Pontius Pilate

[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?!

[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?

[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?

[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

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?



 

[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.

[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”.

[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. 

[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.

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

What was the nature of Christ?

You claim to be a Christian, who supposedly has a relationship with Christ…and you’re asking someone to define the nature of Christ for you?!

He was filled with grace towards others, was gentle, did not lash out at those mistreating him, was not shocked and did not gasp in horror when confronted with sin, and he allowed himself to be presented to even the cruelest of the cruel.

---

They watered it down in order to evade persecution and further the image that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Anyone with any knowledge of the crucifixion in those times knows that Christ's death was purely Roman and that the passion narrative makes even more sense with no Jews present except for Jesus of course. Once again, having the Jews involved allows for painting the picture that Jesus was the Messiah spoken of in the Hebrew Bible….Again Pilate was pretty much reversed and had to be in order to tell a story where the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death.

For the 1000th time, if the gospels were written post70AD and slanted to make Pilate look good and inserted the Jews to make the Jews look bad…THEN WHY DOES PAUL TELL THE SAME STORY PRIOR TO 60AD?!

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

As for Paul, he tells the basics of the story but not Pilate's character. He was aware of the story, but not as a written story. I thought we established that.  In fact in order to strengthen the case, it wouldn't surprise me if the role of Pilate in the story was changed very shortly after the crucifixion. Notice I've said nothing about when the first gospel was written when explaining this.

Now, you are being openly dishonest about your own argument:

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.

...and...

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.

As many posters on this forum know, if there is one thing I do not tolerate, it’s intellectual dishonesty.

You, sir, are lying, for you CLEARLY stated the account of Pilate was changed post-war and that no gospel was written prior to 70AD.  You are now on ignore, though I might use your arguments as examples of the stupidity of the world when I give the bible study this Sunday at church.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sorry, missed responding to that point...

Considering you wasted two lengthy posts saying there was no possible explanation for why Paul's trial would not have been covered if Acts had been written after the trial, when I had given an explanation, that's a pretty big miss.

Dude, the book of Acts includes an obvious purposeful ending, so your theory that the author died before finishing it is rejected outright.  So, the miss is on your part, not mine.

---

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

How does a truncation from death differ from a truncation due to reaching the present moment?   The structure indicates that the author was intending to conclude his work with the trial of Paul and that something prevented him from finishing it.

As for your "dilation of time" argument that the structure indicates that Acts was definitely written c. 60-62, if it were applied to Luke, that would assign a date of c. 30-36, which no one I know of holds to be the case, and for good reason.

Please…I have already stated that the author of Luke-Acts dilates time when he reaches something important (e.g. arrest and trial of Jesus)…but my point is that there is simply no reason to dilate the timeline and cover only 4 years in the last 8 chapters, because there is nothing of significance of those chapters compared to the other times the author chose to dilate time

In other words, what is so important about Paul’s arrest and initial trials of the case that the author would choose to spend the last 1/3 of his book on?  The author is NOT tracing the spread of the Gospel to Rome because the church as already established in Rome long before Paul’s arrival (Acts 28:14-15), in fact the church was established in Rome long before Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem (Rom 1:11-14; Rom 15:22-16:17).

So, since the author is obviously not showing how the gospel arrived at Rome by tracing Paul’s journey, what exactly is the significance of spending the last 8 chapters on this case against Paul just to leave off Paul’s trial before Caesar, if written post70AD?

Also, allow me point out just who the Roman Emperor was who ruled from 54-68AD, the very one who whoud have tried Paul’s case: Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus…a.k.a Nero!

You’re telling me this author is going to spend the final 8 chapters following this single case before the Sanhedrin/Felix/Fetus/Agrippa and leave off the conclusion of the case by not mentioning Paul’s trial and testimony before the infamous NERO!!!

Again, anyone in their right mind would conclude that there is overwhelming direct evidence from the book of Acts itself, that it was finished just prior to the final trial due to the high risk nature of the appeal to Caesar which often ended in execution.

---

Incidentally, there is another aspect of Acts that is suggestive of a post-martyrdom date of composition.  We never learn in Acts why Saul was initially so virulently opposed to the Church.  While there are other explanations that serve, one that works is that the author both did not know and was unable to ask.  If the writing of Acts was contemporaneous with Luke's journeys with Paul, then why no interest in the early life of the main character?  It certainly seems out of step with the theory some traditionalists have, that Acts was written to assist with Paul's defense at his trial in Rome.

It would be needless to discuss Paul’s early life prior to his contact with Christianity, regardless if Acts was written for the purpose of inspiring Christians with the history of the church (as Luke-Acts claims) or for his defense in trial (Paul was on trial for spreading Christianity, not for his prior life in Judaism).

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

Also, it should be noted the author spent only the last 3 chapters in Luke to address the LastSupper/Betrayal/Arrest/Trial/Crucifixion/Death/Burial/Resurrection/Accession of Jesus Christ and the first 20 chapters in Acts to cover the first ~28 years of church history...while spending the final 8 chapters of Acts addressing this one case of Paul’s.

So, comparing the endings of Luke and Acts:  3 last chapters of Luke discussing Jesus’ conclusion…as opposed to...the 8 last chapters of Acts discussing a single case of Paul’s WITHOUT conclusion.

So, if this author was writing post70AD, he obviously thought the lead up to Paul’s trial before Nero (without even mentioning the trial before Nero) was worth more space, and was thus somehow more important, than Jesus’ arrest/trial/death/resurrection/accession.

I think NOT!

But if he was writing pretrail and simply dilating time at the end of Acts to bring the reader up to date with the current situation, it all makes perfect sense.