Jesus as myth?

Jesus as myth or The Jesus Myth is a collection of ideas that have in common the central theme that elements of beliefs about Jesus, and the Jesus narrative in the New Testament, are actually syncretisms from older myths. It is usually associated with a skeptical position on the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure and is a minority view.
The theory is based on apparent similarities between early Christian accounts of Jesus and pre-existing mystery religions, and at the more extreme limit of the theory is also based in part on the lack of extant evidence about his life outside the Gospels in the view of the holders of the theory. The extreme limit of the theory has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians.[1]
The debate over the truth of Jesus' existence requires academic analysis of the available evidence from times near-contemporary with the dates for Jesus' life, and it depends on the reliability and biases of such evidence. It includes the use of historiography, philology, and to an extent hermeneutics as tools for analysing the evidence. The relevant evidence itself can be broken down into Christian and non-Christian texts; the only surviving Christian texts close enough to the era being the books within the New Testament itself. The earliest part of the New Testament, and thus the most important to answer the question, are the Pauline Epistles, though as these contain very little actual narrative concerning Jesus. It is important to note that the majority of scholars believe that Paul has quoted Jesus several times[2] and if the Epistle to the Hebrews was made before the destruction of the Second Temple, it too has several passages where Jesus struggles with opposition and speaks.[3] The later accounts in the Gospels are also of significance. The purpose of this article is not to provide said academic analysis, but rather to provide an account of research that has been performed into the subject thus far.
Some have suggested that the idea dates to New Testament times, citing 2 John 1:7's "many deceivers [who] are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." Some scholars studying this period believe that these early quotes refer to docetism, the belief that Jesus appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.
The first proponent of this theory was probably nineteenth century historian Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with Gnostic mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under writers such as A.D. Loman and G.I.P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhood.
It is widely accepted that the Gospel accounts were influenced by the Old Testament. In particular, many quotations attributed to the Q document, which the Gospels attribute to Jesus, find parallels in several places of the Old Testament. Some scholars believe that certain elements of the gospels are not history but a type of midrash: creative narratives based on the stories, prophecies, and quotes in the Hebrew Bible.
The Gospel of Matthew is widely considered the most "Jewish" of the canonical Gospels, and in the small amount of material unique to the Gospel of Matthew (i.e. not mentioned by the other canonical Gospels), Jesus is presented in a way that often has strong parallels with significant Old Testament figures. Most noticeable are the similarities with Moses, whose birth narrative and sojourn in the wilderness as a youth are alleged by textual critics to have been the basis from which Matthew derived its account of the nativity of Jesus, rather than Matthew basing it on the actual events of the birth of Jesus.[5]
Though conceding that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, scholarly opponents of the Jesus-as-myth stance argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient Graeco-Roman biographies. Although scholars do not agree on the exact nature of this genre, associated works attempted to impart historical information about historical figures, but were not comprehensive and could include legendary developments. Nevertheless, as ancient biographies