(October 11, 2015 at 11:26 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It is very important to remember that in antiquity few people could read and, much like today, even fewer could write at least write anything that someone else would want to read. This was the province of the intelligentsia. The ancients pioneered many of the literary forms we have today: drama, poetry, philosophy, history, fiction, satire, comedy ( bawdy and otherwise) etc. The point is that you can not dismiss the idea of an intellectual exercise because these writers were perfectly capable of doing just that.
So let me give you another example. In the intro to The Jesus Puzzle, Earl Doherty writes:
Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God.
We don't know who that someone was, or where he wrote his story. We are not even sure when he wrote it, but we do know that several decades had passed since the supposed events he told of. Later generations gave this storyteller the name of "Mark," but if that was his real name, it was only by coincidence.
Suppose that is all it was intended to be? A story? Again, it is not the fault of whoever wrote the original that others came along later and took it seriously and expanded upon the basic story.
Now, we can and probably do, disagree. But I regard that as far more likely than some dead jew coming back to life and flying up to heaven.
Anyway, to answer your question, the Acta Pilati shows up in the late 4th century. One of the surest ways to date the introduction of such material is by seeing which early christian writers know of it and which do not. In the case of the Acta Pilati, Eusebius, died c 340 AD, never seems to have heard of it.
It seems that you are going with the story you simply like better... A story written 2000 years later, and I'm guessing with little historical credit. I think this ends up in an untenable conspiracy theory when you look at the multiple churches across a wide geographical area.
I have tried this (in jest) in a discussion with another on evolution and cosmology. It was much easier to just dismiss everything as a story, and even question the existence of those credited as the tellers of said story. But didn't go very far, before I was called silly.
