[Eromereorybig]

Sounds to me like the quibble is with the Buddha, not Venerable Bodhi.

Strikes me that the Buddha would not teach that which is not important. The Pali Canon is filled with teachings emphasising rebirth. Back then there were differing opinions of what happened after death - still today there are differing understandings of what happens after death. It was important then to the Buddha to teach about it or he would not have. It was Right Speech then and it is Right Speech now.

If it is not important to you - why quibble with the Venerable? Just let it be.

Views or understandings are important enough to be one of the main parts of the Eight Fold path - and there is a time and place to be "stuck on views". I'm "stuck" to the Path until the end is reached.

To teach a view or understanding as presented by the Buddha is not a fault.

By your standards - Nibbana must not be a part of Buddhadhamma - or do you wish to announce to all your direct verification? Should kamma and dependent origination be dropped from all Buddhist teachings because most of us cannot directly verify them? These are important Buddhist views and we are remiss in neglecting them.

Metta