Which Tomb? An Easter Series - Part 1
Introduction and Bibliography
Posted
Thursday, April 06, 2006
by
Sam Yeiter
While cynics may believe that having two possibilities for the tomb of Jesus is just a cash cow for the Israeli tourist economy (and certainly it does not hurt their economy), there are good reasons to support both as the real tomb.
There are enough facts and theories that neither side is embarrassed of its position.
Over the last 150 years or so, the question of the validity of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been asked.
So far, only the Garden Tomb has been able to contend with that church as a possible grave site for Jesus.
Each year countless numbers of pilgrims make their way to the Holy City. There they hope to connect with ancient holy sites. Probably the most significant to many of them is the burial place of Jesus. To many people (not every pilgrim necessarily fits into this category) this question is important because they want archeological validation of their faith. If we can say with complete confidence that we have found Jesusâ tomb, many Christians (of every stripe) will feel more secure in their faith. Some would go further and feel that if the Garden Tomb and the Church of the Sepulchre are disproved as the potential burial places for Jesus, then their faith is on shaky ground. I do not believe this question is important for matters of faith. The author of Hebrews says that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things unseen. We must not require sight if we say we have faith. Therefore, while I do not think this question is important for matters of faith and practice, I do think it is an important issue.
The importance of the study of the tomb of Jesus is important from an apologetics standpoint and from the point of a student of the Word. Obviously, if we should find a tomb that is marked âJesus of Nazareth, 32 A.D.â and the body is still present, then we are in hot water, apologetically speaking. Our faith should remain unmoved, but we have some work to do. Likewise, if we can find what is universally received as the tomb of Jesus, and there is no body present, then we have some ammunition in our rhetorical clip. However, this is becoming less and less significant. In the last 40 years we have seen the acceptance of an historical Jesus, regardless of whether he is believed to be God. This acceptance would require a tomb, and should there be no body, opponents of fundamentalism can simply say that the body was stolen (which is not a new claim), or that something else has happened to it. From the standpoint of the Bible student, this is important as we try to piece together the Biblical account. It would have importance just as understanding the distance between cities and differing landmarks makes. Understanding how far the Israelites traveled, how far Elijah ran, how long the Emmaus Road is, and the length of time it would have taken to walk from the upper room to the Garden of Gethsemane, does not immediately lessen or increase the need for faith, but helps us to understand the narrative of the Old and New Testaments. As we understand it better, we can apply it more accurately and teach it with more vibrancy. This is the value of this question, and to the extent that we are able to appropriate the story into our study of scripture as a whole, it has value.
Currently, there are two main options as to where Jesus was buried. There are some who believe there may well be another unknown option. In this paper we will look at these optionsâ origins and then look at the evidence supporting them. We will look at scripture, archeology and tradition as evidence. Having done this, I will suggest a provisional answer to the question.
At the outset, I would be interested in first thoughts or impressions regarding the tombs of Christ. Also, what do you think of as the apologetic value in such a studyâ¦is there any value here at all? To what extent should our faith interact with apologetics?
For those of you who want a bibliography up-front (are there really such people?), here you go:
Bibliography
Bahat, Dan. âDoes the Holy Sepulchre Church Mark the Burial of Jesus? Biblical Archaeology
Review. 12.3 (1986): 26-45.
Barkay, Gabriel. âThe Garden Tomb: Was Jesus Buried Here?â Biblical Archaeology Review.
12.2 (1986): 40-53, 56-57.
Chadwick, Jeffrey. Letter. âIn Defense of the Garden Tomb.â Biblical Archaeology Review.
12.4 (1986): 16-17.
Kenyon, Kathleen M. Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1967.
Kloner, Amos. âDid a Rolling Stone Close Jesusâ Tomb?â Biblical Archaeological Review.
25.5 (1999): 22-29, 76.
McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
Schein, Bruce E. âThe Second Wall of Jerusalem.â Biblical Archeologist. 44 (1981): 21-26.
Taylor, Joan E. âGolgotha: A Reconsideration of the Evidence for the Sites of Jesusâ
Crucifixion and Burial.â New Testament Studies. 44 (1998): 180-203.
Yadin, Yigael ed. Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1976.
Zoba, Wendy Murray. âWhere Have They Laid My Lord?â Christianity Today. 41.3 (1997):
32-35.
to add comments