The point here is just to summarize the arguments in one place, since so many quotations make so many points. My actual aim has been to frustrate and blunt the atheist argument about the empty tomb. The historicity can't possobily be refutted as long as a good probability of the historical tomb remains. We don't have to prove that the CHS was actually the tomb, as long as we show a good probablity that it was. We can show from all the fits between the archaeological site and the oral tradition about the location of he tomb, that it is extremely unlikely that Eusebius made up his information or chose the site arbitrarily. Thus, there is every reason to assume that there was a tradition and the tradition was accruate.


The Arguments:

(1) There really was a Roman tomb on the site.

No way Eusebius could have made that up and then it turns out centuries latter he just happened to be rigth about it. Of course the odds are that the temple was well known, probably vestiges of it could be seen and everyone knew where it was as a Roman temple. But, that wouldn't increase the odds that it would be a good site for the resurrection.

(2) The tomb could not have been known to Eusebius

The tomb was under mounds of rubble, the ground hammared flat and huge stone ediface with platform and wall placed over it. Unless a tradtion about the location of a Jewish cemetary guided him, the odds are very much agsint Eusebius picking a site with a Roman temple and it just turns out to have Jewish tombs under it. We shall see the odds go way up when we consider the nature of the site.

(3)The Site is the same as Chosen by Constantine (and Eusebius who wokred for him). The argument that it was moved in the middle ages is disproven by Biddle in tracing the history of the edicule.

(4) The Site is in the right relation to the city wall

That may not sound like a big deal, All Eusebius had to do was go to the right quadrant outside the city wall. But the problem is he would have to take pot luck on finding the right kind of site. The more narrow his peramiters the less likely he would be to find it. And the site he found fits like a glove.

(5) The nature of the Tomb itself fits the peramiters perfectly.

(a) Site contianed a garden (agrees with Gospel of John)

(b) Site contined new tombs, agrees with Mark that Joseph of Arematha put Jesus in his own newly huen tomb.

(c) Site contians existing cemetary, it was a Quarry and became a cemetary in early first century.

That fact is in agreement with several Gospel accounts, with Jo of A. having a family tomb there (in a cemitary, strange palce for a grave?).

(d) Name Galgatha still clinging to the site in Eusebius' time.

The New information turned up by Biddle proves that Eusebius already knew the sight was locally known as Galgatha, and the name surviving over the centuries links it to the historical site and proves the oral tradition.

(e) site contians first century style tombs of the kind used in the time of Jesus.

(6) Eusebius had his information before the work ever started.

This last fact, newly discovered in the 90's by Biddle, proves that Eusebius used a prior existing tradition. He knew the site was called Galgatha before he went over, before any scouts or workmen went. He also knew some things about the nature of the site which means he had advanced information, he didn't pick the site first and then try to make it fit the facts.

The Religious A priori