Jesus Mythicists argue that the story of Jesus is no different than the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman myths that described the story of a god, Demi-god, or hero.
But is that correct?
There is a major difference between the Gospels and the myths that are supposedly the parallels. The Gospels are far more grounded in history and specifically their own recent history.
Most critical scholars date the Gospels to the 70-90s. Some date them earlier, but this is the range that many, including non-Christian, scholars give.
That means that the Gospels are describing the story of a man, just forty to sixty years later. I know that many Jesus Mythicists see that length of time as a strike against historical accuracy, but look at it a different way.
There are no other myths that we have that are being written down that close to the time of the events being described. Most often the characters are set in the mythic past with no anchor in any historical events. In the case of the myths surrounding the Trojan War, which many historians see as having a historical core, they were written many centuries after the events.
When we hear stories that are set about fifty years in the past, we usually take them seriously. At least more seriously than if they took place centuries in the past. You likely could have talked to people who lived during the events being described.
Add to this that the Gospels are not our earliest mention of Jesus. First Corinthians was written by Paul in the early to mid-50s. He quotes earlier traditions, including the Last Supper.
We have nothing like that with the supposed parallels that people offer for Jesus. When it comes to our sources, Jesus is unique when it comes descriptions of religious leaders.
