Why should we look at Jesus as different from other figures such as Horus, Mithras, and Dionysus? There are many differences but there is one major difference that manifests in two ways.
The biggest difference is that Jesus is firmly rooted in a historical context.
That is not to say that the ancients did not believe that Osiris and Horus actually lived. They probably did believe that. However, all of those figures lived in the mythical past. It is like the beginning of Star Wars, “A long time ago, in a galaxy far way…”
While they thought that the gods acted in history, it was not as clear when that happened. For example, the Iliad portrays the Greek gods active in the Trojan War. But when was the Trojan War? While there may have been a war, the description by Homer is in the mythic past.
Jesus, on the other hand, is clearly in history. He is described as being born, living, and dying within a known historical period. He was born during the time of August Caesar and Herod the Great. He was crucified during the time of Tiberius Caesar and his trial was under Pontius Pilate.
It could be claimed that the Gospels are historical fiction. Anyone could write a story and include some historical figures in it for a bit of realism. It does not mean the main character is historical.
This brings us to the second part. Critical scholars date the Synoptic Gospels from the late 60s to the late 70s. This is well within the lifetime of people who were active during the events described in the Gospels. Plus you have Paul referring to Jesus even earlier than that.
I know that some Jesus Mythicists will still claim that proves nothing. But my goal here is only to say that there is nothing like this for the mythical figures. We do not have accounts of Horus, Mithras, and Dionysus within decades of when they supposedly lived, describing them as interacting with figures known to history.
At the very least, we have to agree that we are working with something very different when we come to Jesus.
