This
paper will endeavor to prove or disprove by available evidence if the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre is the authentic site for the burial and resurrection of
Jesus Christ. I will compare the
validity of this particular site against the other main suggested site in the
land Gordon’s Calvary. I will write with a view embracing the belief
that the site of the traditional tomb is what Christendom should consider to be
the authentic site.
In
research involving the identification of the sepulcher of Christ there are four
main opinions that come forth. The first
is that we can have a measure of certainty that the Holy Sepulchre is the
authentic site of the burial and resurrection of Christ. The second opinion held is that an
alternative site called Gordon’s
Calvary, now known as the Garden Tomb, is the authentic place of the burial of
Christ. The third idea we come to find
is the belief that there can be no real assurance at all where the sepulchre of
Christ was. The last idea embraces a
plethora of ideal suggestion sites alternative to the above mentioned. These have no real backing and scarcely
produce the evidence that gives certainty, so these will not be regarded as
viable from this point on in my paper.
The
first conclusion we will address is the conclusion of uncertainty.
It is a tempting thing to be uncertain
because there is the safety in that position.
If you are not dogmatic then you cannot later be proven wrong.
Perhaps I would agree that a dogmatic
certainty cannot be reached on the exact location of the burial and
resurrection of Christ.
However, I do
believe a probable certainty can be reached.
The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary clearly ends its thoughts on
the subject by saying, “Demonstrable proof of the location of the actual tomb
is lacking.”
One of the main reasons this position of
uncertainty is held is due to conflicting evidence among scholars who examine
the walls of the city.
The Apostle John
wrote, “
This title then read many of the Jews: for the
place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in
Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
”
Hebrews plainly states Jesus suffered outside
the gate.
Matthew 28:11 says, “
Now when they were going, behold,
some of the watch (guards) came into the city, and shewed unto the chief
priests all the things that were done.”
Putting these verses together the New
Testament makes it very clear that Christ crucifixion happened outside of the
city wall.
The reference in Matthew
implies that the soldiers guarded a tomb outside of the city and after the
resurrection came into the city to speak of the things that have happened.
What seemingly unnerves some archeologists
and makes them unsure about the authenticity of the holy sepulchre is that a
few see its location as being inside of the city.
This would therefore disqualify the location
as authentic if true.
Marking the boundaries of the city walls is a
difficult thing. It is hard to decipher due to the well-known
destruction of the city in A.D. 70 and the following disaster stemming from the
Simeon bar Kokhba rebellion of A.D. 135 which left the Jews expelled from their
land.
Due to these events coming to
fruition the structure and remains of much of the city in the days of Christ
have been toppled and rebuilt over.
It
should be noted that many of these archeologists who find difficulty tracing
the city boundaries to exclude the traditional site of the tomb do not say it
is impossible to exclude it in their boundaries.
They only say that they find it difficult to
do so.
Perhaps a good answer to this puzzle is given by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor.
O
’Connor
reports that the area was brought into the walls between A.D. 41-43.
It seems to be known and said that Herod
Antipas ordered this annex of the city during this time.
He who finds it difficult to place the holy
site outside the city boundaries were it should be must understand that the given opposition is
not certain and there are solid answers that allow for the possibilities of the
genuineness of the traditional location.
The
next obstacle against the validity of the Holy Sepulchre is the protestant
competitor of the Garden Tomb.
This is
the site most often regarded as authentic by people I personally know.
I have colleagues who visit the Holy Land and
forgo a visit to the Holy Sepulchre because they are convinced as to the
authenticity of this location.
Some of
the arguments for the Garden Tomb are the presence of a garden, the resemblance
of a skull when viewed from the correct angles, and typology.
The Garden Tomb lacks any notable history and
tradition to give it a serious lift into consideration.
In 1883 General Charles Gordon, hence the
name Gordon
’s Calvary,
thought he saw the shape of a skull in the side of the hill.
If it is ever thought that the traditional
site has continuity gaps in history this site screams out all the more “late
dating”.
One can see what Gordon had in
mind by viewing a sketch he made of the location.
It plays against him greatly that even the
Crusaders gave no thought to this being the Holy Site of the burial and
resurrection of Christ.
This is evidenced by the fact that the
Crusaders used the site as a stable and would not have done so if they
considered this to be a holy place.
Early Christians also disfigured it for their own purposes by cutting
down parts of the grave providing evidence they did not believe this was the
tomb of Christ.
In
arguing against the Garden Tomb, I wish to address firstly the argument of the
skull- like appearance from a distance.
What is curious about this is the amount of erosion that has taken place
to disfigure the mountain in just one hundred years.
If only one hundred years of erosion would
cause the skull
’s appearance
to fade so greatly then we might easily ascertain that the previous nineteen
hundred years would have done enough damage that the shape of the skull has
dramatically changed.
Perhaps it has
changed so much that in the days of Christ you could not discern it to be in
the shape a skull.
The appearance of the
eyes seems to be where mining had taken place.
If so this would mean the “eye sockets” of the skull may not have been
around in Christ
’s day.
Perhaps many give the skull shape they see
too much strength in their evaluation of the location of Calvary.
The
next argument against the Garden Tomb is the evidence of the garden.
It is not that a garden being present
disqualifies this location, for indeed the Scripture says it was in a
garden.
Rather, the argument is that the
discovery of a garden being present brings sufficient proof of authenticity
because the traditional tomb does not have a discernable garden.
I do believe we can answer that easily with
the explanation from Murphy-O
’Connor.
Wind-blown earth and winter rains on the
various seeds would have created the green covering John described.
The Passover and time of the crucifixion was
in the spring making this idea logical and probable.
Let us also remember that since the
crucifixion the destruction seen on the land has been so severe that it would
be certainly possible to erase any evidence of mere vegetation.
With all of the building and rebuilding that
has taken place on this site it is easy to imagine the impact that would have
been made on the look of the terrain. The existence of a garden at the Garden
Tomb certainly is within the boundaries required by the Biblical text.
The point, however, is that the traditional
tomb is not outside those boundaries just because the Garden Tomb is located in
a garden.
A
final argument for the Garden Tomb often used is typology.
John R. Rice represents this view.
In his book detailing the Bible lands he says
Calvary must be on Mt. Moriah.
His argument was because Mt. Moriah was a
place of sacrifice it therefore must be the location of Calvary.
He went on to explain that that is where
Abraham attempted to offer Isaac as a sacrifice.
It was where David bought the threshing floor
which was a sacrifice.
Solomon
’s temple, also a place of
sacrifice, was here.
He argued that the
typology is meaningless if Calvary is not on Mt. Moriah.
He traced the ridge of the mountain from the
temple going north to Gordon
’s
Calvary being the highest point of that ridge.
To begin, the Bible does not demand that
Christ be crucified on Mt. Moriah.
The
typology is not lost in seeing Isaac as the willing son and Abraham as the
giving father.
Let us not demand
typology go farther than it should.
Secondly it appears that perhaps Dr. Rice is mistaken in his
geography.
Mt. Moriah ends about a quarter mile before reaching the hill of the Garden Tomb.
There a new hill begins which is where the
Garden Tomb is located.
Due to the fact
that this element of the topographical features can be observed today with one
’s own eyes (that Mt. Moriah and
Gordon
’s Calvary are two
different and distinct hills) this automatically disqualifies an
argument using typology.
The
arguments in favor of the traditional tomb are many and weighty.
Some of the top scholars of the day embrace
the idea also.
It is apparent that historical tradition is
on the side of the Holy Sepulchre.
Until
A.D. 66 liturgical celebrations were held on the site
putting possible and
probable eyewitnesses on the scene marking the spot.
The spot was traditionally known to be on the
west side of Jerusalem since early times further adding weight to the argument.
Such an important event in spreading
Christianity that began in Jerusalem, whether loved or hated by people, would
not be so soon forgotten.
The Christians
came because they loved Christ.
The
unbelieving Hadrian would mark the spot by his hate.
Looking to erase the memory of the Christian
event, around A.D. 135 he constructed a pagan temple here.
Inadvertently, he marked the spot for future
Christians.
Following this, the site has continued
historical reliability that brings the reality of it to our day.
First, Constantine built a church to mark the
spot in A.D. 326 that was finished on September 17, 335.
Constantine sent his mother to the holy land
to find the specific location.
It is doubtful that there was much difficulty
in this seeing she would have had the word of the locals and that Hadrian had
left his mark as well so many years ago.
The often-studied church historian Eusebius of Caesarea recorded what
happened.
Dirt was removed layer after
layer until the site came into view.
He
writes,
“
This
also was accomplished without delay. But as soon as the original surface of the
ground, beneath the covering of earth, appeared, immediately, and contrary to
all expectation, the venerable and hollowed monument of our Saviour’s resurrection was discovered.
Then indeed did this most holy cave present a faithful similitude of his return
to life, in that, after lying buried in darkness, it again emerged to light,
and afforded to all who came to witness the sight, a clear and visible proof of
the wonders of which that spot had once been the scene, a testimony to the
resurrection of the Saviour clearer than any voice could give.”
Later, Egyptian Muslims would destroy
most of the construction leaving only a marking for the tomb itself.
The Crusaders would conquer the land in 1099
and rebuild giving us basically what we see today.
The
next evidence in favor of the traditional tomb is the tomb itself.
The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary
states that other typical first century tombs have been discovered in this
former rock quarry.
The tombs found in the area match the
Herodian style 1 century tombs being
cut in the land in those days
in which our Lord would have been placed in.
This is significant because it is largely
known that the Garden Tomb does not match the time period needed to be a never
before used tomb that Christ was laid in.
The Garden Tomb dates much latter putting a
fatal blow to its claim as authentic.
The rock quarry itself fits the description well enough of the “
skull” spoken of in the
gospels.
Mentions of Golgotha deriving
its name from skulls laying around the site appears to begin with Jerome.
The idea of the place being the shape of a
skull appears to begin with Gordon and the Garden tomb.
An often-quoted tradition that Adam was
buried in this spot has been alive and well throughout history including during
the time of Christ.
This is thought by some to be the origin of
the name Golgotha.
My thinking has been
that the rock itself could be the reference to the skull.
It could have a similar appearance when
protruding from the ground and possibly be smooth in parts like the top of a
skull.
Murphy-O
’Connor supports this idea also.
When
the evidence is pieced together it paints a clear picture for us see. The Garden Tomb has very little confirming
evidence to suppose it to be authentic when it is studied with a little bit of
depth. The traditional site however has
more supporting evidence from not only experts in the field of archeology but
also from the witness of history. The
concluding thoughts tell us that one can view this site as the probable site of
the burial and resurrection of the Lord.
No, one cannot be dogmatic in assertions, but it can be said with a
great deal of probability based on the information available that the Holy
Sepulchre is authentic. Regardless of
the physical site, however, it can and should be known that Jesus Christ was
raised, and the tomb is empty. This we
can say as did the angel, “He is not here; the tomb is empty!”.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brake, Donald Sr. with Todd Bolen. Jesus A Visual History. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2014.
Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England,
Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, Trent C. Butler,
and Bill Latta. Holman
Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
Carson, D.A. “Matthew.” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised Edition, vol. 9, Edited
by Tremper Longman III
and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Murphy O-Connor, Jerome. The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeolgical Guide. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2008.
Negev, Avraham, The Archaeological
Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York: Prentice Hall
Press, 1990.
Rice, John R. Here
We Are in Bible Lands with John R. Rice. Murfreesboro, TN: Sword of the
Lord,
1977.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. Eusebius:
Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and
Oration in Praise of Constantine. Vol. 1. A Select Library of the Nicene
and Post
Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature
Company, 1890.
Tenney, Merrill C. Zondervan’s
Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967.
The Holy Bible, King James Version.
Appendix
1
There are two other
things which need to be dealt with because of the great amount of information
(often incorrect) that is to be found by those who simply “google” or “YouTube”
the subject at hand. Doing this often
times simply exposes one to opinion pieces which are parroting information they
have heard without fully checking the validity of it. The two subjects we will address are a crack
found on the Garden Tomb site (explanation to follow) and an alternative spot
of the crucifixion suggested to be the Mt. of Olives.
The first subject deals
with what we have already disqualified the Garden Tomb. Archaeologist Ron Wyatt is famous for this
view claiming that the Ark of the Covenant is or was under the hill during the
crucifixion of Christ. When the Bible
states that the rocks were rent during the crucifixion, Wyatt believed that the
blood that flowed from the pieced side of Christ ran down the crack of the rock
and onto the Ark of the Covenant.
Reading a detailed account of this can sound convincing until it is
weighed against facts. The tomb is much
too old to be considered the tomb of Christ.
Since we know Christ lived in the first century no amount of creative
imagining can change the fact that the date of the tomb does not match and is
too old by hundreds of years dating back to the Old Testament temple period of
tombs.
The second issue is the
suggestion of the Mt. of Olives as the authentic place of the crucifixion and
burial. The idea is based on a statement
from Matthew 27:51-54.
51 And, behold, the veil
of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did
quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and
many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of
the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with
him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they
feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
[31]
In verse 54 it is said
that the guard watching Jesus on the cross saw the miracles events that
accompanied His death. One of these
miracles that took place was the tearing of the temple veil. To see the temple veil tear several things
would need to be in place. First the
doors to the holy of holies would need to be open, and they would have been due
to Passover being a pilgrim feast demanding the Jews to travel back to
Jerusalem for it. Secondly, to see the
veil you would need to be on the Mt. of Olives.
How do we reconcile this? The
text does not demand that the guard was an eyewitness to all of these things
individually at the time of the events,
only that he was aware of the miracles that were taking place around the
land. Perhaps the guard heard an report
about the veil, or (though less likely) upon hearing he left his post to
another to see the scene himself.
Perhaps the guard witnessed the earthquake, the tomb bursting open and
the rocks tearing and these are the things he saw and bore witness to in the
text. A great grammatical mistake is
made when we make seeing the veil tear a requirement. This is a grammatical mistake because it is
grouped together in the same list as those saints who were resurrected. These who were raised did not appear until
after the Lord was first raised making it impossible to witness these until
after Sunday. To make seeing the veil a
requirement at that moment is to also make the saints who were raised a
requirement and that is an impossibility since they did not show themselves
immediately. We also have to recognize
that the Mt. of Olives is a key place in the life of Christ during this
time. Would it not be likely that the
writers of gospel would mention that Golgotha is on the Mt. of Olives if it
were? Admittedly you can build a better
case for the Mt. of Olives view than for Gordon’s alternative but the weight of
evidence does not seem to be here.
Appendix 2
The
Holy Sepulchre is not a holy place today if you visit. There are various religious sects that govern
the church causing chaos and fighting.
The most prominent ones who control the site are the Greek Orthodox, the
Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Roman Catholic. There are often disputes and sometimes
violence among the monks because of financial considerations and property
rights. Yet despite this it remains a
safe place for visitors who wish to tour the area. There is an extremely important lesson to
learn from this. Rituals, regions nor
religious rights can make one holy or change the heart. This is evidenced here and also in Bethlehem
where a different but similar effect is played out between factions. Only faith in Jesus Christ producing a
cleansed heart can bring one into harmony with God and others. If one argues that terrible things happen
there, I would agree. Despite the debate
of where Jesus died and rose again we
cling to the fact that He did.
John 19:20. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is taken
from the King James Bible.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. Eusebius:
Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of
Constantine. Vol. 1. A Select Library of
the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. (New
York: Christian Literature Company 1890), 527-528.
