You've read the four Gospels?
Which ancient myths have you also read?
Because I have heard this before and I'd like to know how long those who say it have been students in literary criticism and what styles of literature they have studied. Its only that a foremost literary critic of the twentieth century CS Lewis disagreed and I want to know whether whether his comments for instance on modern biblical scholarship have been mistaken. How long have you been chair of literary criticism in a major centre of learning or university? But in any case thats maybe asking a bit much - and as Lewis said
"I only want to point out that this [whether the miraculous occurs] is a purely philosophical question. Scholars as scholars speak on it with no more authority than anyone else. The canon "If miraculous, unhistorical" is one they bring to their study of the texts, not one they have learned from it. If one is speaking of authority, the united authority of all the Biblical critics in the world counts for nothing. On this they speak simply as men; men obviously influenced by, and perhaps insufficiently critical of, the spirit of the age they grew up in." CS Lewis - Fernseed and Elephants.
"...a suspicion may occur that supernaturalism first arose from reading into the universe the structure of monarchial societies. But then of course it may with equal reason be suspected that naturalism has arisen from reading into it the structure of modern democracies. The two suspicions thus cancel out and give us no help in deciding which theory is more likely to be true." CS Lewis - Miracles: a preliminary study
"the sanity of the world was restored and the soul of man offered salvation by something which did indeed satisfy the two warring tendencies of the past; which had never been satisfied in full and most certainly never satisfied together. It met the mythological search for romance by being a story and the philosophical search for truth by being a true story." GK Chesterton.
John's Gospel is not completely different, but it would hardly be completely identical because for one thing though it seems trivial to say it John wasn't Matthew, Mark or Luke.
Not sure if you're serious, but I'll bite.
Yes, I've read the gospels, numerous times. Used to have much of it committed to memory. I've also read just about everything CSL ever wrote. CSL is a lay theologian, and was a professor of medieval literature, so his opinion on the gospels carries no more weight than yours or mine.
I am interested in what actual scholars do say, however, and current consensus is, the gospels are whole cloth fabrications, as is the book of Acts.
The gospels were written in third person narrative, by people who never met Jesus, in a language Jesus never spoke, and from countries Jesus never visited. Matthew and Luke copied heavily from Mark, and the author of John made up his own account. All three gospels were written about one hundred years after the supposed life of Jesus, and all four authors are anonymous.
If you timeline the four gospels, none of them line up, and there are glaring inconsistencies with real history.
There are zero contemporary sources that identify a man known as Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, his name doesn't even pop up until about 100 years later, right on time for a mythical character.