I'm not willing to put it down to difference of interpretation. A lot of Ehrman's arguments rest on silly assumptions. He calls variants between gospel accounts contradictions, when in reality they're easily answered by providing proper context.
Ach, come on, WW, as much as you crusade on Ehrman to making sweeping statements, you're doing the same here. Isn't the different order of sequences between John and the other gospels problematic? Isn't the different genealogy of Jesus problematic?
Ehrman makes the point that writers inserted information they deemed necessary, for various reasons. That is the overall point of the book, and to brush away those often striking differences is disingenuous to the purpose.
He does, indeed, distort history. Multiple times throughout the book he adjudicates an ancient text's validity by imposing modern literary standards on it. For example, he insists that the Gospels should all agree chronologically. Since they don't, they're unreliable. But writers from the first century didn't care as much about precise order of events as we do today. He knows that but decides not to disclose it.
"Writers from the first century didn't care as much about precise order of events as we do today". That's a pretty hefty statement, right there. What did they care about then? That is, what can be assumed to be correct? Was the message important? Was the persuasion of the recipient deemed most important?
From the literal analysis it seems that the factual accuracy often took the backseat behind the proselytization potential. John went all balls out and re-interpreted everything under a new grand theological scheme. And Paul too completely re-invented the theology around Jesus, away from the imminent coming of the Kingdom that defined earliest Christianity. All that is clearly reflected in the different accounts of Jesus' ministry, and the later writings. Every writer re-interpreted the existing stories and texts into what they deemed was best for the cause.
And that's what Ehrman claims.
rumborak