Believing that what got written down in the Gospels is historically accurate is not the same thing as understanding that the oral histories point compellingly to an actual historical Jesus.

Ehrman has never claimed the oral histories are accurate. In fact, he claims that their very inaccuracies (in specific, predictable, obvious ways) lend creedence to the existence of authentic oral traditions that must contain a kernel of historic truth.

That's a pretty universally accepted scholarly view. Qualified scholars are sure Jesus existed. The details of what Jesus did in life and the details of what he taught are much harder to to be sure about. Ehrman has some pretty definite ideas, and he argues persuasively for them from the evidence. But he doesn't argue that his ideas about the details must be true, not like he argues that the historical existence of Jesus must be true.