How can I take any historian seriously who claims that the winner of the 2000 Presidential election is not clear?
There are some who would claim the same reason (personal prejudices) restrains them from believing/taking serious the Historian Josephus. It's an excuse in their never-ending search for the 'exception clause' in the 'responsible for your indulgences' contract God has with we descendants of Adam, the same contract he has offered the Christ codicil for.
I would not take too serious what or how Ehrman interpretes or spins the material and documents he has gather, but to have access your self to the documents or at least leads to get the original word for word, and than you can with you knowledge of scriputres and process it yourself!