It’s not often I watch or read something about Christianity that really makes me sit back for a moment and think, but recently, I was watching a Youtube video from Paulogia titled “not buried?”, with esteemed scholar and, of course, apologist, Dr. Craig Evans. It’s short, so I recommend you watch the video, if you’re at all interested in the supposed resurrection of Jesus, as described in the bible. Most of the video, is Craig talking, which is insightful because he lay, and steps into his own trap while castigating others that have not disproved the “empty tomb” story.

Why? Because, although he dismisses doubters and their sources, his source is, wait for it, the New Testament. That’s right. It’s always (well, mostly in my experience) a single source utilized to prove any thesis submitted. Of course, they’ll throw in archeological evidence, proving the bible is true but often forget the errors, like gegraphical errors, that only someone who had never been to the area or even viewed it on a map, would make. I would list them here, but that’s not my purpose and, of course, many of you are already familiar with the instances of where certain authors made some really egregious errors in geography.

But I digress. The point I wanted to get to here was the importance of one character in the crucifixion/resurrection story. That person is Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin (Jewish legislative body) according to three gospels and a rich disciple of Jesus in the book of Matthew. Dr. Craig, in this video, points out that unclaimed bodies from crucifixion were buried in a single grave. It could be a tomb, but sometimes, a grave, dug in the ground. This makes the story of Joseph more important than ever because, without him, Jesus’ body would’ve been dumped in the nearest convenient place. No Joseph, no tomb. No tomb, no empty tomb on the third day.

The issue with this story is the person of Joseph of Arimathea, a place that doesn’t seem to have ever existed, even the most ardent apologists agree (somewhat) that this is true. There are those that believe what is known as Arimethea in the first century is a literary device and nothing more, while others believe there are at least two candidates for the town (in the previous link). Suffice to say, no one really knowns, and those that are certain, are divided. So what happens to the entire story of Jesus is the person of Joseph of Arimethea is, well, a fiction to legitimize a belief that there are absolutely no witnesses to when the manuscripts for these gospels when they were written? It dissolves.