Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "When Was Jesus Born?" video.

@SevCaswell First, to counter the "100 years" argument. Around 140 AD Marcion of Sinope wrote his own "single" gospel, largely copying that of Luke. It' wouldn't have made sense to copy a text that was less than 10 years old. The muratorian fragment (the original dated around 170) estabilishes the canon on the basis of the antiquity of the writings, saying, IE, that the Shepherd of Hermas was too recent to be included in the canon. The Sheperd had been composed in the first half of second century at the latest. It wouldnt have made sense to include in the canon the four gospels if they had been written in the same years. The Papyrus 52, a fragment of John's Gospel, is dated at around middle second century. Since the fragment is separated from the original autograph by at least one copy, the date of composition of the Gospel of John cannot be later than a few years before the production of P 52 ; this date must be further moved back to allow the original work to spread from the place of composition of the gospel to that of the production of P 52. In this case P 52 would confirm the traditionally accepted date for the definitive redaction of the Gospel of John, the end of the 1st century. Note that in John's gospel is already reported that many others had written about the life of Jesus. Papia of Hierapolis wrote about the gospels in the years 95–110 AD, stating that Mark was an interpreter of St. Peter. So Mark's gospel was already old and well known in his time. The author of Luke's gospel is largely considered to be the same of the Acts of the Apostles. Not only the Acts described a church in it's infancy, that was no more relevant in second century, but they end before the inprisonment of Paul (around 64 AD). There are not many explanations for the abrupt end of the Acts other than the author could no more write after that date.
12
@SevCaswell Actually all the four gospels had been probably written between 30 to 70 years after the death of Christ, that's very close as long as ancient sources are concerned.
8
Mind that Luke's gospel was adressed mainly to non-Jews Roman citizens (Luke is commonly considered to be the travel companion of Paul, so he wasn't in contact with a direct witness). So it's not surprising that it places Jesus to be born into the Empire and not in a peripheral kingdom, and refers to facts known to the Romans (Quirinus governor of Syria, the census...) and not to the cruelty of a client king.
4
@crhu319 Referring to the destruction of the temple doesn't mean "mirroring the narrative of Josephus War of the Jews". It's just an apocaliptic prediction. Also, that kind of centralised control over literature was impossible. Rolls were precious and mostly preserved in private libraries.
4
Luke's gospel was adressed mainly to non-Jews Roman citizens. So it's not surprising that it places Jesus to be born into the Empire and refers to facts known to the Romans (Quirinus governor of Syria, the census...) and not to the cruelty of a client king.
1