[Greek . ᾿Ιωσὴφ [ὁ] ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμαθαίας; lat. Ioseph ab Arimathea], St. right (memorial on the Sunday of the Myrrh-Bearing Women; Greek memory on July 31); an influential member of the Sanhedrin and a secret disciple of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27.57-60; Mark 15.43-46; Luke 23.50-53; John 19.38-42). I. A. came from the city of Arimathea (Ramatha; Ραμαθαίν - Ios. Flav. Antiq. XIII 4.9 (127); cf.: 1 Macc 11.34), located at a distance of approx. 30 km northwest of Jerusalem. In the OT it is also mentioned as Ramathaim-Zophim (1 Kings 1.1, 19; 2.11); at ap. Luke Arimathea is called a Jewish city (Luke 23.51). Some researchers believe that the Greek. the text of Mark 15.43 and John 19.38 allows the expression “from Arimathea” to be understood as “came from Arimathea,” i.e., when the events of the Crucifixion began, I. A. came from Arimathea (Lohmeyer. 1951; Porter. 1992. P. 971; against this theory - Luz. 1989. P. 577).

According to the Evangelist Mark, I.A., “famous member of the council” (εὐσχήμων βουλευτής; hence famous. in hymnography), belonged to those who “waited for the Kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43). After the death of the Savior, I. A. took advantage of his position to ask Pilate for the body of Jesus for burial. When permission was received, I. A. took the body of the Savior from the cross, wrapped it in a shroud, placed it in a tomb, which was carved into the rock, and, having rolled a stone to the door of the tomb, left (Mark 15.43-46). I. A. did not allow the body of the Lord to be thrown into a common grave, like the bodies of 2 robbers crucified with him (Gordini. 1970. Col. 1292). This tomb was not the family crypt of I.A., but, obviously, it was specially prepared by him (see: Matthew 27.60; John 19.41; cf. Isa. 53.9 - Brown. 1988). Perhaps I.A. recently moved from Arimathea to Jerusalem, the family tomb was in his homeland (Kee. 1962. P. 980). From the Gospel of Matthew it is known that I. A. was a “rich man” and a disciple of Christ (Matthew 27.57). The Evangelist Luke adds an important detail to the image of I.A., saying that he was “a good and truthful man” (i.e., similar to other righteous men of the Old Testament: Zechariah, Elizabeth and Simeon - Lk 1.6; 2.25) and did not participate in the condemnation of the Savior (Luke 23.50-51). Evangelist John, clarifying the reports of the weather forecasters, speaks of I. A. as a secret (“out of fear from the Jews”) disciple of Jesus, whom the law helped in the burial of his teacher. Nicodemus, who brought spices to anoint the body (John 19:38-40). Ap. John explains the reason that the Savior was buried in a new tomb, “in which no one had yet been laid,” indicating that this was done “for the sake of the Friday of the Jews, because the tomb was near” (John 19:42). In addition, he reports that the cave prepared by I.A. was located in the garden (John 19:41).

Calling I. A. “member of the council” in Mark 15.43; Luke 23.50 (βουλευτής is found only in these places in the NT) could imply his participation in the management of a certain local community (see: Taylor. 1959. P. 600; also: Broer. 1972. P. 175-177). However, most likely, I. A. was a member of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, since he was a wealthy landowner (Matt. 27.57; Jeremias. 1969. P. 96) and was associated with Nicodemus, another member of the Sanhedrin (John 7. 50; 19. 39). In addition, Josephus uses the cognate word “council” (βουλή) in relation to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin (Ios. Flav. De bell. II 16. 2 (336)). Based on Jewish law, according to which the body of the executed person should not remain on the tree after sunset (Deut. 21.23), and burial was considered as a duty, which should be performed even in relation to the bodies of enemies (Ios. Flav. De bell. III 8. 5 (361)), some modern ones. biblical scholars have suggested (Broer. 1972. P. 175-183, 190-198; Brown. 1988. P. 234-238) that I. A., as one of the Jewish leaders, could ask Pilate for the body of Jesus, citing the requirements law. That. thanks to I.A. the Lord, crucified as a criminal, was buried with dignity and reverence (cf. Is 53.9). However, in this case, I. A. could violate the provisions of the law on ritual purity (cf.: Numbers 19. 11-13; Brown R. E. John 13-21. Garden City (N. Y.), 1970. P. 940) and seriously risked his high position in society (John 19.38; cf. Mark 15.43, where it is said that I.A. “dared to enter Pilate”). The actions of I.A. rather testify to him as a follower of the Lord, who was previously a “secret disciple” due to fears of persecution by the Jews. According to J. Crossan, the story of I.A. is a later legend that arose on the basis of the apocryphal “Gospel of Peter” (c. 2nd century AD) and inserted into the text of the Gospels (Crossan. 1988), but this the hypothesis was rejected by most experts, including on the basis of textual analysis (see for more details: Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Contexte, Intertexte / Hrsg. Th. J. Kraus, T. Nicklas. B.; N. Y., 2007 ).

In patristic exegesis

I.A. is presented as a brave disciple of Christ, who, despite the crucifixion of His Teacher, did not give up hope for the coming Kingdom of God. He did not participate in “their council” (i.e., in condemning the Lord to death), and St. the fathers saw in him the “blessed man” depicted in Ps 1 (Athanas. Alex. In psalm. I 1; Hieron. In Matt. 27. 57, 58; Ioan. Damasc. Hom. in sabbat. sanct. 28). St. Hilary of Pictavia calls I. A. “the image of the apostles,” although he is not mentioned among the 12 closest disciples of the Lord (Hilar. Pict. In Matth. 33. 8 // SC. Vol. 258. P. 256-258). Mn. St. the fathers emphasized the importance of I.A.’s example for Christians: St. Gregory the Theologian in the word “On Holy Pascha,” calling on listeners to become like witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, says the following: “If you are Joseph of Arimathea, ask for the body of the crucifier; let the purification of the world be your purification” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 45.24); and St. Gregory of Nyssa symbolically brings together the worthy burial of the body of the Lord, performed by I. A., with the worthy communion of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, which should not be received “in the defiled shroud of conscience and ... in the tomb of the heart, stinking from dead bones and all uncleanness” (Greg. Nyss. De spatio // PG. 46. Col. 626b).

St. John Chrysostom suggested that I. A. could be a disciple of the Lord from among the apostles from 70 and was probably known to Pilate. The fact that I. A. and Nicodemus brought incense, which “had the power to preserve the body for a long time and not allow it to soon succumb to decay,” according to the saint, shows that “they did not imagine anything great about Christ” and “thought about Christ as a simple man." I. A., like the apostles, was obsessed with fear (Ioan. Chrysost. In Ioan. 85. 2), but by his action he showed great boldness, love and courage. As a venerable member of the Sanhedrin, he risked “apparent death because he aroused universal hatred against himself when he revealed his love for Jesus” (Idem. In Matth. 88.2). According to blzh. Jerome of Stridon, the words of the evangelist about the wealth of I.A. do not indicate the vanity of the ap. Matthew, who wanted to show that Jesus had a noble man as a disciple, and serve as an explanation of how I. A. was able to obtain the body of the Lord from Pilate (Hieron. In Matth. 27.57, 58). St. Cyril of Alexandria writes about the condemnation of the inhumanity of the Jews who did not perform the proper burial of Christ, and about their denunciation by the “disciple from Arimathea,” emphasizing at the same time the secret nature of the faith of I. A. and Nicodemus, who “were still possessed by irrational fear and glory God preferred earthly honors.” If they had “completely fearless faith,” they would have turned out to be “holy and good guardians of the commandment of our Savior.” According to St. Cyril, I.A. and Nicodemus - 2 legal witnesses (Deut. 19.15) of the truth of the death and burial of Jesus Christ (Cyr. Alex. In Ioan. XII). In a similar way, the ministry of I.A. is also considered by St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Epiph. Adv. haer. II 341. 14). The fact that I. A. placed the body of the Lord in a new tomb should, according to the thought of St. fathers, to exclude any suspicion that another person rose instead of the Lord (Ioan. Chrysost. In Matth. 88. 2; Hieron. In Matt. 27. 57, 58; Ioan. Damasc. Hom. in sabbat. sanct. 28).

In apocryphal writings

the image of I.A. acquires legendary features in comparison with the canonical books. In the “Gospel of Peter,” I. A., called “the friend of Pilate and the Lord,” asks Pilate for the body of Christ even before His crucifixion (Evang. Petr. II 3; VI 23-24). Mn. similar details concerning I.A. are found in the “Acts of Pilate” (Acta Pilat. III-IV centuries), subsequent. they were included in the “Gospel of Nicodemus” (IV-V centuries). The same text reports that the Jews accused I. A. and Nicodemus for their disposition towards the Lord, imprisoned I. A. in prison, from where he was miraculously released and transferred to Arimathea. Returning to Jerusalem, he spoke about his miraculous liberation (Evangelium Nicodemi. XI 3 ff.; XII 1 ff.; XV 1 ff.). The apocrypha “The Vengeance of the Savior” (c. IX-X centuries), which became most widespread in England and Aquitaine, describes the campaign of Titus, the son of the emperor. Vespasian, who goes to Palestine to avenge the death of the Lord. Having captured Jerusalem, Titus frees I. A., imprisoned in the tower and surviving thanks to food sent to him from heaven (Vindicta Salvatoris. 21). This legend is then reproduced in a hagiographic collection of the 13th century. “The Golden Legend” of Jacob from Varazze (Iacobus de Voragine. Legenda aurea. 52, 63 / Ed. G. P. Maggioni. Firenze, 1998. P. 363, 366, 458). Copt. “The Gospel of Gamaliel” (5th century) describes the resurrection of the prudent thief, performed by I. A. and Nicodemus with the help of the shroud, in which the body of Christ was originally wrapped (Evangelium Gamaliel. 9-11). In the VI century. Gregory of Tours, referring to the “Acts of Pilate,” included in the “History of the Franks” a story about his imprisonment and his release from the tower (Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. I 20 // PL. 71. Col. 171).

According to legend recorded in the 16th century. card. Caesar Baronius (Baronius C. Annales ecclesiastici A.D. 35), I.A., together with Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, Martha, her maid Markela, and student Maximus, fleeing persecution by the Jews, found themselves on a ship without sails or oars. After some time, the wind drove this ship to Marseilles, from where the exiles headed to Britain, where I. A. preached the Gospel and where he later died (see: ActaSS. Apr. T. 1. Col. 817). By the 9th century. refers to the legend telling about the Jerusalem Patriarch Fortunatus, who fled to the west during the time of Charlemagne with the relics of I.A. and stopped at the Benedictine monastery of Moyenmoutier in the North. France (Gordini. 1970. Col. 1294). In the XI-XIII centuries. in English and in French New details appeared in stories about I.A. Then these stories were combined into a cycle of legends about the Grail and the core. Arthur. The legends of this cycle say that before the burial of the Lord, I. A. washed His bloody body and stored water and blood in a vessel, the contents of which were divided between him and Nicodemus. Various parts of this story are set out in the “Roman of Joseph of Arimathea” (the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries) by the Burgundian poet Robert de Boron. I. A. was especially revered at Glastonbury, where it was believed that he founded the monastery. Part of the relics of I.A. (hand) was presented for veneration in the Cathedral of St. Peter in Rome (Blinzler. 1986. S. 1124). A separate legend dedicated to I.A. appears only in the “List of Saints” by Peter Natalis in the 14th century. (Petr. Natal. CatSS. IX 41).

Church veneration

IA was established first in the East. According to Jerusalem cargo. to the month of John Zosimus (10th century), his memory was celebrated on August 31, etc. cargo. in liturgical calendars it is celebrated on the 3rd Sunday after Easter (Garitte. Calendrier Palestino-Georgien. P. 21, 117, 428-429). The latter is also typical for the Byzantines. traditions, where in the Charter of the Great Ts. this Sunday there is a service in honor of the myrrh-bearing women and I.A. (Mateos. Typicon. T. 2. P. 114-115). To Byzantium. Synaxarion XIII-XIV centuries. the memory of I.A. with poetry, but without a legend appears on July 31 (SynCP. Col. 857). The same date is mentioned in the Synaxarist by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (Νικόδημος. Συναξαριστής. Τ. 6. Σ. 137). Synaxar memory and verses are repeated in glory. Prologues, in Greek On the holy calendar, the memory of I. A. is celebrated on May 31 ( Sergius (Spassky). Monthsword. T. 2. P. 163, 232). To Byzantium. In the catalog of the apostles Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre (VIII-IX centuries) I.A. is not mentioned, but St. Demetrius of Rostov includes him in the list of 70 apostles and reports that he was expelled by the Jews and preached Christ in England, where he reposed (JS. Jan. Part 1, p. 172). The memory of I.A. on July 31 is not mentioned in the calendars of the Russian Orthodox Church, but was preserved in Yuzhno-Slavs. traditions. St. Zhichsky Nikolai (Velimirović) placed poems from the glories under this number in his Prologue. Prologues, as well as a short legend about I.A., compiled by him on the basis of the Gospels and apocrypha (Nikola j (Velimirovi h), Bishop Žička. Ohrid prologue. Linz, 2001. pp. 537-538). In zap. There is no mention in the martyrologies of the veneration of I.A. until the 16th century, card. Caesar Baronius in the Roman Martyrology (XVI century) on March 17 (MartRom. P. 100-101) noted the celebration of the memory of I.A. by the clergy of the Vatican Basilica (ActaSS. Mart. T. 2. Col. 508).

Lit.: Troitsky S. Joseph of Arimathea // PBE. 1906. T. 7. Stb. 355-356; Lohmeyer E. “Mir ist gegeben alle Gewalt!”: Eine Exegese von Mt 28. 16-20 // In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer / Ed. W. Schmauch. Stuttg., 1951. P. 22-49; Taylor V. The Gospel according to St. Mark. L.; N. Y., 1959; Kee H. C. Joseph of Arimathea // IDB. 1962. Vol. 3. P. 980; Jeremias J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Phil., 1969; Gordini G. D. Giuseppe d "Arimatea // BiblSS. 1970. Vol. 6. Col. 1292-1295; Broer I. Die Urgemeinde und das Grab Jesu. Münch., 1972. (StANT; 31); Schreiber J. Die Bestattung Jesu: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Mk 15: 42-47 par. // ZNW. 1981. Bd. 72. S. 141-177; Blinzler J. Joseph v. Arimathaia // LTK. 1986. Bd. 10. S. 1124; Brown R. E. The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15: 42-47) // CBQ. 1988. Vol. 50. P. 233-245; Crossan J. D. The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco, 1988; Luz U. Matthew 21-28: A Comment. Minneapolis, 1989. P. 576-583; Porter S. E. Joseph of Arimathea // ABD. 1992. Vol. 3. P. 971-972.

Hymnography

In the ancient Jerusalem calendar, preserved in cargo. translation (Garitte. Calendrier. P. 117), the memory of I. A. is celebrated on the 3rd Sunday of Easter; into the cargo. chants for this day have been preserved in manuscripts (see: Marr I. Ya. Description of the Georgian manuscripts of the Sinai Monastery. M.; Leningrad, 1940. P. 138). In the Typikon of the Great Church. IX-XI centuries in memory of I.A. and the myrrh-bearing women in the 3rd week after Easter on Ps 50, the troparion ῾Ο εὐσχήμων ᾿Ιωσήφ̇ ( ), self-agreed Τῶν μαθητῶν σου ὁ χορὸς̇ (Thy face of the disciples...), at the liturgy the prokeimenon Ps 149. 5 with verse, the Apostle Acts 6. 1-7, alleluia Ps 131. 1 with verse, Gospel Mark 15. 43 - 16. 8 (Mateos. Typicon. T. 2. P. 114-115).

In the liturgical books of the Studite and Jerusalem statutes, I.A. is also mentioned in the 3rd week of Easter. Although most of the hymns of this day are dedicated to the myrrh-bearing women (see Week of the Myrrh-Bearing Women), I. A. is mentioned in the lithium and verse stichera, the troparion of dismissal ῾Ο εὐσχήμων Ιωσήφ̇ is sung ( the same troparion appears as a sedalna according to the 1st verse in the Sunday service of the 2nd tone), in the canon for this day by Andrei of Crete (without an acrostic, 2nd tone, irmos: Τὴν Μωσέως ᾠδην̇ (), beginning: ᾿ Εσταυρώτης σαρκί ()) I. A. is glorified in the 1st-2nd troparions of each song (with the exception of the 7th and 8th). I. A. is also mentioned in the hymns of Good Friday and Great Saturday: in the stichera at the vespers of Good Friday, in the canon at Compline, in the “praises”, in the canon of Matins on Great Saturday, in one of the sedals and in the stichera for kissing the shroud; some hymns - the hymn of praise on the vespers of Good Friday and the troparion of dismissal (without ending, which speaks of the resurrection of Christ) - are the same as in the 3rd Sunday after Easter. The plots of the chants glorifying I.A. basically correspond to the gospel narrative that I.A. decided to go to Pilate with a request to allow him to remove the body of the deceased Christ from the cross and give him burial ( - stichera for kissing the shroud; - Troparion of the 4th song of the canon at Compline on Good Friday). Together with Nicodemus, he took down the body of His Teacher from the cross ( - Slavnik at the vespers verse on Saturday 2nd after Easter), wrapped him in a shroud, anointed him with incense, placed him in a new coffin carved into the rock and rolled a stone at the entrance to the coffin ( - troparion of the 6th song of the canon of Matins on the 3rd Sunday after Easter; - Sedal of Matins of Great Saturday). Pokrovsky N.V. The Gospel in iconographic monuments, mainly Byzantine and Russian. M., 2001r. P. 477. Note. 2). To Byzantium. and Old Russian art I. A. is a character in the compositions of the Passion Cycle: “The Descent from the Cross”, “Requesting the Body of Jesus Christ from Pilate”, “Mourning”, “Transferring the Body of Jesus Christ” and “The Entombment”.

In the “Descent from the Cross” scene, I. A. is usually presented standing on a ladder leaning against the cross, supporting the body of the Savior. Thus, on the wing of the diptych “Crucifixion. Descent from the Cross" (mid-10th century, A. Kästner Museum in Hanover) the long-bearded I. A. is depicted to the right of the cross, holding the body of Jesus Christ together with the Mother of God. On the epistyle (2nd half of the 12th century, Vatopedi monastery on Athos) in the scene of “The Descent from the Cross” I. A. is shown as an old man with thick hair and a small beard in a blue chiton and a light brown himation, to the right of cross. On the carved ivory plate “Descent from the Cross” (2nd half of the 10th century, Dumbarton Oaks) he is an old man with a receding hairline, carefully supporting the body of Christ. On the steatite icon “Crucifixion. Entombment" (XII century, GE) I. A. has a small beard, in the XIII century. above this figure his name was inscribed in Latin. On the fresco in the c. Vmch. Panteleimon in Nerezi 1164. I. A. is dressed in a blue chiton and yellow himation, shown standing on the stairs, clasping the body of the Savior. On the icon “Descent from the Cross” (1360-1370, Vatopedi monastery on Athos) I. A. is depicted in a blue chiton with a gold clave and a brown himation, a short beard divided into wavy strands; he stands on the stairs supporting the body of Jesus Christ. In the scene “Transferring the Body of Jesus Christ to the Tomb,” I. A., as a rule, is depicted as an old man supporting the feet of the Savior (fresco in the Church of St. Physicians in Kastoria, late 12th century). In the “Lamentation” scene, he is sometimes presented in a tunic with rolled up sleeves, without a himation (fresco in the Cathedral of Christ Pantocrator of the Decani monastery, 1335-1348, I. A. and Nicodemus are depicted with halos; Manastir Decani. Beograd, 2005. P. 515. Ill. 432).

In Old Russian Domong art time I.A. was depicted as an old man, for example. on the fresco “Lamentation” in the Transfiguration Cathedral of the Mirozh Monastery in Pskov (the turn of the 30s and 40s of the 12th century), in this fresco he is dressed in a blue chiton and a lilac himation. Since the 15th century. there is an image of him as a fair-haired middle-aged man, for example. on the icon “Descent from the Cross” from the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (1425-1427). Clothes come in different colors, sometimes even in the stamps of the same icon: for example. on the icon “Gospel Scenes” (Earthly Life of Christ) (1st third of the 15th century, NGOMZ) from c. Boris and Gleb in Plotniki in Vel. In Novgorod, in the scene “Descent from the Cross,” I. A. is shown in a yellow tunic; in the scene “Transferring the Body of Christ to the Tomb,” he, in a short, dark pink tunic reaching to his knees, meets the funeral procession at the door of the tomb (this plot is extremely rare) (Icons Vel. Novgorod XI - early XVI centuries. M., 2008. Cat. 20). In the scene of “The Descent from the Cross,” I. A. is often depicted barefoot, standing on a ladder leaning against the cross, with a halo; dressed either in a chiton with rolled up sleeves (an icon from the Alexander Kusht Monastery of the last quarter of the 16th century, (VGIAHMZ; I.A. Sredovek), or in a chiton and himation (an icon from the iconostasis of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Vel. Novgorod , icon painters Andrey Lavrentyev, Ivan Derma Yartsev, 1509, NGOMZ; icon from the Korniliev Komel Monastery, 1515, VGIAHMZ; I. A. elder). In the composition “Lamentation” I. A., as a rule, is represented falling at the feet of the Savior (icon of the last quarter of the 14th century from the monastery of Vatopedi on Athos; icon from the iconostasis of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Vel. Novgorod, 1509, NGOMZ) or bent over, behind the tomb of the Savior, looking at Him, as in an icon from a festive row Dormition Cathedral of the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery (c. 1497, TsMiAR). The creators of the Novgorod tablets (late 15th century, NGOMZ) turned to the plot of “Requesting the body of Jesus Christ from Pilate”; an icon for this plot is in the festive row of the iconostasis of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Vel. Novgorod (1509), where I. A. is depicted as an old man in a blue chiton and a green himation.

From the 16th century in Russian In art, the icons “Resurrection - Descent into Hell” with the inclusion of images of holidays and the Passion of the Lord became widespread. The most detailed presentation of the Passion Cycle is presented in the iconographic programs of 2 Vologda icons: “The Resurrection - the Descent into Hell, with scenes of the earthly life of Jesus Christ and with holidays” by Dionysius Grinkov (1567/68, VGIAHMZ) and on the icon from c. St. John the Baptist in Dudikova is empty. (the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, VGIAHMZ). In addition to “Requesting the Body of Jesus Christ from Pilate”, “Descent from the Cross” and “Lamentation”, the “Transfer of the Body of Jesus Christ to the Tomb” and “Position into the Tomb” are depicted. On both icons I. A. is a medieval man in a red chiton and a dark blue himation.

On the icon “Resurrection - Descent into Hell, with holidays and passions” from the collection of A. V. Anisimova (late 17th century) (Word and image: Russian hagiographic icons XIV - early XX. M., 2010. Cat. 6. pp. 24-25) there are 3 compositions: “Requesting the body from Pilate”, “The Descent from the Cross” and “Lamentation”, where I. A. is depicted as an old man in a blue tunic and a brown himation. As an old man in a cherry himation, he is represented on the icon “The Resurrection of Christ, with the marks of the passion” from the festive row of the iconostasis c. ap. John the Theologian in Vologda in the stamps “Requesting the Body from Pilate”, “Descent from the Cross”, “Mourning” and “Entombment” (icon painters Ermolai and Yakov Sergiev, Peter Savin, Semyon Karpov, 1692, VGIAHMZ). On some icons of the 17th century. there is a scene, lit. the basis of the cut is unknown. In front of Pilate, holding the Lord's robe, judging by his appearance, stands I. A. (icon of the last quarter of the 17th century from the collection of M. De Boire (Elizabeth) - Russian icons in the collection of M. De Boire (Elizabeth). M. , 2009. P. 104. Cat. 50).

In Russian art of modern times under the influence of Western Europe. paintings and engravings depicted I. A. in luxurious oriental clothes and in a headdress in the form of a cap with a tassel, as, for example, on the Palekh icons “Descent from the Cross” and “Lamentation” (1st third of the 19th century, Palekh) (Knyazeva L.P. Iconography of Palekh: From the collection of the State Museum of Palekh Art. M., 1994). At the same time, a version of the iconography “Entombment” appeared, in which the figure of the Mother of God stands out in scale. In front of Her is a small coffin, into which I. A. and Nicodemus lower the body of the Savior on white shrouds (icon from the Afanasievskaya Church of Chirkov, Ust-Kubensky district, Vologda region, 1st half of the 18th century, UKNM; I. A. - a medieval man in a short, knee-length tunic, pinkish himation and white knee-length boots, his name is indicated on the halo).

In Old Russian facial embroidery on the shrouds and airs with the image of the “Entombment” I. A. is represented by a fair-haired middle-aged man crouching or bowed at the feet of the Savior (“Great Air (shroud)”, 1558, workshop of Euphrosyne Staritskaya; shroud, 1645-1647, workshop of Queen Evdokia Lukyanovna, both in the GMMC) or an old man with a small pointed beard (shroud, 1570-1580, workshop of Agrippina Godunova, GMMC).

In zap. medieval In art, I.A. is sometimes represented in a short chiton and pointed boots, as, for example, on the altar door c. 1250 (Yale Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut) - He has short gray hair and a small beard. In the miniatures, a cap is depicted on I.A.’s head (for example, the French manuscript of Gautier de Quency “The Life and Miracles of Our Lady” of the late 13th century - NLR. French F.V. XIV. 9. L. 262; Mokretsova I. P., Romanova V. L. Franz. book miniature of the 13th century. in Soviet meetings. M., 1984. P. 147).

Lit.: LCI. Bd. 7. Sp. 203-205; The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A. D. 843-1261. N.Y., 1997. P. 146, 154, 158-159, 448; Evseeva. Athos book. P. 109; Mayasova N. A. Old Russian face sewing: Cat. M., 2004.

E. M. Saenkova

- one of the most important figures of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, not to mention the near-Gospel discourse, in which Joseph is simply a superstar, equal in importance to such pillars of Christianity as Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene.

Directly in the Gospels, Joseph appears in only one episode, but what a one! A noble man from Arimathea (this is how it is presented by all the evangelists: ἀπο-̀ ἁριμαθαίας - “from Arimathea,” and go figure what is meant, if not for Luke’s clarification that this is a city of Jews) asks not from anyone, but Pilate himself has the body of the executed Christ and, having wrapped it in a shroud (shroud, linen) and anointed it with incense, buries it in his own crypt (or “new tomb”, like John’s), carved in stone (rock). In addition, we learn directly from the text of the Gospels that Joseph was a member of the council (which is not specified) and a secret disciple of Christ, who, according to Mark the Evangelist, hoped for the Kingdom of God. In the Latin version, “council member” or “advisor” inexplicably turns into nobilis decurio, which significantly changes Joseph’s status, but more on that later. This, in fact, is all the information about the righteous Arimathean from the Holy Scriptures.

Everything else known about this man emerges from the Holy Tradition (that is, the early Christian apocrypha and commentaries of the Church Fathers) and medieval near-Gospel literature.

And here the image of Joseph of Arimathea ceases to be languid. Because the popularity of medieval Holy Grail stories, in which Joseph was the central figure, can only be compared to the popularity of the Harry Potter tales today. But let’s not compare the high with the plagiarized and return to our protagonist, no matter what colors he is painted outside the Bible.

From the apocryphal Gospels of Peter and Nicodemus we learn that Joseph was not “a boy on his own,” but a friend of Pilate of Pontus. It also turns out that the high priests (Annas and Caiaphas) ​​were very dissatisfied with Joseph’s emotional outburst and the subsequent burial of Jesus’ body. Having experienced an attack of such hostility that the Passover lamb stood across its throat, the Jewish hierarchs order to throw their noble compatriot into prison, from which Joseph happily evaporates in the literal sense of the word, to find himself in his native Arimathea. After this, Anna and Caiaphas realize their mistakes, practically repent and beg Joseph to return to Jerusalem and tell them, the orphaned and narrow-minded, about the miracle of divine teleportation. Joseph agrees and, upon returning, opens their eyes to reality, which does not prevent everyone from remaining with their own ideas about beauty. In short, the Gospel of Nicodemus miraculously pleases both ours and yours (after all, for Odessa they always knew that they were all their own!). However, essentially apocryphal books add practically nothing new to the image of a noble man from Arimathea who participated in the burial of Christ. In addition to information about what could have been assumed. After all, we learn absolutely nothing about life in the bosom of the Christian community, nor about Joseph’s subsequent movements.

And in this regard, medieval sources are simply an inexhaustible reservoir of information about the Arimatheans. Of course, they will tell us that we cannot trust these tales, that these are all inventions of troubadours quick to fabricate and other enemies of the human race. But, knowing how chronology was drawn literally on the knee and how ancient texts were created in unimaginable quantities to suit every taste and budget, is it possible to unequivocally say that the “fairy tales” of the Middle Ages are in any way different from the “true stories” of the ancient world? In my (and not only my) opinion, it’s impossible. Let me express myself more clearly: a significant part of medieval sources records (albeit in a legendary form) much more archaic than the pseudo-antique imperishables of the humanist factory.

Therefore, I propose not to turn away with a disgusted and sympathetic expression on the face from the texts of the conventional Middle Ages, but to extract from them everything that is possible. In this case, everything that is possible about Joseph of Arimathea. A person mentioned by all four evangelists (a rare case). A character whose fate is intertwined with the fates of almost all significant and insignificant participants in the drama of the Passion. A hero of his time and not of his time.

Joseph of Arimathea and his life before and after the gospel events became the subject of numerous works of the Middle Ages. Without being distracted by the secondary question in this case of the correct dating of the manuscripts, we note that Rabanus Maurus, William of Malmesbury, John of Glastonbury, Matthew of Paris, Gregory of Tours and other medieval authors wrote about Joseph and his deeds. Later, the Italian Polydore Virgil (late 15th century) searched for documents related to the spread of Christianity in Britain. According to his conclusion, Britain (not England) was the first in the world to accept the Gospels, and this happened thanks to the activities of Joseph of Arimathea, as well as Saints Fugate and Damian. In the most authoritative church history for Catholics, written in the 16th century by Caesar Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici), the arrival of Joseph of Arimathea in Gaul (along with Mary Magdalene, St. Lazarus and other venerable people) is confirmed by a reference to one of the Vatican manuscripts.

In addition to the indicated (and not indicated) chronicle sources, the life and deeds of Joseph of Arimathea are reflected in numerous legends of the Arthurian cycle, where Joseph acts as the keeper of the Holy Grail. It is believed that the creator of this version was the French poet Robert de Boron. Whether this is true or not is difficult to verify now: too few works of that era have survived at least in some form to the present day.

From everything that is not included in the Gospel canon and the texts of Holy Tradition, we can piece together the following story about Joseph from Arimathea. It is assumed that after the crucifixion of Jesus, the Roman citizen Joseph of Arimathea, as well as Mary Magdalene, St. Lazarus, Mary of Cleopas, Salome, St. Trophimus and several other early Christians arrived in Gaul, where they began to preach Christ. It is also assumed that Joseph did not stay in the French side for long and after some time left for the British Isles, where he continued to preach the gospel and even founded Glastonbury Abbey, where he was later buried. Joseph, apparently, ended up on the islands not by chance, for, according to unverifiable data, he was here many times as either a merchant or a Roman dignitary in charge of tin mining. Some authors (both modern and not so modern) allow themselves to hint that for his younger relative, Jesus, the British soil was not completely alien, for Joseph took the boy with him on business trips. The family connections of Joseph and Jesus are defined in medieval literature as follows: Joseph was the uncle of the Virgin Mary, therefore Jesus was his great-nephew. The alignment is complex, but there is a closeness by blood. Another interesting point is that sometimes a certain lady named Bianca is called either the sister or niece of Joseph. We won’t comment on this for now, but just remember. Perhaps this supposed relative will still be useful to us.

Separately, we note that in many sources (both apocryphal and not so) Joseph is called nobilis decurio. What kind of position this is and where its place is in the Roman hierarchy is an obscure question. What is written in encyclopedias and dictionaries is not based on anything other than the bad habit of replicating illusory insights. Ancient authors unwisely left their descendants in the dark about the greatness or insignificance of the position of nobilis decurio in ancient society, and Cicero’s commonly cited statement that it is easier to become a Roman senator than a decurion in Pompeii can be interpreted in a dozen ways if desired. So it only makes sense to state that in the Vulgate, apocryphal texts and medieval chronicles, either the position, or rank, or hierarchical rank of Joseph of Arimathea is named, but it is difficult to say what exactly this is. One can, of course, nod to the tradition of translating this phrase as “a noble adviser” or “a famous member of the council,” but again we repeat: there is a tradition, but on what it is based is not clear.

It also turns out from non-canonical literature that Joseph was known not only as an Arimathean, but also under another name: Joseph de Marmor from Arimathea. This is how it is named in one of the manuscripts from Glastonebury Abbey, a text referenced by John Leland in the 16th century. John of Glastonbury also goes by the name de Marmor, as well as in several other manuscripts located in different repositories.

In the legendary story of the Holy Grail, so popular both in the Middle Ages and in modern times, Joseph appears as the guardian of the famous Grail. What kind of relic this is is not an easy question. Either this is the same container from which Christ drank at the Last Supper, or the blood of Christ from Calvary was collected into this vessel after his execution. In any case, this object, according to legend, can only be revealed to a pure and holy knight. The Arimathean is also credited with owning another relic of the passions - the spear of Longinus (also known as the Spear of Destiny), which Joseph allegedly handed over for safekeeping to a certain Fisher King (it is possible that this is simply a repetition of the plot of Robert de Boron, only instead of the Grail, the spear of Longinus is given to the king ).

Another legend connects the name of Joseph with the Apostle Philip. According to this version, the latter sent the Arimathean to preach the Gospel from Gaul to Britain, and this, naturally, implies that Philip himself lived somewhere in the Gaulish expanses.

Finally, about the location of the relics of the righteous Joseph of Arimathea. According to one legend, they rest in the monastery of Moyenmoutier in northeastern France, where they were transferred (from somewhere unknown) under Charlemagne. According to another legend, there are no relics, but there appears to be a grave in Glastonbury. But you can't look at her. Because little has been preserved from the ancient abbey in general, and from the burial place of Joseph in particular. However, even until the 16th century, when the abbey was used for building materials, Joseph’s grave was not very much remembered.

To complete the picture, it only remains to mention that the name of Joseph’s hometown (if it was still a city, as Luke says) was spelled differently. The most common variants, in addition to the more or less traditional Arimatea/Arimathea, are: Abarimacie, Abarmacie, Armathia and Berimathie. There may have been other transliterations; this was normal for the Middle Ages.

Well, here, it seems, is almost all the information about Joseph of Arimathea that can be extracted from ancient and medieval works (we will leave the English attempts to connect Joseph with local, aboriginal kings for dessert for now). It is difficult to say whether it is reliable or not. But since the image of the secret disciple of Christ exists in exactly this form, one should obviously not divide the sources telling about the Arimathean into works of the first and second freshness, then throwing the latter into a waste container under the guise of rotten meat. They honestly don't deserve this. And the unpleasant smell, which some overly picky connoisseurs of chronicle cuisine constantly complain about, is not at all factual, but political, and even, I would clarify, financial and economic in nature. After all, it is only money, unlike the methods of earning it, that does not smell.

So let’s refrain for now from the traditional “we play here, we don’t play here, we wrapped the fish here” and let’s take the entire corpus of ancient texts for granted. And let's see if we can weave a consistent story out of this hypertext. And if it’s not possible, then what prevents harmony on the Arimathean scale?

It has been repeatedly noted that the problem of the mainstream in historical research is that a certain part of the sources is perceived in advance as suitable for consideration, and on its basis a picture of the ancient world is created, while the other part is also declared in advance to be legendary, mythologized and, at best, not taken into account, and at worst simply ignored. At the same time, the key point when classifying a source into one of these categories is that the information recorded in the source is not perpendicular to the conventional picture of history (that is, what is commonly called TI, traditional history). If the information does not correspond to the “average temperature in the hospital,” then modern researchers would rather write about the error of the source than begin to doubt the truth of the tradition. Take almost any ancient chronicle processed by a modern scientist, and you can easily see that the phrase from the scientific commentary “the chronicler is mistaken, in fact...” is far from the rarest. And this despite the fact that the compilers of the chronicles were often witnesses to the events, and modern historians look at everything from a distance of 500-600-700 years. What can we say about those ancient works that directly contradict the ossified tradition. If they are honored with commemoration, it is with so many warnings and reservations that it becomes clear to any cultured person how dense the ignorance of individual characters can reach and how important it is not to follow the lead of any chronicle charlatans.

But ordinary human experience suggests that “majority support” does not always mean “true.” The conventions of this criterion were obviously well understood by the characters in the Gospels. Therefore, putting into the mouth of one of them the famous words “What is truth?” It would be quite possible to precede any historical research that claims to be meaningful.

It is almost impossible to establish with accuracy how events occurred 1000 years ago and whether they occurred at all. One can only speculate and carefully try to reconstruct them on the basis of common sense and all available information, without being distracted by contemporary interpretations.

This is exactly what I once again propose to do.

If we analyze ancient sources, and not ideas about them, the following reading of the image of Joseph of Arimathea (a literary character or a real person, let everyone decide for himself) is possible.

After the crucifixion of Christ, a certain man named Joseph comes to the Roman official Pilate and asks (or demands) to hand over the body of the executed man for subsequent burial. This is a fact that is known from several Gospels. Why shouldn't it be historical? And who could, purely theoretically, dare to make such a request? Obviously, first of all, the closest relative. And indeed, according to Roman laws (whenever they were written), only a relative could receive the body of an executed person. This is quite consistent with the so-called “legendary” information that Joseph was the uncle of the Virgin Mary. And if Jesus was the great-nephew of an Arimathean, why is everyone confused by the possibility of relatives traveling together? Doesn't it bother you? Already good. Otherwise, it turns out to be some kind of racism, I’m not afraid of this word: we know almost for sure what the Roman Cicero said to Marcus Brutus, as if we were standing next to him, but where Makar drove the calves Joseph took the young Jesus, we don’t know, and we don’t want to know, because We were informed in advance that this is nonsense that upsets all respectable people.

And if Jesus and Joseph traveled to Cornwall, and more than once, as the legends clearly hint, where did they get there from? Really straight from Palestine? Hardly. The shortest route is through Gaul. By the way, if anyone has remembered, Joseph walked this way at least one more time, after the death of Christ. And Jesus was always called a Galilean. And the names Gaul and Galilee often denoted the same place (it is enough to open the Hellenic and Roman Chronicle to be convinced of this). So, maybe Joseph was from Gaul, and not Galilee?

And here we come up against the nickname Arimathean. It would seem that Luke is clear in his explanation: Arimathea is the city of the Jews. However, neither the province of Judea nor other Roman provinces in the Middle East knew a city with that name. And this is a medical fact. But for historians, medicine is not a decree. And Arimathea is seriously beginning to be associated with the city of Ramaphaim. Phonetically, it seems to be similar. The only trouble is that this city does not exist in living form. And he also has to be associated. With some small place called Nabi Samvil. Now, being of your right mind, try to explain what Arimathea and Nabi Samwil have in common. And this is not a fairy-tale narrative line, but quite a dictionary-encyclopedic one. In the sense that in almost any reference book you can read that Arimathea and Ramaphaim (Nabi Samvil) are one and the same.

Why, in fact, not look for Arimathea in another place? Why does everything come down to Israel? Well, of course! Traditions! Should there be Arimathea in Judea? Will. Don't be nervous. Now Nabi Samvil has waited his turn to be Arimathea.

But three out of four evangelists do not know the city of Arimathea; they know either the place of Arimathea, or a nickname. And only Luke, who finds a Jewish trace in everything, nods in the right direction and with the correct words: “from Arimathea the city of the Jews.” It’s funny, but even here there is no hint of the province of Judea, because the “city of the Jews” does not mean at all that the city was in Judea. And a city with a predominant Jewish population could be anywhere: even in Palestine, even in Iberia, even in Gaul.

Shouldn't we look for other explanations for the phrase “from Arimathea” from the Gospels? Moreover, Joseph, according to intelligence data, had another name - de Marmor, that is, if translated into Russian, Marmorsky or from Marmor. But what kind of person could de Marmor be in Palestine? All this was made up by ignorant monks. And the polite ones at that time were studying maps of Palestine, which only due to an absurd coincidence of circumstances did not reach us in all their pristine Ptolemaic glory. So, what kind of de Marmor could be in Palestine in the 1st century AD?! Correct answer: it can’t. And if not in Palestine and not in the 1st century, then de Marmor is a completely traditional name. For France or Italy. That is, for Gaul in the dark ages. Wow, it pops up again.

Maybe this is an accident? Let's look at family trees. Of all the ancient nobility (both European and Eastern) there are only three close surnames: Mormaer in Scotland, Mormoiron (Mormorone) in Provence and Marmorito in Italy. And there are only two settlements with the name Marmore - and both (wow!) in northern Italy, that is, the former Gaul. So where was Joseph de Marmor from? From Judea? Or from a Jewish city in Gaul? In my opinion, the answer is clear. By the way, in the north of Italy there was an ancient city of Ariminum (now Rimini), the name of which somehow suspiciously resembles the desired Arimathea. Considering that the Greek sound, represented by the letter θ, took root in European languages ​​very differently (this can be traced by other toponyms: for example, Bethlehem in European languages ​​is called Bellem, the same Arimathea is Arimathea, etc.), it is quite likely , that Ariminum could turn into Arimathea. And here it is appropriate to recall the name of either Joseph’s sister or niece, given in separate lists. Remember? Her name was Bianca. Not Blanca (Spanish), not Branca (Portuguese), or even Blanche (French). That is, in the Middle Ages there was an opinion that close relatives of Joseph of Arimathea were related to Italy. Although, of course, this can also be attributed to an attack of Italian false patriotism of the Renaissance. Despite all the Marmoras combined.

Or another, more likely option. The Gospels, naturally, were not created immediately, but some time after the execution and resurrection of Christ. Accordingly, many participants in the events could enter the narrative not under the names that they bore before the drama of the Passion, but under those that they had at the time the Gospels were written (that is, several years later), so that contemporaries would understand who they were talking about. Joseph, as legends say, retired to Britain, far from the rest of the world of that time. That is, he actually became a hermit. And in Greek, a hermit or hermit is ἐρημίτης (erēmitēs). In France this word became (h)eremite, hence hermitage. In Koine Greek, the language in which the Gospels are written, the vowel was preceded by an aspirated consonant (usually represented by an h). Now look at the history of the word (h)eremit in Greek, Latin and French. This is where this very notorious aspirated sound appears and then disappears again, both in Latin and in French. So Joseph, most likely, was really at first a noble man and was called accordingly, in the noble way: de Marmor. And then he became a hermit, a hermit. Or Joseph of the Jeremiah Gospels.

Excuse me, but what about the information that an Arimathean was listed in the Sanhedrin? How could the noble nobleman de Marmor be at the same time a member of the Jerusalem State Council? But this, it seems, was not the case. After all, nowhere in the Gospels is it said that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, and even in Jerusalem. Literally, an Arimathean is said to have been a member of the council (Greek version) or a noble decurion (Latin version). If someone thinks that the council = the Sanhedrin, let them continue to think so. If it still seems to someone that the Sanhedrin and the decurion can only be distinguished under a microscope, and even then not under everyone, I will not argue here: everyone is free to interpret reality to the best of their ideas about it. It seems to me that Joseph was a member of the council (or an elder, or a decurion), for many sources indicate that he belonged to the highest Roman officials, but all this has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinian Judea. And only the transfer of the gospel plot to another time and place puts everything in its place. The nobleman de Marmor could quite easily be a member of the city council (or decurion, or elder) of some medieval city with a large Jewish population, and such an interpretation does not at all contradict most sources, and, first of all, the main one - the Gospels.

But were there really cities with a predominant Jewish population in Gaul? Oh, they were, they were, and not only in Gaul, but also in neighboring Iberia, and in the non-Gallic part of Italy. Only this information is scattered, and in order to get to it, you need to sift through a bunch of additional literature. And so - everything is in plain sight, it’s just that modern researchers, to put it mildly, skim over the surface and are not eager to dig deeper, otherwise they might find something that will make the hairs on end not only on your head. And the RCC (in this, by the way, its interests coincide with those of modern Jews) is not, it seems, ready to talk seriously about its genesis.

So, sir, it’s no secret to anyone that many cities in the south of Spain (like Toledo) were almost entirely Jewish in religion. This does not mean that only Jews or Jews in the modern sense of the word lived there. Ancient Judaism appears to have been much closer to what is now called Judeo-Christianity or early Christianity. And this version of the religion was practiced by Mediterranean peoples of different origins. However, the cities were Jewish, which may be recorded in Luke. The settlements of southern Gaul were exactly the same Jewish. A lot of interesting things have been written about them in connection with the Qatari wars, but they rarely dig further. And for good reason. Because there lies such a bomb that it shouldn’t seem like much to anyone: after all, in the Middle Ages in Septimania (the south of present-day France) there was a Jewish principality, and its ruler bore the title, for a second, king of the Jews.

What about the south of Gaul? The word “Jew” affected the Gauls like salt in a wound even in the 19th century. Here is what the Frenchman Drumont wrote in his book “Jewish France”:

“As you can see, the synagogue had a definite place in the structure of the society of that time. Any conscientious reader, unless he has studied history according to the guidance of Paul Ber, could easily be convinced from the little we have said of the improbability of the gloomy tale which is told to the common people, that very wicked priests, devoted to very greedy kings, found pleasure in persecuting poor Jews because of their religion; the truth turns out to be that until the Jews brought the country to the extreme with their unclean financial speculations, betrayals and murders of Christian children, until then they lived more peacefully than the Christians of the same era. Meanwhile, the faith was just as alive at the beginning of the 11th century, when monasteries were built everywhere, when King Robert the Pious himself sang in the choir, as it was a hundred years later. Therefore, religion did not play any role in the measures subsequently taken against the Jews.
It is easy to see the obviousness of this by studying the Jewish society of that time. There is no doubt that this was the most brilliant period for Israel since the destruction of the temple.
The Jews in France then reached a number of 800,000, which we do not have even today. They were as rich as they are now, and already owned half of Paris. Schools flourished everywhere, and prominent rabbis attracted crowds everywhere. Such were Moses de Coucy, Leon of Paris, Jacob de Corbeil, and others.
Let us note an interesting fact that testifies to the incredible hardness of this race; about the tenacity with which oral tradition is passed down among people for whom centuries do not exist - namely, the tenacity with which the Jews return as sovereign possessors to the places where they previously lived and from where they were expelled. The mills of Corbeil, which once belonged to the Jew Cressan, are now the property of Erlanger; almost all the possessions of the Ile-de-France, where Jews once lived, belong to the Camandos, Ephrusis, and the Rothschilds, to whom it gives unspeakable pleasure to see, among their table-goers and flatterers, the degenerate sons of the nobility that once reigned in this country. Likewise, a whole flock of Israeli bankers descended on Agnien and Montmorency, where their ancestors had once had homes.
They own almost the entire quarter of the Temple, which was in the 12th and 13th centuries. Jewish, as well as the quarter of St. Paul, where the old Jewish street reminds of their former stay. With the exception of two or three, all the houses on the Royal Square, Alphonse Daudet, who lived there for a long time, told me, belong to Jews. This beautiful square, built by Henry IV, which saw the brilliant carousel of 1613, on which the combatants depicted the heroes of “Austria”, which witnessed the heroic duels of the then dandies, heard the conversations of noble nobles and the smartest people of the early 17th century, is now in the hands of some moneylenders and suspicious speculators. Siс transit glogia mundi! Here again the predominant trait of the Jew appears, who is dissatisfied with the fact that he takes over everything in the present, but still wants to dishonor the past. Here is another significant fact: the Church of St. Jacob in de Bushehr was built, or at least completely restored, thanks to the generous donations of the legendary Nicholas Flamel, who, as they say, not without probability, appropriated the sums entrusted to him by the fleeing Jews during the exile in 1394.”

And another small piece from the same book by Drumont:

“Due to a constant tribal attraction to the east, the Jews were always in relations with the Saracens, and gave them Beziers, Narbonne and Toulouse. From the time of this offense, every year, on Easter Day, the Jew received three slaps in the face on the threshold of the cathedral and paid thirteen pounds of wax. Until the 12th century. Their situation seems to be improving. In 1131, when Pope Innocent II arrived in France and celebrated Easter in the famous Abbey of St. Denis, of which Suger was the rector, the synagogue, according to Suger, in his “Life of Louis Tolstoy”, figured in a huge procession that took place in front of Pope on Holy Wednesday.
The troops, built in battle order, writes Adolf Veto in his “Sugeria,” stood in trellises and with difficulty held back the dense crowds of people, before whose eyes the entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem, celebrated on that day with a church celebration, was reproduced in a striking picture. The similarity turned out to be even more striking when, among this crowd of believers, a Parisian synagogue appeared, wanting to honor the representative of the One Whom the elders of the ancient synagogue, under similar circumstances, condemned to death. Receiving from the hands of the rabbis the text of the Old Testament, written on a parchment scroll and wrapped in a precious veil, the Apostle of the New Testament said to them with brotherly meekness: “May Almighty God remove the veil that covers your hearts.”

Leaving without comment the author’s openly anti-Semitic rhetoric and his nods towards the east, we note that the presence of Jews in medieval France and their life side by side with the Gauls is not questioned. Moreover, the participation of the Paris synagogue in the reenactment of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, and even before the bright eyes of the Roman high priest, speaks volumes. Including the fact that there was no real confrontation between Judaism and Catholic Christianity in the 12th century. This is about the real reasons for the expulsion of Jews from European cities: competition for a place in the sun was fierce.

In addition to Paris, the center of which - Cité - was called the Jewish Island by the native Gauls, and on the site of the present Madeleine Church there was a synagogue in the Middle Ages, Carcassonne, Montpellier and Lunel were famous for quite significant Jewish settlements. I would like to talk about the latter separately, because in medieval documents this city - the center of Jewish learning - for some reason is repeatedly called Jericho. Of course, this is another incomprehensible confluence of historical circumstances, but in other inhabited parts of the ancient world such a confluence was never observed. This is a man-made paradox, you know.

But we digress. After all, the question was whether Joseph could be a member of the council in the city of the Jews in Gaul. Now, I hope, this question can be considered rhetorical and we can move forward in our research.

So, in the version called legendary, Joseph buries the Son of God, and then the Jews put him, along with several people close to Jesus, in a boat without a sail or oars, and this boat washes up on the Gallic coast in the Marseille area. Leaving without comment the possibility of traveling on such an amazing craft over such a distance, we note that, by and large, the Jews had no reason to do this to Joseph. He himself did not commit anything reprehensible, but he could demand the body of a relative according to the law. Moreover, being a Roman official or a famous member of the council, the Arimathean himself could send anyone anywhere for a time or two. If Joseph and his companions themselves decided to leave Palestine, why did they need to go to distant lands? Greek, the native language of the entire Mediterranean, could help them settle much closer.

But if all of the above happened in Gaul, the plot no longer seems surprising. A group of early Christians simply decided to leave places associated with unpleasant memories. And move to a neighboring region. Where she continued to preach the teachings of Christ. By the way, the relics of everyone who arrived in Marseille are still not very far from it today: Lazarus - in Autun, Magdalene - in Saint-Baume, Mary of Jacob and Mary Salome - in Sainte-Marie-de-la-Mer, Joseph - in Moyenmoutier, etc. According to some legendary information, the Mother of God was also present in the boat, but this part of the legend is much less well developed than all the others. Perhaps this is due to a reluctance to disclose information important to the early Christians. However, we note that the description of some milestones in the life of the Mother of God, despite the differences in the Eastern and Western traditions of Her veneration, lead to the same people and names of places. Thus, the Eastern Church believes that the Virgin Mary visited Lazarus in Cyprus. However, Lazarus, as we remember, departed with a group of Christ’s associates to Gaul and was buried there. In addition, Lazarus was, according to Russian chronicles, the bishop of the city of Kitey, and this could be either Kytheon in Cyprus or Cite in Paris. This raises the question: is the journey of the Virgin Mary to Lazarus really a journey to Cyprus? Another amazing coincidence is associated with the Dormition of the Virgin Mary. In the Eastern tradition, Jerusalem is considered the place of death and burial, but there is an Ephesian tradition, according to which the Virgin Mary lived out her days in this city. At the same time, the most famous temple in the world dedicated to the Mother of God is Notre Dame in Paris, and the fortress of the city of Marseille, legendaryly associated with the close people of Christ, was called Ephessum in ancient times. However, nothing definite can be stated here, because the information is too scarce and contradictory. Perhaps this is where we can only talk about coincidences.

Let's return to the life of Joseph of Arimathea. So, leaving his comrades in Gaul, Joseph, according to legendary information, goes to Britain. There is nothing supernatural in such an act. Britain is not a distant light for Gaul, and on both sides of the Gallic Sea, as the waters separating Britain and Gaul were then called, they spoke similar languages, for the Celts lived in both places.

In Britain, Joseph stays away from people in a place where later (or due to the Arimathean being there) the famous Glastonbury Abbey arises. Possible variant? Why not? History knows many examples of Christian ascetics leaving for remote wastelands or monasteries. It is also likely that Joseph had with him some things related to the past, pre-British period of the saint’s life. These could also be relics of the Passion. Therefore, the appearance of references to a certain cup in which the Blood of Christ was collected may well have a reasonable basis. The further transformation of ideas about the cup into the legend of the Holy Grail is also understandable: people tend to add details of their own that the original plot lacks.

How, where and when Joseph de Marmor reposed in the Lord is not easy to establish. The British insist on the Glastonbury version, according to which the Arimathean found eternal peace in Britain and was buried in the abbey he founded. The dates are not named. The French, without pretending to know the place and year of Joseph's death, modestly hint at the possession of the relics of the saint, nodding towards the monastery of Moyenmoutier in Lorraine. It is also reported that the relics came to Gaul during the time of Charlemagne. It is not possible to check either the English or French versions. One can only add everything that is known about the other people of the Gospels and their lives to the history of the Arimatheans and once again be surprised at how far all this is from the ever-wise and leisurely lazy East.

But today's Jews remain modestly silent. They are not interested in the fate of the “famous member of the Sanhedrin” from the time of the coming of Christ. If a man named Joseph lived in the city of Arimathea (by the way, where is this?), then he became famous not for his exploits for the good of Israel and his chosen people, but for something else. There is no fighter for the happiness of Zion, there is nothing to discuss. Everything is calm in Baghdad.

And in Marseille, by the way, everything is calm too. And Glastonbury. And in Lunel. There was Joseph - good, there was no - very interesting. When does The Expendables 3 come out? Already passed?!! This is annoying, ah-ah-ah.

WITH Among the medieval relics of France, it occupies a special place Patène de Serpentine- a plate (patena) made of serpentine: it may turn out to be the real Grail. This sacred dish, kept in the famous treasury of the Abbey of Saint-Denis, fully corresponds to the descriptions of Chrétien de Troyes.

The middle of the plate (a shallow, wide dish used during the Eucharist) is made of dark green serpentine. The relic dates from the life of Christ, that is, the period between the first century BC and the first century AD. The stone dish is inlaid with eight goldfish, early Christian symbols. Two fish are lost: apparently, they disappeared during the French Revolution. Presumably the plate was presented to Charlemagne.

Under King Charles the Bald (823-877), an unknown jeweler inserted a stone plate into a gold frame inlaid with emeralds, amethysts, moonstone, garnet, sapphire, pearls, and colored glass. The minerals are artfully carved into the gold in concentric circles. The central circle is made up of twelve small gems, twelve pearls and twenty-four tiny stone hearts. In a large orbit are twelve large gems and twelve pearls, interspersed with shamrocks and fleur-de-lis. There are garnets interspersed with gold stripes along the edge of the plate. The queens of France enjoyed using this masterpiece of jewelry during sacred rites in the Abbey of Saint-Denis.

Serpentine plate (Patène de Serpentine), Louvre, Paris.

Charles the Bald handed over the serpentine plate to the Abbey of Saint-Denis, along with the vessel known as Coupe des Ptolemees, Ptolemaic phial. The phial was made from an older artifact, set with precious stones and enamel. It was considered the most valuable vase in the treasury of the Abbey of Saint-Denis and, apparently, in all of France. The vessel was a two-handed goblet carved from solid white-orange-green agate. It is believed that the phial was made by craftsmen in Alexandria in the first or second century AD. It is decorated with Bacchic scenes, masks hanging from trees, sphinxes, leopards, mountain goats, and birds. In 1804, the Ptolemaic phial was stolen. Then they found it, but without a gold frame. It is now on display at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris.

For hundreds of years, the serpentine plate was kept in the treasury of the Abbey of Saint-Denis. Abbot Suger wrote in the twelfth century that the entire altar was lined with gold, the front side was decorated with sapphires, rubies, hyacinths, topazes and pearls, and a wonderful cross rose above the altar. To the great pleasure of Abbot Suger, travelers arriving from Jerusalem said that Saint-Denis was far superior in its treasures to the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. The abbey contained relics of Saint Denis, John the Baptist, Saint Peter, Suger's chalice, Suger's "eagle" (a porphyry vase framed by a golden eagle; served as a liturgical vessel), the throne of King Dagobert, chess figures of Charlemagne, and a sardonyx cup. The abbey kept the regalia of the kings and queens of France: Saint Louis, Joan of Evreux, the scepter of Dagobert, the scepter and sword of Charlemagne.

Phial of the Ptolemies (Coupe des Ptolémées).
(Pictures can be enlarged)

According to legend, Saint Denis was the first bishop of Paris. He suffered martyrdom around 270, and his burial site, located a few kilometers north of Paris, became a site of mass pilgrimage. King Dagobert founded a Benedictine monastery on the burial site of Saint Denis in 630, and over several centuries subsequent monarchs turned it into one of the richest abbeys in all of France. According to stories, when Charlemagne built a church in Saint-Denis, Jesus Christ himself helped him illuminate it. Abbot Suger began building the Catholic Basilica of Saint-Denis in 1136. For many centuries, the abbey served as a necropolis where France buried its kings and queens. During the French Revolution, the tombs were opened and the royal remains dumped in a nearby ditch. Vandals destroyed the altar, the sacred reliquary and the head of Saint Denis; many of the abbey's treasures were lost forever. By some miracle, the serpentine plate and Ptolemaic phial remained in their place.

Countess Maria of Champagne patronized Chrétien de Troyes, who described the Grail in the novel Perceval, or the Tale of the Grail. She was the eldest daughter of King Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Louis VII became monarch in 1137. That same year he married fifteen-year-old Eleanor of Aquitaine. On their wedding day, Eleanor gave Louis a magnificent vase made of rock crystal, gold and precious stones, which then became part of the collection of treasures of the Abbey of Saint-Denis when Louis gave it to Abbot Suger. Eleanor's Vase can now be seen in the Louvre. Eleanor was distinguished by an extremely independent and ardent disposition, and her violent behavior displeased both Abbot Suger and Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux. And she didn’t like her husband’s rabid piety. She believed that the altar, rather than the marital bed, was more suitable for him.

In 1145, Eleanor gave birth to a girl, Mary. Two years later, Louis and his young queen set off on the Crusade to Jerusalem. On the way to the holy city, the Franks were ambushed by the Saracens. The chronicler William of Tire reported that King Louis fought bravely and “cut off with his bloody sword many heads and hands.” When the Franks reached the Holy Land, Queen Eleanor was allegedly seduced by her uncle Raymond, Prince of Antioch. William of Tyre wrote that Eleanor "neglected her marital duties and was unfaithful to her husband." Louis forcibly took his wife from Antioch to Jerusalem, where he joined Conrad III, King of Germany, and Baldwin III. to the king of Jerusalem, for the siege of Damascus. In 1149, Louis left the Holy Land and returned to France, taking Eleanor with him, despite her reluctance to leave. After three years, which passed in scandals and squabbles, the ill-fated marriage was dissolved.

Just six weeks after the divorce, Eleanor of Aquitaine married the future King of England, Henry II. Her uncle Raymond of Antioch died in battle with the Muslims in 1149, and she was to become the mother of Richard the Lionheart and King John. The prince was beheaded by Asad ad-Din Shirkuh bin Shadhi, Saladin's uncle. Raymond's head was sent in a silver casket to the Syrian leader Nuraddin, who forwarded it to the caliph in Baghdad.

During the divorce of Maria Champagne's parents, she turned seven years old. She and her younger sister Alix were declared the legal heirs, and Louis became their guardian. Mary was educated at Avene Abbey and in 1164 she married Henry I, Count of Champagne. They produced two sons and two daughters, including Henry, the next Count of Champagne and future King of Jerusalem. When her husband left for the Second Crusade, Mary remained in Champagne and acted as regent. Her courtyard in Troyes turned into a literary club, where poets and writers practiced writing on themes of permitted and unlawful love. Young knights and nobles, feudal lords and their ladies delighted themselves with obscene parodies, stories about love affairs and dangerous adventures.

Among the writers at the court of Marie of Champagne was Chretien de Troyes. In the preface to the novel Lancelot, or the Knight of the Cart, he told us that matiere(topic) and sens(style of presentation) was suggested to him by his patroness, Countess of Champagne. Mary wanted the poet to describe the passionate love of Lancelot and Guinevere. It seems that the story of the knight’s selfless devotion to his queen was to some extent inspired by Chrétien’s own exceptional affection for Marie of Champagne. According to him, for her sake he was ready to do anything. The poet put her above all the ladies and compared her to “the southern May breeze, bringing delight like at no other time of the year.” For him, the Countess was “more expensive than all the queens in the world.”

In September 1180, Mary's father, King Louis VII, died, and a year later, shortly after returning from the Holy Land, her husband, Henry, Count of Champagne, also passed away. For some time, the widowed Mary was planning to marry Philip of Alsace, Count of Flanders. It was Count Philippe, according to Chrétien de Troyes, who gave him the book that served as the source for The Tale of the Grail, “the most beautiful story ever heard at the royal court.”

According to Chrétien's description, the Grail was made of the purest gold and precious stones, "the most excellent and expensive that can be found on earth and in the sea." The gold frame of the serpentine plate is also inlaid with gems of the earth - emeralds and amethysts - and precious stones of the sea - pearls. Twelve gems and twelve pearls are embedded in a large circle. They probably correspond to the twelve apostles, the twelve months of the year, the twelve signs of the Zodiac, or the twelve precious stones and twelve pearls that adorned the walls and gates of the New Jerusalem, which came down from God from heaven, as described in the Revelation of St. John the Theologian. John on Patmos dreamed that the base of the city wall was decorated with many great stones. Twelve stones are listed: jasper (jasper), sapphire, chalcedony (chalcedony), emerald (smaragd), sardonyx, carnelian, chrysolite (chrysolith), beryl (viryl), topaz, chrysoprase (chrysoprase), hyacinth and amethyst (names are given in parentheses stones according to the Bible. Revelation of St. John the Theologian, 21:19 - 21). The twelve gates of the New Jerusalem are twelve pearls; every gate is made of one pearl, and the street of the city is pure gold.

Wolfram von Eschenbach said that the Grail is a magical stone lapsit exillis, fallen from heaven. Wolfram's Grail is usually understood as a small altar stone, apparently something like a portable altar, associated with the stone that covered the tomb of Jesus Christ carved into the rock. In the symbolism of the Mass, established by the time Wolfram wrote Parzival, the paten or paten meant the stone in front of the tomb. The central part of the serpentine plate is a stone dish.

In The Tale of the Grail, Perceval silently contemplated the procession of the Grail and did not dare to ask the question “To whom is the Grail offered?” For five years he wandered without faith and love for God. Then Perceval met a hermit and learned from him the secret of the Grail. The king to whom the Grail was presented was the brother of both the hermit and Perceval's mother, and the crippled Fisher King turned out to be his son. The hermit explained to Perceval that the Grail does not serve pike, lamprey or salmon, but brings a single wafer, divine bread, the Body of Christ, which is what the old king eats. The serpentine plate is inlaid with goldfish, but it was not used to serve fish for the feast. Like the Grail, the plate, instead of the paten, served to offer the wafer, the Body of Christ.

On December 5, 1793, a plate made of serpentine (paten) entered the collection of the Louvre. It is displayed in the Richelieu wing among other medieval relics such as Suger's "eagle" and the sword of Charlemagne.

IN We first meet Joseph of Arimathea in the New Testament when he asks Pontius Pilate to give him the body of Jesus Christ. In medieval legends, he was portrayed as the first keeper of the Holy Grail, bringing the sacred relic from Jerusalem to Glastonbury (Somerset), where he built the first Christian church in Britain. The personality of Joseph of Arimathea gives rise to conflicting interpretations. It was also associated with the modern theory of the “Grail genealogy,” according to which an entire holy family descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and their descendants supposedly live among us today.

In the Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea appears only at the Crucifixion as “a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also studied with Jesus” (MF, 27:57). Joseph came to Pilate to ask for the Body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead, but he granted Joseph's request. Jesus was taken down from the cross by Joseph and Nicomedes. Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Christ in a shroud and placed it in a tomb carved into the rock. The name of Joseph of Arimathea is no longer mentioned in the Bible.

Joseph of Arimathea then appears in the Acta Pilati, the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, also known in the Middle Ages as the Gospel of Nicodemus. There are fourteen apocryphal gospels included in the medieval Vulgate, but not included in the Protestant Bible. In the Acts of Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea is presented as a member of the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish council and judicial body. It was the Sanhedrin that sentenced Jesus Christ to death. As the Gospel of Nicodemus testifies, Joseph of Arimathea was absent when Jesus was tried, and this frees him from guilt. The text says that Joseph took the body of Christ from the cross, wrapped it in clean linen, and “laid it in a tomb such as no man had ever been buried in.” The Jews, having learned that Joseph had gone to Pilate, sought out Joseph, and he said to them:

“Why are you angry with me because I asked for the Body of Christ? Know, I put him in my new tomb, wrapped him in clean linen, and rolled the stone to the entrance to the cave... You are doing unrighteously. And you do not repent that you crucified him and pierced him with a spear.”

The Jews imprisoned Joseph, saying: “Know that we cannot do anything with you now, since the Holy Sabbath is approaching. But know this: you will not be worthy of burial; we will give your flesh to the birds of the air.” Joseph was taken into a windowless house, the door was sealed, and a guard was posted. The day after Holy Saturday, the Jews did not see him in prison: the prisoner mysteriously disappeared. Joseph was found in Arimathea, and he did not know how he ended up there. Joseph remembered only one thing: Jesus appeared to him at night and freed him. He told:

“At midnight I got up to say my prayers... Suddenly, it was as if lightning struck my eyes, I was overcome with horror, and I collapsed to the ground. Someone picked me up and carried me away from where I was lying. It was as if I had been sprinkled with water from head to toe, and I could smell the incense. He wiped my face, kissed me and said: “Don’t be afraid, Joseph. Open your eyes and see who is talking to you." I looked and saw Jesus and I trembled.”

At the end of the twelfth century, the legend of Joseph of Arimathea became part of the story of the Grail. For the first time, the Grail was called the cup of Jesus Christ, the Holy Grail. The biography of Joseph of Arimathea was given by the Burgundian poet Robert de Boron in his poetic novel “Joseph d'Arimathie” or “Le Roman de l'Estoire dou Graal” (“The Novel about the History of the Grail”). Robert de Boron took as a basis Chrétien de Troyes' novel "Perceval, or the Tale of the Grail", the Gospel description of the Last Supper, the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus and identified Chrétien's mysterious Grail with the vessel used by Jesus and his disciples during the Last Supper.

According to Robert de Boron, Joseph of Arimathea was a soldier of Pontius Pilate, a hidden follower of Christ. After the Last Supper, Jesus' vessel came to Pilate. The Roman governor gave the cup to Joseph, fearing that he would be suspected of sympathizing with Jesus Christ. Jesus died on the cross, and Pilate allowed Joseph to bury him. When the body of Christ was taken down from the cross and washed, the wounds began to bleed again, and Joseph collected the blood of Jesus in a vessel.

After the burial of Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Jews arrested Joseph and imprisoned him. Jesus appeared to him and gave him the vessel of the Last Supper. Jesus Christ told Joseph that the vessel would be a reminder of the coffin in which he placed his body, the paten on top of the vessel would be a reminder of the lid of the coffin, and the linen, called the body linen, would be a reminder of the linen in which Joseph wrapped the body of Christ. In this way, the memory of Joseph's deeds will be preserved until the end of the world. Jesus then revealed the secret of the Grail to Joseph.

Robert told us that forty years later Joseph was visited in prison by the Emperor Vespasian. The emperor was cured of leprosy by Veronica's cloth, and then he heard about Joseph of Arimathea. All this time, Joseph's vitality was supported by the amazing vessel of the Last Supper. Vespasian freed Joseph, and he, his sister Enigia, her husband Bron (Hebron) and several close friends left the Holy Land. The pilgrims had to starve, and Joseph, inspired by the Holy Spirit, created the Round Table modeled on the table of the Last Supper. Bron caught a fish, and it was placed next to the vessel. Robert de Boron described the unexpected blissful meal of Joseph and his companions and called the mysterious vessel of the Last Supper the Grail. According to him, everyone who comes into contact with the Grail experiences the same joy that a fish experiences when it escapes from a person’s hands into the water.

According to Robert de Boron, the life of Joseph of Arimathea ended when he returned home to die in his homeland, and the Grail passed to Bron, the husband of his sister Enigia. Bron is also known as le Riche Pescheor, Rich fisherman. Perceval, a descendant of Bron, was destined to become the next keeper of the Holy Grail.

Joseph of Arimathea and King Arthur (stained glass).
(Picture can be enlarged)

The story of Joseph of Arimathea and the Holy Grail gained incredible popularity in the Middle Ages. New motives also appeared in it. According to one legend, Joseph of Arimathea, hiding from persecution, sailed from the Holy Land on a ship. He was accompanied by Lazarus, Martha and Mary. They arrived with the Grail in Marseille and converted France, Spain and England to the Christian faith.

According to medieval legends, Joseph of Arimathea built the first Christian church in Britain - at Glastonbury. According to the fourteenth-century chronicler John of Glastonbury, Joseph brought two vials from the Holy Land: one containing the blood of Christ, the other sweat. He built a rather bizarre genealogy, from which it follows that King Arthur is a descendant of Joseph of Arimathea:

“Helaius, the grandson of Joseph, begat Josus, Josue, José begat Aminadab, Aminadab begat Filium, Filium begat Ygernam, from whom King Pen-Dragon begat the noble and illustrious King Arthur [...thus King Arthur is descended from the line of Joseph].”

The medieval French novel Perlesvaux, also known as The Sublime Story of the Holy Grail, tells how maidens in rich robes brought to King Arthur's castle at Cardual the shield of Joseph of Arimathea, "the good warrior-knight who took down the crucifixion." (of the cross) of our Lord."

Sir Thomas Malory also mentioned Joseph of Arimathea and his appearance in Britain with the Holy Grail:

“And now will follow the noble story of the Grail, the sacred vessel, for that vessel contained a fraction of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which Joseph of Arimathea brought to our land.”

Malory writes that the “meek knight” Joseph of Arimathea, who took down “our Lord” from the cross, left Jerusalem with “a large clan of his people” and arrived in “this land to teach and preach the Christian faith,” after which “all were converted to Christianity "

In the mid-sixteenth century, Queen Elizabeth I of England said that “as our chronicles and records testify,” Joseph of Arimathea was “the first preacher of the word of God in our kingdom.” Joseph of Arimathea and the Holy Grail should be considered mythological symbols of the Christianization of Britain. When Joseph appeared in Britain, he brought the Holy Grail - the cup of Christ, the vessel of the Last Supper, the sacred chalice of Christian Communion.

According to Glastonbury legend, Joseph of Arimathea was the uncle of the Ever-Virgin Mary, a wealthy merchant who traded in Cornish tin. As the story goes, Jesus spent several “missing years” with Joseph in England, and Joseph of Arimathea, with his help, built a simple wicker church at Glastonbury. After his death, Joseph was secretly buried in a marble tomb near that church.

The legends of Glastonbury, the stories of Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea inspired William Blake, and he wrote the poem "Jerusalem" in the early nineteenth century:

This mountainside is steep
Has an angel ever set foot?
And did our holy lamb know
Green England meadows?

Did you shine through the fog and smoke
Is the face of the Lord from on high for us?
And was Jerusalem here?
Between Satan's dark factories?

Where is the eternal sword, spear and shield,
Where are the lightning arrows for me?
Let a menacing cloud rush in
I want a chariot made of fire.

My spirit in the fight is indestructible,
The invisible sword is always with me.
We will build Jerusalem
Native in green England.

M Centuries passed, but medievalists never came to a consensus regarding the external appearance of the Holy Grail. Was it a simple wooden or clay cup of a carpenter's son, or an ornate and inlaid gold vessel worthy of being called the sacred cup of Jesus Christ?

It is assumed that the Apostle Peter kept the cup, then it was passed on to each other by his followers, the heads of the Roman Church, the popes, as they eventually came to be called. In 258, Pope Scist II was persecuted and suffered martyrdom. According to legend, St. Lawrence gave the cup to a Spanish warrior, who took it to his homeland. The history of the vessel became even more confusing. It became impossible to establish which particular artifact (if it existed at all), described in many myths and tales, should be identified with the cup of Christ.

Joseph of Arimathea, so called by origin from the Jewish city of Arimathea, which lay 42 versts north of Jerusalem (see Arimathea “Enc.” I, 999-1000). He was a “famous member of the council” (Mark 15:43: ( εὑσχἡμων βουλευτἡς , glory, “good counselor”), i.e., the Sanhedrin, and a rich man (Matthew 27:57), and in moral qualities good and truthful (Luke 23:50), belonging to the number of those who awaited the Kingdom of God (Luke 23, 51. Mark 15, 43). He did not participate in the council of the Sanhedrin that condemned the Savior (Luke 23:51). After the death of the Savior, Joseph took advantage of his position to ask Pilate for the body of Jesus for burial, thereby declaring himself His follower, whereas before, out of fear from the Jews, he was only a secret disciple of Jesus (John 19:38). When permission was received, he took the body of the Savior from the cross together with Nicodemus, wrapped it in a clean shroud, with incense, as the Jews usually bury, and laid it in his new tomb, recently carved into the rock in his garden, located near Golgotha ​​and, rolling down a large the stone to the door of the tomb, withdrew (Matthew 27, 57. 59. Mark 15,43. Luke 23, 50-53. John 19, 38-42: cf. Isa. 53, 9).

In the evangelists' narrative about the Savior's tomb, the mutual relationship between them appears to be as follows. Mark and Luke only say that Joseph had a ready-made coffin, without asking the natural question for whom the last one was prepared. But Matthew explains that it was Joseph's tomb. But why was no special coffin prepared for the Savior, and He was buried in someone else’s coffin? John resolves this issue, pointing out that this was done “for the sake of Jewish Friday, because the tomb (of Joseph) was close.” This understanding confirms the fact that John had the weather forecasters before him and tried to supplement them (Schmidt in R. E. v. Hezzog-Hauck, IX3, 360: cf. Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T.1 I, 498 Sl.). Matthew and Luke indicate], and John emphasizes the fact that the tomb was new, which perhaps symbolically notes that the state of the buried and then resurrected Christ was not similar to the state of usually dying people.

Tradition based on Matt. 27, 57 counts Joseph among the LXX Apostles, but this is contradicted by John. 19, 38. In England, the belief has been preserved that around 63 Joseph was sent by Ap. Philip, to Great Britain and founded Glastonbury here (see Skeat, Joseph of Arimathaea, London 1871). Joseph occupies a prominent place in the gospel of Nicodemus [and Peter: cf. at Dr. Edgar Hennecke: Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, S. 29. 30: Handbuch zu den neutest. Apokryplien, S. 74]: in later times he is the hero of the legend about St. Grail (see "Enz." IV, 573-574). In the 9th century. his relics were transported to Italy. His memory is celebrated by the Orthodox Church on July 31 (others on May 31; see Archbishop Sergius, Full Month of the East II2, 232) and on the week of the Myrrh-Bearing Women, and by the Roman Catholic Church on March 17.

* Sergey Viktorovich Troitsky,
teacher of St. Petersburg
Alexander Nevsky Theological School.

Text source: Orthodox theological encyclopedia. Volume 7, column. 355. Petrograd edition. Supplement to the spiritual magazine "Wanderer" for 1906. Modern spelling.

From the city of Arimathea or Ramatha (Rama), he was a follower of Jesus, but secretly, and was not one of the.

Pietro Perugino (1448–1523), Public Domain

It was Joseph who asked Pilate for the body of the executed Jesus, and, having received permission to remove Him from the cross, buried Him in a tomb carved into the rock that belonged to him.

Anonymous, Public Domain

Together with another disciple of Jesus, Joseph wrapped a shroud around the body of Jesus, which, according to one version, is the Shroud of Turin.

In Christianity, it is believed that the burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea fulfilled the messianic prophecy of Isaiah:

“He was assigned a grave with the wicked, but He was buried with a rich man” (Isaiah 53:9).

In the apocrypha

The Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Pilate and others contain other information about Joseph, most of it legendary.

For example, the “Gospel of Peter” reports that Joseph of Arimathea was a personal friend of Pontius Pilate.

Photo gallery

Helpful information

Joseph of Arimathea (Hebrew: יוסף הרמתי

Mentions

Mentioned by all four evangelists in the narrative of the burial of Jesus (Matt. 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50; John 19:38).

Memory

Joseph is commemorated in the Catholic Church on August 31; the Orthodox Church commemorates him on the Sunday of the Myrrh-Bearing Women (3rd after Easter).

Joseph and the Grail Legend

The story of Joseph became widespread thanks to the legend of the Holy Grail - the cup into which Joseph collects the blood of Christ.

Various parts of this story are told in the novel Joseph d'Arimathie (c. 1215) by the French poet Robert de Boron, who supposedly translated the legend from Latin.

The later French novel Grand St. The Graal (1240) served as the basis for the English works Joseph of Arimathie and The Holy Grail, which provide clues to the connection between the history of the Grail and the legends of the Knights of King Arthur's Round Table.

According to legend, Joseph gave the spear of Longinus to a certain legendary figure who remained in history as the “Fisher King.” He also became the keeper of the Holy Grail. Possession of the Spear played a cruel joke on the “Fisher King” - he became a eunuch.