(1) An apocalyptic dimension? That's a pretty tepid concession. Ehrman sees Jesus as driven by his apocalyptic eschatology. Both Ehrman and Dale Allison, with whom he has much in common, are writing updates, sans the historiography, of Schweitzer's view of the historical Jesus. The members of the Jesus Seminar explicitly reject this portrait, opting to go along with Crossan's idea that Jesus was a sapiential eschatologist. Huge difference. At least it seems that way to me.

As for Ehrman's "sloppy portrayal of how orality works," his methods and assumptions do strike me as different from yours and Richard Bauckham's. As a layman, I have no idea who is right. But I don't see that his understanding of orality is dramatically different from other prominent Jesus scholars, such as Ed Sanders, John Meier, or even Tom Wright. But maybe I'm missing something.

(2) I will assume that your point was intended as rhetorical flourish. You wouldn't be blogging about Ehrman, writing books responding to Ehrman, or trying to knock down Ehrman were he not a best-selling author. And he wouldn't be a best-selling author without his personal story. He would be no more popular than his mentor, Bruce Metzger, whose work was invaluable but generally obscure.

Perhaps you should market your own bio with your scholarship, though I don't think it would have as much popular appeal. (Consult Tony Dungy or Rick Warren for ways to get on the best-seller lists.)

My point was that you were arguing particulars regarding "Jesus, Interrupted" without addressing the key issue: His story and ideas are intended as an attack on evangelical Christianity. J.I. "is about how certain types of faith -- particularly the faith in the Bible as the historically inerrant and inspired word of God -- cannot be sustained . . . "

No surprise Ehrman's books are selling well at a time when an increasing number of Americans are leaving the faith, to bring this around to the Newsweek piece.