I'm adding your first two points here as well in order to be thorough.
1)The synoptic gospels, in which whole blocks of text are copied from the other gospels, leading any reasonable person to conclude that they are rewrites of fictional work, rather than retellings of the same story.
This is actually a point that makes little sense. It is based off of the assumption that plagiarism and editing only exist in fictional genres. That simply is not true.
When looking at any number of historical figures, one can, much of the time, find older sources behind the writings. It is called research. Even today, when one looks at a biography of any ancient figure, one will see that previous sources are used. Today, they are cited, and catalogued in a bibliography; however, that doesn't take away from the fact that older sources are being used.
That is what the synoptic Gospels did. We can look at Luke. He basically tells us that he is writing a historic account. He tells us that he is relying on older sources, both written and oral. And comparing it to other works, we can even pick out some of these sources. That is what one would expect in a historical writing, not a fictional rewrite. Unless you believe that nearly any work on a historical figure is fictional, because those same techniques are used even up to today (for the most part, new authors do cite their sources, but there are exceptions).
So your first point rests on a fallacy.
2) The human passion for heroes, leading a reasonable person to doubt that Jesus is any more 'historic' than Robin Hood or Merlin.
Let's just start with a basic. Both Robin Hood and Merlin are suspected to be based off an actual historical figure. One that has been embellished, but still an actual historical figure.
As for the human passion for heroes, you have to prove that. More so, you have to show that this passion would cause a person to create Jesus.
The problem is that a hero does not need to be a fictional character. There are various historical figures who were also considered heros. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Harry Houdini, etc are historical figures who have been considered by different people to be heros. We can go back to the time of Jesus and find that Augustus or Alexander the Great were both considered heros as well. A hero does not have to be a fictional character.
The second problem is that Jesus does not fit the hero character for the culture that supposedly created him. If Jesus is a fictional character, one must assume that Jews were the ones who created him. The reason being that we see him first in the Jewish culture, and no where else. Yet, Jesus does not conform to the typical Jewish hero that he was supposed to be (the Messiah). The fact that he died, would have just ruled him out as one more failed Messianic figure. There would have been no reason for the Jews to create such a failing figure.
At the same time, the Jews had various different people they could look to for their hero. They could focus on ancient heros, such as Moses, or Elijah. They could focus on contemporary religious leaders such as John the Baptist. They could focus on various Messianic claimants, or other religious leaders. There were many different individuals that a Jew could focus on as their hero. There was no reason to create an individual who, like many of the religious leaders of his time, and messianic claimants, ended up dying at the hands of their enemy, the Romans.
The idea that Jesus was created in order to fulfill the desire of having a hero simply does not stand questioning.
3) The local Jews didn't seem to notice Jesus, even though he supposedly had masses of followers and made quite a stir.
How can you say that the local Jews didn't notice Jesus? Because they never wrote anything about him?
This really is just a horrible point. Literacy rates in ancient cultures, at best, were 10, maybe 15%. And then we are talking about places like Athens. Getting to rural areas, like Galilee, the literacy rate was much lower. In Galilee, it has been estimated that literacy was around 1 to 3%. Now, the people who could write would have been even less. So few writings would come from that area on any subject.
That is exactly what we see during the time in which Jesus lived, in the first century. We have little writings from any Jews, or about Jews, or about the area in general. Of all of the Pharisaic Jews, we have writings from only two. We have no writings from the Sadducees. And for the most part, we have really no writings in the area of Galilee.
Now, does that mean that the Jews didn't notice anything that was happening during that time period? Of course not. It simply means that they did not have the means to record it down. And there was no reason to when one considers that they were living in an oral culture, which passed information by word of mouth.
If we would take this point seriously, then we would have to assume that most Jews were not aware of even the destruction of the Temple or Jerusalem. Because as it stands, we only have the writings of Josephus that detail that event. What this shows is that there is no reason to even expect writings regarding Jesus at all, and especially not from his contemporaries. Yet, we do find writings about him that are relatively near in time.
4) The existence of many gospels, pointing to a gospel-writing industry, pointing to a fictional character like Dracula about whom everyone seemed to want to do a rewrite.
First, comparing Jesus to Dracula probably is not best for you. The reason being that Dracula was inspired by a historical figure. At the same time, Dracula, as has been portrayed in the fictional works, has been portrayed just as that, fictional. That is quite a difference.
Second, a Gospel-writing industry would have been of little value. First, Gospels were not being written in order to be sold. It was not a profitable endeavor at all. So what would be the motivation?
Now, the motivation isn't to gain power. We can know that for sure as the Gospels were written for specific audiences, who already subscribed to those ideas. Again, the Gospels were not being sold to others, and were produced for specific audiences who already subscribed to the ideas being taught. More so, the Gospels for the most part weren't even being read, but were being read out loud. So a Gospel writing industry simply doesn't fit.
Also, such an act would have been quite unique in the ancient world. One simply does not see such writing industries. Again, we are talking about a society that is primarily illiterate.
Then there is the nature of the Gospel. Some have speculated that there were like scripts that would be read. It is know that the Gospels spread primarily by word of mouth. They would be read out loud to a group. As more information came about, people added to this script. This just does not fit into the idea of a Gospel writing industry.
The main problem with this point though is that it is not taking into account the rate of illiteracy during that time. When one has a movement that is composed primarily of the lower class, which means that literacy is even less there, a writing industry simply does not make sense.
