He gives a good summary:
Jesus was not a mere man who only later became God; rather, God took on humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Within a short decade or two, the early Christians understood Jesus’ identity was intrinsic to the identity of Israel’s God and that he wasn’t a second or lesser god but instead part of God’s own being and identity and thus a fitting object of worship. Also, the types of Christology Ehrman discounts as contradictory are found side by side, even intertwined, in individual New Testament books like John and Colossians. Apparently, these biblical authors held both views simultaneously without considering them contradictory. This evidence calls into question Ehrman’s trajectory from exaltation to incarnation Christologies, then, as many New Testament authors would have to be internally conflicted for his thesis to be correct.
All in all, the assessment of Ehrman’s work by this formidable phalanx of scholars is rather sobering. On a historical level, his arguments are refuted time and again, supported by compelling evidence. This carefully coordinated critique meets Ehrman, who presents himself first and foremost as a historian, at his own perceived area of greatest strength. On a theological level, Ehrman’s way of connecting the dots is exposed as a contrived exercise that has a degree of surface plausibility but evaporates upon closer historical scrutiny and a more balanced and comprehensive reading of all the relevant texts.