Talk:Burial of Jesus

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of composition of Luke's gospel[edit]

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)[reply]

Possible mistake in the reference 21[edit]

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)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.37.167 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]