Talk:Saint Joseph

Legal father of Jesus as a title

[1] Randy, as I think it was me who took that out: I wondered why this is listed as a title? Of course, "legal father of Jesus" is a way to describe Saint Joseph but in my opinion it is not a title. Maybe one should shorten this list of titles anyway – the missal only lists "spouse of the mother of God". Patron of the Universal Church seems to be another title officially used. Medusahead (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The section is not only for religious titles but for descriptors, and 'legal father of Jesus' has been in the infobox for years. The infobox already contains 'Guardian of the Holy Family' which covers 'Guardian of Jesus'. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

And, both are Biblically and historically incorrect. HarmonyA8 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Saint Joseph

It is described in Deuteronomy 26:5 that Saint Joseph is of either syrian or aramean ethnic background depending on the translation/version. Zezemachado (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Gagliardi

Are the views of Mario Gagliardi worth mentioning, even if only as a fringe theory. A lot of people's religious views might appear preposterous to adherents of different religious views. PatGallacher (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say not at this time. Gagliardi raises two hypotheses, the other being the immaculate conception of Joseph. He speaks of these as "questions that still require a long theological reflection, given that they are only hypotheses."[2] They come at the very end of the book, almost as an afterthought. It seems less of an hypothesis than mere speculation. There doesn't seem to have been a great deal of discussion in the past seven years. Manannan67 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Clarity of introduction

I was wondering whether Saint Joseph was a real historical figure and ended up here. This is potentially a massive debate across religious pages on Wikipedia, but clauses such as "According to mainstream Christian beliefs" would help clarify veracity, though I guess it'd get repetitive all the way down the page.

The introduction currently includes one of those, and stands as:

Joseph (Hebrew: יוסף, romanized: Yosef; Greek: Ἰωσήφ, romanized: Ioséph) was a 1st-century Jewish man of Nazareth who, according to the canonical Gospels, was married to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and was the legal father of Jesus.[2]

I just wonder if the comma clause should go sooner as we don't know for sure that he was a 1st-century Jewish man of Nazareth, or if one of the sources proves this bit. I recognise that many claims about ancient figures can feel dubious, but this guy's literally from folklore, and Wikipedia as a source of information should be careful what it claims. Apologies if I've misunderstood. 2.96.123.22 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The consensus of historians is that Jesus did exist. In the real world, people who did exist had fathers. We cannot be sure that the father of Jesus was called Joseph, but we call him so for convenience. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It is highly probable that Joseph is not a real figure. The very earliest Christians were concerned with Jesus's death and resurrection, not his ancestry or even his teachings, beyond the eternal life he offered - Saint Paul, for example, never mentions his mother or father or anything about his life beyond his resurrection. These things came into focus in the decades following his death, when he failed to make his Second Coming and his origins drew more attention. Achar Sva (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, even if Jesus talked about his father, the oral tradition was unlikely to remember what he said about his father. We simply know that Jesus's father existed, no more than that. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)