Secrets of the Dead (2000–…): Season 2, Episode 5 - Tomb of Christ - full transcript

Tonight,
"Tombs of Jerusalem."

Jesus is said to have been
crucified and buried

in this ancient city.

Now, archeologists ask,
"Is this the tomb of Christ?"

The most important place
in Christianity

has actually been ignored.

Examine evidence
that this church conceals

the actual site
of Jesus' burial.

A search
for the true tomb of Christ

as we uncover
Secrets of the Dead.

Secrets of the Dead
was made possible



by contributions
to your PBS station from:

Deep in the heart
of the Holy Land

lies the ancient city
of Jerusalem.

The city is sacred to many
of the world's major religions

and its boundaries and icons
have been fought over

for thousands of years.

Muslims, Christians and Jews all
claim control of various areas

and even today,
the battles continue to rage.

For Christians, the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

is the most venerated site.

Built by the Roman Emperor
Constantine in 325 A.D.

it is said to cover the spot

where Jesus
was crucified and buried.

Inside the Church is a chapel
known as the edicule



which, according to tradition,
houses the rock-cut tomb

where Christ lay
before his resurrection.

For many pilgrims
who visit the site

it is a symbolic place
of worship and respect.

But others believe that it
is the actual spot

where Christ's body rested

even though Constantine
built his Church there

300 years after the crucifixion.

Yet despite
the Church's importance

no one has actually investigated

what lies beneath
the ancient edicule.

The secrets beneath the stones

have been hidden for thousands
of years... until now.

In an unprecedented gesture,
the four religious sects

that share ownership
of the church...

The Greek Orthodox, Roman
Catholic, Armenian and Coptic...

Have agreed to allow a husband-
and-wife archaeological team

to conduct the first-ever
major survey of the edicule.

Martin and Birthe Biddle
hope their work will help answer

one of the great questions in
the history of Christianity.

Using endoscopes, computers,
historical records

and state-of-the-art
heat-sensitive cameras

they hope to discover

exactly what lies within
the outer walls of the chapel

and perhaps begin to discern

whether the edicule
actually protects

the real tomb of Christ.

Almost everything
that is known about Jesus

comes from the Gospels...

The ancient writings
of his disciples.

According to these chronicles,
in the year 30 or 33 A.D.

the last hours of Christ's life
were played out here

in the ancient city
of Jerusalem.

This is where he was said
to have been crucified

buried and resurrected.

The Gospels say that Jesus
was taken out of the city

to Golgotha,
meaning "place of the skull."

There, he was nailed
to the cross

and six hours later, his
lifeless body was carried

to a rock-cut tomb
in a garden nearby.

He was crucified

in what was an abandoned quarry.

And later in the afternoon...

Because the bodies have to be
off the cross by sunset

according to Jewish law...

Joseph of Arimathea and a friend
took him down

and laid him in a rock-cut tomb.

The disciples simply used
the nearest tomb they could;

quickly got together a shroud

and they simply put him
on the rock bench in the tomb.

On Sunday morning,
the first day of the week

Mary Magdalene and other women
came to the tomb

to provide the normal burial
rights for Jesus;

there had been no time
on the Friday afternoon.

But she and the others
found the tomb empty

and that's why
the empty tomb has become

the physical symbol
of resurrection faith.

That is why
it has become immortalized

as fundamental
to the goal of the pilgrim.

Christians have been searching
for the site of Christ's tomb

for thousands of years

and in recent times
there have been claims

that it lies as far away
as the Pyrenees or even India.

Most serious academics agree

that it is definitely
somewhere in Jerusalem

but much controversy remains
about its exact location.

Those who favor the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre as the site

base their belief
on the findings

of the Emperor Constantine, the
first Christian leader of Rome.

In 325 A.D., he brought
his forces to Jerusalem

to erect churches
on important Christian sites.

Excavating near a rock
that was reported to be Golgotha

Constantine's men uncovered
several rock-cut tombs

and found something that
immediately led Constantine

to hail one
as the tomb of Christ.

A small chapel
was built around it

and above that, the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre...

Meaning "holy tomb"...
Was constructed.

In the 17 centuries

since Constantine built
that first original structure

the chapel has been damaged
many times

by fires, earthquakes and more.

Each time it was rebuilt

but many believe
that at some point or another

the original rock-cut tomb
that it protects

must also have been destroyed.

The current chapel,
the edicule...

Which only dates back
to the early 19th Century

appears to be
all that has survived.

At least that
is what was thought

until Professor of Archaeology
Martin Biddle

and his wife, Birthe,
arrived on the scene.

11 years ago, the two were asked
to do a survey

of the present structure

which itself had been damaged
by an earthquake in 1927.

We were phoned up
out of the blue

and asked whether we
would be interested

in studying the tomb of Christ

in the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre
in Jerusalem.

The reason for this

was that a structure
built around the tomb

called the edicule,
"the little house"

had not been restored

as had all the rest
of the church

and clearly, at some stage

it would have to be restored.

This would be an extraordinary
opportunity for the Biddles.

They would be the first to
seriously investigate the place

where Christ was said
to have been buried.

What we hadn't realized

was how very little studied
the building was.

I'd always thought
that it would be

the most studied structure
in Christendom

and was amazed that it wasn't.

The edicule, the building around
the tomb of Christ...

The most
important place
in Christianity...

Has actually been ignored.

I suppose
we started off thinking

as most other people had,
that outside, at any rate

it dated entirely from 1809
to 1810, when it was restored.

We were fairly suspicious
about it.

What we set out to do
was to make very careful

stone-by-stone records
in our notebooks

describing every part and aspect
of the structure

so that we could define what was
absolutely simple and normal.

And then suddenly we might come
across a stone or a stone joint

or a projection of stonework

that simply didn't follow
this normal plan.

And that started raising
questions in our minds.

And we... we'd got
to those questions

within about 48 hours
of studying the outside.

Their finds
raised interesting questions

about the current structure, but
were not completely unexpected.

They knew from previous research

that there had been other
structures on the same site

so they figured
they were just discovering

a few forgotten remnants.

By looking at written histories
of the building

by looking at the extraordinary
range of depictions

that exist of the various
edicules, we were able to deduce

that altogether, there had been
four successive edicules:

One, the present one
built after the fire of 1808

another built in the middle
of the 16th century

the third one built early
in the 11th century

and one built by Constantine

after the discovery
of the tomb in 325, 326.

The Biddles continued to find
more and more protruding pieces

of the earlier edicules.

That's amazing.

They began to wonder

if the current structure
had been built

around the older ones

instead of replacing them,
as was previously thought.

The actual entrance, here,
into the tomb chamber

this is all 1809 to 1810,
no doubt about this.

There are these marble slabs.

So we know that this marble
and this marble

and undoubtedly the marble
on this side as well

belong to a period

earlier than the reconstruction
of 1809 to '10.

And then we have
another marble arch here

actually leading
into the tomb chamber;

but, I mean, this one here
must at least have been the arch

that was in position
before 1809 to '10

so it's at least 1555.

This extraordinary
marble insert..

But if the previous edicules
really did remain

inside the most recent one

it would mean that
each successive structure

had to have been big enough

to encompass those
that were built before it.

To find out if this
was even possible

the Biddles brought in
a consultant

to carry out a 3-D
photogrammetric survey

of the edicule.

We took just under
200 photographs in all

of the edicule

and these were in stereo pairs

whereby we were looking
at the same object

from slightly different
camera positions.

What we have to try and do

is recreate the positions
of our cameras

within our computer model.

Once we have these
accurately positioned

we can then
start taking measurements

from each of the photographs...

which gives us the ability
of viewing these in the 3-D

and therefore being able to take

three-dimensional measurements
from there.

The results of this
are a highly accurate model

that is accurate
to a few millimeters.

Once Littleworth
had finished the model

of the 19th-century edicule

he used dimensions gathered
from original plans and drawings

to create scaled 3-D images of
each of the earlier chapels...

From the 4th century...

the 11th century...

and finally, the 16th century.

The point of creating models
of the previous structures

was to see how they fitted
within the present structure.

Once we superimposed them,
we found

that the 11th-century fitted
over the 4th-century structure

the 16th fitted over
the 11th-century structure

and finally, the present edicule

fitted over
the 16th-century structure.

This was an exciting revelation
for the Biddles.

If the earlier structures that
had been built over the tomb

were still there

then there was a chance
that the tomb itself was, too.

Constantine had seen it
in the fourth century

and there were also later
detailed accounts

of what it looked like.

Of course, people always wonder

whether there's anything of
the original rock-cut tomb left.

Well, there's a really
remarkable chain of evidence

that suggests that there is.

It begins with the fact

that Constantine's edicule
was specifically constructed

to protect the remains of the
rock-cut tomb which he found.

It was seen again by
Boniface of Ragusa in 1555

and he left us a very formal
account in Latin

of what he'd seen.

"There open to our own eyes

was the tomb of the Lord
cut into the rock."

"Sanctissimi Domini sepulcrum
in petra excisum."

"The tomb of the Lord
cut in the rock."

A quite specific statement
of what he'd actually seen

when he'd taken down
the medieval edicule

in order to rebuild;

he saw the rock-cut tomb...
Or what remained of it...

Inside the structure.

The Biddles' archaeological
survey, 3-D mapping

and careful historical research

had turned up
a potential breakthrough.

They now have reason to believe

that the tomb
found by Constantine

and long thought
to have been destroyed

may still remain beneath
the present-day edicule.

But even if the tomb
does still exist

is there any way to determine

whether it had
actually been Christ's?

The Biddles' first step
is to find out

exactly what a tomb from that
era would have looked like.

The Hinnom Valley
lies just outside

the old city walls of Jerusalem.

This is the place

where Judas Iscariot was thought
to have committed suicide

after he betrayed Jesus.

The valley is full
of old limestone quarries...

among which are dozens
of ancient tombs.

The Biddles have come here
with Dan Bahat

an expert
on Jewish burial customs

to see if these tombs can offer
clues about the burial of Jesus.

Imagine when it was not so built

as it is today.

You mean, all this is illegal?

The Greek Orthodox Monastery
of Onuphrias

is perched on the side
of the valley.

Beneath it
are many ancient tombs

and although none are candidates
for the actual tomb of Christ

they are from the same period

and can show what Christ's tomb
probably looked like.

Oh, look at that.

Oh, that's a big one, isn't it?

With a domed ceiling
to it as well.

What sort of date is this, Dan?

It's pretty grand, isn't it?

I think it will be

last days of
the Second Temple Period

namely, the last quarter
of the first century A.D.

In the time of Christ,
when somebody will die

the body will be cleaned
by anointing him with oil

scraping the oil exactly
as it was done

in the Roman Period altogether.

Then it will be put all kinds
of perfumes, of course

to keep the body clean,
and then wrapped with shrouds.

The body will be laid
on the ledge

and then it will finally...

after a year it will
have the shape

as we see the skeleton here.

The outer chambers contain
the bodies of early monks

who lived and died
in these caves

several centuries
after the time of Christ.

They give a graphic illustration
of how people were laid to rest

in rock-cut tombs.

But these platforms
are larger than Christ's

which the Gospels say
had a single bench

only big enough for one body.

Further inside the complex

Dan shows the Biddles
a more accurate example.

It really does give you the feel
of a small rock-cut tomb.

And the rock-cut bench here.

The bench to the right

exactly as the Sepulchre itself.

When one's actually
in the tomb chamber

in the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

that is what...
However eroded and broken...

Is covered by the marble slabs
and by the burial slabs.

So that's what...
that really is a shelf

a rock-cut shelf
in a rock-cut tomb.

With a clear picture

of what tombs from Christ's time
looked like

and growing evidence
that a rock-cut tomb

may still exist within the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre

the Biddles turn
to the biggest mystery of all:

How did Constantine really know

that the tomb over which
he built his chapel

was the actual tomb
where Christ was buried?

Jerusalem has been called
"the City of the Dead."

In and around its ancient walls

lie thousands of tombs dating
back many centuries.

Amidst the multitude
of anonymous tombs

how was it possible for
Constantine to determine

exactly which one
belonged to Jesus

300 years after the crucifixion?

Were there any special features
that helped him identify it?

The most direct historical
descriptions of Christ's burial

are found in the Gospels.

They tell us that Jesus
was crucified on a Friday

outside the city walls

in a rocky area called Golgotha,
"the place of the skull."

By applying the Gospels

to old plans and excavations
under the city

archaeologists
have pieced together details

of the route Christ
probably took to his death.

Eventually he would
have come to a gate.

We don't know how long
that walk took.

It's an angle gate...
He would have had to struggle

through two right-hand turns
before he came out into the open

and then he would have been
just on the edge...

The eastern edge... of a quarry.

And there just below the walls

on a little hill, which
had been eroded into two eyes

so that it looked like a skull

there he would
have been crucified.

The Gospels tell that as Jesus
hung from the cross

the skies grew dark
and he cried out

"My God, my God,
why have you forsaken me?"

He is said to have suffered
for six hours

before finally uttering his last
words: "It is finished."

At about 3:00 in the afternoon,
he died

and was taken down
from the cross.

Rushing to beat the Sabbath,
two disciples carried him away

and prepared his body
for burial.

He was sprinkled with dry spices
and wrapped in a linen cloth.

Then, he was laid to rest
in a rock-cut tomb

close to the site
of the crucifixion.

The salient points for
the Biddles' investigation

are that Jesus was crucified
outside the city walls

in a rocky area beneath
a skull-shaped stone.

And that he was buried
in a rock-cut tomb

within a garden close by.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre
is traditionally seen

as fitting this description

because it is thought
to contain not only a tomb

but also a rock that marks the
spot where Golgotha once was.

This is the traditional site
of Golgotha

behind the façade
of the Holy Sepulchre here

behind the great
barred glass window.

As you come west
from the site of Golgotha

left of the entrance
of the church

behind the great bell tower
here, under the rotunda

is the site of the rock-cut tomb

covered, uh,
by the edicule today.

This altar is said to cover
the actual rock of Golgotha

and stands 39 yards
from the edicule

under which Christ's tomb
is thought to be.

For those who believe

this is the actual place
where Christ was crucified

it is a most holy site
for worship.

But many believe

that Constantine picked
the wrong spot

when he built the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

and that Christ's actual tomb
lies elsewhere in Jerusalem.

Some have thought it is at this
spot, known as the Garden Tomb.

In many ways,
the Garden Tomb seems to match

the words
of the Gospels exactly.

It lies in a garden
close to a cliff face

that looks like a skull.

And, it also fits the Gospels

in one way that
the Holy Sepulchre does not...

It lies outside the city walls.

Every year the Garden Tomb
attracts thousands of pilgrims

who come here to honor the place

where Christ
was crucified and buried.

For many people,
a visit to the Holy Sepulchre

is the thing
that they really want to do

if they believe that
that is the actual place

where Jesus was buried
and rose again.

But for many of our visitors...

Particularly those who come
from the United States

North America, Europe...

Culturally, they don't feel
quite so much at home;

they're not used to all
the orthodox architecture

and lanterns,
and all the incense.

It's not what they're used to

in terms of when
they go to church.

They're not necessarily
so comfortable there.

They feel much more comfortable
here at the Garden.

There is a sense of an oasis,
an oasis of peace and calm.

People find they can sit

perhaps read their New Testament

read the story
of the crucifixion

and the resurrection

and to remind themselves that
they could indeed be sitting

in the actual place
where this all happened.

He said, "Do this
as often as thee do it

"and show forth
my death..." what?

"Till I come again."

Talking about past and future!

"Death... till I... come again."

How many of you believe
he's coming back?

The Garden Tomb was discovered
by General Gordon of Khartoum

in the 19th century.

He made his discovery
after finding a rock formation

that matched the Gospels'
description of Golgotha.

Gordon had questioned
the authenticity of the tomb

beneath the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

because of its location
inside Jerusalem.

He was looking for a site
outside the city walls.

He was a student of the Bible...

Studying what the Bible
was actually saying

about the places...
And came to look at the...

where the bus station now stands
outside our garden.

And he became
increasingly convinced

that that was in fact Golgotha.

That area up there
was known as Skull Hill

before the time of Gordon.

And therefore, he and others
were looking all round this area

for a tomb that fitted the
details of the New Testament

about the tomb of Jesus.

And just remember

that the person who took down
the body of Jesus from the cross

was a rich man,
Joseph of Arimathea

and he had this tomb nearby.

Has to be a Jewish tomb.

And some of our visitors
who come here say, you know

"But Jesus... surely
it was a Christian tomb."

Jesus, of course, lived and
died and was buried as a Jew

and buried in a Jewish tomb.

So a rich man's, Jewish tomb,
from the time of Jesus

in a garden setting

a tomb, in fact,
which could have been sealed

by a rolling stone.

You can imagine
a very large stone

being placed here in the groove

and then rolled across to seal
the entrance to the tomb.

So it does fit
all the details of the Bible

about the tomb of Jesus.

Inside, evidence
that this was the right tomb

appeared even stronger.

First of all

one of the features
we've got here

is the pillow there
where the head could have rested

and a place cut out of the rock
down there for the feet.

But we've also got
a second tomb over here.

And the interesting thing
is that this one

although it's got a place
for the head

there's no place cut
for the feet.

And Jesus, as you remember
was buried in a new tomb...

A tomb where a man
had not yet lain.

One of the features
in those days was

that although they
had constructed the tomb

they only cut the place
for the feet

when they saw the size
of the person to be buried.

Therefore we know that
this one has been used...

Place for the head,
place for the feet...

Whereas this one may not have
been used at that stage.

So having it all
fitting together...

A rich man's Jewish tomb
in a garden setting

so close to a possible
Crucifixion site...

I think you can see
why people felt

that this could indeed be
the actual tomb of Jesus.

As convincing as the case
for the Garden Tomb might seem

most archeologists now doubt
its authenticity.

They believe that many
of the physical characteristics

of the tomb are not consistent
with the period

when Jesus was buried.

The Garden Tomb
is a very lovely place

and many people appreciate it.

The difficulty
is that the features of the tomb

simply don't fit with a tomb
of the period of Jesus

in the first century A.D.

Archeologists who have studied
the Jewish tomb

in Jerusalem believe
that it belongs

to a period perhaps seven
or eight centuries earlier

and the groove outside it

which is pointed out
as a groove for a rolling stone

is unlike any other rolling
stone groove in Jerusalem.

It's probably, in fact,
a crusader water channel.

So despite the many similarities

it would seem
that the Garden Tomb

could not have been the place
where Christ was buried.

But it still had one
important characteristic

that the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre did not: its location.

It would have to be outside
the city wall

and once Jesus
had been sentenced to death

he, as you know, carried his
cross outside the city wall

to the place in Aramaic
called "Golgotha"...

"the place of the skull."

And that would have been
an open space

where a lot of people
could have seen the Crucifixion.

Just to remind you
that the Crucifixion

was a deterrent form
of punishment.

They wanted robbers, malefactors
to see what was going on

and learn
the appropriate lesson.

So it was an open place,
probably by the roadside.

We know for sure that this area
here was outside the city wall.

The Holy Sepulchre
may not have been.

This one factor casts
a long shadow over the theory

that Christ's tomb lies beneath
the edicule in the Church.

Had Constantine been mistaken
when he chose that site?

The location of the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

has caused people a lot of worry

because the Gospels say
he was taken out.

Taken out of the city,
in other words

to the place of Crucifixion.

But of course, as you can see

the great dome covering the tomb
of Christ

and the place of Golgotha...

The Crucifixion
just to the right of it...

Are very obviously completely
inside the city today.

But perhaps that was not
the case when Christ was alive.

It is the city which has moved.

It's possible to look down
on the city

and see where the walls lay
at the time of Jesus.

You can see today that the roofs
of the building on the right

are higher

and the roofs of the building
on the left are lower.

And that difference between
the high roofs to the right

of buildings inside
the line of the wall

and low roofs to the left

of buildings outside
the line of the city wall

give us the line
of the north wall of the city

as it was in the time of Jesus.

And it was only with
the extension of the city walls

to the west and to the north

about ten years only after
the time of the Crucifixion

that the traditional site
was brought within the city

which is why the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

is within the walls
of the city today.

So at the time Christ was buried

the spot where the Church
would later be built

was actually outside the city.

It was not until 41 A.D.
that Jerusalem expanded

to where the walls now stand.

So what initially looked like
a contradiction can be explained

by the growth of the city,
further supporting the theory

that the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

was built
over Christ's actual tomb.

But the Biddles believe
they can find

even more substantial evidence.

They know that Christ
was buried as a Jew

so they are looking
for an indication

that the tomb beneath the Church
was a Jewish one.

Archeologists know
that ancient Jewish tombs

were often cut into the sides
of former quarries

and the Gospels themselves
mention Jesus was crucified

on the eastern edge of a quarry.

If there is evidence of a quarry

beneath the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

it would be one more sign

that the tomb
could have been Christ's.

Jon Seligman, of the
Israeli Antiquities Authority

has studied the Church
in detail.

He has found clear evidence

that it was, in fact, built
above an ancient quarry.

Now, we're standing
within a quarry

where it's very clearly shown
by the sort of marks

that we can see on the ceiling.

The ceiling shows where
the stones have been removed

from the quarry, leaving
these marks of the block sizes

that were cut
from the quarry itself.

And the walls of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre

are built within the quarry,
within the quarry marks

so therefore, the building
has to be after the quarry

has been actually exhausted.

The quarrying system was to cut
a channel around the stone

and then with a diagonal cut

to then place a wedge...
a metal wedge behind it

and hit it with a hammer, and
the stone would then come away.

That was the system of quarrying
that we know to have been used

during the first century,
from other sites.

So there is therefore
a possibility that this quarry

is either from the first
century... the time of Jesus...

Or a little bit of time before
that, which of course is

the right chronological
relationship we're looking for.

Not only is the chronology
of the quarry right

there are also some remarkable
first-century tombs

within the catacombs.

The most important of these
lies deep inside.

Oral tradition has it
that Joseph of Arimathea

was buried here.

Joseph is said to have supplied
the tomb for Jesus

and his grave lies only yards
from the edicule.

We're now within the tomb

that's traditionally attributed
to Joseph of Arimathea

which is in the back part
of the Holy Sepulchre

about 15 meters
from the tomb of Christ.

Now, this tomb is a typical tomb
of the first century...

The first century
before Christ...

Until the first century
after Christ.

Within the space of the Church

we have a tomb,
the quarry and Golgotha.

All those three things together
give us the sort of site

that could well have been used
for the tomb of Christ.

And the date the tomb
was created

can be fine-tuned even further.

Under Jewish law, burials
had to be outside city walls.

But records show that
Jerusalem expanded over the site

of the Holy Sepulchre in 41 A.D.

Therefore, the very latest
the tombs beneath the Church

could have been constructed was
ten years after Christ's death.

The time frame was narrowing

and for Professor Biddle,
the evidence was adding up.

This would have been
a very uneven, rocky landscape

with many, many small quarries
for large blocks of stone.

Between the quarries, areas
of cultivated ground...

The Gospels called it a garden

but it was a cultivated ground,
really...

And certainly rock-cut tombs
here.

We know of several

and, of course,
Joseph of Arimathea

had already made a rock-cut tomb
on this site

before the Crucifixion
took place.

So it's a Jewish cemetery
of the first century A.D.

in the middle
of a long-abandoned quarry

with patches of cultivation.

It's a remarkable piece of
confirmation of the authenticity

of the traditional site
of the burial.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre
seems to have all the landmarks

of Christ's burial place.

But in 325 A.D., what allowed
the emperor Constantine

to identify that exact tomb
amid the rubble

and thousands of other tombs?

In the years immediately
after the Crucifixion

Christ's tomb may
have been easily recognizable.

But in the second century

it was completely buried
by the emperor Hadrian

who built a temple
to the Roman gods on the site.

The Biddles believe

that a reference to Golgotha
in a third-century book means

that part of the stone
must still have been visible.

But others disagree

and think that from the time
Hadrian built his Pagan temple

the site was completely covered
and forgotten.

200 years later, they say,
when Constantine began searching

there would have been no way
to identify the site.

These critics believe

Constantine could have picked
any tomb in any quarry.

He had recently made
Christianity

the favored religion of Rome

and had political reasons for
wanting to discover the site.

Constantine was creating
a new official religion

which had to look back
in its roots.

This religion had to go back
to its origins

and it had to create foundations

that there would be visible
to the world.

The tomb had to be discovered,
and it was discovered

in the middle of the city
of Aelia Capitolina...

A Pagan city...

And the Church was built over it
to show to the world

that this is the center
of Christianity

and, really,
it had become visible

that there was a victory here...

A Christian victory
over the Pagans.

I think such criticism
of Constantine...

That he needed a tomb
for political reasons

so he invented tomb...
Now, that's purely gratuitous.

I mean, there's not
the slightest bit of evidence

for that.

What I believe

is that there was a consistent
memory in Jerusalem.

Christians, of course...

Who venerated Jesus
as a holy man...

They certainly, in keeping
with the customs of their age

they would have gone
to pray at his tomb.

So they knew exactly
where it was.

And when Hadrian built
this temple to Juno, Jupiter

and Minerva... the Capitaline
Temple... right over that site

then, of course, the Christian
memory in Jerusalem

was intensified by bitterness.

He excluded their visits to the
tomb of their holiest person.

Then subsequently,
when visitors came

they were told... I presume with
great anger... "It's under there!

"Right in the middle
of the city!

"That's where he was crucified,
that's where he was buried

and, look, we can't get there!"

But even with directions
from local Christians

what made Constantine certain

he had found precisely
the right burial chamber

when he dismantled
the Pagan temple

and dug down into the cemetery?

What did he find

that made him sure he had
uncovered Christ's actual tomb?

Was there something
about the tomb

that differentiated it
from the others

that were discovered here?

The historian Usybias, who saw
the tomb when it was unearthed

said it provided clear
and visible proof

of Christ's Resurrection.

What clue had he seen?

The Biddles believe they might
find the answer not in Jerusalem

but here,
in the ancient city of Rome.

Like the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

Roman catacombs beneath the city
were important sites

of religious pilgrimage
for early Christians.

People came to pray
near the bodies

of early popes and saints.

Professor Biddle believes
that in addition to the bodies

these Roman tombs hold a clue

that would have
allowed Constantine

to identify Christ's tomb
back in Jerusalem

300 years after the Crucifixion
took place.

This is the crypt of the popes

in the catacomb
of Saint Calystus

about 40 feet underground,
just outside the walls of Rome.

Now, just outside the entrance
of this crypt

are walls with plaster
still surviving on it.

And this plaster is covered

with hundreds
of scratched inscriptions...

With graffiti, if you like.

Uh, not only are they up
and down the wall

but they're one on top
of another in different hands

and different styles
over a long period of time.

The reason that I wanted
to look at this

is because I think
that in Jerusalem

when the tomb of Christ
was uncovered in 325 or 326

what led Usybias to identify it
so confidently

as the tomb of Jesus... as
the place of the Resurrection...

Was that the walls outside
were covered with graffiti

just like these.

One of the most extraordinary
inscriptions here, I think

is this one, which says,
"Gerusale: civitas

et ornamentum"...

"Jerusalem: city
and ornament..."

"Martyrum Dei"...
"of the martyrs of God."

It takes us right back
to Jerusalem.

But what takes us even closer
is that here, just very faintly

between "Jerusalem"
and the word "ornamentum"

somebody in a later hand
has written in Greek...

"Anastasis"...
"the Resurrection."

It shows how these ideas,
although we may be in Rome

they're all part of a common
loyalty of Christian behavior

of visiting the places
of saints and martyrs

visiting the rock-cut tomb
of Jesus

leaving their prayers
and their names in graffiti.

Professor Biddle believes
the same would have been true

in Jerusalem.

The whole idea, of course, being
that the saints and martyrs

are physically present
in this place

where their bodies lie
as well as in Heaven

so that they form a bridge
between Earth and Heaven

and can carry the prayers
and wishes

of those who are praying here...

And who are scratching
their prayers and wishes

on these walls... up to Heaven.

And it's an astonishing idea,
but that is the whole idea

that lies behind the veneration
of the place

in which martyrs and saints
are buried.

So perhaps here in the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre

deep within the ornate
outer shell of the edicule

lies a rock-cut tomb

whose entrance is scratched
with prayers and dedications

that identify it
as the tomb of Christ.

I think Professor Biddle's
theory that the tomb

was identified by Constantine's
engineers because the name Jesus

was scratched on one side
or the other...

I think that makes...
to me that makes perfect sense.

I think it's a brilliant idea,
because I live in Jerusalem.

It's a place
to which pilgrims come.

I have to give directions.

And the same thing would have
been true in the first century

where busy people with lives
to live and businesses to run

they would be pestered
by pilgrims.

"Where is the tomb of Jesus?"

And I say,
"Look, you see that big quarry?

"Go down there,
look along the west wall

and you'll see the name Jesus
scratched on one side."

Outside the Church, this
tradition of Christian graffiti

can be seen
on the 12th-century columns

that tower over the entrance.

Here hundreds of pilgrims
and crusaders

have scratched their prayers
into the stones.

If the Biddles' theory is right

and the tomb beneath the edicule
was marked in a similar fashion

Constantine would
have found evidence

that the burial chamber
he uncovered and then enshrined

really did belong to Christ.

But it will take
modern technology

and the removal of much red tape

to give the Biddles
the opportunity

to prove they are correct.

In an unprecedented gesture,
the various Church authorities

allow the Biddles to call in
a structural archaeologist

who uses thermal imaging
and endoscopic cameras

to look through old buildings
and reveal their inner layers.

Robert Demaus expects
the pictures he takes

to give a clear indication

of any structure hidden
within the edicule.

At long last, the Biddles
will have the chance

to look for the actual tomb
that they believe is there

and to prove that their earlier
three-dimensional models

of the edicules were correct.

When they began their initial
research, they thought

all that existed of the edicule

was the most recent
19th-century chapel.

But since then, they have found
much evidence that the chapels

were actually constructed
like nested Russian dolls

with four successive structures
from the fourth, 11th, 16th

and 19th centuries,
built one outside the other.

With his endoscopic camera,
Demaus will be the first person

to actually look inside
the walls of the edicule.

I can control the end

so that I can put it into the...

into the gap in the stone.

It is difficult to keep a sense
of scale, if not proportion.

Um, to give you an idea, I was
looking at a building in London

and came face to face
with what I first took

to be a three-foot cockroach.

I nearly jumped off
the scaffolding

before realizing that it was
a perfectly standard cockroach.

But I can see straightaway here

that there's enormous
potential for this

for creating
crystal-clear images.

There's a picture
of Elvis Presley.

Good gracious.

It's not Elvis Presley.

No, it's...
it's a picture...

These are little prayers
or thanksgivings.

Demaus's endoscopic camera
works within the walls

but his thermal-imaging system
takes longer

to reveal its secrets.

He will have to stay overnight
to collect thermal photographs

that can detail
the hidden structures.

The Church is closed
for the evening

but Demaus stays behind.

This is the best time
for him to work

as he will get the clearest
images of the edicule

once the body heat from the
day's visitors has dissipated.

This works to some extent
like an ordinary video camera

but we're looking at wavelengths

and the infrared range
rather than visible light.

And by that we're able
to detect very small variations

in temperature.

If you think of photography
as looking at variations

in shade and light,
then thermography

is basically looking
at variations in heat and cold.

Now, obviously with light,
you can see the variations

with the naked eye,
but with infrared radiation

you have to use
a very specific camera

to pick up that particular
wavelength of energy

and that's what
this camera does.

The back of the thermal-imaging
camera has to cool down

to minus 175 centigrade.

Um, this enables it
to be extremely sensitive

to tiny variations.

This particular camera

which is the most sensitive
portable camera available

on the civilian market, um,
is able to detect differences

as small as .025 a degree.

And particularly when we're
looking at a building like this

where there are very small
temperature changes

through the day
and through the night

and between different elements
of the building

that ability to pick up very
small changes is most important.

I'm looking always for changes
in the temperature

and the way that the heat
is flowing out of the panels.

Um, those with a lower mass will
tend to cool down more quickly

and those which have bigger mass

or are attached
to other structure behind

will tend to hold
their heat longer.

Demaus hopes the camera

will reveal some of the inner
structure of the edicule

but his pictures
will have to be processed

and carefully analyzed before
he can be sure he has succeeded.

It takes about a month before he
is ready to reveal his results.

He meets the Biddles in England
to show them what he has found.

Is it in the computer?

With what you're using,
you're better off...

The thermal pictures
from the Church show

that there is at least one
completely separate building

within the 19th-century
outer shell...

It looks much nicer straight on.

Just as the Biddles
had suspected.

It is a separate structure,
if you like.

The... the visible areas
of the edicule, um...

don't seem to be relating
to what's going on behind

and when we started looking
through with endoscopes

that certainly confirmed that

but there was
no visible connection

between the outer skin and what
we could see of what was inside.

The endoscope videos corroborate
what the thermal images

were indicating... that there
were inner walls within

but separate from
the most recent outer structure.

This isn't an area

that's actually moved out
very much.

Excellent.

So there's physically air
between the outer skin...

Everywhere we look
there is physically air

or very loose,
crumbling material.

Now, if that's the case

the inner, by definition

is going to be earlier

and these walls are so thick

as the photogrammetric
plan shows

and the skin is so thin

that there is
a tremendous
amount of space

which now I think
we can be sure of

does include
the remains of
earlier edicules.

The results from the thermal
and endoscopic imaging

confirm the Biddles' theory

that the remains of earlier
structures still exist

within the current edicule.

And they also provide evidence

that there really may be a rock-
cut tomb beneath the chapels.

The thermal camera shows heat
as red, and cool as yellow.

On the left side,
where the tomb should be

the temperature seems hotter.

This could indicate the presence
of the actual burial chamber.

Once again, the endoscope
reveals more details.

Quite clearly, in several
places, we can see cut stone

possibly even living rock from
which the original tomb was cut.

It's a remarkable result,
Robert.

There's much to do, but my
goodness, what a step forward.

The cameras have delved
farther inside the edicule

than anyone has ever gone

and revealed strong evidence
that the tomb exists within.

But for now, there is no way
to actually see what remains.

However, like the rest of the
Church, the crumbling edicule

will one day need
to be renovated

and when that time comes,
the Biddles are certain

that at least part of the actual
tomb of Christ will be found.

The exciting and extraordinary
thing is that after 11 years

of developing ideas
about the tomb of Christ

in the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre

we seem to see these ideas
coming true.

There is a rock-cut tomb
surviving in some way

inside the present edicule.

There are remains
of earlier edicules.

And the whole tradition
of the site

whether it's place names
or historical evidence

is that this is, indeed,
the original rock-cut tomb

of Christ.

Next time, a mysterious kill Res
of the past at PBS Online.