::::I added a citation to Tuckett 2001 to help alleviate any concerns you may have with the claim: [].  Remember that WP:RS is about identifying reliable sources, and there are many grounds on which a source can be reliable. The sections you are quoting are about specific grounds.  If a ground is undermined on any such consideration, a source can still be considered reliable on other grounds.  I too don't think Blomberg is the best source, but I wouldn't say he has no background in history.  He has monographs on Early Christian history which have some legitimacy (i.e., critical reviews, but not dismissive), and then he has papers in good journals.  His PhD dissertation at Duke was semi-historical (i.e., he weighs the historical value of the different accounts of the baptism) along with being theological. Certainly I think he would be the type of person that Ehrman for example would call a "bona fide scholar". (Also just for future reference: WP:RS is a content guideline and not a policy; thinking all those sorts of pages are policies was certainly something I thought before someone corrected me).  ,