There are some who would say that Christianity is based upon a 'mythological' Christ. Yet the written accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John regarding the person and works of Jesus of Nazareth bear no resemblance to legend or myth. Instead they have the distinctive attributes one would expect of 'realistic history'.

1. The gospels bear no resemblance to legends in literary style. C.S. Lewis, Oxford Professor and literary historian writes, "As a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy; they don't work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so."
2. The accounts are not identical. Had the written accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, been identical, you might easily suspect that this was the stuff of legend rather than a realistic history. The unique perspectives offered by each author give us a composite picture of witnessed events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that the accounts are not fully-orbed make them more credible as a historical record and disqualify them as legends or myths. The objective is not to tell a good story, but report accurately what actually happened.
3. They are the records of eyewitnesses. Luke, the physician and gospel writer, makes his motive clear when he prefaces his account, claiming that he is writing that you may know 'the exact truth' as compiled from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). John, himself an eyewitness, outlived all the other disciples and writes his gospels after the other three accounts were written and circulating. His report is of that which he had both seen with his own eyes and heard with his ears. The authors of the New Testament were from a culture whose value system was based on a profound commitment to the sanctity of truth. The Apostle Peter writes, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2Peter 1:16 NIV). In this respect the gospels are different from all Greco or Roman myths.
4. The Miracles of Jesus are all purposeful signs. The miracles of Jesus are reported with great sobriety as signs verifying his Messiahship, fulfilling specific prophecies, underscoring His teaching, demonstrating His compassion. Miracles in ancient mythology are not recorded by eyewitnesses and are often frivolous and bizarre.
5. The gospel writers are concerned with realistic history. There was no room for myth and legend in their world view. That which was non-historical was regarded as falsehood. The Greeks, for example, made no attempt to ground the stories in a specific historical context. The fact that there are stories or myths in other cultures that parallel gospel themes (virgin births, miraculous works, death and resurrection) should not call into question the validity of the specific histories of the life of Christ. The accounts of Christ's life need to be examined in their own right. Unlike cultural myths and legends, the life of Christ is firmly set in a specified space-time history, many details of which are verifiable. The gospels need to be seen for what they are, and what they are not, what they say and what they do not say. When examined honestly in this light, they stand for what they are: a reliable record of events that actually occurred.