Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "What Do We Really Know About Jesus? History Hit Reaction" video.
-
7
-
5
-
There is actually some very good evidence in the Gospels themselves that indicates they were written much earlier than a lot of scholars believe.
1) The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles contains a lot of references to things that would only have been known to people at the time (like governorships, names of procurators, etc.). Most of these things would have been forgotten within 40 years, and indicates that the Gospel of Luke was likely contemporary.
2) It is possible that the Gospel of Mark was the first one written, and may have been written before AD 46. Mark refers to the "High Priest", but does not name him, whereas Luke and Matthew say the high priest was Caiaphas. So, why would Mark not give his name? Perhaps because Caiaphas was still alive at the time the Gospel of Mark was first penned and everyone would know who Mark was talking about.
3) None of the Gospels or Acts of the Apostles mention the Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70), the siege of Jerusalem or the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This is important because it was a seminal event for both Judaism and Christianity. According to the Gospels, Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple, yet NONE of the four Gospels say anything to the effect that this prophecy was fulfilled, and thereby proving Jesus' divinity. Indeed, the silence is almost deafening, and could infer that the original texts for all four Gospels were penned prior to AD 66.
This is not to say that this is absolute proof, but it is very much food for thought. I would also add that it is highly likely that the Gospels of Mark and John were penned by scribes or more learned people taking notation/oral history from those apostles, and Matthew may or may not have a similar origin. Of the four Gospels, Luke is the most likely to have been penned by the individual in question, as the language used suggests a person of learning and most likely literate.
1
-
@bengreen171 I get the feeling that your biases are showing as well. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.
Academic consensus doesn't mean anything, as it was academic consensus in the 1800s that Troy did not exist, that the Hittites didn't exist, that continents did not drift, that light travels through the ether, etc. Academic consensus also changes like the weather, usually whenever someone comes up with a radical idea and everyone then jumps on the bandwagon. Indeed, decades ago a French TV channel aired a series called, "Eureka, I got it all wrong!", which was about how flawed scientific ideas perpetuate until someone finds something that refutes that claim. Archeologists are continually making discoveries in the Middle East, many of which end up supporting what is written in the Gospels. Who knows, maybe a record of that very census will be discovered in the future.
I would also add that a cold-case detective actually said that the fact the Gospels don't necessarily agree on details supports their authenticity, because if they all said the same thing it would point to a single source or collusion amongst the authors.
1