One of the disagreements between most scholars and Mythicists is about how appropriate it is to use the Gospels as evidence for the historical Jesus.
The problem, according to Mythicists, is that the Gospels are obviously biased. They are not unbiased historians or biographers. John 20:31 makes it clear: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Therefore the Gospels need to be rejected as historical sources. Or should they?
I will admit that the Gospel writers were biased. But so was every other ancient historian and biographer.
Look at other ancient writers, such as Thucydides, Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus. It is not difficult to find their bias. They had specific audiences and goals for their writing. Just as the Gospel writers did.
This was true of ancient writers but it is equally true of modern writers. Do we really think that when Robert Price, Bart Ehrman or N.T. Wright talk about Jesus that they don’t have a bias.
The Gospels are biased but they are biased just like every other writing. When we look at the Gospels in the context of other near contemporary historical writing, they fit in very nice.
