Bad argument #4: The burial of Jesus in Joseph’s tomb is a fiction.
I won’t go into a lot of details on this one, since I already do in Defending the Resurrection. There are a wide variety of arguments which devolve from this one, and I haven’t seen one I would not describe as remarkably inept, though they do range from outlandish to insensible. For example:
Joseph of Arimathea was high on drugs and buried Jesus somewhere else after putting him in his tomb.
Joseph of Arimathea didn’t even exist. His name is a pun on “best disciple”.
Jesus was buried in a common grave for criminals. (This one should have been buried itself after Byron McCane’s landmark study, where he also explained why Joseph didn’t bury the other two guys.)
Paul doesn’t mention burial in a tomb, much less Joseph’s tomb specifically.
The burial in the tomb of Joseph was part of a “reversal of expectation” motif, because Jesus was supposed to be buried by his father Joseph. (As common as the name “Joseph” was in first century Judaea, this one counts as particularly idiotic. Presumably Jesus was supposed to secure the services of someone with a different name to bury him, to be sure we wouldn’t see a “reversal of expectation motif” happening 2000 years later. Of course, if Joseph of Arimathea had been named “Simon” – another common name of the era – the critics would invent some “motif” where Simon Peter was the other guy. Or imagine if he had been buried by Judas of Arimathea. The only way Jesus could have avoided this one was to hire a guy named "Klippleskim" as his mortician.)
I handle all these in DTR, as noted. As bad as they are I take them as a sign of either desperation or sheer inventiveness by critics. Or maybe both.