Legion near Judea at time of Jesus

[Banzai]

Not to disrupt this thread, but there's the gospel according to Matthew (chapter 8) where Jesus cures the centurion's servant.
The Faith of the Centurion

5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.
thread, but there is the gospel according to Matthew chapter 8. Where Jesus cures the centurion's servant.
To what Legion would this centurion have belonged? It would have been from the same time frame you're discussing.

Salve Sis,
Thomas

Thomas, this would have been a unit in Herod Antipas' army since he ruled Galilee at this time.
Dave

---

John was an eyewitness.

Where do you get that from?  John's Gospel is generally considered to have been written in about AD 100-110.  In fact, none of the Evangelists is considered to be contemporary with Jesus.  They simply collected and wrote down stories that had been circulating in the oral tradition for decades, hence the differences.

Many think that John's Gospel was written prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 i.e. during Nero's reign circa 65. Since he was the youngest disciple and the "one Jesus loved" he could and almost certainly did write his Gospel as an eye witness.

---

Possibly, but probably not, as Matthew the apostle and the Matthew who wrote the gospel were two different people who share the same name.  Although this is not what you will hear from most people, examination of the texts of both the gospel of Matthew and that of Luke leaves little or no room for the possibility that they could have been the same man.  Parts of these two gospels are word for word the same, not just in modern translation but in the original Greek as well (the 'Q' passages).  It could be suggested that one of them copied the other's work, as they both copied passages from Mark's gospel, but this suggestion would not stand up under proper examination.  Enough of the things contained within each are independent of the other to show that neither could have seen the other's work before writing his own.  Thus (for example) Luke mentions shepherds coming to see the newborn Jesus, while Matthew mentions the Magi, who may have visited as much as two years later.

As neither gospel could have been copied from the other, that has led to the realisation that the identical passages in Matthew and Luke must stem from a lost work that both are independently quoting from, which has become known as 'Q'.  In fact, more of 'Q' may be preserved in these two gospels than we are aware, but it is only where they have quoted the same pieces that we con identify them as originating in 'Q'.  

Whatever the case, if Matthew had been writing a first hand account (as Matthew the apostle would have been able to do) he would not need to quote another work to do so.  His own experience would inform him.  Therefore, the 'Q' passages effectively prove that we are dealing with two different Matthews.  There is, of course, the possibility that Matthew the gospel writer was a member of the wider group of Jesus' disciples, like Nathaniel or Levi, to name two.  If so, he would have some first hand knowledge, but would be unlikely to write the detailed account that one of the chosen twelve could.  Whether or not he was a disciple, it still begs the question then of who the author of 'Q' might have been.  It is not outside the realm of possibility to think that it might have been the work of one the twelve, meaning the the 'Q' passages might indeed be parts of a first hand account.  Without a surviving copy though, we cannot know the answer to that.

Crispvs

The vast majority of biblical scholars agree that Matthew the apostle and Matthew the author of the Gospel of that name are one and the same. "Q" is a theoretical invention of liberal 19th century German philosophers out to disprove the veracity of the Bible at all costs (Karl Marx was among them).