I am just curious why would Jesus' poor parents whose origin is from the area of Nazareth would opt to purchase - if they could afford it at all in the first place - a family tomb in a distant Jerusalem? Woudn't it suggest in your opinion that the whole story based on this fact alone may not be real at all?
I think I may be able to help here. First, as I understand it (I am not an expert), many archaeologists and historians believe that the town of Nazareth actually didn't exist at the time of Jesus's birth. "Jesus of Nazareth" may be a mistranslation of "Jesus the Nazarean".
Also, the idea that Jesus came from a poor family is a tradition, not a certainty, and there is another tradition - that the family was actually quite well-to-do. Why else, for example, would Jesus and his mother be invited to the lavish, high-class wedding at Cana, and be able to order the servants around there? Also, I believe the word used in the early texts for Joseph's profession did not refer to a simple carpenter, but rather a skilled artisan, a master of his craft.
If you remember, the head of the christian church under James was in Jerusalem. So were many of the apostels. I think it makes sense to locate the crypt near Jerusalem because that is where the church is and where many of his followers were located. It makes it more convient for his surviving family and followers to visit his grave than to treck to Nazareth. Since they did not get buried in a family plot in Nazareth, then it makes sense that those buried closest to him where those in his nuclear family (father, mother, wife, child, brothers). That is why you don't have second cousins, aunts, uncle, etc.
Athlynne, If there was no Nazareth, how do you explain the Gospel account of Jesus going back to his home town of Nazareth and being rejected by those who knew him to be the carpenter's son, and thus fulfilling the prophet Isaiah's prediction that the messiah would be rejected in his own land? I just can't wrap my mind around the plausibility of this family having a tomb in Jerusalem. Jesus was visiting the city at the time he was killed. The desciples even tried to talk him out of going. It doesn't seem likely that Joseph was buried in Jerusalem, as he died quite young, and would have probably died in Nazareth. I can't see lugging his body or his bones in a heavy limestone box clear across the country.
Far as I know, Jesus was born in Bethelem, 5 miles south of Jerusalem, much closer than Nazareth would have been. Parents may have been born anywhere, I don't know that it is ever stated. But if he was in the line of King David, then the family would have probably lived in Jerusalem, and they probably would not have been poor. I have often heard or read that much of the Bible was either translated incorrectly or altered to fit the needs.
Jesus was likely a Nazarene, a group of Essenes who had communities also up in Nazareth (Galilee).
Jesus the Nazarene. This is often understood as meaning Jesus of (the town of) Nazareth, the BAGD Lexicon suggests that Nazarene (if translated thus from "Nazoraios") meant something else before it was connected with Nazareth.
"The Nazarean - they were Jews by nationality - originally from Gileaditis [where the early followers of Yeshua fled after the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus], Bashanitis and the Transjordon . . .They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others. . ." (Panarion 1:18)
wether he was from nazareth or a nazerine so what?...if jesus was not welcome in nazareth, or wherever he was from, then way would he be burried there.
i'm surprized that a government who crusified him would even let him be burried properly.
perhaps the roman government had him moved on the third day because his friends and family were so upset and were giving the romans a hard time about the killing of thier guru.
At first I used this argument too, until I quickly recalled that Joseph of Arimathea (described in Matthew's Gospel as a "rich man") was given permission to take Jesus' body which he placed in his NEW tomb hewn out of rock. Although I firmly believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, this fact from the Gospel weakens this particular argument that Jesus would have likely been entombed in Nazareth v. Jerusalem. The "opponents" would likely argue that Joseph of Arimathea likely turned over the entire tomb to Jesus' family. There are of course countless other valid arguments why this "mockumentary" is without any crediblity whatsoever! (One is that Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, clearly predeceased Jesus and would have already been buried/entombed in Nazareth. I suppose they will contend that Joseph's ossuary was moved later to be with the rest of the "family!")
