To Dr. Bock:
Ehrman is another one of these sources, he just seems to be slightly better (IMHO) that many other figures at communicating and explaining such ideas to the public at large. Many people probably have heard of the Jesus Seminar, but hearing about their existence and general ideas is a long shot away from actually reading and studying their ideas. Ehrman implies that he is repeating “old arguments,” but “old” need not necessitate or imply invalid. We're dealing with arguments pertaining to ancient writings, not a modern day computer that becomes outdated and obsolete seemingly overnight.

I'd like to clarify that I never said all pastors, so if that seemed like my implication, I apologize. From experience, however, both with pastors within churches that I have attended hundreds of times and amongst friends and family (many of them living far away and attending different churches), I was never exposed to anything like the material presented in “Jesus, Interrupted” until I started studying the Bible at the university level.

I agree that the story of the old women is anecdotal evidence, but that doesn't make it wholly invalid. I have made many similar observations. You may find your point convincing on paper, but really, if you were to question many Christians about some of the points Ehrman raises in his latest book, you may be surprised at how many of them have never even heard or read, let alone studied and considered such ideas.

“Informing? Apparently not. Crusading? Perhaps.”
I am willing to agree that Ehrman is "crusading," as he is working hard to advance ideas. Even though he is technically "crusading" that does not mean he isn't also informing. The act of crusading does not negate the act of informing. In fact, Dr. Block, your argument doesn't seem to make semantical or logical sense, since by definition, "crusading" in this context necessitates the advancement of ideas (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crusade). For every single person that encounters even just ONE of these ideas for the first time, Ehrman will by definition, be informing that individual. For every person who is aware of such arguments, and finds Ehrman's explanations and defenses to be informative, Ehrman will by definition, be informing that person.

Lastly, your above statement not only seems to fail logical examination, but it seems to be a bit "out of bounds" for you to think that you are in a position to question his motives to begin with. Are you in the business of projecting your opinions about other people's motives to your readers? People need to be informed, and thanks to Ehrman, they are being informed, and will continue to be.