About Mary and Joseph

[JacktheCatholic]

I have read…

Mary was 12 to 14 years old when Gabriel came.

I have read…

Joseph was married to Melcha at age 40 and had 6 children with her, James being the youngest.

I have read…

Mary had taken a Vow of Virginity before Gabriel had come.

I have read…

Joseph was 90 years old and one year out of mourning his first wife before marrying Mary.

I have read…

Mary had no original sin or any sin and remained a virgin until her death when she was taken bodily into Heaven.

I have read all this and it is amazing yet stories like the “Nativity Story” show Mary as a lustrous 16 year old and Joseph as a strapping 25 year old.

What gives???

 

[LilyM]

I have read…

Mary was 12 to 14 years old when Gabriel came.

I have read…

Joseph was married to Melcha at age 40 and had 6 children with her, James being the youngest.

I have read…

Mary had taken a Vow of Virginity before Gabriel had come.

I have read…

Joseph was 90 years old and one year out of mourning his first wife before marrying Mary.

I have read…

Mary had no original sin or any sin and remained a virgin until her death when she was taken bodily into Heaven.

I have read all this and it is amazing yet stories like the “Nativity Story” show Mary as a lustrous 16 year old and Joseph as a strapping 25 year old.

What gives???

What gives is simply that the Bible is a record of Christ’s own life and doings - as they pertain to his teachings. Mary and Joseph’s ages and vowedly virgin/celibate (for Joseph) status at the time weren’t important enough to be recorded. Heck, a lot of details about Christ himself aren’t recorded (the years between 12 and 30 for example) - they also simply weren’t important enough.

Afterwards came apocryphal texts such as the Protevangelion of James, and the Infancy Gospels, which purport to fill in some of the gaps in thes Gospel stories.

Some of their details, such as Mary having been a Temple virgin vowed to lifelong celibacy, gel with the Gospel accounts.

After all, she said to Gabriel ‘how can this be, since I am a virgin’, not ‘Oh thanks for telling me that I’ll have a son - I presume this son will be the natural result of marital relations between Joseph and me, since we’re going to consummate the marriage anyway?’

 

[Verbum]

Hi Jack,

Don’t believe everything you read.

Verbum

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hi Jack,

Don’t believe everything you read.

Verbum

Are you saying these are false?

If so, based on what?

But please do not try to give me Sola Scriptura since I will get more answers than people on this forum.

 

[LilyM]

Are you saying these are false?

If so, based on what?

But please do not try to give me Sola Scriptura since I will get more answers than people on this forum.

Based on logic. Multiple accounts that can’t possibly all be true = some of them at least must be false. Simple as that.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Based on logic. Multiple accounts that can’t possibly all be true = some of them at least must be false. Simple as that.

Is this account wrong?

ACCOUNT *this is a link, click it.

It seems to me that Jesus burried Joseph at 111 years of age.

Or is a hollywood story more accurate than a writing from the church at it’s beginning???

 

[porthos11]

Is this account wrong?

ACCOUNT *this is a link, click it.

It seems to me that Jesus burried Joseph at 111 years of age.

Or is a hollywood story more accurate than a writing from the church at it’s beginning???

Your source is apocryphal and has no doctrinal authority. It dates back to only AD400. The Gospel of Thomas dates back 200 years earlier and is just as void of authority, even more so.

The Church has never declared that St. Joseph was a decripit old geezer. In fact, he was more likely a strong young man very well capable of taking care of the Blessed Virgin and the Savior throughout the difficult journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem (with a 9-month pregnant wife), and then to flee from Palestine to Egypt, and then teach Jesus his craft, and look for him for three days in Jerusalem?

A 90-year old man would have sooner died than accomplish all these things.

I find such representations, as well-intended as they may be to safeguard our Lady’s virginity, to be deeply insulting to this great man, who is one my favorite saints. I do not need St. Joseph to be old and impotent to remain chaste. There’s nothing heroic in that. Rather I believe the Gospel: He was a just man. He safeguarded our Lady’s virginity by his cooperation in the life of grace as a strong head in the household of the Lord.

 

[LilyM]

Is this account wrong?

ACCOUNT *this is a link, click it.

It seems to me that Jesus burried Joseph at 111 years of age.

Or is a hollywood story more accurate than a writing from the church at it’s beginning???

This was written centuries after Joseph’s death - certainly it’s more than possible that it was wrong. Notice, if you look down that whole list of writings from which this is taken, some of them actually have next to them the word ‘spurious’ (definition: ‘lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.’)

And look at where this History of Joseph is listed? Among the GNOSTIC (heretical) books of the Gospel and Acts of Thomas, as well as books used to support various other heresies - Ebionism, Docetism, Nestorianism. Being written in the early centuries of Christianity is only part of the picture when it comes to determining the authenticity of any writing.

I think this one needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. Not that Hollywood pictures are more reliable, but it is certainly highly unlikely even in those days that an 85 year old man would not only be wed to a teenage girl but also would live for a further 30 years afterwards. Even today it’s most unusual for someone to live till the age of 111.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Your source is apocryphal and has no doctrinal authority. It dates back to only AD400. The Gospel of Thomas dates back 200 years earlier and is just as void of authority, even more so.

The Church has never declared that St. Joseph was a decripit old geezer. In fact, he was more likely a strong young man very well capable of taking care of the Blessed Virgin and the Savior throughout the difficult journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem (with a 9-month pregnant wife), and then to flee from Palestine to Egypt, and then teach Jesus his craft, and look for him for three days in Jerusalem?

A 90-year old man would have sooner died than accomplish all these things.

I find such representations, as well-intended as they may be to safeguard our Lady’s virginity, to be deeply insulting to this great man, who is one my favorite saints. I do not need St. Joseph to be old and impotent to remain chaste. There’s nothing heroic in that. Rather I believe the Gospel: He was a just man. He safeguarded our Lady’s virginity by his cooperation in the life of grace as a strong head in the household of the Lord.

400 AD “yes” but still part of Catholic tradition. Also, it does not need to be doctrine or Dogma to be truthful.

I think this notion of Joseph being young and strong is a fanciful notion of our current times and nothing more. Obviously the scriptures state no age and it does not state that Mary was a virgin her whole life or that she went bodily to Heaven yet it is Catholic Tradition.

The link I provided is not from heretical group like the gnostics and is still maintained as tradition as far as I know. This writing holds more truth than any modern movie from Hollywood.

To think Joseph at an age of 90 could not do these is to show a lack of Faith in my opinion. We have many accounts of stories that are not ‘logical’ or within todays ‘reasonableness’ however stories like David and Goliath and many others are believed.

I think some open mindedness is needed. I know how hard this is to accept but what if it is the Truth?!

This was written centuries after Joseph’s death - certainly it’s more than possible that it was wrong. Notice, if you look down that whole list of writings from which this is taken, some of them actually have next to them the word ‘spurious’ (definition: ‘lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.’)

And look at where this History of Joseph is listed? Among the GNOSTIC (heretical) books of the Gospel and Acts of Thomas, as well as books used to support various other heresies - Ebionism, Docetism, Nestorianism. Being written in the early centuries of Christianity is only part of the picture when it comes to determining the authenticity of any writing.

I think this one needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. Not that Hollywood pictures are more reliable, but it is certainly highly unlikely even in those days that an 85 year old man would not only be wed to a teenage girl but also would live for a further 30 years afterwards. Even today it’s most unusual for someone to live till the age of 111.

This is not the only reference to Joseph and his age. There is a letter from earlier that I need to find as well.

In my readings I have read that Mary is 12 years old and another that she is 14 years old. We cannot say for certain how old she was but it must have been when she started her cycle or womanhood.

As to Joseph and this writing I did not find where it is a heretical writing nor a gnostic writing.

I do not see any reason that this cannot be factual or pretty close to it like my reference to mary above.

Also of note with the Apocrypha listed there is no heretical writing of the ‘Gospel of Judas’ which we know to be Gnostic. Why would this be missing if they are keeping a list of heretical writings? Remember Apocrypha has several different interpretations of how it is used. In this case it could simply be a ‘hidden’ writing that was accepted by the Catholic Church in 400 AD based on their traditions both written and oral.

 

[Fidelis]

I think some open mindedness is needed. I know how hard this is to accept but what if it is the Truth?!

So what if it is? And what if it isn’t? Since the details you mention are not part of revealed Truth (neither in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or defined by the Magisterium), and belief in them (or against) them has no impact on our salvation or contradicts revealed truth, then anyone is free to believe about this any way they choose and how ever it is helpful for them. We should be careful of confusing Sacred Tradition (those truths handed down from the Apostles not found in Sacred Scripture) with other, non-binding, traditions.

You are correct: some openmindedness is needed.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What if it is the truth???

In my opinion being Catholic is about preserving and having the Truth. If this is the truth or real close to it then shouldn’t we consider things more along these lines for Joseph and Mary?

After all the Fathers of the church felt it important to keep these traditions so shouldn’t we. And it is not like a Pope at some time decided to burn these as herecy or something and is several writings from the Fathers you will see them mention Joseph having been married before and such when addressing churches that were falling or in heresy.

As a Catholic we should strive for the truth in all things.

 

[az_4_faith]

Many, many people, including the early Church Fathers, have had private revelations to which descriptions of particular events in the life of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and others have been revealed.

Sometimes, these private revelations contradict other private revelations. They are unique, personal and directed towards the particular individual that they are afforded. They are not necessarily intended to pertain to other individuals, even when they are released to the public.

We are not obliged to believe these revelations nor apply them to our personal lives. That’s not to say that they are false. We may meditate on these revelations keeping all of these things in mind.

Please see the Catechism’s reference to Private Revelation:

#67: Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magesterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

In the age of the Internet, one must be particularly careful in discerning the information so easily available to all.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I had not considered ‘private revelation’ and only what the gnostics would call revelation. Since I did not see this as a gnostic writing I took it as oral and written tradition.

To me this makes a lot of sense but to others it seems like they cannot grasp it as being the truth.

One thing that is beyond the ‘private revelation’ suggestion is that Joseph was previously married and had children. Even with that knowledge one cannot reasonably assume Joseph would be a young man.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have read…

I have read…

???

useless, useless, useless for the purposes of discussion or debate on this site. What did you read. where did you read it. who was the author, by what authority was it written, what is the scholarship behind it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

useless, useless, useless for the purposes of discussion or debate on this site. What did you read. where did you read it. who was the author, by what authority was it written, what is the scholarship behind it.

See post #6 and you will have some of what I have read.

God Bless and Peace

Jack

 

[Fidelis]

What if it is the truth???

In my opinion being Catholic is about preserving and having the Truth. If this is the truth or real close to it then shouldn’t we consider things more along these lines for Joseph and Mary?

After all the Fathers of the church felt it important to keep these traditions so shouldn’t we. And it is not like a Pope at some time decided to burn these as herecy or something and is several writings from the Fathers you will see them mention Joseph having been married before and such when addressing churches that were falling or in heresy.

As a Catholic we should strive for the truth in all things.

Again, you are confusing **Sacred Tradition **(those truths handed down from the Apostles not found in Sacred Scripture) with other, non-binding, traditions. Here is an excerpt from a Catholic Answers article:

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following:

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

**Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions **

**83 **The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am not confused about Tradition vs tradition (Big T vs little t). However, tradition is still there and it is a part of history as well.

I think that Tradition is guided by the Spirit of Truth but tradition also has importance. I am not saying that tradition (little t) is necessary for salvation instead I am saying we should teach tradition (or history) accurately or at least with all the information that our church has.

Ex. When we review the Protestant Reformation we see historical differences depending on who is telling the story. The Catholic Church has always tried to keep historical accounts accurate.

It is the historical account that matters in my opinion and in the case of Joseph and Mary the Bible lacks much in regards to Joseph since it is not needed from that point of view. But as history and what Catholics believed and taught in the early church, it is still a tradition (little t) in my opinion.

In todays world I find many Catholics believing in Protestant views that are contrary to the Catholic church and its Tradition, tradition, and the Catechism. I want to bring this little bit of information to the table becasue I believe many Catholics are caught up in the Hollywood version of Joseph and Mary, after all it is very romantisized in a hollywood fashion.

What I am asking in this post is if this tradition is accurate and from what I have read it seems to be. All I have read so far is personal opinions based on their logic or reason but nothing to contradict it. Or, in this last case a post to dispell it as unimportant since it is not Tradition (with a big T) or part of the doctrine and dogma taught with the Catechism.

Further…

From your LINK:

“*However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. **Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. **(This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion). *”

 

[Verbum]

Hi Jack,

Even ancient historians need to cite their sources or have been eye-witnesses to be considered serious. These “accounts” are no more than fairy tales and have no value whatsoever.

Verbum

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hi Jack,

Even ancient historians need to cite their sources or have been eye-witnesses to be considered serious. These “accounts” are no more than fairy tales and have no value whatsoever.

Verbum

Are you aware of the authors of the Gospels?

You are quick to dismiss something that YOU do not like.

And did you even read either of the two links I provided for your benefit or any one else willing to read it. It comes from two Catholic sites and can be trusted…

 

[LilyM]

Hi Jack,

Even ancient historians need to cite their sources or have been eye-witnesses to be considered serious. These “accounts” are no more than fairy tales and have no value whatsoever.

Verbum

Jack, elderly is one thing - certainly it’s very plausible that Joseph could have been significantly older than Mary. A 60 or 70 year age difference is something quite extraordinary though. And would have been in those days as well. And I believe Joseph and Mary were, and had to be, a relatively normal family as far as outward appearances. That’s why Jesus was born so humbly when he could have been (and would have been more easily believed if he had been) a great Prince or the son of the High Priest or something.

Imagine the attention that would have been drawn to Jesus (and to Joseph, who everyone thought was his father!) if he was 85 at the birth of the child. It is recorded in the Scriptures that Zechariah and Abraham were old men when they had their children - it was further proof that the births of their sons were miraculous. It almost certainly would have been recorded if Joseph was so elderly as well.

Don’t forget the things Joseph did and had to do during his remaining thirty years. Play with the child, teach him the physically very demanding trade of carpentry, journey to Bethlehem, to Egypt and back to Nazareth. A few side trips to the Temple in Jerusalem (imagine him at the age of nearly a hundred running around looking for Jesus when he was lost in the Temple?!?).

Altogether it’s much more plausible that he was closer to Mary’s age. There’s no Hollywood glamour in this, no romanticism (remember they never consummated their marriage or anything). It’s simply common sense and ties in better with the Gospel as well if Joseph wasn’t 85…

And there’s no more proof of the Divine Inspiration of that particular text than of any of the other account of the lives of Jesus, Mary and the Apostles which haven’t been included in the Bible. We are not obligated to place any credence in a word of any of them.