
I was going to stay out of this one, but I thought I'd comment with a couple of things that occurred to me, and really say more about me that about Ermann, Carrier or any other commentator.
Objectivity is not impossible. The idea of whating to know (as credibly as possible) the truth, never mind whether it is what one likes or not, is a real thing. That said, it isn't easy to eliminate bias. But then, some implicit bias is valid, such as the bias towards a natural explanation. Because that is the way things work, the physical processes that science has shown and is the basis of the materialist default, which is logically valid, no matter how much the believers in the supernatural might prefer to pretend that supernatural explanations (never mind their own preferred supernatural explanation, dismissing all the others out of hand) are equally valid.
We've all seen it:- 'Agree to differ', 'My opinion is as valid as yours' and similar ploys to allow the Believer to escape with their Faith intact.
Sorry - not wishing to be impolite, but Bias is inbuilt in the Faithbased apologetics, and the scientific/Materialist basis is valid and proven and is the logical default putting the burden of proof on the claimant. Which is why atheism (as it is and not the strawman definition of Theism) is logically valid and the default of 'agnosticism').
This is intended to explain the sort of bias that is justified whereas faithbased bias is not.
So, Bart Ehrmann, and indeed Richard Carrier. I have read little of the views of either. I am rather going my own way and I might be surprised. But really, I reckon if there was any apologetic to make me sit up and rethink - on either side, I've have heard it by now.
So I won't rehash my own Pet Theory but will just touch on the case for and against an historical Jesus.
First off, an Historical Jesus doesn't have to be Gospel Jesus. If..if there was a real Jesus as the basis of the gospel figure, The Christian Jesus is not who it was. It has to be (going by the evidence under the cover -up) a Pharisee - zealot failed messiah and good reason for all the cancel culture the early Christian writers engaged in. And that's my story and I ain't changing it for nobody

)
On the not real and totally mythical side, there is a total lack of historical validation. Philo is totally silent. An (evident) spurious potted bio. of Jesus had to be written into Josephus as he originally said nothing. Tacitus is the ONLY extra - Biblical writer whom I trust did mention Jesus, but the fact that he said that Pilate was a Procurator rather than Prefect shows that he is commenting on the claims of the Christians rather than historical sources he could trust.
So Carrier or Ehrmann, I tend to credit a real Jesus too, but not one that Christians liked, so they changed what they could - but couldn't change that he was not born in Bethlehem but in Galilee, nor that he wasn't killed by the Sanhedrin but by the Romans. But what they
could do was write some crummy excuses to wangle Jesus into Bethlehem and blame the Jews for forcing Rome to kill Jesus. And nobody ain't going to change my views on that either.
Bias? Nope - evidence. '
What would make you change your mind?' they say. It is too late. Water under the bridge. Just as no evidence is likely to pop up proving that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, I see no evidence that will validate Genesis (1) make the sun stand still or make OT god credible or indeed make the flawed and incredible or Uncredible Gospels or Acts believable. There is no point in this question any more.
So
my bottom line - you can opt for your own bottoms - is that real Jesus or Mythological Jesus, is irrelevant and whichever, the Gospel Jesus is not a credible one. And that I assert is quite apart from Bias, justified or not. It is based on the evidence, not preference. And I don't doubt that other commentators can do it as well, even if they do have books to sell.
Apologies (well, slightly

) for the long post, thank you for your patience, hit the like button or subscribe. And consider leaving a tip in the jar beside the like button.
(1) I have to recall the debate with
otseng than with whom no better case for the Flood has been made in my recollection, but it wasn't good enough even to make the case for the selected points (ignoring for instance fossil sequences) and using the limited table top hydroplate model that (as seen in a later exchange with another poster) does not work when applied ocean - size to a round earth.