Holy Sepulchre and Garden Tomb can not possibly be where Christ was buried! (Jesus, ritual)

[dan]

I came a cross an interesting article in a religious journal recently. It was about research done concerning the burial place of Jesus. It shows that both the Garden Tomb (accepted by many Christians as Christ's tomb) and the Holy Sepulchre (accepted by Catholics as Christ's tomb) could not possibly be the location of Christ's burial.

I have to start typing up all the evidence, but what have you heard, and what do you think about this?

[Victor]

It was not until the eighteenth century that the authenticity of this tomb was seriously doubted. The tradition in its favour was first formally rejected by Korte in his "Reise nach dem gelobten Lande" (Altona, 1741). In the nineteenth century he had many followers, some of whom were content with simply denying that it is the Holy Sepulchre, because it lies within the city walls, while others went further and proposed sites outside the walls. No one, however, has pointed out any other tomb that has a shred of tradition in its favour. The most popularly accepted tomb among those proposed is one near Gordon's Calvary (see CALVARY, Modern Calvaries). But this has been found to be one of a series of tombs extending for some distance, and did not, therefore, stand in a garden as did Christ's Tomb. Moreover, the approach to this tomb is over made ground, the removal of which would leave the entrance very high, whereas the door of the Holy Sepulchre was very low. It has been suggested above, that when Constantine built his basilica, and for long afterwards, there may have been evident traces of an old city wall that had excluded the Holy Sepulchre from the city when Christ was buried. From Josephus, we know of three walls that at different times enclosed Jerusalem on the north. The third of these is the present wall, which was built about ten years after the death of Christ, and is far beyond the traditional Holy Sepulchre. Josephus describes the second wall as extending from the gate Gennath, which was in the first wall, to the tower Antonia. A wall running in a direct line between these two points would have included the Sepulchre. But it could have followed an irregular line and thus have left the Sepulchre outside. No researches have ever yielded any indication of a wall following a straight line from the Gennath gate to the Antonia. That, on the contrary, the wall took an irregular course, excluding the Sepulchre, seems to have been sufficiently proved by the discoveries, in recent years, of masses of masonry to the east and southeast of the church. So convincing is the evidence afforded by these discoveries that such competent authorities as Drs. Schick an Gauthe at once admitted the authenticity of the traditional Tomb. Since then, this view has been generally adopted by close students of the question.

-Catholic Encyclopedia

[dan]

I’m condensing and abridging this article as well as re-arranging it for this thread, but the original is by Dr. Jeffrey R. Chadwick, and can be found in the Religious Educator, Vol. 4, No 1, 2003.

The Holy Sepulchre


Any site purported to be Jesus’ burial ground must fulfill several criteria. First, the Biblical account must be held against it. It must have been in a garden, newly hewn, and it must have allowed for a stone to be placed in front of the opening. The entrance must have been low enough to have required bending down to look in, and Christ’s body must have been visible from the opening. Wherever Christ was put must have also allowed for angels to sit at his head and feet. Second, the tomb must stand up to what is known about the Jewish practice of burial and the archeological state of the area.

The site of the Holy Sepulchre sits on a quarry from the seventh century BC. The topsoil was removed for this and tombs were carved into it when the quarry was abandoned. In AD 135 Hadrian built a pagan temple in the tomb now called the Holy Sepulchre. Constantine ordered a temple to Christ be built there between AD 326 and 335. Before Hadrian, there was topsoil and seed blown around by wind, and grass did grow there, but a garden requires much more than weeds and grass, especially if it to employ an actual gardener. There was not enough arable soil to grow anything constituting a 1st century “garden” at the Holy Sepulchre. Strike one.

The site should also be newly hewn, but the Holy Sepulchre contained horizontal burial niches (called kokhim in Hebrew) underneath Hadrian’s temple. These could not have been carved during (or any time near) Christ’s lifetime and therefore eliminate the possibility that this site was Jesus’ newly hewn tomb. From the 10th to the 1st Century AD tombs were not allowed to be carved west of Jerusalem. None have ever been found west of the city that have been dated during that time, but hundreds have been found north, east and south of the city from that time period. For over 350 days a year the winds in Jerusalem come from the west, off the sea. This would blow the stench of decomposing corpses directly into the city, as well as the ritual impurities that Jews believed were emitted by dead bodies. There were rules about how close to the city and in what direction burials of anything could occur. Observe (the Talmud): “They distance the animal carcasses and the tombs and the tannery from the city fifty cubits. None place a tannery other than to the east of the city. Rabbi Akiva says: to every wind one places, except the west, and fifty cubits.” The absence of tombs west of the city from ten centuries before on up to this time make it clear that they didn’t want the wind carrying any impurities or smells into the city. Those kokhim were carved two or three centuries before, when the city didn’t extend that far north, and that makes this tomb an old, previously used one. Where is the Holy Sepulchre located, by the way?

From 20 BC on it was directly west of the city and the expanded Temple, but before that time period it was north of the city and the Temple.

If scientific evidence and Jewish law is to be trusted at all, then this tomb could not possible have been carved out anytime near Christ’s life.

I move on to the Garden Tomb…

[Victor]

Dan, assuming it's not the Tomb of Chirst, what if anything do you think it does to those who believe it is?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Victor

Dan, assuming it's not the Tomb of Chirst, what if anything do you think it does to those who believe it is?

Well I'm pretty convinced that it is the Tomb of Christ and God appears to agree, if you accept the annual Holy Fire miracle. Even if you don't (and I doubt you would, Victor, given the history post Gregorian paschalion reform RCs have had with it), I've yet to see any good evidence to show that it is not. The evidence Dan provides seems rather poor and to revolve around there being a gardener. What if the gardener was there simply to keep the weeds down and not because there was actually a garden as such? That's always been my experience of what the equivalent in a modern cemetary does, after all. This seems to be nothing more than grasping at straws by those who must try to refute Holy Tradition at all costs.

James

[dan]

OK, drop the gardener idea and it's still an open and shut case. A Jew (especially a prominent Jew like Joseph) wouldn't have built a tomb there. He wouldn't have been allowed to by Jewish law. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

I've yet to see any good evidence to show that it is not.

The evidence I just cited is the evidence you'll have to address if you want to convince anyone who's not Catholic that you're not just closing your eyes to the facts because they're inconvenient to your faith.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by dan

The evidence I just cited is the evidence you'll have to address if you want to convince anyone who's not Catholic that you're not just closing your eyes to the facts because they're inconvenient to your faith.

I'm Orthodox.

James

[dan]

I apologize for the mix-up. To me they share many traits, and I forget that they're two different churches.

Oh, and I researched your gardener idea. In that time period only one kind of person was called a gardener. That was someone who tended to an orchard of olive trees or other kinds of fruit. A person who tended to grapes was working in a vineyard and was never called a gardner. "Garden" had a very specific meaning. That area has never had enough topsoil to support anything large enough to constitute a garden or the need of a gardner.

You call it grasping at straws, but those straws are what are known as evidence, and they are legitimate. I have evidence - you have shown only conjecture and the ability to ignore evidence.

All my other evidence remains unassaulted, but I renew the gardner argument. Your turn.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by dan

That area has never had enough topsoil to support anything large enough to constitute a garden or the need of a gardner.

It would be helpful to your case if you could substantiate the above claim.