Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Join us on a captivating journey through biblical archaeology as we investigate the three tombs tied to Jesus – the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Garden Tomb, and the Talpiot Tomb. Examine the historical, archaeological, and biblical evidence of each site and draw closer to unraveling one of Christianity’s most intriguing questions: Which could be the real tomb of Jesus?

Throughout history, there have been three notable sites claimed to be the burial place of Jesus Christ. These are the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Garden Tomb, and the Talpiot Tomb. But which one among these is the real one? Let us dive deep into Biblical archaeology to find answers.

A diagram of the modern church showing the traditional site of Calvary and the Tomb of Jesus

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher

INTRODUCTION

The first site is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in the Christian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. This is traditionally accepted by many Christians as the site of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. The location was identified by Helena, the mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, during her pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 326 C.E. The Church was built in 335 C.E., marking the site of both the crucifixion at Golgotha (John 19:17-18, ESV) and the nearby tomb where Jesus was laid (John 19:41-42, ESV). While this site has historical and traditional credibility, archaeological evidence is not conclusive, mainly due to centuries of destruction and rebuilding.

One of two manuscript versions of the oldest-known floor plans of the church, from De Locis Sanctis (c. 680 C.E.)

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in the Christian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, stands as a monument not only to the events of Jesus’ final hours but also to the rich history of Christianity itself. Recognized by many Christian denominations as the site of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, it represents a significant milestone in the study of Biblical archaeology.

The site’s identification as Jesus’ burial place has roots dating back to 326 C.E., when Helena, the mother of Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. She declared this spot as the biblical Calvary, or Golgotha (“the place of a skull,” Mark 15:22, ESV), where Jesus was crucified. Soon after, in 335 C.E., Constantine inaugurated the church that we now know as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

Diagram of a possible church layout (facing west) published in 1956 by Kenneth John Conant

The church’s architecture tells a story of Christianity’s evolving history. Originally a magnificent basilica named “The Martyrium,” it was designed to commemorate the passion of Christ. The Anastasis Rotunda was built to enclose the tomb of Christ (Mark 15:46, ESV), with the Edicule (a small chapel) within it, sheltering the remains of the burial cave. However, through centuries of invasions, conquests, and earthquakes, the church underwent multiple periods of destruction and rebuilding. The Crusaders undertook the last substantial rebuilding in the 12th century, and much of the current structure reflects their architectural design.

Archaeologically, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher’s location aligns with historical and biblical accounts. The Gospel of John states that Jesus was crucified at a place near the city but outside its walls (John 19:20, ESV). The church rests outside the city walls of Jerusalem as per the first-century configuration, even though it appears within the walls in the present layout of the city. Moreover, it is in proximity to an ancient quarry, fitting the portrayal of Golgotha as a place outside the city where executions took place.

John also records that Jesus was buried in a new tomb in a garden near the crucifixion site (John 19:41-42, ESV). Inside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, pilgrims can see what is traditionally considered as the tomb of Christ enclosed within the Edicule. It must be noted that while archaeologists have not yet definitively proven this tomb to be Jesus’ burial place, the consistent Christian recognition of this site from the fourth century onwards supports its claim.

Further supporting evidence comes from the archaeological work carried out by the British archaeologist Charles Gordon in the 19th century, which confirmed the existence of cisterns and a water channel that are consistent with the presence of a garden in this area in the first century.

Beyond its significance as the potential site of Christ’s death and resurrection, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is also an important center of Christian worship. Over the centuries, countless Christians have made their pilgrimage here, reverently following the Stations of the Cross along the Via Dolorosa, ending at the church.

In conclusion, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher offers a compelling convergence of archaeology, history, and faith. As the potential site of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, it holds immense significance to Christianity. Its historical and archaeological background aligns with the Gospel accounts of these events, supporting the belief held by many that this indeed is the final earthly resting place of Jesus before His glorious resurrection. However, the site’s authenticity as Jesus’ tomb, while supported by traditional, historical, and some archaeological evidence, is ultimately not what establishes the truth of the Gospel message. As the apostle Paul asserts, our faith rests in the fact of Christ’s resurrection, as witnessed by His disciples and countless others (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, ESV), not in the physical location of His burial.

Plan of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and surroundings, drawn by Conrad Schick in 1863 on behalf of the Ottoman authorities. This plan was designed to help the authorities to distribute the use of the church between the different Christian groups (so-called ‘Status quo’).

The Garden Tomb

INTRODUCTION

Next is the Garden Tomb, discovered in 1867 and located just north of the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. Proponents of this site point to its tranquil garden setting and the presence of a nearby rocky escarpment resembling a skull, aligning with the Gospel reference to Golgotha, meaning ‘the place of a skull’ (John 19:17, ESV). The tomb is cut into a rock, featuring a weeping chamber and burial chamber, similar to the Biblical description (John 20:11-12, ESV). However, archaeological dating suggests the tomb was made around the 7th to 8th century B.C.E., earlier than Jesus’ time.

Situated near the Damascus Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb is a compelling locale that some Christians propose as an alternative site for the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was identified as such in the late 19th century, and its stark contrast to the bustling Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in the city’s crowded center, adds to its appeal for those seeking a peaceful and reflective site.

A 1911 map of Jerusalem in the late Second Temple period, illustrating the question of the Holy Sepulcher. The tomb just to the left of Jeremiah’s Grotto in the north is the Garden Tomb. Contemporary scholars would no longer accept this reconstruction of the city walls.

The Garden Tomb site encompasses two main features. First, there’s the tomb itself, a rock-cut tomb traditionally regarded as consistent with the “new tomb” mentioned in the Gospels where Jesus was laid to rest (John 19:41, ESV). The tomb comprises two chambers, the weeping chamber and the burial chamber with loculi or burial niches. It’s the presence of these chambers and their design that led some to suggest that this could be the tomb of a wealthy man, such as Joseph of Arimathea, who, according to the Gospels, donated his own tomb for Jesus’ burial (Matthew 27:57-60, ESV).

Secondly, adjacent to the tomb, we find a rocky escarpment that some believe may represent Golgotha (“the place of a skull,” Mark 15:22, ESV). Although there is no definitive archaeological evidence to support this claim, many visitors find it compelling due to the skull-like appearance of the rock face.

The Garden Tomb came into focus in 1883 when General Charles Gordon, a British army officer, suggested that this location better matched the biblical description of Jesus’ burial place than the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. His proposition was largely based on the peaceful garden setting, the nearby skull-like hill, and the location outside the city walls, factors which resonated with the Gospel accounts.

Nevertheless, it’s important to acknowledge that archaeologists have cast doubts on the Garden Tomb’s claim. The tomb’s design, for instance, is more indicative of a Jewish tomb from the Iron Age (8th to 7th century B.C.E.) rather than a tomb from the Roman era, which would be consistent with the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. Such concerns, however, have not diminished the site’s significance for many Christians who find the serene setting more conducive for reflection on the events of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

The Garden Tomb serves as a poignant reminder of the final stages of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Its peaceful environment encourages contemplation of the sacrificial death and miraculous resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, ESV). As one walks through the serene garden and enters the cool stillness of the tomb, it is easy to reflect on Mary Magdalene’s experience when she found the tomb empty on that first Easter morning (John 20:1-2, ESV).

In summary, the Garden Tomb is a significant site of Christian devotion. Regardless of archaeological debates, the value of this site does not necessarily rest on its authenticity as the actual place of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but rather in its capacity to facilitate reflection on these central events of the Christian faith.

A sketch of Skull Hill created in 1889 by B. H. Harris. The caption below it reads: THE GREEN HILL, FROM THE CITY WALL; Jeremiah’s Grotto.

Despite the scholarly discussions, it is the belief in Christ’s resurrection that remains foundational to Christianity, not the precise location of this event. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:17, 20, ESV). The real importance of places like the Garden Tomb is their power to bring these events alive in our imaginations, to help us connect with the historical reality of the Christian faith, and to inspire us to live in the light of Jesus’ victory over death.

The Talpiot Tomb

INTRODUCTION

Finally, the Talpiot Tomb was discovered in 1980 in the East Talpiot neighborhood of Jerusalem. In 2007, it sparked significant controversy due to the documentary ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus,’ suggesting it was the family tomb of Jesus. This theory rests on the statistical likelihood of the cluster of ossuary names, including “Jesus son of Joseph,” matching the New Testament family. However, these names were common in the 1st century, and there is no historical record of early Christians venerating this site. Thus, this theory has met with widespread skepticism from archaeologists and Biblical scholars.

Richard Bauckham (Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor at St Andrews) compiled the following data to show just how common the names on these ossuaries are: (Witherington, Ben (2007-02-26). “The Jesus Tomb? ‘Titanic’ Talpiot Tomb Theory Sunk from the Start”)

“Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. The first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuaries.”

Rank	Name	Total references	Found on ossuaries	Percent of total references (2625)
1	Simon/Simeon	243	59	9.3%
2	Joseph	218	45	8.3%
3	Eleazar	166	29	6.3%
4	Judah	164	44	6.2%
5	John/Yohanan	122	25	4.6%
6	Jesus	99	22	3.8%
7	Hananiah	82	18	3.1%
8	Jonathan	71	14	2.7%
9	Matthew	62	17	2.4%
10	Manaen/Menahem	42	4	1.6%

“For women, there are a total of 328 occurrences (women’s names are much less often recorded than men’s), and figures for the four most popular names are thus:”

Rank	Name	Total references	Found on ossuaries	Percent of total references (328)
1	Mary/Mariamne	70	42	21.3%
2	Salome	58	41	17.7%
3	Shelamzion	24	19	7.3%
4	Martha	20	17	6.1%

Colin Aitken, a professor of forensic statistics at Edinburgh University, stated that the study is based on a number of assumptions, and that, “even if we accept the assumptions, 600 to one is certainly not the odds in favour of this tomb being Jesus'” (theherald.co.uk Archived 2009-03-09 at the Wayback Machine), meaning that even if it were true that to find this cluster of names is very unlikely, it does not follow that therefore this is probably the tomb of the family of Jesus. Peter Lampe, professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Heidelberg and working in archaeology, pointed out that in the 120s/130s CE in the port town of Maoza at the southern end of the Dead Sea, one Jewish household comprised the following names: Jesus, Simon, Mariame, Jacobus and Judah (Papyri Babatha 17 from 128 CE; 25–26 and 34 from 131 CE). These people had nothing to do with the New Testament or the Talpiyot tomb. “According to the rationale of the filmmakers, these people should not have existed.”—Wikipedia.

The Talpiot Tomb, discovered in Jerusalem’s East Talpiot neighborhood in 1980, has been the focus of substantial controversy and speculation since its revelation to the public in the 2007 documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” The tomb, dating from the late Second Temple period (approximately 1st Century C.E.), contained ten ossuaries, or bone boxes, six of them bearing inscriptions. The names on these ossuaries — Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus son of Joseph), Maria (a form of Mary), Yose (a diminutive of Joseph), Mariamene e Mara (possibly Mary Magdalene), Matya (Matthew), and Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah son of Jesus) — stirred up a media frenzy. The conjecture was that this might be the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, a claim that was met with widespread criticism from both the scholarly community and conservative Christian believers.

The main point of contention revolves around the assertion that Jesus Christ’s physical remains could be found within a tomb. This contradicts the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, key doctrines of Christian belief. According to the Gospels, after Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, his tomb was found empty on the third day (Mark 16:6, ESV). Following various appearances over forty days, Jesus then ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9, ESV).

The Bible, our primary source document for Jesus’ life and teachings, records these events in detail and underscores their importance for Christian faith. If the Talpiot Tomb did indeed hold the mortal remains of Jesus of Nazareth, it would fundamentally challenge these biblical accounts. Yet, for many reasons, both historical and archaeological, this claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

A crucial issue to address is the names found on the ossuaries. While they correspond to known names of Jesus’ family members and followers, these were exceedingly common names during that time period. Just as finding a tomb today with the names “John” and “Mary” would not necessarily indicate any specific John or Mary, the presence of these names in the Talpiot Tomb doesn’t conclusively link it to Jesus of Nazareth’s family. We would need additional, specific markers to make such a definitive connection, and these are lacking.

Regarding the ossuary inscribed “Jesus son of Joseph,” it’s vital to note that there’s no archaeological or historical precedent for Jesus of Nazareth being identified this way during his lifetime or in the years immediately following his death and resurrection. In fact, the New Testament usually refers to Jesus as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Messiah/Christ” (John 1:45; Matthew 16:16, ESV).

Another point to consider is the location of the tomb. The Talpiot Tomb is located in Jerusalem, yet the New Testament and other historical sources suggest that Jesus’ family was from Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew 2:23, ESV). Joseph, Jesus’ legal father, was a carpenter, not a wealthy man who could afford a rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem.

Furthermore, the early Christian community revered places connected with Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. The absence of any early Christian markings in the Talpiot Tomb or historical record of veneration of this site is puzzling if it was indeed the family tomb of Jesus.

In conclusion, while the Talpiot Tomb offers a fascinating glimpse into burial practices during the Second Temple period, the claim that it is the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth does not align with the weight of archaeological, historical, and biblical evidence. Rather than challenging Christian faith, the controversy surrounding the Talpiot Tomb underscores the importance of careful, objective analysis in both archaeology and biblical studies. Understanding the historical context of the Bible and its teachings helps illuminate its timeless truths and affirm its inspired message.

The Most Historical, Archaeological,
and Traditional Weight

Among the three tombs frequently associated with Jesus — the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Garden Tomb, and the Talpiot Tomb — the weight of historical, archaeological, and biblical evidence leans most heavily towards the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in Jerusalem’s Old City, has been venerated as the site of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial since the 4th century C.E. when Emperor Constantine’s mother, Helena, reportedly discovered the location during her pilgrimage to Jerusalem. She ordered the construction of the original church at the site.

In terms of archaeological evidence, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher aligns well with the biblical description of Jesus’ tomb being outside the city walls but near the city (John 19:20, ESV), in a garden (John 19:41, ESV), and close to the place where Jesus was crucified (John 19:42, ESV). The church was indeed outside the city walls in the 1st century, and it was an area of tombs and quarries, which could be construed as a garden. Moreover, remains of tombs from the period of Jesus have been found within the church.

Additionally, the early Christian community showed a strong interest in preserving and honoring places related to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. The uninterrupted tradition of Christian veneration at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher from the 4th century onwards suggests a connection to a significant early Christian memory.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

On the other hand, the Garden Tomb, while visually matching traditional depictions of the tomb and appreciated by many for its peaceful, garden-like setting, only began to be considered as a possible site of Jesus’ tomb in the late 19th century. Its type of tomb is also more indicative of the 7th-8th century B.C., not the 1st century C.E.

The Talpiot Tomb, while causing a stir due to the names on the ossuaries, lacks clear archaeological or historical evidence linking it directly to Jesus of Nazareth, as discussed in the previous explanation.

While no archaeological discovery can conclusively prove where Jesus’ tomb was located when all the evidence is considered, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher carries the most historical, archaeological, and traditional weight. However, the central Christian belief is not based on a physical location but on the New Testament proclamation: “He is not here, for he has risen, as he said” (Matthew 28:6, ESV).

Based on the Scriptural narrative and the archaeological and historical evidence, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher aligns best with the gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. It was outside the city walls during Jesus’ time (Hebrews 13:12, ESV), near a garden (John 19:41, ESV), and in close proximity to Golgotha (John 19:20, ESV). Also, the consistent Christian recognition and veneration of this site from the early 4th century onwards adds to its credibility.

CONCLUSION

However, while archaeology and history can provide insights and understanding, our faith does not rest on a physical location but on the truth of Christ’s death and resurrection. As Paul writes, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile” (1 Corinthians 15:17, ESV). This underpins the Christian faith, irrespective of the exact location of Jesus’ tomb. Thus, while exploring these tombs can enrich our appreciation for the historical and cultural context of the Gospels, our belief remains firmly rooted in the Scriptures’ revelation of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

In conclusion, though it is intriguing to ponder which of these tombs might be the actual one where Jesus was laid, it is essential to remember that Christianity’s cornerstone is not a tomb but a risen Savior. After all, the angel at the empty tomb proclaimed, “He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay” (Matthew 28:6, ESV). Hence, the truest tomb of Jesus is the one that is empty.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).