Holy Grail – Part 2A – Short Review/Dissertation

Dear Readers,

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of blogs about the Holy Grail the name ‘Joseph of Arimathea’ regularly appears as the first person to be in possession of the ‘mystical Holy Grail (indeed if the same ever existed).  In Part 1, I ended the blog by asking you to keep in mind the name Joseph of Arimathea.  In Part 2 I raised the question of likelihood that Joseph of Arimathea being a member of the Sanhedrin that sat on the trial of Jesus.  

The Gospel of Matthew tell us that  after His arrest at the Garden of Gethsemane (the word Gethsemane is derived from Aramaic meaning “oil press”) Jesus was brought to the house of Caiaphus, the High Priest (26:57).  It is noteworthy to observe that the Gospel of Mark makes no mention of the name Caiaphus. The most likely location of the High Priest house where Jesus' trial took place is the west side of the city within short walking distance from the Roman Governor palace (Praetorium).  The Gospel of Mark tells us that Caiaphus heard testimony from a witness who alleges that he heard Jesus say: ‘I will destroy the Temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands’ (14:57-58).  Asked by Caiaphus to respond to the accusation Jesus is said to have kept His silence.  However, when He was again asked by Caiaphus: ‘Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed?’ ‘I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven’ replied Jesus.  Caiaphus decided there was no need to hear from further witnesses and said to have torn his garments and condemned Jesus to death.  Simon Peter who was watching and listening to the trial denied that he knew Jesus of Nazareth telling the maid of the High Priest he knows nothing and does not understand her question (14: 60-68).

The late appearance of Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels would rule out the likelihood of him being a follower of the teachings of Jesus and there is no evidence that he stood up or defended Jesus during the trial before the High Priest.  It is noteworthy observation that the Sanhedrin had the power to pass death sentence and commute the sentence.  However in this trial the wise Caiaphus, for all too obvious reasons decided to pass the buck to Pilate on the grounds that the crimes of sedition and insurrection with which Jesus was charged were outside the Sanhedrin jurisdiction and  the exclusive jurisdiction of the Romans. Hypothetically if the Sanhedrin passed the death sentence on Jesus and carried out that sentence one can be sure it would not have been crucifixion on the cross. It is more likely it would have been by stoning.  Crucifixion was the most popular Roman form of death sentence to convicted criminals.  It is also noteworthy that after questioning Jesus and could not find ground to convict Him on either a charge of sedition or insurrection he turned to the priests and told them so. After seeing and hearing the chat of 'death, death, death' from the gathered Sanhedrin and crowd Pilate said 'I wash my hand of his sins'.  This comment by Pilate is rather unusual in that it is Jewish not Roman practice to purify one and announce his purification by washing hand or immersion in water.  The Bethesda pool and the Siloam Pool were the two main public purification pools which Jews purified themselves before entering the Temple Mount. They are also the pools in which Jesus performed healing miracle. Private houses had their own ritual bathing pools (miqwa'ot).


So how can one rationally explain Joseph's concern to ensure dignified burial of Jesus given the fact that the corpses of the two criminals who were crucified with Jesus were either left to the vultures or thrown in a pit in Golgotha?  Various possibilities and likely answers spring to mind.  Luke tells us that Joseph was waiting for the Kingdom of God (15:43).  That could suggest that he was highly religious person upholder of the Jewish tradition of honouring the dead.  The fact that the tomb to which Joseph took Jesus body to bury was rock cut  (hewn) and new would suggest that Joseph of Arimathea was relatively new to Jerusalem otherwise in accordance with Jewish tradition one would expect members of Joseph family to have been buried in the grave:  ‘and also all the generation were gathered into their fathers: and there arose another generation after them which knew not the Lord, nor yet the work which he had done for Israel (Judges 2: 10).  And Abijam slept with his fathers and they buried him in the city of David and Asa his son reigned in his stead (Kings 15:8).  The Gospel of John states categorically that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus (19:38). However given the fact that not one of the other three Gospels makes any clear statement or reference in support of John would more than likely rule out Joseph as being disciple of Jesus.  What is more puzzling is the fact that after he buries Jesus Joseph disappears completely off the scene.   It is important to stop at this point and ask the following questions:  Was Joseph fearful that he would be asked by Pilate or the High Priest to explain the disappearance of the body of Jesus from his tomb on the Sunday after the burial and the consequences flowing from any explanation he may offer?  Alternately, and in accordance with our subject matter, he had possession of the Holy Grail, did not want anybody to know and sailed away toward Europe with members of his family ending up in England from where ‘romances’ of the Holy Grail commence their journey.   It is also noteworthy to observe that the Jewish insurrection against the Roman was rife in the first century CE.  This insurrection culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in 70 CE which saw the Jews leave the Middle East and to return 1878 years later to establish the current State of Israel in 1948.
In Part 3 I will start reviewing the romances and Europe' fascination with the Holy Grail.