloop (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with scholars as it was before. Again, as before, there is no requirement for secular sourcing. Quit pushing this relentless POV. It is making it very very very hard to argue for a rewording and broader range of sources. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As above: I believe instead that there is a very strong case for including non-Christian sources along with the Christian ones, even if only to settle the issue. I'll dig in the discussion and add the relevant ones. --Cyclopia^talk 19:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I just changed this statement to "the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence." If we say "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history", or some such similar wording, we at least are being more specific than just saying "scholars in the relevant field". Let's name what that relevant field actually is. It is not correct to say "all historians" since many, if not most, historians have not studied this issue and have no official opinion on the matter. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Be careful everyone, you have now changed a cited statement. Does the cited source say "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history" or the original wording. Can anyone with the sources cited let us know what they exactly say, otherwise we risk having an inaccurate cite, and having accurate citations is far more important than achieving wording consensus among editors. And since no one has produced any source contradicting the original wording, just trying to pacify people who object to the statement isn't enough of a reason to mess with cited information. Roy Brumback (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the previous statement was not supported by the cites. I think the citations have been updated and more were added. I think the current statement accurately reflects what we can conclude from the current citations. All of the citations are individuals who are expressing their opinion that a majority of a certain group of people believes in an historical Jesus. Both the old version and the current version made an inference about the definition of that certain group of people (i.e. old version: "all scholars in the relevant fields" vs. new version: "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history" ). The sentence may still be overstating the case for a current consensus view on the historical Jesus; the cites all predate recent publications by Christ Myth Theory proponents Freke, Gandy, Price, and Doherty. The quote from Price is in the past tense, reflecting what Price believes the vast majority of scholars believed in the past. Nevertheless, I think this current phrasing may be a reasonable compromise. I am open to hearing other opinions, as always. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are tweaking the wording for this sentence, and we have much agreement on the sourcing. I don't think continued claims for standards above and beyond WP:RS from Noloop should be responded to further, per WP:SHUN. a peer-reviewed, secular source is not requred for WP:RS. We have found and discussed at least half a dozen different sources from a diverse group of sources published in different prominent, university and/or otherwise scholarly presses (especially Grant!, though that hasn't been added to the article yet). There is no suggestion from any source to believe anything otherwise. We have a couple individuals who hold minority views regarding the historicity of Jesus, but they are saying nothing of the state of the majority view (except for when the do!). This is not a situation where some scholars say X in the majority, while others say Y is the majority. Per WP:RS, we have no conflict in our cited sources, and we have no VALID reason, per Wikipedia policies, to discount the plethora of sources we have found. OK, time to move on. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What we have is an article that asserts its a fact Jesus existed and that is sourced almost entirely to Christians. Noloop (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost. That's a big improvement. --Cyclopia^talk 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't assert it's a fact he existed, it asserts that's what the majority of scholars and historians think, and they are not giving their opinion they are asserting a numerical fact, that the majority of group x concludes y. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? And these are people who spend all their professional lives dealing with historians and biblical scholars, so they would be experts on what the people in those fields conclude. Again, your only argument seems to be you don't trust them. If so, prove those statements false. Roy Brumback (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus' historical existence is established using the New Testament documents, the theoretical Q source upon which the synoptic gospels may have been based,[2][3] statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds." The article treats the existence as a fact. It does this by making factual references that involve Jesus, and by treating the idea that it's not a fact as a fringe theory. It does this mainly based on Christian sources. And, the fact that the sourcing is almost entirely Christian is hidden from the reader. Noloop (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know why this is "hidden" from the reader? Because wikipedia DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT. Is the source reliable? Yes? Then its ok. Period. End of story. Game over. That's it. There exists no policy, regulation, or even wiki-essay that says the bias of a source should factor into the acceptability of that source. Nor is there any policy that demands we make the reader aware of this bias - which is, by the way, your own personal opinion that they are biased. How many of these Christian historians were non-religious, recieved their education, concluded that Jesus was a real person and THEN became Christian? You cannot in any way reasonably call into question their motivations for believing Jesus was a real person. I will reiterate one more time - that most of the sources provided are Christians is about as relevant as the color of an elephant. They are WP:RS and that is all we need.Farsight001 (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)