Why Was Joseph Nrver Mentioned in Bible Again

analogy by Jason Stout

T he earliest writing we have most Jesus comes from Paul. His letters were written circa 50 Advert, about 20 years after Jesus was executed; they constitute the bulk of the New Testament. Paul relates that he met and had extensive conversations with at to the lowest degree 2 men who knew Jesus and Mary personally: Peter, and James the Only (who is identified by both Paul and The Book of Acts every bit the brother of Jesus). It'south safe to presume that when Paul went to Jerusalem to argue doctrine with Peter and James, he met others who had seen Jesus firsthand. Paul was Christianity's near intense evangelist, dedicated to converting Jews (like himself) and gentiles alike. It's a telling fact, so, that Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, or the miracle of the virgin nascency. Paul probably heard of Mary from her son James, but Mary wasn't important religiously to Paul, or surely he would take mentioned her. And he didn't seem to think Jesus' birth was anything out of the ordinary; again, if he had, he would have mentioned it, for no i was more passionate in declaiming that Jesus was the Messiah.

The side by side account of Jesus is the Gospel According to Mark, though it'southward printed 2d (after Matthew) in the Bible. Scholars believe Mark wrote circa lxx AD, and they believe Mark'southward was the first extant Gospel considering information technology'due south articulate that Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Why is it clear? Because Matthew (written, scholars believe, circa 80 AD) and Luke (written circa xc AD) but agree on the sequence of their stories when they re-create and/or re-write Marking; in everything else the sequence and/or the content of their stories differ from each other. The reasonable assumption is that both Matthew and Luke had copies of Marking, and used Mark for their general structure, adding and subtracting as they saw fit.

Writing merely xl years later Jesus' death, Mark likewise may have known witnesses to Jesus' life, or people who knew the witnesses. All the same Mark likewise never mentions anything unusual almost Jesus' birth; and, though he mentions Mary several times, he never mentions Joseph. The Gospel of John is thought to be the latest, written circa 100 Advertizement. It differs completely from the other gospels both in sequence and content, so virtually scholars believe that John didn't know the gospels of Marking, Matthew, and Luke. John had heard of Mary. She appears in his piece of work both at the Wedding in Cana and at the Crucifixion. So it'south all the more than meaning that, having heard of Mary, he never mentions a miraculous birth.

In addition, Paul, Mark, and John speak of many towns and cities where Jesus lived and preached, merely they never speak of Bethlehem. All make the assumption that Jesus spent his entire pre-Gospel life in Nazareth.

Thus "the Christmas story" doesn't go back to the earliest witnesses, and fifty-fifty 1 of the later evangelists didn't know it. We get "Christmas" merely from Matthew and Luke, who speak of a Bethlehem virgin nativity but contradict each other on all other details. The parts of their tales that can be historically checked don't concord up either.

For instance, in his Chapter 2, Matthew tells us that when Herod the Groovy heard that a rival "male monarch of the Jews" had recently been born in Bethlehem, he ordered the massacre of all Bethlehem boys 2 years of age and younger. Notwithstanding not just practise the historical records of that time -- which are rife with massacres -- never mention such an barbarism; it also doesn't fit what we know of the character of first-century Jews.

These people were peasants who could non be depended upon to be docile. For example, it'south well-documented that when the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, in the year 27, tried simply to install busts of the Emperor Tiberius in Jerusalem (which was not far from Bethlehem), the peasant population rose in a nonviolent protest. When Pilate threatened to impale them all -- men, women, and children alike -- they told Pilate that they'd choose expiry rather than be forced to alive with the offending statues. They didn't budge; they but stayed where they had gathered, waiting for the Roman soldiers (who'd surrounded them) to kill them. Pilate didn't want his administration to begin with mass murder -- apparently he thought that wouldn't reverberate well on his administration in Rome (you tin can't revenue enhancement dead people) -- so he backed off and took the statues downward.

Does this sound like a people who would stand for having all their minor males slaughtered at the whim of a rex? Given that there is no corroboration in any of the writings of the time, and that the tale of Herod's massacre goes against everything known about the character of first-century Jews (who from roughly 65 to 120 AD would fight a long, bloody state of war against the Romans, fighting on even when they knew they would lose) -- Matthew'southward massacre doesn't hold historical water. Scholars think that Matthew located Jesus' birth in Bethlehem to convince his audience that prophecy had been fulfilled and the Messiah had been built-in in the city of David, which was Bethlehem.

Today, even conservative Catholic historians such as John P. Meier, a practicing priest and the author of ane of the nearly respected scholarly works on Jesus (A Marginal Jew -- Rethinking the Historical Jesus), no longer believe that Jesus was built-in in Bethlehem. Since Fr. Meier publishes with the tacit approving of the Vatican, it seems that the pope no longer insists on Bethlehem either.

If Luke had believed and/or heard of the story of Herod'due south massacre, he surely would have repeated it; but in that location's no such massacre in Luke. Like Matthew, Luke sets the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, for the same reason -- it was the traditional birthplace of David; and, with Matthew, Luke is the only other writer of that era who'd heard of Joseph and of a virgin birth. But Luke doesn't assume the Joseph family lived in Bethlehem; he gets them to Bethlehem with the excuse that they had to return to the city of Joseph's birth in order to comply with a Roman census.

Then, as at present, a demography was a crucial regime function conducted in order to determine whom to tax, and to determine the extent of the Empire's resources. Copious records were kept of every census, still at that place is no record of Luke'southward census -- neither its year, nor its odd way of head-counting. Many scholars have pointed out that a demography was taken where people lived and worked; to require anybody to go back to their birthplace would cause major economical disruption. That would have a large bite out of the taxes, and taxes were what the Roman Empire was all about. Luke's audience apparently had heard that Jesus' family had always lived in Nazareth, and so Luke strained to invent an unlikely census to get them to Bethlehem.

Here Luke adds a detail worthy of Cecil B. DeMille: that Mary's cousin Elizabeth is the mother of John the Baptist. Making Jesus and John cousins is pure hokum, yet in its way this was an honorable invention: The highly intelligent conversation between Mary and Elizabeth (Luke 1:41-56) is unique, even revolutionary, in the literature of its time. Jews, Greeks, Romans, and, past Luke's fourth dimension, many Christians would have been appalled at women having the temerity to philosophize nigh God. Luke tried to counter such prejudice. Only the Baptist's origins were obscure, to say the least. Fifty-fifty the contemporary Jewish historian Josephus, who writes extensively of John the Baptist and who certainly knew people who'd seen John, doesn't seem to know where John came from.

Matthew has the Magi and the guiding star; Luke never heard of them. Luke has the manger and the shepherds; Matthew never heard of them. Paul, Mark, and John never heard of whatsoever of it. Only Matthew and Luke mention Joseph, and only in their nativity-tales; after that, they never mention him again.

All of which presents difficulties for those who have the Bible as literal truth. They are forced to believe that several contradictory accounts are true at the same time. Under such a strain, it's no wonder they anger easily.

In The God of Jesus, the Christian minister Stephen J. Patterson writes: "when faith in God is exchanged for organized religion in the Bible, the nature of religion is contradistinct dramatically and fatally. For in and so doing nosotros have exchanged a human relationship of trust in a living God for a very unlike kind of relationship: the possession of a text. ... It reduces God to an object nosotros can hands use. ... But this use of the Bible is idolatrous. The Bible is not God; God is non an object. God does not submit to our desires in this way."

Jesus was a Jewish peasant whose sense of intimacy with God gave him the freedom to comport fearlessly and generously. Jesus said, "Love ane some other." He rejected no one. He told u.s.a. that the Kingdom of God (the unabridged Kingdom!) was within the states. He enacted his dear at the risk of his life.

Isn't that miracle enough?

madridyalmled1962.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/1998-12-25/520867/