One of the arguments postulated against the first gospel (likely Mark's) being written at such a late date is that no mention is made of the fall of the Temple (or Masada for that matter). Maybe those mentions were expunged. However, it's difficult to see something of that importance (fall of the Temple) being left out. That would then date the first writing to about 60-65 CE, and still 25 or so years after Jesus' death.

Trying to use the Bible as a historical document is difficult. We have the evidence from the Nag Hammadi that not all Gospels have been included in the Bible. We are only too aware that editors have been at the Bible, and various religions have decided to accept only certain books (see difference between Catholic and Protestant versions as to the books included). That Jesus was versed in the Old Testament is obvious. His entry into Jerusalem follows the OT account of the arrival of the Messiah in exquisite detail. But then, why wouldn't he be versed in the OT. He was Jewish and probably a 'minor' rabbi.

Interesting to note the wedding at Cana. In the Jewish custom, the groom served the wine. Why was Jesus serving the wine--after 'making' it? I don't think that the existence of Jesus is in question; however, I think the 'nature' of Jesus is. As Bill D said, no one's mind will be shifted because of anything written here. I mean no offense to anyone's beliefs or religion.