The thread sounds to me as if some of you have already crossed Rudolf
Bultmann's red line in the Jesus research. Fine, beside questionable,
for engrafted archaeological backdoor records (e.g. "the mask of
Agamemnon"), records geared towards the media, what do you actually
have at hand to provide objective evidence for the historicity of
Jesus the Christ, the ultimate condition sine qua non of any serious
debate on archaeological records allegedly related to a specific
Any substantial would be appreciated.
Dierk van den Berg
--- In ANEemail@example.com, "Bradley Skene" <anebo10@...> wrote:
> The Gospel of Matthew takes pains to refute the charge that Jesus'
> stolen from the cross and secretly buried (27:64; 28:13ff).
> This is evidence that such a charge was known in the community that
> that gospel. And indeed that charge seems to have made, since it is
> about two generations later in Celsus and Justin Martyr.
> On the other hand, the absence of any defense against the charge
> was buried in his family tomb suggests is at least negative
> the charge was not made by opponents of any of the early Christian
> communities that produced the texts (canonical or otherwise that we
> since the idea is never mentioned in any surviving document.
> That isn't conclusive evidence. But look at the alternative. If
> burial took place, surely James, and probably Peter, would have
known of it,
> at least. This means that they either preached a gospel of Jesus
> not include the bodily resurrection (of which there is absolutely no
> evidence), or else they were somehow deluded on the point, or they
> hypocritical. But even to go that far, we're already so far afield
> evidence that it is almost science fiction.
> Bradley A. Skene