What Really Happened

The earliest gospels say that after Jesus was arrested the male disciples fled. Only Christ's female followers, such as Mary Magdalene, remained on the scene. Therefore much of what we know about the trial and crucifixion of Jesus is based on the testimony of the women. It was, however, undoubtedly modified by the men, notably Cephas (Peter) after they returned to Jerusalem, or came out of hiding. They certainly had an agenda and reasons to change, or make up, many things.
Those who had visions of the "resurrected" Jesus were so deeply impressed they were determined to convert as many people as possible. So great was their determination, or missionary zeal, they were prepared to let the end justify the means. That meant inventing stories to make Jesus appear more exalted than he really was. Since Jesus "definitely was the messiah, as god had raised him from the dead," it was important that people everywhere accept him. Early christians would stop at nothing to achieve this. They had no problem with telling lies to make converts.
Miracle stories are a classic example of this. So are tales which say Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Like so much else, they were fiction, to "fulfill prophecy." The prophet Micah had foretold the messiah would come from Bethlehem, so "Luke" and "Matthew" made up stories of how Jesus was born there. The so called triumphal entry into Jerusalem is also a fabrication (had Jesus been hailed as king he would've been arrested on the spot).
The most important inventions of all, however, were intended to hide the awful truth of what happened to the body of Jesus. He was almost certainly eaten by scavengers. Of course, that created an inconsistency with the resurrection narratives, the chief basis of christianity. How could Jesus appear to his disciples if he had been consumed? There were two ways to resolve the problem. Some said he had risen only spiritually, since his body was eaten. But the "official" approach was to obscure the facts about his demise with a burial narrative.
About 25 years after Christ, Paul disputed the claims of some christians who said they were enjoying a spiritual resurrection already. These claims reflected an inability to suppress the truth, yet. Aware of reports that Jesus had been consumed, some believers felt the resurrection had to have been spiritual, and they could participate already. The christian bigwigs didn't like this. Convinced like Cephas, he had seen Jesus himself not a spirit, Paul insisted the resurrection was bodily and hadn't happened to his followers yet. To help Paul's view win out, his supporters had to show that Jesus had risen bodily. Probably by the year 60 CE they made up the story of the empty tomb of Jesus. That of course clearly implied a bodily resurrection. They also made up stories about those who allegedly buried christ. One passage in Acts says the Jewish authorities (the Sanhedrin) interred him. This story, which predated the tale of Joseph of Arimathea, must have originated quite soon, possibly within a few years of the crucifixion. Believing Jesus had been exalted to the highest status, beside god, the apostles did not want anyone to know he ended up as dog food. So they made up the story of the Jewish authorities burying him (the male disciples, having fled, couldn't have interred him and nor did Jesus have any family members in Jerusalem to do it). Later, by the time of Mark's gospel, c 70 CE, the burying was the work of a single figure, who is named, Joseph of Arimathea. (That both Joseph and an empty tomb are fictional is implied by Paul's lack of mention of either, despite their importance.) Peter and James learned details of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus from the women followers but told them to keep quiet about the true fate of christ's body, and adhere to an initial burial narrative (later modified) involving the whole council or Sanhedrin. Inevitably, however, the truth leaked out and took time to erase.

An Ignominious End

Like his earlier works, Ehrman's How Jesus Became God casts doubt on much of the New Testament. For centuries, people have been brainwashed into thinking Jesus was taken down from the cross right after he died, and placed in a tomb, which on the third day was found empty. In fact, this narrative is fictional. The (likely) truth is much more grim.
It is noteworthy that the earliest christian writings, those of Paul, do not mention christ's putative undertaker, Joseph of Arimathea, or an empty tomb. (Nor do they mention "miracles.") All of these were invented by later gospel writers. So what really happened to the corpse?
 Renowned scholar J. D. Crossan suggests Jesus was eaten by dogs. Ehrman says we can't be sure what happened, but scavenging by vultures or dogs was far more likely than a decent burial, for several reasons.
First, it was standard Roman practice to leave the condemned on the cross to be eaten by birds. Or, if the body had to be taken down soon after death, it was dumped and left for the dogs. Interestingly, the crucifixion occurred at a place called golgatha ("skull"). The name suggests it was littered with human remains. That would be further evidence against the gospel version, since bodies were evidently just left there. Ehrman pointed out that golgatha may have just looked like a skull. But for a place of execution to happen to look like a skull seems too much of a coincidence.
Another reason to doubt a decent burial occurred is the lack of influential people who were sympathetic to Jesus. His disciples had fled and he had no family in Jerusalem. Those in power, the Sanhedrin and the Romans, were unlikely to have shown any mercy. The Jewish authorities had been eager to have Jesus eliminated. It would've suited their purposes if the body of a rabble rouser was ravaged by canines or vultures. No doubt, the Romans felt exactly the same way. Jesus was executed for calling himself the King of the Jews. That was tantamount to rebellion, so the Romans had to mete out exemplary punishment. Crucifixion was only the first part of it. Historical evidence cited by Ehrman shows that Pilate, then prefect of Judaea, was unlikely to have made an exception for Jesus. Pilate was brutal and cared little for Jewish sensitivities. Jesus was almost certainly eaten by scavengers.
What a supreme irony--the person long exalted as the "son of god" ended up as dog food. His corpse was torn open and stripped of flesh, chewed and pooped on....the most disgusting and ignominious fate imaginable. If only more people knew the truth (or most probable outcome), they'd find better things to believe in.