As controversy continues over James Cameron’s documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus , ALVIN JOHNSON takes a look at the evidence behind the long-held view that Christ’s tomb was, in fact, located on what is now the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem…
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is today found within the narrow streets of the Old City of Jerusalem, surrounded by the current walls of the city which are only about 500 years old. The church itself is fairly unimpressive, often crowded and dark and full of pilgrims from all parts of the world. The church is run by six denominations that have had, at times, a volatile relationship. It is claimed that this church is built on the site of Jesus’ crucifixion and the tomb where He was placed prior to His resurrection. But is this so? Let’s examine the evidence.
SITE OF CHRIST’S TOMB? Inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. PICTURE: Rayko Swensson (www.sxc.hu)
There has been a Christian church on the site since the time of the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. The first church was erected as result of a visit to the ‘Holy Land’ by Constantine’s mother Helena in 325 AD after the site was made known to her by Eusebius. Eusebius was the bishop of the coastal city of Caesarea, some 90 kilometres away.
Eusebius had a great interest in the history of the early church and much of what we know about the church from this time has come down through his writings. He had been born in Palestine and was, at the time of Helena’s visit, around 60 years of age. So Eusebius had the right background to be aware of any tradition that might have existed at this time. What evidence was there that Eusebius was right and that this was the tomb of Jesus?
If Eusebius had selected the site for Helena’s benefit, there was a problem. Emperor Hadrian’s Capitoline temple was on the site. This had been constructed after the second Jewish revolt of 135 AD. So the location was not selected on the basis of convenience. It would have been expensive to remove the temple and to build a church on the site. Why did Hadrian build a temple on this site? He had also built another temple on Temple Mount, on the location of the Jewish Temple which had been destroyed in the Jewish revolt, around 70 AD. It is thought that the building of this Roman temple was an attempt to obliterate the religious significance of the site to the Jews. The fact that a Roman temple was also on the site of the Holy Sepulchre, give weight that this site was also of important religious significance at time.
Secondly, the site identified by Eusebius was, in fact, within the walls of the city. This clearly went against the New Testament account which said Jesus “went out” – that is, left the city – to be crucified (see John 19: 17). It was common practice for crucifixion and burial to take place outside the city walls. So Eusebius’ claim did fly in the face of the current physical evidence. Again, it would have been easier to find a more convenient site outside the walls of the city.
Is it then possible that the tradition of Jesus burial site could have been passed down through the generations? There was the problem that all Jews had been exiled from Jerusalem in 135 AD. However, did not apply to the Gentiles, and many Gentiles had become Christians by this date. It was therefore possible that if the site was known it quite easily could have been passed on through oral tradition. If Eusebius had heard this tradition in his youth, the time difference from the death of Jesus was around 250 years. A not insignificant time, but with the likelihood of a continuous Christian presence in the city, it is within the realms of probability of an accurate transmission. Jesus crucifixion and resurrection was of central importance to the early church, so it is not unreasonable to expect that the location would be remembered and the knowledge of the location passed down, from parent to child or even grandparent to grandchild.
After Hadrian’s temple had been removed from the site, Eusebius comments in chapter 25 of the Life of Constantine that a burial cave was found: “But as soon as the original surface of the ground, beneath the covering of earth, appeared, immediately, and contrary to all expectation, the venerable and hollowed monument of our Saviour’s resurrection was discovered. Then indeed did this most holy cave present a faithful similitude of his return to life, in that, after lying buried in darkness, it again emerged to light, and afforded to all who came to witness the sight, a clear and visible proof of the wonders of which that spot had once been the scene, a testimony to the resurrection of the Saviour clearer than any voice could give.”
Unfortunately, over the centuries the church has been so altered that the cave is no longer recognisable. However, on western side of the church one can still see today a number of burial recesses called ‘kokkim’. Kokkim were typical of burial practices around the first century AD. So we do know for a fact that the site of the Holy Sepulchre was used for burial around the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.
There is also evidence from the wall into which the kokkim were dug that the area was a disused quarry, with the tombs having being dug into a rock formation. The Gospels’ description of the location at Golgotha as the place of the skull is a possible reference to a rock formation which looked like a skull. The evidence from the site allows this possibility.
What of the issue that the tomb is located within the walls of Jerusalem? Relatively recently ancient walls have been uncovered within the Old City of Jerusalem itself. The wall, which initially enclosed the present site of the Holy Sepulchre, was actually built by Herod Agrippa I somewhere between 41 to 44 AD. Therefore at the time of Jesus, the site was indeed outside the walls of the city.
Jerome Murphy O’Conner in his book The Holy Land points out an interesting fact. Even though the area was within the walls of the city for about 90 years, prior to the building of Hadrian’s temple, that there is no evidence that there were any buildings on that site. Murphy O’Conner makes the comment that “the memory of the site remained” which kept people from building on the site.
Finally on Mount Zion or the Western Hill of Jerusalem you can visit what today is identified as the tomb of David. Part of the wall of this tomb was used in a church which has foundations dating back to the Roman period, possibly even to the first century. The site may, in fact, be the “little church of God” which, according to Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 374), had existed as early as 130 AD. The interesting fact is that the northern wall of the church contains a recess, a prayer niche. This does not face in the traditional direction of the temple, but actually faces the direction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre!* Although circumstantial, it does add to the weight of evidence that for the church in Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Sepulchre was very significant and that this tradition existed prior to Eusebius’ identification to Helena and may have gone back to the 1st century itself.
We cannot say definitely that this Church of the Holy Sepulchre is built on the site of the tomb of Jesus, but we can, as the Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land concludes, reasonably suggest it “very probably” was.
* See Pixner B., Church of the Apostles found on Mt Zion, BAR May/ June 1990.
Alvin Johnson teaches church history at the Reformed Theological College in Geelong, Victoria.
