How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6151
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:55 pm

Philo seems to suggest in On the Confusion of Tongues that 'Joseph' is an anthropomorphisation of 'the pride of wordly life' or 'the god that is' (or both), and an associated dialogue box that comes up on cursor rollover on ""Joseph - footnote 1 - suggests Philo generally refers to Joseph as meaning "political, generally indicating a plane of life lower than the philosophical and sometimes even materialistic."

.
[71] These are they who know not even Joseph, the many-sided pride of worldly life, and give way to their sins without veil or disguise, husbanding no vestige or shadow or semblance of honourable living. [72] For there rose up, we are told, another King over Egypt, who “knew not” even “Joseph”1 (Ex.2 1:8)—the good that is, which is given by the senses, the last and latest in the scale of goods. It is this same King who would destroy not only all perfection but all progress; not only the clear vision such as comes of sight, but the instruction also that comes of hearing. He says, “Come hither, curse me Jacob, and come hither, send thy curses upon Israel” (Num. 23:7), and that is equivalent to “Put an end to them both, the soul’s sight and the soul’s hearing, that it may neither see nor hear any true and genuine excellence.” For Israel is the type of seeing, and Jacob of hearing.

Philo. (F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, & J. W. Earp, Trans.) Vol. 4, p. 49. London; England; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press.
  1. political, generally indicating a plane of life lower than the philosophical and sometimes even materialistic. L.A. iii. 179, 237, Cher. 128, Det. 5, Deus 119, Conf. 71, Mig. 203, Her. 256, Mut. 89, 215, Som. i. 78, 219, ii. 1–109 passim, Jos. passim.
    .
  2. Exodus 1:1-10 (NIV)

    1 These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob, each with his family: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali; Gad and Asher. 5 The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.

    6 Now Joseph and all his brothers and all that generation died, 7 but the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them.

    8 Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. 9 “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.”



Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by Martin Klatt » Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:00 am

. . .
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

PontiusPilate

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by PontiusPilate » Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:06 pm

Martin Klatt wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:00 am
PontiusPilate wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:56 am
Martin Klatt wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:21 am
PontiusPilate wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:12 pm
Martin Klatt wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:07 pm
Hmm, seems only Matthew did the thinking here. Mark as primary source has named four brothers of Jesus but no father, Matthew first follows that up but makes a slight change from Joses to Joseph. But that sequence of brothers then goes Jacob, Joseph, Judas, Simon. Considering that naming a first born son after the grandfather was sort of in vogue in Jewish circles at the time Matthew wrote, for him the choice was now easy to plausibly name the grandfather Jacob and the father Joseph just like he did.
This is quality, thank you very much. :) I have to say that I am not in the mythicist camp, but more into Bart Ehrman's line of thinking. I follow the general consensus about this topic, so I have to say that I am skeptical about posts including words like "outer space". ;) The general historical consensus is that Luke did not borrow from Matthew, right? (Correct me if I am wrong.) The explanation about Matthew's thinking makes a lot of sense to me, but then I still wonder where Luke did get Joseph's name from.
Depends on what you mean with general historical consensus. There is a majority historical consensus of Markan priority and there is within that group probably a majority consensus of the Mark-Q hypothesis but then we have the Farrer–Goulder–Goodacre hypothesis that dispenses with Q and that one holds that Luke did borrow from both Mark and Matthew and there are several more hypotheses about synoptic interdependency around so I don't see a meaningful general consensus atm on that topic, btw a skeptic shouldn't care to much about consensus positions as they shift all the time.
Only the name of Joseph would already suggest that Luke did indeed borrow from Matthew. :D But interesting, I have to read more about the 2 different hypotheses.

On the other hand, if Luke was really aware of Matthew's gospel, I would say that he would certainly have included some of the more spectacular stories of in it. (Especially the stories about the earthquake, open tombs and raised bodies of the saints when Jesus died.)

Difficult, it might also have been possible that the name of Joseph was simply in the Q-source and that Matthew and Luke did form their own birth stories.
Difficult indeed. I looked again at my argument and it is a tad circular and I didn't expose the right entry point into the circle of reasoning Matthew applied.

Let's try to eliminate Luke as possible inspiration for Matthew or the other way around. In the home town tale Luke doesn't mention Mary or the brothers and sisters or anyone being a carpenter, he just states Jesus being the son of Joseph. He is clearly not neatly following Mark, only the broad plot survives, but does he take a cue from Matthew? Matthew is merely stating that Jesus is the son of the carpenter(τέκτων) followed by Mark's summary of the family(but changes Joses to Joseph)and closely matches much of Mark's account. His redaction is very clever and minimal, but makes a huge difference. Strange thing is he doesn't use the name Joseph here but only τέκτων, a profession he never recounts elsewhere not even in the nativity sequence so that is intentionally misrepresenting Mark's account where Jesus is the τέκτων, brilliant deception by shifting a few words around but false. It would be strange if he took the cue from Luke where there is no τέκτων at all and then not call out the name Joseph like Luke did. Luke on the other hand could have taken the cue from Matthew by implication because Matthew has a nativity story with a named father Joseph. But for some reason he just doesn't care for the τέκτων bit at all, but just rams home the name Joseph. So much about the interdependency chart is clear concerning this topic.

Back to Matthew then:
We do not know where he started out master-piecing it together, was it the genealogy, the nativity or the home town tale of Mark? Did he have ulterior motives? He probably was set on the double stroke of grandfather Jacob with father Joseph in the genealogy because he loves allusions and forebodings from scripture. So was it pure chance the brothers' names in Mark were that close to his genealogical scheme or was it what gave him the idea in the first place? :thumbup:
He seems to have played out the name of Joseph in the story of saving baby Jesus by going to Egypt, but that is like only an afterthought but still it counts as ulterior motive to stick to the plan. The same can be said about Herod's massacre of the innocent babies that caused this flight in the first place as it also alludes to Egypt and the pharaoh killing the babies of the Hebrews and as cherry on the cake aligns baby Jesus on a par to baby Moses who thus escaped a similar fate, I can see Matthew being proud of himself concocting another scriptural allusion to the heroic past.
All in all it was Matthew with the strongest motivation for the choice of Joseph and it all fits to good to be true so I would say chances are he invented all of it and didn't take it from earlier sources.
BTW did you know τέκτων can also be used meaning author or poet, just like in our expression wordsmith? ;)
That's brilliant thinking work Martin, I like these kinds of thought experiments. :D I didn't even notice that Matthew changed the name of Joses (Mark 6:3) to Joseph. (Matthew 13:55)

But, please notice that we can see this adaptation from 2 perspectives:

1. Matthew knew already that the name of Jesus' biological father was Joseph (possibly from Q) but, following Jewish customs, found it illogical that the second son would be named Joses. (So he changed the name to Joseph.) The Q-hypothesis explains why both Luke and Matthew used the name of Joseph. To me a situation where Luke borrows from Matthew doesn't make sense, because of the earlier arguments I mentioned.
2. Matthew didn't know the name of Jesus' biological father and constructed the family tree based on Mark 6:3, this is basically your argument. I like this argument very much, the only problem I have with it is that it doesn't provide a good explanation for the appearance of the name of Joseph in Luke.

My question to you would be: What is your proof that Luke borrowed from Matthew? And why on earth would Luke exclude so many of the spectacular stories in Matthew. (Since we both know that Matthew is the most "spectacular" gospel, with the most spectacular miracles and stories.)

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by Charles Wilson » Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:02 pm

PontiusPilate wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:06 pm
My question to you would be: What is your proof that Luke borrowed from Matthew?
Another question along the same lines might be, "From what did Matthew and Luke both borrow"? Leaving the simple answer, "From Mark" out of this, I have always been struck by 2 small passages from both:

Luke 13: 22 - 24 (RSV):

[22] He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem.
[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Matthew 18: 1 4 (RSV):

[1] At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

This is the SAME STORY!!! Matthew and Luke appear to be reading from a common document. As to why Matthew had "turn as a child" and Luke had "enter through the narrow door" but neither had both leads to supposition as to how this "common document" was split. Poster Klewis is on the right track in examining the Process. It does not appear that it was all done collegially. Otherwise the genealogies of Matthew and Luke would have agreed. John would not have been "correcting" Mark - there would not have been 2 Journeys of Jesus.

Yet, this posited "common document" could probably not have achieved mass publication. How many copies would have circulated in Domitian's Court, for example? We know that there was one and only one Book of Mark at one time since, if there were multiple copies of a completed Mark, we would have had one extant in a collection somewhere, unless the few copies of Mark in existence were destroyed and THEN the last page was destroyed. Same result.

Mark and John are "joined", reading from a common document (Raskin again, see quote in other Post from today). This points to Matthew and Luke being "joined" in a similar manner. Luke is the one that seems antagonistic to Matthew. Is Luke "correcting" Matthew, as John does Mark?

CW

Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by Martin Klatt » Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:29 pm

. . .
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by Martin Klatt » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:41 am

. . .
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:27 am

Martin --

Thank you for your comments. You've done some mighty respectable Posting here!
Martin Klatt wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:41 am
Charles Wilson wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:02 pm
PontiusPilate wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:06 pm
My question to you would be: What is your proof that Luke borrowed from Matthew?
Another question along the same lines might be, "From what did Matthew and Luke both borrow"? Leaving the simple answer, "From Mark" out of this, I have always been struck by 2 small passages from both:

Luke 13: 22 - 24 (RSV):

[22] He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem.
[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Matthew 18: 1 4 (RSV):

[1] At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

This is the SAME STORY!!! Matthew and Luke appear to be reading from a common document. As to why Matthew had "turn as a child" and Luke had "enter through the narrow door" but neither had both leads to supposition as to how this "common document" was split.
Hmm. I am puzzled by the initial suggestion to leave out the simple answer. These áre probably redactions of Mark 10.
I'm not actually leaving out Mark but I am focusing on the 2 passages from Matthew and Luke.

Mark 10: 13 - 16 (RSV):

[13] And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them.
[14] But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
[15] Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
[16] And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.

I am asserting that the passages in Matthew and Luke are NOT redactions of these Markan Verses but descriptions of the Story of the Priest who was saved by Peter. The Markan passage is another description of the same Story. I assert that the "Kingdom of God" is not Glorious Metaphysics of the Starry Realm but a Real, Physical Place in Antonia.
The two stories are already separate there. I don't understand the rest of the supposition about splitting, they had both the "children" part and the "camel through the needle's eye" part as well somewhere. So what is the point made?
The original question was a variation of the "Matthew had Mark open in front of him when he wrote the Book of Matthew". "Did Luke have Matthew open in front of him or vice-versa?" The answer appears to be that both Matthew and Luke had a common document in front of them when they wrote. They both Transvalue short descriptions, using "Kingdom of God" or "Realm of Heaven" to promote the Metaphysics of the New Religion. As such, they are not redactions.

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Josephus, Wars..., 2, 1, 3:

"At this Archclaus [sic] was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief..."

Martin, you stated that if a posited Background Document could be produced, you would believe it. I assert that the entirety of the Gospels is that Document. When read with a different Intentionality and different Set of Actors (That is, "Jesus" is a Construction, the Original concerns a Priest at the Passover of 4 BCE...) the Story is easily seen. Josephus gives the external story, the Gospels give the internal Story. A Priest is caught between the Temple and Antonia as soldiers attempt to clear the Temple. 3000+ die. The Priest has No Way Out. He should have been murdered. A child, Peter, saves him. Am I leaving out Mark? How about the completed Story of Mark in Matthew?

Matthew 14: 23 - 31 (Moffatt):

[23] after he had dismissed the crowds he went up the hill by himself to pray. When evening came he was there alone,
[24] but the boat was in the middle of the sea, buffeted by the waves (for the wind was against them).
[25] In the fourth watch of the night he went to them, walking on the sea,
[26] but when they saw him walking on the sea they were terrified ; "It is a ghost," they said and they shrieked for fear.
[27] Then he spoke to them at once; "Courage," he said, " it is I, have no fear."
[28] Peter answered him, " Lord, if it is really you, order me to come to you on the water." He said,
[29] " Come." Then Peter got out of the boat and walked over the water on his way to Jesus ;
[30] but when he saw the wind he was afraid and began to sink. " Lord," he shouted, " save me."
[31] Jesus at once stretched his hand out and caught him, saying, " How little you trust me I Why did you doubt ? "

Here is a great passage:

"Fourth Watch": Roman/Greek term. Jewish fighters had 3 watches - May explain "Could you not stay awake one more hour?"
"It is a ghost": The Priest is seen by those in Antonia. He should already be dead.
Here is a Transvalued part of the Story: Peter is coming out to the ditch that surrounds Antonia. It is Peter who saves the Priest from certain death. The child takes the Priest to a small opening in Antonia and therefore:

Luke 13: 23 - 24 (RSV):

[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Matthew 18: 2 - 4 (RSV):

[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

This is not redaction. It is a part of the Original.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by Martin Klatt » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:05 pm

. . .
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:11 pm

Ooops...
Corrected to Wars....

Thnx

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: How did Matthew and Luke get the name of Joseph of Nazareth?

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:41 pm

Martin Klatt wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:05 pm
Right. I don't see exactly what you seem to see.
No problem. Nobody else on this Site sees it my way either. 8-)
I said I am game if you show me a source, that doesn't necessarily mean I believe you.
Second verse, same as the first.
...you don't convince me with just stones and narrow escapes let me warn you, it better be good.
Most amazing stuff I've ever looked at.
***
1. Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, pp. 108 - 109.

Mishmarot: 1 Chronicles 24: 7 - 18 (RSV):

[7] The first lot fell to Jehoi'arib, the second to Jedai'ah,
[8] the third to Harim, the fourth to Se-o'rim,
[9] the fifth to Malchi'jah, the sixth to Mij'amin,
[10] the seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abi'jah,
[11] the ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecani'ah,
[12] the eleventh to Eli'ashib, the twelfth to Jakim,
[13] the thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jesheb'e-ab,
[14] the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer,
[15] the seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Hap'pizzez,
[16] the nineteenth to Pethahi'ah, the twentieth to Jehez'kel,
[17] the twenty-first to Jachin, the twenty-second to Gamul,
[18] the twenty-third to Delai'ah, the twenty-fourth to Ma-azi'ah.

2. See: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/mi ... -ma-amadot for instance. The Hasmoneans may have massaged the List by placing "Jehoiarib" #1. The 16th Group, Immer, also believes the Dynastic Hasmoneans came from them (Elizur, Leibner). Each Group rotated into Jerusalem on the Sabbath for one week. The Qumran Group tracked the calendars and used the Mishmarot Rotations as a check (E&W).

There are only a few stories concerning the various Mishmarot Groups. In Luke for the NT but elsewhere there are 3, concerning Jehoiarib, Bilgah and Immer. These 3 Stories are all important.

3. 24 Groups x 7 days = 168 days until the Rotation repeated.

Homework Assignment: FInd out which Groups were on Duty for Passover and the Feast Week of 4 BCE, at the death of Herod.
Hint: You have no Anchor Date that fixes one Group being on duty until you find that Jehoiarib was Serving at the Destruction of the Temple.

Rabbi Jose ben Halafta:

"Whence do we know that the second Temple was also destroyed on the 9th of Abh? We have learned in a Boraitha: “A happy event is credited to the day on which another happy event happened, while a calamity is ascribed to the day when another calamity occurred; and it was said that when the first Temple was destroyed it was on the eve preceding the 9th of Abh, which was also the night at the close of the Sabbath and also the close of the Sabbatical year. The watch at the time was that of Jehoyoreb..."

Count back in groups of 168 days until you get to Passover of 4 BCE.

https://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/JulianDate.php
https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/passover.php

4. You do the Math. Who was on duty for the Passover of 4 BCE?
Do you believe this? Or is this strictly Literary?

Next: What was Bilgah's Offense against the Priesthood?

CW

Post Reply