Recent archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem are helping to pinpoint the location of the crucifixion of Jesus.
The place of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus is subject to some controversy. The fact is we don’t really know. There are clues in the Gospels – He was executed outside the city walls at a place called “the Skull” (Matt.27:33) and He was buried in an unused borrowed tomb (Matt. 27:57-60) described as a garden (John 19:41). The site of the crucifixion and burial are also described as being close to each other.
Beyond these clues, the exact location is not clear. Jerusalem faced massive destruction in 70AD as part of the suppression of the Jews and demolition of their temple. The city was eventually renamed Aelia Capitolina and became a Roman colony with a temple dedicated to Jupiter. The Jews had been expelled and the Roman province of Judea (Judah) renamed Palestine (Philistine). With such seismic changes it is not surprising that the location of the crucifixion site was forgotten.
An ancient church
The church of the Holy Sepulchre (pictured) was built during the reign of Emperor Constantine when Rome became more amenable to the Christian faith. A pagan Roman temple had to be demolished and the area excavated to a significant depth to expose what had been a stone quarry reused for burial tombs in the first century. Over 1,500 years the site has been reworked, suffered damage and been developed into the eccentric layout pilgrims visit today. It is hard to visualise it as the site of Golgotha, particularly with what for many of us are the distractions of religious icons, altars, incense burners and candles.
A garden tomb
One particular note in the eyewitness account is hard to square with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. John describes it as “a garden”. This has theological significance – what is about to happen is a renewal of the garden that was lost in Eden. Mary even mistakes the risen Jesus for the gardener (John 20:15), perhaps a subtle reference to his role as the new Adam. However, for the apologist we would want to ask is this more than a poetic embellishment, as liberals might suppose, but also an eyewitness note?
Reference to a garden has led many of us to prefer the beautiful Garden Tomb location in Jerusalem. For many visitors it is a highlight of any tour. After the noise and bustle of Jerusalem it is hard to beat as a place for reflection and worship. There is a rocky outcrop, ancient tomb and garden surroundings with cistern – all outside the city walls. Walking about the shrubs and flowers, there is no doubt you are in a garden. But there is one significant problem with the Garden Tomb location. The tomb itself is a much older, Old Testament period tomb. It would not fit the description given in all the Gospels of being newly cut and unused.
In regard to a first-century newly cut tomb, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has the advantage. But there is still the problem of the garden. When I have visited, attempts to explain the garden reference have all felt lame. In the classic Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor defends the authenticity of the location. Regarding a garden he writes: “Windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains would have created the covering of green in the quarry that John dignifies by the term ‘garden’ ” (p.49). It sounds a little stretched!
Digging the garden
A research team from the University of Rome have been involved since 2022 during ongoing renovations to the church and have been given unprecedented opportunity for archaeological study. There have been no significant renovations since 1808 so the latest archaeological tools are at their disposal to research the site. Since then, they have uncovered remains that help build a picture of the site from its use as an ancient stone quarry to the early development of Christian worship at the site.
In 2025 they announced unexpected results: evidence of a garden! Seeds and plant remains have been recovered, dating to the time of Jesus. Among the botanical remains were evidence of olive trees and grape vines. These would not be the result of windblown earth and seeds – their presence testifies to agricultural management.
Archaeologists are already building a clearer picture of what the site looked like in the first century. What had been an earlier stone quarry (limestone for the Temple?) had been filled with earth and converted for agricultural use. The sides of what had been the quarry were used for rock-cut tombs. One abandoned rocky outcrop unsuitable for building work had been used by the Romans for public executions (a stone the builders rejected had become the capstone?).
I don’t write this to suggest that we can ‘prove’ the resurrection. What archaeology does is confirm that we are reading eyewitness evidence when we open our Bibles. And as more archaeological material emerges, the gospels demonstrate all the more clearly that these are the records of real people at the right time recording what they actually saw.
