Pontius Pilate

[Tidewater_Wave]

“Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look for an opportunity to betray him” (Mark 14:10-11). Once Jesus had been arrested, his followers abandoned him and fled. Again, we see Jews in abandonment. Many of them had abandoned Jesus as had recently happened when fleeing Jerusalem. Where I see a disconnection with history in Mark, is when Jesus is taken to be prejudged by the Sanhedrin Council before he was taken to Pilate.  Traditionally, they were not allowed to meet at night. Also, Jesus’ followers could not have witnessed what went on at either his appearance before the Jewish council or his arraignment by the Romans if they had abandoned him.  Mark’s portrayal of the sequence of events shows that the charge of sedition against Jesus was not only false but invented by his Jewish enemies.  “Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree” (Mark 14:55-56).  The trial is shown as a pretense in order to put him to death. The only blasphemy seen is when Jesus’ identity is questioned.
“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (Mark 14:61)?  It is Jesus’ response that strikes opposition with the Sanhedrin. “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’, and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mark 14:62).  This causes the high priest to tear his robe and the Sanhedrin to condemn Jesus to death. However, this entire trial is extremely unlikely to have happened. Had the events occurred as described by the Gospel of Mark, then the Sanhedrin would have violated its own legal practices concerning examining witnesses, self-incrimination, courtroom procedure, sentencing, and assembling at night. A more likely scenario would have been Mark’s second version of the council meeting to discuss this case the following morning as if nothing happened the night before. This more accurate scene is also the meeting described in Luke.
“As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate” (Mark 15:1). The Jews had Jesus cruxified in order to prevent the Romans from becoming angry and destroying the Temple. They did not want the Romans to retaliate due to affiliation with Jesus any more than Christians wanted the Romans to retaliate after the war due to affiliation with the Jews. The author avoided mentioning anything that would provoke Roman antagonism. Mark emphasizes the role of the Jews and defended Jesus rather than blaming the Romans. Pilate only carried out a Jewish verdict according to Mark. On a deeper level, the Gospel of Mark also offers a model of how to act when put on trial. Peter’s three denials, the first two being servant girls and the third being a bystander; of knowing Jesus was an example of how not to act whereas Jesus confessing to being the Messiah and Son of God would have been how Mark wanted his contemporaries to act. When the cock crowed for the second time, Peter remembered what Jesus said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:72). Peter then broke down and wept. Contrasting Jesus’ courage with Peter’s denial gives a choice to Jesus’ followers that they must take sides in a war that has no neutral ground. Further evidence of reconstruction can be seen in Mark’s portrayal of Pontius Pilate.
According to Josephus, Pilate displayed contempt for his Jewish subjects, illegally appropriated funds from the Temple treasury, and brutally suppressed unruly crowds. However, Mark along with the other gospels, shows a very passive Pilate who never actually gives the sentence or orders the execution, but is reluctantly forced by the chief priests. “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you” (Mark 15:4).  Many Christians would have been hearing similar charges brought on them as they faced trial for being Jews even though they did not participate in the war against Rome. Rather than demonstrating anger or impatience, “Pilate was amazed” (Mark 15:5).  This is not at all the historical Pilate as will be mentioned.  “For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over” (Mark 15:10). Jews are at odds here with Jesus as Jews would have been at envious of each other after the war, especially those who lost power.  Another feature I would like to point out from the Pilate scene is Barabbas.  “Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection” (Mark 15:7). Notice how during and after the war, murderers and rebels being sentenced to death would have been very common and hit home with many listeners. It was likely how Mark felt Jerusalem was going. Instead of following the righteous, they follow the path of murderers. Barabbas though is likely to have been a creation of Mark’s.
“Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection” (Mark 15:6-7). Let us now point out that there were insurrections taking place just before and at the time that Mark was being written. During and after the Roman-Jewish War, there would have been many prisoners who were in Roman custody. Such a notion would have resonated with the audience Mark was trying to reach. “So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them, ‘Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?’ For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead” (Mark 15:8-11). Being released as a custom is nowhere to be found in the era in which Jesus lived. Had that been the case, it is very doubtful that Pilate would have honored it anyways. Releasing a criminal would have made about as much sense back then as it would today. Imagine the governor of a state pardoning a sentenced murderer every year on Easter. While this is funny to see the President of the United States do with turkeys every Thanksgiving, it would be looked at much differently if it were actually humans on death row. “Pilate spoke to them again, ‘Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?’ They shouted back, ‘Crucify him’” (Mark 15:12-13). What we have here is more blaming of the Jewish authorities in order to make the case that the Jewish leaders have misled their people and now the message of Jesus is to be followed. “Pilate asked them, ‘Why, what evil has he done?’ But they shouted all the more, ‘Crucify him!’ So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be cruxified” (Mark 15:14-15). Philo does tell us of a similar tradition performed near the time of festivals though where governors could “postpone the execution until after the festival, or they could allow burial of the cruxified by his family” (Crossan 141).
“Rulers who conduct their government as they should and do not pretend to honor but do really honor their benefactors make a practice of not punishing any condemned person until those notable celebrations in honor of the birthdays of the illustrious Augustan house are over” (Against Flaccus81-84). Here we see the Roman rulers honoring their own holidays but not holidays of the Jews. “I have known cases when on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been cruxified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow the ordinary rites” (Against Flaccus 81-84). The whole point of Philo’s Against Flaccus though is because Flaccus performed inhumane actions and the policies and events described in this work are regarding Emperor Caligula’s birthday on Aug.31, 38. “For it was meet that the dead also should have the advantage of some kind treatment upon the birthday of the emperor and also that the sanctity of the festival should be maintained. But Flaccus gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross” (Against Flaccus 81-84). What Flaccus did do however was delay the execution of prisoners, but not release them! “Instead he ordered the crucifixion of the living, to whom the season offered a short lived though not permanent reprieve in order to postpone the punishment though not to remit it altogether” (Against Flaccus 81-84). Here we have a historical citing of an actual tradition based on Roman holidays that at times was not completely honored even by the Romans themselves.


Basically Pilate was recreated in order to blame the Jews whom were at odds with a sect of their own known as Christians while showing the Romans in a more positive light. I'll give the author of Mark that demonizing the Romans would've led to even more executions and we may not even have the gospels today had he showed the crucifixion as strictly Roman. At the same time, history shows that if the Jews decided or were behind the order to execute Jesus, then they would've stoned him to death. I find Luke's passion narrative the most accurate.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

There's actually a Pontius Pilate thread here, though it's framed in terms of asking people's opinion of him.

[Tidewater_Wave]

There's actually a Pontius Pilate thread here, though it's framed in terms of asking people's opinion of him.

Hmm that's interesting and I hope I didn't upset anyone by starting a new one. He was vile and disgusting man who was removed from office in 36 CE for slaughtering Jews when they were tricked. I'm not sure if I mentioned it above or not. Then his position was eliminated in 44 anyways. Interesting enough Caiaphas from the passion narrative was removed along with him suggesting that they were co-conspirators. This furthers the idea that Caiaphas would've been a puppet for Pilate as opposed to the traditional view that Pilate was passive. What are your thoughts on him?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

There's actually a Pontius Pilate thread here, though it's framed in terms of asking people's opinion of him.

Hmm that's interesting and I hope I didn't upset anyone by starting a new one. He was vile and disgusting man who was removed from office in 36 CE for slaughtering Jews when they were tricked. I'm not sure if I mentioned it above or not. Then his position was eliminated in 44 anyways. Interesting enough Caiaphas from the passion narrative was removed along with him suggesting that they were co-conspirators. This furthers the idea that Caiaphas would've been a puppet for Pilate as opposed to the traditional view that Pilate was passive. What are your thoughts on him?

No, not upsetting. We just might want to get a moderator to merge them into a Pilate Megathread of sorts.

He was certainly an immensely vile and unlikeable historical figure. My interpretation of the reasons for the Gospels portraying him somewhat more sympathetically than the historical record and his role in the Crucifixion should indicate is that it's something to do with how the Gospels engage in a lot of subversion or role reversal of expected portrayals, such that the in-groups in Jewish society come off somewhat worse and the out-groups, be they 'unclean' people, minorities, the underclass, or in this case foreign tyrants, come off somewhat better.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Basically Pilate was recreated in order to blame the Jews whom were at odds with a sect of their own known as Christians while showing the Romans in a more positive light. I'll give the author of Mark that demonizing the Romans would've led to even more executions and we may not even have the gospels today had he showed the crucifixion as strictly Roman. At the same time, history shows that if the Jews decided or were behind the order to execute Jesus, then they would've stoned him to death. I find Luke's passion narrative the most accurate.

why would the gospels need to show Rome in a good light and the Jews in a bad light, when the gospels declare us ALL guilty of Jesus' death?!  In fact, in the gospels, Jesus spells out the absolute necessity of his death - for the forgiveness of everyone's sins.

knowing this, there is absolutely no need or motive to blame this or that group, both Jews and Gentiles were active in his death.  so your whole conspiracy theory, made up of nothing but conjecture, inserts a motive where there is no need for motive.

at least attempt to learn what the Gospel is all about before making up baseless and needless stories

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Tidewater,

your theory that the gospels attempt to make the Jews look bad and while attempting to make Rome look good...is tantamount to claiming the story of Joseph in Genesis attempts to make the Jews look bad while making Egypt look good...

...but you fail to realise that in both the story of Jesus and the story of Joseph, it is EXPLICITY STATED that their rejection by the Jews was absolutely necessary to save both Jews and Gentiles.

with all your education, how did you miss the entire plot?!

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

jmfcst, has it occurred to you that many people, including many Christians, prefer to read the Bible both historically and religiously?

[Tidewater_Wave]

Basically Pilate was recreated in order to blame the Jews whom were at odds with a sect of their own known as Christians while showing the Romans in a more positive light. I'll give the author of Mark that demonizing the Romans would've led to even more executions and we may not even have the gospels today had he showed the crucifixion as strictly Roman. At the same time, history shows that if the Jews decided or were behind the order to execute Jesus, then they would've stoned him to death. I find Luke's passion narrative the most accurate.

why would the gospels need to show Rome in a good light and the Jews in a bad light, when the gospels declare us ALL guilty of Jesus' death?!  In fact, in the gospels, Jesus spells out the absolute necessity of his death - for the forgiveness of everyone's sins.

knowing this, there is absolutely no need or motive to blame this or that group, both Jews and Gentiles were active in his death.  so your whole conspiracy theory, made up of nothing but conjecture, inserts a motive where there is no need for motive.

at least attempt to learn what the Gospel is all about before making up baseless and needless stories

Why would the gospels need to show Rome in a good light and Jews in a bad light?

Let's see here.  First, they didn't necessarily show Rome in a "good light" but were apologetic in order to evade persecutions. They were at odds with the Jews after the war from 66-73 as many who eventually joined the Christian movement fled to the Galilean countryside while the rest of the Jews stayed and fought, most of whom died. This caused ideological and theological differences. Jews added liturgy of condemnation in their services in order to specifically denounced Christians shortly after.

All guilty of Jesus' death? Yes depending on how you look at it. ALL meant "all Jews" when considering that era's biblical interpretation.  As for forgiveness of sins, it was specified in the gospels but not prior to; 30-70 CE. Eventually Matthew perverted Jesus into fulfilling the Hebrew prophecies. I'm about to tear into the author of Matthew regarding his leaning on the Hebrew Bible.

I agree there is no need to isolate the Jews for the death of Jesus, but the author of Mark did that and the others followed suit. What we see when reading the gospels is nothing more than 1st century politics within Judaism.

I entertain no conspiracy theories here.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, has it occurred to you that many people, including many Christians, prefer to read the Bible both historically and religiously?

what does that have to do with introducing hack motive that is contrary to the entire plot?

[Tidewater_Wave]

jmfcst, has it occurred to you that many people, including many Christians, prefer to read the Bible both historically and religiously?

what does that have to do with introducing hack motive that is contrary to the entire plot?

Pilate was the opposite of how he was drawn by the gospels.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why would the gospels need to show Rome in a good light and Jews in a bad light?

Let's see here.  First, they didn't necessarily show Rome in a "good light" but were apologetic in order to evade persecutions. They were at odds with the Jews after the war from 66-73 as many who eventually joined the Christian movement fled to the Galilean countryside while the rest of the Jews stayed and fought, most of whom died. This caused ideological and theological differences. Jews added liturgy of condemnation in their services in order to specifically denounced Christians shortly after.

All guilty of Jesus' death? Yes depending on how you look at it. ALL meant "all Jews" when considering that era's biblical interpretation.  As for forgiveness of sins, it was specified in the gospels but not prior to; 30-70 CE. Eventually Matthew perverted Jesus into fulfilling the Hebrew prophecies. I'm about to tear into the author of Matthew regarding his leaning on the Hebrew Bible.

I agree there is no need to isolate the Jews for the death of Jesus, but the author of Mark did that and the others followed suit. What we see when reading the gospels is nothing more than 1st century politics within Judaism.

I entertain no conspiracy theories here.

everything you claim is contrary to the plot of every single book in the NT.  And any
"scholar" worth his salt acknowledges that at least much of the NT was written prior to 66AD, e.g. Paul's letters

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Tidewater,

how are the gospels' depiction of the guilt and/or innocence of Jews and Gentiles any different than in the Genesis story of Joseph?  Is the writer of Joseph's story attempting to make  Egypt look good for political purposes, while hanging the Jews who sold Joseph into slavery out to dry at the same time?

[Tidewater_Wave]

Tidewater,

how are the gospels' depiction of the guilt and/or innocence of Jews and Gentiles any different than in the Genesis story of Joseph?

Joseph and the technicolor dreamcoat? There is actually an economic argument to be made from that story about the 7 fat cows and the 7 ugly cows, but what exactly do you mean? Btw I'm actually a Christian and don't necessarily doubt Jesus as my savior, but am constructively critical of scripture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you claim to be a Christian who knows scripture, yet you're asking me to explain to you the parallels between the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus?!...both prophesied to their fellow Jews their coming authority, both were rejected by their fellow Jews, in both stories the Jews lied, in both stories the Gentiles were somewhat complicit, in both stories the Gentiles would be more receptive...etc, etc, etc.

yet I don't see you making up any conspiracy theories about the story of Joseph, even though it is just as blunt towards the guilt of the Jews as the story of Jesus.

in any case, my wife is now out of the restroom and I have to go

[Tidewater_Wave]

Why would the gospels need to show Rome in a good light and Jews in a bad light?

Let's see here.  First, they didn't necessarily show Rome in a "good light" but were apologetic in order to evade persecutions. They were at odds with the Jews after the war from 66-73 as many who eventually joined the Christian movement fled to the Galilean countryside while the rest of the Jews stayed and fought, most of whom died. This caused ideological and theological differences. Jews added liturgy of condemnation in their services in order to specifically denounced Christians shortly after.

All guilty of Jesus' death? Yes depending on how you look at it. ALL meant "all Jews" when considering that era's biblical interpretation.  As for forgiveness of sins, it was specified in the gospels but not prior to; 30-70 CE. Eventually Matthew perverted Jesus into fulfilling the Hebrew prophecies. I'm about to tear into the author of Matthew regarding his leaning on the Hebrew Bible.

I agree there is no need to isolate the Jews for the death of Jesus, but the author of Mark did that and the others followed suit. What we see when reading the gospels is nothing more than 1st century politics within Judaism.

I entertain no conspiracy theories here.

everything you claim is contrary to the plot of every single book in the NT.  And any
"scholar" worth his salt acknowledges that at least much of the NT was written prior to 66AD, e.g. Paul's letters

I've never heard of a gospel being written prior to 70 CE. Mark's Jesus predicts the fall of the temple and it is therefor post 70 CE. Paul's letters were written prior to that obviously because he died in the early 60's. In what way is what I've stated contrary to the NT? Pilate was a terrible person and history tells us that. What do you make of the fact that the story about Carabas was actually written prior to the gospels? It is where they got much of the passion narrative a generation later.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

jmfcst, has it occurred to you that many people, including many Christians, prefer to read the Bible both historically and religiously?

what does that have to do with introducing hack motive that is contrary to the entire plot?

Because it's exactly what Tidewater is doing here, and because there are hackish elements to the way the Gospels were written. They play to specific audiences and are hackish to the sensibilities of those audiences. That doesn't somehow magically make them not divinely inspired any more.

[Tidewater_Wave]

jmfcst, has it occurred to you that many people, including many Christians, prefer to read the Bible both historically and religiously?

what does that have to do with introducing hack motive that is contrary to the entire plot?

Because it's exactly what Tidewater is doing here, and because there are hackish elements to the way the Gospels were written. They play to specific audiences and are hackish to the sensibilities of those audiences. That doesn't somehow magically make them not divinely inspired any more.

They do play to specific audiences.

Mark- post-war literature to the Galilean countryside
Matthew- TRIES to relate the Hebrew Bible to Jesus and fails miserably
Luke- seems to be later at a time when Christians are attempting to mostly recruit Gentiles
John- written to combat Celsus and the "heresies" going on in the late first century

John keep in mind rebuttled the Thomist Christians. "Doubting Thomas" comes from the Gnostics who believed that salvation was from within. Notice how ONLY JOHN has Thomas doubting Jesus' resurrection. Thomas in John's gospel has to "see for himself." This is heresy as only Christ could  bring about salvation but to Thomas, salvation is within.

[Tidewater_Wave]

you claim to be a Christian who knows scripture, yet you're asking me to explain to you the parallels between the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus?!...both prophesied to their fellow Jews their coming authority, both were rejected by their fellow Jews, in both stories the Jews lied, in both stories the Gentiles were somewhat complicit, in both stories the Gentiles would be more receptive...etc, etc, etc.

yet I don't see you making up any conspiracy theories about the story of Joseph, even though it is just as blunt towards the guilt of the Jews as the story of Jesus.

in any case, my wife is now out of the restroom and I have to go

Yes they were both cleverly written.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I've never heard of a gospel being written prior to 70 CE. Mark's Jesus predicts the fall of the temple and it is therefor post 70 CE.

So, you're a "Christian", yet you don't believe in prophecy....got it.  What next, do you moonlight as an astronomer who doesn't believe in gravity?

Also, the gospel of Luke references prior writings of gospel accounts (see Luke 1:1), and the gospel of Luke itself is referenced in the introduction of the book of Acts (see Acts 1:1), and the historical account of the book of Acts ends while Paul is still awaiting trial in Rome...so, if Acts was written prior to Paul's death, then so was Luke and also the written gospel accounts referenced in Luke.

---

Paul's letters were written prior to that obviously because he died in the early 60's. In what way is what I've stated contrary to the NT?

well, if you admit Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, and since Paul account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection parallels the gospels...what exactly is your entire point?!  how does one go from admitting Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, to claiming the gospels were embellished to make the Jews look bad after the revolt?!  how does one make that jump?

[Tidewater_Wave]

I've never heard of a gospel being written prior to 70 CE. Mark's Jesus predicts the fall of the temple and it is therefor post 70 CE.

So, you're a "Christian", yet you don't believe in prophecy....got it.  What next, do you moonlight as an astronomer who doesn't believe in gravity?

Also, the gospel of Luke references prior writings of gospel accounts (see Luke 1:1), and the gospel of Luke itself is referenced in the introduction of the book of Acts (see Acts 1:1), and the historical account of the book of Acts ends while Paul is still awaiting trial in Rome...so, if Acts was written prior to Paul's death, then so was Luke and also the written gospel accounts referenced in Luke.

---

Paul's letters were written prior to that obviously because he died in the early 60's. In what way is what I've stated contrary to the NT?

well, if you admit Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, and since Paul account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection parallels the gospels...what exactly is your entire point?!  how does one go from admitting Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, to claiming the gospels were embellished to make the Jews look bad after the revolt?!  how does one make that jump?

Are you kidding or high? Paul references what was known about Jesus' life but doesn't quote the gospels. This is insane and absurd to even suggest. I've never heard a serious scholar once suggest that the gospels were written prior to 70 CE. Paul even speaks of the resurrection in spiritual terms at first. In other words there wasn't a physical resurrection at first in all likelyhood regarding the evolution of Christianity. There is no jump, but only historical analysis. Paul knew nothing of the gospels and really only perverted Jesus' message which is no longer with us.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What do you make of the fact that the story about Carabas was actually written prior to the gospels? It is where they got much of the passion narrative a generation later.

I presume by Carabas you are referring to karabas, a type of mock-king referred to by Philo?

Incidentally, while trying to decipher that reference to Carabas I came across a most peculiar website that makes the claim that the gospel accounts were based upon a now lost tragedy written by the Roman playwright Seneca the Younger about the death of Jesus.

The idea that one or more of the gospel writers may have adapted the structure of Greco-Roman tragedies for their text strikes me as quite plausible, but I find it quite fanciful to go from that to inventing out of whole cloth a lost play by arguably the most famous Roman dramatist of the 1st century.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Pilate was certainly an HP outside of the Bible. The fact that he was so horrible outside of the Bible while in the Bible he was a victem of peer pressure who saw no guilt in Jesus is because Pilate was doing an Even Evil Has Standards (apologises for making a TvTropes reference) moment.

[Tidewater_Wave]

What do you make of the fact that the story about Carabas was actually written prior to the gospels? It is where they got much of the passion narrative a generation later.

I presume by Carabas you are referring to karabas, a type of mock-king referred to by Philo?

Incidentally, while trying to decipher that reference to Carabas I came across a most peculiar website that makes the claim that the gospel accounts were based upon a now lost tragedy written by the Roman playwright Seneca the Younger about the death of Jesus.

The idea that one or more of the gospel writers may have adapted the structure of Greco-Roman tragedies for their text strikes me as quite plausible, but I find it quite fanciful to go from that to inventing out of whole cloth a lost play by arguably the most famous Roman dramatist of the 1st century.

Yes the Carabas/Karabas story was written by Philo. Whether or not it happened like that or happened at all, the fact is that it was written in 38 CE prior to any New Testament source. That's interesting that you mention the piece by Seneca but I'd have to read more about it. I tend to argue that much of the way the gospels were written was a result from the fall of the temple in 70 CE combined with the outcast mentality towards followers of Jesus. Notice how Jesus is always hhelping the less fortunate. There is a Greco-Roman structure as you mention as well.

[useful idiot]

I've never heard of a gospel being written prior to 70 CE. Mark's Jesus predicts the fall of the temple and it is therefor post 70 CE.

So, you're a "Christian", yet you don't believe in prophecy....got it.  What next, do you moonlight as an astronomer who doesn't believe in gravity?

Also, the gospel of Luke references prior writings of gospel accounts (see Luke 1:1), and the gospel of Luke itself is referenced in the introduction of the book of Acts (see Acts 1:1), and the historical account of the book of Acts ends while Paul is still awaiting trial in Rome...so, if Acts was written prior to Paul's death, then so was Luke and also the written gospel accounts referenced in Luke.

---

Paul's letters were written prior to that obviously because he died in the early 60's. In what way is what I've stated contrary to the NT?

well, if you admit Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, and since Paul account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection parallels the gospels...what exactly is your entire point?!  how does one go from admitting Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, to claiming the gospels were embellished to make the Jews look bad after the revolt?!  how does one make that jump?

Are you kidding or high? Paul references what was known about Jesus' life but doesn't quote the gospels. This is insane and absurd to even suggest. I've never heard a serious scholar once suggest that the gospels were written prior to 70 CE. Paul even speaks of the resurrection in spiritual terms at first. In other words there wasn't a physical resurrection at first in all likelyhood regarding the evolution of Christianity. There is no jump, but only historical analysis.

I'd suggest you read more broadly. I may not agree with Jmfsct's tack here, but you really need to find some material not written by Crossan/Borg, Ehrman, et al.

Paul obviously quotes from sources used by the Gospel writers (in Romans alone: 12:14 and 17, 13:7-9, 14:10, 14:14, 16:19). If you don't want to say that this was him quoting from the Gospels, fair enough, but it's splitting hairs at that point.

Dating the Gospels is tricky business, it's hardly an exact science, and any scholar that tells you otherwise probably shouldn't be considered "serious", as you put it. They could have been written in the 50s or the 90s, based on hard evidence alone there's no way we could say either way. There are/were scholars at respected institutions who would date Mark prior to 70AD, somewhere around 65AD iirc is the earliest date. Hugh Anderson of the University of Edinburgh (died 10 years ago), John A.T. Robinson from Cambridge (died in the 80s, did work on it in the 70s), C.E.B. Cranfield of Durham University, and Dennis Nineham of Oxford support or supported the early date. There are other guys who were/are evangelical but taught in first tier UK schools and would go with earlier dates. Furthermore there are quite a few scholars who say it could go either way: Joel Marcus at Duke, John Nolland at the University of Bristol are two. This is just Mark (there are others who hold to an earlier Matthew and teach at reputable schools). See, this is what one can do in 10-15 minutes of research, you should try it...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just hackish. There's such a vast array of material out there on the subject that for you to make such a blanket accusation is ridiculous and reveals a fair amount of immaturity. You know this? Really? Your appeals to scholarship fall flat here because I don't need to look anything up to name dozens of authorities who would call that statement absurd.

Scholarship doesn't involve placing colored beads into a hat based on whether you like something in the text or not. It's more serious than Dan Brown books and wild unfounded assertions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Paul's letters were written prior to that obviously because he died in the early 60's. In what way is what I've stated contrary to the NT?

well, if you admit Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, and since Paul account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection parallels the gospels...what exactly is your entire point?!  how does one go from admitting Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, to claiming the gospels were embellished to make the Jews look bad after the revolt?!  how does one make that jump?

Are you kidding or high? Paul references what was known about Jesus' life but doesn't quote the gospels. This is insane and absurd to even suggest. I've never heard a serious scholar once suggest that the gospels were written prior to 70 CE. Paul even speaks of the resurrection in spiritual terms at first. In other words there wasn't a physical resurrection at first in all likelyhood regarding the evolution of Christianity. There is no jump, but only historical analysis. Paul knew nothing of the gospels and really only perverted Jesus' message which is no longer with us.

I did NOT say Paul quoted the gospels - You misunderstood my point, so allow me to rephrase…

You made two statements:

1)   the historical account of the gospels were written post-70AD and much of the account was invented (at least in part) for political reasons in an attempt to make the Jews look bad and the Roman government look good.

2)   Paul’s letters were written prior to 60AD

My point is that Paul’s letters, and the account of Jesus’ life contained in Paul’s letters, is in complete agreement with the gospels and would be no different “politically” than the account of the gospels:  Jesus was an Israelite, descended from Abraham (Gal 3:16) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (I Cor. 11:23); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (I Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:1, 13, 6:14, etc.) after being interrogated by Pontus Pilate (1Tim 6:13) and rejected by the Jews (1Thess. 2:15).

In summary: Regardless of the sources Paul used to glean that information, there is no difference between the political ramifications of the gospels and Paul’s account of Jesus’ life written prior to 60AD.  The only difference is that the gospels go into more detail, but only because going into detail was the intent of the gospels. So, the whole motive within your theory (gospels changed events surrounding Christ’s death in order to make Rome look good and Jews look bad, in post-70AD political climate) is shattered by the fact Paul’s letters, which you admit were written prior to 60AD, tell the same story and thus have the same political ramifications.

---

As far as your claim that no gospel was written prior to 70AD…the gospel of Luke references prior writings of gospel accounts (see Luke 1:1), and the gospel of Luke itself is referenced in the introduction of the book of Acts (see Acts 1:1), and the historical account of the book of Acts ends while Paul is still awaiting trial in Rome around 60AD.

So, if the book of Luke was written after 70AD, how do you explain that the historical account in Acts, which directly references the book of Luke, leaves off with Paul awaiting trial in Rome around 60AD?