To Dr. Bock:
I agree fully that there is nothing wrong with being an advocate for a point of view. My qualm was specifically directed at your statement about Ehrman's motive(s): “One has to wonder when an author admits to providing nothing new in a book what the motive is for writing. Informing? Apparently not. Crusading? Perhaps.” I've already pointed out that excluding “informing” while asserting “crusading” doesn't make semantical sense. I've also pointed out that you seem to be “out of bounds” in speculating about his motives. Further, simply because one presents “old hat” doesn't mean he isn't informing. What is common knowledge to one person is often news to another. The reality is that this book is addressed at the general public, not at scholars and academics, hence it will probably be informing to many individuals, especially those of an evangelical Christian persuasion.

“Informing in a book often means making available such new information.”
It is “new” to anyone who hasn't heard or read of it before. Ehrman's point is that this information has been known and accepted widely by critical scholars for over a hundred years, but that scholars have done a poor job communicating such material to the general public. Yes there are books available on the subject, but the problem of people being unfamiliar with such material still seems to exist. As Ehrman notes in his book regarding the 300-350 new students he tests every semester, many who do poorly on a basic “bible knowledge” exam, proving that they are not being taught such information in their churches or Sunday school classes. For the most part they are simply not getting exposed to such information until the university level. Being a popular and widely read author makes Ehrman a great vehicle to achieve an informing of the general public on matters of this genre.

“I am content to let people judge which end of the scale is in play here.”
Then perhaps you will not only cease speculating about his motives and erroneously claiming that he is not informing (“Informing? Apparently not.”), but you'll do the respectable thing and correct such errors in your blog post.

Now that I've actually read over your “points” regarding Jesus' Death, I see that you fail to get certain facts straight. One example will suffice for now: “Now here is what Ehrman does not tell the readers of his book. (1) Most scholars agree that Luke used Mark.”
This is patently false Dr. Bock. Ehrman makes this point emphatically clear on atleast two occasions in the book. One example of this can be seen on page 39, which appears before the argument you attempt to critique. “...scholars have long known that Matthew and Luke got a number of their stories from Mark, one of their key sources...”

Even more embarrassing for you is that on page 64, the opening page of Ehrman's argument about the differences of Jesus' death in Mark and Luke, the text says this: “Both Mathew and LUKE, writing fifteen to twenty years later, USED MARK AS ONE OF THEIR SOURCES FOR MUCH OF THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS.” Contrast this to your erroneous claim that Ehrman does not tell his readers that Luke used Mark. The strength of your argumentation is summarized quite nicely in this refutation of your first “point.”