Which Tomb? An Easter Series - Part 2

Option 1: The Church of the Holy Sepulchre - Part 1 (don't get confused by all the parts.)

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, though one of the most gaudy and sickening shrines, has, far and away, the most support as the location of Jesus’ burial in the literature.  Most modern scholars support the Holy Sepulchre Church as authentic, even if they wish it were not.  Since it is the favored position, we will begin with it.  This post includes the first half of my discussion on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Origin:

                After Constantine legalized Christianity, his mother began her quest to find the holy sites of the Christian faith.  Her trek led her to build several churches over supposed holy sites including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  How she found the site is not simply interesting, but seems to be significant to the discussion.  We cannot begin with Helena however, we must back up to Hadrian, the Emperor during the second Jewish rebellion in 132 AD. 

Though Titus’ overthrow of Jerusalem had been dramatic, it was only the first step towards the destruction of the city.  When the Jews rebelled again, Emperor Hadrian took drastic steps to wipe out the memory of Jerusalem.  He banned Jews from the city, changed the name to Aelia Captiolina and had it rebuilt as a Roman City.  He even “trenched around it a pomerium, a furrow plowed by the founder of a new city to mark its confines” (Bahat, ital his, 32).  Hadrian erected many different statues and temples throughout the city.  Over the ancient quarry and graveyard where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was to stand he built up a level platform and built a temple, probably to Venus. 

In 326 Helena came to Jerusalem, with a Jew or Arab as a guide.  It had been a bit under 200 years since the tomb had been covered over by Hadrian, but there was apparently some memory that the tomb lay beneath the pagan temple.  We do not know in what condition the temple was found, but in digging down beneath it, the tomb of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was discovered.  Helena was certain that it was the correct location and thus built a shrine over it.

Walls:

                There have been many who have suggested that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is not the authentic burial site of Jesus.  Though there have been many who voiced that opinion, they have had few arguments for their position.  The single most cited reason for the invalidity of the Church as Jesus’ tomb is the fact that it is within the city walls.  To many this is a major problem.  The scriptures seem to indicate that Jesus was crucified outside the city, and certainly would have been buried without as well.  This argument began to be raised in the late 1800’s.  Protestants began to hone their rhetoric (certainly they did not like what the Catholics had done to the cite), and noticed that it was apparently outside the city walls.  They were aided by the general lack of certainty of the location of the original walls.  In 1856, Edward Robinson located the Church of the Holy Sepulchre inside the city walls.  Others have followed suit so that one may find as many maps with the Holy Sepulchre inside the city walls as without.  In recent years, especially since the 60’s with Kathleen Kenyon’s work, the location of the walls has come under renewed scrutiny.  Now the prevailing view within the scholarly community is that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is within the third wall, but outside the second.  This raises all new problems.  The second wall is indisputably from the first century BC.  The date of the third wall, however, is quite questionable.  Kenyon, Schein, Bahat, and others date it around 44 AD, thus after the burial of Jesus.  While there are dissenters, Kenyon says, “None of the alternative lines for the second north wall based on a position for the Gate Gennath near the Citadel can be possible.  The only possible line is the one running to a Gate Gennath in the centre  of the first north wall…this line leaves both Site C and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre outside the walls” (sic, 154).  It seems that the walls of Jerusalem do not conclusively support or deny the Holy Sepulchre as the true tomb.

Tradition:

                For the Catholic community, tradition is one of the strongest evidences available to prove any point.  In this case, tradition strongly supports the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the legitimate site.  As was mentioned above in the discussion of the site’s origins, the Holy Sepulchre has been the traditional burial site for 1700 years.  No matter how one feels about the location, this is a difficult piece of datum to overlook.  The fact that for so long Christianity has accepted this as the site does not make it so, of course.  Tradition requires support, and all the support the site gets is circumstantial.  Even if it is irrefutably proven that the tomb is first century, nothing is proven as to it housing Jesus’ body.  Tradition is only as significant as we desire it to be.

The Unlikely Site:

                Many writers note that the location of the church, even by the fourth century in a residential area, seems unlikely.  However, many suggest that it is a significant evidence of veracity.  Bahat says, “Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the authenticity of the site, however, is that it must have been regarded as such an unlikely site when pointed out to Constantine’s mother Queen Helena in the fourth century” (37).    Though it seemed unlikely he goes on to say, “But now we know that its location perfectly fits first-century conditions” (37).  I think he is overstating things just a bit.  It is possible that Helena’s fervor to build, combined with her Imperial clout, blinded her judgment somewhat.  It may be that Helena really wanted another monument, and the Jew, for fear of displeasing the queen, and knowing that there was a tomb under the temple (or hoping there was), was eager to give her a place to build.  It may also be that she was as eager to remove vestiges of pagan worship as was her son, and this seemed a good opportunity to do so.  It is also likely that the Jew, knowing of the tomb from residents of that Jewish quarter, was eager to see Roman idolatry removed from the neighborhood.  Additionally, it may be that the Jewish people of the area were very glad to know that pilgrims, and more importantly their money, would be coming through the area regularly.  It is not a stretch to imagine ulterior motives at work.  Taylor admits that “It is possible…that logistics might have played a part” (194).

Login to add comments