To Dr. Block:
“Readers can read the book(s) and make the call.” They can and they should I think. But let me consider your final line in the original blog entry: “Just take this as an initial indication that Jesus, Interrupted adds nothing new and understates or ignores much.” With such a closing line, I doubt many of your readers will even give Ehrman a chance to begin with, let alone read his book to fairly “judge which end of the scale is in play here” and “make the call” themselves.

“Here context also is important.” Yes it is! But nowhere in the context do you even hint that Ehrman actually tells the reader that Luke used Mark. You in fact, sharply state the polar opposite. “Now here is what Ehrman DOES NOT TELL the readers of his book. (1) Most scholars agree that Luke used Mark.” I understand the context of your attempted critique, but you cannot use it as an appeal in this case, because your context in NO way indicates that Erhman DOES TELL the readers of his book that Luke used Mark. A semantically correct and logically written point “(1)” might read something like this: Although Ehrman states throughout the book that most scholars think that Luke used Mark, Ehrman fails to tie this important idea into his argument in my opinion...Here are some reasons I have reached this conclusion...

I think we can both agree that my wording here paints a far more accurate and valid picture of the truth on this matter. If I (or you) were to then proceed by critiquing Ehrman's argument in this instance, my point “(1)” would state the case and be reinforced by the context of my argumentation. In your case Dr. Block, your point “(1)” actually contradicts what you claim that you meant for the context of your argument to state, because you clearly emphasize that “Ehrman DOES NOT tell the readers of his book,” yet say in defense to me that this is not actually what you meant to convey. If someone were to take your point “(1)” and interpret it through the context of your blog entry and had not personally read “Jesus, Interrupted,” then they would probably conclude that “Ehrman DOES NOT tell the readers of his book” that Luke used Mark and that Ehrman fails to tie in such important points regarding his claim that Mark and Luke present wholly different perspectives. Your point “1” even when interpreted fairly and in context of your entire blog post is still utterly in contradiction to the fact that Erhman DOES TELL the readers of his book that Mark used Luke.

“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.” Then why didn't you just say this to begin with! Why didn't you state this point? Why did you emphatically and tersely state that he “DOES NOT tell the readers of his book?” This is demonstrably not true. He DOES tell the readers, however, in your opinion, he does not explain it's significance. “So, simply put, I stand by the points made.” I truly wonder how you can stand by such points. I think that if you were embracing humility, honesty and integrity, you would admit to your mistakes and poor choice of words, as your wording clearly gives a patently false impression in the specific instance(s) that I have pointed out.

Another mistake you make regarding a simple fact that I haven't yet brought to your attention can be seen near the beginning of your blog post: “It packages what scholars have been saying for two decades.” Ehrman's book packages what scholars have been saying for two CENTURIES. Scholars have been making such points for TEN TIMES “two decades.”

By the way, thank you for taking the time to respond to my critiques thus far. I only now wish that you would humbly correct certain parts of your blog entry that appear quite poorly worded and give an impression that isn't valid. In my humble opinion, it is absurd to think that your readers will come across a point such as, “Now here is what Ehrman DOES NOT TELL the readers of his book. (1) Most scholars agree that Luke used Mark,” and come to the understanding based on your “context” that Erhman DOES in fact state that Luke used Mark.