`Andrew, I don't like disagreeing with you, or with Rubenstein. Let's see if we can reach some understanding. You say ``trying to spin together what ALL SCHOLARS say about Jesus is pure pandemonium.`` I haven't heard anyone suggest that we attempt such a work. I surely haven't. All I want to summarize is what the scholars say the gospels say about Jesus (as opposed to what the WP editors say the gospels say about Jesus). For example, William Wrede established the messianic secret c 1901, the theme in Mark that Jesus hides his divine identity. Wrede further concluded that Mark treats Jesus' identity as a secret to accommodate the fact that Jesus never claimed to be divine in the first place. The gospel section on this page should include half this information, the raw fact of the messianic secret. The second half, that Wrede and scholars in his tradition have an unflattering explanation for why there is a messianic secret, is a second order of interpretation and doesn't belong here. What the last supper is, sure. How it's similar to pagan memorial meals and unappealing to Jewish sensibilities, no. That Luke and Matthew have very different birth stories? Sure. That fictitious miraculous birth stories were frequently appended to the lives of saints? No. We don't have to say everything. But when we summarize what the gospels say about Jesus, we should (as we do everywhere) let the scholars guide us and cite them. I could go further and say that this whole section is out of place. Are we talking about historical Jesus and Christian Jesus? If historical Jesus, then the gospel section would be very different. If the Christian Jesus, then move the section under Christian view. Rbreen is right that this section implicitly carries the weight of a ``history`` or ``biography`` section, but its actual identity is ambivalent. Which ``Jesus`` are we talking about? That said, as long as this section has scholarship behind it, I won't make a fuss about scripture standing in place of biography.     `