Sinusitis

Life among the dead. Craig Evans - Jesus and His World - Latest Discoveries - All the Most Important Archaeological Finds Related to Jesus of Nazareth

“This is the best, most informative popular book I know of on the Gnostic and Apocryphal gospels, as well as other ancient traditions somehow connected with the story of Jesus.”

BEN WITHERINGTON III. Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary

“Using the evidence we have in a consistent, rigorously scientific manner. Evans comes to convincing conclusions - very far from other sensational statements about Jesus, which, as it quickly turns out, stand for nothing but the desires and imagination of their authors."

GERALD O'COLLINS, Professor Emeritus, Gregorian University (PiM)

"Fabricated Jesus"- a full-fledged critical study, despite the fact that the critical method in it is also applied to sensational modern approaches that do not fit within the framework of scientific standards."

GERL THEISSEN, Professor of New Testament Theology, University of Heidelberg

“Craig Evans masterfully exposes the tabloid “science” whose “achievements” so often make headlines and confuse the minds of the general public. He returns us to the calm and sober analysis characteristic of true historical research - and shows that the gospel accounts are trustworthy."

SCOTT HAHN, Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, Franciscan University of Steubenville

“Combining scientific erudition with common sense. Craig Evans evaluates various concepts based on sources and discoveries. allegedly undermine the reliability of the New Testament - and convincingly shows that they do not bear the burden of proof."

HOWARD MARSHALL, Emeritus Professor of New Testament, University of Aberdeen

"Fabricated Jesus" - this is an exposure of the ignorant nonsense that has confused many a reader’s mind in recent years.”

JAMES CHARLESWORTH, George L. Collord Endowment Professor of Linguistics and New Testament Philology at Princeton Theological Seminary

« Craig Evans is an outstanding scholar and prolific writer whose numerous books and articles are well known in the academic community... this book is a healthy antidote to the unscrupulous methods of searching for the historical Jesus that have become so common in recent times."

JOHN MAYER, William K. Warren Endowment Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame

“A revelatory book much needed in our day...it clears away the fog and takes us back to the Jesus of history.”

DARRELL BOCK. Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.

“A powerful and compelling book; a necessary antidote to the enormous mass of lies about Jesus and the gospels that have spread in recent years. Onana is rigorously scientific and at the same time accessible, based on strong argumentation - but not cruel."

LEE STROBEL, journalist and writer

“Craig Evans takes a skeptical approach to the skeptics themselves; on the basis of his own impeccable knowledge of biblical texts and mastery of ancient sources, he shows how baseless many of their statements are and how ridiculously ridiculous the hypotheses underlying them are " Da Vinci Code" and other similar works."

JAMES DUNN, biblical scholar, emeritus professor at Durham University

"Fabricated Jesus" - not a reaction to modern biblical scholarship, but a sober, careful guide to the historical evidence—and an honest assessment of how scholars have handled that evidence."

DONALD SENIOR. President and Professor of New Testament at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago

Gospel of Thomas- later, not earlier, secondary, not primary in comparison with the New Testament gospels. Contrary to the opinion of some scholars, it was written in Syria at the end of the 2nd century.

Gospel of Peter, which contains a story about a talking cross, is a later and completely unreliable work. In fact, the fragmentary document available to us may not exist at all. The Gospel of Peter. It is quite possible that this document dates back to the 4th or 5th century.

The "secret" version of the Gospel of Mark, allegedly found in the monastery of Mar Saba, is a modern hoax. Analysis of the manuscript eloquently proves that it is fake.

The main conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are rejected by most scholars in both North America and Europe.

There is not the slightest noteworthy evidence that Jesus had a wife and child.

All evidence suggests that the canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are the best sources for understanding the historical Jesus. The New Testament gospels are based on eyewitness accounts and accurately and accurately describe the teachings, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus was not a Cynic and, most likely, in his life he never saw a single philosopher of the Cynic school.

Killer monks (both albinos and all other stripes) are not listed among the members of the Opus Dei organization.

All descriptions of documents, literature and archaeological finds in this book are true.

Preface

In high school, I decided to become a lawyer and after high school, in order to prepare for law school, I entered a very good liberal arts college in Southern California, where I took history as a major, and then philosophy. However, during my senior year of college, I came to faith, which led me to seminary instead of law school (“from law to grace,” as one priest put it).

I went to seminary to prepare for church service. I was fascinated by the personality of Jesus of Nazareth and wanted to learn more about him and his teachings. In the future I saw myself as a priest. However, at the seminary, the scientific side of theology and biblical studies was revealed to me - and it captivated me instantly. Greek and Hebrew came to me without difficulty; exegesis was fascinating; Studies of the historical and religious-philosophical context suggested the most interesting thoughts. Other students tried to avoid these activities - but I plunged into them with enthusiasm.

In my second year, I took an advanced Greek course where we read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke - all in one semester! From then on, I knew what I would do - study the life, teaching and world of Jesus. I was fascinated both by the gospels themselves and by the questions that researchers wrestle with: what are the sources of the gospels? How are they related to each other? What in the gospels are historical facts and what is interpretation of facts? All this interested me so much that I decided to write a dissertation.

I was very fortunate to attend Claremont Graduate University at a time when its biblical studies department was in its heyday. This institution, along with the nearby Claremont Theological Institute, was renowned for its department of New Testament and related fields of study. Hans Dieter Betz, William Brownlee, Burton Mack, James Robinson, James Sanders and John Traver taught in this department.

OK. Claremont McKenna College, Western Baptist Seminary (Portland, Oregon), Claremont Graduate University in California. Teaches New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Author of 50 books, biography of Jesus, Jewish context of the Gospel.

http://www.craigaevans.com

In Russian: Fabricated Jesus. M.: Eksmo, 2009.

Review by Gleb Yastrebov:

A new book about the life of Jesus has been published: Craig Evans, “Fabricated Jesus: How Modern Researchers Distort the Gospels” (M.: Eksmo, 2009; trans. N. Kholmogorova). Evans is a renowned American New Testament scholar with a particular knowledge of the Jewish world and the context of the New Testament. The book's cover is littered with recommendations from superstar biblical scholars (Charlesworth, Meyer, Theisen, Dunn) but also non-biblical superstars (evangelical journalist Lee Strobel). This reflects the ambivalence of the book and my ambivalent impressions of it.

The book is a crusade against popular authors, scientific and non-scientific, who create images of Jesus different from those in traditional Christianity, and also deny the historical accuracy of much of the gospel material.

It is built as follows. First there is a short story about the "skeptics of the old and new schools" - Funk, Robinson, Price and Ehrman (Chapter 1). Then on the methods of historical reconstruction: Evans contrasts the methods of the majority - plurality of evidence, dissimilarity, etc. - with which he agrees, with some other approaches (chapter 2). Then in chapters 3 and 4 he trashes the authenticity of the non-canonical Gospels: the Gospel of Thomas (Syria, late 2nd century), the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary and the secret Gospel of Mark (a modern forgery). Chapter 5 is spent refuting the theory that Jesus was a Cynic, chapter 6 criticizing doubts about the reliability of the oral tradition. Evans then turns the focus from Jesus' teachings to his actions, emphasizing healings and miracles (chapter 7). In chapter 8 he defends the authenticity of the Passion accounts and addresses the testimony of Josephus. Chapter 9 challenges the now widespread theory that early Christianity was deeply diverse. In Chapter 10, Evans turns to popular laymen like Baigent and Lee, among whom he somehow includes James Tabor. Then there is a long account of Evans's own Jesus (chapter 11). The idea runs through the entire book as a leitmotif: skeptics are scientists who are not conscientious enough, often former fundamentalists who have rushed from one extreme to the other. Genuine Science produces results that confirm traditional Christianity.

What can I say about all this? Of course, Evans is not Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel: the scientific level is maintained throughout. Anyone who likes Wright's books will likely like Evans. Apologists are strongly recommended to read: without a doubt, Evans will raise their level (if they descend to him from the heights of their empyreans). Moreover, in terms of erudition, this book will give non-specialists a lot. I think Evans is also right on a number of specific points: Jesus was an eschatological prophet and deeply immanent in Judaism; secret Mk - modern fake, etc.

On the other hand, the book does not create a completely correct impression of what is happening in science. One can literally go page by page and show how Evans simplifies the arguments and views of his opponents, and sometimes does not consider it necessary to inform the reader that his own views are not shared by many specialists.

A few examples. The spiritual odyssey of the “skeptics” is presented in an extremely simplified form. It is enough to read Ehrman’s book on theodicy to see how complex this man’s internal doubts and struggles actually are, and how they cannot be reduced to a banal disappointment in fundamentalism (by the way, Ehrman’s arguments from textual criticism are presented very crookedly). In a completely incorrect way, Funk, Robinson, Price and Ehrman are listed in one line, and an ignorant reader may have the wrong opinion that these are some kind of scientific outcasts. Price is, yes, a fringe (although his views are simply described incorrectly: far from “uncritically accepting the dubious methods and results of the Jesus Seminar,” he completely rejects them! Apparently Evans hasn’t read Price). But Robinson and Ehrman are not. Funk is described in such a way that no one would recognize him as the man who wrote the most complex works on biblical hermeneutics and largely created the American Society of Biblical Literature.

Likewise with science. Not to say anything about it, to keep silent about it, to present the opponent in the most stupid and pathetic form possible - alas, all these standard methods of apologetics are noticeable in Evans on almost every page. Even where I agree with Evans, I often cannot agree with such methods in argument. Take, for example, chapter 5: I myself have had occasion to criticize the “cynic theory,” but first we need to at least describe it correctly! Evans simplifies it to kindergarten level, doesn't mention that it comes in different varieties, doesn't mention how much it was modified by Crossan (a major target of criticism) in works like The Birth of Christianity (1999). A person who has read the recommendations on the cover will not know that one of the founders of the “cynic hypothesis” was Gerd Theisen (“Wanderradikalismus...” ZTK 70:245-271)! And the ignorant person will not know that the old arguments retold by Evans have been answered long ago: in particular, by Kloppenborg in Excavating Q (2000). How Evans knows as an undoubted fact that Jesus never saw a living Cynic in his life, one can only guess: apparently Evans is a clairvoyant. Or let's say, the Gospel of Thomas. Evans was so convinced by Nicholas Perrin's dissertation that EF relied on Tatian's Diatessaron that he wrote these results in the list of "FACTS" on the first page of the book. But Perrin’s conclusions, to put it mildly, have not yet become a scientific consensus and have been criticized by many reviewers (Shedinger - JBL 2003; Wilson - JTS 2003). In general, the chapter on EF is perhaps the weakest in the book: Evans practically does not consider the arguments of Patterson, Davis, Theisen and other scientists in favor of the early origin of EF, but retells almost exclusively the arguments of the opposite side.

In general, he too easily writes into “facts” (we read a list of them at the very beginning of the work) what has not yet been proven. Let's say, again, I'm inclined to agree that Morton Smith forged the secret Gospel of Mark. Moreover, Evans gives a gift to the reader by retelling a very interesting book by Stephen Carlson (which convinced me too). But in the end, this is not proven. To this day, scientific debates continue and conferences are held. Just three months ago this issue was debated again at the Westar Institute with presentations for and against; a little earlier - in SBL. Evans makes no mention of the correspondence between Smith and Scholem, which is very important for assessing the whole problem.

What's in the "dry residue"? If the question is whether to buy and read this book, yes, buy it; yes, read. It is useful to know the point of view of an educated person even if he is biased and does not report all the facts. Evans has a lot of information that has not yet appeared in Russian. But when reading, remember that in reality all the views criticized by Evans are much better reasoned than one might think from his presentation.

berggeist.livejournal.com/48934.html - 2009

A world-famous Bible specialist, archaeologist, expert on ancient languages and an expert on apocrypha exposes fashionable images of Jesus of Nazareth: the scandalous books of Dan Brown "The Da Vinci Code", Michael Baigent "The Jesus Papers", etc., the ideas of radical scientists, secrets The Gospels of Judas and other ancient apocrypha - the truth is much more interesting than all such “discoveries” and “sensations”!

From the book Fabricated Jesus by Craig Evans

Archeological issues

Sometimes things are a little better - there is evidence. But evidence of what? This question boggles the mind as we carefully and critically examine the claims and their “evidence” made by James Tabor in his latest book, The Jesus Dynasty: The Secret History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006) .

Let's consider a couple of his theses.

It is worth noting that Tabor is a more serious author than Michael Baigent and Dan Brown. He is a professional archaeologist and biblical scholar, properly and thoroughly educated, holding a doctorate from the University of Chicago, and now on the faculty of the University of North Carolina (Charlotte). Moreover, his book “The Jesus Dynasty” contains a lot of good material. I have no doubt that the student or scholar who seriously studies the Bible and the origins of Christianity will read it with benefit. However, I fear that non-specialists reading this book may not notice how far-fetched some of its arguments and conclusions are.

The first big problem with Tabor's book is that the father of Jesus turns out to be a Roman soldier, possibly a Jew by birth. (The idea that Jesus' conception could have been supernatural is strongly rejected by Tabor.) Tabor suggests that he has found the tomb of this soldier in Germany. He further hypothesizes that Jesus could have visited this man in the region of Sidon (on the northern shore of the Mediterranean Sea), which is supposedly hinted at in Mark 7:24: “And departing from there, he came into the borders of Tire and Sidon; and having entered the house, he did not want anyone to find out.” What evidence does Tabor offer us?

At the end of the 2nd century AD. A philosopher named Celsus wrote a polemical work directed against Christianity. His book is preserved in numerous quotations given in a refutation (Contra Celsum) written by Origen, a Christian biblical scholar, in the mid-3rd century AD. Among other things, Celsus wrote that Jesus lived in Egypt, where he learned magic, then, returning to Israel, amazed everyone with magical “miracles,” called himself God, and so on. Here's an interesting point: among other things, Celsus writes that Mary, the mother of Jesus, became pregnant by a Roman soldier named Panther (or Pandira). The same gossip is repeated in later rabbinic literature (for example, in the Tosefta, dating no earlier than 300 CE; see Tosefta Hullin 2.22–24). Tabor correctly points out that Panther is a real name used by Roman soldiers in the time of Jesus. He believes that a tombstone with an epitaph for a certain Panther, discovered in 1859 in Bingerbrück, Germany, may be directly related to the father of Jesus. Here's the epitaph:

Tiberius Julius Abdes Panther from Sidon, 62 years old, who served in the army for 40 years, in the 1st cohort of archers, lies here.

Tabor quite reasonably suggests that Abdes is a Latin transliteration of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) name Ebed, meaning "servant". This possibility, plus the fact that the buried soldier came from Sidon, not too far from Galilee, may well mean that he was Jewish and therefore may have known Mary. Tabor stops there and solemnly announces: “The secret of the Panther has been revealed!” But is this true? Before declaring anything "revealed", one should at least inquire into the exact dates of this Panther's life, his presence in the village where Mary lived, and the physical possibility of fathering her child in 5 or 6 BC. Naturally, Tabor has none of this - and other scientists discussing this gravestone express fair doubts.

Tabor points out that some of the church fathers took the Panther claim seriously. For example, Epiphanius (315–403) in his work Against Heresies (78.7.5) writes that Jacob Panther was the father of Joseph. Tabor believes that this confirms the historicity of the legend. Otherwise, why would Epiphanius and other church fathers seriously refute it and look for other explanations for it? However, Epiphanius and other later Christian authors simply try to refute gossip and to do this they express various assumptions - most likely having no more value than the gossip itself. Refutations of the Panther story dating back to the 4th century (or even later) give us no evidence that the Panther rumor told by Celsus has an early origin or serious basis.

In my opinion, the claim that Jesus' real father was a man named Panther (or Pandira) is related to the Christian belief that Jesus was born of a virgin (parthenos in Greek). It's just a play on words. “Panther” sounds closest to “parthenos”; moreover, this name was common among soldiers - that’s why the enemies of Christianity said that Jesus was born not from a virgin (“parthenos”), but from a soldier named Panther. Before us is just abuse, mockery. There is no archaeological evidence that there is anything serious behind it.

The second major problem with Tabor's book, in my opinion, is his desire to find the remains of Jesus. Tabor, of course, believes that Jesus died and stayed dead. He didn't rise again. Once again, as with the conception and birth of Jesus, Tabor dismisses the possibility of a miracle out of hand.

According to Tabor, Jesus' tomb was found empty because Jesus' body was taken from there and buried somewhere else. This in itself is possible. Eventually, Jesus' body was placed in a tomb for criminals. He was not buried in the family tomb. The authorities could well have taken him away from there. However, Jewish burial laws allowed relatives to take the bones of the deceased within a year after death and rebury them in the family tomb. It is unlikely that Jesus' body was moved without the knowledge of his family. Recall that when Jesus' tomb was found empty, his disciples initially thought that someone had taken the body, and this caused great confusion (see John 20:13-15). If Jesus' body had been taken away and buried somewhere else, his family and disciples might have known about it - and probably would have. But they didn’t do this - because no one took the body anywhere. There simply was no second tomb.

However, Tabor is absolutely sure that the body of Jesus was transferred, and even knows where to look for it. According to him, the tomb of Jesus is located in Safed (Safed) in Galilee. How does he know this? From a legend dating back to the famous 16th century mystic Rabbi Isaac ben Luria. It turns out that Ben-Luria, a Kabbalist sage, once had a vision in which the location of the tombs of various Jewish sages and saints, including Jesus of Nazareth, was revealed to him. I doubt that any scientist will take such “proof” seriously!

It is strange that Tabor, who is ready to place such trust in the vision of a 16th-century mystic Kabbalist, refuses to trust the vision of another 1st-century Jew, Saul of Tarsus. Saul did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and he certainly did not believe that he had risen from the dead. The empty tomb did not convince him of anything. Saul zealously and mercilessly persecuted the new “heresy.” But one day he met the resurrected Messiah. We know the end of the story. In my opinion, Saul's vision deserves more attention than Ben-Luria's. I would also suggest that Tabor think about this.

Craig Evans

Jesus and his world. Latest discoveries

To Chief Petty Officer Gaitor Franklin

from the US Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team

as a token of gratitude

Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence

Translation from English M.I. Zavalova

Cover design Petra Petrova

Preface

The purpose of this book is to present to the reader the most important, from my point of view, archaeological discoveries related to Jesus of Nazareth, and I have strived to make it accessible to non-specialists. Over the past twenty years, I have visited excavation sites, viewed them and listened to or read the opinions of archaeologists, as well as visited many excellent museums where artifacts are carefully preserved and accompanied by explanations. All this brought me great benefit. In particular I would like to highlight the Israel Museum with its Tent of Books, the British Museum in London and the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. I also used a number of libraries, including the Vaughan Library at Acadia University, the Hollis Library at Harvard University, the Firestone Library at Princeton University, the Speer Library at Princeton Theological Seminary,

The Benicke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University and the famous Bodleian Library at Oxford, as well as the Sackler Papyri Collection Library there. My heartfelt gratitude goes to the patient librarians and those who welcomed me to these places.

Of all the archaeologists who showed me historical sites and gave their explanations, I especially want to mention people like Rami Arav, Gabriel Barkey, Richard Batey, Ronnie Reich, James Strange and the late Doug Edwards. (In the spring of 2009, Acadia was fortunate to host Strange and Edwards, who gave a series of memorable lectures there.) I am also grateful to Dirk Obbink, who showed me papyri from the Sackler collection and provided valuable explanations in the fall of 2009. I am equally grateful to Jane Evans, Shimon Gibson, Frank Goddio, Kurt Ravech, and Shelley Woschmann, with whom I corresponded.

I was glad when wonderful people from publishing houses SPCK And Westminster John Knox Press suggested that I write this book. I am especially grateful to Rebecca Mulhern and Philip Lowe. Many pages of this work were written during my tranquil stay at the Cistercian Abbey of Notre-Dame du Calvary in Rogersville, New Brunswick. I would like to thank Brother Graham Tushy for his hospitality and fascinating conversations about Jesus and archaeology. I am grateful to Jeremiah Johnston, Ph.D., who helped me compile the indexes for this book and also carefully read a draft of it and raised a number of important questions for me.

The book is dedicated to Chief Petty Officer Gaitor Franklin of the US Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team (now retired). For 30 years, Gator risked life and limb to locate, disarm explosive materials and teach others at home and abroad to do so. His work saved countless lives.

K. Evans,

Acadia Theological College

Introduction

In an article published in a popular archaeological journal, the venerable Old Testament scholar Ron Hendel gave the following succinct definition of biblical archaeology: “Biblical archeology is devoted to finding close relationships between the texts of the Bible and the material evidence of archaeology.”1 Of course it is. If archaeologists and historians did not see these relationships between archeology and the text of the Bible, it would be impossible to talk about “biblical archaeology” at all. Of course, they find such connections, and there are many of them. This is why there are many magazines and other periodicals devoted to archeology, and many scholars writing archaeological works, not to mention countless specialist and popular books that examine the subject from different points of view.

Archaeologists and historians can also find plausibility, or “correspondence to truth”—correspondence to how things actually happened. This means that the Bible is about real people, real places, and real events. Many of these things can be confirmed with the help of archaeological finds or other ancient sources. Often archaeologists discover rather than proof, A clarifications2. When talking about a particular people, place, or important event, the Bible often gives too little detail. In this case, it is difficult for us to understand the exact meaning of the text. And now archaeologists make a discovery that allows us to understand the text much better.

Of course, sometimes archeology can prove something. Take “biblical minimalism,” for example. This is usually the name given to the position of some scholars of the Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible. I mean, first of all, those scientists who claim that David and Solomon are purely literary characters, that the kingdom of Israel, founded in the 10th century BC, did not exist. BC, and that, even if it existed, it did not have the level of literacy that would allow the stories of the lives and deeds of these kings to be recorded. Some of these scholars claim that all the narratives of the Hebrew Bible were created no earlier than the 5th century BC. e. And here it was archeology that showed that all these ideas of the supporters of “biblical minimalism” are wrong.

In 1993 and 1994, in Tel Dan (now northern Israel), during excavations led by the venerable Israeli archaeologist Abraham Biran, fragments of stones with inscriptions were found by order of the king of Syria in the 9th century BC. e. The first inscription contains the words "House of David". Most researchers believe that an inscription of this kind would hardly have been made only about a hundred years after the death of the legendary non-historical character, if he had not been a real person. In this case, could the king of Syria call a hostile dynasty “House of David” if it were not real? Unlikely. It is more logical to assume that David actually existed3.

The Minimalists retreated, but did not want to give up. Let's say David existed. But was he king, the head of a state with centralized power and a large territory, or just the leader of a small tribe? Not surprisingly, the minimalists leaned towards the latter. But their opinion will seem strange to us if we remember the location of the stone with the inscription in Tel Dan (far to the north of Judea and Jerusalem, near the disputed border between Syria and Israel). So, the minimalists were wrong again.

Archaeological excavations in the most ancient part of Jerusalem have revealed significant evidence that there was a government complex of a centralized and well-organized state. The artifacts found were dated to the 10th century BC. e., that is, the era of the reign of David and his son Solomon. Carbon dating of objects at Megiddo, Qeiyafa and other sites has shown that the Iron Age Davidic kingdom arose here around 1000 BC. e., which quite accurately corresponds to the biblical narrative. Some minimalists, unwilling to give up, began to argue that Qeiyafa was the site of an ancient settlement of the Philistines, not the Israelites. However, during archaeological excavations in Qeiyafa, no bones of pigs or dogs were found (unlike the Philistine city of Gath, where non-kosher animals were eaten), and at the same time, the remains of buildings similar to those found in Judea (but not in Philistine cities)4.

Finally, a 10th-century ostracon, an inscribed pottery shard, was recently discovered at Qeiyafa, providing compelling evidence of literacy sufficient to record the historical events of the kings of Judah and Israel. This finding does not prove that any parts of the books of Kings were created in that era, but it does indicate that there could have been - and, if other facts are taken into account, there were - such records on which the authors of the books of Kings relied. I don't know if the minimalists will ever admit defeat, but I think most would agree that they've fallen on hard times.

I have briefly mentioned the difficulties faced by minimalist students of the Old Testament because it illustrates how dangerous it is to deny the existence or claim that something is unhistorical simply because we are dealing with ancient literature. We should remember that only 5 percent of all biblical sites have been excavated, and in most cases these were only partial excavations. And do all ancient narratives really need to be supported by archaeological evidence? If we demand archaeological evidence before we begin to trust our literary sources, we will be able to say too little about history - and not just biblical history.

http://www.craigaevans.com

In Russian: Fabricated Jesus. M.: Eksmo, 2009.