Talk:Joseph of Arimathea

Untitled

This page has been placed on Wikiquette alert, 4 October 2005].

---

Wikipedia is unable to make a stand on whether some prophecy is or is not fulfilled, without losing a neutral point-of-view. The fulfillment of prophecy is an aspect simply of the text of the narrative, as told by the author of the Gospel, and as interpeted in the text of interpreters. Statements like "Thus is fulfilled the prophecy" of this or that, are not Wikipediable. They belong in the Christipedia. --Wetman 16:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Authenticity of Joseph of Arimathea

Reading the first paragraph we imagine that the authenticity of the character of Joseph of Arimathea is proved. There is no evidence that he existed. The mention in the 4 Gospels does not constitute a proof, and the less so in the context of the double and triple traditions. There are even voices rising to affirm that it was the Great Church that created this character to give a more honorable end to the episode of Golgotha since there is no evidence that Jesus had a funeral. It would be more prudent to write that one way or the other, all this rests only on hypotheses.

One might just write that in the absence of proof to the contrary, the majority of scholars accept by default and say by convention the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea .-- luxorion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C9F4:7F00:845D:A51E:F0B8:E2D0 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Think before you trivialize the work of others

Wetman, the article that you restored is hardly "neutral" or informative and references few if any sources of value. Furthermore, much more is known about Joseph of Arimathea from early Church historians than simply what is listed here.

Though I can accept, perhaps you don't like the use of tables, or the layout I've used, or perhaps the catagorizations that I have added, however before you try reverting this article again, perhaps you should read what is being added. Citing early church historians such as Tertullian, Cardinal Caesar Baronius, or Gildas may not be your personal cup of tea, but they are all original sources of information about the subject "Joseph of Arimathea" and therefore worth of citing. You are certainly welcome to check out the sources. as I have provided links to where the writings exist on-line. Writing an article so that people can check out the primary sources themselves (and come to their own conclusions) is a "neutral" point of view.

Finally, please direct your attention to Key Policy #2 and Key Policy #4. -- WikiRat 07:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wetman although I agree this article needs to be cleaned up (which is what I was in the process of working on when you arbitrarily reverted it back to an earlier version), I invite you to assist, or to contribute yourself. If you observe the changes I was in the process of changing you should be able to see that I was trying to flush out the material with a wider scope of references by citing early Christian historical and non-Biblical sources. Though Joseph of Arimathea was a Biblical character, the early church fathers were quite interested in him, and their views are worthy of mention.

If you are going to hinder this process, by reverting back to earlier versions or disputing the contents of the existing article, I encourage you to adopt a constructivist approach; recommend positive changes, re-work content, edit for readability. If you disagree with something contained in the article, feel free to add alternative view points or cite counter references.

I've looked over some of your other contributions to Wikipedia, and let me remind you that ‘’’quality’’’ of contribution is preferable to quantity of contribution. Speaking frankly, to simply meander through Wikipedia putting in clean-up tags without actually investing time, research and effort of your own to make articles better shouldn’t be construed as a contribution. Anyone can criticize or complain. What Wikipedia needs is people that make improvements rather than merely suggesting that they need to be done. Please don't treat Wikipedia as a game. Though it has rules, it is not simply a game. WikiRat 15:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

(The first rule of the "game" I mention at my talkpage, apparently overlooked by WikiRat, is this: "Each move must increase an entry's accuracy, transparency, selective completeness and weighted balance, using vision and appropriate wit." Quite a good rule, really. Wetman 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

(A personal agenda of British folk Christianity is not a suitable substitute for discussing the growth of the Joseph of Arimathea legend in a responsible and encyclopedic manner. I hope other Wikipedians more tolerant than I am will come and right this capsized article once WikiRat has quite finished fooling with it. --Wetman 15:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

Look, then, why doesn't WikiRat take each writer, Gildas, Jacopo da Voragine etc, and allow them each a paragraph, or more: show what each added to the Joseph of Arimathea legend. Show how it actually developed and grew. Tell how people responded to the legend. Don't leave out the miraculous parts, just because they don't seem "realistic". That way the article builds on the foundation a good many people have laid down before WikiRat arrived. --Wetman 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandals and Legitimate edits

Contrary to your claim, none of the early church writers Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Eusebius, St. Hilary of Pottiers, St. John Chrysostom, Cardinal Caesar Baronius and Hippolytus are advocates of British folk Christianity?

Likewise, any opinions expressed before 1700 AD about Joseph of Arimathea cannot be categorized as such. The reason that this article is being disputed is because someone doesn’t like the details contained therein and seems unwilling to actually privide sound reasons why those details are wrong. Fortunately, the details provided here, are part of the historical record so anyone following the dispute can go and check them out themselves. Before I began revisions, its content and tone were sketchy and restricted to Biblical references only. The article adopted a slight judgmental air regarding Joseph’s connection to legends.

What I have attempted to do in revising this article is;

• Broaden the basis of information about Joseph of Arimathea by providing additional references to early church writers
• Illustrated the origins of information about Joseph so that readers of the article can see the source of much of what is written about Joseph by tracing back to their earliest writers
• Provide an overview why Joseph’s reputation has become legendary by showing its evolution from earlier church writers
• Distinguish between what is considered legend and what was wrritten by early Christian academics
• Provided better structure for the material by adopting an approach that looks at the nature of the source material that references knowledge about Joseph (Biblical, non-Biblical, historical)

What I have NOT done in this article is;

• Claimed any of the legends about Joseph of Arimathea are true despite the beliefs of early Christians

This article is about Joseph and though there are Biblical references to him, do we then pretend that he is not listed in the Gospel of Nicodemus or subsequent work by early and medieval church writers?

Wetman who put the original “Neutrality disputed” tag in, has reverted this article to an earlier more basic form, and has provided little reasons on this page for doing so. Nor has he provided evidence that what is claimed in this article is not so. Similarly RoyBoy has reverted this article without providing adequate reasons (or any for that matter) for its censor. Lets examine the article more closely then.

Apologies, my objective was not to censor; merely to stop what was a major change to an article without an "edit summary", which indicated to me vandalism. Had I been aware there was much discussion and effort being put into it, I would have steered clear. It was my mistake, but in future... especially for major edits please include a short but descriptive summary. Thanks, and again sorry. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy No worries. I do appreciate your recommendation re: a descriptive summary and will make that my practice in the future. WikiRat 14:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article?

• Should this article NOT cite non-Biblical references?

No other wikipedia article adheres to this policy, and it would greatly diminish what is known about the man.

• Is it unreasonable to show the historical basis for what has been written about “Joseph of Arimathea”?

One would think that this is exactly what Wikipedians are suppose to do when talking about historical figures (even ones around whom legends are made)

• Does this article contain fraudulent, erroneous or biased references?

1. This article does not contain fraudulent references. Everywhere I cited ancient text, I provided a summary of what was said, which document it was said in, and links to other online-sites that publish copies where they exist. For example – take the claim that early church scholars wrote that Christianity came to Britain very early, I cite Tertullian in "Adversus Judaeos". Click on the link and search for “Gaul” and you’ll discover exactly what has been cited. Another example – take the claim that early church historians wrote that the apostles brought Christianity to Britain themselves - Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea and father of Ecclesiastical History wrote this in Demonstratio Evangelica Bk. 3. Again, click on the link and search for “Britain”.
2. This article likely contains erroneous facts, but no Wikipedian article that relies on primary or secondary sources is free from this problem. We trust that our references are competent. In the case of this article, we are dealing with periods where few other sources exist and so the ones that do exist, take on a greater value.
3. This article certainly contains biased ideas, as almost all of the writers cited are early Christians writing about their beliefs as Christians. However, what it does not contain is a collection of British folk Christians authors being cited as experts. One need only check out the links provided to see what others think of them. Therefore, what they say must be taken at face value and either argued against (using other evidence) or explained.

• Is this article biased?

This article distinguished between what people wrote and legend (or what they believe). Furthermore, its cites all evidence leaving the reader to make up their own mind.

Recommendations

This article is a bit like the King Arthur article, in that, asking "did Joseph make it to Britain?", or "did he guard the Holy Grail", is really like asking "did King Arthur exist?". From what I've read in the King Arthur article, the authors have done a good job of outlining what was written about him without actually endorsing the legend, and I think the same has been done here. There are a number of possible paths we can take then.

• We can appeal to the “masses” and find enough people willing to see the article changed by announcing a Wikiquette alert while avoiding actually engaging in an academic debate about its content.

This is a misuse of Wikiquette as this article is NOT being unreasonably abused by a vandal. Rather there is a disagreement between an editor willing to defend his edits academically, and another wikipedian unwilling to justify his claim of abuse.

• We can work out a satisfactory article academically.

To do this you must be willing to provide evidence that shows this articles current content is not correct. I encourage you to show which claims do not follow from the references cited. I invite you to provide counter-references that are either peers or later authorities who think the ones already cited are not correct.

BTW I did agree with your original contention that it needed work, and that it was rough and still intended to go over it a few more times. I invite you to assist me in this process if your goal is to make it better. However, I suspect that there is an agenda driving this alright, but it is one where a Wikipedian does not like what he is reading but unable to show that any of the claims made here are false or otherwise contribute to the article. (In fact I suspect that the criticism leveled against it so far is unqualified, and leveled perhaps to up ones “edit count”). Therefore, unless your willing to constructively engage in an academic discussion designed to give this article a “fairer more balanced approach” according to your understandings, I’m going to kindly ask you to stop prohibiting its evolution. -- WikiRat 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Look, then, why doesn't WikiRat take each writer, Gildas, Jacopo da Voragine etc, and allow them each a paragraph, or more: show what each added to the Joseph of Arimathea legend. Show how it actually developed and grew. Tell how people responded to the legend. Don't leave out the miraculous parts, just because they don't seem "realistic". That way the article builds on the foundation a good many people have laid down before WikiRat arrived. --Wetman 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The foundation of any good article should be primary sources, and you seem to be implying that their inclusion here has somehow ruined the article. Simply googling Joseph shows that whoever Joseph was, he was more than brief entry in the Bible. The first article that comes up (whose link was also cited as a reference to the subject in this article before I made a single revision) explains pretty much what was added to the article, except that in the revision here, some effort was made to flush out the ideas back to their original source (mostly early church writers), rather than simply repeat them.

Legend or not, part of Joseph’s legacy is that he is attributed the role of having been the “disciple” responsible for bringing Christianity to Britain. Although we cannot know if this ‘legend’ is true or not without further evidence, for most of eighteen hundred years, church scholars thought it to be true and wrote it down. This alone, makes it worthy of mention.

If your contention is that only the Biblical view of Joseph is worthy of the pages of Wikipedia, you should try reading the article on King Arthur, or for that matter, check out an article on any Biblical person not-considered legendary, for example check out practically any of the entries on the Saints. All of their articles cite non-Biblical references. Most of the early writers cited in this article have also been cited by Catholic Encyclopedia in other articles about other Biblical figures.

Though the Biblical narrative ends with Joseph taking Christ's body from the cross, is that all we can know about his life? If no, than what else is thought? I have been unable to find any other subsequent history of his life, than the 'legendary' trip to Britain. Therefore, this article has taken each writer in turn and repeated what written. The reader has been left to decide for themselves what they believe about Joseph, and they are certainly free to check out citations. To suggest that we merely convey the skeptical views of twentieth century scholars, or to stop his narrative at the removal of Christ's body, we would truly be doing a disservice to the development of ‘balanced’ articles, and would not accurately convey what has been written on this subject at least, from ancient times forward.

--- WikiRat 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The legendary King Arthur is indeed a very good comparison. A careful look at that Wikipedia article shows a culturally literate approach that would apply here—and eventually will once more. --Wetman 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You haven't shown how this approach is NOT culturally literate, however I invite you again to contribute to this article. Find alternative histories of Joseph's life, if you can from from credible sources. Feel free to disagree, but please don't remove that which you don't personally agree with. -- WikiRat 20:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No competent person is going to struggle over the illiterate details of an article that begins Much of what is known about Joseph of Arimathea comes from New Testament Biblical text, however Biblical references are not the only source of knowledge we have about this Biblical figure. --Wetman 20:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Until you actually do something other than criticize your credibility as an author is limited. If it is the grammar and style you disagree with. Than the problem is simple, you can edit it for readability (doing us all a favour) and leave the content to those actually working on researching the matter. I have no objections to you making the article more readable. -- WikiRat 00:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that this disagreement is over style and not content. I'm removing the 'neutrality dispute tag' then. I agree with both Wetman and WikiRat that it doesn't read all that nicely, and the table has got to go, but at WikiRat's invitation Wetman should be given the chance to do the revisions because it is he that noticed. Wetman feel free to edit it for style. Anon

Re: Recommendations

. . . I suspect that the criticism leveled against it . . . is unqualified . . . perhaps to up ones [sic] “edit count”

This seems highly speculative.

Tripe

• known English documents purporting to date from the 1st Century AD corroborate, and would seem to be the ultimate source of, the legends. Author Teresa Williams discusses this in detail in her article, Unravelling the Mysteries of Glastonbury This, from Messenger Magazine, presents "a distinct possibility that not only Joseph of Arimathea, but the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ lived at Glastonbury, Joseph and Mary being buried there" that is just not part of history, or theology. Even among Mormons it's on the fringe. Read what the "known English documents" actually are.
• "Biblical text achieves two things" Biblical text does not "achieve" anything except as prooftexts, which are inherently POV. The section "Biblical text achieves two things" merely reiterates what has been more neutrally discussed, now in the form of a sermonette. Deleted.
• "Characteristics of Joseph of Arimathea" "Proofs" in tabulated form are not encyclopedic: simply describe what the texts assert, without guaranteeing authenticity. Wikipedia is not Sunday School. Deleted.
• "Though we know he was a disciple of Christ" We "know" nothing of the kind. Stick to the text. I have attemnpted to set the historical development in order.
• "The Gospel of Nicodemus (not normally attributed to the the Biblical Nicodemus, rather to an anonymous writer of the third century) served as a source of additional information about Joseph for early Christian writers including writers such as Gregory of Tours." This is false. Wrong date, no connection at all with Gregory, who is using the earlier variant Acts of Pilate, a miracle-romance, not a history.
• Glastonbury Abbey burned "a Catholic Monk allegedly left candles burning too close to the window curtains." Window curtains! or perhaps he was smoking in bed! Partly deleted.
• At this point I began to run out of time and patience. I have restored the original neutral text at the head of the article, and added as much of the new stuff as I could, much of it unedited--Wetman 12:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't run of of steam yet. Your first revision was fairly productive. Let me comment on your Tripe;

"...a distinct possibility that not only Joseph of Arimathea, but the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ lived at Glastonbury, Joseph and Mary being buried there" that is just not part of history, or theology. Even among Mormons it's on the fringe. Read what the "known English documents" actually are.

That particular line is not my contribution, but some other authors, nor am I a Mormon. Personally I had not seen Teresa Williams article before. Regardless, you are showing your bias. I have cited evidence that subsequent history of Joseph which you personally label as “fringe” was common place to early Church writers. If it is fringe, it is only lately that it has been labelled as such and by a very narrow selection of modern secular scholars. If it was written for over a thousand of years, that Joseph made it to Britain, than your personal beliefs are irrelevant. Until the twentieth century, legitimate scholars and historians wrote about this history as true. Examining the beliefs of the early writers, although they were all Christians, Tertullian was not a mormon, nor was St. Hilary of Pottiers, St. John Chrysostom, Eusebius, Rabanus Maurus, Hippolytus, or Baronius yet all of these writers have written on this subject. Perhaps you, personally find this history a fringe belief, however, evidence apart from Teresa Williams article has been presented from well known, and well accepted authorities of the Church, many of whom are cited by Catholic Encyclopaedia as well as other sources. All of those cited where primary source closer in proximity to Joseph_of_Arimathea than Teresa Williams or either of us. Therefore, I don’t care how much you find it a fringe belief that Joseph may have visited Britain. Until you can provide contrary evidence that explains Jospeph's subsequent history, perhaps stating Joseph instead went to Egypt, perhaps he stayed in Jerusalem – it doesn’t matter - but simply disagreeing is not enough. Subsequent to the death of Jesus, eighteen hundred years of church writers claim he went to Britain, and the Vatican itself has supported this history as cited, therefore, as as long as the claims are backed up with ‘accepted sources’ (and early church writers are) this history has every right to stay for it completely conforms to Wikipedia’s requirements. Please appreciate that your scepticism is shared by many other twentieth century scholars, however this secular scepticism is only indicative of a marginal twentieth century trend, and is not indicative of the entire field of work that has examined Joseph critically across centuries. We do want a balance here. Unless you can provide counter-evidence this voguish trend is nothing more than opinion.

Biblical text achieves two things Biblical text does not "achieve" anything except as prooftexts, which are inherently POV. The section "Biblical text achieves two things" merely reiterates what has been more neutrally discussed, now in the form of a sermonette. Deleted.

I can accept, your symantic criticisms, as we each have different editorial styles, however, you are categorizing using words such as “sermonette”. Please note that the motivation for these edits was not a faith based motivation, but an academic based one. Evidence has been provided which has not been critically countered. Until it has, the evidence stands. There is nothing sermonette about this.

Characteristics of Joseph of Arimathea" "Proofs" in tabulated form are not encyclopaedic: simply describe what the texts assert, without guaranteeing authenticity. Wikipedia is not Sunday School. Deleted.

I agree with the comment that the table had to go, and your comment that it was not encyclopaedic, however you are being insulting here. Wikipedia is not Sunday School, however Sunday School has nothing to do with any of this and your comment is clearly designed to revoke a reaction. Objectively requires you to abate your passions.

Though we know he was a disciple of Christ "We know" nothing of the kind. Stick to the text. I have attempted to set the historical development in order.

Your claim is not correct. Since the Bible has been used as a reference for much of this article, let's consult the Bible. Mark 15:42 states that Joseph "waited for the Kingdom of heaven" and John 19:38 states that he "was a disciple of Jesus", though a secret one for fear of reprisal. Clearly these statements do indicate that Joseph was a disciple of Christ, and early Christians took him as such; see St. John Chrysostum’s comments. What you suggest is not supported by the evidence.

"The Gospel of Nicodemus (not normally attributed to the the Biblical Nicodemus, rather to an anonymous writer of the third century) served as a source of additional information about Joseph for early Christian writers including writers such as Gregory of Tours." This is false. Wrong date, no connection at all with Gregory, who is using the earlier variant Acts of Pilate, a miracle-romance, not a history.

Although there is debate about this so-called Gospel, the Wikipedia article on Acts of Pilate do say fourth century, so I’m happy to concede the date, however scholars of early Church do not treat it as a miracle-romance (they do not trivialize it), rather they treat it as an important document that influenced early thinking though it is controversial.

’’Glastonbury Abbey burned “a Catholic Monk allegedly left candles burning too close to the window curtains.” Window curtains! or perhaps he was smoking in bed! Partly deleted.’’

Again this isn’t my edit, but boy are you hostile! From what I know, the Abbey did burn down, however I am not personally aware of the cause. If you have not actually verified that the Abbey’s demise was not related to candles, or the people did not believe that to be true, I would encourage you ‘’’NOT’’’ to simply edit out what you do not like. Respect the contributions of others. I have not looked into the claim as to the cause of the Abbey's demise, however I have no problem leaving it in there, as presumably the person doing the edit, had evidence for stating that.

At this point I began to run out of time and patience. I have restored the original neutral text at the head of the article, and added as much of the new stuff as I could, much of it unedited'

Debate about the subject itself aside, I do believe your edits had value, despite your apparent hostility. I would encourage you to continue where you left off, but leave your personal agenda of scepticism aside, unless you can justify your claims with credible evidence.

Regards. --- WikiRat 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What's this "Even among the Mormons?" I am Mormon and take exception to that. This is not Mormon doctrine. It is an interesting thing to think about "Where was Jesus for 12 years" and all, but your tone is out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.6.228 (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Further triage

I have retained as much as possible of the recent edits, but I did have to restore a reference to St John Chrysostom that wassuppressed. It's not possible individually to critique expressions like "early Roman Church writers" etc. but the assertion "the source of these details is not known by modern scholars" is just not true. Some informed comprehension of the historical sequence in which these details have been added is necessary in order to make sense of the material. --Wetman 18:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical development

It would be nice if date ranges could be assigned to all of the post-second century texts and authors that are mentioned. As this is a development, some sense of chronology would make this section easier to follow. Dates for Irenaeus need to be fixed.

Gospel of Nicodemus

Would this not be better placed right after Historical development? As stated in a couple of places, the two titles for this work should be mentioned and a date better than medieval should be specified. The real date is vague, but narrowing it down to half a millenium or so would help with context. Bonus points will be given if the brief introduction is compatible with the linked reference.

test

Life of Mary Magdalene that Joseph of Arimathea was sent to Britain, and he goes on to detail who travelled with him as far as France, claiming that he was accompanied by;

the two Bethany sisters, Mary of Bethany and Martha of Bethany, Lazarus (who was raised from the dead), St. Eutropius Saint Eutropius, St. Salome, St. Cleon Saint Cleon, St. Saturnius, St. Mary Magdalen, Marcella (the maid of the Bethany sisters), St. Maxium Saint Maxium or Maximin Saint Maximin, St. Martial Saint Martial, and St. Trophimus Saint Trophimus or Restitutus Saint Restitutus. Michel BUZE 14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus' uncle

I was always taught he was Jesus' uncle by way of Joesph. I may just have missed it but there appears to be no mention of that here except at the end where it says the CE thinks it's unlikely he was Mary's uncle. The Secretary of Funk 11:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting. WHo taught you this? Also, does anyone have any idea where the idea that Joseph had tin mining links in England and was Mary's Uncle come from? ThePeg 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've searched far and wide for the source of the claim that Joseph was a great-uncle of Jesus. Some authors specifically say that Joseph was a younger brother of the father of Mary, and some cite "the Talmud" without further specifying (of course the Talmud never mentions him, and this is probably a misplaced reference to Mary being a daughter of Heli). Basically, anyone who mentions the claim fails to cite a source, or simply cites an equally unreliable modern source. The one reference I could trace actually referred to Perceval rather than Jesus, so perhaps confusion there is the origin.

The Cave of Treasures says that Cleopas was a brother of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (though its extensive genealogy of Mary includes none of them). The Coptic infancy gospel says Mary's father Joachim was also named Cleopas (maybe from taking the gospel's "Mary of Clopas" to mean the Virgin Mary was a daughter of Clopas"). It is remotely possible that someone combined these two facts to make Joseph an uncle of Mary. I think, though, that the Perceval/Jesus confusion is the more likely explanation.

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"simplified"

The following information has recently been deleted in the interests of "simplification": "...a member of the Sanhedrin (which is the way bouleutes, literally "senator", is interpreted in Matthew 27:57 and Luke 23:50). " Perhaps the interpretation of bouleutes can be explained in a simpler way, so that the simplest of readers and editors can understand. There is also a Simple English Wikipedia... --Wetman 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It just struck me as too wordy when I read it. It didn't add anything to my understanding of Joseph. And phrases set in parentheses are there for a reason...they're not as important. If you really think it should be there, go ahead and stick it back in. Carl.bunderson 05:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The opening now simply says this figure was "a member of the Sanhedrin". This bald assertion has been rendered baseless by deleting "(which is the way bouleutes, literally "senator", is interpreted in Matthew 27:57 and Luke 23:50)." Readers from less authoritarian backgrounds might be enlightened to know that bouleutes is the word that's being interpreted in this fashion, and be able to judge for themselves whether Sanhedrin is intended. Please edit the text for improved clarity, so that it does add to your understanding of Joseph of Arimathea, and return it to the article. Thank you. --Wetman 08:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just put it back in for lack of a better alternative. Carl.bunderson 16:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. --Wetman 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Maelgwn's "lost" Historia de Rebus Brittannicis [sic]

I have removed for now the assertion that a sixth century Historia de Rebus Brittannicis was lost when Glastonbury burned. I'd be delighted to have a reference to this alleged "work". The "author" sounds like a doublet of the legendary king Maelgwn Hir ap Cadwallon, no? --Wetman 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian mythology?

User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. This article was one of those removed.Perhaps not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader? I have no opinion in this particular case myself. --Wetman 09:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What would be in the interests of the impartial Wikipedia readers, would be not to indoctrinate them by putting subjective judgements like "mythology" on subjects that only one pov, group, or school of thought considers "mythology", since historically such groups have often labelled one another's beliefs and views "mythology" as an attack form of propaganda. Neutrality means presenting only facts as facts, and opinions must be cited. Categories can't. As for this article, I saw the argument that this is somehow different and not a judgement, because the subject is connected with the Grail. That would be a good argument for the Grail article, but even if the Grail were mythological, this is an article about a personage whom not everyone agrees was mythical, and who many think was historical, so the label here seems kind of borderline inappropriate to me. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If Joseph of Arimathea was a major figure in the Grail legends (as a large part of the article substantiates) and if the Grail legends are properly considered Christian mythology (as that article states), then I'd say that the Category:Christian mythology would be appropriate. Stephen C. Carlson 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And I expand on my agreement in my reply to Codex, below.  Sean Lotz  talk  22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In reply to User:Codex Sinaiticus above.

Full disclosure:

• I am a priest in the Celtic Catholic Church.
• The story of St. Joseph bringing the Holy Grail to Britain is foundational to our self-understanding as Celtic Catholics. Every seminarian learns about it at the beginning of the course of study, using such texts as The Coming of the Saints and The Ancient Secret. Although no one understanding of the story is required, and people pass through this course with different view points, it is understood by all to be in some way of great importance to the history of our own Church.
• Personally, I believe in St. Joseph as a historical figure, and in my heart I am certain enough that he took our Lord Jesus, his nephew, to Glastonbury and that he returned later with various saints, including the Blessed Virgin Mary.

OK, that should be enough to tell where I am coming from in that matter.

Please understand, first, that the word myth' is not the same as non-historical. Although many stories labeled myth are certainly non-historical, and do not really even pretend to be, the word is used commonly by scholars of mythology today to indicated more than that. It indicates a story which is indicative of a greater truth, a poetic, narrative expression of a truth, a story which becomes larger than life because its point is not just the historicity but the meaning which a community reads out of and places into the story.

At any rate, the category is not a judgment. Categories are not commentaries about articles, but collections of related material. If I were wanting to explore what WP had to say about "Christian mythology," I would certainly expect to find, in the list of pertinent articles, something about St. Joseph, the Grail, and others.

St. Joseph is an integral part of the Holy Grail cycle of stories, which cycle as a whole is certainly a part of what could be called "Christian mythology."

The article belongs in the category "Christian mythology" because "mythology" is commonly used in a way which definitely includes everything connected with the Grail story, and because it is necessary in order for the WP cataloging methodology called categories to work effectively at providing guidance to readers looking for certain information .

 Sean Lotz  talk  22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Something I forgot to include:

If mythology could be used only in the sense of "non-historical," then I would not be entirely comfortable having this article included in the category.  Sean Lotz  talk  23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard very similar arguments before, and by the way I am not concerned with what you may believe privately. These arguments all say, 'mythology' has this other meaning beside unhistorical, that can even include historical events. However, it was easily demonstrated at the time this was discussed before, that the vast majority of uses of the word 'mythology' in Wikipedia articles, use it in the common understanding of "not historical", and in fact where it is clearly being used in contrast to, or in opposition, to "historical", eg, in language such as "mythological, as opposed to historical"... The clear purpose of the word as used on wikipedia is to impart that something is not historical, a word used to label things that scholars do not believe really happened. I would just like to note that this discussion was over a year ago, and since then, wikipedia has continued to use "mythology" frequently, in its common everyman understanding of "not historical, outside of historical", and rarely ever have I seen it used in the obscure sense that these apologetic arguments insist that it really means something somehow different from this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad, Codex, that you don't care what I believe privately. It indicates to me that we share a view about what an editor of an encyclopedia should be about. But I have noticed, as I am sure you have, too, that many folk around here write, edit, and argue based on their private undisclosed beliefs, rather than what is logical, relevant, and helpful. I like to make discolsures when it appears I might be doing that myself, so others can judge how dispassionate (or otherwise) I am being.  Sean Lotz  talk  10:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "mythology" is either used improperly as a label, as Codex suspects, or it is used properly as dealing with deities and other supernatural beings. This is not the case here. We have a Christian Saint with whom a lot of legends are associated. But no mythology. As for the Grail article, I indeed wonder whether it should be dubbed "Christian mythology" but in any case, this article cannot serve as a basis for this categorisation of another article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Queezbo has reverted with the edit summary "rev. It belongs in the "Christian Mythology" category at least because of its relation to the Grail, which figures prominently in that category. It is a category, not a judgment". As I said above, this is not about the judgement issue but about a proper definition of mythology. Now, I have this suggestion to make: Joseph is a Saint, that is clear, and he is categorized as such. He also figures prominently in the Grail legend, which can be considered Christian. Why not include the category Saints and Grail as subcategories of Christian mythology. This is a compromise I could accept. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not argue against your suggested compromise. I'm not a big fan of it because I don't generally like sub-categories, and especially not little bitty ones, least of all ones with only one article. The librarian and taxonimist in me rebels. But other than that, I'm OK with it. If this compromise would make you content and make me at least not perturbed, I would be glad for it and relieved. My only insistance in this, really, is that if a person where reading up on the subject of "Christian mythology," we would be remiss not to include this article in the list. I would feel we were cheating the person out of something he or she should be able to expect.

And, I just realised, several other saints could be included in the sub-cat. St. Christopher and St. George, for example. And don't anybody say I am libeling two of my favorite saints by suggesting their inclusion as "mythology." See my disclaimers above. Maybe my problem is that, with the way my brain works, I have no problem thinking of something as historical and mythological at the same time. Maybe that makes me some sort of freak.  Sean Lotz  talk  10:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Making "Grail" a subcat of mythology should be sufficient. I can't see any compelling reason to make "Saints" a subcat of mythology. Even if there are myths about some saints, it still seems more like one party's categorization, than a neutral one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-reading the 'compromise' suggested by Str, and it makes even less sense to me now. A single category called "Saints and Grail"? The article is already in the "Holy Grail" category, and I just checked that this is already a subcat of Christian mythology. So problem seems already solved. There is no need to put Christian mythology here because it would be a redundant supercat to "Holy Grail". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Legends

Don't you think the mention of Diodorus should have a warning on the accuracy of his historical statements? Should we include the French legend: French Wikipedia Les Saintes Maries. Have you come across: LEWIS, Henry Ardern. Christ in Cornwall? 2nd edition, with new and fuller notes and appendices. And Glastonbury the holy land of Britain. W. H. Smith & Son: Glastonbury, 1946. === Vernon White (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The legend of the Marys is already mentioned. I'll check out your other suggestions later today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

User:Codex Sinaiticus has reverted[1] my external link cleanup.

We are writing an encyclopedia, therefore we don not need to link to other encyclopedia, which may even be considered our competetitors. In fact, external links should be reserved to extensive treatments of the subject, which goes even beyond an article of featired article quality, see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.

Also, a private genealogy page seems out of place by huge distance.

Pjacobi 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Followed the links in the "Joseph and Britain" section

The gist of most of the quotes from the Church fathers is: Christ rules everywhere, including such far off places as India and Britain-- and even in places we haven't heard of yet. That is a far different meaning than saying that, for instance, Tertullian "says" that Christianity has reached Britain. I have the feeling that this section is full of deliberate misquotes.

In any event, even after following the links in this section, I couldn't find the Chrysostom quote, nor Hilary, nor Hypolytus.

Am I missing something? These aren't "legendary accounts" (i.e. these sources and quotes don't themselves tell legendary accounts), but rather quotes used by people (probably improperly, and perhaps including the author of this section) to construct their *own* legendary accounts. In other words, the tone of this section should be that "the following quotes from the church fathers are often cherry picked to suggest Joseph's journey to Britain." This section needs to be reframed, or it includes original research.

That might be so. About a year and a half ago this article was substantially altered and expanded to include that contentious information. It sounds like the quotes were cherry-picked to make a case for British Israelism. If some are wrong, please do correct or remove them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph of Arimathea = Jesus' Father?

See The God-Kings of Europe, pp. 28 ff., for the claim that Joseph of Arimathea was the father of Jesus. Eroica (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Britain or Britio?

See Ian Wilson's The Blood and the Shroud (Chapter 12) for the theory that Joseph of Arimathea brought the shroud of Christ to Britio Edessenorum (the citadel of Edessa), which was mistranslated by early copyists as Britannia. Eroica (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin

I think the Latin pedigree quoted from John of Glastonbury in the "Holy Grail" section needs an English translation, including the names of the intermediate generations. If it were just a footnote, that might be one thing, but a passage in the main text should be fully translated. It might look a little unwieldy, but clarity is more important than elegance. Loganberry (Talk) 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Latin should be dropped into a footnote.--Wetman (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial Description of Joseph

Only Matthew's Gospel states that Joseph of Arimathea was the owner of the tomb so I think it misleading to say that the 'Gospels' provide this information. Mark's Gospel puts more emphasis on Joseph providing the cloth on "Preparation Day" and this aspect seems more consistant through the Gospels - he wrapped up the body and placed it in a tomb.

Jas.C.Brooke (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If "Gospel of Matthew" is more accurate than "the gospels", edit it.--Wetman (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I too was immediately struck by the same issue as soon as I started reading. Why has the text not been corrected? Cheers, Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.132.222 (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Josephus - Vulgate

Dougweller, for your information the reference I gave is the Vulgate Cycle, which is the original book that contains this information. What better reference are you looking for than the original? The problem is that there are only 20 copies of the entire Vulgate in the UK, so it is not easy to locate. The more populist book is easier to locate, and contains the relevant quotes.

The reference you gave to "The development of Arthurian Romance" does not mention Josephus (son of Joseph), according to Google Books, so you cannot use this as a source. And the reference in the "Josephus of Arimathea" Wiki page is wrong, as far as i am aware. Are you saying that if I make up a reference this will be ok, but if I give you are real one you will delete my addition? You take the reference to the Lancelot-Grail by Norris as being correct, but you have not checked, have you? And I know you have not checked, because the volume is huge, and they did not give a page number. Disranter (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you are right about Josephus. And we can't reference our own articles. You are being rather insulting here. I haven't taken any references as correct, but the Ellis reference I know is not a reliable source. If you have access to the Vulgate Cycle, you can reference it directly, but not through Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Insulting? How? You are being a bit sensitive here. The reference is not 'through Ellis', this is simply an alternate source if you cannot afford to purchase the Vulgate Cycle (5 volumes costing about $450). You do want Wiki readers to be able to reference sources, I hope? Your fame is spreading though the blogsphere as an opponent of historical research, and there are many who are not impressed. Disranter (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. The "King Jesus" book is not usable, nor is the link to the Wikipedia article Josephus of Arimathea. Are you saying that the Vulgate Cycle itself suggests that Josephus of Arimathea may have been confused with the historical Josephus? If so we will need to word it differently. We will also need a full citation for the edition of the Vulgate you're using. I have a copy the the Norris J. Lacy translation, so I can check that, though I'm afraid it won't be terribly easy for me to get to just now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Josephus, the son, is mentioned in the article anyway. As is the Vulgate Cycle, see Lancelot-Grail. Meanwhile, the personal attack is very interesting. It appears as though the purpose of the edit may be to mention Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote is:

Joseph of Arimathaea was in Jerusalem with his wife and a son named Josephus; not the one that scripture relies upon so often as a witness, but another one who was no less lettered. It was this Josephus who brought his father’s lineage across the sea to Britain, which is now called England.

The Josephus that scripture relies upon as a witness is Flavius Josephus, so the Vulgate Cycle is quite clear in its meaning. And Ellis is being mentioned here, because he highlighted this topic, and it is only a common courtesy, in my opinion, to acknowledge the person who dredged up this information. And it is interesting. The volume is this: http://www.books-express.co.uk/author/2338208/Norris-J-Lacey.html

Except the one from my library was called 'The Old French Vulgate', not the 'Lancelot Grail' .

Disranter (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And we already have the information in the article, which says ". In the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, a vast Arthurian composition that took much from Boron, it is not Joseph but his son Josephus who is considered the primary holy man of Britain." There is no reason to mention Ellis as he is late to the party as Cuchullain added it in 2006. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The above editor is a sockpuppet, and one sock identified himself as Ralph Ellis

copied from ANI:

•  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:

• Disranter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnatorim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Samosterat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoogson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Narwhal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

checked byUser:Tiptoety

Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see all that coming. Ah well, I guess it's settled: Ellis stays out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Cresswell

I'm not convinced that he meets our criteria for a reliable source at WP:RS - he's a journalist and publicist - see [2] and this view may not be significant enough to include. The paragraph it respondes to is uncited, which is also a problem. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's chaff, all of it. Best to axe it all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both statements. Cresswell is certainly not a WP:RS source, as someone also commented elsewhere on Marriage at Cana. Amanita caesarea, you are getting double reverted on this again, also on Talk:Marriage at Cana stop and discuss before reverting. Actually on Marriage at Cana he even admits that the references are shaky, but says they need to be there. This is wasting time for everyone. I issued a warning to Amanita caesarea. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First appearance of the Joseph legend

I'm not saying it's not in the 12th-century Vita of Mary Magdalene, but (a) it may postdate the monkish insertions into William; (b) absolutely none of the sources in that paragraph so much as mentions Joseph except (c) the source about a 15th-century copy of Pseudo-Rabanus's text which pointedly denies denies that Joseph is mentioned in its account. Despite its "sourcing", therefore, the entire paragraph is unsourced and removed here for future reinclusion when someone finds a RS that mentions Joseph's connection to the text. Commented out below:  — LlywelynII 05:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Joseph of Arimathea - diff. Hafspajen (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sanhedron dissent

Added the fact that (Luke 23:50-51) says that he not only sat on trial, but "...had not consented to their decision and action...". Snori (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)