Talk:Saint Joseph/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

little known fact

I removed the line "It is a little known fact that Saint Joseph is the patron saint of early nights." It seems so little known that I could find no other mention of it, especially in canon. If anyone has any cit. please feel free to add it back. Although it would be helpful to link "early nights" to something that would clarify it a bit, like early nights, or early nights. thanks, milovoo 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Joseph the Betrothed

fateher of jesus while he was on earth

:Foster father is the normal use among believers. God the Father (Jesus' real father, according to Christians) didn't die, so Joseph couldn't be seen as a stepfather in the strict sense. I think most believers would find "stepfather" extremely offensive and POV. I presume the page is entitled "the Betrothed" because he was betrothed to Mary the first time he is introduced in the Bible. However, I don't think anyone in the world (except for a Wikipedian) would "naturally" look for him here. The most common (though not universal, even among Christians) name would be Saint Joseph, which points to a non-standard disambiguation page.

We can transform Saint Joseph to include the content from here, and make a Saint Joseph (disambiguation) for what's there now. In fact I'll be bold and go do that right now. --Joy [shallot] 12:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Next choice would be Joseph, which is also a disambiguation page. Joseph, foster-father of Jesus would be another possibility, but probably too long-winded, and not the first thing that pops into your head, though it parallels Mary, mother of Jesus. Joseph of Nazareth is not all that common, but also redirects here. I don't know hat the "right" title for the page is.... -- Mpolo 08:15, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

This article title is ridiculous. We should move fortwith. john k 07:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Joseph from the Hebrew Bible is at Joseph (dreamer). What title do we want for this Joseph? Maybe Joseph (New Testament)? Though that causes doubts with Joseph of Arimathea, I suppose... -- Mpolo 09:26, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'll also note that the page List of saints lists this Joseph as a saint in all four major Christian denominations so it seems perfectly fair to place him at "Saint Joseph". --Joy [shallot] 12:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This all seems to me to go against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. -- Jmabel 13:04, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

(repetition from our talk pages) I think it goes exactly with it, the part that refers to e.g. Jesus Christ, that applies to Saint Joseph. Also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Category:Saints. --Joy [shallot] 13:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While we'd like to avoid "Saint" in the titles, as Jmabel indicates, we also have to consider what the average person is going to type into the search box (same link as Joy provided). And that is, like it or not, Joseph or Saint Joseph. The only people in the world who are going to type Joseph the Betrothed into the search box are Wikipedians who know that's where it is. A little over half of the links to this page were already going through the redirect for Saint Joseph, I created another quarter of them, so it really does seem to be the common name. (I have moved all or almost all to Saint Joseph to avoid problems if the page moves again.) After some Googling, I found out that "Joseph the Betrothed" is a specifically Orthodox name for the Saint. (774 hits, good fraction of the high-ranking ones being Wikipedia or its clones). For comparison "Saint Joseph" gets 1.5 million hits (of course including place names and building names, so it's not entirely a fair comparison). -- Mpolo 14:11, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yup. About the last comment -- it's not an equal comparison per se, but it is still indicative that people called those places and buildings "Saint Joseph", not "Joseph the Betrothed" or anything else, contributing to the notion that Saint Joseph is the most common name for this person, common enough that we should stick with it. --Joy [shallot] 14:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also found this sanctioned by the section about saints in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). --Joy [shallot] 14:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV disputed

I think Saint Joseph is POV because I don't think Joseph is not Saint. Please advise.Rantaro 17:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I can't understand what you are saying here -- sannse (talk) 17:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rantaro, Saint Joseph is the most common name used for this person. That is why the article is here. If you dispute his saintliness, then by all means edit the article. But claim a POV dispute over this is pointless. older≠wiser 17:48, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think all the Christian is Saint or holy one and every Christian is brother. I think Christians should not use degree for specific Christian.(Matt.23:8, 9) Rantaro 04:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Saint Joseph is the most common name for this person and that follows WP naming policy. This is not the place to wage a campaign for your idiosyncratic beliefs. older≠wiser 12:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Who did decide that Saint Joseph is the most common name? (administrators?) I don't know Saint Joseph, and I only know Joseph, foster father of Jesus Christ. You mean Wikipedia adopt Catholic name? I didn't know Wikipedia was Catholic Encyclopedia. Rantaro 01:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose as an alternative? older≠wiser 02:08, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think Joseph (New Testament) or Joseph, husband of Mary (Matt.1:19) is the best name. Rantaro 02:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He's a saint according to four major Christian denominations per list of saints, and "Saint Joseph" is the most common name for him, so please stop this silliness already. --Joy [shallot] 09:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We also have an approx. 1200 year convention of his being referred to as Saint Joseph in English generally. That and the likelihood of his article being searched for by this convention settles it for me, at least. Fire Star 20:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the whole 'saint' thing is catholic. Protestants aren't gonna like this. :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

"Small graven image" or what?

In the 'Traditions' section of this article, I changed the "small graven image" to "small statue". The whole graven image thing is a bit value-laden to count as NPOV. 64.146.4.31

I wonder who wrote "graven image"? As if that phrase wasn't just a little loaded?! I added detail about it facing away from the house, but this is not important if anyone wants to remove it - I'm sure everybody has their own special tradition. It is interesting that the clergy frowns upon it because it sounds like a pagan custom transposed into Catholicism, of either Roman or perhaps Stregherian origin. Khirad 09:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I was quite puzzled about this in the article until I read the above. It seemed to me right from the beginning that the original contribution did not stem from a native English speaker or was a translation. The whole passage sounds rather laboured and is difficult to knock into shape without knowing the details of the pious custom that the original contributor had in mind. Reading now above that the original had "small graven image", I propose, what I had always been wondering, whether a medal of Saint Joseph is meant. It is a well-known custom to use medals of saints for this purpose, also when desiring to buy or rent a particular property. 21:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The end of the article is ambiguous, it states that he is sainted just because he is a dead Christian. We need to find out if he is a beatified saint or if it is just convention to call him saint. Unfortunately, listing that he just happens to be a saint according to all the religions is not enough. Joseph is a saint because the canonization process did not use the modern criteria for choosing a saint until the 10th Century. (http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php) Whereas Roman Catholicism recognizes Joseph as a true saint, it still remains convention to refer to him as Saint Joseph without necessarily adopting the Catholicism interpretation of sainthood. Just as it is convention to call Francis of Assisi, Saint Francis of Assisi.

Joseph 'Sect'?

Joseph always seemed to me to be the 'forgotten man' in the story of Jesus' life. Mary, for obvious reasons, is central to certain 'wings' of the Christian church, but I'm curious to know if there is (or has ever been) a Christian sect or movement which places particular importance on Joseph. Adambisset 21:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hehe. Joseph was not always the "forgotten man"! There were times he was outright ridiculed. In the Middle Ages, they thought his story excessively funny. Think about it: here's a man, married but denied having any sex, cuckolded, his wife gives birth to a child not his own, and the poor sob must take care of the baby and all that! Our ancestors apparently found this overly hilarous, and I, the relatively devout Catholic, can't say I disagree with them. Joseph was a comical character in the miracle plays, he was depicted in a funny manner on paintings (especially by the Flemish masters; good example is Melchior Brodederlam's Flight to Egypt: http://www.wga.hu/art/b/broederl/02right3.jpg - Joseph is the drinking figure on the far right; notice that, unlike Mary and Jesus, he's not idealized at all; notice his rags, his figure, his mien). In literature he was depicted as a figurehead chosen by God to "appease those who would call my [viz. God's] son a bastard" -- medieval logic. The folklore held he was the patron of cuckolded husbands; husbands cheated on were supposed to lament to Joseph, who "had the very same fate". Huizinga devotes a longer part to this medieval "anti-cult" of Joseph in the Waning of the Middle Ages. As he writes, The circumstances of Jesus' conception were very fascinating to medieval mind (as they're still fasctinating to the immature persons amongst us), and this fascination was outright gleeful when it came to Joseph's role.

The Church, of course, disapproved this whole thing, but not a lot was done (aside the usual gentle and useless scolding - the medieval Church did not really mind theological deviations in the folklore so long as the Church was obeyed) until the late 14th-early 15th century, thus until the time of the Devotio Moderna and similar reformationist movements. Jean Gerson, theologian, Chancellor of the University of Paris, who generally disapproved the excessive veneration of saints, was the first to restore some of Joseph's dignity: he practically invented the modern Joseph, venerated because of his chasity, humility, hard work, etc, etc, the positive aspects previously neglected in the folklore. Then Gerson declared that Joseph was transferred bodily to heaven, that's why the circumstances of his death are so obscure. Now, Gerson was a very clever and charismatic man, and he managed to get his ideas accepted by the commoners and the reformist wing of the Church alike, and that's where the modern veneration of Joseph began, and that's where I'll finally answer your question: Joseph's cult flourished in France, notably in Champagne the Lyons area and the Lowlands in the 15th-16th century. His popularity reached its peak in the late 15th century, when he got his feast day. By this time his cult was popular throughout the West. Then came the Renaissance, came the policy of the Church to alienate the saints from the commoners (by dressing them in togas, etc, etc), and the cult slowly ceased to exist. Since that Joseph's no longer the parody of a saint he used to be. A few monastic orders were founded in Joseph's honour during the Counter-Reformation, then several more in the 19th century, all in France and the Lowlands. Most of them were destroyed during the Revolution or during the pre-WWI French anticlerical measures. That's about it. Sorry for being this long-winded. SáT 00:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

An Eastern Orthodox take on this topic: http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/articles_a/joseph.htm. [User: igk, 7 November 2005 10:50 (EST)]

Title of Article

It seems like the title of this article should be changed, since "Saint Joseph" is specific to Roman Catholicism, while Joseph plays a role in all Christian faiths. Do Orthodox Catholics name Saints?

Being a Wikipedia newbie, I did not want to take the somewhat drastic step of changing the name of an article.

I disagree..being Evangelical (non-Roman) Catholic and not holding to canonization, I do not find Saint Joseph to be an innappropriate title, if one holds to the belief that all Christians are Saints (and one must assume Joseph believed in Christ by his actions). Peace, lennix 20:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ecumenical Revisions

I modified the text and layout in order to present a more ecumenical view; even in this, I'm Evangelical Catholic, so may have missed or misrepresented other traditions, so I invite further revision. My main focus was to denote what was Roman Catholic tradition versus Reformed belief, and add some commentary on the latter. I also added a brief bit on the Josephite Order, which seems like it should be mentioned. This is my first major revision or addition, so comments are welcome.

Peace lennix 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Talk:Saint Joseph — Saint Joseph → Joseph of Nazareth – Saint implies certain branches of Xianity (RCC and EOC come to mind) when used as a Title. Jospeh of Nazareth is best avaiable option. Requires adminstrator because of existing history Tznkai 05:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as requester. when Saint is used as a title, it implies certain branches of the Xian religion. I highly doubt that critical scholarship calls him "Saint Jospeh". The use of "saint" as in "all the saints" refers to those belevoed or respected within most Xian churches because of their proper devotion to God, but implies a POV, a judgement on Joseph's piety.--Tznkai 05:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd support it if we then went back and eliminated the usage of the word in all areas of Wikipedia; you are correct in saying that scholarship would call for his name not including the word, and I will change my support if we can get consensus to change the way all such articles are named. If we speak strictly on religious terms, my opposition stands, since aside from certain POVs the word still stands correct, even in Reformed theology. Peace, lennix 19:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Saint Peter is not at Pope Peter, although he should be according to present naming conventions. Use common sense, & common name of course. --Francis Schonken 16:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

... mere humble carpenter

The Greek term chosen (tektōn, cf. Matthew 13:55) suggests that Joseph was by trade a skilled craftsman, although in art he is portrayed as a mere humble carpenter.

Carpenters are skilled craftsmen. A better explanation of the distinction is warranted here if tektōn does not apply to carpenters. --Kbh3^rdtalk 16:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my long experience with English carpenters... no offence intended, I love the English.

Maybe this settles the matter:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.reflang=greek;layout.reflookup=tektwn;doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23102910

20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I had always thought of Joseph and (presumably) Jesus as furniture carpenters, until one day I realized there are carpenters who work on houses and other buildings. This finally made it clear to me why the religious elite scoffed at Jesus, who said He would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in three days. I'm not sure why I had that impression; I can't remember any specific depictions in popular culture besides the Grail in Indiana Jones III and Jesus building a chair in The Passion. --BlueNight (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting lines about patronage

Hello, while on RC Patrol, I noticed someone inserted a character by one line. That line read this saint had no official patronage. But, on another line it is said he does have patronages as well in his infobox which has a reference to a site that lists many patronages. Could someone copyedit this to make it correct one way or the other? Morenooso 23:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal father?

This has come up at Jesus a few times, so I'm bringing the discussion here. The article claims that Joseph was Jesus' "legal" father, but cites Mt. 1:25 and Lk. 2:33, neither of which say anything about the law. I believe the sentence would work just as well without the word "legal", which is as it stands an unsourced interpretation. We'd present that the gospels refer to him as an unmodified "father", but that Christian faith tradition holds that Joseph did not physically beget Jesus, but that Mary had conceived him through divine means to make it clear that there is a dominate POV that Joseph was not the biological father.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mt 1:25 is correct, to be precise: Mt 1:25b ("and he called his name Jesus"), see also Mt 1:21. As regards Lk 2:33, this is your typo insofar as the article at present has Lk 3:23. Lk 3:23 is indeed not pertinent concerning Joseph's legal paternity, only indicates that at that time Jesus was being "supposed" to be the son of Joseph. Joseph is referrred to as Jesus's father, without hedging or explanation, in Lk 2:33. In Luke 2:48 Mary (oratio recta) calls him Jesus's father. Mt 13:55 has the local crowd referring to Jesus as "the carpenter's son". I am making a small corresponding change to the introduction. – But the issue is not one of "Christian faith tradition", as you think. Joseph's legal paternity is evident from Matthew 1:25, although perhaps not to the many modern non-specialist readers that lack the knowledge of contemporary Jewish society and law that the Birth Narratives presuppose. If you think that the assertion in the introduction to this article is inadequate, even in the form of the revision I am now going to make, maybe you can expound the subject under a new heading, such as "How was Joseph Jesus's father?". 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.128.135 (talk)

Good job summarizing the references. I did a little clean up, because it seems like not only was content repeated, but it was repeated a 3rd time in the following reference. Also, we need a citation to the assertion that "naming" = legal father under Jewish law. I also decided to put the term "father" in quotes, because the bible doesn't use the phrase "legal father", but the use of quotes shows the reader that there is more than meets the eye. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is strange that you deleted the explanation from the footnote, considering that it is you who did not understand the matter in the first instance. I am restoring it. Same explanation also indicates why quotes around father are inappropriate. Joseph was the father of Jesus. If you want to expand on the subject, information on paternity may be found in e.g. Anchor Bible Dictionary, Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica. 05:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.128.135 (talk)

I don't understand why you reverted me, I was just trying to cut down on redundancy. I don't believe I removed anything that wasn't already stated or cited. I honestly do not believe that my version changed the meaning or lost a citation. I'll explain. First part of the re-added text is Matthew 1:25, also Matthew 1:18, and if you look at the very beginning of the footnote in question, it says Matthew 1:25b (also Matthew 1:18). It repeats the EXACT SAME verses. I say that there is no need to list them twice. You then go on to say namely that Joseph had "named" Jesus, the process whereby a Jewish father legally accepts paternity which is nearly identical to mentions the "naming", which is the rite that establishes legal paternity of a Jewish child. Do you not understand that the beginning and end of the reference are saying the exact same thing is almost the exact same words? Why not delete the part I deleted? Finally, there is but had not begotten him (Matthew 1:20, Luke 1:34–35). If you look at the next part of the sentence it says Joseph did not physically beget Jesus, and if you look at the reference, it says Matthew 1:18–25, Luke 1:26–38. Again, this is almost verbatim repeating itself. What does the additional text add that isn't already stated in the lead?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a clue: The focus shifts from the general point to the specific, i.e. to the phrase quoted from the Lukan genealogy. Admittedly, in its present shape the current footnote No.2 is not particularly elegant; but it provides at least all the information that may be gleened from what for Christians are the primary sources, and so should be found helpful enough until an expert with time to spare elaborates on centuries of learned discussions pertinent to this issue. 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.128.135 (talk)

Here is a clue? You didn't address any of my concerns. The content repeats itself. If I trim what I propose, nothing will be lost.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph

As the first paragraph exists now, it says: "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary[1] and the father of Jesus of Nazareth.[2] According to the Christian Gospels and tradition, Joseph did not physically beget Jesus, as Mary had conceived the child through divine means (see virgin birth).[3]" If "Joseph did not physically beget Jesus", then he can not also be called "the father of Jesus" without an additional qualifier or modifier of the word "father". Regardless of what ever biblical citations one attaches to the first paragraph, the term "father" requires additional clarifacation. Adding the qualifacation "foster father" provides the information in a way perfectly clear to the average reader. While "foster father" may not have been a term in use in 1st century Israel, it clearly and concisely explains the context to readers of Wikipedia. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia:MoS and in particular Wikipedia:Explain_jargon. Fratprez (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Father is an ambiguous term and doesn't just mean "biological father". If the primary sources of information on Joseph are ambiguous, then we are rightfully so ambiguous here. The fact of the matter is there are multiple POV on who Joseph was, and by attempting to qualify the term "father" with either "biological" or "foster" or "adopted" or "legal" or anything else, you give favor to that particular POV. I think we should explain various POV in their context. But the fact of the matter is, by citing the gospels and then adding a term not found in the gospels "foster", you are violating WP:V because there is no way for me to verify that Joseph was really the foster father of Jesus by looking at the account found in the gospel of Matthew. I disagree that the term "father" is jargon, but I do agree that the various POV about Joseph's relationship to Jesus should be presented to clarify the term "father" in those contexts.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to try to start any controversy. I'm sorry that it seemed that way. I was just trying to correct what seemed like a contradiction within the first paragraph of an important article. I'm failed to remove the previous citation to the gospel of Matthew. That was my mistake, and I'll correct it now. As to the matter itself, in general usage in contemporary English, the term "father" generally connotes biological parentage. The qualifier "adoptive" suggests a legal relationship that didn't exist. "Foster father" provides a term in current use with a long history of wide spread use with in the English speaking world. I think we can all agree that trying to describe Joseph's "fatherhood" of Jesus in a mere sentence or two is very difficult. To remedy this, the very next sentence contains links and itself provides further elaboration on Joseph's "fatherhood" in very neutral terms that would be understandable and unobjectionable to readers from a wide variety of backgrounds. While no word exists to fully describe Joseph's fatherhood, I think the most accurate term we can apply is in fact "foster father." Fratprez (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the future, if you don't want to start controversy, please don't re-insert disputed content without a consensus. The article was fine without the word "foster" in it for the 6 months, what's another day or two? I agree completely that the various POVs elaborating Joseph's fatherhood could be collected into a new sentence to elaborate. I disagree that we need the term "foster" to preface the first use of the word. Another issue is that the citation you removed was supporting that this info is found in the "Christian Gospel accounts", and added simply the Catholic POV. It would be ok to say "And according to Catholic tradition, Jesus was the foster father of Jesus", but we can't cite one POV to cover more than just that one belief. I've just looked in Meier's A Marginal Jew and got an idea for a compromise. What about using the word "putative" or "supposed" instead of "foster" which seems too specific? Another idea would be to leave out any qualify from the first sentence, but add a sentence discussing various views, and include "foster" or "legal" in that context. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you last posted your comment, the sentences in question have been edited back to their orignial form, disregarding the valid points you made in your last comment. The text currently exists as follows: "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary[1] and the father of Jesus of Nazareth." Part of this is true, that Joseph was, according to canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary. However, the following is untrue: Joseph was, according to canonical Christian Gospels and tradition, the father of Jesus of Nazareth. That's not true. The entire premise of Christianity is that God, not Joseph, is the father of Jesus Christ. We were very close to reaching a consensus, and so it's a shame the text was changed back, reintroducing the problematic text. In accordance with your last comment, I'll make the following suggestion. I think this way we can have a consensus text that is factually true. My proposed version is as follows: ""Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary and, according to Christian tradition, the foster father of Jesus of Nazareth." Based upon your last comment, I think you'll find this acceptable. Fratprez (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence, as it presently exists, states the following: "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary[1] and the father of Jesus of Nazareth.[2]" You provide numerous citations for [2]; however, the fact remains that the sentence is factually inaccurate. According to Christian tradition, Joseph is NOT the father of Jesus. The fundamental premise of Christianity is that God, not Joseph, is the father of Jesus of Nazareth. Despite the fact that you provide numerous citations for [2], the fact remains that the statement is still untrue. You can find as many citations for a factually incorrect statement as you like, but that doesn't make it true to qualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia. The sentence must not state that according to tradition, Joseph is the father of Jesus of Nazareth. That's simply not what tradition says. I think the following version of the sentence will be both factually correct and satisfactory to you. "Joseph "[...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary[1] and, according to Catholic tradition, the foster father of Jesus of Nazareth.[2]" Fratprez (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first sentence, I don't believe it's a good idea to introduce one sects POV over any other. Plus, the sentence is now particularly verbose with "according to... traidtion" and "according to... tradition" in the sentence twice. How about we have a sentence that just states what is in the gospels. Then we can discuss tradition in the next sentence. Something like "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts, the husband of Mary and father of Jesus of Nazareth. According to Catholic tradition, Joseph was the foster father of Jesus, as Mary had conceived the child through divine means (see virgin birth)." Or, what I think is the better solution, is to revert back to the longstanding version, and add either the word "supposed" or "putative" before "father". However, the current version that you inserted is problematic for being redundant in word use, and pushing one POV over others (the "foster" angle).-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is verbose, but you're missing the fundamental problem here. You suggest saying: "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts, the husband of Mary and father of Jesus of Nazareth." However, that simply isn't what the canonical Christian Gospels say. You're using faulty citations to make an assertion that is simply is not supported by the sources you cite. According to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts, Joseph was the husband of Mary but was NOT the father of Jesus of Nazareth. The canonical Christian Gospels assert that Jesus is the son of God by the Incarnation and that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus of Nazareth.Fratprez (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You base the assertion that "Joseph [...] was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts, the husband of Mary and father of Jesus of Nazareth" on a complex set of citations of particular verses within the canonical Christian Gospels. However, your citations take those verses out of their wider context within the Gospels. Taken as a whole, the canonical Christian Gospels take the position that God, not Joseph, is the father of Jesus of Nazareth. You cite very small sections of primary sources out of their wider context, and thusly, you reach an conclusion that is not supported by the souces as a whole. Your use of these ciations borders on original research. The Wikipedia Guidelines on No Original Research make the following statements about the use and misuse of primary sources:

• "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
• "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

If a person were to read only the isolated verses you cite, then they might reach the conclusion that, "Joseph was, according to the canonical Christian Gospel accounts, the father of Jesus of Nazareth." However, if they read beyond the isolated verses that you selectively cite and take into account the rest of the canonical Christian Gospel accounts, they will agree that as a whole, the canonical Christian Gospels claim that God, not Joseph, was the father of Jesus of Nazareth. Fratprez (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the current version is unacceptable, as will be any that implies that a "foster" relationship is a Catholic peculiarity. It is is the mainstream position of Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist & most other Protestant churches, not to mention Islam, & it is ridiculous for the article not to make this clearer. The addition of "putative" or "supposed" would also be a clear step in the wrong direction; really he is the opposite of these from the traditional standpoint. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all, we need Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist and other sources that use the exact word "foster". The reason why we mention "Catholic" now is because the source is from the Catholic encyclopedia. I'll come right out and say my two reasons why this is important to me. 1) the word "foster father" or "legal" father simply isn't found in the gospels. Mary refers to Joseph as Jesus' father at Luke 2:48, and the general public believe Jesus was Joseph's son Matt. 13:55. The closest biblical support for another view is that the two birth narratives make it clear that Mary become pregnant while a virgin through supernatural means, which implies that Joseph is not the "biological father" (which as a modern concept didn't exist back then in that the workings of reproduction and DNA and stuff were not known to the ancients). We do have Luke 3:23 that uses the term "supposed". 2) I think it is important to make it clear various Christian perspectives, however we have to keep in mind NPOV and not state one perspective as a fact. I think adding a historical perspective would help balance things, which is why I suggested "putative" because it is used by Meier in his historical summary. My personal preference is still to simply use the unqualified term "father" in the first sentence because it is the most biblical, and doesn't take sides in how Joseph was technically related to Jesus. My second preference would be to add one of the adjectives I suggested "supposed" or "putative", and then in the next sentence go into the specifics. Finally, one other possible solution would be to have the first sentence describe Christian tradition, and balance that with some secular historians' views. However, that would require research and new citations because the current citation for "foster" only supports the Catholic POV, and we don't mention or cite any historians yet. What do others think about these 3 options? Does anyone have new sources to bring to the table? Encarta doesn't mention "foster" or "legal father", and clearly states that the gospels mention him as the father of Jesus. Britanica says "earthly father" and doesn't mention "foster". However, the short Columbia entry does say "foster father".-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There must be people with better sources than these, although "earthly father" is a cop-out but a tenable one. One you accept the Virgin Birth, then Joseph becomes foster-father by default. It is not a very precise term, & I don't see it needs referencing re every church. The current version, if not read slowly and carefully, implies that the Virgin Birth is only accepted by Catholics. That is unacceptable and needs to be removed urgently. Joseph is only the "putative" father if you don't accept the VB, so it should not be used here, as way too POV. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John. "Putative" or "supposed" are completely unacceptable. As John said above, the view of Joseph as the "foster father" is almost universally accepted in Christianity, not just among Catholics. I appreciate your strong POV Andrew, but it's important to recognize that your analysis and synthesis of the Christian Gospels regarding Joseph's fatherhood is not the position held by most Christians, and it should not be represented as such in this article. Fratprez (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My whole point is verifiability. Please don't accuse me of having a strong POV. Before you added the Catholic Encyclopedia citation, the article only referenced the gospels, which do not use the word "foster". I cannot verify that Joseph was Jesus' "foster father" according to the gospels by reading the gospels. If you say that "foster" is the "position held by most Christians" then it really shouldn't be hard for either one of you to find a citation to back it up, right? We simply cannot say things without citation. That's all I'm concerned about. Currently, there is no way for me or any other reader to verify that most Christians believe Joseph was Jesus' "foster" father.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should agree a draft setting out the text we want, on what is in fact not at all a controversial or complicated issue, and then look for sources to reference it from, asking the various projects for help if necessary (& changing the text if this seems to be necessary). Much of the trouble on WP comes from articles containing only what can be referenced from a small subset of sources. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New draft of Lead

Joseph "of the House of David" (heb.יוֹסֵף also known as Saint Joseph, Joseph the Betrothed, Joseph of Nazareth, Joseph the Worker and other titles) was the husband of Mary and although according to most Christian traditions he was not the biological father of Jesus of Nazareth, he acted as his foster-father and as head of the Holy Family. His profession is described in the Gospels as a τεκτων, a Greek word for a variety of skilled craftsmen, but Christian tradition has him as a worker in wood, or "carpenter", although the modern English words "joiner" or "cabinet-maker" might fit the sense of the Greek better. Very little other information on Joseph is given in the Gospels, in which he never speaks. His places of birth and death are not given, and his dates have been presented very diffently at different periods; sometimes he has been seen as much older than Mary, and at other periods only slightly older. Persistent traditions, with some Gospel evidence to support them, make Joseph a widower when he married Mary, with children from an earlier marriage. He is mentioned in the Gospels as present on the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve, but no mention can clearly be placed later than that one. Christian tradition, though vague on the time and place of his death, represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of her son. Moreover, when hanging on the cross Jesus made provision for the care of his mother after his own imminent death.

The genealogy in Matthew shows that Joseph's own father was called Jacob; but according to the genealogy in Luke Joseph was a son of Heli. Joseph lived at times in Nazareth in Galilee, Bethlehem in Judea, and in exile in Egypt.

Is this a start for a draft? Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, various websites using "foster-father", from the very Evangelical , or this, or here [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1540392/posts (actually an interesting read)]. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could alter the second half of the first sentence and split it into its own sentence, something more like: According to most Christian traditions he is not considered to be the biological father of Jesus, but instead he is believed to be Jesus' "earthly", "legal", or "foster" father and acted as head of the Holy Family. And then I'd consider changing the first sentence to something like: Joseph is mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John as being the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus of Nazareth. hmm... but now that doesn't sounds like a good first sentence. Maybe we could start if off with Joseph is a person mentioned in the Christian New Testament. I think we should also throw in a sentence along the lines of Orthodox and Catholic Christians venerate him as a saint. I apologize I don't have more time right now to dive further into your proposal. Anyway, my proposed first paragraph would be something like:

Joseph is a person mentioned in the Christian New Testament. He is described in the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John as being the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus of Nazareth. According to most modern Christian traditions he is not considered to be the biological father of Jesus, but instead he is believed to be Jesus' "earthly", "legal", or "foster" father and acted as head of the Holy Family. Orthodox and Catholic Christians venerate him as a saint.

I'm a little worried about the use of the term "biological father" because our modern conception of what that means differs from "traditional" conceptions, and I'm pretty sure we don't have ancient or traditional sources that use that term. This is why I added the term "modern".-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from set on any wording, but I was rather trying to keep the sourcing & "according to"s out of the lead, having them either in the notes or in later paras. They are tending to clutter things up, and are fully covered later on. I think the lead here should collect the little information there actually is, without referencing in the main text (in this section). Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just have a few comments. I don't think we should start the article with "Joseph is a person mentioned in the New Testament." That's true, but there are hundreds of people mentioned in the New Testament, and Joseph has much more significant roles than that. Fratprez (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Andew suggested including: "According to most modern Christian traditions he is not considered to be the biological father of Jesus, but instead he is believed to be Jesus' "earthly", "legal", or "foster" father and acted as head of the Holy Family." Most modern (and ancient) Christian traditions have had little to no concern over whether Joseph was Jesus' "earthly" or "legal" father. In fact, Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) have traditionally down played the paternal role of Joseph, coining him "foster father" and emphasizing his role as a provider, protector, and caretaker of Jesus and his mother in order to not to interfere with their claim that Jesus is the son of God, not the son of Joseph. Fratprez (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposed version is excellent. It's easy to read, emphasizes the most significant roles of Joseph, and provides an overview of what should be fleshed out in the rest of the article. Thank you. Fratprez (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I take Andrew's point that the modern conception of "biological father" may differ somewhat from the ancient, but are the differences actually relevant here? Is Mary was a virgin, I don't see they are. Whatever was meant by this term & equivalents, Joseph wasn't it for Jesus. I'm much more confident than Andrew that early sources (patristic anyway) could easily be found making this point. I agree a line about sainthood should be added.Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the proposed revised introduction with a sentence on sainthood added:

Joseph "of the House of David" (heb.יוֹסֵף also known as Saint Joseph, Joseph the Betrothed, Joseph of Nazareth, Joseph the Worker and other titles) was the husband of Mary and although according to most Christian traditions he was not the biological father of Jesus of Nazareth, he acted as his foster-father and as head of the Holy Family. Joseph is venerated as a saint within the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches.

Joseph's profession is described in the Gospels as a τεκτων, a Greek word for a variety of skilled craftsmen, but Christian tradition has him as a worker in wood, or "carpenter", although the modern English words "joiner" or "cabinet-maker" might fit the sense of the Greek better. Very little other information on Joseph is given in the Gospels, in which he never speaks. His places of birth and death are not given, and his dates have been presented very diffently at different periods; sometimes he has been seen as much older than Mary, and at other periods only slightly older. Persistent traditions, with some Gospel evidence to support them, make Joseph a widower when he married Mary, with children from an earlier marriage. He is mentioned in the Gospels as present on the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve, but no mention can clearly be placed later than that one. Christian tradition, though vague on the time and place of his death, represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of her son. Moreover, when hanging on the cross Jesus made provision for the care of his mother after his own imminent death.

The genealogy in Matthew shows that Joseph's own father was called Jacob; but according to the genealogy in Luke Joseph was a son of Heli. Joseph lived at times in Nazareth in Galilee, Bethlehem in Judea, and in exile in Egypt. Fratprez (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

- looks fine to me, or could one just say he is venerated as a saint by all Christian churches using the concept - probably not; gets too complicated. Let's stick it in unless anyone objects? Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that Fratprez and Johnbod are working well together. Sorry to be a spoke in everything. We still don't have any sources supporting the foster bit (except for the Catholic encyclopedia ref, which has been moved to support the biological father part). I also think getting rid of "according to the gospels" is a step in the wrong direction. I mean, I think I'd be happy with Fratprez's version if we re-added the "according to the gospels" part and dropped the "foster" part. Did he act as a foster father, or did he act as a father? (a quick comment on "legal". the idea of being a legal father is important when it comes to discussing the genealogies, and Jesus' linage back to King David). Anyway...-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think all the "according to" should be kept as far as possible for the full accounts later on. I notice the German WP article is actually called "Josef (Ziehvater Jesu)" (Joseph, foster-father of Jesus) which I therefore imagine must be acceptable to Lutherans and Calvinists. The Dutch article begins "Jozef (bijgenaamd de Timmerman) was volgens de Bijbel de voedstervader of pleegvader van Jezus Christus" - both "voedstervader" and "pleegvader" apparently translate as "foster-father". But I don't have any Anglican/Lutheran etc books of saints etc to hand to confirm the position from. I'm confident myself that FF is broadly acceptable to most churches & think we should put it in & ask the denominational projects for some refs. We don't have "legal" in at this point; I agree it might be added later, but it involves concepts perhaps too intricate for the lead. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I hate to be a pill, but other wikis are not considered reliable sources by our standards. Do those other articles happen to cite their sources (that we could use)? I think saying "he acted as.." would work well as "he acted as his father", or we can say "he was his foster father" (which you know I oppose without citation), but I think saying "he acted as his foster father" is a bit strange. It is the verb phrase "acted as" which is bothering me because it implies that he wasn't something but instead only fulfilled that role. What about instead of "according to the gospels" we preface the whole sentence with "In the New Testament"? Flat out, I'm concerned about blurring the line between history and bible stories. We don't cite a single historian anywhere in the lead (or in this article, besides an art historian). I think we should work on getting the historian POV into this article at some point. But barring that (or in the mean time), I think we can contextualize from the get go that the source for almost all the information in the article is the gospels. I know this is going to be a terrible analogy (and I don't mean to imply that Joseph is fictional), but imagine if we had an article that said "Frodo Baggins was a hobbit notable for destroying Sauron's One Ring and was related to Bilbo Baggins", without mentioning Tolkien of the Lord of the Rings anywhere. Oh, if we get rid of the "foster" bit, we can get rid of the "according to most Christian traditions" and just cite the gospels for all that. That'd help clear up some of the "according to.." in the lead. One final point I just noticed, the disambig page, for over 2 years has said was the legal father of Jesus of Nazareth. Anyway, I apologize if this is a bit incoherent.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no historical sources other than the Bible; all interpretations are based on the biblical narratives (plus maybe a splash of apocrypha for some), so I fail to see there is a line of the kind you suggest. I have quoted a number of web-sites of various shades of Protestantism using foster-father, frankly I think it is time you produced some evidence that anyone, among VB believers, objects to this description, as I see none. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Ok, first of all, concerning "foster", you don't have to convince me. You need to convince our readers. We need our reader to be able to verify that most Christians believe X. And without a source, we simply can't say it. It's as simple as that. If you want something in the article, you need to find the source to back it up (not to be blunt). Like I said on the 12th, we have WP:V for a reason. Next, if we aren't going to cite historians, we need to say "In the New Testament" or "According to the gospels" or some qualifier to contextualize the sources. Not doing so is a NPOV issue. Personally, I think it would be great if we started to cite historians and had a section about the historical Joseph, and even put something representative of that that in the lead. (hmm... I might just work on that).-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew's objections all center around challenging the assertion that Joseph was the foster father of Jesus of Nazareth; however, the introduction does not make that assertion at all. I'd like to ask you to closely read the proposed text. The proposed text only asserts what is believed "according to Christian tradition".Fratprez (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I feel like I have not been clearly representing myself if you believe that is my position. I'm personally convinced that Catholics commonly use the term "foster" and even some other denominations. However, as I said above to Johnbod, our reader has no way of verifying the broad claim made in your proposal. I'm just asking for a source. I'm just asking you all to follow basic wikipedia principals ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I've collected a variety of sources representing a cross section of various Christian traditions. I'll post the text with the new citations included in just a moment. Fratprez (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction with additional citations added

Joseph "of the House of David" (heb.יוֹסֵף also known as Saint Joseph, Joseph the Betrothed, Joseph of Nazareth, Joseph the Worker and other titles) was the husband of Mary and although according to most Christian traditions he was not the biological father of Jesus of Nazareth, he acted as his foster-father and as head of the Holy Family. Joseph is venerated as a saint within the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches.

Joseph's profession is described in the Gospels as a τεκτων, a Greek word for a variety of skilled craftsmen, but Christian tradition has him as a worker in wood, or "carpenter", although the modern English words "joiner" or "cabinet-maker" might fit the sense of the Greek better. Very little other information on Joseph is given in the Gospels, in which he never speaks. His places of birth and death are not given, and his dates have been presented very diffently at different periods; sometimes he has been seen as much older than Mary, and at other periods only slightly older. Persistent traditions, with some Gospel evidence to support them, make Joseph a widower when he married Mary, with children from an earlier marriage. He is mentioned in the Gospels as present on the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve, but no mention can clearly be placed later than that one. Christian tradition, though vague on the time and place of his death, represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of her son. Moreover, when hanging on the cross Jesus made provision for the care of his mother after his own imminent death.

The genealogy in Matthew shows that Joseph's own father was called Jacob; but according to the genealogy in Luke Joseph was a son of Heli. Joseph lived at times in Nazareth in Galilee, Bethlehem in Judea, and in exile in Egypt. Fratprez (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• 21 "St. Joseph". Catholic Encyclopedia
• 22 Maier, Paul. In the Fullness of Time: a Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church. Kregel Publications, 1998. p. 77
• 23 Lockyer, Herbert. All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible. Zondervan, 1988. p. 68, 254-255

Fratprez (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have substituted this in the article, though of course I'm ready to continue discussing it, but I think it is certainly an improvement over what we had before. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jan 30 changes

I have reverted these because: a) the lead para has recently been changed to a consensus version after much discussion imediately above. While some of your changes are not objectionable to any (I imagine) others are. b) the MoS rightly objects to two pictures opposing each other. Matching images precisely to taxt can often not be achieved, and is secondary. On my screen there were only four words per line where both picture ran together. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The anon edit, is now reverting to his own version, with a very misleading edit summary, introduceing large changes to both the lead para & the pictures, where he ignores the MoS etc. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The anon edit was not entirely reverted. I replaced the consensus first paragraph back into place. The anon editor also moved the section on the Joseph's career so that it occurs after information on geneology, places lived, and dates. This seems to have been a productive edit, and so I retained it pending further discussion. Fratprez (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the new versions of two paras that duplicated existing matter just below. To my mind it is absurd to say: "The possibility therefore cannot be ruled out that she was a widow by then, furthermore, that Joseph had died some time between the end of Jesus's childhood and the commencement of his public ministry,..." when all Christian tradition is to depict Mary as a widow throughout Christ's ministry, & we have no other evidence. I think the (per the above discussion) the Gospel references should be kept for the Gospel section. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Johnbod's talk page, St Joseph as a subject tests the commitment of the contributors to achieving encyclopedia standard.

Many months ago I had made a correction in the lead to a point concerning Joseph's position that has been much discussed over the centuries. Revisiting the article recently, I found that it had been replaced with a rather problematic edit – not only had it discarded the relevant Jewish/Old Testament perspective, but also was it guided by a preference for a "tradition", derived from Christian apocryphal writings and later pious ponderings, over the assertions in the canonical Gospel accounts on the one hand and scholarly evaluation and background research on the other. I corrected it again, this time leaving aside the Jewish perspective that I had previously highlighted, and instead elucidating the basic point with support from the earliest sources (i.e. the New Testament Gospel accounts), and separating it from the pious deductions. Yet said emendation has been reversed to the earlier version that fails to admit that it is merely the pious side of the coin. And this in the lead …

I note that Johnbod rejected both my argument concerning the position of the Murillo picture that I introduced into the article originally to illustrate a point I had made under the heading "art" and my compromise in response to his concern (cf. his talk page), while in another context (see above) he takes the view that "Gospel references should be kept for the Gospel section" … – As regards that other context, the need for an explanation in the lead concerning the date of Joseph's death arises only, because it is not mentioned in the earliest sources (and, unfortunately, the box to the right makes a categorical assertion about it). Yet there is not so much to be said about it that it merits its own heading.

Generally speaking, when a point from the earliest sources has been added, it may need improving, correcting, elaborating, repositioning, perhaps even a new heading, but deleting …

My sincere apologies for having trespassed.

15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to trespass here. This is Wikipedia. Everyone's input is welcome. You can sign your posts by typing four tildes (Fratprez (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)) at the end of your comment. I added back on sentence on Joseph's age because it helps explain why he is often depicted in works of arts as significantly older than Mary. I think it's helpful, but if someone think's its not helpful or is in any way factually inaccurate, please say so. Fratprez (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree re trespassing, although as you will see from this page, it is better to raise significant changes on the talk page when there is already an active debate in progress, as here. I removed that sentence because we have, just below: "His places of birth and death are not given, and his dates have been presented very diffently at different periods; sometimes he has been seen as much older than Mary, and at other periods only slightly older. Persistent traditions, with some Gospel evidence to support them, make Joseph a widower when he married Mary, with children from an earlier marriage." which seemed to cover the same ground - there is plenty more on this lower down too. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Biological father

Looking at the discussion(s) above, the bit about most Christians believing he was not Jesus' biological father was accepted without argument. Does one of the sources on that sentence show that there are Christians who believe him to have been Jesus' true father? Or is this commonly known, because I was not aware. Anyhow, the sentence clearly indicates that "some Christian traditions" view him as Jesus' biological father. Is this verifiable? And if it is, does having it in the lead constitute undue weight? Especially seeing as how in my perusal of the article, I found no further indication as to persons believing he was Jesus' biological father. Thanks for the clarification. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one has commented in 6 weeks, so I will shortly modify it to indicate that all Christians believe him not to be Jesus' biological father. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ebionites were an early Christian group who believed Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. I'm not familiar enough with every contemporary minority Christian sect to say for sure whether the belief still exists or not. I'm a little concerned about what our cited sources say. Per WP:V, we can't make the article say whatever we want just because no one can come up with counter arguments on the talk page. That simply isn't verifiable. My minor concern voiced, I'll say that I can live with the current wording, as long as the cited sources make that current wording verifiable (I know the Catholic Encyclopedia can only be used to verify the Catholic POV, not the whole "Christian tradition"). I'll see if I can't find what Maier and Lockyer have to say. There may have been a reason why we had the sentence phrased in that particular manner, though I do not recall.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Maier has this to say: Mary was the baby's mother, but Joseph served only as its foster father, according to Christian theology, with God himself the true father. (Liberal theologians, however, and non-Christians generally deny the Virgin Birth). It seems Lockyer's book seems to be written from a Protestant POV and I'm not sure it can be used to represent all Christian traditions. (Joseph was the foster-father of Jesus, caring for Him through His earlier years and teaching Him the craft of carpentry. But Jesus asserted, however, that He had only one Father. "I must be about my Father's business") Perhaps we can discuss that source further. I'm wondering if it is implied that Maier's "Liberal theologians" are Christian? If so, then we have a source that clearly contradicts the claim regarding the totality of Christian belief on Joseph's relation to Jesus. Do we have any sources that flat out say that "All Christians, regardless of denomination, do not believe Jesus' biological father was Joseph"? It may be better to err on the side of caution when to comes to what is verifiable and restore the previous wording.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine restoring the previous wording, per Maier. I don't know that I've heard the term "liberal theologians" before, but perhaps they're the Marcus Borg-Jesus Seminar types? And the way Maier's sentence is constructed, I would read it as saying that liberal theologians are Christians. Don't you read that as the implication of the wording? Thanks for looking up that source, Andrew. And how about we move the Maier ref to right after "biological father", to make it clear that that clause is sourced. The only reason I had dared to question the issue at all, was that with the placement of the sources, I felt it was unclear as to whether they were sources for "most Christian traditions" or just the acted as foster-father bit. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image blocking text

Orthodox icon of Saint Joseph, with the young Jesus and tools of the carpenter's trade, c. 1850 (Varna Archaeological Museum, Varna, Bulgaria).

This article is really crowded with images. This image was blocking the text of the lead section and the table of contents so I couldn't read it. You might have to removed some of the other images in the article if you want to have room for this one. Dgf32 (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image blocking text

Orthodox icon of Saint Joseph, with the young Jesus and tools of the carpenter's trade, c. 1850 (Varna Archaeological Museum, Varna, Bulgaria).

I removed this image because it was blocking the text of the lead section and the table of contents so I couldn't read it. The article was already crowded with images before this one was added. You might have to remove some of the other images in the article to make room for this one. Dgf32 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Saint Joseph of Guadalupe?

According to the page for San Jose, California, the original name of the city was El Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe ("the town of St. Joseph of Guadalupe"). Does anyone know anything about this "San José de Guadalupe"? Is it just another styling for Joseph the husband of Mary, in the way that, e.g., Mary is also known as "the Virgin of Guadalupe" or "Our Lady of Lourdes", etc., etc.)? Or is it another "Saint Joseph" entirely? -- Narsil (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish

Should the article make it more clear that Joseph (and Mary) were followers of the Jewish religion? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth date?

This article states that Saint Joseph was born in 3 BC. This is obviously incorrect, since this would mean he was born around the same time (or possibly after) Jesus Christ. However, I have no reliable source handy stating his real birth year. Please amend.Roger Pilgham (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)