`  :#The section is entitled ``Gospels``, and speaks of what they have to offer in terms of whether or not Jesus existed.  Let the synpotic problem be dealt with there...that's certainly appropriate.  But redirect ``Gospels`` to Gospels.  Anything else is clearly POV. :#Mark 16 does have bearing, but the accounts in Matthew and Luke (and even John) are independent of Mark, so Mark 16 is but one issue among many.  Even the ``shorter ending`` implies that something happened (no body, for instance).  But none of this is mentioned.  Why?  POV. :#Pagels is already discussed earlier in the article...why mention her and her views twice? Mention it once...that Pagels believes there's a Gnostic factor, which the rest of mainstream scholarship refutes.  Then move on.  Why bring it up...almost verbatim...again?  POV. :#Again, mention Paul, that we can't really say a whole lot because of the authorship question (which is legitimate), and move on.  Why bring in more radical, less accepted fringe ideas?  POV. :#I am a fan of legitimate Biblical scholarship.  I believe in the four source theory of the Pentateuch; I don't believe in a literal 6-day creation or in Noah's Ark; I don't believe any of the Gospels to have been written by the men whose names they bear; I believe that the Pastorals and several other Pauline letters are pseudonymous.  I am no conservative.  What I don't like is POV pushing and fringe claims in the name of scholarship.  It is disingenuous and inaccurate.  We can do better on Wikipedia.     :: Why is this discussion taking place here and not at Talk:Historicity of Jesus? I can see alerting editors here to concerns about that related article, but the detailed discussion should be over there, IMO.    :I agree.     == This woodwork picture ==  What's the deal here?  Do we want this or not?  Keeps getting added and taken away and now it's vandalism....I'm confused.  What are people's opinion in this regard.  I for one have no problem with it and am, frankly, at a loss, as to why this seems to be an issue.  Am I missing something?    :It's an issue because there are no records of what Jesus looked like, so it is best not to have a guess in the intro.  If we want that picture, than put it somewhere other than the intro.  I think the picture's wierd.  So I don't want it at all. And it doesn't make any sense, because there's no evidence that Jesus' disciples were children during his ministry.    Yeah OK I can see that.  I'm not sure that I buy the arguments that we can't have any picture in the intro, but I agree that this one is not the best.  Anyone else?    ::I wonder whether we could have a montage of a number of different representations? That could look rather good and get across the fact that we don't know what he looked like and that people see Jesus in many different ways.    :::I kinda like this pic, from a BBC special.  But I defer.     == Ok OK let's talk this through ==  There is some dispute and edit warring concerning whether the phrasie ``(though there is no other record of such)`` should be included in the following sentence:  Then, following what the Bible says was a Passover tradition (though there is no other record of such), Pilate offered the crowd a choice of which prisoner to free — Jesus of Nazareth, or an insurrectionist named Jesus Barabbas.    I have researched this, lightly, and it looks like most claim that there is no other record of this tradition apart from the Bible.  So I can see where Jay is coming from.  However, doesn't the phrase ``what the Bible says`` kind of cover that issue.  Why say it twice in parantheses.  That doesn't strike me as encyclopedic and seems to inject some POV into a statement that already, essentially, gets that point across.  How about adding commas so it reads: ``Then, following what, the Bible says, was a Passover tradition Pilate offered the crowd a choice of which prisoner to free — Jesus of Nazareth, or an insurrectionist named Jesus Barabbas.  That emphasizes it a bit more.    Or how about parantheses so it reads: ``Then, following (what the Bible says was) a Passover tradition (though there is no other record of such), Pilate offered the crowd a choice 