Talk:Joseph of Arimathea

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Authenticity of Joseph of Arimathea 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recommendations 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: 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)
thread_title: Further triage

message: 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)
thread_title: test

message: 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  and ). " 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  and )." 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)

text: I just put it back in for lack of a better alternative. Carl.bunderson 16:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. --Wetman 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "simplified"

message: 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)
thread_title: "Maelgwn's "lost" ''Historia de Rebus Brittannicis'' [sic]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Legends

message: User:Codex Sinaiticus has reverted
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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Followed the links in the "Joseph and Britain" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Joseph of Arimathea = Jesus' Father? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Britain or Britio? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If "Gospel of Matthew" is more accurate than "the gospels", edit it.--Wetman (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Description of Joseph 

message: I'm not convinced that he meets our criteria for a reliable source at WP:RS - he's a journalist and publicist - see  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)
replies: text: It's chaff, all of it. Best to axe it all.--Cúchullain t/c 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Peter Cresswell 

message: 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  that mentions Joseph's connection to the text. Commented out below:
 — LlywelynII 05:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying this. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: First appearance of the Joseph legend

message: 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)
thread_title: Sanhedron dissent