In this answer to those who claim Jesus never existed in any form, Ehrman worries that his skeptic fans will be put off by this book while his fundamentalist detractors will find more to their liking than usual.

I can't speak for the Christians, but I suspect if they don't like Ehrman's approach to Jesus in his previous books I doubt they'll find much solace in his defense of the historical Jesus.

I can't really speak to his normal, god non-fearing fans either, since I am only myself, but I will say that for me the appeal of Ehrman is his methodical approach to scholarship. Yes, I take pleasure in knowing that the bible is provably full of fictions, but from the first Ehrman book I've read I've been fascinated by the idea of painstakingly comparing documents to feret out the truth. I suspect I would find this as interesting with other, non-Christian documents, but I'm familiar enough with the bible that it's a more satisfying subject that, say, a study of Plato, who I've barely read.

The nice thing about this book is Ehrman isn't going over too much familiar ground. One problem with his books is that he often repeats a lot of information, but because this book isn't concerned with religious philosophy, but is simply concerned with gleaning useful information and discounting the "mythicists" who say Jesus was made up. His approach is painstaking, taking every little argument and dissecting it, and making a persuasive case that there is a solid body of evidence that there was a Jewish rabbie named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.

I haven't read any mythicist books, so perhaps their authors would object that he phrased their arguments poorly or cherry-picked data. Who knows? But it's an enjoyable, well written book.