The answer of course is yes there is excellent historical evidence for the Resurrection.
Ehrman seems to reject it because of emoition rather than reason. His argument seems to be from my scanning that historians can't consider the existence of God so they can't consider the occurrance of miracles so the they can't accept the Resurrection. This, of course, is silly.
If you factor in God, the Resurrection becomes a near certainty based on the historical evidence.
Indeed! Once the objections are unpacked and analyzed, it turns out that most skeptics are operating under a presupposition in favor of naturalistic explanations for everything and against the supernatural. "It cannot be that God exists and Jesus is who he claimed to be, so it must be something else" appears to be the rule. Thus, it is a matter of will- the willl not to follow the evidence whereever it leads.
And there is the great irony. Christian believers are said to be narrow-minded, but it turns out it is the extreme skeptics who are unable to open their minds to the possibility that this physical world is not all there is. God's sense of humor, demonstrated again!
How can I take any historian seriously who claims that the winner of the 2000 Presidential election is not clear?