"Tomb believed to have held Jesus Christ much ..." Topic

… older than previously thought, researchers discover.

"Although it's impossible to definitively say whether the tomb is the burial site of a Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is largely accepted as the site of Christ's burial.

The research, carried out by the National Technical University of Athens, does not offer further evidence as to whether Jesus was actually buried in the tomb, but it is consistent with the historical belief that the ancient Romans constructed a monument at the site around 300 years after his death.

The New Testament says Jesus died either in 30 or 33 CE, but historical accounts suggest the Romans found and enshrined the tomb in 326 CE…"
Main page

Amicalement
Armand

If it was a family tomb acquired and expanded by Joseph of Arimathea, I always expected it to predate Jesus.

Dan

+1 Dan

Another +1 to Dan.

See what a modicum of cultural context and 60 seconds thought brings to the table?

I thought Mary's husband was a carpenter? Family tombs are normally only for rich folks….

After two thousand years, for most of which some form of shrine and veneration occured at the site, I doubt we will ever find definitive evidence for who may have been buried in it.

I agree with Dan that a family tomb could predate the time of Jesus by generations.

Cerdic – It was "donated" for the burial of Jesus just because the family had no other place.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Cerdic-- the tomb belonged to a wealthy man called Joseph of Arimathea. He was not the same man as Joseph of Nazareth, husband of Mary, who had apparently died many years before. According to the gospel accounts, the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea was a follower of the Rabbi Jesus, and donated his family burial site in Jerusalem, which Jesus' family would not have had, though they may well indeed have had a place for that purpose in Jesus' hometown of Nazareth. A body could not be transported such a distance according to Jewish law, much less on the Sabbath, so a site in Jerusalem was necessary for immediate burial. Otherwise the Roman authorities would have dumped the corpse in Gehenna, the local garbage pit, to be burned (hence the name Gehenna as a synonym for Hell). No Jewish family would have accepted such a fate, much less the followers of a prominent and much beloved Rabbi. Thus, the request to Pilate for the body, which he wisely granted (his first truly politically astute assessment of the whole incident), and the rushed burial in a proper tomb.

Also "carpenter" is probably a mistranslation. My understanding is that the actual Greek word used can also mean "stonecutter" or "stonemason," which fits many of Jesus' metaphorical phrasings. In any case, neither a carpenter or a stonemason, both being highly skilled tradesmen for high demand work, were likely "poor" in the terms of the day. Certainly not rich by any means, but hardly destitute.

I didn't mean to imply the family were 'poor'. As you say, a skilled working man. But still not in the same league as those who could afford family tombs!

Anyway, the tomb was that of a different family it would seem.

Was donating tomb space a common thing back then?

Cedric: "Was donating tomb space a common thing back then?"

Excellent question! I'd love to know of other examples.

Many people converted as entire families. However, the one thing to consider is the very real possibility that a Christian convert faced in those days, that of being disowned by one's non-Christian family. One's brothers and sisters suddenly become only the individuals who shared your faith, regardless of actual blood relation.

Dan

True, Dan, but at the immediate time the followers of Christ were still simply thought of as Jews, disciples of a specific Jewish rabbi. Up until his arrest, Jesus was still routinely accepted into synagogues and the Temple, and dined from time to time with the prominent Jewish leadership. While he did encounter pockets of hostility to his message, the arrest and crucifixion clearly came as a shock to the public at large, and even his closest companions. Nevertheless, the decision to donate the tomb required a high level of bravery and devotion, given that Jesus' immediate disciples quickly hid out from the authorities. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea had the advantage of Nicodemus, being in a fairly influential position due to wealth and connections that made him politically unassailable for the time being.
Jesus' claims to Messiahship were not completely unusual at the time, and as the attitude of the era was to indeed look for the Messiah, it was an open question among many Jews whether he might indeed be the Christ. So I suspect the eventual dramatic split largely arose after the Resurrection and the very radical claim of universal salvation through the Risen Christ, who was co-equal with and in fact also God, which was indeed a stunning assertion to any devout Jew. Jesus had spoken repeatedly of this status during his ministry in rather clear terms, but to have his followers continue to assert it and claim his Resurrection would have been a shock to the system. At that point, Jesus' prediction of splits among families, and being a "sword of division," began to come true. So, yes, a bold action by Joseph, but not quite as risky as it would later be seen. (Discussion is not meant to be an advocation of any faith, merely an assessment of the cultural attitudes and impacts of events and issues at the time.)

Parzival

You are absolutely right. Jesus said "there will come a day", meaning it wasn't openly considered heresy/apostasy while he lived. That came later as explained in the book of Acts, with Saul of Tarsus, the killing of Stephen, etc.

Dan

I for one am very thankful that the tomb where Jesus was buried is empty.