That was me. I struck it late last night (my time) at the end of a big edit but didn't want to start this discussion and then sign off. It shows up the synthesis nicely. Eugene, compared to you I know nothing about this stuff. I came here because it was mentioned at Fringe Theories and it looked interesting. I thought I might learn something. I have a moderate level of interest in the early church. I've read 
Crossan's Essential Jesus (1989), Historical Jesus (1993) and Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994); 
Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians (1988) and The Unauthorized Version (1992); 
Robert Miller's (ed.) The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (1994); 
Funk, Hoover & Jesus Seminar's The Five Gospels (1993); 
Ian Wilson's Jesus: The Evidence (1984); 
A.N.Wilson's Jesus (1992); 
Michael Goulder's A Tale of Two Missions (1994); 
Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus (1997); and 
Elaine Pagels' Gnostic Gospels (can't lay my hands on it for the date). 
Not very closely, and a long time ago. So my knowledge is general. I am relying on you, and others, for the specialist information that will make this a good article. What I have brought here is a critical mind and an understanding of policy honed in editing a few medical articles, where precision, clarity and neutrality are crucial. When I called this article crap the other day, I was judging it on those criteria. It is not clear and not neutral, so I doubt its veracity - as will anyone with half a mind who reads it. It is a bad article. If you want it to be good or featured, I recommend you welcome me, SV and the many other good editors who come here. It could be at GA in two weeks.