The problem is that the 4 gospels are not independant at all. Mark is believed to be the first of the 4 written by the vast majority of Biblical scholars, and he obviously was not even in Jerusalem , since he got the geography wrong for one thing. Matthew and Luke were both partly based on the Gospel of Mark, so they are not independent at all, and the Gospel of John appears to be totally independent of anything, and disagrees with a lot. It also was redacted several times.
The early church father tradition has Mark being written by a disciple of Peter after Peter died (might not be true). This put the earliest it could be written to be 65, and probably after 70, due to references to the temple being destroyed.
Pardon me, but all indications are that Matthew was written in Greek by someone who knew both Greek and Hebrew. There is no evidence that the book we know as the "Gospel of Matthew" was in Hebrew to begin with, despite the claim from Eusebius that Papias claimed that the apostle Matthew wrote a book in Hebrew.
Rabbi's tended to be more educated than the average, and the legend is that Alexander had 70 rabbi's do it. Not sure that is true.
Except, of course, when ti comes to the synoptic Gospels, we don't KNOW who actually wrote them. They are written anonymously. The only one that is written with the 'I' in it is Luke, and it is only an assumption that Luke was a physician. As a matter of fact, an analysis of the style was done that shows that is not the case.
Except for the letters of Paul, there is no evidence that any of the rest of the New Testament existed before 70 C.E. There is evidence that the author of Luke used Josephus's Antiquities as a resource, and therefore it puts his writing after 95 ce.
Well, spoken like a true believer, but his basic premise is that the Gospels recorded things accurately.. and he is trying to rationalize that position.
Mark the accepted earliest of the Gospels, was written 37+ years later, in a place distantly removed from Jerusalem. It is hard to think that a person from such a distance would understand what actually happened. nor, does your quote address the fact that the gospels had Thomas poking at holes to see if they were real.
The fact that Mark was written by someone who never was in Jerusalem shows the analysis that the Jews of Jerusalem didn't accept the Christian message is correct., and this is where the events supposedly took place.
Somehow, the Gospels don't seem to back up the claim he was resurrected in a new body to me. It seems to be an addition from earlier beliefs.
I know that the cult in Qumram were waiting for their 'great teacher' to come back. Since they are now extinct, I guess that never happened either. The concept of a resurrection seems to be from the fringe groups of Judaism.
Well, no, the first century Jews did not anticipate a resurrection for the most part. The Temple Jews, particularly the Sadducee did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife. There were some sects that were distant from Jerusalem that believed and expected a resurrection (the cult at Qumram was expected their 'great teacher' to come back)
However, the Jews in Jerusalem did not expect a 'resurrection'. There is no evidence of a 'resurrection'. The stories in the Gospel about the Resurrection came from writers that apparently were never in Jerusalem.
The vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem rejected Christianity. All the Gospels were written in places remote from Jerusalem. Shouldn't that tell you sometime?
Well, we have no record of anybody in that time frame that was named "Jesus" that was actually 'King of the Jews'.
And, outside of the Gospels, not even one that claimed to be so.
The characteristics that I would think would be required for a 'historical Jesus' is 1) A figure that inspired people and lead them. 2) Was named Jesus. 3) Was executed by Pilate.
Amazingly enough, there is one person that matches 2 of those characteristics , but the third characteristic is an unknown.
IN the proper time frame, there was the Samaritan uprising, who was lead by a person whose name is not known, that was excuted by Pilate.
This account was found in Joseph Flavious antiquties, and that testimony is as such
quote: For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives. [Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87]
Now, the name of the man is not mentioned. But, it is not out of reach for this incident to have inspired the later stories of Jesus.
The term 'Christ' is a Greek translation for the Jewish term "moishe', which means 'anointed'. It is a "TITLE" , not a name. Historically , there were two people who were officially 'anointed'. One was the High priest, in a ceremony that happened every year, and the other was the King.
So, it can quite clearly refuted that someone named 'Jesus Christ' existed. Someone named Jesus might have had claims on being King, particularly have Herod died.. but that does not make 'Christ' a name.
There have been a number of people named Jesus who were considered Annointed. Every high priest that was named Jesus was one.
On the other hand, there is no Jesus that was an preacher out from Galilee that is recorded as being in existence from this time period.
On the other hand, as I mentioned before there was a messianic type figure who, in 36 c.e. was executed by Pilate, as recorded in Antiquities of the Jews.
The name of this figure is not recorded though.. nor the method of execution. It was likely to have been crucifixion .. and Jesus was a very common name.. so it is not beyond a reasonable speculation that this figure might have inspired later stories.