Since someone asked about Ehrman (I'm not TC, but I did an undergrad in Religious Studies with a focus on early/formative Christianity and the Greco-Roman context)...
His stuff isn't bad, and typically fairly well researched, but he certainly has some biases that you have to take into account (as do all authors on the subject, let's be honest). With Ehrman, the biases tend to be that his books are written for the general public. In other words, he's trying to make a splash, so he's not going to couch his terms or present multiple interpretations of the existing data/information. Even when he probably should. You're getting what he's selling, and with these books (especially the later ones), what he's selling is a book intended to get the interest of people who want to disprove the claims of Christianity. In my opinion, he also has a very strong personal belief (as opposed to academic belief) about the things he's advocating for or against, and sometimes that leads him to make strong cases for things that really according to the evidence, aren't that strong.
His stuff is kinda like reading a book which is intended to popularize ... I dunno, neuroscience. There's good stuff in there, yes, but it's typically oversimplified and doesn't necessarily give equal treatment to all of the areas that it should. However, if you pair his stuff with some complementary reading that expresses contrary viewpoints, they're worth a read. And, unlike many academic books, it
is an easier read
