[Donald Meaker]

The gospels were only written long after, from 70AD for Mark to 200AD or so for Matthew.

Matthew contains Mark. That implies that it was a pious expansion on Mark.

Luke messed up Christ's birth, confusing a census that occured 6AD.

John doesn't have Jesus H. Christ even being born. A much more transendental figure.

So why is the middle initial H?

[AnAmericanMother]

So why is the middle initial H?

Three theories are extant: (1) it stands for "Hebrew", but that is redundant; (2) it stands for "haploid", but that's an anachronism; (3) it stands for "holy". That's Mark Twain's theory (in Roughing It) and he has hands down the best discourse on the middle initial. So I think I'll go with Mr. Clemens, near-infidel though he be. < g >

[AnAmericanMother]

But to be serious for a moment . . . the 6 A.D. census is mentioned in Josephus, but Luke also mentions the 6 A.D. census (in Acts) so he was aware of it also. The tally mentioned in Luke may have been an enrollment rather than a census, or it may have been while Quirinius was holding a lower or adjunct office. The evidence is by no means clear in either direction, and certainly it's not proof that Luke was dead wrong throughout.

Some scholars opine that Mark postdates and borrows from Matthew, rather than the other way around. The hypothetical "Quelle" text invented by German scholars figures largely in the "pious expansion" theory. The textual evidence is not entirely clear.

Nobody dates Matthew as late as 200 AD. That's absurd on its face, because the Church Fathers were commenting extensively on all the Gospels by that point. Most scholars place it between 60 AD and 85 AD.

[kenavi]

So why is the middle initial H?

That's right. And Christ is not a Jewish name.

But seriously...

Paul (ne Shaul of Tarsus) lived before the Gospels were written (3 a.d.-64 a.d. approximately). He was persecuting Jewish believers in Jesus's divinity who existed before the written gospel, and his message spread in ancient Palestine while there were still many alive from Jesus's time. There would not have been any believers to persecute or any historical figure for Paul to see on his way to Damascus if Jesus had not in fact lived.

As far as I know, early Jewish accounts don't say that there was no Jesus. Rather, that he did not conform to prophecy about the Messiah (e.g. he was a Galilean, a group with no historical claims to prophecy), or that he never claimed divinity, or that accounts of his resurrection were made up.

James, probably Jacob, the brother of Jesus, is I understand a solidly documented historic figure during the time when the "Nazarenes" existed as part of the Jewish people.

If Jesus were a fairy tale concocted to conform to Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah, the writers could have done a much "better" job. Instead, there are unhelpful nuggets (such as Jesus's own family trying to drag him away) and inconsistencies that the recounters felt obliged to leave in out of adherence to the traditions.

[RobbyS]

John doesn't have Jesus H. Christ even being born ...and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

[chronic_loser]

The gospels were only written long after, from 70AD for Mark to 200AD or so for Matthew.

200 AD? I thought I warned you against taking that acid before you went into our ancient near east history class!!!! Hint: this ain't the skeptic tank over here. People tend to be a little better informed than that.