WHAT DOES THE ANTIOCH TRADITION HAS TO SAY ABOUT PETER AND JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, YESHUA’S UNCLE?

TNDL: "WHAT DOES THE ANTIOCH TRADITION HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE APOSTLE PETER AND JOSEPH OF AMARATHIA, YESHUA'S UNCLE? HERE IS A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LORD YEAHUA'S SERVANTS!"

UCG.org / Bible Study Tools / Ebooklet / The Throne of Britain / Appendix 11: Joseph of Arimathea and the Line of...
Appendix 11
Joseph of Arimathea and the Line of Nathan
The Davidic line of kings that ruled over the ancient nation of Judah came through David’s son Solomon. At the time of Judah’s fall to the Babylonians in 586 B.C., this lineage, as explained in this publication, was continued by a transferal of the monarchy to Ireland.
The Solomonic monarchy was later moved to Scotland around A.D. 500 and, later still, transplanted into England when King James VI of Scotland became king of all Great Britain. Thus, the current British sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, is a direct descendant of David through Solomon. But she may be descended from another son of David as well.
This possibility revolves around certain people who lived at the time of Jesus—chief of whom is a man referred to in the New Testament as Joseph of Arimathea, who is identified with Britain in medieval tradition. As we will see, it is a rather fascinating story.
The immediate family of Jesus
King David had a number of children. Great honor, of course, went to Solomon, who was blessed with riches and the aforementioned dynasty. Yet the greatest honor actually went to David’s son Nathan—for from him descended Jesus Christ. Matthew 1 contains the genealogy of Jesus’ adoptive father Joseph—son of Jacob (verse 16)—from Solomon. Luke 3, which lists the genealogy from Nathan, might also seem to be the family record of Joseph—but he is here listed as being the “son of Heli” (verse 23). Actually, the literal Greek says only “Joseph of Heli”—not “son of Heli.” Now the genitive “of” does imply “son of” throughout the remainder of the genealogy. But in this case, it is widely acknowledged to mean “son-in-law of”—making Heli the father of Joseph’s wife Mary, who truly was the mother of Jesus.
Yet Jesus and Mary were not the only ones mentioned in the New Testament who shared this royal lineage from Nathan. Mary had other children besides Jesus. The people of Nazareth asked regarding Jesus: “Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” (Matthew 13:55-56). Indeed, these brothers and sisters were also of the line of Solomon, being children Mary had with Joseph.
We also see mention of Jesus’ “mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas” (John 19:25). Jesus’ aunt here, also a daughter of Heli, of the line of Nathan, is widely acknowledged from scriptural context to be the “mother of James the Less and of Joses” (Mark 15:40; see verse 47; Matthew 27:56). James the Less is understood to be one of two of the original 12 apostles named James—James the son of Alphaeus (“James,” Paul Gardner, editor, The Complete Who’s Who in the Bible , 1995, p. 294).
And there is yet another New Testament figure who appears to have been a close relative of Jesus—Joseph of Arimathea. The place name he’s identified with occurs in the Old Testament as the home of the prophet Samuel, Ramathaim Zophim (1 Samuel 1:1). The Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures renders the italicized word as Arimathaim. Also known by its shortened form Ramah, this village is apparently synonymous with modern Ramalleh, a town about five miles north of Jerusalem.
Referred to as a “rich man” and “prominent council member,” Joseph was a “good and just man” who “had not consented” to the kangaroo trial that condemned Jesus (see Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53). After Christ’s death, Joseph, “being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked [the Roman governor Pontius] Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission” (John 19:38). Then, after preparing it for burial, Joseph laid the body in a rock-hewn tomb in a garden (verses 39-42; and see previous references). The tomb was obviously owned by Joseph, as the Messiah was prophesied to be buried in a rich man’s grave (see Isaiah 53:9).
Mark says that Joseph went boldly to Pilate to request the body of Jesus (Mark 15:43)—and just in time. Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament comments: “Unless there had been a special application to Pilate in behalf of Jesus, his body would have been buried that night in the common grave with the malefactors [with whom He’d been crucified], for it was a law of the Jews that the body of an executed man should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath [John 19:31]. At this critical juncture, God called forward this secret disciple …” (1970, note on Mark 15:43).
Evidence of Joseph’s kinship
But on what grounds did Joseph claim the body? Not on his being a disciple, for in the same context we read that he took pains to conceal this fact out of fear of the Jews. Yet how do we square this with the boldness of his request? Let us consider what exactly Joseph was afraid of. It could be that he was concerned the Jews would come after him as they had Jesus. Perhaps fear of reprisal had kept him from revealing that he was a disciple in the past—and his boldness now was in taking an action that revealed him for what he was.
However, there is another way to understand Joseph’s specific fear in this instance and his action taken. We later discover that under no circumstances did the Jewish authorities want Jesus’ body to fall into the hands of His disciples—out of worry that the disciples would dispense with it and concoct a resurrection fable (Matthew 27:62-66). Thus Joseph likely feared, in approaching Pilate, that if it became known he was a disciple, the Jewish authorities would pressure the governor into refusing Joseph’s request for Christ’s body.
Therefore it seems that Joseph must have approached Pilate on some other basis. Simple friendship with Jesus? No. Besides appearing as patronage and discipleship, there would have been another hurdle to jump.
“The Sanhedrin had declared Jesus a criminal. According to both Roman and Jewish law, unless the body of an executed criminal was immediately claimed by the next of kin, the body of the victim was cast into a common pit, where as with others, all physical record of them was completely obliterated. Certainly, the fanatical Sadducean element of the Sanhedrin who sought the total extinction of Jesus, even in death, would have allowed nothing short of a legal claim on the body of Christ” (E. Raymond Capt, Traditions of Glastonbury , 1983, p. 20). The Jewish authorities, who hated and despised Jesus, would surely have resisted his being given an honorable burial in a private tomb—unless there were irrefutable grounds in favor of Joseph receiving the body.
Therefore, we may infer from these verses that Joseph was a close relative of Jesus. This probably accounts for the boldness of Joseph’s request—not bold in the sense of facing his fears but bold because it was an assertion of his rights to Christ’s body. No other family members of Jesus are mentioned as coming forward. His legal father Joseph, last mentioned when Jesus was 12 years old (Luke 2:44-52), had evidently died long before—Jesus being referred to in Nazareth as “the carpenter, the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).
Mary herself was in no state to deal with the matter—and this would not have been a woman’s responsibility anyway. Jesus’ brothers were probably in their 20s or teens, perhaps considered too young to assume responsibility over the family—and thus to take care of this unsavory business. Or they could have been away—or were perhaps simply afraid to be associated with Jesus at this time.
In, then, steps Joseph of Arimathea—again, evidently a close relative. By some traditions this wealthy relative had become an adoptive father of the family after the death of Mary’s husband Joseph. More specifically, “Joseph of Arimathea is by Eastern [Orthodox] tradition said to have been the younger brother of the father of the Virgin Mary” (Richard W. Morgan, St. Paul in Britain , 1860, 1984, pp. 69-70 footnote)—thus making him Mary’s uncle and Jesus’ great uncle. Mary’s father Heli was essentially a royal prince of the Davidic line of Nathan—and so would Heli’s brother have been. So Joseph of Arimathea may well have been of royal blood. (Some claim an earlier tradition reckoned Joseph as the brother of Mary and thus Jesus’ direct uncle—which would still have made him of the same family.)
The noble decurio
Joseph was, as we’ve seen, described as a “prominent council member” (Mark 15:43). The original Greek here is euschemon bouletes . The Amplified Bible gives this as “noble and honorable in rank and a respected member of the council.” The first Greek word here can mean noble in character or, evidently, in birth: “The women who are incited against [the apostle] Paul in Acts 13:50 are ‘prominent [ euschemon ],’ as are those in Acts 17:12. They belong to a higher social stratum” ( Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , Logos Software).
Of the second word we are told regarding Joseph, “He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes , literally, ‘a senator,’ whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews” (“Joseph of Arimathea,” The Catholic Encyclopaedia , 1910, Vol. 8, Online Edition, 1999,www.newadvent.org/cathen). Yet because this is a “non-Jewish designation” for the council ( The Bible Knowledge Commentary , Logos Software, note on Mark 15:52-53)—applied to advisors of gentile officials in Acts 25:12—some say Joseph’s office was “in the [Roman] state, and that he was one of Pilate’s privy council; [but] his post rather seems to have been … [as] one of the great Sanhedrim of the Jews” ( Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, Logos Software, note on Mark 15:42-47). This we understand from Luke’s comment that Joseph did not vote with them to condemn Christ (Luke 23:50).
Still, the Greek words euschemon bouletes could be properly read as “noble senator” in the Roman world of the first century—in fact, even in this case since the term senate could denote governing councils of subject nations such as the Sanhedrin: “senatus … the Roman senate … [but] used also of similar bodies in other nations” (“senatus,” The Classic Latin Dictionary , 1941). However, when the Catholic “church father” Jerome produced, in the late 300s, the first version of the Vulgate, the earliest Latin translation of the Bible, he rendered the Greek words above as nobilis decurio .
In the word nobilis we can obviously see the English word “noble.” But what of the Latin word decurio ? Besides being a military title, “decurio was applied to a member of the local council or senate of a colonia (a community established by Roman citizens and having full citizenship rights) or municipium (a corporation and community established by non-Romans but granted certain rights of citizenship). Qualifications were numerous, and the position was regarded as an honour. The decuriones had wide powers in local administration, finance and judiciary proceedings” (“Decurio,” Encyclopaedia Britannica , Micropaedia, 1985, p. 953). Perhaps Jerome had access to more information about Joseph.
The apocryphal Gospel of Peter says Joseph was a friend of Pilate. Information in such sources is often inaccurate, but it is entirely possible that Pilate knew and respected him, which may have added to his readiness to hand over Jesus’ body (of course, this alone would not have been enough to secure the body).
In any event, it seems that Joseph was a man of considerable means. Not just wealthy—but also quite influential. In medieval tradition, he is called Joseph de Marmore, which may bear on that. Some recognize marmore as the Greek and Latin word marmor meaning “marble”—or perhaps quarried “stone” ( Abingdon’s Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : “Greek Dictionary of the New Testament,” 1890, 1981, No. 3139; “marmor,” Classic Latin Dictionary ). Others see Marmore as a place name. There’s La Marmore, the highest peak in Sardinia, the Sea of Marmore between the Aegean and Black Seas, and the Roman province of Libya in North Africa known as Marmarica—all of these evidently named after marble.
Yet there may be another possibility. Joseph seems to have been a wealthy nobleman of Judah with broad influence, certain rights of citizenship and perhaps even a high enough social standing to have regular personal interaction with the Roman governor. Indeed, by tradition he appears to have been a royal prince of the line of David—which would have given him even further status with the Jews. Is it possible, then, that Marmore was actually a title reflective of Joseph’s status?
In Hebrew the words mare morah would mean “lord dread” or “dread lord” ( Strong’s : “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” Nos. 4172, 4758)—that is, a lord to be properly feared and respected. Such a title has made its way into more recent times. Note how the Pilgrims referred to the British king in the Mayflower Compact of 1620: “We whose Names are under-written, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God …” Indeed, this has been a rather common If Joseph bore such a title, it is conceivable that medieval authors, who would likely not have understood it, wrote it down as Marmore, thinking of it as a place he was identified with. Or perhaps they considered it to mean quarried stone, maybe drawing a connection between quarrying and a rather strong tradition surrounding Joseph—his involvement in tin mining in southern Britain.
Glastonbury traditions
We should consider the traditions connecting Joseph with Britain. Regarding him the Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “according to all four Gospels, a secret disciple of Jesus, whose body he buried in his own tomb … Joseph is accorded a long history in later literature [much of it mythical] … In Robert de Boron’s verse romance Joseph d’Arimathie (c. 1200), he is entrusted with the Holy Grail (cup) of the Last Supper. A mid-13th-century interpolation [a textual alteration believed by scholars to have been made to a 12th-century work by the English historian William of Malmesbury] relates that Joseph went to Glastonbury (in Somerset, Eng[land]) … as head of 12 missionaries dispatched there by the Apostle St. Philip” (“Joseph of Arimathea, Saint,” 1985, Micropaedia, Vol. 6, p. 621).
It is generally agreed that William’s original did mention the mission sent by Philip and that Glastonbury’s founding went back to the time of Christ. Glastonbury is identified by many as the mysterious Isle of Avalon in the stories of King Arthur. Notice this regarding the remains of an old church there: “Glastonbury Abbey, a ruined abbey in Somersetshire, about 6 miles south of Wells, England. Tradition has it that it was here that Joseph of Arimathea established the first Christian Church in England” ( Collier’s Encyclopedia , 1959, Vol. 9, p. 120).
The Encyclopaedia Britannica , 11th Edition, states: “According to the legends … the first church of Glastonbury was a little wattled [or thatched] building erected by Joseph of Arimathea as the leader of the twelve apostles [that is, the 12 “missionaries” mentioned earlier] sent over to Britain from Gaul by St. Philip” (“Glastonbury,” Vol. 12, on-line at81.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GL/GLASTONBURY.htm).
An old saying from the English countryside, believed to be a refrain of an ancient miners’ song, maintains that “Joseph was a tin man.” Indeed, as mentioned, this is understood to mean that he was involved in tin mining and, more importantly, the tin trade with the Mediterranean. Many believe that he actually came often to Britain during the life of Jesus, perhaps even before—and that after Christ’s death and resurrection Joseph came again, this time as an evangelist.