Interesting take on the genesis of Christian morals.. I’ve never considered it quite from that perspective. Joseph has always been sort of a peripheral character in the Christ story, but this sort of puts him, and his moral choice, front and center as the catalyst. It’s an interesting take on who the real father of Christianity was.
It’s not that remarkable (within the context of Matthew’s story) since Joseph is constantly being harrassed by angels telling him what to do and what’s going on. he never really thinks that Mary was unfaithful so it isn’t accurate to say that he “forgives” it. The author seems to believe that (prior to Joseph being visited by an angel) his initial inclination to quietly divorce her rather than stone her was some kind of unusual act of kindness or charity o his part. In fact, that was the norm and it wasn’t even all that kind since it basically amounted to throwing her out on the streets with very limited options for survival.
If Joseph really had been portrayed as forgiving a true infidelity and accepting a illegitimate child as his own, then the author might have a point, but since Joseph only makes his decisions after being told by God what to do, then I don’t think he deserves any brownie points for compassion or moral courage.
The author of that article does ot seem particularly well informed about history or the Bible and makes a number of sweeping, overreaching statements. For instance:
Is all pretty much bullshit. Judaism itself doesn’t predate the Romans by “thousands of years” much less “Jewish devotion to the family.”
Jewish familial and moral codes were not much different from those of the Romans or the Greeks and “Christian” family values derived as much, if not more from those cultures than from Judaism.
Anyway, the Nativity myths are the product of Greek authors, not Jewish ones.
Its fairly revealing that this trite, and inaccurate, article (or sermonette) is foisted upon us by an organization that purports to give us the news. No wonder we’re stuck in Iraq.
Darn sexists. Mary’s acceptance of what would happen is the ultimate role model in obedience and trust in God, and now Joseph’s action is being touted as the true miracle? Way to give a man all the credit!
I didn’t read the article as saying that Joseph’s forebearance was the true miracle, but maybe I didn’t read it closely enough.
My reaction is “eh.”
The fact that Christianity is based on Jewish morals and ethics – that’s hardly a breaking newsflash, there. Jesus and his entire family were Jews, and the earliest Christians considered themselves Jews and considered seriously whether (a) Gentiles could ever be accepted as followers of Christ, or if all FOC had to be Jewish and (b) if FOC had to follow Judaic law in matters like circumscision. Christianity is a religion that sprang from Judaism – why would it’s similarities to Jewish morals and ethics be noteworthy, much less surprising.
And I like Dio do not find Joseph’s forebearance miraculous, even if that is the thrust of the article. He was visited by an angel who explained the situation to him; he knew Mary had not been “unfaithful” and her son was not “illegitimate.” Placing him in the position of “forgiving” those things implies he did not believe the truth imparted to him by the angel. Either the angel is lying, or Joseph disbelieves him, or both. That certainly is not how the story is generally read. In fact, one of the most remarkable things about Joseph is his belief in the news given to him and his obedience to God, even if the face of an unprecedented miracle that surely would not be believed by many, leaving him open to public censure if he stood by his wife – which he did. The best spin probably put on it was that he and Mary had done some premarital canoodling and Jesus really was his son. In any event, nothing if the development of Christianity as it followed indicates that the lessons of Joseph include forebearance of infidelity or illegitimacy.
I should have been clearer, and I apologize for not having been so. My perspective is that after the article’s framing the initial scenario of Mary’s “I’m pregnant and it’s not yours” , everything after that (IMO) was a non-miraculous, personal moral choice by Joseph. The visitation by angels & such were the CYA spin. The real miracle was that he decided not to be spiteful or vengeful and figured out a moral way to make it all work.
I think it was just the ordinary reaction for males of that time and place. “What? She’s she’s not a virgin? I guess I’ll have to just throw her out then.”
That is some pretty imaginative spin, don’t you think? It seems to me he could come up with something a little less fantastic and more believable…hadn’t he ever heard of a premature baby? 
No, it’s worse than that, because she became pregnant after they had already married (“bethrothed”, which in this context seems to mean that a ketubah had already been signed), so it’s not just that she’s coming into the marriage not a virgin…she committed adultery against him.
Okay, but this assumes that the account given in the Bible isn’t true*, which is fine with me so far as it goes, but where does that leave us? You reject the authenticity of the visitation and therefore Joseph’s actions become magnanimous, in your mind nigh unto miraculous. It seems to me you could apply the same reasoning to explain how smart Mary was to cover her premarital sex and pregnancy with her own “visitation by angels and such CYA spin.” And Jesus rising from the dead – CYA spin by the apostles to keep alive a religion that otherwise would have died with Him.
When you reject the underlying premises of divinity and holy intercession, then you’re left with people inventing stories for reasons of their own, both good or bad. And I don’t have any problem with that, I’m just not sure where such speculation begins, ends, or leads us. And I find the use of the term “miraculous” to be ironic under the circumstances. I mean, you’ve sucked the miraculous right out of it.
- And I mean “true” in terms of reading the story as just that, a story or myth that contains its own internal “truth,” the veracity of the narrator, regardless of whether you or I personally buy the story as ultimately factual or “true.”
Yes, but tossing her out on her ear would still be nothing more than customary and not especially compassionate.
I was under the impression that Joseph was “of the line of David” and the prediction from on High was that the Messiah would be “of the line of David”? (And that since it was counted via the father’s line, it wasn’t likely that they meant Mary.) 
Couldn’t Joseph and Mary gone at it hot and heavy, not had intercourse, but through a divine fluke she ended up pregnant anyway?
Still more compassionate than having her stoned.
Not prediction, announcement! :smack:
Could it be one of those situations, where he prematurely ejaculates on her genitals, and she manages to get pregnant that way?
(My inner Catholic school girl is cringing!)
This is sometimes cited as an objection to Christianity: Either Jesus was the Son of God, in which case He wasn’t of the line of David (through Joseph), and therefore was not the Messiah (who was/is/will be of the line of David); or He was of the line of David (through Joseph) in which case He’s not the Son of God. The response is generally that although He was not Joseph’s biological son, He was his son for paterity/geneology purposes, because He was born of Joseph’s wife during their marriage (and therefore was presumptively Joseph’s son) and Joseph never repudiated Him. Not sure what you mean by your last sentence, though.
Well, since there weren’t two witnesses, she wouldn’t have been stoned anyway.
Zev Steinhardt
Not legally. Still could have happened.
Witnesses to… her having committed adultery?
Like others have suggested, I think the article cherry-picks (pun only partially intended) what it wants to believe is true in the nativity story.
Did Angels really tell Joseph what they are purported to have told him? If so, why would his reaction be anything other than to stay with Mary. If they didn’t, then why believe anything else in the story, and in fact why “report” on it at all?
Or, are they suggesting that Joseph, had he been not a Jew, would have divorced Mary because God got her pregnant?
I don’t know. I mean, if Jesus is supposed to be both God and man, I don’t see why he can’t be both son of God and son of Joseph. Forget about biological/geneological, if God gets your wife pregnant, and says, “this is your son, and this is also my son,” then that’s just how it is, no? I’m not Christian, but that seems like a ridiculous degree of nit-picking.