So, Ehrman says that in the first century, C. E., there was a guy whose name was Yeshua and that he proclaimed that he was the messiah and the son of god and that he preached and had a few followers who believed him. Not sure that is worth writing a book about. Yeshua was a very common (Aramaic) name at that time. It seems that every Tom, Dick, and Harry was named Jeshua in those days. Also, prophesying was pretty much the MTV of that time. (Hey Marty, what do you feel like doing tonight? I don't know. Why don't we go downtown, grab a pizza, and listen to some prophets. Might meet some cool chicks that way.)
There is much evidence from the bible itself that the biblical Jesus is a composite of at least two and probably several such self proclaimed profits of that time. The (minimal) two prophets would have come from Nazareth and Bethlehem. The birth story doesn't, by itself, make any sense. The only reason the Romans would have called for a census is for the purpose of taxation. The taxes they imposed were a hearth tax and taxes on crops and businesses. They would only be interested in where people lived and worked, not where they were born. The journey of Mary and Joseph and the nativity scene is obviously a literary device to conjoin two distinct preachers (possibly both named Yeshua) into one savior. The mythologizing process often borrows (or creates) good stories from other heroes to aggrandize the subject of the myth. This practice is still prevalent today.
Particularly specious is Ehrman's contention that a crucified Jesus would be unpalatable to potential converts. The existence today of over one billion christians proves that false. And religions, myths, and epic biographies are replete with gods and heros torn apart, cut to pieces, or otherwise spindled, stapled, or mutilated. That seems to be more a standard requirement for godhood than an exception. Besides, the crucifixion is essential for the main selling point of the story: the salvation and redemption in the end. Shit happens, but then god will wash you off (if you believe and support the church.)
There is one thing that I have always been curious about. Depictions of the crucifixion always show Jesus nailed to the cross, but the two thieves tide to their crosses. Crucifixion, which goes back at least to the sixth century BCE Persians, is really a form of slow strangulation, similar to garroting, and where ever it is described (other than the bible) the victim is tied to the cross. Would the Romans have used nails? Remember that at that time nails were hand wrought by a blacksmith using a hot coked fire and were considered very expensive commodities. Are there any other examples of nails being used by the Romans for crucifixion? Just curious about this. It has no bearing on the thread.
™ Version 4.2
