Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[FallentoReason]

I agree. Historicists like Ehrman and others, say we should take into account Genre, but to what point does this genre encroach upon historical reliability? This is the main question. If the Gospels were supportive, or auxilliary accounts of this person called, Jesus, then I think their genre would not completely encroach on reliability, but as it is, they are the primary material we have for Jesus. Further, if Church history wasn't what it was for over a millenium '(evidence destroying), then I think genre would be less of a problem as well. But this is not the case.

My question to those guys would be 'how did you determine the genre?' Compare the Gospels to say Josephus and they're written in different styles. The Gospels have this story-telling vibe to them. I actually read a review of Mark as a work of fiction and the guy was so right. The author used elements of story-telling to lead on the reader and set expectations, kind of like a movie. He explained how the women saw the stone rolled back, which is a good thing because previously they were wondering how they would get in. They then get to the tomb and the reader expects Jesus to be there but instead there's the young man. So initially the reader is puzzled by this, but there's the hope that the man knows something about Jesus, which he does (or claims to know). So again, the reader expects the women to go find what they're after, but(!), to the reader's shock they run out with the intention of telling no one... And that's where it ends! Absolute drama in play. That is no history account.

Again, I agree. I wrote a parody in my book which touches on this issue. It deals primarily with the lack of testimony from Philo regarding Jesus, but involves the question of idea-theft.

He would have been a prime suspect for testing positive for a historical Jesus seeing as though they had a common philosophical understanding of sorts. Hmmm..