Кстати Барт Эрман, книгу которого предлают здесь обсудить, тоже из бывших христиан.

Даже гораздо больше - он считал себя "рождённым свыше" :

"Ehrman recounts becoming a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager."

"He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.

Это сразу заставляет относиться к нему с большой настороженностью.

Ну и мнения коллег достаточно скептические:

Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw have disputed Ehrman's depiction of scholarly consensus, saying: "It is only by defining scholarship on his own terms and by excluding scholars who disagree with him that Ehrman is able to imply that he is supported by all other scholarship." Michael R. Licona, notes, however, that "his thinking is hardly original, as his positions are those largely embraced by mainstream skeptical scholarship".

Gary Kamiya states in Salon that "Ehrman’s scholarly standing did not soothe the evangelical Christians who were outraged by Misquoting Jesus. Angered by what they took to be the book’s subversive import, they attacked it as exaggerated, unfair and lacking a devotional tone. No less than three books were published in response to Ehrman’s tome". In 2014, Zondervan published How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature: A Response to Bart D. Ehrman as a planned companion volume to Ehrman's How Jesus Became God. The contributing authors—including Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, and Simon Gathercole—present Ehrman as "prone to profound confusion, botched readings and scholarly fictions." Bird writes, "For conservative Christians, Ehrman is a bit of a bogeyman, the Prof. Moriarty of biblical studies, constantly pressing an attack on their long-held beliefs about God, Jesus, and the Bible.... For secularists, the emerging generation of 'nones' (who claim no religion, even if they are not committed to atheism or agnosticism), Ehrman is a godsend."

Кроме глубокой личной ангажированности, ему ставится в вину и то, как писал Simon Gathercole, что - "настоящий Эрман это «склонный к глубокой неразберихе, неудачным чтениям и научной фантастике".

На мой взгляд это нечто из того, что, как вы сказали раньше, "можно читать, можно не читать".

Что - то вроде фантастики для чтения в самолёте или поезде.