OK, I'm back.
The inventiveness alleged by modern critics is not found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Rather, it appears in documents of the second century C.E. So certain unscriptural narratives about Christ were produced when an apostasy from true Christianity was developing among communities alienated from the apostolic congregation. The style of the Gospels is not the style of myths but that of real, though unscientific, eyewitness description. Anyone sensitive to literary styles can compare the Gospels to any of the mythic religious literature of the time, and the difference will appear remarkable and unmistakable: for instance, the intertestamental apocalyptic literature of both Jews and Gentiles, or pagan mythic fantasies like Ovid's Metamorphoses or Flavius Philostratus's sotry of the wonder-worker Apollonius of Tyana (AD 220).
Circular reasoning. The basic Markan plot perfectly suits the scheme of a god or demi-god pretending to walk incognito among humans, yet recognised by the spirits; the revelation to the chosen few also bears the distinct mark of legend: voice from heaven, walking on the sea, quieting the storm, transfiguration, etc. The added features of virginal birth (Matthew-Luke) or general resurrection of the saints (Matthew 27) attest to diverse legendary developments... Only when you choose to take all those as historical against the rest of objectively similar literature can you "see" such a difference.
Let me add that the whole sequence "apostolic church then apostasy" is exactly what 2nd-century NT literature would have us believe... circular reasoning again.
The Gospels are full of little details that are found only in eyewitness descriptions or modern realistic fiction. they also include dozens of details of life in first-century Israel that could not have been known by someone not living in that time and place (see John 12:3, for instance). And there are no second-century anachronisms, either in language or content.
Some details are correct, others are not (for instance, the whole presentation of Pharisees and synagogues in Galilee points to a post-70 AD situation). Pseudepigraphal and pseudo-historical literature are full of this kind of details which are designed to look genuine, always overdoing it (see Leolaia's post on 2 Peter). Btw I fail to see how John 12:3 (and parallels) points to a 1st-century Israelite context -- otoh, it is one of the closest parallels with the Isis-Osiris myth.
There are four Gospels, not just one. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by four different writers, at four different times, probably for four different audiences and with four somewhat different purposes and emphases. So a lot of cross-checking is possible. By a textual trigonometry or triangulation, we can fix the facts with far greater assurance here than with any other ancient personage or series of events. The only inconsistencies are in chronology (only Luke's Gospel claims to be in exact order) and accidentals like numbers (eg, did the women see one angel or two at the empty tomb?)
The problem is that the four Gospels are not independent from each other, as has been discussed earlier. Cross-checking points to the development, merging and separation of traditions. Inconsistencies are narrative too. For instance, the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are completely different, incompatible with each other (in Matthew, Joseph and Mary live in Judea and then move to Galilee; in Luke they live in Galilee and move to Judea). Luke carefully avoids the Markan reference to an apparition of the resurrected Jesus in Galilee because he wants the church to start in Jerusalem...
If the divine Jesus of the Gospels is a myth, who invented it? Whether it was his first disciples or some later generation, no possible motive can account for this invention. For until the Edict of Milan in AD 313, Christians were subject to persecution, often tortured and martyred, and hated and oppressed for their beliefs. No one invents an elaborate practical joke in order to be crucified, stoned or beheaded.
Persecution, especially from the Roman authorities, came long after the construction and settling of the essential Christ myth.
First century Jews and Christians were not prone to belief in myths. They were already more 'demythologized' than any other people. The orthodox were adamantly, even cantankerously and intolerantly, opposed to the polytheistic mths or paganismand to any ecumenical syncretism. Nor would anyone be less likely to confuse myth and fact than a Jew. Peter explicitly makes the point that the Gospel story is historical fact, not "cleverly devised myths" (2 Pet 1:16)
And he did so about the Transfiguration story... Well, have a look at the pseudepigrapha section in www.earlyjewishwritings.com to get a fuller perspective about the 1st-century Jewish mindset(s).
The accusation that the Gospels are legends also stumbles on the strict rabbinic method of teaching that was in fashion during the time of the writing of the Gospels. That method adhered closely to learning by rote—a memorizing process using routine or repetition. This favors the accurate and careful rendering of Jesus' sayings and works as opposed to the creation of an embellished version.
Again, this is all about transmission, not historicity. And the variants in the stories shows how transmission works, always involving both
continuity and
difference.
