Which Tomb? An Easter Series - Part 5

The Conclusion (or, Sam overpromises again...)

In this post I will offer my conclusion on the issue.  I knew setting out that I might not be satisfied with my findings, but I certainly enjoyed the ride.  I hope that you have enjoyed thinking about our Lord's unfinal resting place.  I look forward to your analysis of the data.

We have come through a lot of information, and I would like to bring us back to the point I made at the beginning about the nature of this search for the tomb of Jesus.  In the introduction to his book McRay says:

Archaeology…cannot prove the New Testament to be either theologically inspired or historically accurate.  Those who make such demands from the discipline are going beyond the purpose of excavation and inadvertently betray the uncertainty of their own approach to religion.  The New Testament does not need external confirmation of its theological truth and its historical references in order to achieve the purpose for which it was written and canonized—the production of faith in the hearts of its readers…seldom does a discovery bear so directly on a written text that it may be said to confirm (or refute) that text (19).

                From what I have studied and learned of the two locations, I can say that I would much rather believe the Garden Tomb to be authentic.  It seems that most believers say something similar.  We hate to believe that our Lord’s tomb could be so defiled, but then we are hit with a  salvo from the scholarly literature (that may or may not be accurate) and we are beaten into submission, back to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  It seems that we have been victimized by the law of the excluded middle.  For so long (in our memory) there have only been two options: either the Garden Tomb or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and it seems unlikely that anything will shed more light on either location.  Let me suggest that it seems just as likely that we have not yet located the tomb of Jesus, and that it may very well have been destroyed by the Jews, the Romans, or the Muslims.  Neither the tradition of the Holy Sepulchre, nor the skull-like visage of the hill by the Garden Tomb is convincing enough to make me commit to either.  The good news is that I do not need to.  Regardless of the location of Jesus’ tomb, no faith is to be gained in its finding, nor any loss in its scarcity.  Perhaps in understanding this, we can begin to move toward a more real faith, one that is not dependent upon nor swayed by archeology, but one that may be challenged by it and refined as a result of more diligent searching it provokes. 

At this point, at the very end, I must admit the sad point that we have not satisfied the Narrative issues raised at the outset of the paper.  Without committing to one or the other, it is difficult, if not impossible, to use this information to fill out our preaching or teaching on Resurrection morning.  If you are committed to one location or the other, perhaps you would like to comment on how you feel that impacts the story of the most holy intersection between the human and the divine. 

Login to add comments