I don't even know where to start, Jimmy! My intent in pointing to the Wallace article was not to play the name-accumulation game. I intended for you to read the article and see why Ehrman's view of John 1:18 doesn't pass muster. But, of course, I assumed you knew that. Furthermore, please note that my comments regarding Ehrman were confined to one thing: John 1:18! Your insinuation that I was undermining the totality of Ehrman's work is misrepresentation of the highest order. I, in fact, have a great deal of respect for Ehrman's work as a textual critic and I often refer to his work in my own research. What's more, your implication that criticizing a viewpoint is tantamount to slandering a person (or, according to you, everyone who disagrees with me at some point theologically!) is miles off base. Where did I say that Ehrman is not a bona fide scholar or that genuine Jewish scholars (to whom I avail myself much) are idiots? As for the article you dug up on Wallace, consider the source! The KJV-only crowd hardly represents responsible scholarship. If you're seriously slapping that alongside the criticism Wallace had of Ehrman's work on John 1:18 and considering them equal, then there's truly no hope for fruitful discussion. Jimmy, your method of argumentation reminds me of Bible study groups where everyone disagrees while shouting, "That's just your interpretation!" Such a statement implies that all interpretations are created equal, and that's simply not true. At some point, we need to get around to actually evaluating evidence. That is the responsibility that accompanies the academic freedom we both relish.