Joseph - A Man Of Many Colours.

[Wayseer]

First, I am ever so thankful that Jack has moved to these sites. The old discussion forum was dominated by a few who had little time for any 'intruder'.

 

I had not thought about Joseph having been a literary construction. But then after having read JSS's latest letter I can't help thinking - Now, why didn't I think of that?

 

Mind you, I thought the whole thing about travelling to and from Egypt a bit far fetched and the matter of a returning 'son' to a small village with wife in labour being left to fend for themselves contradicts all norms of honour and shame.

 

But a 'constructed' Joseph makes sense, particularly in light of his obvious silence after the birth narratives. And I like the idea that the use of Joseph by Matthew, the gospel writer for the Jews, used 'Joseph' to bridge the gap and enmity between Judea and Israel.

 

That will set the hounds running, again, among the fundamentalists - and it increasingly appears that 'mainstream' Christianity is being drawn inexplicably into the fundamentalist web.

[Juanster]

First, I am ever so thankful that Jack has moved to these sites. The old discussion forum was dominated by a few who had little time for any 'intruder'.

 

I had not thought about Joseph having been a literary construction. But then after having read JSS's latest letter I can't help thinking - Now, why didn't I think of that?

 

Mind you, I thought the whole thing about travelling to and from Egypt a bit far fetched and the matter of a returning 'son' to a small village with wife in labour being left to fend for themselves contradicts all norms of honour and shame.

 

But a 'constructed' Joseph makes sense, particularly in light of his obvious silence after the birth narratives. And I like the idea that the use of Joseph by Matthew, the gospel writer for the Jews, used 'Joseph' to bridge the gap and enmity between Judea and Israel.

 

That will set the hounds running, again, among the fundamentalists - and it increasingly appears that 'mainstream' Christianity is being drawn inexplicably into the fundamentalist web.

 

 

Hi Wayseer,

Your comment about Joseph being a construct of Matthew's, raises the distinct possibilit that the whole yarn is a construct. for the life of me I can't determine why those people back then were so bent on converting Jew's into christians instead of the other way around; of turning Christians into Jews? Waht was Romes motive for doing this, if not for political reasons?

If you research exactly who Matthew really was, his access to the details of the birth of Christ and what the angel said to Joseph about fleeing to egypt, Matthew would of had to have been in the same room with him.

Another caveat many over look is the fact that Matthew was an alleged former employee of the Romans, just as Paul was. Were they also in cahoots in making up this construct? Is it possible that we are interpreting the word "disciple" in the wrong context?

When [disciple] is construed to mean One who follows, Isn't this exactly what a Papparottzi, does, just with different motives? Was Matthew a quisling infiltrator, still in the employ of the Romans to get the "goods" on this alleged seditious rebel? Remember the Sicari gang, mind you, of whom Judus was a member of. The details Matthew records could only be gathered by one who is trusted. Going undercover by claiming to divest himself of all of his earthly possessions, would create this required atmosphere of trust between Jesus and Matthew, wouldn't you think? See if this site makes sense to you: My link

[Wayseer]

 

Hi Wayseer,

Your comment about Joseph being a construct of Matthew's, raises the distinct possibilit that the whole yarn is a construct. for the life of me I can't determine why those people back then were so bent on converting Jew's into christians instead of the other way around; of turning Christians into Jews? Waht was Romes motive for doing this, if not for political reasons?

If you research exactly who Matthew really was, his access to the details of the birth of Christ and what the angel said to Joseph about fleeing to egypt, Matthew would of had to have been in the same room with him.

Another caveat many over look is the fact that Matthew was an alleged former employee of the Romans, just as Paul was. Were they also in cahoots in making up this construct? Is it possible that we are interpreting the word "disciple" in the wrong context?

When [disciple] is construed to mean One who follows, Isn't this exactly what a Papparottzi, does, just with different motives? Was Matthew a quisling infiltrator, still in the employ of the Romans to get the "goods" on this alleged seditious rebel? Remember the Sicari gang, mind you, of whom Judus was a member of. The details Matthew records could only be gathered by one who is trusted. Going undercover by claiming to divest himself of all of his earthly possessions, would create this required atmosphere of trust between Jesus and Matthew, wouldn't you think? See if this site makes sense to you: My link

 

You bring up some hitherto unconsidered thoughts. My initial reaction is to question whether the author Matthew was as smart as you would like him. After all, he did have to copy off Mark and Q to get his narrative over the line. And I like you take on 'disciple'. Interesting.

 

But I think Matthew was writing with a particular agenda in mind and that agenda was to try to get the Jewish converts on side. But in doing so he was stuck. If his agenda was directed at his Jewish audience then he had to get Jesus shoehorned into the overall Jewish narrative marrying together the messianic message with David and location - Judea rather than Galilee. To do all that he had to think of a way of moving Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. And like any good story tellers he uses his imagination. The result was he had to 'construct' Joseph. You could not have some reprobate from the back blocks of Galilee become the hero of the story. So Jesus had to overcome the 'honour and shame' cultural barrier and therefore had to have a real father and a real home.

 

The 'escape' to and from Egypt was just to link Jesus in with the Exodus story - another distinctive Jewish appendage.

[Juanster]

You bring up some hitherto unconsidered thoughts. My initial reaction is to question whether the author Matthew was as smart as you would like him. After all, he did have to copy off Mark and Q to get his narrative over the line. And I like you take on 'disciple'. Interesting.

 

But I think Matthew was writing with a particular agenda in mind and that agenda was to try to get the Jewish converts on side. But in doing so he was stuck. If his agenda was directed at his Jewish audience then he had to get Jesus shoehorned into the overall Jewish narrative marrying together the messianic message with David and location - Judea rather than Galilee. To do all that he had to think of a way of moving Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. And like any good story tellers he uses his imagination. The result was he had to 'construct' Joseph. You could not have some reprobate from the back blocks of Galilee become the hero of the story. So Jesus had to overcome the 'honour and shame' cultural barrier and therefore had to have a real father and a real home.

 

The 'escape' to and from Egypt was just to link Jesus in with the Exodus story - another distinctive Jewish appendage.

 

Hi Wayseer,

 

What many have failed to acknowledge or ignore is the Political atmosphere in the area during Jesus' era. The oppression most of the Israelites were upset about was the incidence of double taxation; The 10% the Israelites were obligated to pay as tithes to the Temple, plus what the Romans required. This in their view, was being exploited and doubly taxed for only those who were Believers in the dogma of The Temple. Those who frequented Synagogues,namely the Pharisees, were't obligated in this manner.

 

With Matthew as the tax collector and Saul the enforcer of Roman Law, these two men knew each other and were in cahoots, which enabled them both to accomplish their jobs successfully. See the response of the Pharisees to Caiphus about losing their positions if Jesus was allowed to live, Jn.11:43-50

 

In my search for a motive and the results of constructing the Joseph concoction, the beneficiaries of such a story were the oppressive Roman Rulers and their Pharisaic quislings, who were in Palestine for only one reason; Money. Both Greece and Rome were programmed to exploit as much as they possibly could without causing a Riot. They both failed and Jerusalem was destroyed. Yet, as with the Zionist today, the Pharisees survived and were scattered over the complete Roman Empire. The oppressed Judean Israelites(not the Pharisaic Proselytes to the religion) were the Victims. See the history of the birth of Christianity in Brittania, which was founded upon the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Torah, marketed by Pharisaic Proselytes of Judaism.

[Wayseer]

Hi Wayseer,

 

What many have failed to acknowledge or ignore is the Political atmosphere in the area during Jesus' era. The oppression most of the Israelites were upset about was the incidence of double taxation; The 10% the Israelites were obligated to pay as tithes to the Temple, plus what the Romans required. This in their view, was being exploited and doubly taxed for only those who were Believers in the dogma of The Temple. Those who frequented Synagogues,namely the Pharisees, were't obligated in this manner.

 

With Matthew as the tax collector and Saul the enforcer of Roman Law, these two men knew each other and were in cahoots, which enabled them both to accomplish their jobs successfully. See the response of the Pharisees to Caiphus about losing their positions if Jesus was allowed to live, Jn.11:43-50

 

In my search for a motive and the results of constructing the Joseph concoction, the beneficiaries of such a story were the oppressive Roman Rulers and their Pharisaic quislings, who were in Palestine for only one reason; Money. Both Greece and Rome were programmed to exploit as much as they possibly could without causing a Riot. They both failed and Jerusalem was destroyed. Yet, as with the Zionist today, the Pharisees survived and were scattered over the complete Roman Empire. The oppressed Judean Israelites(not the Pharisaic Proselytes to the religion) were the Victims. See the history of the birth of Christianity in Brittania, which was founded upon the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Torah, marketed by Pharisaic Proselytes of Judaism.

 

Hello Juanster

 

I know - it sounds a good theory. Certainly there were economic issues as Jesus makes plain when he hold up a coin and asks 'whose face is this'. The people were only too well aware of the deplorably economic circumstances surrounding them.

 

But your exegesis relies on the fact that the author of Matthew is Matthew, or Levi, one time member of the 'twelve'. There is no evidence, other than traditional church teaching, that Matthew was even around at the time when what we now call Matthew was written.

 

The other point which you have not acknowledged is that numerous references and quotations the author of Matthew has made to the 'writings' and the 'prophets'.

 

The important opening chapters are all about linking Jesus into OT prophetic utterances and the Davidic lineage - not about the tough economic circumstances of the population.

 

Perhaps the idea of that economic oppression was driving Matthean agenda might be resonating with the present economic uncertainty of America.