About Mary and Joseph

[JacktheCatholic]

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. 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 them.

Your use of ‘normal’ and ‘extraordinary’ apply in todays world but 2,000 years ago these terms would have different meaning than today.

As Catholics we read scripture and history within the context of the times and how people lived and thought.

I agree that a couple that had a wife of 12 and a husband of 90 in the USA today would not only be unheard of but illegal.

Back in those times this would have been acceptable and a much better vision than one of Mary being with out a husband and having a child.

As to age there is another Joseph in scripture that lived to be close to 150 years old. We must always remember that all is possible with God. That Joseph being 90 years old would not be so extraordinary or abnormal 2,000 years ago. I think the problem here is that WE have a mindset of those in the 21st century and in cultures that are vastly different than those of Rome 2,000 years ago.

And consider what is readily accepted by many Catholics; Joseph was previously married and with children and that Jesus buried Joseph.

Since Joseph had children from a previous marriage we can assume he was not a young man since it would have taken time to have six children and raise them and that his first wife was deceased before he was asked to marry Mary.

Jesus burrying his foster father also asserts that Joseph was well along in years and he died of old age.

 

[LilyM]

Your use of ‘normal’ and ‘extraordinary’ apply in todays world but 2,000 years ago these terms would have different meaning than today.

As Catholics we read scripture and history within the context of the times and how people lived and thought.

I agree that a couple that had a wife of 12 and a husband of 90 in the USA today would not only be unheard of but illegal.

Back in those times this would have been acceptable and a much better vision than one of Mary being with out a husband and having a child.

As to age there is another Joseph in scripture that lived to be close to 150 years old. We must always remember that all is possible with God. That Joseph being 90 years old would not be so extraordinary or abnormal 2,000 years ago. I think the problem here is that WE have a mindset of those in the 21st century and in cultures that are vastly different than those of Rome 2,000 years ago.

And consider what is readily accepted by many Catholics; Joseph was previously married and with children and that Jesus buried Joseph.

Since Joseph had children from a previous marriage we can assume he was not a young man since it would have taken time to have six children and raise them and that his first wife was deceased before he was asked to marry Mary.

Jesus burrying his foster father also asserts that Joseph was well along in years and he died of old age.

NO NO NO - people had much shorter life expectancies in those days. For anyone at all to live to 85 or 90, or 115 for that matter, would have been MUCH RARER in Jesus’ day than now. Scientific fact, bud.

As for the fact that Jesus buried Joseph - it’s common for children to bury their parents. My parents have outlived three of my grandparents, and my grandparents outlived all of my great-grandparents.

It’s highly extraordinary, in spite of this, for a man to be 85 years old and father (or foster-father even) of a baby. None of my grandfathers or great-grandfathers were over 45 at the birth of their youngest child. I don’t believe any of them were over 95 when they died either.

As to how old Jesus was when Joseph died - well there’s no record of Joseph at all after Jesus was 12, he could have died as early as that.

 

[WhatMeWorry]

Jesus burrying his foster father also asserts that Joseph was well along in years and he died of old age.

Not necessarily. Joseph could have died at what we would consider a “young” age today from illness or from a serious injury. And, back then people were lucky if they lived to be 30. If you made it to 40, you were probably considered “ancient.” (Google “Life expectancy+Roman empire” for sources).

The bottom line is, all we know is that Joseph was alive when Jesus was 12 years old, we don’t know how old he was then, and he could have died the week after the Finding in the Temple.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why is it even necessary to speculate on this?

Because Hollyweird puts out a film we Catholics have to go into immediate offense and put up a ‘small-t-tradition’ that is not considered inspired Scripture, over a description of “elderly” that absolutely no one can make an authoritative judgment on meaning anything from 30 (which would have been a ‘mature’ man or elder in the time of Jesus) to Methuselah’s 969?

I think it bears repeating that nobody “knows” for certain the ages of Mary and Joseph at the time of their marriage or indeed at the times of their deaths.

So why attempt to argue a personal preference rather than just being thankful for them, whatever their ages, whatever their looks, whatever ‘parenting style’ yadda yadda they had. . .for being who they** are**: The Mother and the beloved Foster Father of our Lord.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m a little late to this thread, but I think I went through most of it. Doesn’t this “History of Joseph” contradict the “Protoevangelium of James” which was written around 120AD. In it (I believe) Joseph was dated around the age of 40. He was a widower and was selected by lots by the temple priests (above several other widowers) to wed the young virgin Mary who was consecrated to the Temple by Anne, her mother.

Mary’s vow of chastity would be honored by Joseph, even after they wedded. This could be one of the reasons Mary asked “And how can this be, since I do not know man?” In other words, “how can I conceive and child and uphold my vow of chastity”?

The Proto…, even though it’s not inspired, is considered a part of Catholic tradition, if I’m not mistaken.

I’m at work, and unable to check out “the facts”, so I may be a little off on my recollections.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Not necessarily. Joseph could have died at what we would consider a “young” age today from illness or from a serious injury. And, back then people were lucky if they lived to be 30. If you made it to 40, you were probably considered “ancient.” (Google “Life expectancy+Roman empire” for sources).

The bottom line is, all we know is that Joseph was alive when Jesus was 12 years old, we don’t know how old he was then, and he could have died the week after the Finding in the Temple.

Peter was about 55 when martyred and John lived to 100 ad so he was probably around 100 years old.

I do not know how accurate google is but I trust the information at the library here.

I’m a little late to this thread, but I think I went through most of it. Doesn’t this “History of Joseph” contradict the “Protoevangelium of James” which was written around 120AD. In it (I believe) Joseph was dated around the age of 40. He was a widower and was selected by lots by the temple priests (above several other widowers) to wed the young virgin Mary who was consecrated to the Temple by Anne, her mother.

Mary’s vow of chastity would be honored by Joseph, even after they wedded. This could be one of the reasons Mary asked “And how can this be, since I do not know man?” In other words, “how can I conceive and child and uphold my vow of chastity”?

The Proto…, even though it’s not inspired, is considered a part of Catholic tradition, if I’m not mistaken.

I’m at work, and unable to check out “the facts”, so I may be a little off on my recollections.

The Protoevangelium of James

*“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when **she was twelve years **old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).*

 

[LilyM]

Peter was about 55 when martyred and John lived to 100 ad so he was probably around 100 years old.

I do not know how accurate google is but I trust the information at the library here.

I wouldn’t if it says that John was as old or older than Peter - which is the case here if you do the math. Most of the tradition is that John was significantly younger than Our Lord, as young as 15 or 16 at the Crucifixion, whereas Peter was older than Christ (already married and most likely a widower)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I wouldn’t if it says that John was as old or older than Peter - which is the case here if you do the math. Most of the tradition is that John was significantly younger than Our Lord, as young as 15 or 16 at the Crucifixion, whereas Peter was older than Christ (already married and most likely a widower)

The age of 55 for Peter and John living until 100 ad was from Newadvent.

 

[az_4_faith]

Because Joseph isn’t mentioned as a guest at the Wedding Feast at Cana, it is presumed that he had died already.

The party wouldn’t have included Mary, Jesus and the disciples and not have included Joseph (unless he was pulling some OT in the Carpentry Shop.).

 

[porthos11]

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

No it isn’t, either Tradition or tradition.

The Catholic Encyclopedia calls your History of Joseph the Carpenter " void of authority. VOI D.

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.

I think this notion of Joseph being a decripit old geezer is a product of middle-age piety trying to ensure that he didn’t have his way with Mary.

I don’t even know why you’re trying to compare Mary’s perpetual virginity and Assumption with Joseph’s age. Both the aformentioned are defined dogmas. Joseph’s age isn’t even theologically speculated for doctrine.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (which has more authority than you) says these:

According to the apocryphal “Story of Joseph the Carpenter”, the holy man reached his hundred and eleventh year when he died, on 20 July (A. D. 18 or 19). St. Epiphanius gives him ninety years of age at the time of his demise; and if we are to believe the Venerable Bede, he was buried in the Valley of Josaphat. In truth we do not know when St. Joseph died; it is most unlikely that he attained the ripe old age spoken of by the “Story of Joseph” and St. Epiphanius. The probability is that he died and was buried at Nazareth.

…
It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph’s marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, “the Lord’s brother”). A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael’s “Espousals of the Virgin”), are **void of authority;
**

So don’t try to impose these fancies on Catholics. They are not even reliable, so why try to make them into something they’re not?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

All you have done is clarified what has been said.

But I am not trying to make this story The Story. Instead I am showing that the story of Joseph being young is as absurd if not more.

Though we are all familiar with hollywood’s and the Protestant way of seeing Mary and Joseph that I think this is why I hear fellow Catholics talk of their religion with the falsehoods of Protestants.

The whole point of this post was to shed light where there is darkness. Even though it states ‘void of authority’ it doesn not claim it to be false. However, since it is known Joseph was married before and had other children, to think of Joseph as being young is absurd and simply another hollywood/protestant fancy.

If anything it is the IMPOSING of the lies concerning Mary and Joseph that need addressing and we can start with the age of Joseph and then move on to Mary being a perpetual virgin…

 

[Lorik]

In the book by the Ven. Mary of Agreda called “City of God”, she claims that Our Lady reveled to her that Joseph was about 18 and Mary was about 14.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Hello Jack:

Your original link was to the list of Apocryphal documents from Jewish and early Christian sources.

They do not carry any kind of canonical weight with Tradition and tradition.

Follow your link backwards and you will see what everyone is trying to tell you on this thread:

It’s NOT gospel (to coin a phrase!) and it’s definitely NOT worth wasting your time comparing Hollywood’s version of anything *remotely *Christian on screen with what the Church teaches.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

God bless you,

Pax Christi

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hello Jack:

Your original link was to the list of Apocryphal documents from Jewish and early Christian sources.

They do not carry any kind of canonical weight with Tradition and tradition.

Follow your link backwards and you will see what everyone is trying to tell you on this thread:

It’s NOT gospel (to coin a phrase!) and it’s definitely NOT worth wasting your time comparing Hollywood’s version of anything *remotely *Christian on screen with what the Church teaches.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

God bless you,

Pax Christi

This was a hard lesson for me…

The research that has consumed me today from trying to share this ‘revelation’ led me to a trusted source.

When in doubt I have headed previously to St Thomas Aquinas because he wrote so much and is given the status of both Saint and Doctor.

What I found was this:

Some, as Jerome says on Mt. 12:49,50, “suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph’s sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother’s sister.” For “Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection.” Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, “since he is not said to have had another wife,” and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."

*This made me stop and consider what led me astray because not so long ago I was with knowledge that Jesus had no brothers that were from Mary and that they were cousins.

But I had no concrete understanding of Joseph…

I think my misinformation started with a conversation of James being referred to as being like Jesus when he spoke and someone said James was his relative and that left a consideration that James was a brother from Joseph.

I found sources to back this ‘revelation’…

The reading the Protoevangelium of James from ‘LINK’. I was led to believe it was James the son from Joseph from a previous marriage and my reading continued on this ‘revelation’ until I read other things and Apocrypha.

Sigh

So we use thes Apocrypha with showing the Assumption of Mary and her Virginity until death but some parts (even if a Saint backed it) were rejected later for not having proof or were simply rejected outright.

Anyhow, I am glad to see my error and embarassed at it too. But, it could have been worse since i could have continued on in my half truths. As it is now I must clear this up with a brother of my church and some others, which will damage my credibility but that is minor to the damage of perpetuating this oneside story that was rejected for some unknown reasons.

I have to say that Joseph was most likely a Virgin his whole life and thus he was not previously married and could not have born children. As to his age and cause of death… well, that is still a mystery.

Sorry for this mess of a post, I pray it helped someone else besides me.

God Bless and Peace.

Jack

 

[LilyM]

This was a hard lesson for me…

The research that has consumed me today from trying to share this ‘revelation’ led me to a trusted source.

When in doubt I have headed previously to St Thomas Aquinas because he wrote so much and is given the status of both Saint and Doctor.

What I found was this:

Some, as Jerome says on Mt. 12:49,50, “suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph’s sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother’s sister.” For “Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection.” Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, “since he is not said to have had another wife,” and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."

*This made me stop and consider what led me astray because not so long ago I was with knowledge that Jesus had no brothers that were from Mary and that they were cousins.

But I had no concrete understanding of Joseph…

I think my misinformation started with a conversation of James being referred to as being like Jesus when he spoke and someone said James was his relative and that left a consideration that James was a brother from Joseph.

I found sources to back this ‘revelation’…

The reading the Protoevangelium of James from ‘LINK’. I was led to believe it was James the son from Joseph from a previous marriage and my reading continued on this ‘revelation’ until I read other things and Apocrypha.

Sigh

So we use thes Apocrypha with showing the Assumption of Mary and her Virginity until death but some parts (even if a Saint backed it) were rejected later for not having proof or were simply rejected outright.

Anyhow, I am glad to see my error and embarassed at it too. But, it could have been worse since i could have continued on in my half truths. As it is now I must clear this up with a brother of my church and some others, which will damage my credibility but that is minor to the damage of perpetuating this oneside story that was rejected for some unknown reasons.

I have to say that Joseph was most likely a Virgin his whole life and thus he was not previously married and could not have born children. As to his age and cause of death… well, that is still a mystery.

Sorry for this mess of a post, I pray it helped someone else besides me.

God Bless and Peace.

Jack

No need to be embarrassed at all - forums like this one are here precisely so that people can get credible information and get put right if they’re going a teensy bit askew

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Thanks LilyM!

 

[slowbutfaithful]

Without question, the most beautiful (and faithful) description of all we need to know of St. Joseph can be found in John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation “Redemptoris Custos”.

The rest is Hollywood fantasy.

 

[Evan]

I read an inteview with the makers of ‘The Nativity’ and they said there was no decision to make Joseph young or old. The age was based on the actor they finally cast in the roll. Once he was cast they wrote some addtional scenes based on his age (the age of the actor, not Joseph). We don’t know , they didn’t know so they just used the age of the actor.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jack, don’t be embarassed. You aren’t the first one who has ever been in error on these forums and had to ‘eat his or her words’. . .(IOW, welcome to the club), and I thoroughly respect somebody who has the integrity to not only listen and learn, but actually come right out and admit when he’s not been “as right as usual.” You’re a good example to us all. God bless and Merry Christmas.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack, don’t be embarassed. You aren’t the first one who has ever been in error on these forums and had to ‘eat his or her words’. . .(IOW, welcome to the club), and I thoroughly respect somebody who has the integrity to not only listen and learn, but actually come right out and admit when he’s not been “as right as usual.” You’re a good example to us all. God bless and Merry Christmas.

Thanks, I appreciate the post.

Merry Christmass.

God Bless and Peace.

Jack