This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Burial of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This article gives the date of the composition of Luke's gospel as being around A.D. 90. I am sure that a book we used in Religious Education classes back in my school days gave the date of the composition of Luke's gospel as being around A.D. 80. Vorbee ( talk) 18:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Reference 21 refers to:
Magness, Jodi (2011). Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus. Eerdmans. p. 146.
And is cited for the following claim: "Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death, a view widely accepted in scholarly literature"
It seems that this reference is not found on page 146, but rather on page 165. The book itself cites its' own source number 146, possibly the source of the mistake.
Moreover, the book then argues against this claim, on that same page:
In my opinion, this view is based on a misunderstanding of archaeological evidence
80.57.37.167 ( talk) 21:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.37.167 ( talk) 21:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)