Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, September/October 1999

Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?

https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/25/5/1?
utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDLibrary%20Explorer%20Non-Buyers
%201219&utm_campaign=ZE048XZ91

By Amos Kloner

We should have a very good idea what Jesus’ tomb looked like, with the references in the Gospels
and our knowledge of contemporaneous tombs found in and around Jerusalem. Yet until now, most
of the reconstructions of this most famous of tombs have, I believe, been wrong.

The most surprising of my findings is that the blocking stone in front of the tomb was square, not
round. So it could not, as many New Testament translations have it, be “rolled away”; it could only
be pulled back or away.

As we shall see, the archaeological evidence for my new reconstruction is clear enough. The gospel
texts, however, will need some explaining.

Let’s begin at the entrance to the tomb. It is true that the massive blocking stones (in Hebrew,
golalim; singular, golel or golal) used to protect the entrances to tombs in Jesus’ day came in two
shapes: round and square. But more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the
Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones.
Of the more than 900 burial caves from the Second Temple period found in and around Jerusalem,
only four are known to have used round (disk-shaped) blocking stones.
Biblical Archaeology Review 32:1, January/February 2006

What Did Jesus’ Tomb Look Like?

By Jodi Magness

https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/32/1/7

According to the Gospels, Jesus died and was removed from the cross on a Friday afternoon, the eve
of the Jewish Sabbath. A wealthy follower named Joseph of Arimathea requested Pontius Pilate’s
permission to remove Jesus’ body from the cross and bury him before sundown, in accordance with
Jewish law. Because there was no time to prepare a grave before the Sabbath, Joseph placed Jesus’
body in his own family’s tomb.

The reliability of the Gospel accounts—which were written a generation or two after Jesus’ death—is
debated by scholars. Most discussions have focused on literary and historical considerations, such as
the composition dates of the Gospels and internal contradictions and differences between them. Here,
I will consider the account of Jesus’ burial in light of the archaeological evidence. I believe that the
Gospel accounts accurately reflect the manner in which the Jews of ancient Jerusalem buried their
dead in the first century.
How Was Jesus’ Tomb Sealed?
Examining the tomb of Jesus in light of Second Temple-period Jerusalem tombs

Megan Sauter April 03, 2019 32 Comments 25960 views Share

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/biblical-archaeology-topics/how-was-
jesus-tomb-sealed/

“Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and
saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.”—John 20:1, NRSV

What kind of stone sealed the tomb of Jesus? Was it a round (disk-shaped) stone or a square (cork-
shaped) stone? While both kinds of blocking stones are attested in Jerusalem tombs from the time of
Jesus, square (cork-shaped) stones are much, much more common than round (disk-shaped) ones.

How was Jesus’ tomb sealed? While some Jerusalem tombs from the late Second Temple period
boasted round (disk-shaped) rolling stones, it was more common to seal tombs with cork-shaped
stones, such as the one pictured here. The archaeological evidence suggests that the tomb of Jesus—
the unused tomb of Joseph of Arimathea—would have been sealed with a cork-shaped stone. Photo:
Tom Powers.

In fact, of the more than 900 Second Temple-period burial caves around Jerusalem examined by
archaeologist Amos Kloner, only four have been discovered with disk-shaped blocking stones. These
four elegant Jerusalem tombs belonged to the wealthiest—even royal—families, such as the tomb of
Queen Helena of Adiabene.

Was the tomb of Jesus among the “top four” Jerusalem tombs from the Second Temple period?
Since disk-shaped blocking stones were so rare and since Jesus’ tomb was built for an ordinary
person—because it was actually the borrowed, but unused, tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew
27:60)—it seems highly unlikely that it would have been outfitted with a disk-shaped blocking stone.

Archaeology therefore suggests that the tomb of Jesus would have had a cork-shaped blocking stone.
Is this confirmed or contested by the Biblical text? How was Jesus’ tomb sealed according to the
New Testament?

In his Biblical Views column “A Rolling Stone That Was Hard to Roll” from the March/April
2015 issue of BAR, Urban C. von Wahlde looks at the Gospel accounts to see how the stone that
sealed the tomb of Jesus is portrayed. His careful analysis of the Greek grammar reveals a detail from
the Gospel of John that supports the idea that the tomb of Jesus was indeed sealed with a cork-shaped
stone.

In our free eBook Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus, expert Bible scholars and archaeologists offer
in-depth research and reflections on this important event. Discover what they say about the story of the
resurrection, the location of Biblical Emmaus, Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb, the ancient Jewish roots
of bodily resurrection, and the possible endings of the Gospel of Mark.

In his BAR column, Urban C. von Wahlde explains that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and
Luke) all use a form of the Greek verb kulio to describe how the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb was
moved. Kulio means “to roll.”

Measuring 4.5-feet tall, the disk-shaped stone at the so-called Tomb of Herod’s Family could be
rolled to cover the entryway of the tomb or rolled back into a niche to open it, thereby permitting new
burials to be added to the family tomb. This is one of four Second Temple-period Jerusalem tombs
with a round rolling stone. Photo: Hershel Shanks.

Mark 15:46 reads, “Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the
linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the
door of the tomb” (NRSV). The Greek verb used in the last sentence of this passage is proskulisas.
Von Wahlde says, “This is a combination of pros (meaning ‘toward’) and the past participle of kulio
(meaning ‘to roll or roll along’).”

Mark 16:3 describes the scene on Easter Sunday when Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James
and Salome visit Jesus’ tomb: “They had been saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone
for us from the entrance to the tomb?’” The Greek word for “roll away” is apekulisen, which von
Wahlde explains is “a combination of ap’ (meaning ‘away’) and … yes, kulio (meaning ‘to roll’).”

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke use similar compounds of the verb kulio. Thus, all of these
accounts imply that the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb was rolled.

Can square (cork-shaped) blocking stones be rolled?

In his article “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” from the September/October 1999 issue of
BAR, Amos Kloner added “dislodge” or “move” to the definition of the Greek verb kulio. A square
(cork-shaped) blocking stone might more readily be described as being “dislodged” or “moved” than
“rolled.” Thus, this definition resolves any incongruity between the Biblical text and the
archaeological record. However, von Wahlde disagrees with Kloner’s definition:

In his article on the type of tomb closure used for the tomb of Jesus, Amos Kloner states that the
Greek verb kulio means “to roll,” but it can also mean “dislodge” or “move.” I would disagree with
this for two reasons: First, I at least cannot find any dictionary articles (including the largest, the
Liddle-Scott-Jones) that give this other meaning. Second, as I pointed out above, almost all instances
of the verb in the gospel texts are compounds of kulio, either pros-kulio (“roll up to”) or apo-kulio
(“to roll away”). These are verbs of motion “toward” or “away from.”

It is not necessary to change the definition of kulio to make sense of the Gospel accounts. Von
Wahlde points out: “It may very well be that people rolled the ‘cork-shaped’ stones away from the
tomb. Once you see the size of a ‘stopper’ stone, it is easy to see that, however one gets the stone out
of the doorway, chances are you are going to roll it the rest of the way.” Although they certainly
would not have rolled as easily as round (disk-shaped) stones, cork-shaped stones still could have
been rolled.

Many assume that Jesus’ Last Supper was a Seder, the ritual Passover meal. Examine evidence from
the Synoptic Gospels with scholar Jonathan Klawans in “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?”

The Gospel of John presents a slightly different picture than the other Gospel accounts—with a
different Greek verb used to describe the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb. John 20:1 reads, “Early on the
first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the
stone had been removed from the tomb.”

The Greek word for “removed” or “taken away” is hairo, which Von Wahlde defines as “take away.”
There is no mention of “rolling” the stone in the Gospel of John. Von Wahlde maintains that this
description reflects “the Jewish burial practice much more accurately than any of the other gospels.
He [John] has given us a detail none of the other gospels have.”

Thus, both the Gospel of John and archaeology support the interpretation that the tomb of Jesus
would have been sealed with a cork-shaped blocking stone. For Urban C. von Wahlde’s full analysis
of the type of stone that sealed Jesus’ tomb according to the Gospels, read his Biblical Views column
“A Rolling Stone That Was Hard to Roll” in the March/April 2015 issue of BAR.

Later, during the late Roman and Byzantine periods, round (disk-shaped) blocking stones became
less rare. Dozens of Jerusalem tombs dating to these periods have been found with disk-shaped
stones—but on a smaller scale. Whereas the four disk-shaped blocking stones from the Second
Temple period were at least 4 feet in diameter, the ones from later periods usually had a diameter of
about 3 feet. The date and style of these tombs, however, disqualifies them as candidates for Jesus’
tomb since the tomb of Jesus belonged to an earlier period—the Second Temple period, which ended
in 70 A.D. with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

——————

Subscribers: Read the full Biblical Views column “A Rolling Stone That Was Hard to Roll,” by
Urban C. von Wahlde in the March/April 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a subscriber yet? Join today.

Sealing the Tomb of Jesus
https://www.olivetree.com/blog/sealing-tomb-jesus/

Ever wondered if there’s more to know about Jesus’ tomb? Let archaeology experts teach you! This
blog post is an excerpt from the Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology.
TOMB NEAR MEGIDDO

ARE ALL TOMBS THE SAME?

According to Jewish practice the body of the deceased was initially laid to rest in the inner chamber
of a tomb. First-century tombs characteristically had a small forecourt that led to the interior features
of the tomb, including an inner chamber with benches situated along the walls, often with arcosolia,
arched recesses in the wall, a lower elevation pit (for standing inside the tomb), and tunnel-like
niches called loculi (Latin) or kokhim (Hebrew).

No two tombs are exactly alike, and though they share these common features, as Jerusalem
archaeologist Shimon Gibson has noted, “individualism was pronounced.” This means we have not
found, and should not expect to find, a first-century tomb precisely matching the tomb of Jesus as
described in the Gospel accounts.

THE ROLLING STONES

The body of the deceased was laid out on a stone bench and a heavy stone was set into the small
entrance door and sealed to thwart the unwanted entrance of animals and grave robbers. Matthew
reports that a “big” (Greek megan) stone was rolled against (Greek proskulisas) the door of Jesus’
tomb. Later, Matthew recounts how an angel “rolled back” (Greek apekulisen) this sealing stone
from the door (Matt 28:2; cf. Mark 16:3–4; Luke 24:2).
However, the image of a rolling-stone tomb as the tomb of Jesus, while the common conception, has
been questioned on the basis of archaeological study of Jerusalem necropoli. In the vicinity of
Jerusalem there are 1,000 or more rock-cut tombs. Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner, who has
examined more than 900 such tombs, found only four tombs dating from the late Second Temple
period (the time of Jesus) that were closed by a rolling stone:

1. the tomb of the Queen Helena of Adiabene

2. the family tomb of King Herod of Jerusalem
3. one nearby Herod’s Family Tomb
4. another located in the upper Kidron Valley

These had a carved out slotted groove to one side of the entrance of the tomb made to receive a disk-
shaped stone. The family could roll the stone forward in the track to cover the entryway of the tomb
or roll it back to open it, allowing for new burials. These rolling stones weighed tons and could not
have been moved by a single person.

DID JOSEPH ROLL THE STONE HIMSELF?

Gibson supposes that the stone covering Jesus’ tomb must not have been so heavy, since he observes
both Matthew (27:60) and Mark (15:46) state that Joseph of Arimethea rolled the stone by himself.
However, it should not be assumed that these statements mean that Joseph acted alone in the
rolling of the stone any more than in transporting Jesus’ body to the tomb and wrapping it in a linen
shroud (all of which the text says he did). The natural understanding of this is that Joseph took
responsibility for and oversaw these tasks; he did not do them personally but had them done.

How many people does it take to roll a stone?

The women on the third day after the burial who came to anoint Jesus’ body said to one another,
“Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb?” (Mark 16:3). These three women,
even working together, understood that they were unable to move the stone.

Gibson also overlooks the clear statement in the next verse (Mark 16:4) that “the stone, which was
very large, had been rolled away” (Greek megas sphodra). Even a passage in the apocryphal Gospel
of Peter states that Pilate sent Petronius the Centurion with soldiers and they rolled there a great stone
and laid it against the entrance to the sepulcher (8:31–33).
CORK-SHAPED STONE USED TO PLUG ENTRANCE TO COMMON TOMBS

ROUND OR SQUARE?

The rolling-stone tombs, being very rare, were obviously reserved for royal families or the very
wealthy and, therefore, not the type utilized by average Jewish families. Amos Kloner calculates that
approximately 98 percent of stones used to close the entrances to tombs in Jesus’ day were
square block stones. These were simple slabs shaped something like a bolt with one end designed to
provide a close fit for the small opening forming the doorway of the tomb. The larger remainder of
the stone had a flange so it would rest against the outside surface of the tomb. These stone “plugs”
had the special name golal in Hebrew. Often a filling of pebbles or mortar would be added around
these to prevent the entrance of small vermin and insects.

Evidence for a Square Stone

Therefore, since these are the more common form of sealing tombs and the disk-shaped blocking
stones are rare, it would have been exceptional for Jesus’ tomb to be so sealed. This led archaeologist
Amos Kloner, according to Megan Souter, to argue that the Gospel references to “rolling away” a
stone from the entrance to a tomb was a misunderstanding of the normal method of sealing a tomb
since square stones do not “roll.” This may be true of the average person in Judea and Jerusalem, but
Joseph of Arimathea appears to be a wealthy and influential person in the New Testament.
ROLLING-STONE TOMB IN NAZARETH

Evidence for a Round Stone

However, Urban C. von Wahlde, in seeking to answer this question, analyzed the use of the Greek
verb kuliō (“to roll”) in the Synpotic Gospels and concluded that the compounds of kuliō all have the
idea of movement “toward” or “away from.” Therefore, in his opinion, the grammar does not fit the
idea of moving a square-shaped stone, which would have properly been described as “moved” or
“dislodged,” although Gibson contends the golal could also be “rolled” after a fashion.

von Wahlde also notes that while the Synoptic Gospels describe the sealing of the tomb in this
manner, the Gospel of John uses a different Greek verb from the root hairo, with the meaning that the
stone had been “removed” or “taken up” (Greek ērmenon) from the tomb (John 20:1). He argues that
this description reflects “the Jewish burial practice much more accurately than any of the other
gospels. He [John] has given us a detail none of the other gospels have.” He further argues that
because Jesus’ tomb was a borrowed tomb for an ordinary Jewish family, the evidence is in
favor of closure by a square stone.

von Wahalde concludes:

“It is not that these accounts are necessarily wrong. But they do give the wrong impression. It may
very well be that people rolled the ‘cork-shaped’ stones away from the tomb. Once you see the size
of a ‘stopper’ stone, it is easy to see that, however one gets the stone out of the doorway, chances are
you are going to roll it the rest of the way.”

BUT, WAS JOSEPH WEALTHY?

Must we conclude that the information in the Gospels gives the “wrong impression?” The grammar
of “rolling” (Greek kuliō + pros “up to” or apo “away from”) is unambiguous in the Synoptics, and it
is an assumption that Joseph of Arimathea was an ordinary man with an ordinary family tomb. The
Gospels portray him as a “rich man” (Matt 27:57), a “prominent member” of the Sanhedrin (Mark
15:43), and a man with significant status to be granted a private audience with Pontius Pilate and then
given special permission to bury the body of a condemned criminal (not a relation) whose high-
profile case had been controversial (John 19:38). This may imply a privileged position, which is
reflected in the statement in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (2:3) that Pilate was Joseph’s “friend.”

This description of an elite in Jerusalem society argues for someone whose family tomb could have fit the
category of a rolling-stone tomb.

Additionally, the terminology for the tomb as “cut out of the rock” (Matt 27:60; Luke 22:53) is found
in the Septuagint of Isaiah 22:16 with reference to a royal tomb. For the poorer lower class a cave
was utilized for burial because a rock-cut tomb was too expensive. Joseph of Arimethea was able to
afford the most expensive of tombs, the kind used by the upper class and nobility. Christian
scholars through the centuries have seen this as a fulfillment of the prediction in Isaiah 53:9 of the
Messiah’s death:

“He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich, in his death,”

noting also that as Jesus was a descendant of King David, he was royalty and therefore entitled to an
appropriate burial. As to the exceptional grammar of John, commentators have long noticed this
particular wording as indeed a detail added by John to the account but have drawn a different
conclusion as to the purpose.
MODEL OF ROLLING STONE FIRST-CENTURY TOMB

A. Front Tomb Wall

B. Rolling Stone
C. Stopping Stone
D. Slanted Track for Rolling Stone
E. Entrance
F. Niche
G. Bench
H. Pit
I. Ossuary
J. Body Placed on Bench for Burial Preparation

ANGELS MOVED THE STONE

One could argue that while the stone had been rolled over the opening, the manner in which it had
been rolled away was what was exceptional. The use of the perfect middle/passive participle (“had
been moved away”) could suggest that the stone had been “thrown” some distance from the tomb,
indicating a divine agency. In all accounts angels are mentioned as having entered the tomb, and
therefore, must have been responsible for the removal of the stone. Matthew makes this very point:
“There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the
tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it” (Matt 28:2).

Therefore, in this case, the stone may have been a rolling stone, but it was not technically “rolled
away” as was the usual practice, but forcibly moved aside. This, then, was the detail of supernatural
intervention witnessed by the women as one evidence of the resurrection that John wished to convey.

While archaeology can provide examples of specific rolling-stone tombs from the period and argue
for the more common closure of tombs with square stones, the deciding factor in the case of Jesus’
tomb must be the interpretation of the biblical text. The kind of tomb and sealing stone implied in the
text fit the archaeological data described above.
The Rolling Stone Tomb?
by  Jeremy Stein on April 12, 2020

https://news.ag.org/Features/The-Rolling-Stone-Tomb

Don't miss any stories. Follow AG News!

The Assemblies of God Center for Holy Lands Studies (CHLS) provides articles to AG News that offer deep and
sometimes surprising insight into the Word of God through close examination of the culture of the day,
biblical sites, and archaeological records. In this article, Jeremy Stein, the CHLS Content Development
coordinator, shares insights concerning the stone that sealed Jesus’ tomb.

Oftentimes when we read the Bible, we gain a mental picture in our minds of exactly how aspects of the
narrative should look or be played out. This then, usually, develops and gets played out in wider scale as we
begin reproducing this in media images, in our teachings, or even our own church celebrations.

Although, for the most part, many of these reproductions are harmless and meaningless to our
understanding of the narrative, it nevertheless becomes exciting to learn some of the true reality of how
things might have been in biblical accounts. These realities allow us greater understanding and amend our
mental pictures as we read God’s Word.

One of my favorite images that has changed over the years is the Easter texts of Jesus’ resurrection and the
tomb in which He was placed. When looking at portrayals of Jesus burial, whether it be the simple small
church Easter production or a massive Hollywood blockbuster such as The Passion of the Christ, one image
appears to remain universally constant — the image of the large round stone which covered the tomb where
Jesus’ body was laid.

What if I told you that this was almost definitely incorrect? It may be mind-jarring to think of a scene so
pivotal to our faith — the place where Jesus proved to the world that death had no hold and sin had been
defeated — could be incorrect.

Although we have the text, at times the visual depiction of the story relies on our own interpretation and this
is where the test of roughly 2,000-years’ time has done us a disservice.

A common aspect of first-century tombs was the large stone which covered the mouth of tombs, known as
“golel” in Hebrew. The primary purpose of the golel was to prevent ritual impurities and mask the scent of
the decay in a tomb. [1] It would have also kept out animals or robbers who sought to steal the funeral gifts
often left in a tomb. [2] With that being said, the golel would have been a very common aspect of the world
of Jesus, leaving a significant amount behind for archeologist to continue to discover today.

From what has been uncovered, it becomes apparent that the golel stones came in a few different shapes —
round or disk-shaped, and square being the most notable. [3] But when considering them in the light of
archaeological evidence, the reality of the situation becomes significantly clearer.

To date, over 900 different intact first-century tombs have been found in Jerusalem, yet only four of them
have circular stones covering the entrance, three of which have been identified with royalty. [4]

Round stones were significantly easier to move and, much like today, created a cleaner “picturesque” tomb.
However in crafting them, a mason would need to contribute a significantly higher amount of man hours
(compared to a “square,” which is often seen as large, modified field stone), increasing the cost of an already
costly tomb, [5] and almost definitely the reason why we see this attached so closely to royal elites of Jesus’
day.

Although Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy man, he was still a “relatively ordinary man.” His wealth clearly
was not that of the level of royalty, and therefore it is more probable that his tomb was not one of the “top
four” tombs in Jerusalem, making it much more likely that what covered the tomb was the more common
square stone. [6]

The archaeological evidence pointing to the square golel in front of the tomb of Jesus, however, leads to big
questions for students of the Gospels: “How was the stone ‘rolled’ away? Don’t you need a round to stone in
order for it to be rolled?”

The answer to this is found both in the wording as well as the reality of the technique used in the burial
practices of the day. In the texts of the Synoptic Greek, the word verb “kulio,” which commonly means
“rolled,” can also mean “dislodged” or “moved back” as well. Although a square is not simple to roll, it still
can be rolled. [7]

There appears to have been two ways used to roll traditional square stones (mostly without the cork-style
protrusion) in the Second Temple period. [8] The first appears to be with two ropes tied together, which
would be wrapped around the square stone with one rope coming out of each of the four vertical sides.
Individuals could then use their strength and their gravitation force from their weight to counter act the
stone and “roll” it this way. [9] This method would seemingly be used for the larger of stones (as the average
“rolling stone” would be roughly 4 feet in diameter), which could serve as a possibility for the stone spoken
of in the Gospels as both Matthew 27:60 and Mark 16:3-4 state that the stone for Jesus’ tomb was seemingly
larger than the average stone as both includes the Greek descriptor “megan,” meaning “great” or “big.” [10]

The second way someone could “roll” the stone would be by sheer force. About 15 years ago, a friend and
colleague of mine, archaeologist Shimon Gibson, happened across one of the hundreds of Second Temple
period square stones in front of a tomb during an excavation in Jerusalem and rolled it with members of his
team. Although the stone was able to be “rolled,” he stated it was backbreaking work. [11]

Regardless of the method of how the stone was rolled, the word kulio could easily be applied to either a
square stone or the much-easier-to-move circular stone. The biblical text seems to allude to the difficulty
connected to the square stone as the three women who come to the grave in Mark’s account ask the
question, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb?” (16:3), showing the assumption
that the three women working together did not expect to be able to move the stone.

John’s gospel sheds possibly even some more light on the situation. John 20:1 uses a different word for the
golel’s removal in the Greek, using hairo, “taken away,” instead of kulio (rolled), conveying even more so the
reality of the situation.

John gives more information than any of the Gospels’ writers in regards to the burial and resurrection of
Jesus, paying great attention to the details, such as the fact that it was “still dark” (20:1) or the differences to
how the cloths and linen were used in the burial practice (20:6). If the stone was to be simply rolled with
ease, as would be expected from a circular stone, why would his language reflect different verbiage?

Other slight details given in the Gospels’ accounts may be giving us other information of note. Matthew 28:2
states that the angel was sitting upon the stone, a difficult position if the stone itself was circular. From the
archeological evidence of the four rolling stones tombs that we have from this period, the stones roll back
between two walls, hiding them, for the most part, from view, making the act of sitting upon the stone that
much more difficult if not impossible. [13]

With all this being said, we often find ourselves asking the question: “If this common depiction that we have
of the tomb of Jesus is incorrect, how did we come up with it? How did we get from point A to point B?” The
answer to this is most likely triparted — textual, historical, and pictorial.

Obviously, as we have already just discussed, the confusion assuming our understanding of “rolled” and
equating it to the Greek understanding of kulio has led to some assumptions from the text that may prove to
be something different than what we thought we read. Secondly, historically, round golel tomb stones do
appear and become more common in Jerusalem in later centuries, which undoubtedly affected later
traditions in the Church.

Following the end of the Bar Kochav Revolt in Israel in AD 136, Jewish burial in Jerusalem nearly completely
disappears, only reemerging during the Byzantine period when round stones became significantly more
popular, with dozens of examples to be found today (although these circular stones are smaller and
seemingly significantly less ornate with the lack of a carved track to roll upon as seen in the four Second
Temple period examples).

During the Byzantine period there is also an increase in pilgrimage in the land as well as iconography in the
Church (using pictures to tell the stories of the Bible). It is very likely that all three of these aspects
intertwined together to begin creating an image in the minds of the Church, both in the East and the West, to
create a tradition that was more grounded in their own day rather than the centuries earlier. [14]

Thirdly, in the modern, we become drawn to a picturesque tomb resulting in continuing to champion the
tradition of the circular stone tomb. This may very well be based off the beauty found in one of the two
proposed places in Jerusalem today for the tomb of Jesus, the “Garden Tomb.” This gorgeously peaceful site
has been championed by mainly Protestant groups since the 19th century as a “possible location,” complete
with a garden and a tomb out of a cave with a groove for a disk-shaped stone.

Unfortunately, this tomb has been proven archaeologically to bear no connection with Jesus as it has been
dated by the leading expert on Jewish burial in the Israel, Gabriel Barkay, to the seventh/eighth century BC
and therefore cannot be the “new tomb” (John 19:41) in which Jesus’ body was placed.

The alternative to the Garden Tomb is the more archaeologically accurate Holy Sepulchre, a church originally
constructed in AD 335 and shared between six different denominations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Sadly,
with the long history of fighting between the six denominations, even on the highest of holy days such as
Good Friday and Easter, many are drawn away from the truth that this site most likely possesses, choosing to
embrace the Garden Tomb instead. [15]

Regardless of which tomb an individual chooses to create the mental picture for, the reality remains that the
grave/tomb could not keep Christ; on the morning of the third day He arose, proving to the world that death,
sin, and the grave were defeated for all.

[1] Amos Kloner, “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 25:5,
September/October 1999.
[2] Bivin, David. “A Sadducee Who Believed in the Afterlife” Jerusalem Perspective, 4:4-5, July/October, 1991.
[3] Square stones often (though not always) had a protrusion from the rear side to plug the caves entrance
hole
[4] Kloner, “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?”.
[5] Jodi Magnus, “What did Jesus’ Tomb Look Like?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 32:1, January/February,
2006.
[6] Additionally, it should be noted that in four of the Gospel accounts of the New Testament is the stone
ever described as being circular or disk shaped.
[7] Urban C. Von Wahlde “A Rolling Stone that was Hard to Roll.” Biblical Archaeology Review, 41:2,
March/April, 2015.
[8] The following examples serve to show that a square stone could “be rolled” and the verb used in the
Greek is applicable to this type of stones in multiple ways, with the biblical text stating that the stone was
“rolled” by an Angel of the Lord in Matthew 28:2, however, Matthew 27:60 also speaks of the stone being
“rolled” to initially seal the tomb.
[9] Amos Kloner, “Reconstruction of the Tomb of the Rotunda of the Holy Sepulcher According to
Archaeological Finds and Jewish Burial Customs of the First Century CE” in The Beginnings of Christianity: A
Collection of Articles (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor, Jerusalem, Israel: Yad Ben Zvi, 2005).
[10] The reality of the size of the stone is even attested to in tradition through the apocryphal accounts from
second century “Gospel of Peter” which states that when Pilate was asked for guards for the tomb by the
chief priests, he sent Petronius the Centurion with soldiers and they rolled “a great stone” and laid it against
the entrance to the tomb. (8:31–33).
[11] Shimon, Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2009), 157.
[12] One again I note that even in the apocryphal work of the Gospel of Peter, it is the soldiers who “rolled”
the stone after placing Jesus body in the tomb, where as in the gospels the acts is given to Joseph of
Arimathea, however it should not be assumed that he worked alone as Matthew specifically noted that
others are present the entire time (Matthew 27:60)
[13] Raymond Brown. The Death of the Messiah (New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing, 1999), 1248.
[14] This type of tradition surrounding an alteration to the biblical details is not as uncommon as one might
think as can be seen through various aspect of the King James Version Bible, which assumed certain aspects
of the Ancient world, for example Joseph, the father of Jesus’ profession as a carpenter rather than the more
likely stone worker, based off of 16th century English culture (with, for our example, houses being built of
wood, rather than stone as we see of the first-century Galilee) than that of biblical culture.
[15] Hershal Shanks, Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography (New York, NY: Random House Press, 1995),
196-202.
Was the stone sealing Jesus's tomb square-
shaped?
https://beliefmap.org/jesus/tomb/stone/square

Introduction

“Yes, after all…

 Square-shaped stones were the norm

In AD 30, most all blocking-stones were square/rectangular.1 The presumption then is that
Jesus's blocking stone was as well.2

1. Amos Kloner (Archaeologist, professor at Bar Ilan University): “…massive blocking

stones …in Jesus’ day came in two shapes: round and square. But more than 98
percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first
century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones. Of the more than
900 burial caves from the Second Temple period found in and around Jerusalem, only
four are known to have used round (disk-shaped) blocking stones.” [“Did a Rolling
Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” Biblical Archaeology Review 25:05 (Sep/Oct 1999).]
Dale Allison (NT professor at Princeton): “Rounded stones, which became popular
only in the late Roman and Byzantine periods, were rare, being found only with
elaborate tombs for the rich.” [Resurrecting Jesus (Continuum Int., 2005), 363.]

2. Granted, round stones were reserved for the fanciest of burials, but this does not mean
most fancy tombs used rounded stones―most did not. Consequently, it helps only a
little to argue that Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy[Forthcoming], that he provided
his family tomb to hold Jesus's body[Forthcoming], and ultimately gave Jesus a loving
burial[Forthcoming]

 An angel reportedly sat on it

An angel reportedly sat on the blocking stone. This is relevant because wheel-shaped
stones typically rolled back in a way that left little room for sitting.1

1. Raymond Brown (NT professor at New York): “Apparently Matt 28:2 supposes a
boulder, since the angel who rolls away the stone sits on it - a wheel-shaped stone
would most likely have been rolled back into a rock recess or flat along the outside of
the tomb and thus not available for sitting.” [Death of the Messiah ([Yale] Anchor
Bible, 1999), 1248.]
Amos Kloner (Archaeologist, professor at Bar Ilan University): “In Matthew 28 an
angel sits on the stone after 'rolling' it back. If the stone had been rolled back between
two walls, as was the case with Second Temple period round stones, it would have
been impossible to sit on it. Indeed, it would be difficult to sit on the edge of a disk-
shaped stone even if it had been pulled back from the tomb entrance. A square
blocking stone would make a much better perch [from the author's perspective].”
 ["Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?" Biblical Archaeology Review 25:05
(Sep/Oct 1999).]

“No, after all…

 The blocking-stone was “rolled”

The stone sealing Jesus's tomb was “rolled” out of the way.1 This is relevant because only
a disc-shaped blocking stone could be “rolled.”

But so what? Square blocking stones were rolled as well.2

1. This should allegedly be granted for the following reason: The Greek verb kyliein was
used to describe the movement of the stone. (See Mt 27:60 [προσκυλίσας], Mt 28:2
[ἀπεκύλισεν], Mk 15:46, Mk 16:3, Mk 16:4, Lk 24:2) and, allegedly, kyliein can only
mean “rolled.” By way of response, however, “‘rolled’ is a translation of the Greek
word kulio, which can also mean ‘dislodge,’ ‘move back’ or simply 'move.’” [Amos
Kloner, “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” Biblical Archaeology Review
25:05 (Sep/Oct 1999).] BDAG and Louw-Nida both present cases where the term is
translated into things such as “roll over” (intuitively consistent with a square tomb
stone), and “to move” (consistent with any shape). For example, in Mark 9:20, a
convulsing man began “rolling (ἐκυλίετο)” on the ground.

2. Shimon Gibson (Leading Archaeologist; prof., 20+yrs excavating): “However, I think

this unlikely, and from my own (back-breaking) experience in archaeological
excavations with the opening of stone doors of tombs, it is clear to me that even a
rectangular or square stone had to be “rolled” in and out of position when a tomb was
being closed or opened. There are hundreds of examples of tombs from this period in
the Jerusalem area, with small entrances sealed with rectangular or square doors.”
[The Final Days of Jesus (Harper Collins, 2009), 157.]
Dale Allison (NT & Early Chr. prof.): “Kloner suggests that προσxυλίω and äποκυλίω
could refer to rolling or moving an unrounded object. This seems plausible; cf. Josh
10:18 LXX; 2 Kgs 9:33 LXX; Diodorus Siculus 17.68.2.” [Resurrecting Jesus
(Continuum Int., 2005), 363.]