Talk:The Garden Tomb

Regarding Gordon

From the page on General Gordon, he was in Palestine 1882-83, and in Khartoum from February 1884 until his death in January 1885. Searching the internet, I find dates for Gordon's theory of 1883, 1884, 1885 and 1894 (!). [I wonder if, say, his theories were published after his death ?] -- Beardo 06:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tagging

I'm tagging this article as a stub due to the current lack of detail. Chrylis 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Constantine a "Pagan" Emperor?

Is there a reason for the refernce to Constantine being a "pagan emperor" in this article? Constantine is regarded as the first Christian emperor of Rome, which makes the pagan reference seem odd. Is it possibly due to a bias on the part of the author to discredit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Sastark 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "Pagan" for reasons you stated.

FYI. Constantine was not baptized until near his time of death, and then by an Aryan Christian rather than an Orthodox Christian. There is much scholarship that suggests that, although sympathetic to the Christian cause, he was not himself a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.136.126 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you wrote makes him a pagan though. Postponing baptism was not uncommon at the time. That he was eventually baptised by a (crypto-)Arian bishop is beside the point. (And Aryan is not the word you're looking for.) Str1977 ^(talk) 19:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And a practicing pagan he was, no doubt about it, although he believed in Jesus and the god of the Jews as well after some point, or at least was convinced to give this new faith a chance for the (political) good of the empire. He kept all the religious prerogatives of the previous pagan emperors, and kept the show going so to say. What Procopius and later Christian historians and hagiographers made of him and his mother is of little relevance, official court historians and religious writers are not famous for being balanced and accurate. Good scholarly literature opens one's eyes. Arminden (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Genral cleanup

I've tried to clean up this article and put the ideas it expresses into the context of the archiological evidence and tradition, including links to other articles.LCP 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To include or not include Gordon's credentials

Mdbrownmsw states, “Gordon's credentials certainly belong in an article about him. Here, they were presented as part of the argument against the site.” The information is not given any rhetorical weight. It is statement of fact. Nevertheless, Mdbrownmsw may be correct about whether or not it should be included. I think Gordon’s credentials have everything to do with helping the reader to asses the quality of the claim that the Garden tomb is the burial site of Jesus. I would like to discuss this possibility here. I have reverted only for the sake of discussion and am not trying to start a revert war.LCP 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the info in question: "...Order of the Bath, a decorated Major-General in the British army, with no academic education in history or anthropology...."LCP 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to Md's version just to give Md the benefit of the doubt.LCP 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation for claim that Gordon endorsed the "Garden Tomb"

I don't have the time, but perhaps someone can take a look and include the the ref if there is one. Gordon's Palestine [1].

"Unanimity" that Holy Sepulchre was outside walls

It's been a year since the claim that scholars "unanimously" agree that the traditional location was outside the walls was tagged as needing a citation. No such citation has been forthcoming. Since this claim contradicts the entire section it follows, I have removed it. 174.206.218.117 (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Josephus supports Garden Tomb ?

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"According to Josephus, the name of a hill north of the Temple-mound, and separated from the latter by a valley. After the erection of the third wall it became part of the city of Jerusalem. Josephus ("B. J." ii. 15, § 5; ii. 19, § 4; v. 4, § 2; v. 5, § 8) gives the meaning of the name as "New City," according to which "Bezetha" is a strange transcription of . A more correct rendering is "house of olives""

According to

http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/arkintro.htm

the Garden Tomb resides in the Valley of Bezetha, a short & straight distance due north of Pilate's headquarters. And, according to the Gospel of John 19, Jesus' tomb was "new", never used before by men. If the Garden Tomb was located in a "new" part of the city, then it may have been "new" and unused. And, Bezetha lies a short distance due north of ancient Mt. Zion (Temple Mount, Fortress Antonia). Plausibly, Pilate marched Jesus straight north out of town, having him crucified atop the first hill encountered. And so, Josephus seems to support the Garden Tomb being the "new" tomb in the "new" part of the city. Perhaps a professional could cite some sources, so improving the present piece ? 24.56.197.47 (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, as the Akeldama Potter's Field, where Judas' body was dumped, resides to the south of Jerusalem; so the Garden Tomb resides to the north. Such an anti-symmetry seems symbolically significant. Perhaps these comments could help some scholar improve the present article ? 24.56.197.47 (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Archaeological investigations and critical analysis

I was surprised to read the only archaeological analysis cited was that of an article Barkay submitted to Biblical Archaeological Review back in the 80s. There are other scholars, both prior and after that article, who have written research papers which disagree with him. To have a balanced view they should also receive mention. I really don't have the time to do that right now but if someone else does not do it then I may be able to find time later. CWatchman (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

One researcher submits evidence that Gordon's Calvary was most likely the true Calvary but Gordon's Garden Tomb was not the correct tomb. This scholar says the real tomb, however, would be very close by.

I believe that both Gordon's Calvary and the Holy Sepulcher (of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher) both hold some kind place in the history of the crucifixion but I am not yet certain what. I suspicion the present Holy Sepulcher may have been where he was flagellated. Then again perhaps he was crucified on Gordon's Calvary and buried at the Holy Sepulcher. Then again there is some very convincing research showing that both Gordon's Calvary and Gordon's Tomb are the best candidates for the original Calvary and Tomb. However, at present most secular scholars accept Barkay's article without much question, although Barkay's research was seriously flawed. CWatchman (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

the claim that tombs were never placed west of the city is ludicrous and wrong

I have removed that statement since the reference it sites (Baba Batra 25a) does not actually proscribe that tombs should not be placed west of the city, only that tombs should be at least 50 cubits from a city, and that tanneries should not be placed to the west of the city. Besides that, first century tombs are found inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and elsewhere west of Jerusalem making the claim particularly ridiculous and irrelevant.

true, this is the tomb, and so the sepulchre is the cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved parts, especially falsified quotes

I hereby move the following parts to the talk page in order to record why the shouldn't be included in the article:

Therefore, during the medieval era Christians felt they had to address those who were uncomfortable with finding that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was located deep within the walled city of their time.

For example, as early as 754 AD Saint Willibald claimed: “but Helena, when she found the Cross, arranged that place so as to be within the city.”

As the linked translations show, Willibald does not claim anything about Helana "arranging that place" but rather that "she placed the spot within the walls of Jerusalem", i.e. she included the spot into the city walls. This doesn't accord with modern research but it doesn't show any concerns in Willibald's mind either.

Later writers, such as Saewulf (c. 1108 AD), maintained that it was Hadrian who enclosed the traditional Golgotha and Tomb of Christ within the city limits when he rebuilt the city during the second century AD, though they were previously outside the city.

This contradicts Willibald's claims that Helena enlarged the city but again says nothing about that anyone had a problem with the Sepulchre being inside the then-current city walls.

With the removal of the two citations, the reasoning behind the entire passages collapses. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This is good material re. what did Christians believe in the past about the plausibility of the H. Sep. Church, which does have major bearing on the late "invention" of the Garden Tomb. I am carefully reformulating what Str1977 disliked about the material, and putting it, in this modified form, back in. Nota bene: I am the first one to give a f... about it in close to 6 months. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Jeremiah's Grotto, or Cave, has no justification being redirected here

Jeremiah's Grotto is a site which is completely distinct from the current redirect target, 'The Garden Tomb'. It deserves its own article, which I am promising to start once the name becomes free. Jeremiah's Grotto has a history of its own, has been much photographed in the 19th century, and appears at numerous Net locations in no connection to the Garden Tomb. Due to its relative proximity to a 19th-century "discovery" - a knoll suggested from 1842 onwards by some Proterstants to be the real site of the crucifixion of Jesus - Jeremiah's Grotto has been unsuccessfully proposed in 1842 by one researcher, Otto Thenius, to be the actual tomb of Jesus, a theory not picked up by anyone else, and thoroughly discarded since. Because Jeremiah's Grotto comes up on the 'The Garden Tomb' page in connection to Thenius's 1842 suggestion, somebody felt justified to create this redirect, which is completely unwarranted, as there are many other sites discussed on that page which, of course, do not get redirected there if they don't strictly belong to the topic. Once I can create a new 'Jeremiah's Grotto' article, at least 2 more common names of the place will be set as redirects: 'Jeremiah's Cave' and 'Cave of Jeremiah'.

I have placed a removal request on that redirect page with the exact wording here-above. I have checked meanwhile who has created it: it was Tomdo08, who has stopped editing in 2018, just a few months after creating the redirect. Editor2020 has removed from it the Category:Alleged tombs of Jesus in 2019 - hi Editor2020, maybe you want to comment something about the redirect removal. Nobody else has dealt with that redirect. I count on my request being considered consensual, since Jeremiah's Grotto is not part of the Garden Tomb + Gordon's Golgotha complex and has never been part of it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be great if you write an article to replace the redirect. Editor2020 (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll get it started. Materialscientist has removed the redirect (thanks again!), now I'm doing some more research.

Reception by Christian denominations

Catholics and Orthodox appreciating the evocative atmosphere: wishful thinking? Unsourced!

Most important bit completely missing: the Anglicans basically dropping their support for the authenticity claim! Not a word about them. It still is their baby! Was Bievey Anglican? 1920 is a bit remote... Arminden (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Move

This isn't the title of a book or movie. It should eventually be moved to Garden Tomb and the The unbolded in the lead sentence. — LlywelynII 23:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)