Which Tomb? An Easter Series - Part 3
Option 1: The Church of the Holy Sepulchre - Part 2
Posted
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
by
Sam Yeiter
In this post, I will conclude my treatment of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This post has one of the more enjoyable section titles I've ever used..."To Kokh or not to Kokh?" Perhaps I am easily amused. Enjoy, please. History is fun!
The Self-Evident Site:
To conclude her thoughts about the unlikeliness of the location of the tomb, Taylor suggests âthat the fact that the tomb was considered self-evident is the single most important factor that points to the probable authenticity of the traditional siteâ (ital hers, 196). How was it self-evident? She goes on to suggest that it fit the biblical details. First, it had to be a new tomb (presumably, first century). Second, it had to be one in which no one had been laid (no ossuaries or corpses). Third, it had to have a ledge of some sort to the right that could be seen from the doorway. She proceeds:
The Biblical stories, though differing in details, are consistent in their presentation of the tomb as an arcosolium type. They do not give us the impression that the tomb was a kokhim type. In these, one would be able only to see the standing pit depression, and the feet or head of whoever might be laid in the kokh, in which no one could sit upright (ital hers, 196).
One may ask how she knows it was proven in the mind of Helena and other fourth century Christians. She suggests that the fact that no miracle was used to assert its legitimacy is a proof of its legitimacy. Regarding its self-evident nature she says:
The traditional view has this in its favour (though one that is usually completely ignored): it gives us a perfect reason why no physical proof or legitimating miracle was required for anyone to believe that the tomb was genuine. The reason it was genuine was that it was in precisely the right place, under the statue of Jupiterâ¦No further proof was required (sic, 196-197).
This view is not without merit, but it relies heavily upon several pieces being in place. It requires Hadrian knowing the location of the birth of Christ. It requires people accurately remembering something for 200 years, and it requires a correct identification of the tomb before Hadrianâs rule. We would do well to remember that neither the Jews nor the Roman government were sympathetic to Christians after the events of Christâs life. I am not sure we can be certain that Jesusâ tomb wasnât destroyed long before Hadrian, and its memory lost during the persecutions first of the Christians and then of the Jews themselves.
Lack of Complaint:
Taylor mentions, as she is trying to defend the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that she did find one thing to be odd. She says, âI would still note that it remains a curious fact that no Christian source before Constantine noted the offensive conjunction of a Temple of Venus and the place of Jesusâ entombmentâ (194). This is, of course, an argument from silence. However, it may be somewhat strong, given that we would expect there to be a great uproar at something so blasphemous as a pagan temple residing over the empty tomb of the Savior. There are at least three reasons this may have been. It may be that the Christians had lost the memory of the location of the tomb. It may be that that was not the correct location for the tomb. Or it may be that the Christians did not care. This may be the most likely. Certainly the apostles would not have venerated the site, but rather the Lord of the site. Perhaps the fist century church realized that such places were not essentials of their faith. I do not know, but it remains, as Taylor says, a curious fact.
A Square Stone:
Until I was in college I envisioned the stone covering the entrance of the tomb to be a giant spherical boulder. With just a small amount of archeological instruction, I have since envisioned a giant, round, wheel-like stone covering its door. Kloner, in his article, suggests that first century tombs actually used square stones. He seems to believe that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would not allow for a square stone. I am not sure how widely accepted his view is, but this would seems to bring that site into some question. Certainly not every tomb in a given time frame must be exactly the same, but it is something interesting to be considered.
To Kokh or Not to Kokh?:
One of the most significant arguments for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre being the genuine burial location is that it is from the right time frame. The Garden Tomb is said to be far too early (Iron Age II), and then far too late (Byzantine). The Church is thought to be just right. It is interesting to me that both Barkay and Taylor suggest that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is authentic to the first century because of burial typing. However, this is where their agreement ends. As mentioned above, Taylor said that she felt that the Holy Sepulchre Church was authentic because it fit the typology of the tombs of the time by not being of the kokhim variety.
Barkay, in his article says:
A comparison of the Garden Tomb cave with the numerous Second Temple period burial caves in Jerusalem also emphasizes the very prominent differences. The outstanding characteristics of these Second Temple burial caves are burial niches (called kokhim; singular, kokh) cut vertically into the cave wall. Kokhim are very different structures from the burial benches extending lengthwise along the walls of the chamber, which characterize First Temple burial caves (53).
He proceeds to list other features of first century tombs, which many, but not all of the scholars on the subject accept. This disagreement over what is or is not characteristic of tombs of certain periods is rather telling. It seems that many people in the literature are so anxious to recognize the Holy Sepulchre Church as the true burial place, that they arrive there regardless of the data set before them. This does not prove or disprove anything, but it is telling on the establishment.
Scriptural Allowance or Disallowance:
Scripture does seem to allow for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to be the real burial place. However, it certainly does not demand it. If Kathleen Kenyon is right about the location of the walls, then the Church would seem to fit within the wide parameters set by the scriptures.
Scholarly Conclusions:
It seems that most scholars hold to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the authentic burial site of Jesus. Taylor is willing to speak of the location as being âproven absolutely genuineâ (203). Kenyon, having in her mind established the location and dating of the second and third walls says:
The evidence is thus clear that the traditional sites of Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre can be authentic, but not of course that they are authentic. On this it can only be said that when Queen Helena came to build the Church in the early fourth century AD the site selected was certainly within the Roman city, and the site must have seemed as improbable to her as it does to present-day tourists. The tradition that persuaded her to build on this site must have seemed to her to be very strong (ital hers, 154).
Many are echoed in Barkayâs sentiment that there is no scientific basis for locating the tomb of Jesus in the Garden Tomb. Finally, there are some who would side with Kloner. He seems to be bothered by the archaeological disunity of the Holy Sepulchre, and says, âJesusâ tomb may no longer existâ (76).
to add comments