Still less is known about his father, whose name may have been Paṇi, but most scholars reject this suggestion.

However, due to the many issues the site raises, several scholars have rejected its validity.

Islamic and Western scholars have rejected these claims, one even calling them "insulting".

Most scholars reject this view as there is little evidence that the author of Matthew had read Paul's works.

As seen above, many scholars reject the validity of the Orosius date.

Almost all modern Muslim scholars have rejected the story.

Most modern scholars reject this view of the temptation.

Other scholars either reject this or regard it as unprovable.

Yet most scholars reject the view that Jonson is the author of the 1602 additions.

Both of these assumptions are tenuous at best, and most scholars reject them.