>I read somewhere that the first written acct. of Jesus was not even by one of the disciples; that there was a historical reference made by Josephus in his writings circa 90 CE. However, some speculate that his original writings were amended by Christians later by interjecting an account of Jesus. Of course, that is disputed as well.
If I recall correctly, the Josephus mention isn't really anything of note, and, of course, it's far after the fact.
Keep in mind that the writers of the Gospels were not really his disciples. The writers of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John never mentioned their names in their accounts... the attributions are simply from Christian tradition.
>"2.2.1 The length of time between the events and their recording in the gospels is not much more than two generations, even on the latest dating now proposed. The majority of New Testament scholars still date Mark's gospel shortly before or shortly after AD 70, Matthew and Luke roughly 80-90, and John close to the end of the first century. No part of this scheme, however, is uncontested, both the relative dating of the gospels /15/ and the overall period of their composition being increasingly debated. While J. A. T. Robinson's view that all the gospels were completed before AD 70 has few adherents in its entirety, many are now prepared to argue that both Matthew and Luke could have been written in the sixties (and therefore, for most scholars, Mark would be still earlier) /16/. This would give barely more than one generation between the events and the final Synoptic record of them."
In the reading I've done, the dates you have are at the late end of what the writers I've read have talked about, but either way, none of these writers ever knew Jesus.
-Z |
