Kim Lawton of PBS’s Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly writes in Where was Jesus buried?
According to Bridge, the Garden Tomb is not trying to set up a competition with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. "There’s no doubt that historically, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, has the evidence on its side," Bridge said. "What we say we have here is something that matches the Bible description."
And for him, Bridge said it ultimately doesn’t matter where the actual place was, because he believes Jesus rose from the dead three days after the crucifixion. "On that score, us and the Holy Sepulchre would be exactly the same, telling the same story, but on a different site," he said.
Morozowich agreed. He said his faith teaches that during the Easter season, Christians should focus more on what Jesus did, rather than on where he may have done it.
Does it matter? Keep in mind the limestone found on the shroud identified by optical crystallographer Joseph Kohlbeck as travertine aragonite with the chemical signature similar to limestone samples from both ancient Jerusalem tombs collected by archaeologist Eugenia Nitowski.
There is an interesting PBS video at Religion News Service on the website where this article is carried.
I have written a few comments in this blog on my –not very succesful- efforts to track the aragonite issue. Meanwhile, I have ordered through my institution what seems to be the only original paper describing the connection between the Shroud and Jerusalem limestone: “KOHLBECK J. A., NITOWSKI E. L., New evidence may explain image on Shroud of Turin, Biblical Archaeology Review, vol. 12, n. 4, July-August 1986, pp.23-24.”
After reading it, to my surprise, the original authors of this paper seem to be far less enthusiastic about the scientific evidences connecting the Shroud and Jerusalem than what has been widely written along these year by other authors quoting this paper.
It is true that Kohlbeck and Nitowsky say that they have found aragonite –a rather unusal form of calcium carbonate also present in Jerusalem limestone- in the sticky tapes provided by Ray Rogers to them.
It is also true that using a technology of the 80’s (high resolution ion microprobe) the graphs indicated that the ions present in the Shroud and in Jerusalem aragonites “were an unusally close match except for the minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the shroud`s calcium and caused a slight organic variation”.The authors also claim that both aragonites exhibited small amounts of iron and strontium.
However, authors state that “of course, this doesn`t prove that the aragonite on the shroud came from Jerusalem,” although they consider that ”this could be a reasonable explanation”. The authors continue by saying that “nevertheless, aragonite with these traces can no doubt found elsewhere in the world as well as in Jerusalem”.
Their position is that further research is needed and inform that “scientists continue to compare the chemical composition of shroud limestone and Jerusalem limestone. Their hope is that they will detect rare trace elements on both samples that will clearly distinguish them form aragonite samples elsewhere in the world.” They conclude by saying that “To date –no such “marker” has been found”. This was written in 1986. It would be great if someone could provide some info on who those scientists are and if 26 years later any results (positive or negative) have been obtained.
The authors consider that a connection between the Shroud and Jerusalem is reasonable and state that “those who claim the the shroud is a 14th century forgery need to explain how the aragonite got there”.
However, please note that there is a huge difference between something being reasonable (authors’ position) and saying that this connection has been scientifically demonstrated.
Regarding the technical aspects, I think that it is worth mentioning that Biblical Archaelogy Review is not a peer-reviewed journal belonging to the JCR and most probably, the conclusions on the tests conducted, graphs, ions, iron, strontium and limestone were not reviewed by experts on these fields before publication. Another reason to be cautious about the results.
But I have also found a couple of additional surprises (at least for me) in this paper. Kolhbeck conducted a test (inmersion in Cargille oil) to investigate the red particles on the shroud fibers. He concluded that these red particles were organic and most probably, blood- related.
The last new thing for me, is that the authors propose a image formation mechanism called mercerization. It is a natural mechanism based on the chemical alkaline properties of Jerusalem limestone present in 1st century tombs, that may have colourized the linen after putting the body on it. Based on forensic evidences they think that a crucified body may have reached a temperature of as much as 42º C at the moment of death. Then this hot corpse when put on a linen into a tomb where alkaline limestone is present everywhere –and also on the linen surface- would have reacted during some hours until reaching surrounding temperature inside the tomb. The outcome of this reaction would be the faint image we see on the Shroud.
For those of you who can read french language, there’s a series of 8 very interesting articles about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the section “archaeology” of the “interbible.org” website (a very nice website about bible studies that is run by Quebecers). You can find the first article here : http://www.interbible.org/interBible/decouverte/archeologie/1999/arc_990305.htm
In this series of articles, the author show with a very good argumentation that this is most probably the authentic site of Jesus burial and resurrection… I AGREE !!!
For those of you who only speak english, maybe you can use Google translate to read this series of short texts ?
I have written a few comments in this blog on my –not very succesful- efforts to track the aragonite issue. Meanwhile, I have ordered through my institution what seems to be the only original paper describing the connection between the Shroud and Jerusalem limestone: “KOHLBECK J. A., NITOWSKI E. L., New evidence may explain image on Shroud of Turin, Biblical Archaeology Review, vol. 12, n. 4, July-August 1986, pp.23-24.”
After reading it, to my surprise, the original authors of this paper seem to be far less enthusiastic about the scientific evidences connecting the Shroud and Jerusalem than what has been widely written along these year by other authors quoting this paper.
It is true that Kohlbeck and Nitowsky say that they have found aragonite –a rather unusal form of calcium carbonate also present in Jerusalem limestone- in the sticky tapes provided by Ray Rogers to them.
It is also true that using a technology of the 80’s (high resolution ion microprobe) the graphs indicated that the ions present in the Shroud and in Jerusalem aragonites “were an unusally close match except for the minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the shroud`s calcium and caused a slight organic variation”.The authors also claim that both aragonites exhibited small amounts of iron and strontium.
However, authors state that “of course, this doesn`t prove that the aragonite on the shroud came from Jerusalem,” although they consider that ”this could be a reasonable explanation”. The authors continue by saying that “nevertheless, aragonite with these traces can no doubt found elsewhere in the world as well as in Jerusalem”.
Their position is that further research is needed and inform that “scientists continue to compare the chemical composition of shroud limestone and Jerusalem limestone. Their hope is that they will detect rare trace elements on both samples that will clearly distinguish them form aragonite samples elsewhere in the world.” They conclude by saying that “To date –no such “marker” has been found”. This was written in 1986. It would be great if someone could provide some info on who those scientists are and if 26 years later any results (positive or negative) have been obtained.
The authors consider that a connection between the Shroud and Jerusalem is reasonable and state that “those who claim the the shroud is a 14th century forgery need to explain how the aragonite got there”.
However, please note that there is a huge difference between something being reasonable (authors’ position) and saying that this connection has been scientifically demonstrated.
Regarding the technical aspects, I think that it is worth mentioning that Biblical Archaelogy Review is not a peer-reviewed journal belonging to the JCR and most probably, the conclusions on the tests conducted, graphs, ions, iron, strontium and limestone were not reviewed by experts on these fields before publication. Another reason to be cautious about the results.
But I have also found a couple of additional surprises (at least for me) in this paper. Kolhbeck conducted a test (inmersion in Cargille oil) to investigate the red particles on the shroud fibers. He concluded that these red particles were organic and most probably, blood- related.
The last new thing for me, is that the authors propose a image formation mechanism called mercerization. It is a natural mechanism based on the chemical alkaline properties of Jerusalem limestone present in 1st century tombs, that may have colourized the linen after putting the body on it. Based on forensic evidences they think that a crucified body may have reached a temperature of as much as 42º C at the moment of death. Then this hot corpse when put on a linen into a tomb where alkaline limestone is present everywhere –and also on the linen surface- would have reacted during some hours until reaching surrounding temperature inside the tomb. The outcome of this reaction would be the faint image we see on the Shroud.
To summarize, I think that regarding the aragonite issue we are far from having solid evidences linking the Shroud and any Jerusalem tomb (Holy Sepulchre or Garden tomb) in the 1st century.
Gabriel, all your comments here are very interesting. But, I have another way to look at the conclusion reached by Kohlbeck and Nitowski. Since their analysis could not remove the possibility that this aragonite dirt could come from the Jerusalem area, I really think this is very serious (even if I agree that an independent confirmation would be needed here). And it’s the same thing regarding many other aspects of the Shroud, i.e. the vast majority of the evidences reached by scientist (except mostly the C14 dating) have not been able to remove the possibility that this cloth could come from the 1st century Jerusalem. I think it’s a good indicator regarding the Shroud. On the contrary, if there had been many conclusions that had gone against this possibility, that would be another story. I think this situation point in the direction that the Shroud has some very good chances to be authentic. Of course, more independent researches are needed to be more sure about that, but I really think the global situation look pretty good scientifically speaking…
Well I think that it has been the big amount of researchers that have come after Kohlbeck the ones that have gone far beyond himself. His position was :
i) sounds reasonable
ii) further reseach is needed
If we compare the evidences obtained by Adler and others regarding -for example- the issue of the blood, I do think that the amount of scientific sound facts gathered is much bigger than in the case of the aragonite.
However, in many ocassions both (aragonite connection and blood) have been largely put at the same level of plausability, when they obsviously are not
As for the location of the tomb, I personally do not think it matters one bit to our faith. But to the historic or scientific fields, or to some it may. I have studied this quite a bit actually, and I have to say I’m on the fence on the matter. But in saying that, if I weigh ALL the evidence, I’m tilting toward the Garden tomb as the most likely location. Why? For one, everything is viewable; the cliff or Golgatha (now located next to a bus station) has the ‘unquestionable’ likeness of a skull carved naturally into the rock. The tomb is in very close proximity to this. The tomb itself was ‘carved into the rockface’ and located in what is and always was a garden as opposed to the Holy sepulchre site which was always known to be a quarry! The garden tomb and it’s nearby Golgatha were both outside the city walls and very near the junction of two main roads and near the MAIN north entrance to the city. It was definately a rolled stone type tomb, which would have used a very large stone, evidenced by the stone trough. There is much more I can mention but that should suffice. As for the Holy sepulchre site, and how did Constantine come to knowing that as the site? According to the story, his mother asked around and some merchants told her where they thought it was!!…This is 200+ years after the fact and after the city had been destroyed and rebuilt and with a pagan temple now standing on the spot! I may be wrong and maybe further archaeological finds will find more evidence, but as it stands today, I think the Garden tomb has a slight edge in being the true site…No offence to anyone intended.
Ron
Of course, you have the right to believe that Ron, but you also have to agree that you go against most scholars on that particular question. Of course, that doesn’t mean you’re necessarily off-track, but I think those scholars have pretty good points in their favor. The most important one is the FACT that the Romans buried the site of the Holy Sepulchre and built a Pagan temple just over it after the Jews were taken out of the city of Jerusalem in 132 A.D. That’s a good indicator that there was probably already some christian rituals in place there and that the Romans (under the emperor Hadrian) wanted to stop. And another good point that can support this site is the FACT that all around the Holy Sepulchre, archaeologist have dig out many other jewish burial places from the 1st century. This whole area was something like a cimetary that was located in a quarry outside the walls of Jerusalem. It was surely a perfect and logical place to excute the criminals via crucifixion. And finally, there is the solid christian tradition that speak only about this place and never about another one. In my mind, all this build a really good case in favor of the site of the Holy Sepulchre. But, as I say, you have the right to think something else of course. Too bad you didn’t read the series of articles in french I talked about in my first comment…
I did read the articles and I’ve read the same points already elsewhere plus much, much more! I really don’t think there is any unanimous decision on this by scholars, thats your thoughts. It is only speculation that the Romans built over the tomb for any reason at all, except location, hint; it was a quarry, lots of material near at hand. Your forgetting there was no garden anywhere near this spot. Remember scriptures make the point it was in a garden. Remember scriptures say the place of the skull, no skull found or anything that looks like it.Tradition from when? After Constantine? lol, thats no evidence whatsoever. Like I mentioned before the location was choosen from the word of some people that lived 200 years after the fact….thats not very scientific.
Ron
You think what you want ! As always…
I think the site of Jesus’ burial place is an open question, but that Ron makes a number of valid points. Nevertheless.despite the 200 year lapse of time before Helena arrived in Jerusalem, more can be said for the Holy Sepulchre site than the time lapse might otherwise suggest.
Several years ago I read a fascinating book which included this issue: “The Quest For The True Cross”: by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona; Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000.
As the title indicates, the main topic is the True Cross which is an interesting topic in itself.
Here’s some notes I made at the time and included in my review of the book:
“Helena, the mother of Constantine, is credited with the discovery of the cross during her pilgrimage to Jerusalem about 325 AD. As well as building many other churches, she would have supervised the siting of the first Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Her journey was likely prompted by Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem at the Council of Nicea. It suited Constantine and Helena well to identify holy places and artefacts, which would provide a strong historical background for the new religion of Christianity as the principal common bond for their expanding empire.”
“Secular orthodoxy would deny that the Jerusalem Christians would have a continuing interest or knowledge as to the whereabouts of the cross, and would be unable to identify the site to Helena. The authors make a good case for the contrary view.”
“Critics cite the silence of the fourth century historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, on the claim for Helena’s discovery of the cross, as evidence that the story is a later fabrication, as Eusebius otherwise describes the Empress’ pilgrimage and her activities in extravagant detail. This silence may be explained in terms of his rivalry with Macarius, involving competing claims of Caesarea and Jerusalem, or some doubt he may have had that the relics were indeed authentic. Saints Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, and John Chrysostom are cited in support of the discovery.”
“Although fragments of her find were dispersed throughout Christendom, the main portion of the Vera Crux was held in the custody of the Bishop of Jerusalem whence it was captured and recaptured. Eventually the Crusader kings took up the practice of carrying it into battle as a talismanic weapon. It finally disappeared in 1187 on the field of Hattin in Galilee in the Frankish battle with the sultan Saladin.”
It seems that Saladin tied the Cross to the tail of his horse, and dragged it in the dust through the streets of Damascus, which is the last that anyone heard about it.
Helena had sent the headboard, the “Titulus Crucis” to her Sessorian palace in Rome, and it was later deposited in the church built on that site, Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome. Around 455, the titulus relic was hidden during an attack by Visigoths, was forgotten, but was said to be rediscovered in 1492. In 2002, the University of Arizona conducted carbon dating tests, and asserted that the present artifact was made between 980 and 1146 AD (sound familiar?). The original relic certainly existed as attested by witnesses, so that if the carbon dating is correct, then clearly the present relic must have been constructed as a replica.
I recommend the book as a good read, as it touches on the issues of the evidence concerning Helena’s findings, though no doubt some of the touchstones used to confirm her decisions are likely to be apocryphal.
Hi Dave, the whole Helena trek bothers me as in who really knows what she found? Nothing tangible still exists. If she found a cross could anyone say that that was THE cross? I would assume after the massacre of 70ad there could have been hundreds of crosses lying around all over the place, probably buried in the ruins of the city. The Romans at that point would not care where they crucified people. The Titilus was probably a fake. Tangible evidence is what is needed and the Garden tomb overflows with such evidence. Here’s another couple of points; Jewish scholars have adamantly opposed the Holy sepulchre location, Why? Because it is West of the Temple mount and no ‘Jewish’ burials would be allowed there according to the Mishnah and contradicts early Jewish burial sites. The Garden tomb (Gt) and Golgatha are north of the Temple mount and the Gt faces the Temple as described by Eusebias in the 4th century, quite respectable and would suggest Helena didn’t do her homework. There is evidence that the Gt was also venerated by very early Christians, possibly 2nd century Christians, as Christian symbols have been found etched into the bedrock, a fish for instance….again I could go on here…but I think enough ‘evidence’ is shown to explain my ‘leaning’ to the Gt as being the true tomb.
Ron
Quote : “Garden tomb overflows with such evidence.”
I WOULD LIKE RON TO MAKE US A LIST OF THOSE SO-CALLED EVIDENCE… Thanks !
I think Kolbeck’s statement went more like; “There might be other places in the world where identical travertine aragonite is found. However, no such places are known and is ‘statistically unlikely’ any will be found with an identical trace chemical composition” …so basically saying it would be very improbable this exact composition of travertine aragonite came from anywhere else. I agree with you that a second or third study should be done, to nail this down for good, and apparently the Shroud custodians have exactly what is needed. Just getting them to release some samples for study is the hard part.
Anyways several people have found limestone on the Shroud, front and back so atleast in it’s basic form it puts another doubt to the forgery hypothesis.
Ron
To Ron: I think you have some good points in favour of the Garden Tomb, and I suspect you’ve read up more about it than I have. But I wouldn’t dismiss all of Helena’s discoveries so lightly. I read Thiede’s & D’Ancona’s work from my local library back in 2003 some 9 years ago, so I’m a little rusty on all the details. However there’s more to the discovery of the True Cross and Headboard than you seem prepared to concede. She was guided to the True Cross site by a local Christian. There were THREE crosses hidden in a deep well, and I vaguely recall that the titulus was with them. I suggest you try to access Thiede’s work before dismissing it. The “True Cross” was identified by some “healing miracle”. The titulus was attested by some early pilgrims including Egeria and others. I would have little doubt that the original artefact was indeed the true titulus.
Here’s an extract from the article I wrote at the time:
“However among the fragments Helena dispatched to her Sessorian Palace in Rome was the headboard, the Titulus Crucis, rediscovered in 1492. The surviving fragment is clearly only a portion of the original. It weighs 687 gm, measures 25.3 cm × 14 cm × 2.6 cm, is made of walnut wood, was originally painted white, and with incised letters showing traces of red or black. The sequence of the lettering is Hebrew (or Aramaic), Greek and Latin, which is at variance with the gospels of Luke and John who both give different sequences.”
“Either through ignorance, or as a parody of the Hebrew style, the Latin and Greek lines have been incised to read from right to left. This feature together with other peculiarities of the lettering, argue against a forgery, which one would expect to follow a more conventional style, consistent with one of the gospel accounts.”
“The relic has received scant scientific attention, especially when compared to the Shroud of Turin. No pollen samples have been taken and there has been no attempt at carbon dating [since done in 2002]. The authors’ work appears to be the first serious study of this artefact.”
“The book is a creditable work of scholarship yet challenges scholarly orthodoxy. Both men are historians of note while Thiede is an expert on ancient papyri. Their previous work includes ‘The Jesus Papyrus’. ”
You may be able to find a picture of the present relic somewhere on the web; Try Google on “Titulus Crucis Thiede D;Ancona”, you might find something worthwhile.
To Gabriel: More power to your search on the aragonite limestone quest. It’s too important to let go. Barrie suggested that there may be something in Ray Roger’s legacy of some 8 or so boxes of archives he left to STERA or STURP, but these have yet to be researched.
Quote : “The titulus was attested by some early pilgrims including Egeria and others.” By the way, did you know that this pilgrom Egeria visited also Edessa during his trip in the Holy Land and she report that the 2 letters (one from Abgar to Christ and the other from Christ to Abgar) were still conserved in that city and the Bishop of Edessa himself show them to her. She never talked about an image of Christ (whether it was a painted image or a miraculous image). This testimony come from the end of the 4th century and confirmed the testimony of Eusebius of Cesarea (from the beginning of the same 4th century) when he also talked about the 2 letters and never say a word about an image of Christ. By the way, the official Church declared that those letters were apocryphal at the end of the 5th century. These are the 2 earliest testimonies of the Abgar legend and from them, we can be sure that during the 4th century, there was no image of Christ considered as a relic in Edessa… Some who know more about the subject will say that it is normal, since the image at that time is supposed to have been lost inside one of the city wall of Edessa and was only discovered in the first half of the 6th century. That’s what the manuscript of Evagrius Scholasticus (written near the very end of the 6th century) and the Narratio de Imagine Edessena seem to indicate (the Narratio clearly state that the image was found just before the Persian attack of 544, while Evagrius don’t say a word about the circumstances of the discovery, but state that the image was already there when the persian attacked the city in 544 and it played a miraculous role in the defeat of the Persians. Wilson, on the contrary, believe the image was found after a big flood in Edessa in 525, but that’s an absolute incoherent speculation ! Indeed, Evagrius talk about that flood in his manuscript and don’t say a word about the image of Edessa ! In this context, how in the world this image would really have been found after this flood while an historian like Evagrius don’t say a word about it ??? It’s complete non sense. In fact, those 2 hypothesis (the founding of the image in 525 or in 544) is completely contradict by another manuscript written by another historian named Procopus of Cesarea. His manuscript is dated from around 550, shortly after the attack of the Persian army and he specifically talk about this attack. While he mention the protection the city enjoyed because of the letter of Christ to Abgar (he don’t mention the other letter of Abgar to Christ), this historian don’t say a word about any kind of image of Christ !!! This is a PROOF (not a speculation) that the image of Edessa was not known at the time of the attack of the Persian army in 544. It is also a proof that the mention of Evagrius about the fact that the image played an important role in the defeat of the Persian army is surely incorrect. In fact, the possibility that this mention really come from Evagrius has been put into question by some historians who think that this is possibly a later addition to his original work that was made during the Council of Nicea in 787 (during the fight against the Iconoclasts).
All those information to say this : Historically speaking, the most probable time when the image of Edessa came out in that city is not 525 or 544, as it is always reported by the defenders of Wilson’s hypothesis, but instead, we have to estimate it between the writting of Procopius (around 550) and the time when the Christian city of Edessa was taken by the Arabs in 638. What is the most important thing to note is this : There is absolutely NO credible record in any ancient manuscripts that still exist today of the arrival or the founding of the image in Edessa. So, the reality is this : we don’t know when, why and how it came to the city of Edessa !!! In that context, the probability is pretty high that it really was a false relic made after 550 (probably by the Church of Edessa) and that was integrated shortly after to the Abgar legend (a legend that, in it’s primary form, made no mention of any image of Christ at all, but only an exchange of letters between the king and Christ and, later, at the beginning of the 5th century, in one of the first development of the legend, there’s a mention about a man-made painted portrait of Christ, and not an image “not made by human hand”)… This addition of a miraculous image of Christ to the Abgar legend (found in the manuscript The acts of Thaddeus) was probably done to give this image more credibility and authority as an authentic relic of Jesus-Christ and also to give it a coherent history that goes right until Christ time ! That’s really the most probable ancient history of the image of Edessa that can be reconstruct with some success. That’s where the ancient sources point to.
Thanks Dave, I’ll have to go check my local libraries for that book. It sounds interesting. It only sounds as if I’m willing to easily dismiss the Helena story only because of it’s lack of tangible evidence and the possibility that people around her would probably do anything, make-up anything to please her and her son. I can say almost 100% it wasn’t Helena who pulled the crosses and Titilus out of the ground. Stories of healing miracles to ‘fix’ the cross as the true cross is very weal arcaeological evidence. I have read what you say here somewhere on the internet, maybe an excerpt from the book you mention….I also believe I have a picture of the Titilus relic somewhere on my computer, I’ll try to find it and send it to Dan, if i can.
http:// http://www.lde.org/ensign/1983/04/the-garden-tomb? lang+eng
Ron
Sorry just tried my link above and it’s not working. Don’t know why though
R
Ron, Yannick…at least on the aragonite subject you both seem to share the same rather positive view :-)
In my opinion, however, I would say that we almost have no case and the scientific quality of the original research is more than dubtious.
Ron, you mention several people that have also found limestone on the Shroud, so I think that current technologies applied to those samples could yield a final solution to this. In a previous comment, it was mentioned that there are eight additional boxes belonging to Ray Rogers and there also seems to be a number of sticky tapes still circulating. Perhaps this material could be used for a new set of analysis, since after all, Kohlbeck used a sticky tape provided by Rogers. In this case, it would not be necessary to physically go back to the Shroud again to get new samples. The comparison target would be Jerusalem limestone, something easy to obtain.
Anyway……..
Who knows what Barrie could found in those boxes from Rogers ! Maybe some interesting samples are still there…
I agree with you Ron… to some extend. I think that it was pretty the conclusion of Kohlbeck and Nitowski, but… How can they be so sure about that ? I mean, I’m sure they don’t know the exact chemical signature of every places on earth where we can find aragonite !!! So, how can they be so sure that the chemical signature they discovered, even if it is a close match to the aragonite of Jerusalem, cannot be found elsewhere ??? Good question don’t you think… If we want to stay scientifically honnest here, we cannot exclude that there are no other place where we can find a similar signature.
That’s why I tend to see things a bit different, as I explain in one of my previous comment above. I think the best way to understand the finding of those 2 researchers is this : Their conclusion CANNOT EXCLUDE the possibility that this aragonite dirt found in many places on the Shroud COULD really come from the region of Jerusalem. But, in the present state of our knowledge, we CANNOT state with 100% confidence that this aragonite could not come from another place on earth… That’s the best way, I believe, to summarize the finding of Kohlbeck and Nitowski.
P.S. : I know Ron and others disagree with me on this topic, but I’ll repeat it again : the FACT that there was aragonite dirt found in many places on the Shroud (particularly for the dirt found in the area of one knee) is a solid piece of evidence that go against Zugibe’s hypothesis. I really believe that simply because there is some scourge marks in this area of the knees. In Zugibe’s mind, in order to be able to see those marks, a washing of those clotted wounds was needed. And if there was a washing of this area, sorry but no aragonite dirt should ever have been found there. In other places, maybe, but not in an area where there is scourge marks… This is pure logic thinking. Again, if we use Ockham razor for this question, the simpliest and most probable answer to explain the presence of aragonite dirt in many places on the Shroud is to estimate that there was no washing at all of the body before he was put in the Shroud on friday… And this unwashing of the body is totally coherent with what the Gospels reports about the partial burial of Jesus.
There’s a little error in my previous comment… You should read : “If we want to stay scientifically honnest here, we cannot exclude that there are other place where we can find a similar signature.” instead of “If we want to stay scientifically honnest here, we cannot exclude that there are no other place where we can find a similar signature.” Sorry. This way, it’s more clear.
Suggestion to Yannick: If you’re not already familiar with it, I suggest you check Jack Markwardt’s paper presented at Ohio conference in 2008: “ANCIENT EDESSA AND THE SHROUD: HISTORY CONCEALED BY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SECRET” By Jack Markwardt; You may find some info there that may deal with some points you attempt to make above. You can find it at: http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p02.pdf
I think Markwardt has a great imagination. I don’t know one single historian outside the Shroud world who agree with his views… With speculations, it’s so easy to go in the direction you want !!!
Yannick everything I’ve mentioned so far is ‘Tangible evidence’ can you show me any ‘Tangible’ evidence for the other location? and I mean tangible. Even the stone, past off as the stone which Jesus was ‘WASHED’ they have in the Holy Sepulchre doesn’t make sense as it’s made of pink granite, which is not found anywhere in the area and most probably placed there later. Even possibly part of the Roman Temple which was located and demolished, which makes sense as the Romans were huge on fancy granite. Have you ever seen the Sepulchre tomb? I have in a video and honestly its layout does not fit the scriptures in that Mary Magdelane or the apostles could bend down look in from outside and see that the body was missing! It’s not possible. but as for the Gt it is.The ‘Tangible’ evidence goes on and on.
Ron
I think you forget one important thing Ron about the Holy sepulchre : This whole area has changed dramatically since the time Jesus was put there ! How can we be sure of the real look of the tomb that was there 2000 years ago ? I don’t think any credible archaeologist will say that what can be seen today at the Holy sepulchre look like what we could have seen 2000 years ago ! The Romans and the Muslims, one after the other, have destroyed much of the original tomb… But, at the same time, I think most (I don’t say all) of the archaeologist agreed that this area was probably the real thing, even if it is impossible today to reconstruct the tomb in every details like it was 2000 years ago. And for the argument regarding the Golgotha, I don’t know if you’re aware that archaeologist have found a rock that could well be it inside the Holy sepulchre complex. If all this is correct, that would mean that the tomb of Joseph was really close to the crucifixion site. I don’t think this is impossible since it is proven that this area was full of Jewish tombs from the 1st century. It seem like a logical choice for the Roman to crucified their victims next to a large burial zone…
Yannick, seriously…Do you actually read thru other peoples comments or just respond with your next theories? This last comment of yours really warrants no response. But You say: ” I think you forget one important thing Ron”…WHAT??? Seriously??? Truly, I say to you; please read ‘carefully’ through other’s posts before refutting them. You have given absolutely NO tangible evidence to your argument, NONE. You have obviously (I think purposely) ignored all my ‘tangible facts’ and carried on arguing your point with no logic whatsoever.
I have given a LIST of evidence here for my case, please just show one TANGIBAL piece to your argument, otherwise forget commenting further.
Ron
The fact is this : make a poll with all the credible archaeologists who are specialist of the biblical world and I’m SURE that the majority of them (vast majority ? I don’t know) will say that the most likely place of Jesus burial tomb is in the area of the Holy sepulchre. That’s all I say. Of course, that doesn’t mean this is necessarily true, but I have a tendency to believe those specialists. And for you comment about the fact that I didn’t bring one tangible evidence, what do you do of the FACT that the archaeologists have found a rock that can well be the Golgotha inside the Holy sepulchre complex ? It’s a nice fact in my opinion…
I consider thatr the shroud has to be study in relation with the real tomb where the body of Jesus was laid . My recent studies in the Church of Holy Sepulcre suggets that the real site was tghe little tomb of Joseph of Arimathea . This tomb was only partially studied by Ganneau in the XIX centry, in that study a tunnel of more than 2 meter was discovered conected the tomb to the south , a little kohim hole was built in the underground and thevanti chamber is comunicated witj tis tunnel, later the studies of V. orbo in the seventies discovered another tunnel comunicatin the antichamber with the subterranean net from the Afrodita temple undergrounds. It seems these little tombs were visited clandestinaly in the II-III centuries.
In my opinion the theory of Corbo that there was an arcosolium tomb in baseless. Thevstudy of M Biddle shows us that what can be observed in the ediculun in the IV century does not correspont with any model of tomb of any time. So, if the Church was built in the right place as it seems , these little tombs seem to be the right spot