Which Tomb? An Easter Series - Part 4

Option 2: The Garden Tomb

Origin:

                The Garden Tomb was found in 1867 by a peasant who was digging down in order to build a cistern for cultivation of the area.  It is located about 100 yards north of the Damascus Gate on the north side of Jerusalem.  In 1874 the tomb was made public by German archaeologist Conrad Schick.  The tomb is sometimes referred to as Gordon’s Tomb, since it was General Charles George Gordon who, in 1883, identified it as Jesus’ tomb.  He came to the land with an interesting view of Biblical archeology.  He blended poor hermeneutics and an unorthodox approach to archeology and declared the Garden Tomb genuine based almost solely on the eerie resemblance of the hill he called Golgotha to a human skull.  Since then, the site has been the only alternative given to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  In 1955 the Garden Tomb Association did a small excavation, but never published their findings. 

A Tour Guide’s Suggestions:

                In her article, Zoba recounts her trip to the Garden Tomb.  She presents the keeper of the site as an Englishman who in turn gives several reasons for the possibility of the Garden Tomb as authentic.  First, he suggests that the door is larger than usual (though it is still only 4 ½  feet tall) because of wear from pilgrims.  Next he points to the first room and suggests that it is a weeping chamber, which would have been typical of the tomb of a rich man (do not forget that Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy).  Then he points out that the benches where Jesus would have been laid was to the right of the weeping room, which corresponds to Mark 16:5, “Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right…”  Next he gestures toward the middle of the three benches in the U shaped room and notes that it looks unfinished[1], presumably because they had to hurry up and burry Jesus in it.  Outside the tomb he notes that there is indeed a garden, as is noted in various scripture accounts, and that it is a rather public place, being at the cross section of two roads by the major northern gate.  This fits with Matthew 27:39.

                Most of what the tour guide says is irrefutable.  However, none of it is conclusive, and much of it can be said for other burial sites as well.  Zoba refuses to declare the tomb valid or not, but leaves me with the impression that she is not convinced. 

The Square Stone:

                If we accept Kloner’s arguments that first century tombs had a square stone, then perhaps this is an argument in favor of the garden tomb.  The literature suggests that it would allow for such a stone.  However, this certainly is not conclusive.

Location:

                The Garden tomb is certainly outside the walls at the time of Christ.  This is an important point that many like to use when comparing to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  Again, this is not conclusive, but is at least, not a refutation of its identity.

The 1955 Excavation:

                The fact that the Garden Tomb Association, the group that owns that land on which the tomb sits, never published its findings seems a blow against the tomb’s authenticity.  This is, of course, an argument from silence.  However, had they found something that was in the least bit positive, we can rest assured they would have made it public.  As it is, it seems that at best their excavation yielded nothing helpful to them.

Tradition:

                Though I do not put a large amount of stock in the value of tradition, especially when the tradition seems self-serving, the  Garden Tomb is completely lacking in this commodity.  To many, the 150 years since the discovery of the tomb compared against the 1700 years tradition of the Holy Sepulchre, is insignificant.  I agree.  However, tradition is only useful if we can find a good basis for it, and a hill that looks like a skull, close to a gate, housing a tomb with a garden, seems at least as significant as a Jew wanting to appease a powerful queen and remove a Roman temple in one fell swoop.    

Tomb-Type:

                Barkay’s article in BAR is the most damaging that I found to the Garden Tomb.  He offers three main reasons to reject the Garden.  He suggests that while we do not have any accurate records of the contents of the Garden Tomb (archeology has not always been so intent on technical accuracy), the tombs around it all have pottery and findings in situ that are dated to the seventh century BC.  He also mentions some items found in a closet at the Garden Tomb that have relics similar to the tombs around it that date to the same time frame.  He believes that the items were found at the Garden Tomb.  He continues by stating that the layout of the room was not first century, the chisel marks are not first century, and that while Second Temple tombs may have benches, they are carved around sunken floors.  He says, “The ‘Garden Tomb’ cave appears to be a First Temple period, rather than a Second Temple period, burial cave” (53).  His conclusion is, “Thus, dating this cave to the Hasmonean or Herodian period (first century B.C.-first century A.D.) seems completely out of the question” (53), and that it was retrofitted for use during the Byzantine period. 

                In his response to Barkay’s article, Chadwick attempts to refute several of the arguments just mentioned.  He notes that much of Barkay’s criticism of the Garden Tomb is based on its close proximity to definite First Temple period tombs, and proceeds to pick apart his arguments almost line for line.  He acknowledges that the St. Etienne tombs are Iron Age, but says, “proximity alone proves little unless supported by other similarities, and no significant similarities were exposed.  In fact, the article brought to my attention a number of important dissimilarities” (16).  The first difference was that the Garden Tomb does not have elaborate cornices or other decorative features so prominent in the St. Etienne tombs.  The Garden Tomb has a nefesh, while the other tombs do not.  Entrances to the St. Etienne tombs were six feet tall, while the Garden Tomb’s is 4 ½ feet tall (and many agree that it was once much smaller).  The ceilings are lower in the Garden Tomb than at St. Etienne’s, and most significant to Chadwick was the lack of a bone repository in the Garden Tomb, while there are apparently rather impressive ones in all the tombs at St. Etienne’s.  He suggests that their absence indicates that ossuaries were to be used in the Garden Tomb (which would be characteristic of first century tombs).  He rails against Barkay for “judging ceramic remains out of their proper context” (17), and then says, “As for the absence of comb chiseling, any visitor to Jerusalem can see tons of Second Temple period stonework devoid of comb chisel marks” (ital his, 17).  This article answered all of the issues Barkay brought against the Garden Tomb.  Even if Chadwick is exactly correct in every detail, it simply means that the Garden Tomb cannot be eliminated as a potential site of the burial of Jesus.  It does not prove that it is the burial site.  

Scriptural Allowance or Disallowance:

                The Garden Tomb seems to conform to the scriptural data as long as the case brought against it as being seventh century BC can be proven.  If the tomb is taken to be Iron II, then things become difficult for it.  The synoptic gospels refer to Jesus’ tomb as a new tomb where no one had ever lain.  It is hard to see an Iron II tomb as being new, unless, it is regarded as new because it had remained unused.  The notion that a tomb would go unused for 700 years seems a bit unlikely, though not impossible.

Login to add comments