If not for answering replies it would have been a two-line post.
Only an observation based upon my research over the past day. The above are the only ones who lend any credibility to the myth, as you are.
Don't include me in those generalities.
So, they don't try to make up stories about his life either.
Artifacts, logic, and evidence is not "making it up".
When it comes to the point at hand, there is pretty good agreement - historian touching the JoA story refer to it as a myth or legend. Same for Christian history who trace the initial arrival of Christianity to post Roman invasion, who by the time of Tertullian (150 years later) had pushed out of the Roman enclave throughout England and Ireland (where ever that pesty citation is ACTUALLY found).
As I said, historians also dismiss Jesus.
At the time the myths appeared, there was a schism developing between Britain and Rome, these myths were written to give greater 'authority' to Britain.
Why just Britain?
I've already cited ancient scrolls of Jesus in India.
Which is illogical because India and Tibet did not become Christian strongholds.
Gnostic writings of the 2d century produce alleged stories.
Again, unsupported by events.
So the monks are not the only ones with myth making ability.
Historical evidence shows it was no myth. The history supports their claims, that's where the mines were.
Evidence for forgeries? Where is the pre-myth documentation - textural traditions.
There's no doubt tin was mined there for thousands of years. The connection between the area Joseph hailed from and Cornwall is established through the Phoenicians.
How do the 'history' produced in these documents match provable events - they don't.
Tin mines, Phoenicians, rise of Christianity so fast as to compete with Rome...it's there.
If they don't match that which can be confirmed, their veracity on other matters is highly suspect. Context of the greater historical period show falseness in the story. And it is these HIGHLY questionable 'documents' that discuss the JoA myth. Factually, there are multiple ways that Christianity spread in to the British isles.
It was a heck of a rise, faster than anywhere else.
What 'artifacts', what physical evidence is there showing JoA in Britain BEFORE the church was even established in Rome. What kind of logic is based upon fiction - other than star trek. What 'evidence' - other than fictional accounts.
As I said, historians also dismiss Jesus.
You citation showed that while the History channel avoided Jesus' supernatural claims, they did not dismiss his person in Israel NOR did they place him in some other portion of the world.
Which is illogical because India and Tibet did not become Christian strongholds.
"Doctrines of the Apostles" (2d Century) states "India and all its own countries and those bordering it, even to the farthest sea, received the Apostle's Hand of Priesthood from Judas Thomas, who was the Guide and Ruler in the Church which he built there and ministered there."
Sounds like early Christianity found fertile ground there as well during the same time frame.
There's no doubt tin was mined there for thousands of years. The connection between the area Joseph hailed from and Cornwall is established through the Phoenicians.
Show the physical, archaeological evidence that JoA established Christianity in the way so described. Supposition is no substitute for physical evidence, myth and legend are not equivalent to facts and archaeological evidence. Are you able to prove your point without supposition or begging the point? We have yet to see.
Why just Britain?
No doubt there were others, but in this case study the history of the kings of Britain and you'll see efforts to raise their stature over those of their neighbors (and vice versa) and a myth suggesting AD37 establishment of the church in England would enhance their status. It was also a period of relics and pilgrimages - and that claim would bring the pilgrims in (and their money) as well as status. The reasons are numerous - you'd do well to study them more.
Tin mines, Phoenicians, rise of Christianity so fast as to compete with Rome...it's there.
Sad to uphold fiction as fact. Christianity spread very rapidly across ALL of Europe, and nothing indicates or supports an explosive growth in England. Christianity took advantage of the Pax Romania to grow throughout Europe - including the British isles, growth there did not exceed growth throughout the rest of the empire.
It was a heck of a rise, faster than anywhere else.
Again, supposition lacking facts but relying on faery tales. Prove it with sources outside myth. The first physical evidence of Christianity in England is from the late 2nd century AD. It wasn't until Emperor Constantine granted freedom of worship to Christians and during the 4th century Christianity became widespread in England. If you bother to look at broader church history, you will see that this was the case throughout the Roman empire - not just England alone.