Maybe a lot of what we believe took place in ancient times could be reassessed. History is written by the victors, one sided.
Most of our "history" of Jesus comes to us by way of biblical scholars since most of the actual historians won't go near the subject, and biblical scholars get fired for questioning an historical Jesus.
BTW, scholarly works on The Bible are a good read, biblical scholars doing historical Jesus, not so much, and understandably so.
Much of history is being reassessed for that reason (this is nothing new. For at least half a century (I'm thinking specifically starting in the 70's), there has been a push to reassess history, and to see it in a less Euro-centric view. The rise of feminist, gay, black, hispanic, etc theories have greatly widened the manner in which historians view the past. Instead of seeing it simply from the Euro-centric view, there is quite a bit of historical research looking at history through the eyes of those who were conquered, or colonized.
Much of our history of Jesus does come from Biblical scholars. Those scholars though are not just theologians, but are historians. This are simply called Biblical scholars because the focus is Biblical ideas. However, many of these scholars also are experts in other fields as well. When talking about Biblical scholars, one must talk about archeologists, anthropologists, medieval historians, Jewish scholars (Talmudic scholars for example), etc. If you want, I can give you names of some of each. Biblical research is done by a wide array of different individuals in a plethora of different fields.
As for being fired for questioning the historical Jesus, that simply isn't true. G.A. Wells is a great example of this. He was never fired for his views. Granted, someone who doubts the historicity of Jesus probably isn't going to spend the time to get a degree in that field though, and if they do, it is unlikely they will be teaching on the subject since they hold a minority position that simply is not well supported. But if you actually look at Biblical scholars and the like, you will find certain individuals who doubt about everything. It really isn't a problem. Especially when there are Biblical scholars who come out and say that it is basically impossible to know anything about Jesus and leave it at that. There are also many who deny the resurrection and all of that, but still are allowed to teach.
Biblical scholars still read their gospels as if they are reading historical accounts, but then, what else is a scholar to do for their historical Jesus?
That simply is incorrect. Unless one is only looking at the very conservative factions of Biblical scholars (and even generally they don't even take the whole literally), all scholars agree that the Gospels are not 100% accurate and thus can not be read as if they are purely historical accounts. In fact, scholars realize that there is a difference between ancient history, and modern history. Biblical scholars then approach the Gospels as other scholars would approach the ancient bibliographies of Augustus, or the other emperors.
Scholars also generally recognize that we are reading second or third hand accounts at best. That instead of eyewitness accounts, what we have are the products of an oral culture, and these stories were passed down.
Biblical scholars also look at much more than the Gospels though. They look at Paul (in fact, there are a few who put a lot of weight on Paul), Josephus, archeological and anthropological sources, comparisons to other sects of Judaism, etc. It is much more than just looking at the Gospels.
I'm least impressed by Ehrman for reading the gospels into Paul, I find that to be circular due to unnecessary assumptions imposed upon the epistle writers that otherwise appear to be completely unaware of the gospel Jesus from Nazareth. And no, I am not that familiar with Ehrman, other than what I have come across online.
The problem here is that you are not familiar with Ehrman and are trying to state something about his ideas when you don't fully understand them based on a lack of reading. Ehrman has written a few things on Paul. When he talks about Paul, he deals with the actual letters that Paul writes. In fact, if you read his work on the subject, he even states that he disregards much of Acts when it comes to Paul as he acknowledges that Paul and Acts disagree with each other.
Ehrman has also been quite clear that one can not read the Gospels as accurate sources, and that one has to abandon those ideas when reading Paul. Paul has to be read on Paul's own merit. That means not reading Paul through the western lens that has been placed on him, not reading Paul through Acts, and not reading Paul based on other NT texts.
Honestly, I don't see where you get the idea that Ehrman reads the Gospels into Paul, especially when you admit that you are not very familiar with Ehrman.
have a look at the book yourself, there are many appeals to authority just in the introduction alone, it is the vastly predominant line of argument right through the whole book.
for example on page 2: "of the thousands of scholars of early christianity...none of them to my knowledge has any doubts that jesus existed". And you can find hundreds more instances of this exact claim throughout the book, this seems to be the only substantial argument for historical jesus (its the only argument the scholars themselves can think of) - he existed just because scholars refuse to question his existence.
Did you read the entire book? Yes, Ehrman does state that nearly all scholars agree on this subject. However, he has also made it clear that that is not enough evidence for anything. However, if everyone tends to agree on something in a field such a Biblical studies, where there is debate on pretty much every topic, it should make one wonder why. Also, if you read the entire quote, you will see that he was making a statement about the wide array of views on this subject. It wasn't an appeal to authority, it was an introduction to the various types of individuals who support the Jesus myth.
However, on page 4, he states clearly that the fact that most scholars agree that Jesus existed is not proof at all. That in fact, at the end of the day, expert opinion is still opinion.
If you read the book in its entirety, Ehrman does make arguments for the existence of Jesus. He looks at the genre of the Gospels, outside sources, and also shows where the mythicist idea fails.
