Care to explain it to me? I'm serious, cos I honestly haven't a clue what the man (not you) was referring to.

And to what was Wright referring anyway? A non-canonical Gospel? Or the US presidential election? 

And why would Wright think a 'weighted average' (Of what exactly? Non-canonical texts? Political voters?) had a right to consider (What? Entitlement to inclusion in the biblical canon? It's political opinion?) anything higher than 'probably inauthentic'? (See my difficulty now?)

Sorry, but I find Wright a pompous, over-rated, hermeneutical windbag.