I realize the unlikelihood of this being the actual spot where the crucified body was placed but the article mentions a gray marble slab dating to the time of the Emperor Constantine the Great. Now clearly when he ordered the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre over this spot there must have been a tradition already existing that this was the place and presumably that belief had been around for some considerable length of time; traditions are not made overnight.
But do we know just how far back the tradition can be dated by written references to it? I’m getting no joy consulting Wikipedia under ‘tomb of Jesus’ or ‘burial of Jesus’.
On a recent tour of Israel, I was struck by how little archeological evidence there was about the authenticity of the many religious sites. A major problem is that in most cases one or other of them had built a church and prevented any excavation.
Time and again, we went to a ‘holy’ site that was “Believed to be…” In some cases it was admitted that the site was nowhere near the original - the place on the River Jordan where christians go to be baptised for example.
Ah, I see the problem now. I knew that Helena had discovered what she thought were pieces of the true cross in Jerusalem and that her son therefore built a church on the spot, just didn’t realize it was the Holy Sepulchre. There’s no mention of a tomb in your link but I guess the assumption back then was that if they found some of the cross there then that had to be where the tomb was. Though why he would be buried with his cross is somewhat puzzling as the cross would have had no significance at all for the disciples until after the resurrection of Jesus. Or maybe they figured this was the crucifixion site and that the tomb had somehow been mystically conveyed there just as the Virgin Mary’s house was later supposedly whisked to Spoleto in Italy (I believe Christians still flock there to see it. The power of faith, or stupidity depending on one’s viewpoint).
It is astonishing, if the legend goes no further back than his mother, that Constantine, by all accounts an intelligent guy, would have fallen for this. But I’m sure the truth is that he didn’t and knew quite well it was all bunkum (he wouldn’t be the first guy to indulge a credulous mother). Or he could have just found the construction of a church expedient, useful for the polity of the state; in fact some historians believe that’s exactly how he saw the whole Christian religion, useful (it’s instructive that as well as Christian symbols he also displayed those of Sol Invictus in his private chapel for years.)
The written references to any earlier traditions are simply the same written references to Constantine’s construction of his basilica. So, to take the most obvious example, Eusebius is rather vague as to whether knowledge of its supposed site had been completely lost and as to how exactly Constantine identified the site. Are we to assume that the Romans’ attempts to destroy any memory of the site had been less than completely successful? Or was the re-discovery purely a miracle? Or did Eusebius want us to think that it was both? The later traditions involving Helena aren’t any clearer.
So those who want to argue that the site is authentic usually fall back on the idea that there must have been some sort of oral tradition. Which isn’t in itself completely implausible. But, then again, any oral tradition need not have been reliable.
The interesting variation on that argument was the suggestion by Martin Biddle, who is arguably the most eminent archaeologist to have worked on the site in recent decades. Prior to this restoration, he speculated that earlier graffiti might have allowed the tomb to be identified and that, if so, there was a chance that it might survive to allow that identification to be confirmed. This was one of the reasons he used to support the restoration going ahead. As it has now been completed without any news of such a discovery, I think we must conclude that he has been disappointed.
Constantine had a vision, “In Hoc Signo Vinces” and a cross in the sky. All the Christians cam over to his side in the coming battle. Constantine either seriously believed, or he wanted to keep the Christians on his side.
I guess people have always wanted to have exciting stories about old things they dig up instead of boring ones. Dig up an old spoon? Why tell yourself that it something silver-plated and mass-produced in the 20th century when you can convince yourself it was hand-made by Paul Revere? It still happens today–find a 1st century boat in the Sea of Galilee? Why, this must have been Jesuses boat! And if some powerful foreign leader (or rich tourist) shows up asking naive questions about ancient (or near ancient) history, why not sell them a few “sacred” doodads that you cook up in your workshop?
(BTW, the Holy Sepulchre isn’t the only site claimed to be the tomb of Christ.)
We had a tour of various sites in the Jerusalem area, from a professor at a local university. he pointed out that a lot of the sites are the locals’ response to the crusaders when they re-took Jerusalem. “Oh, you want to see where the last supper was? It was in this building here…” A building from the 1100’s - AD! Presumably those directing Constantine’s mother to the missing true cross were similarly motivated to please a big shot tourist. (What are the odds a useful piece of wood in Palestine was not recycled over and over until it was sawdust?) There was a long list of noteworthy places in the bible and the locals found it lucrative to show the visitors what would match what they wanted to see. There are two tombs of Jesus - One at the mount of Olives, one beside what is presumed to be Golgotha. I have not-so-fond memories of a huge pushy crowd, mainly Russians, and a two hour lineup to go in for 20 seconds… before the renovations. You can go up the stairs and put your hand in the hole where the cross was planted…
So there’s a number of sites that have a longer history, like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. But of course, the Inn where the good Samaritan was healed, halfway down to the Dead Sea? Probably pure fiction, like the parable itself. And so on. There are 3 separate fields near Bethlehem where the angels announced to the shepherds, depending on whether these were protestant, orthodox, or catholic shepherds. You want to see whose tomb? Oh, it’s over here…
Consider that the city was flattened and emptied twice within 120 years of the crucifixion, odds are lot of the alleged sites are as much invention as true traditions.
If he was raised by his parents to believe that to be true, why would anyone expect him to suddenly start questioning it? Intelligent he may have been, but even many intelligent people never question what to them has been gospel truth all their lives.
The original claim was that God wrote in Greek, but that Latin translation has become more famous. (Kind of like how Caesar’s supposed Greek last words are less famous than the Latin version that Shakespeare used.)
There’s a question I’ve never pondered before. What would happen to a cross post-crucifixion? Would it get reused for more crucifixions? Sounds likely. But then? Eventually thrown away? Burnt? Sure, it’s useful wood, but it’s a pretty morbid idea to recycle a beam from a cross into part of your barn or something.
I’d guess that if it could hold up a man with nails through his wrists and ankles squirming around, it would be used many times. Probably eventually burned in a trash heap.
The general currentview is, I think, that the upright was fixed in place and used over and over and the horizontal piece was detachable. And people weren’t always nailed, but sometimes tied. And sometimes there was no horizontal piece.
‘If you gathered together all the remnants of the One True Cross in cathedrals, churches and monasteries across the world, you could lay sleepers across the Australian outback’.
By a lovely coincidence, only yesterday I learned the Greek for that motto: “en toútōi níka,” which is how he would have read it (?) instead of Latin (?)