You keep repeating this, I keep explaining it, and you keep ignoring the explanation and repeating the same complaint. Ehrman is not a reliable source on what all scholars believe. He is a borderline source on what historians believe, since he is not a historian. He is a religion professor. As editors, it should seem questionable that it is a fact all scholars agree on something when that something isn't supported by a single peer-reviewed secular journal. None of those concerns require sources. There are other things that matter to an encyclopedia.