PILATE'S PROBLEM AND OURS

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

[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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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

[anvi]

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.

As far as the notion that the Gospels seem to place relatively more blame on the temple leaders, Herod and the Jerusalem crowds, I don't think that necessarily implies, as some scholars today assume, that the Gospels are anti-Semitic.  It does imply, again in support of what you're saying jmf, that those particular people were horribly wrong, even more wrong than Pilate was, and that may in turn communicate a warning against a certain kind of religious and political authoritarianism coupled with a mob mentality.  

In short, I wasn't trying to be a contrarian; I was trying to put the Gospel stories in a historical context in order to highlight a point they always seemed to me to be making about Jesus.  

[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.

[anvi]

jmf:

Understood and understandable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Quite the reverse since the ones bringing the charge was the Jewish leadership he had antagonized in so many other ways.  Based on the extra-Biblical sources, the very fact that the Sanhedrin wanted him to do something would likely cause him to be obstinately opposed to it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[bullmoose88]

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).

[opebo]

Did anybody else think of this when they saw this thread?

[bullmoose88]

Did anybody else think of this when they saw this thread?

Actually...yes.

[anvi]

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.

Quite the reverse since the ones bringing the charge was the Jewish leadership he had antagonized in so many other ways.  Based on the extra-Biblical sources, the very fact that the Sanhedrin wanted him to do something would likely cause him to be obstinately opposed to it.

And if his choice were between complying with one Sanhedrin execution request and freeing a charismatic religious leader whom many were casting as basically an insurrectionist?  Throw into this choice what the extra-Biblical sources tell us about Tiberius' repeated reprimands to Pilate that he be more sensitive to Judean wishes.  But, in the end, as a historical matter, who knows?  My point was about the impact that the Gospels' Pilate narrative would have had on first-century Palestinian Christians, since they were also targeted by Roman authorities, despite whatever efforts they undertook to distinguish themselves from anybody else.

[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.

[bullmoose88]

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.

[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?

[anvi]

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.  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.  

[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.

[bullmoose88]

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

You and Gramps.  Calling me bm.  Ugh.  But you're right, I'm not so sure he and I are on the same page either.

[anvi]

Ok, bullmoose, I've reread your posts and perhaps have a little better handle on what you are suggesting.  You think the Gospels were making a political point with the Pilate stories, not so much trying to scapegoat the Jews as to make Pilate seem more benevolent so that the Roman authorities wouldn't be ticked off at Christians.  Am I rightly understanding you now?

I think what I was agreeing with earlier was your apparent disinclination to see the Gospels as scapegoating the Jews.  But about the latter point, I have some reservations.  Those reservations are mainly that 1.) the Gospels don't appear to me to be addressed to Roman authorities, and so, even if such an argument were implied by the Pilate narratives, it doesn't seem to me that the Roman authorities would be much effected by it, and 2.) would such an argument, even if the Romans heard it, have made any difference to them?  There doesn't appear to have been any Roman record of Jesus' trial, no controversy between them and Christians regarding culpability for Jesus' death, and not particularly any love among Romans for Pilate himself either.  Just because Christians didn't "blame" Pilate for Jesus' death, that didn't necessarily imply that Judean Christians would have the kind of loyalty to the Roman throne that the emperors at the time were demanding.  What would be the point of dramatizing an argument about Pilate that would likely have fallen flat with the Romans anyway?  I think the Gospels do have political implications, for sure, but I'm not so sure they were making political arguments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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. 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.)

As for Luke-Acts itself, there are fairly clear indications that Mark is the oldest of the four canonical gospels and that Luke and Matthew draw on Mark. It is possible that the author of Luke-Acts (see note below) drew upon a now lost document (perhaps Luke's diary) that was written pre-Revolt and then expanded upon it to make the Luke-Acts we know now.  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.

(Note: I take no stance on who the author of Luke-Acts was.  It could have been Luke himself, but there is nothing I've seen that settles the issue either in favor of or against Lukan authorship.)

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.  It's an understandable desire, but one that should have no role in trying to determine a date.  (Nor should the opposite desire of atheists to show that they were written after the fact as pseduo-prophecies have a role.)

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

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

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.

[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.