Spirit of What’s Up with That?
I imagine that most bloggers in the US have started munching turkey by now. For international readers, this is different from eating crow and is literal, not idiomatic. So I figure not many people will read whatever I post today. Therefore, why not this?
Btw, and apropos of nothing, I was recently accused of using too many “big words.” It seems to me that, conversely, I eschew most forms of rarefied, idiosyncratic, and oblique parlance. Please note that when I do use such terms, which have earned my sternest disapprobation as antiquated, anachronistic, and otherwise repugnant, it is only to rebuff them in an archly derisive manner.
But seriously, I think . . .
The Missing Joseph: Scriptural Musings Befitting a Post-Turkey Day’s Torpid Languor
I was talking to my mom the other day when for some reason it hit me: whatever happened to Jesus’ father? That is, Joseph, the carpenter, and not his heavenly Father.
I’m just going by memory here and could be wrong. But doesn’t Joseph sort of disappear early in the narrative ? I’ve never heard this discussed.
He’s present, of course, at the nativity scene. But after that, the last I remember him is when the family is returning from I think it was Jerusalem, when Jesus is twelve, and suddenly Mary and Joseph realize he’s missing. It turns out that Jesus had stopped at a local temple where the elders were impressed by how much he knew about religion. (I know, I know - “Duh!” - but that was then and this is now.)
After that is seems like, in parenting terms, it’s all about Mary, with Joseph nowhere to be found. For example, Mary, as you’d expect, is one of the people gathered at the foot of the cross – but wouldn’t you think Joseph would have attended? And Mary is at the tomb when the angel rolls the stone away – still no Joseph. After the resurrection, Jesus appears to all sorts of his followers, including, as I recall, Mary – but not Joseph.
Is my memory faulty on this? Otherwise, has anyone ever heard an explanation of Joseph’s apparent absence? In terms of scriptural evidence, I think it suggests that Joseph was a man of good character, which you’d pretty much expect anyway. Before Jesus’ birth, it’s true that he considers divorcing Mary (I hope I’m remembering my details correctly; it’s been awhile since I read those passages and I’m just typing away here . . .). However, it’s for a good reason; and as soon as he learns that Mary’s pregnancy is from God, he’s fine with it.
All conjectures serious and otherwise are welcome. However, nothing in bad taste or you will force me into persnickety censoriousness – a phrase, please note, which I seldom employ. Here, it just means that I would be forced to delete your comment. Btw, I don’t know what “persnickety” means either, but I like it and find that it ranks up there near “fisticuffs” and “brouhaha” as a fun word to use.
Alternately, feel free to opine on my vocabulary.
Btw, and apropos of nothing, I was recently accused of using too many “big words.” It seems to me that, conversely, I eschew most forms of rarefied, idiosyncratic, and oblique parlance. Please note that when I do use such terms, which have earned my sternest disapprobation as antiquated, anachronistic, and otherwise repugnant, it is only to rebuff them in an archly derisive manner.
But seriously, I think . . .
The Missing Joseph: Scriptural Musings Befitting a Post-Turkey Day’s Torpid Languor
I was talking to my mom the other day when for some reason it hit me: whatever happened to Jesus’ father? That is, Joseph, the carpenter, and not his heavenly Father.
I’m just going by memory here and could be wrong. But doesn’t Joseph sort of disappear early in the narrative ? I’ve never heard this discussed.
He’s present, of course, at the nativity scene. But after that, the last I remember him is when the family is returning from I think it was Jerusalem, when Jesus is twelve, and suddenly Mary and Joseph realize he’s missing. It turns out that Jesus had stopped at a local temple where the elders were impressed by how much he knew about religion. (I know, I know - “Duh!” - but that was then and this is now.)
After that is seems like, in parenting terms, it’s all about Mary, with Joseph nowhere to be found. For example, Mary, as you’d expect, is one of the people gathered at the foot of the cross – but wouldn’t you think Joseph would have attended? And Mary is at the tomb when the angel rolls the stone away – still no Joseph. After the resurrection, Jesus appears to all sorts of his followers, including, as I recall, Mary – but not Joseph.
Is my memory faulty on this? Otherwise, has anyone ever heard an explanation of Joseph’s apparent absence? In terms of scriptural evidence, I think it suggests that Joseph was a man of good character, which you’d pretty much expect anyway. Before Jesus’ birth, it’s true that he considers divorcing Mary (I hope I’m remembering my details correctly; it’s been awhile since I read those passages and I’m just typing away here . . .). However, it’s for a good reason; and as soon as he learns that Mary’s pregnancy is from God, he’s fine with it.
All conjectures serious and otherwise are welcome. However, nothing in bad taste or you will force me into persnickety censoriousness – a phrase, please note, which I seldom employ. Here, it just means that I would be forced to delete your comment. Btw, I don’t know what “persnickety” means either, but I like it and find that it ranks up there near “fisticuffs” and “brouhaha” as a fun word to use.
Alternately, feel free to opine on my vocabulary.
Posted by Paul at 12:03 PM Permalink
39 Comments:
One piece of evidence is particularly worthy of consideration. Jesus' words "Let the dead bury their dead" are addressed in the Gospels to someone who wishes to stay home, care for his father until he dies, and ensure his proper honorable burial: in other words, the individual in question wishes to fulfill the duty expected of a son.
In light of this, we have two main options: either Joseph was dead, or Jesus had 'left the dead to bury the dead', and the reason for Joseph's absence would be the irreconcilable break that Jesus had made with his family. However, the ongoing contact between Jesus and other members of his family makes the former much more likely.
Sort of puts a different spin on Jesus vocational training. :)
Maybe Joseph is missing form Jesus' later years because he was plying his trade in New Mexico :-) (link)
What I have in mind here is that the gospels are silent on all kinds of matters - for example, there isn't a word about what Jesus looked like. They're focused squarely on communicating the "good news" or gospel of Jesus' identity and purpose.
The virgin birth is a sign that Jesus is no ordinary person, giving Mary immediate prominence. Also, Mary as a high saint and near divinity gives Christianity a female presence that it would lack otherwise. It could be argued that in contrast, Joseph is pretty much beside the point because Jesus already has a Father who's a much closer relation, as it were.
TALMIDA: Jesus as a trained song lyricist - I guess that would have to be early gospel. Pre-gospel, really . . .
CRYSTAL, you too. And yet a stranger in New Mexico who disappears just when you turn around to thank him may suggest another identity . . .
All children are children of God. The relationship of earthy parents with a child is only transitory. They ought to recede to the background as soon as possible leaving their children to the heavenly father and Mother Nature. It is always the father who leaves the scene first. The mother lingers a little longer.
Imagine for a moment the condition if Joseph decided to stay longer in the story! It would have made things very complicated. May be then the turkey would not have tasted the same.
AVGW: Yes, I find it easy to view Joseph as having relatively less of a role in the flow of the gospel narrative and maybe even getting in the way.
While I find it bizarre that the church of Rome refuses to accept that Yeshua had blood brothers and sisters I understand their logic.
The adulation of the perpetual virgin is their key objective.
If Joseph was a widower then this should clear the path for some wiggle room. Either way, Joseph's main function is to secure the lineage even though Yeshua did not have one atom of his DNA..it was merely a logistical/legal arrangement.
I have read that according to conservative Judaic Law a man was/is not allowed to wed a pregnant girl until the child was 2 years old. As a sunday school student I was always taught that Joseph was a stand-up guy for his willingness to believe Mary's story that she had not slept with another man but had received an immaculate conception.
The virgin birth (and resurrection)had been borrowed from previous religions and at the time was still the gold standard for setting your deity ahead of the competition. It was essential to keep Yeshua set apart from the rest of mankind...it's all about the virgin birth and not the kind step-dad...
and that's why Joseph dissolves into the woodwork.
Very interesting post. Thank you for giving me an interesting conversation starter for dinner later!
I wonder if Mary was actually a single mom. If so, she certainly did a good job!
I don't know where you're located, but Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours anyway, Paul!
Joseph--true, not much in the Bible, but did you see the 6 hour version of Jesus of Nazeruth in which almost every scene looks like it was painted by Raphael? From what I understand, that movie relied on Catholic tradition as the director (name doesn't come to mind, but he also did Romeo and Juliet) wanted a version that coincided with church ideology. In that Joseph grew old and died before the death of Jesus--I believe he died before his ministry began. Echoing James McGrath, it does give flesh to the "let the dead bury their dead". However I would interpret that line as taking care of the necessary familial obligations that will hold you back so that you can follow Jesus. Just my humble opinion, based on nothing academic!
Something I like about this approach is that it can be taken by people with different belief perspectives without the need to argue over their beliefs. It’s just a matter of considering what function the events and persons described in the New Testament serve in terms of getting its message across. Whatever one’s view of the truth of that message – literally true to a large extent, false, or true in some other sense – its central features concerning Jesus’ special identity and purpose are pretty clear. And clearly the main purpose of the gospel writers was to get that message across. Therefore, it looks pretty reasonable to me to see their basic motive for including/excluding material as whether or not it contributed to making their main points.
DUST-BUNNY: Casual conversation is also how it originally came up for me. My mom’s been reading a book about a saint and at some point talking with her on the phone I suddenly found myself going – “Wait! Where did Joseph go?” It hadn’t occurred to me before. Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
VISHESH: And some people do just seem to start early with this stuff - seems like you’d be included there . . .
ENEMY OF THE R, thanks, I appreciate that. I see the dead burying the dead verse along the same lines. Didn’t see the movie, but it makes sense that a movie would probably need to fill in that gap. Joseph’s visual absence would make his disappearance even more obvious on screen than in the NT. By the end of the movie, everybody would definitely be going, “But what happened to Joseph?!”
are you having a great thanksgiving over there?
KAI C: Well, not personally. Housebound, semi bedridden, intractable pain, and so restricted in mobility/range of motion that it's impossible for me share a meal with others around a table.
Sorry about that! Wish I could have said something SLIGHTLY more cheerful. It's been this way for years now, so not being able to participate in holidays is very low on my list of difficulties - to the point where I honestly don't even perceive it as a problem.
Hope you're enjoying Thanksgiving though -
THURSDAYNEXT: As to be expected from a genteel English woman of Victorian standing. And to put it my simple, homely manner, I appreciate that you apparently make allowances for my gratuitous proclivity to occasionally sully the salience by dallying with neologisms.
MISTIPURPLE: You mean they wouldn’t let him use one? I didn’t think they even had them back then. Must have been that old punch card kind but made of papyrus.
Also, the New Testament lists two different genealogies for Jesus, one at the beginning of Matthew and one in Luke 3:23-38. Matthew says "A was the father of B, B was the father of C", etc. Luke, however, uses a word that can mean either "biological son" or "descendant", in the form "C was the son of B, who was the son of A". Matthew shows a lineage from David, father of Solomon and Luke shows a lineage through Nathan, a son of David. A common explanation offered by Christian biblical scholars is that Matthew is stating Joseph's line and Luke is stating Mary's line. Under this interpretation, Jesus would be a biological descendant of David through his mother. It is often this descent that is depicted in the Tree of Jesse subject in art, which usually shows Mary but rarely Joseph.
Are not the phrases "neither clearer" and "more vague" themselves fraught with ambiguity?
why is March 19th St. Joseph's Day?
I bow to your expertise, but hey,even Mark Goodacre defends the use of Wikipedia :-)
In any case, I don't know that punch line - Joseph... March...
Speaking of research (spellcheck is about all the research I'm doing these days, plus Google):
CRYSTAL: You are, as ever, the Lady of the Links. You should really warn people before you pounce on them like that.
PROF. MCGRATH, are you OK?
If you can access it through a university library or some other database, there is an article of mine that relates to the traditions about Jesus' parentage in early Christian sources, which you might find interesting.
You know who'd probably either know or send a link w/ the info? Not on persnickety, but Joseph: Crystal, third commenter on this thread. Or JFM, first comment.
So sounds like you want to make the appropriate celebratory plans for March 19th? At least you have time...
Apropos of nothing, if I had the time I'd start a second blog:
Persnickety Myopia
MARK: That was my thought too - Joseph had to leave or be upstaged big time!
I think this was done intentionaly by the fathers of the church to eliminate confusion as Jesus got older. <<<<<
Do you mean the fathers of the church that were following Yeshua from the manger to the cross? Or, do you mean the authors of the myth that were commissioned by Helena, mother of Constantine, to bring the myth of the Roman Pagan state church in line with a new Church of Rome-Christian?
I do not ask this lightly. Your statement is not too clear. I would not ask if I did not have a rather well read extra-Biblical background of the events.
How do you understand the time and the work of the "church fathers"?
Lantern Bearer
I read something a little while back that suggested that Joseph may have been killed in an episode of Roman retaliation: here's the post.<<<<<
I would agree that the Romans did kill of Joseph, earthly parental figure of the rebbi. I would however have to place those Romans' actions 300 odd years later in the scriptorum of a compiler of the canon.
Nazareth may have been a rural semitic village of small consequence. The Greek city of Sepphoris was a likely target because of some perceived intrigues of the the Hellenes there. There is also much up in the air about the absence of the mention of Nazareth in the histories and lists of cities compiled by both the Romans and the Talmudist prior to and after the events in which we are in much discussion here. Most innocently, it is a confusion of a village with a rebellious movement. A more sinister take would be that it is a total fabrication of the scriptorum Greeks who had to tie a lot together and had little first hand knowledge of the area. It is all a little dodgey. I will just stick with the words of the teacher and his very noble but difficult sentiments of human relations.
I AM
Lantern Bearer
>>>>> Apparently the Greek word (tekton) can also mean craftsman, and includes makers of songs and authors.<<<<<
What does the Aramaic version say of him.
I believe that carpenter, wood, tree, cross is a bit too clever. When one is striving to create something of substance around a bare bones set of circumstances that had little on site, village level reportage, things can get out of hand.
I believe that I will stick with the significance of the elements of female receptivity and female first-on-the-scene of the "resurection".
The Greeks were little disposed to give such significance to a mere baby bearer. The Romans were a little more kinky in their literary devices. After all they were bearing the costs of the production and the rewrites.
Again, I say none of this in jest. It is my cause to have others, not to think as I do, but rather to take hold of what is important. That would be that your blessing in spirit are greater in proportion to the sacrifice and service to others.
The rebbi stirred the hornets and paid a big price no matter if he was a boat carpenter or a house carpenter.
I AM
Lantern Bearer
>>>>>that's why Joseph dissolves into the woodwork.<<<<<
Yes. I did groan and smack my forehead.
LB
>>>>>Enemy of the Republic said...
I love your vocabulary--even if there is a word I don't follow, I look it up or figure it out via context clues. I like intelligent blogs that challenge readers. You are one of the best.<<<<<
You have intelligent, practical readers, Paul.
>>>>>I look it up or figure it out via context clues.<<<
Be still my heart.
LB
Post a Comment