Jesus Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection: Revisited

Jesus Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection: Revisited

 

What if everything we think we know about the passion, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is wrong?

That’s the jaw-dropping possibility that comes from reading the work of some of the world’s most pre-eminent Bible and archaeology scholars.

Of course, there’s always been fierce debate between scholars and theologians about every aspect of Jesus’ life and death. But sometimes even the most well-known sides of a debate demand new scrutiny.

For instance, which is really the tomb of Jesus: the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or the Garden Tomb? The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is hallowed by tradition that goes back at least to the fourth century, when the emperor Constantine built the first church there.

But in the 19th century, western Protestants regarded the Catholic Holy Sepulchre Church—in a densely built-up area of the Old City—as unsuitably located, and gave their loyalty to a two-chambered burial cave outside the city wall known as the Garden Tomb.

At last, archaeology and science can weigh in. According to archaeologist Gabriel Barkay, the Garden Tomb is dated to the eighth–seventh centuries B.C.E. and was not in use during Jesus’ time.

And while that may be a disappointment to anyone who has visited the Garden Tomb on a pilgrimage, it’s rewarding to serious students of Biblical history to learn the undisputed truth.

The image of a stone being rolled away from Jesus’ tomb to reveal an empty chamber is as ubiquitous in Christian faith. Yet it’s almost certainly the result of a misinterpretation of the Gospels!

As it turns out, only a handful of tombs from the time of Jesus have been found with round stones. Instead, we now know from archaeological study that Jews of that period were using square stones to seal family tombs cut into the rocky hillsides around Jerusalem.

And the fact that the word “rolled” is a translation of the Greek word kulio, which can also mean “dislodge,” “move back” or simply “move,” makes it almost certain that the rolled stone is a literary error.

But almost frustratingly, it’s also true that the more we know about the history and language of Biblical times, the less we really know.

For instance, a painstakingly detailed linguistic and literary analysis of the many possible endings for the Gospel of Mark reveals … that there are more questions raised than one started with.