::You are not dealing with the problem. The claim in version #2 above is that the division is contextualized by some scholars seeing the passage as a reference to Jesus while others not. #1 has Van Voorst claiming 'there is "near-unanimous" agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus here refers to Christ'. Which is it? Is there a division about the passage referring to Jesus or is it "near-unanimous" agreement that it does?? They go well together: #2 is just another bullet in the carcass of #1. 

 ::The claim of confusion is a separate issue which you link to the "historical value" of the passage (and then to #2's division). The claim of confusion is unfalsifiable, which means that it has little value other than interesting conjecture for the point of view positing the claim, ie it's purely POV.