This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"Matthew's genealogy traces his legal descent, according to Jewish law, through St. Joseph". What? Under Jewish law, legal descent is traced through the mother, not the father.PiCo (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
they agree in establishing his ancestral connection with King David through Joseph, who would have to have been Jesus's father for the genealogical link to be valid.
In Antiquity all people believed that all heredity is contained by the sperm, source: Nelson, James (2003). "Homosexuality and the Church". In Laderman, Gary; León, Luis D. Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions, Diversity, and Popular Expressions. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio. p. 884. ISBN9781576072387. OCLC773527161.Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
What they believed was that the mother contributed the flesh via her blood and the father the "spirit", the soul. Jewishness was inherited via the mother, and still is - to be a Jew you have to be born of a Jewish mother (converts excepted), and the child of a Jewish father by a goy woman is not a Jew. Inheritance of property, family name and so on is of course by the father, but the point of the heavenly conception genealogies is to establish that Jesus was a Jew via his Jewish mother while being of the family of David by Joseph. Sperm, by the way, wasn't thought to play any role at all, which is why the idea of the divine conception could work at all for ancient people - Joseph wasn't needed, biologically speaking. There's an good explanation of this in a fairly recent book by Andrew Lincoln, "Born of a Virgin?", reviewed by Larry Hurtado here.PiCo (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
You should both be far more cautious about such sweeping statements about what "in Antiquity all people believed" (and possibly so should the authors you mention). There's ample evidence beliefs varied hugely on this sort of issue. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
We have to stick to reliable sources, and Lincoln is a well-credentialed scholar (and his book has been well received). What are these other sources? PiCo (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is an argument that in the Bible lineage was decided by the father, but in late antiquity the situation was reversed, being decided by the mother. Source quotes Shaye J. D. Cohen. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Wright Knust, Jennifer (25 January 2011). "Chapter 5 - Strange Flesh". Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire. HarperCollins. ISBN978-0-06-201082-7. As property, the accumulation of wives, foreign or otherwise, did not threaten the genealogy of Israel, which passed exclusively through the male line well into the second century CE.51 51. As Shaye J. D. Cohen has ably demonstrated, the rabbinic view that in cases of intermarriage Jewish identity passes through the female line cannot be found prior to the codification of the Mishnah. See Beginnings of Jewishness, 283–307.Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Bart Ehrman made the point of his blog that speaking about what ancient Jews believed is like speaking about what 21st century Americans believe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. The proposer of the move doesn't have an automatic right to withdraw once others have contributed, but in this case it is fairly clear there's enough opposition with valid reasoning that there is no consensus to move. — — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Saint Joseph → Joseph (husband of Mary) – Let me first begin - There has not been a requested move for over two years, so I believe it is appropriate to open another requested move topic. Saint Joseph is not WP:NPOV — Joseph is most commonly accounted as Joseph, husband of Mary. You rarely very hear Saint Joseph outside of Catholicism. Joseph (father of Jesus) would not work because it is not NPOV, as Christians regard that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This is why I am proposing to move the page to Joseph (husband of Mary). This article needs to be consistent and match other related article titles, such as Mary (mother of Jesus) and not Virgin Mary or Saint Mary. Shouldn't this article name have that format as well? I also request move per MOS:SAINTS, which says Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name. It is quite self-explanatory – The Bible also regards Joseph as Joseph, husband of Mary. Request move per NPOV and MOS:SAINTS. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 22:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You have a point, Tgeorgescu. However — Luke 2:1-7 confirms the idea that Joseph and Mary, though betrothed, were considered as husband and wife by Jewish customs even though the actual marriage ceremony had not been fully effectuated. So, Joseph and Mary were actually legally married before the birth of Jesus though their marriage was not consummated physically until after His birth. This is speaking from the Bible. If you wanted a non-Biblical source, I would need to do some more research. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 00:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. However, some Eastern Orthodox believers still judge the orthodoxy of Bible translations by whether these call them married or betrothed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:SAINTS: For example, we use Joan of Arc (recognizable, natural, concise, and unambiguous) but Saint Monica. (Disambiguation is necessary because Monica is a disambiguation page; editors have preferred "Saint Monica" over other possible titles, such as Monica of Hippo.) Another name cannot be agreed on as past discussions have demonstrated, and there is a set index article at Joseph. On a side note: "Joseph (father of Jesus)" (though we probably wouldn't go the hardcore empirical evidence route in this case anyway) wouldn't work because, as there is controversy around it, we couldn't assume Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Godsy — Thank you for your response – Saint Joseph is NOT NPOV, as I said in the opening statement. He is only referred to that inside Catholicism, and not the Christian Protestant churches. Joseph (husband of Mary) is NPOV because that is what the Bible says as well as many scholars. The only statement I agree with you on is that Joseph (father of Jesus) is NOT NPOV. Let's define Saint – A saint is a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness, or likeness to God – Protestants do not believe that Mary or Joseph have an exceptional degree of holiness or likeness to God, just because the raised Jesus of Nazareth in which Christians believe to be the Messiah. The biggest point I made was having a NPOV, and that's why I am proposing the move. Besides, this proposed change would match other articles, i.e., Mary (mother of Jesus), another reason to support the move. Let's have articles similar be concise and same in formatting. If you support having Saint in the title, than you should support the title of Mary's article being Saint Mary. I don't want to be rude or too personal, and I just wanted to point those things out, not to force you to support the vote, just to make those things more clear. Cheers, my friend. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 02:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, Godsy - my claim was False equivalence. Like we both agree, Mary (wife of Joseph) would not work, because she is more known as being the mother of Jesus. Godsy, I don't want to sound rude or mean at all, I am here to contribute nicely, but how is Saint Joseph NPOV? Saint is a Catholicism doctrine, in which Protestant churches do not use. The definition of Saint: A saint is a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness, or likeness to God - Protestants do not believe that Mary or Joseph are holy in any way like God. That is why I don't agree with you about the current title being NPOV. Also, I am somewhat confused. Again, I don't want to sound sassy or rude, but why do you not support Joseph (husband of Mary)? Biblical evidence says that Joseph was the husband of Mary, as well as many scholars. Would you support Joseph (betrothed to Mary) instead? Cheers, my friend. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 15:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Godsy — I just learned that relationships as a Disambiguation is strongly discouraged, from what Johnbod has said about NPOV. If that is true, than this move request may not be appropriate. I hate to get off topic, but it seems that I have been a inappropriate user. There seems to be no good title, and Joseph of Nazareth is not good because it is very uncommon that you hear Joseph referred to that way. I think Saint Joseph might actually be the best title for the page. How should I preceded? Withdraw or just let the discussion go on? I am foolish, none the less, for not doing my research. Thank you for clarifying. We are hear to be civil and make Wikipedia better, so I still have learning to do. Cheers! CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 00:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy:If the nominator appears to have genuinely changed their mind due to other views expressed, the discussion should not be considered withdrawn. Instead, consider whether to use any of the early closures below — I want to withdraw, but it seems that maybe other people want to contribute to the discussion. What would you do in this kind of case?
Oppose per MOS:SAINTS etc, and the unsuitability of this name per Tgeorgescu above. Is Joseph ever referred to by this title - no! In fact there have been two failed proposals in the last two years. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod - I have no problem if this request fails, not at all. I am trying to start a discussion — yes, Joseph is ever refereed to as the husband of Mary. Did you read my proposal and why I am requesting the move. You sound very sarcastic and sassy when you use italics in such a tone, but that's my opinion. I am here to discuss policy and viable options. I did give reasons on why Saints is not a viable option. It fails NPOV. Did you read my response to Godsy? Please be more considerate and explain in detail why you are opposing. Please read my comment to Godsy and the definition of Saint. I hope we can discuss soon, my friend. Cheers! Please: remain calm, nice and considerate of others, while the editing gets hot. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 04:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Inappropriate comment by CookieMonster755 removed due to Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Johnbod - Sorry, I am getting much to personal with Wikipedia. Sorry If I sounded rude before. I need a Wikibreak. Goodnight. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 04:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Support he's not called "Saint Joseph" in the only document to mention him. If church buildings are taken out " Joseph, husband of Mary" is the WP:COMMONNAME in GBooks for the individual not a building. Also per neutrality, but mainly per GBook evidence in WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
How on earth do you conclude that? Your gbooks search gets a mere 32K hits, tiny in this context, and pretty good evidence that this is very far from the WP:COMMONNAME. "Saint Joseph" gets 1.4 million gbook hits], though there is certainly a lot of chaff and place/institution names among these. Other "Saint Joseph"s are all relatively obscure, apart from Joseph of Arimathea, who even Cathiolics always call by that name. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Support, per Matthew 1:16: "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." H. Humbert (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Support remove religious advocation "Saint" — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, per MOS:SAINTS. The allegation that it violates WP:NPOV is baseless. It is simply not true that this is a Catholic-only usage. The usage is widespread through-out Christianity, including the Orthodox, the Nestorians, the Jacobites, and the Protestant state-established churches of Europe. Indeed the claim that this is Catholic only could only have originated from someone whose experience is limited to American denominations. Rwflammang (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Rwflammang — If that is the case, than why is Mary (mother of Jesus) named Saint Mary? I guess there is no policy on that. Yes, I am an American. How does that have anything to do with the move request? I am trying to keep on topic. Cheers! CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 18:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that she's almost never known as Saint Mary, by Catholics or anyone else! She has many names. Joseph doesn't. He's usually either known as Saint Joseph or just as half of Mary and Joseph. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Rwflammang — As the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality, other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal from MOS:SAINTS. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 18:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:SAINTS as others have elaborated. These requests are getting tiresome and I would hope the closing admin considers a moratorium against similar discussions on this and other pages. Calidum¤ 23:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Calidum That is certainly your opinion if these request are "tiresome" — but I welcome your helpful contributions into this discussion and discussing on why the proposed move is "tiresome" and not helpful. Cheers, my friend! CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 01:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I think MOS:SAINTS looks as though it has had a little local consensus on it so it conflicts with general Wikipedia rules about clarity and bias. Fortunately the project's editors haven't followed it in regard to other New Testament figures, so consistency would support using WP:COMMONNAME for the man here also. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Support move to Joseph, husband of Mary as a natural disambiguator. MOS:SAINTS cannot override NPOV, but even assuming arguendo that it is not a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, it states, "As the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality, other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal." (emphasis added) Regards, James (talk/contribs) 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
That quote remixed: "As the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality, other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal." (emphasis added) But they aren't equal here. I don't believe that anyone has yet pointed out that "relationship to" disambiguators are very strongly deprecated for NPOV reasons - see the box at the top of the talk page at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown and similar cases. Most such pages have been moved away from these titles. This proposal would take us out of the frying-pan into the fire. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The current disambiguator is clearly the best and least long-winded one, whether you're religious or a Catholic (I'm neither) or not. Is he known by that name? Yes, he is. Are most people going to know who we're referring to? Yes, they are. Is he only referred to as St Joseph in Catholicism? No, he isn't. Anglicanism and Orthodoxy use that name too, as do, in reality, many nonconformist churches. And since he's only notable for being a New Testament figure, any argument that it's a Christian POV would be irrelevant. Of course it is. How could it be anything else? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Withdraw Request by requested user — Please withdraw this requested move. The users who opposed the move have made some good points, one of them being that relationships in Disambiguations are highly not recommended per policy. Thank you, i hope it is possible to close. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 21:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.