there's loads of accountsthey just weren't chosen for the bible. (www.earlychristianwritings.com has collected the vast bulk of it.) and also probably not written down for more than a hundred years after he died. the ones in the bible are from probably two sources (the markian and the, err, johnian). but i just read the resurrection and mark and luke aren't in *that* great an agreement with matthew. i mean, you can justify it without breaking too much sweat but they look like two sources, as well. so maybe three. unless you read a book written by someone who actually knows what he's talking about (unlike me) who say sit was two, in which case be inclined to beleive him.
anyway, the romans wouldn't have given a toss about the unmarked grave of a crucified man, i don't think they did much with the bodies except chuck them in a ditch. so they won't have written it down.
(anyway, the romans wouldn't have given a toss about the unmarked grave of a crucified man, i don't think they did much with the bodies except chuck them in a ditch. so they won't have written it down.
boris the spider,
Mon 17 Oct 2011, 14:46,
archived)
soanything relevant to the exact time and place was written by his mates, anything else was written long enough afterwards to succumb to chinese whispers. got it.
(
Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet,
Mon 17 Oct 2011, 14:52,
archived)