Jonathan:

I am not going to go round and round with you about whether my reading of Ehrman's motive is on target or not. Readers can read the book(s) and make the call. I will only note that other works were also addressed to the genral public and TV specials I noted played to millions (a much larger audience than the number of sales of Ehrman's books). Please keep my context in mind (why publishers normally publish books and what is out there and has been in circulation in a variety of media). One of the things a counter response like yours does that is helpful is to allow for give and take and the elaboration of the context of the original remarks.

I am going to respond to the claim that I have not presented the facts right on Jesus' death. Here context also is important. Yes, Ehrman does note in other points in the book that Luke used Mark. This is the common position, and one that I and Ehrman both hold. Yes, he refers to their relationship in setting up this discussion, but he makes nothing of it, when it is a key thing to bring into play. My point was that in discussing that this specific text in question that that element in the equation and how it works is not noted. So the point is not that Ehrman never tells us this, but that he does not use that point as a part of the scenario he is describing here (which is in play as far as both of us are concerned). In Ehrman's presentation of this material, we simply look at Luke on its own and Mark on its own. We do not bring into play where the alternate saying in Luke appears in the Marcan sequence (at the place of the second cry), something a comparison of the texts with the awareness of Luke's use of Mark in the background would make clear. We also ignore, as I noted, the places where Luke has shown Jesus' despair on going to the cross, something Ehrman suggests is not present in Luke. So, simply put, I stand by the points made.