The Arthurian Legend is a terrible analogue because an actual Yeshua bar-Yoseph actually existed. His own teachings and deeds were most definitely greatly embellished, but I hope you can see that these stem from something much more credibly detailed than merely some first-century guy named Jesus. Unlike Arthur, the story of Jesus is not some piece-meal amalgamation cobbled together from earlier stories about legendary figures. The stories of Jesus are somewhat comparable to Josephus's Antiquities, or from a Medieval perspective, perhaps the writings of historians like Aethelwaerd or Bede. That is to say, the Gospels are "histories" in their own regard, but like all ancient histories also contain their own agenda-driven embellishments and literarily contrived a-historical structures. Now, while the Gospels are quite clearly NOT true histories by definition, they certainly are historical retellings of a sort whereby the principle figure is crafted into a MEANINGFUL narrative, and by which his virtues are exaggerated.
It's even simpler than that frankly, not only was Arthur a made up character but was made up in the 13th Century by Geoffrey of Monmouth, a cleric who wrote a wholly fantastical account of Roman and post Roman Briton almost a thousand years after the events are supposed to have taken place, there is little connection with reality at all, few 'real' figures in the book at all, it's a work of fantasy and I doubt its author intended it to be seen in any other way at the time
|