I will here posit an argument that many of the apocryphal legends about Joseph of Arimathaea come from misappropriated stories found in Old Testament works and the writings of Flavius Josephus. 

Perhaps the most enduring legend about Joseph of Arimathaea is of his connection with the Holy Grail.
The first person to make the link between Joseph and the Holy Grail was the French poet Robert de Boron in his prose romance Joseph d'Arimathie (or Roman de l'estoire du Graal)(c. 1190).  

In Boron's presentation the Holy Grail is the cup or chalice used by Christ at the Last Supper. Joseph subsequently uses it to collect the blood of the crucified Christ at the Deposition (when Jesus is taken down from the Cross). These two factors seem to imbue this cup with intense sanctity and make it an immensely magical relic. Later Boron relates "When on the third day, the Jews discovered that the body (of Jesus) was missing, they accused Joseph of stealing it and threw him into a dungeon"- Joseph d'Arimathie, De Boron.

Whilst in prison the crucified and now resurrected Christ appears to Joseph "in a blaze of light" (Ibid) presents him with the sacred chalice and tells him that he is to be the guardian of the vessel. Christ also instructs Joseph in the symbolism of the mass, and informs him that the vessel containing the divine blood is to be called 'calice'. 

Joseph is later freed from his imprisonment and voyages to Britain with the calice or Holy Grail.

Boron’s romance was massively influential and fed into the development of later Grail legends, most notably the Vulgate Cycle, which was probably composed by monk/s who, like Boron, presented a very Christian Holy Grail to their readership.

But the question with which I am going to concern myself is this: what texts and accounts fed into Boron's composition.

There is one apocryphal writing which, most interested scholars agree, Robert used to create his own work. This is a fourth century text variously entitled the Acta Pilati or the Acts of Pilate but more usually referred to as the Gospel of Nicodemus. In the Middle Ages it was a very popular text attested to by the number of medieval copies still in existence and the number of languages in which it exists.

The Gospel of Nicodemus is the major source of early, non-canonical information regarding Joseph of Arimathaea. Large sections of Boron's "Joseph d'Arimathie" follow it. Although in the Gospel of Nicodemus there is no mention of a grail or cup of any kind. This raises the question why did Boron introduce this element of a cup or chalice into the legend. Does Joseph of Arimathaea simply supply him with a narrative device on which to hang the story of a Holy Grail onto? I don't think so. I believe Boron found a connection between Joseph and cup or chalice somewhere else and I believe I can identify where. 

In my opinion the story of Jesus presenting the Chalice to Joseph of Arimathaea whilst he is in prison has been appropriated, or rather misappropriated from stories about the life of an earlier Joseph- namely he of the coat of many colours as presented in Gen., xxx, 23, 24.

This Joseph became the favourite son of his father Jacob despite being the youngest of his eleven sons. After Jacob gave Joseph a garment of many colours the other sons came to be jealous. And when Joseph tells them two dreams, which clearly portend his future elevation over them, they come to revile their brother. Genesis recounts that as they fed their fathers flocks in Dothain in the land of Canaan they seized Joseph, took him down into Egypt and sold him into slavery. 

Joseph becomes the property of a rich Egyptian noble man and is well treated until the wife of the noble man makes a pass at Joseph. Joseph turns her down and she "resenting his virtuous conduct," (Genesis) goes to her husband and "accuses him of those very criminal solicitations wherewith she had herself pursued him".

Genesis continues: 
"39:19. His master hearing these things, and giving too much credit to his wife's words, was very angry"

It is at this point that I believe the stories about this old testament Joseph start to run curiously parallel to the apocryphal legends of Joseph of Arimathaea. It is necessary to reiterate here that the apocryphal legends of Joseph of Arimathaea - as expressed earliest in the Gospel of Nicodemus but also importantly in Boron’s Joseph d'Arimathie have Joseph of Arimathaea being cast into prison by "the Jews" (The Gospel of Nicodemus) after the Crucifixion. 

The Genesis account, talking about the earlier Joseph, continues: "39:20. And (His Master) cast Joseph into the prison, where the king's prisoners were kept, and he was there shut up."

Shortly afterwards two of Pharaoh's officers, the chief butler and chief baker, having incurred the royal displeasure, for some reason unknown to us, are locked up with Joseph. When they are troubled by clearly visionary dreams Joseph kindly interprets them. 

It is the dream of the chief butlers that is of import to this investigation. As this dream makes mention of a cup: 

"40:11. And the cup of Pharaoh was in my hand: and I 

took the grapes, and pressed them into the cup which I held, and I gave the cup to Pharaoh."- (Genesis)

I do not believe Boron knowingly borrowed the cup motif for his story of Joseph of Arimathaea from the chief butlers dream in the book of Genesis, however. The book of Genesis was readily available to all Medieval scholars making any misappropriation from this text impossible to make by accident. Such knowing misappropriation would have been scurrilous and I do not believe a good Christian like Boron would sink to such a depth.  But misappropriation from a separate commentary upon the same story is quite feasible. 

How could such a thing happen? Well first it is necessary to remember that classical and Medieval libraries, even some the greatest of them where not as comprehensive as any local town or district library in the UK today. There were, by today's standards a limited amount of material for the inquisitive scholar. 

Also those who consulted the available texts did not have a sense of historicity as developed as most modern readers. This can be illuminated by the fact that medieval scholars illuminated their manuscripts with Bible representations of characters, fashions and landscapes based on their own time and location. Thus Pharaoh is portrayed as a medieval king and roman soldiers as medieval foot soldiers and knights. 

So bearing this in mind, I ask you to imagine the following scenario: A monk, for the sake of narrative lets call him Hugh, (although Urbino or Guillermo would be just as apt) is making notes from a manuscript in the possession of a monastic library. Hugh is a guest at the monastery and he is making notes for the monks of another monastery. He is also perhaps not too intelligent. He copies down a passage from a manuscript about Joseph in prison. Maybe he is in a hurry, or the manuscript in question is in his possession for a limited period of time or maybe he is just sloppy. But, anyway, for some reason he, or possibly someone who latter reads his transcriptions, makes an error of narrative placement.

Could this have really happened and could this ultimately have led to Robert de Borons account of Joseph receiving the Holy Chalice or Cup from Christ whilst in prison.

Well read the following first century account, to my mind the best candidate for such a misappropriation, and put yourself in the shoes of that not too intelligent monk; Hugh.

"Chapter 5: WHAT THINGS BEFELL JOSEPH IN PRISON.....in his sleep he saw three clusters of grapes hanging upon three branches of a vine, large already, and ripe for gathering; and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hand; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink, and that he received it from him with a pleasant countenance."

This passage is taken from the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus. It is a commentary on the Genesis account of Joseph, son of Jacob’s imprisonment in Egypt.

Reading this passage Hugh sees the name Joseph. Joseph is in prison. To Hugh the squeezing of the grapes of the vine into the cup clearly represents the chalice of the sacrament and the wine of the last supper. Also in the Gospel of John 15:4-7 does not Jesus also refer to Himself as the vine.  Perhaps having recently read the Gospel of Nicodemus Hugh believes Josephus to be talking about Joseph of Arimathaea and entitles his Tran scripted passage - WHAT BEFELL JOSEPH “OF ARIMATHAEA” IN PRISON.

This accentuates his awry interpretation even further.

This person, perhaps Hugh, perhaps not, puts two and two together and gets five – Not an uncommon sum to make in the field of historical study. Indeed one could say, with absolute certainty that a large amount of biblical analysis is based upon misinterpretation, misrepresentation and presumption.

Mark McGiveron