Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[JairCrawford]

The details don;t match (when they don;t - and they largely do) based upon the subtle differences between the theology and christology of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John.  Additionally, because each of the authors was writing from a different time and place, and different circumstances..to a different audience.  Mark was likely a gentile christian in rome.  Mathew a jewish christian in syria.  Luke..maybe rome, but maybe ceasarea.  John, ephesus.

Brings us round to some narrative points of interest.  There are differences in each unique to the authors..but none are in the first person.  There are no I"s or "we"s...hell, john is a mind reader on the level of professor xavier.  Elements of hellenic syncretism are presnt in all four (what you interpret as doubt...jair, is just a function of how the people who wrote these things learned to write - the chorus)..and, I breifly mentioned this earlier..but it;s an important narrative, -because- it;s in all four.

IIRC, it shares that pride of place with just one other story.  The crucifixion.  One wonders what more one would need for christianity beyond those two stories.  If I ever teach my kids about magic book...those are the two I;d reach for.

Indeed those are the two that are shared. You could argue the ressurection as well. Although Mark (original ending) simply states it and does not describe it in any detail.

Yes, there are some Hellenistic elements to the gospels. That in and of itself is not enough for me to toss it away as fantasy though. There is still the Jewish tradition of verbal memorization and handing down. When it came time to write the gospels I would think both the Jewish oral tradition and the Hellenistic writing traditions came into play.

So then it comes down to, how much weight do we put on the oral traditions and writing traditions of these people? We may come to different conclusions to that question.