Is Joseph of Arimathea historical? The account of Joseph of Arimathea is very familiar. It is often read in churches at Easter time. Even though the story is familiar, Joseph is only mentioned during one critical episode and is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. The location of Arimathea is also uncertain. There are no references to this town in contemporary non-Christian sources. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea identified Arimathea with Ramah, the birthplace of Samuel, but this is nearly 300 years later. Thus, the brevity of the evidence has prompted some to challenge whether the event occurred at all. After all, isn't absence of evidence the evidence for absence?

On the other hand, the event is described in all 4 gospels. Each account is slightly different, and each provides a slightly different perspective. They seem like plausible accounts from multiple independent sources. There is evidence after all. So, let's have a look at each account and list the information that each gospel writer provides.



According to Matthew:


The information that Matthew provides is:




According to Mark:


So, Mark tells us that:




According to Luke:


So, Luke tells us that:




According to John:


So, John tells us that:




I have summarised all of this information in the following table:

Item	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Evening had come	X	X
It was the Day of preparation		X		X
Day before Sabbath		X	X
Sabbath about to begin			X
Joseph was rich	X
Joseph was a disciple of Jesus	X			X
Secretly for fear of Jews				X
Joseph of Arimathea	X	X	X	X
Respected member of the council		X	X
A good and righteous man			X
Had not agreed with decision or action			X
Had not agreed with decision or action			X
Looking for kingdom of God		X	X
Took courage (dared)		X
Asked Pilate for Jesus body	X	X	X	X
Pilate surprised that Jesus was dead		X
Pilate questioned whether Jesus dead		X
Asked captain to verify		X
Pilate granted corpse to Joseph	X	X		X
Nicodemus with Joseph				X
Anointing with spices				X
Joseph bought linen shroud		X
Took body	X	X	X	X
Took body down		X	X
Wrapped in clean linens	X	X	X	X
linen shroud	X	X	X
There was a garden				X
Tomb close at hand				X
Placed in tomb	X	X	X	X
His own tomb	X
Recently cut from rock	X
New tomb	X			X
Tomb cut in rock	X	X	X
Tomb never used			X	X
Rolled a large stone against entrance	X	X

             

An 'x' indicates whether the author mentioned the remark. From this table it can be seen that:

There are many things that can be deduced from who mentions what, but I will just summarise the information that is unique to each gospel writer and what is common to all.

The information that is unique to Matthew is:

The information that is unique to Mark is:

The information that is unique to Luke is:

The information that is unique to John is:

The information that is common to all gospel writers is just that:

Thus the common information is the critical core and each account contributes unique incidental information. From all of this information it seems to me that:

Not only this, but some of the unique items complement the other gospel accounts.



Mark explicitly says that Joseph plucked up courage before he approached Pilate:


When Mark says he "took courage", the term is quite emphatic and has a strong sense that he even dared to do such a thing. Why did Joseph require so much courage? It should not have been so surprising to Pilate, as he well knew that the Jews buried their dead. However, the reason is provided by John:


The reason was that he feared retribution from his own colleagues in the council and Nicodemus felt the same way. Notice also the difference in tone between the 2 accounts. Mark is positive and emphasises Joseph's courage. It is claimed that Mark was recording Peter's testimony. Peter had denied Jesus and fled in fear. He was probably more sympathetic to the fear of persecution. However, John had not denied Jesus, he did not flee and was present at the cross. He may respect Joseph for finally coming forward, but he is less sympathetic. Thus, the differing tones are quite plausible. So in this example, John explains what is in Mark.



Both Luke and John say that Joseph buried Jesus in a tomb that had never previously been used. John also adds, "So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there." John implies that the tomb was selected because it was nearby, but surely Joseph couldn't use someone else's tomb just because it was nearby or convenient.

Matthew provides the answer. He states:


He is the only one to state that Joseph laid Jesus in his own tomb and he thus makes sense of the other 3 gospels.

In the previous example, John explained what is in Mark, but in this example, Matthew explains what is in Luke and John.



Even though the authors were not necessarily eye-witnesses, they all had unique resources, so where did they get their information? Matthew is traditionally ascribed to a disciple who was formerly a tax collector, but this is based on the testimony of the church fathers. None of the gospel authors specifically identify themselves. Besides this, the disciples fled and so they were not there to observe the events. Mark was not a disciple. He supposedly based his gospel primarily on Peter's memories, but Peter also fled and was not an eye-witness of the crucifixion. Luke was a gentile who was converted well after these events, so he was not there as well, but he did have access to eye-witnesses, as he was in Jerusalem for 2 years between 57 & 59 AD while Paul was in prison in Caesarea and would have been with the church in Jerusalem. Only John claims to be a specific eye-witness. So where did the others get their information? The people who were there as eye-witnesses were Jesus' women followers, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Salome, the other Mary, Mary the mother of Jesus, Joanna and Susanna. There were others at the cross, but the women were probably the primary sources for the author's testimony.



Studying the text carefully not only answers questions but also raises them. If Joseph and Nicodemus anointed Jesus with spices, why did the women take spices to the tomb to anoint Jesus on the Sunday morning? One explanation is that one or more authors got it wrong, but there are more charitable explanations. Joseph came at evening just prior to the commencement of the Sabbath and maybe they did a rushed, incomplete job. Another suggestion is that Joseph and Nicodemus only lent support at the last moment, whereas the women had followed Jesus faithfully for a couple of years. Maybe they resented being displaced by a pompous Jonny-come-lately. However, my wife disagreed. "You don't understand women. Anointing a deceased person was a woman's responsibility, and they probably needed to do it to cope with their own grief." Maybe she is right.



In conclusion, there are 4 accounts that provide different perspectives. Each author offers something unique and yet they do not contradict each other. They are derived from independent sources and there is little evidence of accretion or mythological development. They accidentally explain each other and look like plausible, sincere accounts.

Kevin Rogers,
Director, Reasonable Faith Adelaide.