2. How should we perceive Jesus Christ? As a mythical hero or a historical figure?

This post is a continuation of my previous post at https://www.facebook.com/groups/mythicism/posts/2592021484529609.

One of the comments on my previous post mentioned the synoptic problem. As is well known, the synoptic problem refers to the similarities and common passages found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which sometimes include word-for-word matches. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain this phenomenon. These theories typically attribute primacy to the Gospel of Mark, or propose the existence of a so-called "Q" source, or suggest a combination of both.

The problem is that none of them can explain the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. Besides, it is unclear why researchers tend to overlook the Gospel of John. After all, it tells the same story. 

However, the problem is more extensive than that. While all the Gospels share similar stories, each one also includes unique scenes. For example, the Nativity scene appears only in Matthew and Luke, and the accounts differ. Additionally, only John recounts the wedding at Cana in Galilee, while Mark omits both the Nativity and the wedding scenes entirely. There are many similar examples in the Gospels. 

No single Gospel offers a complete account of the events. As a result, any effort to identify a specific author as the primary source is destined to be unsuccessful from the outset. Additionally, the notion of a mythical source known as “Q” is unfounded. If such a source had existed, all the Gospel authors would have needed to describe the same set of events, but this is not the case. 

It is assumed that the Gospel of John was written later than the others. So where, then, did the story of the Wedding at Cana in Galilee come from? This scene does not appear in the other Gospels! 

The synoptic problem, along with the question of the origin of the Gospel of John, is ultimately unsolvable. The reason for this lies not in the characteristics of the Gospel texts themselves, but in the underlying assumptions of scholars. All scholars studying the Gospel texts have implicitly assumed that the authors—Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John—were specific historical figures. However, as I stated in my first post, this assertion lacks a scientific foundation. 

If we set aside the assumption that each Gospel has a distinct author and instead consider that the names attributed to these "authors" are simply different pen names for a single real author, the synoptic problem—and the problem of the distinctive features of the Gospel texts—would effectively disappear. In this scenario, the four Gospels become four interpretations of a single narrative, created by one author (or possibly several authors collaborating on a unified project). Each Gospel was crafted to highlight a specific aspect of the story that the author wished to convey. If this hypothesis holds true, the challenge lies in reconstructing the original story that is expressed through these four religious reflections.