**The Stone At The Tomb** During the first century, the practice of sealing tombs in Jerusalem involved the use of both round (disk-shaped) and square (cube-shaped) stones. Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner's extensive research, which included the examination of over 900 cave tombs, revealed that the vast majority of these stones were square. This significant finding suggests that the stone used to block the entrance to Jesus' tomb was likely of a similar cube shape. The rarity of round stones, according to Kloner's study, points to a common burial practice distinct from the narrative commonly associated with the New Testament accounts of Jesus' tomb ([Amos Kloner](https://paperpile.com/app/p/65604168-e720-0bd9-87ea-d9eb08d7b8fd 'The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period')). The terminology used in the New Testament to describe the movement of the stone is not so straight forward as it is in English. The Greek term word *"proskulisas"* ( [Mark 15:46](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MRK.15.46), [Luke 24:2](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/LUK.24.2)) translated as "rolled" could alternatively be interpreted as "moved" or "dislodged," a point highlighted by both [Amos Kloner](https://paperpile.com/app/p/1e06346e-43aa-04c8-a1cc-02c52becefee 'Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?') and ["Urban C. von Wahlde"](https://paperpile.com/app/p/44ea49ab-0412-0dca-aebe-0ca29dd3a007 'Biblical views: A Rolling Stone that was hard to roll') in their respective research. Conversely, John's Gospel describes the stone as "taken away" (Greek *"airo"*), a more ambiguous term that accommodates different types of stones. This linguistic ambiguity allows for the possibility that the stone could have been either round or square, as the actual method of moving the stone could vary depending on its shape. An compelling detail comes from [Matthew 28:2](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MAT.28.2), where it describes an angel sitting on the removed stone, a scenario that works with both types of stones. Yet, archaeological discoveries show that disk-shaped stones rolled into a groove or slot to secure the tomb, preventing tipping or unauthorized access. This design would make it impossible for anyone to roll the stone back and then sit upon it, as described in Matthew. Furthermore, the physical characteristics and logistics surrounding these tombstones are noteworthy. Historical records and archaeological findings, such as those by Flavius Josephus, indicate that these stones could weigh up to two tons ([Flavius Josephus](https://paperpile.com/app/p/491dedf0-8f6d-067f-a0a4-41f2f099a3d6 'The Antiquities of the Jews'),[John 19:38-40](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/JHN.19.38-40)). This significant weight shows the practical impossibilities of a single individual, or even a small group, moving such a stone without considerable effort. Scholars like Dale C. Allison Jr., Raymond E. Brown, and Shimon Gibson support this assertion, arguing that the stone's removal would have been a substantial undertaking ([Dale C Allison and Jr.](https://paperpile.com/app/p/65cf022b-01d9-01d8-8c4b-b084c0a44a91 'Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters'), [Raymond E Brown](https://paperpile.com/app/p/cc787d92-c025-02f9-a1b9-cb97cee8bd97 'The Death of the Messiah, From Gethsemane to the Grave, Volume 1: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library)'), [Shimon Gibson](https://paperpile.com/app/p/10fba978-da37-08e7-b392-20c68c28fb82 'The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence')). In light of these considerations, it remains a possibility that Jesus was buried behind a square-shaped stone, typically reserved for the most affluent, in the unused tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. This scenario, while less common, aligns with the biblical description found in [Matthew 28](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MAT.28), where an angel is depicted as sitting on the stone post-movement. The details in the Gospels could feasibly apply to both types of stones and remain open to interpretation based on archaeological, textual, and historical evidence. The interplay between these elements highlights the ongoing scholarly debate and the complexities involved in understanding the historical context of Jesus' burial and resurrection.