The hardest-working, most experienced, most involved critic of this article has misgivings about mediation. Let's start now.
Is the CMT fringe?
If a consensus is reached to the effect this is a fringe theory, the article will need to make that clear in a way that is neutral. Once. Not over and over again in every nook and cranny. Sly, underhanded discredits like the top link in "See also" being to Bible conspiracy theory make you (whoever put it there) appear to be sleazy and contemptible. It gives the impression that you play dirty, that the quality of your argument against the theory is so weak you need to apply Fox News persuasion techniques. I'm sure none of that is the case. But that's the impression it gives. 

And the word fringe need not be used. The word in general parlance carries a derogatory implication (marginalized and nutty), whereas the way we use it, fringe theory is "not mainstream". Something like "the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream theologians and historians" conveys it's place in the field without stooping to derision.

Personally, judging only on the quotes provided by Eugene in the FAQ, which are opponents speaking, but includes one proponent (I think - did I delete him?) who concedes the view is considered eccentric, and in the absence of any counter evidence, I have no choice but to conclude it is a fringe theory. Can someone please explain to me why it is not?