Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Book review of the Talpiot tomb- a must read

Expand Messages
  • Dierk van den Berg
    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
    Message 1 of 34 , Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      individual.

      Any substantial would be appreciated.

      best,
      Dierk van den Berg


      --------


      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Bradley Skene" <anebo10@...> wrote:
      >
      > The Gospel of Matthew takes pains to refute the charge that Jesus'
      body was
      > stolen from the cross and secretly buried (27:64; 28:13ff).
      >
      > This is evidence that such a charge was known in the community that
      produced
      > that gospel. And indeed that charge seems to have made, since it is
      attested
      > about two generations later in Celsus and Justin Martyr.
      >
      > On the other hand, the absence of any defense against the charge
      that Jesus
      > was buried in his family tomb suggests is at least negative
      evidence that
      > the charge was not made by opponents of any of the early Christian
      > communities that produced the texts (canonical or otherwise that we
      have),
      > since the idea is never mentioned in any surviving document.
      >
      > That isn't conclusive evidence. But look at the alternative. If
      such a
      > 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
      that did
      > not include the bodily resurrection (of which there is absolutely no
      > evidence), or else they were somehow deluded on the point, or they
      were
      > hypocritical. But even to go that far, we're already so far afield
      from any
      > evidence that it is almost science fiction.
      >
      > Bradley A. Skene
    • Niels Peter Lemche
      My review: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4277_4249.pdf Niels Peter Lemche ... Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Jim West
      Message 34 of 34 , Jul 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        My review: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4277_4249.pdf

        Niels Peter Lemche

        -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Jim West
        Sendt: 5. juli 2007 00:12
        Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Emne: [ANE-2] Re: life after death stuff

        Alan Segal's "Life After Death" deals with all the issues that have been
        discussed in this thread of another name. If someone has already
        mentioned Segal I apologize for repeating it- but if his work has been
        mentioned list folk really should give it a read.

        > I would like to find clear ancient references to a spiritual resurrection, and am not convinced that the Pauline writings are sufficiently clearly in support of a spiritual resurrection.

        --
        Jim West, ThD

        http://drjewest.googlepages.com/ -- Biblical Studies Resources
        http://drjimwest.wordpress.com -- Weblog



        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.