PILATE'S PROBLEM AND OURS

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

this was the sermon from my pastor this past sunday from the Gospel of John (read Pilate and Jesus conversation during his trial in John chapters 18 and 19 for background info)...I'll see if I cant find a video link, but the summary is posted below:

---

PILATE'S PROBLEM AND OURS 

As the Roman governor, Pilate's role was simple.  All he had to do was identify the criminal, identify his crime, and decide on a punishment.  But with Jesus he had a problem.

He couldn't identify Him.  He asked him if He was King of the Jews.  And he asked Him where He came from.  He didn't get clear answers.   

He established that He committed no crime, and even told the angry Jewish religious leaders, "I find no guilt in this man."

Yet he administered a flogging anyway.  And his soldiers put a crown of thorns on His head, and mocked Him.

Still the Jewish leaders were not satisfied. They demanded He be crucified, and Pilate complied.

1. Pilate let religion leaders overpower truth.

2. He let the crowd's opinion override the law.

3. He let evil trample on good.

You can see why Pilate's problem has become our own.

1. We, too, can be like Pilate and let "religion" become truth, instead of "Truth" Himself being truth.  "I am the way, the truth, the life," Jesus said.  "No man comes to the Father but by me."  But we have distinguished religious leaders today telling us we are archaic if we believe that. 

2. And we also let popular opinion determine what we let our kids wear, see, and practice.  We are so influenced by television and the entertainment industry that we have indeed become the generation defined by Jesus' own words, "They loved fables more than the truth."

3. And we constantly see "evil" trampling on "good."  This week the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the Plano ISD case in which students were not allowed to hand out candy canes at Christmas because they were telling the story of Jesus in the red and white colors.

And a judge declared that the Medina Valley ISD could not include prayer, or even a hint of prayer at its graduation ceremonies.  Can't even say, "bow for a moment of silence."  He warned they would be in contempt of court and subject to jail sentences if they tried to used words like "amen," or anything else to hint of prayer.  In America!  A nation once proud of its Christian heritage!

We may be hours away from crucifying Christ.  We have lost our ability to defend Him.  We are like Pilate.  We know He is innocent.  But we fear the leaders, we fear their laws, and we enable evil to triumph over good.

Can we reverse this trend?

Only you know.

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

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

on what basis?

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

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

on what basis?

Roman law allowed for the execution of usurpers. All the hullabaloo about Christ being "King of the Jews" should be taken in a literal sense.

but Pilate found no fault in him and washed his hands, nor was Jesus leading a rebelling against Roman rule of Judea

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

The bit about Pilate washing his hands is, as I've said, a subject for debate. A lot of modern-day interpreters believe that Pilate was signaling his dislike for the 'circus' nature of the trial and contempt for the Jewish hierarchy. Others think it was a show to signal to Jesus' followers that the ultimate, real responsibility for the execution lay with that hierarchy. That doesn't mean it wasn't within Roman law as it was imposed by the Romans on the territories they conquered.

But the Gospels explicitly state Pilate’s reason for washing his hands.  You can’t cherry pick which aspects of the trial you believe and which you reject, without citing another source to refute the NT account of Jesus’ trial.

The NT account of his trial is historically accurate in its small details:
-That Pilate was ruler of Judea and had authority to execute
-That Herod Antipas was ruler of Galilee.
-That Caiaphus was the high priest.
-Crucifixion as a form of execution of non-Roman citizens.
-Flogging before execution
-Dividing up of the condemned man’s clothes
-Guarding of the execution site by Roman soldiers
-The condemned being made to carry their cross
-The condemned being nailed to their cross during crucifixion

…all of those are historically accurate within non-Christian first century sources

And then we have two non-Christian historical sources, one Roman (Tacitus) and one Jewish (Josephus) that verify that Jesus was executed by order of Pilate with the urging of the Jewish religious leaders.

So, on what basis do you doubt the reason for Pilate washing his hands?

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

Leaving aside the fact that quite a few of those are not attested to within non-Christian first century sources, you've missed my point, which is:

So, on what basis do you doubt the reason for Pilate washing his hands?

There is no reason for it given in the Gospel account. Pilate's washing of his hands is rather conspicuous in that it's one of the few actions we don't see a motivation for within the text.

dont know how you're reading it, but, to me, the reason for him washing his hands is stated

 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked.

   They all answered, “Crucify him!”

 23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

   But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

 24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
 25 All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”

 26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

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

4 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

That's not a reason, do you see? Why did Pilate feel Jesus was innocent? Did he feel it was the result of a kangaroo court on the part of the Temple establishment? Was it a political play against them, where he didn't really care about "this man's" innocence or guilt? Nothing is given. Pilate is an enigma in the Gospels.

the reason Pilate felt Jesus was innocent is again, plainly given:

Luke 23:4
Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

John 18:38
“What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him."

John 19:4
Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.”

John 19:6
As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

even a 5 year old can understand that

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

*snip*

Again, that's not a reason: why does Pilate find "no basis for a charge" against that man? We are told what Pilate said; we are not told why Pilate said it.

could it be that Pilate found no basis because, perhaps, there was no basis to be found?!

I am starting to see why you were banned - you've got a bad case of Derekitis

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

It might be worth noting that other major sources on first-century Jewish history, Josephus and Philo, contain scathing accounts of Pilate's tenure as Perfect of Judea.  He frequently provoked popular hostility by departing from Roman precedent to display Roman religious images on soldiers' standards n public, and was reportedly rebuked several times by none other than Emperor Tiberius for these actions.  On at least two occasions, if not more, he instigated violent suppression of Jewish protest and religious observance, after one incident early in his perfectorate where he did concede to a protest about the aforementioned standards.  Tradition has it that his governorship was so inept and counter-productive to Roman wishes for relative peace in Judea in the '30's that Pilate was recalled to Rome and the exiled to Gaul.  He appeared, in view of all this, to have no admirers in the first-century community in Judea, which was in his charge; he was on the contrary seen as a nefarious and wicked Perfect.  On a personal level, he was observed to have a quick temper and prone to cruel vindictiveness.  In any case, if this was the accepted and widely-held view of Pilate in the first and second centuries, then Pilate might have been assumed to be the last guy in the world who would have been likely to have contemplated letting an accused "King of the Jews" go free.
This then raises a question about why Pilate would receive the portrayal in the Gospels that he does.'

Pilate is accurately portrayed in the Gospels:

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. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

---

  If the Gospel writers saw Pilate as bearing little responsibility for Jesus death, but instead saw him for the most part as giving in to the supposed popular will by having Jesus crucified, that would seem to indicate that they saw fit to lay most of the blame on Herod, temple leaders and the Jerusalem crowds.

you really should stop listening to theories of the "experts".  They are hacks who dont even understand the basics of the Gospel: that we are all sinners and that Christ came to die for our sins.  So, from a human standpoint, we all crucified Christ, for he died for the whole world.
I dont blame one group more than another for his death, because that is the very reason he came into this world - to die for my sins.  So I am THANKFUL THAT CHRIST DIED and therefore don't hold a grudge against anyone for his death.

The self proclaimed "experts" who accuse the Gospels of being anti-Semetic or favoring one group over another, don't understand the basic concept of the universal necessity of Christ's death.

---

  Given how incredibly unpopular Pilate was among both Jewish and presumably even Roman audiences, the Gospels seem to be attempting to make a quite dramatic point, namely that if even an odious and ill-intentioned ruler like Pilate could tell Jesus was innocent of any crime, he must really have been innocent.  Whatever historical and religious reasons the Gospel writers had for trying to make this point, and there are a number of theories afoot for why they did, I think they were definitely trying to emphasize just that.

why does there have to be a grand conspiracy amongst the writers of the Gospels or any other motive, other than simply relaying the truth about what happened? Instead of unsupported theories, what about the theory that the accounts of his trial are accurate and Jesus really was innocent?

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

Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed.

if Pilate thought Jesus' kingship was basis for execution, he wouldn't have said, "I find no basis to comdemn him" after hearing Jesus admit to being a king:

Mat 27:11-23 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied....v23“What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

Mark 15:2-14 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied....v14 "What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate

Luke 23:3-4 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. 4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

John 18:37-38 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” 38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him."

All 4 gospels recount Jesus admitting to be king, and THEN go on to say that Pilate could find no basis against him even AFTER hearing Jesus confess to be a king.  So, you are simply in error in saying, "Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed."

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

I find the fault in the notion that it is 'evil'  to not be allowed to hand out candy canes and suc stuff.    The whole second half spins a false persecution narrative-  One that would be laughable to the early Church.

no one is equating it to what the early Church went through, or what other Christians around the world are currently going through.  Rather it is just a sign America is ultimately headed in the same direction - the denial of first amendment rights of Christian kids is just another step along that path.

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

The lack of Candy canes and head bows are evil as implied by the text.  And it places us in the position of recrucifying our Lord? It all sounds vaguely Catholic.   Christians are not barred from worshiping and it is excessive hyperbole on the part of your pastor to go down that road. If you want religion in your schools then pay for them like some other groups have done for 200 years. (thick sarcasm intended, but with friendly intentions)

the statement regarding kids is in the larger context of walking away from truth, even within the church...it's simply an example of going along to get along

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

All 4 gospels recount Jesus admitting to be king, and THEN go on to say that Pilate could find no basis against him even AFTER hearing Jesus confess to be a king.  So, you are simply in error in saying, "Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed."

That's because Jesus went on a spiel about how his kingdom was "not of this Earth" and so on, which may well have been considered a mitigating factor against executing him as a usurper. But that's exactly what he was executed as under Roman law. As much of an asshole as Pilate is known to have been, he would not have had the leeway to execute any man, no matter how much political pressure he may have been under, if he could not have justified it according to Roman law.

Well, technically, Jesus was breaking the Roman law by being king.  But Pilate accepted the truth about Jesus’ kingship and accepted Jesus as king of the Jews.  Pilate also acknowledged that truth trumped the law, because Pilate still found no fault in Jesus even after accepting his status as king.  But then Pilate gave into the mob and allowed Jesus to be crucified…hence the lesson that Pilate’s problem is also our problem because we face the same pressures today:

-   We are mocked by many in the religious hierarchy for acknowledging Jesus as the only path to salvation.
-   We was faced with laws that increasingly forbid acknowledging Jesus
-   We are faced by a mob that makes us out to be the enemies of society if we acknowledge Jesus

So we have the same choice Pilate had:  continue to stand for truth even if it is against the law, or give into the religious leaders and the mob

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

Liberté, I now see your initial point about Jesus technically being in violation of Roman law.  I think you went off track in regard to why Pilate washed his hands (which is clearly stated) and why Christ was actually executed (it wasnt because he was found guilty of being in violation of the law, though I admit he was technically guilty)...but your initial point is technically valid.

But Pilate was willing to accept that truth trumped the technicality of laws that suppress truth.  The fact of the matter is that Pilate was afraid, of both the truth and the pressures of the law/crowd.  And I can even agree with you that Pilate was disgusted by the absence of truth within the proceedings, therefore I can even agree with you that one of the reasons why Pilate washed his hands was out of disgust.

But Pilate was clearly afraid of the possibility that Jesus was really the Son of God, but in the end, Pilate cared more about his position in society and attempted to have it both ways:  he gave into the crowd while attempting to still acknowledge Jesus as king of the Jews.  Pilate even attempted to honor Jesus by placing a sign over Jesus’ head that read “king of the Jews”.

But attempting to have it both ways didn’t absolve Pilate of his role, nor did it do him any good as far as eternity is concerned.  So the lesson is that we cant have it both ways:  either we are willing to be killed along with Christ (which Pilate may have been if he continued to acknowledge Jesus), or we give into those who want to destroy truth in a attempt to save our own skin.

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

jmf, you really shouldn't accuse anyone of being Derek-like.  You're getting a very good conversation from those posting here.  Not emotional arguments, but good solid back and forth, even when you don't agree.  You should embrace that.

Granted, but aren't you a little late?  I mean, come on, that was early on in the thread and since then I've built bridges into areas where I can agree.  I just objected to the claim that we don’t know why Pilate washed his hands and I objected to the claim that we don’t know why Pilate found no fault in Jesus.  But I did make every effort to agree to the technical nature of Jesus’ “crime”.

The fact is that the Gospels clearly portray Pilate as a ruthless governor who was won over by Jesus, but was unwilling to forego his social status in order to follow Christ.  The fact that this tyrant was more persuadable to the truth than the religious leaders speaks volumes about the dangers of religion.

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

Ok, maybe a lil late.....but the exchage is a good one...just want it to continue

yes it is, but that has more to do with the richness of Gospels accounting of Pilate’s predicament, rather than the participants of this conversation, myself included.  Pilate is right there on the proverbial edge: torn between making the break to embrace eternal truth, and the filth and lies he would have to continue to embrace in order to retain his fleeting social status.  

for anyone who hasn’t read it, Jesus’ trial before Pilate is found in Mat ch27, Mark ch15, Luke ch23, John ch 18 & 19

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

anvikshiki,

sorry for my alluding to the scholars, I'm just really fed up with the gospel being used for anti-Semitism by so-called "Christians" and with the anti-Semitic charges against the gospel by so-called "scholars".  

Any novice reader can see that the gospel is neither pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish, that Christ came into the world for the very purpose of dying, that both Jews and Gentiles crucified Christ, and that Christ died for both Jews and Gentiles, he even died for those who took part in his crucifixion.

The bias and blindness of scholars never ceases to amaze and anger, and my comments were directed at them and not at you.

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

Ernest got to the point I was going to make (in all likelihood more intelligently too)...I doubt, and I mean this with all due respect, jmfcst is going to agree with the point the Federalist formerly known as Ernest or even consider it among the realm of possibilities, because the Bible (given its true author) is supposed to transcend political points...but I think its a valid thing to consider nonetheless.

(And I hope I just didn't try to put words into Jmfcst's mouth...just seems like how this is going to play out).

To the contrary, even if one approaches it from a nonbiased-nonbeliever standpoint - to say that the NT is attempting to make political points against the Jews is saying that one doesn't understand, even at a novice level, the message the apostles preached - that they all, to a man, rejected Jesus at some point.  Even Peter.

So, again, attempts by “experts”, or by “Ernest/Federalists”, to spin the gospel as anti-Jewish is really missing the point: Pilate’s attempted straddle of the issue doesn’t shift blame from Gentile to Jew anymore than Roman soldiers actually carrying out the execution shifted blame to the Gentiles.  Blanket blaming of a certain race is not even in question, rather it is the individual acceptance of the blame that is the focus of the gospel.

Example:  Pilate, who acts as an allegory for the unbelieving religious novice, keeps attempting to pass the buck and leave it to others to define Christ for him.  Pilate looks to the religious leaders for help in identifying Christ, but their definition of him did not satisfy Pilate (much like the Trinity doctrine doesn’t satisfy).  Then Pilate passes the buck to secular Herod, but Herod doesn’t have the answer to Jesus’ identity.  All the while Jesus answers the question point blank, but even Jesus continues to place Pilate on the hook in order to make Pilate decide for himself who Jesus actually is:

John 18:33-35 33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”  34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”  “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me.”

Translation:  Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you really God?”  “Is that your idea,” Jesus asked, “or did religious people talk to you about me?”  “Am I religious?  Why would I claim to know who you are?” Pilate replied, “It was your religious people who placed you into my lap.”

You can almost feel Pilate being brought to tears and saying, “Yo, Jesus, I am only a unbelieving religious novice.  Why do I have to be the one to define you?!  Certainly there is someone more qualified to answer that question.”

But no one allows Pilate to pass the buck, not Herod, not the Sanhedrin, and, most of all, not Jesus.  And even though Pilate is a complete novice, the one thing that he can discern is that the religious leaders are full of beans.  In the end, Pilate refuses to accept blame, and thus never takes the final step to becoming a Christian.

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

Ok.  I get that you fundamentally disagree with the theory that the Bible was trying to score points by making the Jews the patsies of this story.  Thats one way to go about it...but I think...and I hope he will clarify if I get this wrong, Ernest is arguing that the Bible's depiction of Pilate, given when the gospels were likely put to paper...was to not further anger Roman Authorities following the suppression of the Jewish revolt...I can see where people think that necessarily makes the Jews the fall guys...but I dont think it necessarily has to be so...it seems possible one can avoid angering rome by avoiding a totally offensive portrayal of Pilate without dropping a proverbial deuce on the Jews.

but that fails to recognize Pilate is an allegory for anyone encountering the Gospel and having to distance himself from both secular and religious opinion when personally deciding whether to accept who Jesus says he is and thus accept personal blame for his crucifixion.

i.e. if the Gospel requires you to accept personal blame for Jesus’ death, how can the Gospels be seen to be placing the blame on Jews more than Gentiles?!  

The scapegoating theory couldn’t pick the winner of a one horse race.

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

sorry for being so blunt, but IMO, Peter's denial of Jesus, since Peter knew who Jesus was, was worse than the actions of Pilate and the Sanhedrin, combined.  But I don't sit here and claim the NT is attempting to scapegoat Peter because I know that everyone, from time to time, has denied Jesus.  In fact, I deny him everytime I knowingly sin.

Simply assuming the NT is attempting to scapegoat a particular group might be an initial thought, but how much brousing of the NT is really required to understand they we all are personally responsible and that even those closest to Jesus will deny him from time to time?  

Is our personal role in Jesus' crucifixion really that hidden of a message within the NT to warrant entertaining of a scapegoating theory?

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

Perhaps, but also keep in mind that the Gospels were, with the probable exception of Mark, written down in the 1st century after the First Jewish Revolt. (Mark was probably written down while the revolt was in progress.)  With all the internal fighting between Jewish factions in that revolt. Even without considering the breech between Judaism and Christianity, casting the Sanhedrin as the bad guys was the logical thing to do no matter what the actual events may have been.

dating the writing of the gospels is always argumentative, but how in the world is the gospel of Luke not written prior to the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 A.D.)?!  The Book of Acts was clearly written after, and by the same writer as, the Gospel of Luke.

So, let’s get to the point:  what, exactly, argues for not placing the writing of Luke prior to the First Jewish Revolt?

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

Ok.  I get that you fundamentally disagree with the theory that the Bible was trying to score points by making the Jews the patsies of this story.  Thats one way to go about it...but I think...and I hope he will clarify if I get this wrong, Ernest is arguing that the Bible's depiction of Pilate, given when the gospels were likely put to paper...was to not further anger Roman Authorities following the suppression of the Jewish revolt...I can see where people think that necessarily makes the Jews the fall guys...but I dont think it necessarily has to be so...it seems possible one can avoid angering rome by avoiding a totally offensive portrayal of Pilate without dropping a proverbial deuce on the Jews.

I agree with your point, bullmoose.

Not so sure you and bm are on the same page, but I agree with the rest of your post:

 It doesn't seem to me that the Gospels were meant even indirectly to serve as a political apologia to the Roman authorities, and so their goal in telling the Pilate story was not to signal to the Romans that Christians were cool with them and so the Romans should therefore go after Jewish communities instead.  Such an argument would almost certainly not have been compelling to the Romans, since they did not think highly of Pilate either, and I doubt the events of the 60's to the 80's did anything to rehabilitate Pilate's reputation as a Perfect among them.  Plus, by the '60's, it can be argued that the Romans authorities did know who Christians were and still had no qualms about scapegoating and killing them too.  The Gospels are instead religious documents addressed to religious communities, and it seems to me that the stories about Pilate and the Sanhedrin were not really about how to apportion blame for Jesus' execution, since in the end that execution was believed necessary for the redemption of humanity, but they were mostly about vindicating Jesus himself, and faith in Jesus, to believers.  After all, nobody else comes out of the Jesus execution story looking good except Jesus himself and his mother; the Sanhedrin supposedly failed to recognize him and broke their own law to get rid of him, Pilate recognized his innocence but executed him anyway, crowds that hailed him as a prophet and a messiah one day shouted for him to be put to death by their hated imperialist occupiers the next, and even his own disciples betrayed him.  It's a story about God keeping a redemptive covenant with humanity despite humanity's faithlessness.  The Gospels are religious documents for people of faith, not diplomatic communiques or historical documentaries.  

Yep, Christians experienced death-by-Gentile just as much as they experienced death-by-Jew.  And trying to blow smoke up the Romans by vindicating Pilate doesn’t remove the fact that preaching Jesus as God was causing riots throughout all the Roman Empire.

The scapegoating theory lacks a basis in fact as well as a purpose in application.

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

I wasn't arguing that the Gospels take an anti-Jewish viewpoint, but an anti-Jewish leadership viewpoint.

As for dating, other than the Pauline epistles, none of the NT can be said to be definitely written pre-Revolt.

Well, since you agree Paul’s letters were written pre-Revolt, why not the Gospels?  I mean, were the original apostles like Peter-John-James illiterate?  There is reason to believe John’s letters were some of the last written due to statements contained within them but there is no reason to think Luke and Acts werent written pre-Revolt.  In fact, attempting to place Luke-Acts post-Revolt creates many unnecessary problems that simply don’t exist with a preRevolt date (more on that subject below).

---

It was the combined loss of the original Apostles by death and the original center of the church in Jerusalem during the First Revolt that made Gospel writing necessary for the early church.

What?! So, then all the Pauline letters, which you agree where written when the original Apostles were still alive, were written for what purpose?! i.e. According to your logic, why were the Pauline letters necessary while the original apostles were still alive?  Makes no sense.

---

Scholarly consensus is in favor of a post-Revolt dating for all of the Gospels except Mark and I haven't seen anything that would cause me to doubt that.  (Not that they couldn't be wrong, I just haven't seen anything that makes me doubt the consensus.)

Please state the basis of this “Scholarly consensus” that favors “a post-Revolt dating for all of the Gospels”

---

It does seem to me that those who argue for a pre-Revolt writing of the Gospels are driven mainly by a desire to preclude the passages that are taken to predict the destruction of the Second Temple from being prophecies written after the fact.

Actually, you have that exactly backwards:  nothing in my doctrine requires the dating of the gospels to be preRevolt, for the gospels are simply attempts to tell the story from an historical basis...Jesus simply made the prophecy, doesnt matter to me when the prophecy was recorded for historical purposes – BUT, it is this prophecy, which unbelievers can’t accept as authentic – that is the ONLY basis for not accepting the Gospels to be preRevolt.  If it weren’t for the temple prophesy, “scholars” would have no problem accepting a preRevolt dating for the majority of the Gospels.

But, the fact that Luke alludes to the existence of previous written gospels (see Luke 1:1-3) does give evidence that some of the gospels, if not all, were written prior to Luke.  And since Acts was written after Luke (see Acts 1:1), the dating of Acts is the probable key to dating at least some of the earlier gospels. A conclusion I think you are in agreement with.

But, again, denying a preRevolt timeframe for the writing of Acts is really a joke that opens up a multitude of unnecessary problems:
-   Acts was OBVIOUSLY written by an eyewitness as no other single literary work so accurately describes the mid-first century Mediterranean world on such a wide scope.  The undeniable eyewitness qualities of the book of Acts are unsurpassed in the NT, even among the Gospels.
-   It’s a pretty well accepted that Paul was executed around 67-68 AD in Rome, but the book of Acts ends while Paul is awaiting trial in Rome, and thus presents major problems for a post-Revolt (66-70) dating.  In fact, the timing of the ending of Acts strongly argues for a 60-62 date of writing, years before the Revolt.  

Basically, if Acts was written prior to the Revolt, which is by far the simplest and most obvious answer without causing other issues, then Luke is also preRevolt.   And if Luke is preRevolt, so are some of the other Gospels.

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

The reason we can assign a definite era of composition to the Pauline epistles is that we can be certain of their authorship.

Yes, but we can’t detach Paul from what he wrote, for we only know him through his writings (yes, we do know some about him from Acts also, but you get my point).

Likewise, we can be certain the book of Acts was written by an eyewitness (that is, the 2nd half of Acts, the first half is obviously recounting history that the author was told about)…we might not know the identity of the writer of Acts, but that is largely irrelevant since we couldn’t pry the author apart for his writing anymore than we can examine Paul apart from his letters.

So, the identity of the writer of the book of Acts is irrelevant, the important thing is that it is obviously authentic, just as Paul’s letters are obviously authentic.

---

The Pauline epistles were written to address specific issues as they cropped up

That is not exactly true, because if they were written simply to address specific issues, then they would have said something to the effect of, “Hey, scratch that, amend that, cross that, dot that…and then you’re fine”

But, that is not the case.  Instead, each letter is a retelling of theGospel.  Not the historical details about where and when Jesus traveled as in the 4 gospels, but rather the retelling of the overall Gospel that Jesus taught while on earth – that we’ve been forgiven of our sins and given eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.  Each letter is simply an attempt to remove whatever has cluttered up the simplicity of that message and to start afresh in an uncluttered relationship with Christ.


---

, but placing the Gospel message down as an authoritative whole only became needful once the former sources of authority (the original Apostles and the original church in Jerusalem) were gone.

Yes and no.  

Yes, the 4 gospels and Acts are the historical record of the teaching of the overall Gospel through the life of Christ (the 4 gospels) and within the beginnings of the church (Acts).  

No, in the sense that the historical record was somehow a replacement for the original apostles, as if the original apostles were somehow a necessary ingredient of the Gospel itself.  The Apostles were merely witnesses of the Gospel, they had no power outside of the Gospel itself.  Though, the Apostles at one time thought they were an inseparable part of the Gospel, but Jesus rebuked them for that idea:

Mark 9: 38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.”

Paul understood this, which is why when he was called to be an apostle, he didn’t run off seeking the consent of the original apostles, and didn’t actually meet up with them until years into his ministry.  Therefore, Paul had no problem preaching the Gospel without the need of the authority of the original Apostles or the account of their eyewitness. The revelation given to Paul of the overall Gospel was enough.

This is why the 4 gospels and the book of Acts are written by anonymous authors, not that it was beyond the ability of the author to identify himself, but because it would only clutter the central  message which has nothing to do with the authority of the original apostles.

And, as we can see throughout the NT, the presence of the Apostles couldn’t keep human nature from cluttering up the gospel.  And the letters written to clear up these problems are spiritual, just as the rest of scripture is spiritual.  So, in the end, it’s not the presence of the Apostles that makes the difference, rather it is the guiding of the Spirit within the individual church member.

---

There are numerous places you can examine the consensus I mentioned. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html gives a fairly good summary of the viewpoints of various scholars concerning the date of composition of Luke-Acts, as well as an explanation of why the absence of Paul's martyrdom from Acts does not necessitate a pre-Revolt date of composition.

With all due respect, most of these people don’t even understand how the early church functioned (heck, most Christian denominations don’t understand how the early the church functioned), so unless they have a specific historical reason why such and such book could not have been written at a certain date, their opinions are about  meaningful as a pile of dung.

I agree that Acts does not necessitate a pre-Revolt date of composition, but there is no reason why it could not have been written around 62AD, and in fact, that date is the most logical.  Granted, motives are [late edit] NOT always as simplistic as they seem, there may have been reasons we’re not aware of, but it is certainly not logical to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to avoid the cleanest and most simplistic of answers – that it was written around 62AD  prior to Paul’s trial.

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

There are numerous places you can examine the consensus I mentioned. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html gives a fairly good summary of the viewpoints of various scholars concerning the date of composition of Luke-Acts, as well as an explanation of why the absence of Paul's martyrdom from Acts does not necessitate a pre-Revolt date of composition.

ok, I've read that page and it is, as I imagined, quite a joke and is clearly biased coming from the slant of a nonbeliever who is looking for any and every figment that his imagination can draw up to refute the authentic of Acts.

it is one thing to read these opinions in order to glean insight from the opinions of others, but why do you after reading such obvious trash present it as scholarly?

For example, the page is full of suggestions that the book of Acts and the letters of Paul display different doctrine and that the writer of Acts was unaware of Paul’s teachings.  This is a well known theory pushed by those who can’t interpret their way out of a paper bag, therefore, they are going to think there are contradictions between the two sets of writings.

If I have hand two groups of “scholars” two different summaries of Super Bowl X, one stating that Bradshaw threw 2 TD passes, and the other stating that Staubach threw 2 TD passes, they wouldn’t find any contradiction, because their lack of bias would naturally attempt to reconcile the two versions into complementary views of the same event.  But if I were to hand them two accounts of a first century incident with one having been written by Luke and the other having been written by Paul, their bias would immediately attempt to force contradictions.  It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

Worse, these are peer-reviewed opinions, but reviewed by those who have the same bias and who themselves are attempting to force contradictions.  That is why their opinions are so easy to refute, because it can be easily shown that they are continuously attempting to jump through hoops in order to find contradictions instead of taking the obvious path of least resistance.

This simply reason why that cant accept the simplest date for the writing of Acts - that the reason Acts leaves off with Paul awaiting trial in Rome is because that is why Acts was written and thus there was no more of the story to tell at the time of writing – is that it would be game-set-match – because if Acts was written around 62AD…


…the simple fact is that they have reason not to accept the simplest dating of the book of Acts other than their inability to accept the Gospel as truth, so they have dance around to invent convoluted theories and pat themselves on the back and refer to each other as “experts” all the while promoting a philosophy that states if the easiest and most explainable and obvious answer doesn’t meet your bias, take the Rube Goldberg approach to finding the conclusion you wanted in the first place.

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

The most salient reasons for ascribing a post-Revolt date to Luke-Acts are that the author appears to have made use of both Mark and Josephus in his writings.  If he made use of Josephus that makes the earliest that Luke-Acts could have been written is 79 AD, when Bellum Judaicum was released, or 93-94AD when Antiquitates Judaicae was written.  Neither of these two dates preclude having Luke be the author of Luke-Acts, tho the latter date would be pushing it if Luke was the actual author. If Luke-Acts were written that late, I'd be inclined to believe that Luke-Acts was written shortly after Luke's death by an author who had access to Luke's personal diary.

we are going to get to the bottom of this right now - explain why you think Luke used Josephus as a source