12/16/2023
In an age where it is common to alter parts of classic stories and films to "adjust" thing to some new perceived "reality", altering characters in the story seems to be highly in fashion now. We think of this as a current trend, but can anyone think of a time when a story was not altered to make it more palatable or interesting to the audience?
We are all aware that Jesus was a middle eastern male, who in his ministry did not look like he was painted in the Renaissance artwork that all of those of European descent have hanging in their homes. He was most likely not a blond, blue eyed, delicately handsome man coveted by the wealthy Florentines of the day. He would have been a typical resident of the time in that area of the world. He would have looked like anyone we see on the nightly news from that area of the world. At the time of the painting, the Florentines were paying the bills. So Jesus looks like them. If horses had money and were capable of art, Jesus would look like a horse.
It's as good a time to do a re-examination of the characters from time to time, just to bring us back to who they would have been in the time that they lived. We can base this analysis on both scripture, sociology, and on the sciences. Scripture gives us the story, an almost immediately, like in a game of telephone, what the person at one end of the telephone says is rarely what the last person hears. Sociology and science brings us back to the original message. Today, we will re-examine Joseph, the earthly "Dad" of Jesus.
The Myth is that Joseph and family were poor refugees that were persecuted and the victims of the society surrounding them. Nothing can be further from the actual situation that Joseph, Mary and Jesus found themselves in at the “first’ Christmas and then ever after. Joseph was not a poor, illiterate, foreigner being cast about by the world. Jesus did not grow up in poverty.
This has been brought up by Christian theologians for a couple of centuries, and over the past couple of decades the argument against Joseph’s poverty has worked its way into the mainstream. Let’s explore it.
The generic situation is that a male, about 30 years in age, was to wed a 14-year-old girl — a situation that was fairly common at the time. In Jewish culture (as in most cultures at the time), women were property, plain and simple. Women birthed children and cared for the house while the men provided. With few exceptions that has been the societal norm almost universally until very recently — maybe the last 50–70 years.
It was the general intention of most families at the time to train their sons to provide for families and find them good wives. The girls were off-loaded into marriage as soon as possible to stop the drain on the family they were born into. Marriages then, as in many cultures today, were arranged.
This system was not without heart. Few fathers would not, even then, put their daughters into what was perceived as a dangerous situation, or a situation where their daughter would be subject to poverty and suffering. In these arranged marriages the bride’s family did their best to put their daughters into a better situation than they had growing up.
In most arranged marriages of the time, the union served to join 2 families. No father would allow his daughter to marry into a family beneath them in the social hierarchy. It was customary for the groom to provide something to the bride’s family in exchange for the bride. This was referred to as a “get” in the Jewish culture of the time. It consisted of something of value - livestock, property, in the time of Jesus, gold and silver, spice, and other valuable commodity items. The “get” would have to be acceptable to the bride’s family. If nothing else, the social pressure to marry equal or up ruled the day.
Joseph was, by all accounts a carpenter, which was, and still remains a skilled trade. I don’t think I’ve ever met a poor carpenter who was at least competent at his job. Beyond this, in the gospel accounts, Joseph was referred to as a “Tekton”, which in the Greek that the New Testament was written in, translates as “master builder” (think General Contractor for major building projects). Many biblical scholars believe that Joseph resided in Nazareth, rather than his perceived hometown of Bethlehem, to help rebuild a city nearby to Nazareth which was burned to the ground by the Romans in about what would be 5–15 BCE. There would have been lots of work for a skilled builder.
Joseph was widely known in Nazareth. The community was well aware of him in biblical accounts. He was respected at the synagogue to the point that Jesus was asked, on at least one occurrence, to read the scripture for the service, and to comment on it (we would call that teaching, or even preaching nowadays.). Joseph’s stature was also referenced when Jesus got lost in Jerusalem as a boy. He was found teaching the priests and the pharisees in the temple. Assuming the story to be true as written, this also speaks to Joseph's stature in the community. In today's world, no one would be entertaining a jabbering 12-year-old unless the child’s father was well-respected in the community. We can safely assume that human nature has not changed that much in 2000 years.
All of this speaks to literacy, which was reserved for people who needed it, which was not the poor nobodies. The common street language was Aramaic, a dialect related to Hebrew. Joseph, as a businessman, would need to be fluent in speaking, writing, and reading Aramaic and formal Hebrew (for religious purposes). Greek (the language of business at the time), and Latin (the language of Rome) would have also required anyone conducting business on Joseph's level to have mastered these as well. Jesus was also literate in these 3 languages as witness by several gospel accounts.
Jesus was trained in his religion in a formal setting — his knowledge of specific scripture and where to find it can be excused with “well, he was God”, but what is far more likely is that Joseph had him trained religiously at synagogue, learning from the teachers and pharisees there. It may be where Jesus developed his distaste of the hard legalities of the pharisees. As it is common in this time for successful families with strong ties to their religion to "dedicate" a child to God's service (In America, who doesn't know an Italian, or Hispanic, or Irish family without a priest in it?). Mary was, by all accounts on board with this idea.
According to the Gospel accounts, Joseph was summoned to Bethlehem to register in the census of Rome. Historical errors or not in scripture, interpreting this in the context of the time, this also provides important information on Joseph and his family. The census was taken to provide Rome with an accurate estimate of the taxes that should be expected for Rome to receive. This advocates the proposal of Joseph not being either poor, or a refugee. Joseph made enough money to pay taxes, and he obeyed Roman law in paying them, and complying with the census.
Again, according to the Gospels, Joseph brought a pregnant Mary, on a donkey, to Bethlehem. Owning a donkey did not make Joseph wildly rich, but in the times written about, a donkey would be the economic equivalent of a Chevy pick-up. At least. A donkey is not cheap to maintain. Cows, sheep and hens could be used as food. Donkeys were for transport. He was maintaining the donkey in addition to keeping his family fed & housed, oh, and paying his taxes.
In the Gospel of Matthew, the author tells the tale of Herod’s slaughter of all male children under the age of 2 out of jealousy over visiting wise men claiming the birth of a new Jewish king. The family did not leave immediately for Egypt as this event happened some time after Jesus’ birth. Joseph became aware of the approaching slaughter. Realizing his son was in danger, he packed up the family AND HIS TOOLS, and went to live and work in Egypt until Herod’s death, about 7 years following.
If they were living still in Bethlehem, the journey would have been about 40 miles (2-3 days walking with a loaded donkey). If they had returned to Nazareth, the journey would have been more difficult at about 300 miles, but followed a main trading route so the journey could have been completed in a couple of weeks. Joseph apparently made a good enough living in Egypt that the family could return and pick up where they left off when they left Egypt for Nazareth.
The last reference to Joseph in the Gospels is finding Jesus, who did not leave with the group returning from the Holy Days in Jerusalem. He and Mary find Jesus in the temple, teaching the teachers. They packed Jesus up, and went home to Nazareth, where the gospels go silent on Jesus’ life until his ministry begins.
There is much controversy about what happened to Joseph — that he died, or divorced Mary, or any number of guesses. I have my own theories, which are backed by a growing number of theologians, but that would be a whole ‘nother article.
The conclusions seem obvious. Joseph and family lived a comfortable, if not rich lifestyles. Joseph was able to feed, house and educate his family A household of at least 9 people - Joseph and Mary, Jesus and 4 brothers (Joses, James, Jude and Simon) and unnamed sisters (plural). Even after Joseph was gone, the family was not destitute. The poor “migrant” story just doesn’t wash.
So where and how did this myth arise? What are there always vast numbers of? Poor people, disenfranchised people, and people in need. Were the rabbis, priests and pharisees poor? No. Were the early church fathers? No. All of the Apostles were either relatives or friends of Jesus, or had actual careers when called. Mary Magdalene was the rarest unicorn - a woman with money and property in 1st Century Judea/Samaria. The main message of Jesus was to show compassion to those less well off. The main mission of the 1st Century church was the care of the poor and marginalized.
Somewhere down the line this myth developed as a way to get the poor to identify with this obscure Jewish rabbi who was sentenced to death for being a pain-in-the-butt. As Pilate is quoted “He has broken no law.”
As the early church grew, and developed both numbers and power, the wonderful hook to get the majority of people to have a feeling of commonality with the “Son of God” was not abandoned but grew, mostly on the promise of "salvation" - no pain, no hunger, no problems - if not in this life, then in the next one for sure. The after-the-fact Apostle Paul had tremendous success with this messaging.
As we advance into the 2nd and 3rd Centuries and beyond the Church hierarchy consolidated itself and found itself being a useful tool to both Rome and increasingly corruptible men. We move into the “dark ages” and Renaissance in Europe where the church had all of the power and most of the money. "Poor Jesus”, and his noble suffering, became a useful tool to keep the money flowing in from the poor to the coffers of the church, and to keep the poor peasantry in line out of fear of what God might do to them.
“Poor Jesus” became a useful tool for the “official” church to maintain power and control over the majority of people. They do this by pointing out that Jesus “accepted his fate” as “God’s will” — and all should follow Jesus’ example. The image of Jesus growing up in poverty, is not only false, it is the tool which the “official” church used to control and rob the common people of the era. What we are witnessing today in too many sects of Christianity is the modern version of this model. It has nothing to do with the actual life of Jesus, and perverts his teachings and concerns for the poor and marginalized.
There is not special glory in being poor, but if Jesus accepted growing up poor, so should you. And you should give the church money to spread the lie and get God’s blessing of going to heaven and not hell. That seems to sum up 2000 years of church hierarchy. It seems to be the only blasphemy ever perpetrated.
The loving God — taught by Jesus, and the majority of other religions, does not cause suffering and strife. The blame for that lies entirely in the corruptible men who become the egotistical parasites that prey on other humans. God does not will bad, that is exclusively a human trait.
It is this very human failing of corruptibility that many are accepting as the teachings of Jesus, when in reality, the churches preaching anything related to this corruption are adding to that very corruption. The only answer to stopping this perversion of Jesus' teachings is honestly,to go back to the basics. The best way, in my walk at least, is to do Jesus in his own time, and the 1st Century Church, before the theologians arose to justify this confusing mishmash of Godly intention applied to man-made doctrine. God does not intend for us to be slaves - that is the intention of human parasites of their own species.
The true message of God is to be free, and to treat every other human with kindness and dignity. What a world this would be if we could accomplish that even a little.
As always, but especially in this Christmas season, enjoy the blessings of Peace, Faith and Love.
RL BRandner, Ecc. New Ecclesiastes Ministries