In general, legends in that AD 30 Mediterranean did not stick and pervade.1 They rather struggled in vain. There may not even be one exception to this, but if there is an exception it is truly an exception. This is relevant because if this were true of Greco-Roman/Jewish issues in general, then all the more it would be true of the Jesus stories (which, as seen below, have even more checks and balances in place than normal).
Whether or not it predominated over legend (a seperate question) in the AD 30-70 Mediterranean, witness-based testimony on Jesus’s life and ministry truly thrived.
This page analyzes 6 arguments
This is relevant if, by contrast, Jesus-bio which which was not grounded in witness testimony did not thrive. (There are no comparable mechanisms for it, especially in Christian circles.) The consequent ratio suggests then that warranted Jesus-bio outproduced unwarranted Jesus-bio; i.e. it predominated.
But so what? Plausibly…
Most of the Jesus-biographical content reported in the gospels faithfully falls within what the relevant witnesses were themselves saying and approving.
This page analyzes 6 arguments
This is relevant because, although the Gospels may have put some extra effort into fitting witness-testimony, it is at least largely due to their information coming from sources that fit what witnesses said, i.e. early Christian Jesus-bio in general fitting witness testimony. (We also assume here that a fair amount of proposed Jesus-bio was circulating.)
Unjustified Jesus-biography easily formed, circulated, and stuck in AD 30-70.
See this page to analyze 3 arguments
This is relevant because if fabricated Jesus-bio thrived in this way, then it would be false that true Jesus-bio overwhelmingly dominated.
But in favor of unjustified Jesus-biography not easily forming, circulating or sticking: