Actually, no. The sentence is
very misleading, first of, because it suggests the idea of a large number of tombs, of a long use as a cemetary, in reality, only two tombs are present.
More importantly, these tombs are unlikely to be from the first century, because Hebrews at the time did not bury their dead West of the city, (
upwind for the dominant winds . Indeed, when we look at the East, North, or South of the city, we find a large number of tombs.
They never mentioned 'looking like a skull'. It just that the name translates as 'mount of the skull' it is only an assumption (albeit a logical one) that it is because it looks like one.
The whole description of the garden, on the other hand, is very far stretched. The (putative) existence of a few greens struggling to survive on a piece of rock hardly a garden make, I wouldn't think the 'world greatest historian of all time !!!1!!1eleventone' would make such a mistake....
Eusebius being born 200 years later, was writing about hearsays.
Socrates Scholasticus, was born even one century after that and based most of his work on this period on Eusebius himself.
That's actually weird, as the precise perimeter of the city walls at the time was not known, more importantly check point 6, part one.
At best, it would be pure conjecture.
In fact, we know that the temple was in reality constructed there so that to be adjacent to the forum AND located on one of the main crossroad of the city.
It is also worth noting that the whole motivations of Hadrian appear shaky. Why recover the tomb in such a way that it could be found again? Why not just destroy it altogether?
Indeed, father Corbo's reconstruction of the temple, that allows it to recover the tomb, is pretty much discredited.
First of all, can you check point 4 again?
There, it was argued that the site not being constructed was weird. Now it is argued that constructed on the site was exceedingly difficult. The two points are contradictory...
In reality, there are several reasons why the church would have been constructed there.
First of all, churches were often constructed on older pagan monuments. It was even recommended policy for the early English church.
Also, saying that the tradition would have been scrutinized carefully is very much wishful thinking. At any rate, what exactly where they supposed to scrutinize? There is nothing to suggest that there was anything to scrutinize but the local traditions, that would have been firmly established in 200 years.
Indeed, if the traditions were so reliable, how come that we have several "traditional" locations for the burial site?
He also fails to mention the mother of the emperor being the one discovering it, which is the traditional account.
He also attribute the discovery to a 'miraculous vision' that seems pretty suspicious (or the introduction of a pious fraud).
Finally, the 'original memorial' is misleading. The tradition is that 'remains of the cross' were found, which is way less convincing. I'm pretty sure Jesus was taken down rather than carried on the cross to his burial site. Plus, what exactly is a 'remnant of the cross', an old piece of wood? Hardly seems convincing... to me, but it'd surely be more than enough to convince somebody trying to be convinced...
Yeah... right.
First of all, funny how you truncate the article
before they start adressing the challenges to the authenticity of the tomb. Sure, they are very dismissive, but at least, they acknowledge the existence of some controversy.
In reality, there are problem with the Holy Sepulcher as the burial place of Jesus, first of all, as said, it is located West of Jerusalem, which contradict the burial traditions of the period.
Furthermore, the Biblical location describe it as "just outside the city walls" and it is unlikely that the walls would have run at this place. First of all, the city would actually have been quite small.
Furthemore, the walls there would have been dominated by a local prominence, it would have made now strategical sense. More sensible would be for them to be constructed at the place where Suleiman the magnificent was to build his... Indeed, we have yet to find any archaeological evidence for a fortification at any emplacement compatible with the Holy Sepulcher.
So, to conclude, I am personally not convinced, mostly because of the walls location. Many scholars might disagree with me, on this, of course but, personally, I don't see any compelling reason to believe that the tradition is correct.
Certainly, I would concede that no other competing location is more convincing but that does not mean that the Holy Sepulcher wins by default, that means that, most likely, the actual location of the Sepulcher is and will remain, like so many parts of the Jesus story, lost to us and enshrouded behind the deep fogs of centuries of mythology.
And, obviously, this is all based on the assumption that Jesus was a real living person that was indeed buried in Jerusalem, as I stated in previous post, I have no reason to doubt it, then again, I hardly have any more reasons to actually believe it either...
->And, of course, it has not bearing on whereas the Gospel writers told the truth considering that they never actually give any precise location...
