Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Seeker2000 · 10-30-2004, 07:09 PM

On a German website I read the following (translated to English):
"From 326 AD on Emperor Constantine let the Church of the Holy Sepulchre be built at the instigation of his pious mother Helena, who from the point of view of some researchers could even come from a Jewish family. A temple of Venus had been teared down for the church . It had been built over Golgotha by Emperor Hadrian after the revolt of Bar Kochba (132-135 AD).

The knowledge of Golgotha and of the tomb of Jesus close-by (John 19,41-42) had been passed down by those Judeo-Christians, who had lived in Jerusalem almost without interruption from the days of the first Christians (the 'Urgemeinde') to Bar Kocha. How precise their memories were became apparent in the 70s: At that time a small cave was found at the Eastern side of the Golgotha rock, of which one had only known from Judeo-Christian scriptures before."
From: http://www.livenet.ch/www/index.php/D/article/68/3600/

Some questions arise:
1.) Is there any evidence that the temple of Venus was built by Hadrian to erase the memory of the place where Jesus had been buried?
2.) How much evidence is there that this really is the burial site of Jesus, thus making the Gospel accounts true regarding this aspect?
3.) Are there sources before Constantine that this is the burial site of Jesus and has this really been passed down by Judeo-Christians?
4.) What about the small cave? I could find no further information regarding this. What kind of scriptures had told about this cave before - what's the context and from what time are they? Does anyone have more information on this?

Toto · 10-30-2004, 07:15 PM

A quick search found this: The Elusive Tomb - but I haven't had time to read it.

Seeker2000 · 10-31-2004, 07:45 AM

Thanks, that's an interesting article.

Regarding the German article: I have now sent an e-mail to the website asking for further information regarding the small cave that was mentioned in Judeo-Christians scriptures and regarding a religious inscription that was found in an Armenian chapel close to the Golgotha rock dating to the 2nd century.

Chili · 10-31-2004, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

4.) What about the small cave? I could find no further information regarding this. What kind of scriptures had told about this cave before - what's the context and from what time are they? Does anyone have more information on this?

You should consider the possibility that the tomb was hewn by Joseph for his own use and that the body of Jesus was indeed the ego identity of Joseph the upright Jew. That it was hewn as if out of rock indicates that Joseph was a faithful Jew who always set aside his tithe (10% of his time devoted to self evaluation) and this became is ark of which the cave is the flip side because you will need a cave when you arrive at the other side of life.

Magdlyn · 10-31-2004, 08:53 AM

I am starting to read this article. It is not without bias, odd scholarship, and I had difficulty distinguishing irony from statements of what the author seems to think is fact.

Quote:

It is doubtful that Macarius expected to find any tomb beneath the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter let alone that of Jesus. There is no evidence, literary or archaeological, suggesting that during the Apostolic Period that the tomb of Jesus itself held any special significance nor that it ever served as a cult center for the ancient church.

So, take the author's word for it, there is no evidence for a tomb tradition in the so-called "apostolic period."

Quote:

Early Judeo-Christians, as participants in Jewish culture, abhorred idolatry and did not venerate places as holy as did illiterate superstitious pagans.

Well, duh, except for their huge Temple, which held statues of and altars to Asherah, as spouse of YHWH, in it more often than not throughout its history. Was this official Judaism? No, but then, their canon is just as suspect/political as the Xtian one.

"Illiterate supertitious pagans?" As if all Jews were literate and held to no superstitions? Huh? Is the author being ironic or serious here? Hard to tell.

Now below we get somewhere:

Quote:

Ernest Martin, who argued that the Mt. of Olives was the actual place of the tomb, rejected the tradition argument and explained why. In his words:

While this supposition appears reasonable, it must be recalled that Jerusalem and its surroundings underwent two devastating destructions (A.D. 70 and A.D. 135) which drastically altered its geographical features. There were also major political upheavals within those two and a half centuries. Indeed, there is almost nothing known about the Christian bishops of Jerusalem for a hundred years after the emperor Hadrian destroyed the city in A.D. 135 nor are Christian activities precisely documented for the Jerusalem area during that time. In spite of these “unknowns,�? most scholars feel the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is “probably�? the proper site for Jesus’ crucifixion. But when the biblical and historical data...are considered, the area of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher has no credentials whatever. (Martin 1996:161-162.)

This assumes there were Xtian bishops in Jerusalem at all. It is also presupposes that "Xtianity" was seen as anything more than a Jewish sect in this time period. If all Jews were dispersed from Jerusalem in this time, why would not Xtians also have been?

More pertinent info:

Quote:

The excavation of the Capitoline temple was a clever ruse devised by bishop Macarius to reach an important political objective—the destruction of the heart of the city’s paganism. This was a perfect reprisal.

Macarius' followers believed the tomb of Jesus was beneath the Capitoline temple, but that the pagans had destroyed the tomb to denigrate Jesus's memory, and built the temple over the holy site. Eusebius, who participated in the demolition of the Capitoline temple and clearing the area beneath its platform, wrote that finding the tomb of Jesus was "beyond all hope" and "contrary to expectation" (Eusebius Life of Constantine 3.29). Either he thought the pagans had destroyed it or did not believe the Tomb was at this location at all.

Eusebius, himself no stranger to falsehood and truth stretching, did not believe Jesus's tomb was at this site. So, how could anyone else?

The assertions below seem to be all over the place:

Quote:

When the workmen came across a first-century Jewish cemetery beneath the platform it undoubtedly even surprised Macarius who, understanding the potential of the discovery, promptly seized the opportunity to find Jesus’ tomb. Soon the excavators produced a first-century style tomb, with a rolling stone in a stone track to close off its entrance, which they claimed was that of Jesus of Nazareth. Round blocking stones were quite common in the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods (2nd-7th centuries CE) but in the Early Roman Period this was not the case.[So, if rolling stones were extremely rare, the chance that this was a 1st century tomb was almost nil.]

Jesus tomb was [does he mean, would have been? As we do not have J's tomb, for heaven's sakes] a standard small burial room, with a standing pit and burial benches along three sides, with a square blocking stone placed at its entrance.

Of the over 900 rock tombs discovered in and around Jerusalem from Herodian times only four had round blocking stones. The rest were square. In Jesus’ day round blocking stones, set in stone tracks, were extremely rare and found only in the tombs of wealthy and distinguished families. This was neither the kind of stone placed at Jesus’ tomb [what tomb???] nor the kind of tomb into which Joseph of Arimathea placed him. Jesus’ tomb was a standard small burial room, with a standing pit and burial benches along three sides, with a square blocking stone placed at its entrance (Kloner 1999:23).[and where is this tomb? if the author means the one found at this site, where is the proof it belongs to Jesus? or is even 1st century? Talk about mushy logic.]

Just before the High Sabbath of Nisan 15 Pilate ordered Jesus’ body to be given over to Joseph of Arimathea. He hastily removed it from the cross, covered it with a linen burial shroud, and placed it on a burial bench in his own new tomb, a small burial cave, which he had hewn out in the rock (Matthew 27:60). Before he left he moved, not rolled, a large square stone against the entrance of the tomb (Matthew 27:60; Mark 15:46). In both verses the Greek word proskulio, the only two usages of it in the New Testament, can mean rolled or moved.[note the contradiction here? or is it irony again]...

The excavators had uncovered a family burial cave with a standing pit, a bench on the north side, and a rolling blocking stone, which they believed the Tomb of Jesus. One could not expect less from true believers, victims of a classic hermeneutic circle, caught up in the self-fulfilled prophecy syndrome. Moreover, since it was general knowledge that Calvary had to be close to the tomb, the excavators soon found that site as well.

Seeker2000 · 03-29-2005, 10:08 PM

I found an article on the Internet Archive which talks about historical and archeological clues regarding the tomb: http://web.archive.org/web/200403031...Article-1.html

Quote:

After spending over a decade studying ancient documents, Biddle and his Danish wife Birthe Kjolbye-Biddle used "the latest techniques of photogrammetric survey to reveal the form and appearance of the tomb through its successive changes from its beginnings as an original rock-cut tomb of the Second Temple period, the time of Christ, to the twentieth century." Biddle discovered there were four tombs under the edicule. "It is the earliest, well-preserved bottom tomb where Jesus' body was placed," says Biddle. "Thanks to sketches compiled by the Engineering Research Center in London, based on our using modern photographic techniques, we can see the marble slab - of the type used in that period some 2,000 years ago - which covers the burial shelf of the cave where Jesus was laid to rest.

[...]

Thanks to documentary research we now know that the present Golgotha - and the true site is where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands today - was known to people who lived in Jerusalem in the late 3rd century. Because of this knowledge it provided a landmark to carry out excavations a mere 30 years later.

[...]

"However, I must point out that the latest scholarly opinion about the thousand or so Jewish rock-cut tombs in Jerusalem that we know about indicates that the Garden Tomb is in the style of those cut during the First Temple period." Israeli specialists have determined that the tombs found in the Holy Sepulchre area are of a distinct type dug in the Second Temple period. These later tombs have long deep slots called kochim, into which the body could be fitted. They were not known during the time of King Solomon's Temple.

"The tomb in the Holy Sepulchre for Jesus was specially cut from rock for this occasion by Joseph of Arimathea, one of his wealthy followers as described in the Gospels. The size and cut of this tomb is what we would have expected from the description given of it. It is a chamber not exceeding a capacity of about five persons with a low entrance and a burial couch to the right." This was already known in the period before excavations began at the beginning of the 4th century on the present site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Any opinions on this? How likely is it that this is the real tomb of Christ as described in the Gospels? What does the appearance of the tomb tell us?

Also, are there really documents that prove that the tomb was known in the late 3rd century? Does anyone have more information about this? Was this place known as the burial place of Jesus before Helena travelled there and found it, together with a local bishop?

andrewcriddle · 03-30-2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

I

This assumes there were Xtian bishops in Jerusalem at all. It is also presupposes that "Xtianity" was seen as anything more than a Jewish sect in this time period. If all Jews were dispersed from Jerusalem in this time, why would not Xtians also have been?

FWIW Eusebius in 'Ecclesiastical History' Book 4:6:4 has a line of Jewish bishops of Jerusalem till AD 135 replaced by a line of Gentile bishops beginning with Mark.

The implication is that up to the 132-135 AD conflict Christianity in Jerusalem was basically Jewish but became Gentile of necessity with the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem in 135.

How far this is a historical tradition is not certain.

Andrew Criddle

Seeker2000 · 03-30-2005, 06:59 AM

Another link: http://www.jpdawson.com/ttnet/ttchap15N.html

It says:

Quote:

The site of the church of the Holy Sepulchre is located inside the present day boundaries of the Old City of Jerusalem as shown by Figure 11, reproduced from Wood's review article on the Holy Sepulchre site. Biddle claims that at the time of the crucifixion the traditional site was external to the Old Upper City of Jerusalem as shown in Figure 12, but excavations around the Triumphant Gate indicate walls extended to either side before Christ's time and possibly as early as 60 B.C. Possibly the northern wall existed before Herod Agrippa and he rebuilt it. This would make the City wall at Christ's time as shown in Figure 13 with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre site Figure 11 Jerusalem Walls inside the Old City. A number of first century tombs have been found in Jerusalem and they all fit the description given in the Gospels

I thought that the question regarding the city walls was cleared. Is it definitely known today if the location of the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre is inside or outside the city walls as they were at Jesus' time? If not, does someone know a source that confirms the above quote?

Seeker2000 · 07-12-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

This assumes there were Xtian bishops in Jerusalem at all. It is also presupposes that "Xtianity" was seen as anything more than a Jewish sect in this time period. If all Jews were dispersed from Jerusalem in this time, why would not Xtians also have been?

FWIW Eusebius in 'Ecclesiastical History' Book 4:6:4 has a line of Jewish bishops of Jerusalem till AD 135 replaced by a line of Gentile bishops beginning with Mark.

The implication is that up to the 132-135 AD conflict Christianity in Jerusalem was basically Jewish but became Gentile of necessity with the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem in 135.

How far this is a historical tradition is not certain.

Andrew Criddle

Hi,

if anyone is still interested, I just found the referred to text from the 'Ecclesiastical History' online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

I think this is the passage:

Quote:

CHAPTER 5
The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of Our Saviour Lo the Period Under Consideration.

The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there. all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops ofJerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.

[...]

CHAPTER 6
The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian

[...]

And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aelia, in honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.

This is what Eusebius reports. I don't know either, if this tradition is historical this way.

10-30-2004, 07:09 PM	#1
Seeker2000 Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 393	Holy Sepulchre, Golgotha, Cave On a German website I read the following (translated to English): "From 326 AD on Emperor Constantine let the Church of the Holy Sepulchre be built at the instigation of his pious mother Helena, who from the point of view of some researchers could even come from a Jewish family. A temple of Venus had been teared down for the church . It had been built over Golgotha by Emperor Hadrian after the revolt of Bar Kochba (132-135 AD). The knowledge of Golgotha and of the tomb of Jesus close-by (John 19,41-42) had been passed down by those Judeo-Christians, who had lived in Jerusalem almost without interruption from the days of the first Christians (the 'Urgemeinde') to Bar Kocha. How precise their memories were became apparent in the 70s: At that time a small cave was found at the Eastern side of the Golgotha rock, of which one had only known from Judeo-Christian scriptures before." From: http://www.livenet.ch/www/index.php/D/article/68/3600/ Some questions arise: 1.) Is there any evidence that the temple of Venus was built by Hadrian to erase the memory of the place where Jesus had been buried? 2.) How much evidence is there that this really is the burial site of Jesus, thus making the Gospel accounts true regarding this aspect? 3.) Are there sources before Constantine that this is the burial site of Jesus and has this really been passed down by Judeo-Christians? 4.) What about the small cave? I could find no further information regarding this. What kind of scriptures had told about this cave before - what's the context and from what time are they? Does anyone have more information on this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-30-2004, 07:15 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A quick search found this: The Elusive Tomb - but I haven't had time to read it.

10-31-2004, 07:45 AM	#3
Seeker2000 Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 393	Thanks, that's an interesting article. Regarding the German article: I have now sent an e-mail to the website asking for further information regarding the small cave that was mentioned in Judeo-Christians scriptures and regarding a religious inscription that was found in an Armenian chapel close to the Golgotha rock dating to the 2nd century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.