Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

There has been recent news about efforts to further explore the alleged tomb of Jesus that is found in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jesus-christs- ... yptr=yahoo is a sample article.

What are the strongest arguments against the idea that Constantine really did have this church built to include the actual burial cave of Jesus, or one that was really thought to be the actual burial cave?

Hard to believe someone who sold relics of the Cross, no?

Secret Alias wrote:Hard to believe someone who sold relics of the Cross, no?

Did he know they weren't real? Did he know the cave wasn't legit? Or was he easily duped himself?

Eusebius says the history goes back way before Constantine. And, we do have an actual cave inside of a church. But, is that as good as the case is FOR it?

TedM wrote:What are the strongest arguments against the idea that Constantine really did have this church built to include the actual burial cave of Jesus, or one that was really thought to be the actual burial cave?

Is it anywhere near where the True Cross was buried... you know, the one the locals showed to Queen Helena? She had it dug up. It's the subject of Piero della Francesca's masterpiece in Arezzo!

spin wrote:

TedM wrote:What are the strongest arguments against the idea that Constantine really did have this church built to include the actual burial cave of Jesus, or one that was really thought to be the actual burial cave?

Is it anywhere near where the True Cross was buried... you know, the one the locals showed to Queen Helena? She had it dug up. It's the subject of Piero della Francesca's masterpiece in Arezzo!

I guess I should have stated upfront that I am aware that there are many traditions associated with that Church that are very farfetched, which IMO is what one would expect whether the location was spot-on or not.

So, no need for such sarcasm here. I only decided to start the thread because:

1. I didn't see one about this place in the forum search
2. The article I linked to quoted a district archeologist as implying that the evidence for authenticity as being 'weighty, sort of':

We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus burial, but we certainly have no other site that can lay a claim nearly as weighty, and we really have no reason to reject the authenticity of the site," Bahat says.

3. The fact that it really was built on a cave and there is a tradition reported by Eusebius that Hadrian built a temple to a Goddess there for the very purpose of burying (so to speak) the Christian tradition.

TedM wrote:

spin wrote:

TedM wrote:What are the strongest arguments against the idea that Constantine really did have this church built to include the actual burial cave of Jesus, or one that was really thought to be the actual burial cave?

Is it anywhere near where the True Cross was buried... you know, the one the locals showed to Queen Helena? She had it dug up. It's the subject of Piero della Francesca's masterpiece in Arezzo!

I guess I should have stated upfront that I am aware that there are many traditions associated with that Church that are very farfetched, which IMO is what one would expect whether the location was spot-on or not.

So, no need for such sarcasm here. I only decided to start the thread because:

1. I didn't see one about this place in the forum search
2. The article I linked to quoted a district archeologist as implying that the evidence for authenticity as being 'weighty, sort of':

We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus burial, but we certainly have no other site that can lay a claim nearly as weighty, and we really have no reason to reject the authenticity of the site," Bahat says.

3. The fact that it really was built on a cave and there is a tradition reported by Eusebius that Hadrian built a temple to a Goddess there for the very purpose of burying (so to speak) the Christian tradition.

I'll stick with the Queen Helena takedown of this nonsense. And Bahat is merely reifying text. There is no starting material based on fact here.

TedM wrote:What are the strongest arguments against the idea that Constantine really did have this church built to include the actual burial cave of Jesus, or one that was really thought to be the actual burial cave?

For me personally the further claim that Helena has also discovered the twelve baskets of the feeding of the 5.000 near the Sea of Galilee.

I'm interested in how far back the tradition goes so if it goes no further back than Helena's claims, that would be significant to me. If it goes further back than I see those claims as largely if not completely irrelevant.

TedM wrote:I'm interested in how far back the tradition goes so if it goes no further back than Helena's claims, that would be significant to me. If it goes further back than I see those claims as largely if not completely irrelevant.

Our earliest account is Eusebius Life of Constantine it appears to imply that the identification of the site of the Holy Sepulchre occurred at least a short period before Helena's visit to Palestine.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote:

TedM wrote:I'm interested in how far back the tradition goes so if it goes no further back than Helena's claims, that would be significant to me. If it goes further back than I see those claims as largely if not completely irrelevant.

Our earliest account is Eusebius Life of Constantine it appears to imply that the identification of the site of the Holy Sepulchre occurred at least a short period before Helena's visit to Palestine.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks Andrew.