Miranda Bailey
5 October 2000

Joseph of Arimathea and Glastonbury

The man who provided the burial place for Christ. Collector and keeper of Christ's blood and the Holy Grail. Missionary and apostle from Rome. Ancestor to Lancelot and Galahad. Founder of one of the most controversial sites in Arthurian legend. All of these descriptions and titles have been conferred upon Joseph of Arimathea, but what can we confirm as historical fact and what is merely the work of a desperate and legend-seeking public? Several scholars have dealt with the issue using evidence from early literary works and archeological sites. Perhaps a study of their findings only complicates the question and leaves one feeling more perplexed, but we can at least trace the development of the association and discover how King Arthur, Glastonbury Abbey, and Joseph of Arimathea came to be so intimately related.

WHO WAS JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA?

The first and, perhaps, only reliable reference to Joseph of Arimathea is found in all four gospels of the Bible where he plays the minor, yet well-known role of caretaker of Christ's body after the crucifixion (Loomis 112):

As evening approached there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away (Matthew 27: 57-68).

This account is widely accepted as historical fact by scholars, and it is the only solid piece of evidence we can refer back to as his character evolves.

JOSEPH'S CONNECTION WITH ARTHURIAN LEGEND

The two objects that provide the link between Joseph, "a rich man from Arimathea," and Arthur, legendary king of the Britains, are the Holy Grail and Glastonbury Abbey. The most helpful and simple approach to an explanation of the development of this connection is to focus on the interpolating of the Grail into Joseph's history, and then to focus on he and Arthur's connection with Glastonbury.

The earliest known works that provide information on Joseph after the burial of Christ are the Gospel of Nicodemus and Avenging of the Savior. Although these works differ in precise details, they both provide information on Joseph's alleged imprisonment, which came about because of accusations that he had stolen Christ's body, and his escape by divine intervention (Loomis 112-113). These accounts suggest the beginnings of his close association with Christ and later, Mary, and later serve as a basis for his canonization.

In Percival, Chrétien mentions Joseph collecting blood from Christ's feet in a vessel, which he carries with him to the White Isle and uses to ward off starvation. This vessel is passed on to the Fisher King after Joseph's death (Loomis 114). This is a pivotal moment in the evolution of Joseph's character because it is the first mention of the vessel that would later be called the graal, or Holy Grail.

In the twelfth century, Robert de Boron, working from an unknown source which Alfred Nutt and Jean Marx claim to be a Latin text from Glastonbury, officially introduced Joseph into the Grail legend in Joseph of Arimathea (Lagorio 215, 216). Two important additions occur in this work. First, the vessel is actually Christ's, and Joseph only obtains it after Pilate gives it to him after Christ's birth. Robert also introduces Bran, Joseph's brother-in-law, into the story and refers to him as the Rich Fisher. The similarity between this character and Chrétien's Fisher King should be noted (Loomis 117).

Controversy arises around the introduction of the grail here because of a misinterpretation of the French word cors. Roger Loomis explains the misinterpretation: "The choice of Joseph as the first custodian of the Grail can be explained just as reasonably, as due to the misinterpretation of cors as body, this time, however, equated with the body which Joseph took down from the cross and placed in his tomb" (Loomis 118). Bran's drinking horn is also referred to as cors, and the two end up becoming associated. The body of Christ becomes associated with this drinking horn, which makes it a sacred vessel, and eventually, the Holy Grail (Loomis 118). After this misinterpretation occurred, the literary tradition needed only to explain the survival of the Grail and its journey to Britain.

The History of the Holy Grail, written by a monk who most likely used Robert as a source, filled in the missing gaps and became the standard account of the legend. In this work, Joseph becomes associated with missionary work in Britain and his son Josephes becomes keeper of the Grail and leader of the Grail company which travels west, hoping to find Alaine the celibate, the next keeper of the Grail. After becoming keeper, Alaine is linked to King Pelleas, grandfather to Galahad, and thus, the connection if complete (Loomis 119-121).

Sir Thomas Malory helped strengthen the relationship in his version of the Grail legend. In Book Eight, chapter four, Galahad is directly linked with Joseph: "Sir, I bring here a young knight, the which is of king's lineage, and of the kindred of Joseph of Arimathea" (Malory 243). Valerie M. Lagorio claims that Malory's work was perhaps most pivotal in establishing the association between Joseph and Arthur: "Through William Caxton's printed version of Malory's work in 1485, the triumvirate fame of Glastonbury, Joseph, and Arthur received the auctoritas of the printed word, and widespread dissemination throughout England" (Lagorio 228). The importance of this association becomes more apparent when we study Joseph's relationship to Glastonbury Abbey.

JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA AND GLASTONBURY

The connection between Joseph and Glastonbury is at best, sketchy. Looking back at early works, there is no solid evidence of any association between the two (Loomis 122). John Clark is also skeptical of a connection because of a lack of archaeological evidence. According to Clark, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any sort of Christian community in the area at the time Joseph is purported to have had any connection with the abbey: "It has been slightly surprising, during the whole long period of excavation to which Glastonbury Abbey, the Tor, and other sites (Chalice Well, Beckery, etc.) in the immediate area have been subjected, that so far one cannot bring any of this into Roman Christianity at all" (Clark 95). If Clark is correct, and there should be no connection between the two, how did one develop?

Studies indicate that Joseph became associated through a sort of merger between two documents, the Charter of St. Patrick and the History of the Holy Grail. According to this charter, which many claim was forged, twelve disciples under the leadership of St. Patrick and St. James built the abbey. A great deal of faith was placed in the History of the Holy Grail, though, because the author claimed the text came from Christ himself (Loomis 119), and since it made mention of Joseph as a leader of a group of missionaries, they made a compromise of sorts. Joseph became the leader of these twelve disciples, and from there his role became more significant (Loomis 122-123).

This same type of collaboration, or more accurately, interpolation, took place in a work by William of Malmesbury. Malmesbury's work, Enquiring in the Antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury, claimed Phagan and Deruvian, two missionaries from Rome, were the builders of the church. According to Malmesbury, they came in response to King Lucius's request for a spread of Christianity in Britain, information gleaned from a manuscript written by the Venerable Bede 400 years earlier. These two were also linked to the Charter of St. Patrick ("Glastonbury Abbey").

Shortly before 1250, these two characters disappear from the history of the abbey, and once again, Joseph of Arimathea is associated with the Charter of St. Patrick and recorded as the leader of the group who built the church (Lagorio 216). The monks who interpolated these additions most likely made use of information Malmesbury claimed to have examined in ancient documents, which he implied were insubstantial and unreliable. The documents claimed that "No other hands than those of the disciples of Christ erected the Church of Glastonbury" ("Glastonbury"). Joseph could have easily been inserted here because of his role in the Bible and his popularity as a missionary and a secret disciple of Christ in the Gospel of Nicodemus, Cura Sanitatis Tiberii, Vindicta Salvatoris, and Narratio Josephi (Lagorio 213-214). To complete the association between all three, though, Arthur had to be connected with Glastonbury as well.

GLASTONBURY ABBEY AND KING ARTHUR

The only facts [about the early history of Glastonbury Abbey] that seem to be certain are that Glastonbury was located in Somerset, had extensive land holdings, and was the second largest in western Christendom (Wood 1). The first recorded connection between Arthur and Glastonbury occurred around 1150 in Caradoc of Llancarfan's Life of St. Gildas where the king of Somerset, Melwas, abducts Guinivere and takes her to Glastonbury. The connection between Arthur and Avalon had already been established in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, in which Arthur goes to Avalon after being wounded and is never heard from again (Lagorio 211).

Both Geoffrey of Monmouth and William of Malmesbury avoided claiming a connection between the two sites, but the link was firmly established in 1190 when relics of Arthur were discovered at the abbey (Radford 119-120). According to Adam of Domerham, a monk at Glastonbury, Richard I had the bodies exhumed and moved. Gerald of Wales also documented the event and mentions the controversial leaden cross, which some feel was "planted" by the monks. The cross is significant because of the inscription on it, which reads, "Here lies Arthur, the famous king, in the island of Avalon" (Radford 126). Though some believe the cross is a fake, Radford claims that the lettering would have been appropriate for the 11th century, not the 12th, so it would be a genuine relic, not one created by the monks in 1190 (Radford 126).

Radford eventually concludes that archaeological evidence does in fact link Glastonbury to Arthur. First of all, the site of Glastonbury would have been conducive to pagan Celtic ceremonies because of its prominent natural hill that could be used as a Celtic sanctuary and source of water that could be used as sacred pools. Because a pagan community resided there, it would make sense for it to be the target of Christian missionaries (Radford 128). Radford also mentions the fact that as a chieftain, Arthur would have been a perfect candidate for burial at the abbey (Radford 137).

Looking at actual remnants from the site, Radford claims the two pyramids, which Gerald of Wales claimed were on either side of the grave, are actually there, giving credibility to Gerald. Also, a monolith would have initially marked the grave as tradition dictated, and there is evidence that one was carried away from the site, and that is why the cross was placed in its place (Radford 137). Archaeology is then a main link between Arthur and Glastonbury, at least for Radford.

WHY?!!?

"Why was Glastonbury chosen as the place for the discovery of Arthur's grave and what did the Abbey have to gain from getting involved with the King Arthur legend?" ("Glastonbury"). If one is a skeptic, this is the question left unanswered. An important part of the answer lies in the fire and destruction at the abbey in 1184, and the consequent need to raise revenue and morale. The legend resulted from this need: "Study of the latter by Dr. Kathleen Hughes has shown that such legends usually belonged to a period of rehabilitation of a monastery, after a raid or catastrophe had dispersed the original monks" (Lagorio 210). In order to raise revenue and attract an audience, the monks needed a religious hero with which to be associated, and they were able to find one in Joseph and subtly link him to their abbey.

Also of importance is the Norman invasion, which was very nearly complete. Overcome by Norman abbots, the Anglo-Saxon monks felt a need for nostalgic histories and found one in Joseph as apostolic founder of their abbey. Arthur also resurfaced as a hero because the general public and even the monarchy hoped for his return, which had been promised in Geoffrey of Monmouth's work ("Glastonbury"). These motives and the liberties they took with early works allowed them to develop an association, which is still being studied and debated today.

Works Cited

Ashe, Geoffrey, ed. The Quest for Arthur's Britain. New York, Washington, and London: Praeger, 1968.

Clark, John. "Glastonbury Revisited." [information unknown]. 93-95.

"Glastonbury Abbey & the Legends of Joseph of Arimathea and King Arthur." Brittanica. Online. Internet. 4 October 2000.

"Gospel of Matthew." The Holy Bible New International Version. Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1973.

Lagorio, Valerie M. "The Evolving Legend of St. Joseph of Arimathea." Speculum 46 (1971): 209-231.

Loomis, Roger Sherman. The Development of Arthurian Romance. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1963.

Malory, Sir Thomas. Le Morte D'Arthur. Volume II. Ed. Janet Cowen. London: Penguin Books, 1969.

Wood, Charles T. "At the Tomb of King Arthur." Essays in Medieval Studies 8 (1991): 1-14