Pontius Pilate

[Tidewater_Wave]

I focus on Mark because it was the first written and the others stem from their or independent sources. I've read many of the above names you mentioned and particularly agree with Crossan and Pagels. Yes Paul may have been familiar with information in the gospels or earlier sources but not at all was he familiar with the gospels as we know them today because they weren't formed yet. I may not have been clear. Also, the work I've done in the past decade would take up hundreds of pages here so as I do post what I've written I ask 2 things. Please be patient and please don't copy and publish my work. I love discussing when the books of the Bible were written and what political motives the authors had. I only get fussy with fundamentalists who don't really understand what's going on outside of what they were taught at age 5. So let's go back to Pilate being a villain in real life. What is everyone's thoughts?

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

Yes Paul may have been familiar with information in the gospels or earlier sources but not at all was he familiar with the gospels as we know them today because they weren't formed yet. I may not have been clear.

No, you’re being clear – you’re clearly dodging my point:  Paul’s description of Jesus persecution, which you admit was written prior to 60AD, is no different politically than the gospels, which you claim were written post-70AD with a post-war political slant to make Rome look better and the Jews look worse.

In other words, your argument of a post-war (70AD) political slant to the gospels is shattered by the fact that Paul paints the political picture in his PRE-war writings (60AD).

---

Also, the work I've done in the past decade would take up hundreds of pages here so as I do post what I've written I ask 2 things. Please be patient and please don't copy and publish my work.

I highly highly highly doubt you’ll have to worry about that, professor.

---

So let's go back to Pilate being a villain in real life. What is everyone's thoughts?

I think everyone, including the NT, agrees Pilate was a scum.

So, there is not a lot to argue about in the case of Pilate’s demeanor:

Luke 13:1 “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices..”

I’ve simply ignored your contention that the gospels try to cast Pilate in a good light, because you’re argument is soo asinine in light of how the gospels actually describe Pilate.  If I attempted to respond to every idiotic comment you made, I’d be here all day.

So, not only is your post-war-political-slant theory refuted by Paul’s pre-war letters (which tell the same story), there wasn’t even any basis for claiming the gospels treated Pilate kindly to begin with.  You’re whole argument is a crock.

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

Luke- seems to be later at a time when Christians are attempting to mostly recruit Gentiles

are you going to answer the following, I'm only asking it for a third time:

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?

[Tidewater_Wave]

Luke- seems to be later at a time when Christians are attempting to mostly recruit Gentiles

are you going to answer the following, I'm only asking it for a third time:

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?

Writings in antiquity took place well after the events took place. Yes, Acts and Luke mention things that took place prior to 60 CE. That has nothing to do with when they were written. The events recorded which are said to take place prior to that time were not written as Luke or Acts until later. The authors were writing about the events as if they were happening later in the first century anyways which further shows that the authors were not present during the time of Paul's ministry in the 50's and early 60's. For example, having the Pharisees being Jesus' primary enemies in Matthew and Luke as opposed to Mark where the scribes and priests are his main enemies, we see a development, one of which would have been the establishment of Pharisees as the leading party rather than the Sadduccees. Luke portrays the Pharisees as being more powerful than they would've been in Jesus' time or even before the fall of the temple. Also, Jesus debating the Jewish leaders in the synagogue at the beginning of Luke suggests that the author of Luke is thinking in terms of an established school system where the Pharisees taught and interpreted Torah. There is no way that line of thought came before the fall of the temple and the Sadduccees. Having the Pharisees impressed shows satire against them and puts Jesus in a positive light setting the tone for further disputes of law to come about throughout the rest of Luke's gospel. These are just a few examples of a post-temple mindset in Luke. The gospels can talk all they want about events that occurred in other NT books and prior to 70 CE but it doesn't mean that they were actually written prior to that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think everyone, including the NT, agrees Pilate was a scum.

So, there is not a lot to argue about in the case of Pilate’s demeanor:

Luke 13:1 “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices..”

I’ve simply ignored (Tidewater_Wave's) contention that the gospels try to cast Pilate in a good light, because (the) argument is so asinine in light of how the gospels actually describe Pilate.

[Made sight edits in the above quote to make clear who jmfcst was responding to.)

The arguments over the depiction of Pilate in the gospels are not so much whether Pilate was a good man but over his use in the Gospel accounts to establish who was to blame for the death of Jesus. This early mention of Pilate in Luke can be seen as setting up his later appearance when Jesus is brought before him.

In Luke he is used to show that it was the Jewish leadership and their followers who were responsible, as the sole reason Pilate sentences Jesus to death is to placate them.

By the way, that somewhat wacko website I mentioned earlier that posits a lost tragedy by Seneca about the crucifixion of Jesus, has a different take on the disagreement over punishment between Pilate and the crowd.  It posits that Barabbas is a corruption of the title 'karabas' and that in the Senecan original that the gospels were based upon Pilate made use of the schemes of the Jewish elders to get him to kill Jesus for them to advance Roman interests.   Pilate offered the crowd a choice between punishing Jesus as a 'karabas' or mock king, who would warrant a mere scourging and sending away and punishing him as someone who really was king, and the crowd chose the latter.  Hence the crucifixion happened not because Jews denied Jesus as Messiah, but because they accepted him as Messiah.

Not a shred of evidence for any of that of course, but it does make for an entertaining tale.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I think everyone, including the NT, agrees Pilate was a scum.

So, there is not a lot to argue about in the case of Pilate’s demeanor:

Luke 13:1 “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices..”

I’ve simply ignored (Tidewater_Wave's) contention that the gospels try to cast Pilate in a good light, because (the) argument is so asinine in light of how the gospels actually describe Pilate.

[Made sight edits in the above quote to make clear who jmfcst was responding to.)

The arguments over the depiction of Pilate in the gospels are not so much whether Pilate was a good man but over his use in the Gospel accounts to establish who was to blame for the death of Jesus. This early mention of Pilate in Luke can be seen as setting up his later appearance when Jesus is brought before him.

In Luke he is used to show that it was the Jewish leadership and their followers who were responsible, as the sole reason Pilate sentences Jesus to death is to placate them.

By the way, that somewhat wacko website I mentioned earlier that posits a lost tragedy by Seneca about the crucifixion of Jesus, has a different take on the disagreement over punishment between Pilate and the crowd.  It posits that Barabbas is a corruption of the title 'karabas' and that in the Senecan original that the gospels were based upon Pilate made use of the schemes of the Jewish elders to get him to kill Jesus for them to advance Roman interests.   Pilate offered the crowd a choice between punishing Jesus as a 'karabas' or mock king, who would warrant a mere scourging and sending away and punishing him as someone who really was king, and the crowd chose the latter.  Hence the crucifixion happened not because Jews denied Jesus as Messiah, but because they accepted him as Messiah.

Not a shred of evidence for any of that of course, but it does make for an entertaining tale.

Finally someone else who gets it right. For the record, it wasn't simply making Pilate out to be a good guy for the sake of being a good guy as it seems that my words have been taken out of context, but it was drawn that way in order to make the Jews look responsible so they could claim that Jesus was the Messiah.

[Tidewater_Wave]

Messiah who died for the Jews that is.

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

Luke- seems to be later at a time when Christians are attempting to mostly recruit Gentiles

are you going to answer the following, I'm only asking it for a third time:

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?

Writings in antiquity took place well after the events took place. Yes, Acts and Luke mention things that took place prior to 60 CE. That has nothing to do with when they were written. The events recorded which are said to take place prior to that time were not written as Luke or Acts until later. The authors were writing about the events as if they were happening later in the first century anyways which further shows that the authors were not present during the time of Paul's ministry in the 50's and early 60's. For example, having the Pharisees being Jesus' primary enemies in Matthew and Luke as opposed to Mark where the scribes and priests are his main enemies, we see a development, one of which would have been the establishment of Pharisees as the leading party rather than the Sadduccees. Luke portrays the Pharisees as being more powerful than they would've been in Jesus' time or even before the fall of the temple. Also, Jesus debating the Jewish leaders in the synagogue at the beginning of Luke suggests that the author of Luke is thinking in terms of an established school system where the Pharisees taught and interpreted Torah. There is no way that line of thought came before the fall of the temple and the Sadduccees. Having the Pharisees impressed shows satire against them and puts Jesus in a positive light setting the tone for further disputes of law to come about throughout the rest of Luke's gospel. These are just a few examples of a post-temple mindset in Luke. The gospels can talk all they want about events that occurred in other NT books and prior to 70 CE but it doesn't mean that they were actually written prior to that.

You keep ignoring Acts, as if I’m going to let you slide...

The four gospels were intended to give a summary of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  In that regard, they are unabridged and are a complete history, even though they are not exhaustive…therefore the timelines of the four gospels, regardless when they were written, make perfect sense…so let’s set them aside and deal now with Acts…

Acts was intended to give a historical summary of the early church from the time Christ ascended…so, if Acts were written after 70AD, why would it leave off with Paul awaiting trial in Rome ~60AD and completely skip the outcome of the trial, the persecution under Nero (64-68AD) and the death of Peter, Paul, and Jesus’ brother James?   These 3, along with John, are the main 4 main Apostles of the early church, and 3 of them were martyred in the 60’s, included Pater and Paul who are the two main characters of the book of Acts.

The author of Acts had no problem presenting the martyrdom of Stephen and John’s brother, and you’re going to tell me the author supposedly wrote this post-70AD and chose to leave out the deaths of Jesus' brother James, Peter, and Paul in the 60’s?!

So, again, for the fourth time, my question to you is:  If written after 70AD, why does Acts, whose historical timeline spans ~30 years after Christ’s resurrection, leave the reader hanging in ~60AD?



 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The author of Acts had no problem presenting the martyrdom of Stephen and John’s brother, and you’re going to tell me the author supposedly wrote this post-70AD and chose to leave out the deaths of Jesus' brother James, Peter, and Paul in the 60’s?!

So, again, for the fourth time, my question to you is:  If written after 70AD, why does Acts, whose historical timeline spans ~30 years after Christ’s resurrection, leave the reader hanging in ~60AD?

We've discussed this point ourselves, and as I pointed out then a plausible possibility is that the writer of Luke-Acts intended to write more books but they either have been lost or were never written.  The fact that we lack a Martyrdom of the Apostles only leaves open the possibility of Luke and Acts being written before their martyrdom, but cannot be used to prove that they were.

Imagine if you will, that The Empire Strikes Back had been a flop so that Star Wars ended after two films.  The lack of The Return of the Jedi would not be an indication that Lucas never planned to film it.

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

The author of Acts had no problem presenting the martyrdom of Stephen and John’s brother, and you’re going to tell me the author supposedly wrote this post-70AD and chose to leave out the deaths of Jesus' brother James, Peter, and Paul in the 60’s?!

So, again, for the fourth time, my question to you is:  If written after 70AD, why does Acts, whose historical timeline spans ~30 years after Christ’s resurrection, leave the reader hanging in ~60AD?

We've discussed this point ourselves, and as I pointed out then a plausible possibility is that the writer of Luke-Acts intended to write more books but they either have been lost or were never written.  The fact that we lack a Martyrdom of the Apostles only leaves open the possibility of Luke and Acts being written before their martyrdom, but cannot be used to prove that they were.

Imagine if you will, that The Empire Strikes Back had been a flop so that Star Wars ended after two films.  The lack of The Return of the Jedi would not be an indication that Lucas never planned to film it.

Yeah, and all your answers are half-baked.

The author of Acts/Luke displays very logical starting and end points in the gospel of Luke, and a very logical starting point for Acts.

If written post-70AD, leaving off with Paul awaiting trial is NOT a good logical breakpoint, especially since Acts spends the last 4 years of its timeline detailing this particular arrest of Paul, from his arrest in Jerusalem (Acts ch 21), to his statement before the Sanhedrin (Acts ch 22), to his transfer to Caesarea (Acts ch 23) where he was examined by Felix (Acts ch24) and waited in prison for 2 years before getting a trail (Acts ch 24), to his trial before Festus and Aggripa (Acts ch 25-26), to his appeal to Caesar and transfer to Rome during which he was shipwrecked (Acts ch 27-28), to his subsequent two years spent awaiting trial in Rome (Acts ch28)…

…and you’re going to tell me that the author of Acts, who you say was writing post-70AD, spent the last 4 years of his timeline in his book covering this single arrest, which covers the last 8 chapters of Acts, is going to decide out of the clear blue to stop at that point, leaving Paul's fate and the story of this arrest hanging?!

That makes no sense whatsoever if he was writing post-70AD, especially in light of the author’s demonstration for choosing good logical starting and end points to his books.  

HOWEVER, since the author is clearly writing from an eyewitness standpoint during the later half of the book of Acts, claiming to have been on this journey as one of Paul’s companions and using “we” over and over again, it is completely logical that the author, unsure of the outcome of Paul’s upcoming trial and therefore unsure of his own safety, would complete his history of the early church and send it off to its recipients just prior to the beginning of Paul’s trail in Rome in 62AD.  That is, BY FAR, the simplest and most logical scenario explaining the endpoint of Acts timeline.

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

In addition to not mentioning the events of the 60's, everything in the Book of Acts is exactly what you would expect if it was written around 62AD...it touches on key points of early church history, going through about 90% of its timeline (~28 years) in the first 20 chapters, yet slowing down the pace of the time and spending the last 8 chapters to cover just 4 years....first 20 chapters cover 28 years, last 8 chapters cover just 4 years.

So, not only do we have the absence of MAJOR MAJOR events of the 60's, and a very abrupt and incomplete ending to the chronology of Acts, we also have the rapid dilation of time towards the later part of the book.

Again, this is exactly what you would expect if the book of Acts were written in 62AD just prior to Paul's trial.

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

another way to look at it:  

if the author was writing Acts post70AD, in light of the all the upheaval of 64AD-70AD (persecution under Nero, death of Paul/Peter/James, Roman siege of Jerusalem and subsequent destruction of the Temple)...

...why in the world would the author of Acts, if writing post70AD, dilate the timeline and spend the last 8 chapters of Acts covering just the 4 years from 59-62AD, when the events of 64-70AD are magnitudes more historically significant?!

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

I can only speak for myself and what seems logical to me...but if I were the author of Acts, who was clearly on the “inside” among the early church hierarchy and every interested in writing the history of Christendom…and I’m sitting around post70AD with Christendom just having gone through:  1) persecution under Nero 64-68AD, the death of 3 of the 4 main Apostles James/Peter/Paul, and the Roman siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple…

…I would NOT spend the last 1/3 of my book of Acts focused on Paul’s arrest and pretrial doings during the years 59-62AD. 

And looking over the gospel Luke and Acts, this author knows when to show down and dilate time to focus on important historical events as expected from a historian  (e.g. arrest/trial/death of Christ in Luke…day of Pentecost in Acts 3…Jerusalem Council in Acts 15…,etc,etc,etc).

I understand the significance of every single instance where this author chooses to dilate time and linger to detail an event….EXCEPT in the case of the dilation of time in Acts ch 21-28, if the book was written post70AD.  And even if the author was writing post70AD and had planned to write a third volume to cover the events from 62-70AD, there is still no reason to dilate the timeframe and spend the last 8 chapters focused on Paul’s arrest and pretrial doings during the years 59-62AD.

There is simply no historical reason to spend the last 8 chapter of Acts detailing ONE single arrest of a single Apostle and 4 years of associated pretrial antics, UNLESS it represents the up to date history of the church at the time Acts was written.

Period.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is simply no historical reason to spend the last 8 chapter of Acts detailing ONE single arrest of a single Apostle and 4 years of associated pretrial antics, UNLESS it represents the up to date history of the church at the time Acts was written.

Period.

That assumes that the author of Acts was writing a history and not a hagiography of Paul.  It also assumes that the author ended where he did because there was nothing more he wanted to write.

But even if the author intended to write no more, it can't be taken as proof that it was because there was no more that could be written. Writing in a manner intended to be taken as having been written by someone of a previous era was not uncommon in that time. So even if one accepts your argument that the intent of the writer was to present the events up to the point Acts concludes, it can't be taken as proof that the actual writing concluded at that point.

My personal belief is that most likely time, place, and person of the writing of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles is c. 83-85 AD, in Boeotia, by either Luke or a scribe working at his direction or from his notes.  The ending of Acts where it ends, is explained by Luke dying before it was finished.

It's far from the only possibility, but I find it more plausible than it was written by Luke c. 60-62 AD in part because of that incompleteness you take as proof of it being written then.  According to tradition, Luke lived another two decades, dying in Boeotia in 84.  If it was written by Luke c. 60-62, then why did Luke not write a third book in the next two decades?  He had ample opportunity to continue writing and given the reception of his text after it had been written, every reason to believe that a continuation of what he had written would be warmly received by the early church.

[Tidewater_Wave]

another way to look at it:  

if the author was writing Acts post70AD, in light of the all the upheaval of 64AD-70AD (persecution under Nero, death of Paul/Peter/James, Roman siege of Jerusalem and subsequent destruction of the Temple)...

...why in the world would the author of Acts, if writing post70AD, dilate the timeline and spend the last 8 chapters of Acts covering just the 4 years from 59-62AD, when the events of 64-70AD are magnitudes more historically significant?!

Because the author was already aware of other books that referred to this. The author of Luke-Acts was interested in the historical spread of Christianity as bad as he was at it. Besides, I've never met anyone who takes Acts at face value. It is predominantly fiction in order to paint a rosie picture of the spread of Christianity. You think Paul was literally blinded and then saw the truth? Do you not see the resemblance of other mythologies of that era?

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

There is simply no historical reason to spend the last 8 chapter of Acts detailing ONE single arrest of a single Apostle and 4 years of associated pretrial antics, UNLESS it represents the up to date history of the church at the time Acts was written.

Period.

That assumes that the author of Acts was writing a history and not a hagiography of Paul.  It also assumes that the author ended where he did because there was nothing more he wanted to write.

But even if the author intended to write no more, it can't be taken as proof that it was because there was no more that could be written. Writing in a manner intended to be taken as having been written by someone of a previous era was not uncommon in that time. So even if one accepts your argument that the intent of the writer was to present the events up to the point Acts concludes, it can't be taken as proof that the actual writing concluded at that point.

So, you’re telling me, that this author of Luke-Acts, a Christian historian who took pride in the boldness of Christian testimonies, is going to follow Paul’s arrest and interrogation by the Sanhedrin, his interrogation by Felix, his two year imprisonment followed by a trial before Felix’s successor Fetus and King Aggrippa II which ended in Paul’s very high risk appeal to Caesar (an appeal that many times ended in a death sentence with no remaining legal recourse), the trip to Rome and another two year wait for trial and Rome…and then not cover Paul’s trial before Caesar himself?!

Not only does that not make sense, it is contrary to the author’s body of work – he excelled in telling stories from the beginning to the end and even explicitly stated that was his intent, and what’s more, the author recounted dozens of testimonies before authorities in Luke-Acts!  And now he is going to take a pass on telling about Paul’s trial before Caesar himself after dilating the timeline of this story of that his story could follow Paul’s case for 4 years?!

In case you missed the above point:  the author left off Paul’s trial and testimony before Caesar…Caesar…Caesar!  The most powerful man in the world and the very authority Jesus Christ himself was accused of attempting to overthrow…and a chance to document the fulfillment of the prophecy an angel had given to Paul:

Acts 27:24 “‘Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar.”

And the author, contrary to all his previous accounts of Christians standing before doubting authorities, is just going to take a pass on Paul standing before Caesar and testifying about Jesus Christ?!  Horse Hockey!

So, again, there is only one possibility that completely solves this puzzle:  The author, who claimed to have traveled with Paul to Rome, sent his account off just prior to Paul’s trial before Caesar, which was a very high risk appeal which many times resulted in execution…because the author was unsure of the outcome, and thus unsure of his own safety and didn’t want his historical knowledge to die with him.

Not only does that scenario solve the complete puzzle, it is by far the scenario requiring the least mental gymnastics (in fact, it requires no mental gymnastics at all as it obeys common sense at every point), and fully explains author’s choice to dilate time in the last 1/3 of Acts and the inexplicable absence of the account of Paul’s trial before Caesar.

Scientist/investigator/historians are trained to accept the easiest scenario explaining all the evidence, but there simply is no reason to not accept a date of 60-62AD for the writing of Acts, except for the fact it gives too much credence to Christianity.  If this did not involve religion, the vast majority of “scholars” would accept a 60-62AD date for the writing of Luke-Acts.

No person can put himself in the shoes of the author, having written a highly detailed account in Luke-Acts, dilated the last 4 years of arrest and imprisonment and trials and appeal, and visualize passing on the opportunity to recount Paul’s trial before Caesar…it is simply inconceivable.

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

It's far from the only possibility, but I find it more plausible than it was written by Luke c. 60-62 AD in part because of that incompleteness you take as proof of it being written then.  According to tradition, Luke lived another two decades, dying in Boeotia in 84.  If it was written by Luke c. 60-62, then why did Luke not write a third book in the next two decades?  He had ample opportunity to continue writing and given the reception of his text after it had been written, every reason to believe that a continuation of what he had written would be warmly received by the early church.

well, according to tradition, Paul helped established the church in Rome, which is in contradiction to Acts and Romans.  But, assuming the author did die in 84AD and wrote Acts in 60-62AD, why would he need to write another version, he had already given an account of the history of Jesus and the history of the early church?  But if he wrote Acts in post-70AD and already had his “pen to paper”, then dilating the last 4 years of 59-62AD and leaving off Paul’s trial before Caesar doesn’t fit with the rest of Luke-Acts.

My point is that there is no reasonable objections to a date of 60-62AD...to me, personally, it doesn't matter when he wrote it.  I'm just pointing out the hackery of "scholars" who can't bring themselves to contemplate a date of 60-62AD simply because it gives too much credence to Christianity.

Aside from the religious implications, there is no reason to not accept a possible date of 60-62AD date given the historical accuracy of its description of the Mediterranean region within 30-60AD and the way Acts ends compared to the rest of Luke-Acts.

Again, there are two unexplainable facts about Luke-Acts if written post70AD:
1)   The dilation of time that is common in historical accounts that lead up to the present time - the last 1/3 of the book dilates the years 59-62AD, focusing on Paul’s arrest, trial before Felix, 2 year imprisonment before trial before Fetus and Agrippa, his appeal to Rome, his arriving at Rome and his 2 year house arrest awaiting trial before Caesar himself…
2)   Paul’s trial and testimony about Christ before Caesar, the highest authority in human government, is left out, which would have completed the saga of Paul’s arrest in grand historical fashion.

No one writing Acts post-trial in 70AD or 80AD or 85AD, would have passed on giving the account of Paul trial before Caesar…not me, not you, and certainly not these “scholars”.

[Tidewater_Wave]

There is simply no historical reason to spend the last 8 chapter of Acts detailing ONE single arrest of a single Apostle and 4 years of associated pretrial antics, UNLESS it represents the up to date history of the church at the time Acts was written.

Period.

That assumes that the author of Acts was writing a history and not a hagiography of Paul.  It also assumes that the author ended where he did because there was nothing more he wanted to write.

But even if the author intended to write no more, it can't be taken as proof that it was because there was no more that could be written. Writing in a manner intended to be taken as having been written by someone of a previous era was not uncommon in that time. So even if one accepts your argument that the intent of the writer was to present the events up to the point Acts concludes, it can't be taken as proof that the actual writing concluded at that point.

So, you’re telling me, that this author of Luke-Acts, a Christian historian who took pride in the boldness of Christian testimonies, is going to follow Paul’s arrest and interrogation by the Sanhedrin, his interrogation by Felix, his two year imprisonment followed by a trial before Felix’s successor Fetus and King Aggrippa II which ended in Paul’s very high risk appeal to Caesar (an appeal that many times ended in a death sentence with no remaining legal recourse), the trip to Rome and another two year wait for trial and Rome…and then not cover Paul’s trial before Caesar himself?!

Not only does that not make sense, it is contrary to the author’s body of work – he excelled in telling stories from the beginning to the end and even explicitly stated that was his intent, and what’s more, the author recounted dozens of testimonies before authorities in Luke-Acts!  And now he is going to take a pass on telling about Paul’s trial before Caesar himself after dilating the timeline of this story of that his story could follow Paul’s case for 4 years?!

In case you missed the above point:  the author left off Paul’s trial and testimony before Caesar…Caesar…Caesar!  The most powerful man in the world and the very authority Jesus Christ himself was accused of attempting to overthrow…and a chance to document the fulfillment of the prophecy an angel had given to Paul:

Acts 27:24 “‘Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar.”

And the author, contrary to all his previous accounts of Christians standing before doubting authorities, is just going to take a pass on Paul standing before Caesar and testifying about Jesus Christ?!  Horse Hockey!

So, again, there is only one possibility that completely solves this puzzle:  The author, who claimed to have traveled with Paul to Rome, sent his account off just prior to Paul’s trial before Caesar, which was a very high risk appeal which many times resulted in execution…because the author was unsure of the outcome, and thus unsure of his own safety and didn’t want his historical knowledge to die with him.

Not only does that scenario solve the complete puzzle, it is by far the scenario requiring the least mental gymnastics (in fact, it requires no mental gymnastics at all as it obeys common sense at every point), and fully explains author’s choice to dilate time in the last 1/3 of Acts and the inexplicable absence of the account of Paul’s trial before Caesar.

Scientist/investigator/historians are trained to accept the easiest scenario explaining all the evidence, but there simply is no reason to not accept a date of 60-62AD for the writing of Acts, except for the fact it gives too much credence to Christianity.  If this did not involve religion, the vast majority of “scholars” would accept a 60-62AD date for the writing of Luke-Acts.

No person can put himself in the shoes of the author, having written a highly detailed account in Luke-Acts, dilated the last 4 years of arrest and imprisonment and trials and appeal, and visualize passing on the opportunity to recount Paul’s trial before Caesar…it is simply inconceivable.

What makes you think the author knew anything about Paul going before Caesar? Remember it was much later that the book was written and contains mostly fictional accounts anyways. I have no idea why you take the book of Acts seriously. Remember Pilate was bad in real life.

[Tidewater_Wave]

There is simply no historical reason to spend the last 8 chapter of Acts detailing ONE single arrest of a single Apostle and 4 years of associated pretrial antics, UNLESS it represents the up to date history of the church at the time Acts was written.

Period.

That assumes that the author of Acts was writing a history and not a hagiography of Paul.  It also assumes that the author ended where he did because there was nothing more he wanted to write.

But even if the author intended to write no more, it can't be taken as proof that it was because there was no more that could be written. Writing in a manner intended to be taken as having been written by someone of a previous era was not uncommon in that time. So even if one accepts your argument that the intent of the writer was to present the events up to the point Acts concludes, it can't be taken as proof that the actual writing concluded at that point.

My personal belief is that most likely time, place, and person of the writing of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles is c. 83-85 AD, in Boeotia, by either Luke or a scribe working at his direction or from his notes.  The ending of Acts where it ends, is explained by Luke dying before it was finished.

It's far from the only possibility, but I find it more plausible than it was written by Luke c. 60-62 AD in part because of that incompleteness you take as proof of it being written then.  According to tradition, Luke lived another two decades, dying in Boeotia in 84.  If it was written by Luke c. 60-62, then why did Luke not write a third book in the next two decades?  He had ample opportunity to continue writing and given the reception of his text after it had been written, every reason to believe that a continuation of what he had written would be warmly received by the early church.

Now that's the scholar. ^^ In ancient times it sometimes took centuries before a story was finally written. Look at the Epic of Gilgamesh for example. It took place between 2700-2500 BCE but wasn't written until centuries later, 2200 BCE at the earliest. J E D and P weren't written until centuries after the stories are said to take place either. Now in the NT we see less time between events and writings but still a few decades or even generations. Remember again that people were mostly illiterate anyway so there would be much less of a point in the author of Luke-Acts writing immediately or even a decade after the death of Paul. Word of mouth and oral tradition were held in higher standards than writings. I think Luke was written in the 80's after the Pharisaic leadership was already established in synagogues and therefore it is the case that its sequal; Acts, was written later. The author may have even died before finishing it.  Luke shows an awareness of an established order of Pharisees being in place which was foreign to any thoughts before the war ended. I've argued these things before and I'll argue them again to make my point that the books of the NT along with many books in antiquity were written far later than the actual events and much later than what Christians believe.

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

My personal belief is that most likely time, place, and person of the writing of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles is c. 83-85 AD, in Boeotia, by either Luke or a scribe working at his direction or from his notes.  The ending of Acts where it ends, is explained by Luke dying before it was finished.

sorry, missed responding to that point...

The end of Acts is NOT truncated as if someone died before finishing it…so that theory doesn’t hold water. 

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

What makes you think the author knew anything about Paul going before Caesar? Remember it was much later that the book was written and contains mostly fictional accounts anyways. I have no idea why you take the book of Acts seriously. Remember Pilate was bad in real life.

Son of Derek, you're whole starting point begins with you already concluding it was written much later...proving you are a hack.  You don't begin by examining the book itself for clues about when it was written, else you would know…

What makes you think the author knew anything about Paul going before Caesar?

… the author is claiming to have accompanied Paul to Rome.

Remember it was much later that the book was written and contains mostly fictional accounts anyways. I have no idea why you take the book of Acts seriously.

Archeological evidences backs up Acts as an wide ranging eyewitness account to the Mediterranean world as it was between 30-60AD.

Remember Pilate was bad in real life.

The author of Luke-Acts paints Pilate as cruel and evil:

Luke 31:1 “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.”

---

If you took the time to reflect on how the NT handles the reputations of the people within the narrative, you’ll find that, as good Christians, the NT writers do not smear someone’s reputation unless their actions overlap with the narrative.  So, apart from mentioning Pilate’s past evil deed in Luke 31:1 simply because it was brought to Jesus’ attention before Jesus begins a sermon on “repent or perish”, there was no reason to detail Pilate’s past atrocities if they did not directly overlap with the narrative.

Such is the case in all the gospels and the book of Acts: If the writers wanted to, they could have listed the evils done by everyone in authority, both Jew and Gentile.  But that is not what we read, rather, the only time a ruler’s evil actions were brought up, is when their actions overlapped with the story. 

[Tidewater_Wave]

My personal belief is that most likely time, place, and person of the writing of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles is c. 83-85 AD, in Boeotia, by either Luke or a scribe working at his direction or from his notes.  The ending of Acts where it ends, is explained by Luke dying before it was finished.

sorry, missed responding to that point...

The end of Acts is NOT truncated as if someone died before finishing it…so that theory doesn’t hold water. 

Is that what they told you in church?

[Tidewater_Wave]

What makes you think the author knew anything about Paul going before Caesar? Remember it was much later that the book was written and contains mostly fictional accounts anyways. I have no idea why you take the book of Acts seriously. Remember Pilate was bad in real life.

Son of Derek, you're whole starting point begins with you already concluding it was written much later...proving you are a hack.  You don't begin by examining the book itself for clues about when it was written, else you would know…

What makes you think the author knew anything about Paul going before Caesar?

… the author is claiming to have accompanied Paul to Rome.

Remember it was much later that the book was written and contains mostly fictional accounts anyways. I have no idea why you take the book of Acts seriously.

Archeological evidences backs up Acts as an wide ranging eyewitness account to the Mediterranean world as it was between 30-60AD.

Remember Pilate was bad in real life.

The author of Luke-Acts paints Pilate as cruel and evil:

Luke 31:1 “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.”

---

If you took the time to reflect on how the NT handles the reputations of the people within the narrative, you’ll find that, as good Christians, the NT writers do not smear someone’s reputation unless their actions overlap with the narrative.  So, apart from mentioning Pilate’s past evil deed in Luke 31:1 simply because it was brought to Jesus’ attention before Jesus begins a sermon on “repent or perish”, there was no reason to detail Pilate’s past atrocities if they did not directly overlap with the narrative.

Such is the case in all the gospels and the book of Acts: If the writers wanted to, they could have listed the evils done by everyone in authority, both Jew and Gentile.  But that is not what we read, rather, the only time a ruler’s evil actions were brought up, is when their actions overlapped with the story. 

I've already explained ancient writings being written much later than their occurrence. Your arguments begin with the conclusion that the books of  the Bible are somehow apart from this trend or hold some type of significance greater than other stories and myths from that era.  Pilate would have been more than happy to cruxify Jesus whether he was guilty or innocent. It would've been another body to hang in order to cause fear among the Jews. The authors take plenty of time smearing the scribes and Pharisees though. Fear of persecution caused the restraint on Pilate's bad character. It was easier for Mark and then the other writers who followed to blame the Jews rather than the Romans. Plus it was a conflict within Judaism anyways so of course the Jews in power and those who opposed the new messagge were going to be cast into bad light before the Romans.

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

I've already explained ancient writings being written much later than their occurrence. Your arguments begin with the conclusion that the books of  the Bible are somehow apart from this trend

As if this trend prohibited people giving accounts which lead up to their own present time?!  You do realize that the book of Acts is full of people giving account by discussing the events that led them to their point in time, right?

In fact, I would bet 99% of writings were written for the purpose to explain events that led to present circumstances.  To claim there was some writing style that prohibited writing in 60AD a history of the preceding 60 years, is laughable.

But, if Acts was written post70AD, then it’s extremely incomplete not to include Paul’s trial before Pilate given the fact it spent the last 1/3 of the book detailing this one single case against Paul.

It’s would be worse than documenting  a case for four years right up to the point of being heard by the SCOTUS, then leaving out the SCOTUS outcome.

---

Pilate would have been more than happy to cruxify Jesus whether he was guilty or innocent.

Very true!  In fact, Pilate’s reputation for cruelty while hesitating to execute Jesus, is a testimony to Jesus’ nature.  To water down Pilate’s personality would have actually taken away from Jesus’ persona.

This forum has previously discussed Pilate's impression of Christ: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=136514.msg2920620;topicseen#msg2920620

That single thread drew great interest on this forum, because EVERYONE understood the significance of the cruel Pilate being thrown off stride by the grace and lack of condemnation of being in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Everyone understood the testimony of Pilate’s hesitation, and it had NOTHING to due with attempting to make Pilate look good, rather it have everything to do with the nature of Christ.  Unbelievers actually asked me to lighten up in that thread because I was getting in the way of the profoundness of the account.

But, obviously, that is completely over your head, because you have come here with a theory that has the gospel writers intentionally watering down the significance of a ruthless dictator becoming completely disarmed by Jesus’ presence.

Everyone on this forum understood that…but you don’t.

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

This forum has previously discussed Pilate's impression of Christ: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=136514.msg2920620;topicseen#msg2920620

That single thread drew great interest on this forum, because EVERYONE understood the significance of the cruel Pilate being thrown off stride by the grace and lack of condemnation of being in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Everyone understood the testimony of Pilate’s hesitation, and it had NOTHING to due with attempting to make Pilate look good, rather it have everything to do with the nature of Christ.  Unbelievers actually asked me to lighten up in that thread because I was getting in the way of the profoundness of the account.

But, obviously, that is completely over your head, because you have come here with a theory that has the gospel writers intentionally watering down the significance of a ruthless dictator becoming completely disarmed by Jesus’ presence.

Everyone on this forum understood that…but you don’t.

Tidewater, here is an example from that thread of why your theory would be counterproductive to the witnessing value of Pilate’s confrontation with Jesus:

Just to clarify, I was not trying to imply in my post above the Gospel portrayals of Jesus' encounter with Pilate were inaccurate, nor was I making any claim that the Gospels betray anti-Semitism in the way they depict that event.  There are scholars who make such claims, but I was not in the post above trying to endorse them. 

My only point in citing other important historical sources on first-century Judea was to emphasize that Pilate was really hated by the people of Palestine, since he needed no provocation to inflict cruelty on them--in fact, he was himself an instigator of cruelty.   So, the fact that even he is portrayed in the Gospel stories as recognizing Jesus' innocence would have really underscored to first-century audiences that Jesus must have been innocent.  Now, obviously, the Gospels don't let Pilate off scott-free by any means, since he does, as you point out jmf, have Jesus flogged and then permits his execution.  But, just imagine you're a first-century Jewish Christian sometime between the 60's and 80's, a time when Roman oppression of Judea reached its most terrible height.  If all you know about Jesus' death to start out with, perhaps following an early version of a creedal formula, was that Jesus was executed under Pilate, you probably would have thought to yourself: "oh, no kidding; Pilate was a monster."  But then, you heard one of the Gospel stories attesting to Pilate's recognition that Jesus was innocent.  That would have made an impression on someone on the first century that it doesn't necessarily immediately make on us today  It's a striking vindication of Jesus, given all else we know about Pilate.