ages of Mary and Joseph?

[christianmomof3]

What were the ages of Mary and Joseph at the time of Jesus's birth? Is it recorded anywhere? Thank you.

 

[narnia59]

What were the ages of Mary and Joseph at the time of Jesus's birth? Is it recorded anywhere? Thank you.

It is recorded nowhere in Scripture. In the apocryphal writing the "Protoevangelium of James" Mary's age is placed at 16 when she is pregnant with Christ, and Joseph's age is not specified but it states that he was a widower with other children and was an 'old' man at the time he and Mary became engaged.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What were the ages of Mary and Joseph at the time of Jesus's birth? Is it recorded anywhere? Thank you.

No, it's not recorded.





.

 

[narnia59]

No, it's not recorded.





.

It's not recorded in Scripture. That does not mean it isn't recorded, although one is certainly free to reject the source.

BTW CJ, imagine my surprise when I recently discussed the perpetual virginity of Mary with a Lutheran pastor, and he informed me that it was indeed Lutheran doctrine, and is noted as such in the Book of Concord.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

BTW CJ, imagine my surprise when I recently discussed the perpetual virginity of Mary with a Lutheran pastor, and he informed me that it was indeed Lutheran doctrine, and is noted as such in the Book of Concord.

It's not. The TITLE, "Ever Virgin Mary" is found in the Book of Concord (twice, I believe - and then not in all texts). But it is not a doctrine of Lutheranism and never has been. It was an embraced "pious opinion" of Luther and virtually all of the Lutheran Church Fathers, and for many Lutherans for some centuries after them; it still is among some (including my pastor). But a welcomed pious opinion is not doctrine.

Now, back to the issue. The Bible does not say how old Mary and Joseph were at the birth of Jesus. Even the REJECTED, NONcanonical book of the evangelium of James gives any ages at all.



.

 

[narnia59]

It's not. The TITLE, "Ever Virgin Mary" is found in the Book of Concord (twice, I believe - and then not in all texts). But it is not a doctrine of Lutheranism and never has been. It was an embraced "pious opinion" of Luther and virtually all of the Lutheran Church Fathers, and for many Lutherans for some centuries after them; it still is among some (including my pastor). But a welcomed pious opinion is not doctrine.

My understanding is the Book of Concord is what defines Lutheran doctrine. Or it did. Are you saying that some of what is in the book is 'pious opinion' and some is 'doctrine'?

It says this:

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

And this:
That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary. Afterwards He suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God, will come to judge the quick and the dead, etc., as the Creed of the Apostles, as well as that of St. Athanasius, and the Catechism in common use for children, teach.

Now, back to the issue. The Bible does not say how old Mary and Joseph were at the birth of Jesus. Even the REJECTED, NONcanonical book of the evangelium of James gives any ages at all.



.

The question was not whether the ages of Mary and Joseph were recorded in Scripture, but rather if they are recorded. Mary's is indeed recorded in the Protoevangelium -- it says she was sixteen when these "mysteries" happened. Joseph's age is not specifically recorded, but it is noted that he was an older widower with children.

The Protoevangelium was indeed rejected from being in the canon of Scripture, but it along with several other works were categorized as apocrypha (not heretical and useful for reading), as opposed to gnostic (heretical).

From wiki:

The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150.

The word "apocrypha" means "hidden writings" and comes from the Greek through Latin. The general term is usually applied to the books that were considered by the church as useful, but not divinely inspired.


Whether one wishes to make 'use' of them or not is up to them, but if one wants an understanding of the ages of Mary and Joseph, it is definitely useful.

 

[Uphill Battle]

hmm... wiki....

missing very much in what you posted. I take it you gleaned out what you didn't like.

such as:

that the author was a liar, pretending to be someone he was not.
he work is pseudepigraphical (written by someone other than the person it claims to be written by)

that 150 AD is by no means a secure date, nor was it acceptable to some contemporaries to the piece.

As for its estimated date, the consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter", was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.

(I bet this is one of those times that Origen is a heritic, right?)

that it is a text that was decreed unfit for Catholics to use:

those "which are to be avoided by catholics" according to Gelasian Decree,

you can read up on the decree, apparently sometimes Catholics believe what their popes tell them... sometimes, over the course of time, they dismiss it for popular opinion and cherished traditions.


lets rephrase, shall we?

no CREDIBLE source lists any age for Joseph and Mary.

 

[Thekla]

Note, please - sometimes the name means not the writer but "in the vein of" the teller with the 'writer' having later or simultaneously recorded what was said by the one telling ... ( as is theorized in the case of Revelation).

 

[Thekla]

Some of Origen's early work is highly valued, but it is considered that later he did fall into heresy.

 

[calluna]

It's not recorded in Scripture. That does not mean it isn't recorded

Is it recorded that Jesus made birds out of mud and turned them into real ones? If I tell a damned lie, is it a record?

 

[narnia59]

hmm... wiki....

missing very much in what you posted. I take it you gleaned out what you didn't like.

such as:

that the author was a liar, pretending to be someone he was not.
he work is pseudepigraphical (written by someone other than the person it claims to be written by).

Where does wiki say "the author was a liar"?

What it says about pseudoepigraphical works is that "The authenticity or value of the work itself, which is a separate question for experienced readers, often becomes sentimentally entangled in the association. Though the inherent value of the text may not be called into question, the weight of a revered or even apostolic author lends authority to a text: in Antiquity pseudepigraphy was "an accepted and honored custom practiced by students/admirers of a revered figure".[2] This is the essential motivation for pseudepigraphy in the first place."

An accepted practice in its time in other words. Standards were different. Judging the past by today's standards is not an accurate historical method you know. The work would not have been seen as "authored by a liar" because of the standards in place (an 'honored' custom even).

that 150 AD is by no means a secure date, nor was it acceptable to some contemporaries to the piece.

As for its estimated date, the consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter", was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.

(I bet this is one of those times that Origen is a heritic, right?)

Hmm, call me crazy, but isn't 150 AD during the 2nd century AD?

that it is a text that was decreed unfit for Catholics to use:

those "which are to be avoided by catholics" according to Gelasian Decree,

you can read up on the decree, apparently sometimes Catholics believe what their popes tell them... sometimes, over the course of time, they dismiss it for popular opinion and cherished traditions.

What some Catholics understand is there were many reasons books made the 'to be avoided' list which did not mean that everything in them was false. In terms of 'over the course of time', my understanding is there are no longer any books on the 'list', so I'm not sure what your point is.

lets rephrase, shall we?

no CREDIBLE source lists any age for Joseph and Mary.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about the credibility of the source. What I offered as an answer to the question was there was an apocryphal work which gives the ages, with a certainty that people were capable of developing their own opinion as to how authentic it is. Which is much more truthful than saying "it's not recorded anywhere", now isn't it?

 

[narnia59]

Is it recorded that Jesus made birds out of mud and turned them into real ones? If I tell a damned lie, is it a record?

Yes. Not everything recorded is true. Not everything recorded outside of Scripture is false.

So, what evidence do you have that the ages of Mary and Joseph as recorded in the Protoevangelium of James are false?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So, what evidence do you have that the ages of Mary and Joseph as recorded in the Protoevangelium of James are false?

The same evidence you have that Mary's age is correctly given in this rejected, noncanonical book. NOTHING. And there is no age for Joseph stated there....

If you are going to say that their age IS known, then the "burden of proof" to substantiate your claim is entirely YOURS. It is not the responsibility of others to show you wrong, it is your responsibility to reveal you are correct.





.

 

[narnia59]

The same evidence you have that Mary's age is correctly given in this rejected, noncanonical book. NOTHING. And there is no age for Joseph stated there....

If you are going to say that their age IS known, then the "burden of proof" to substantiate your claim is entirely YOURS. It is not the responsibility of others to show you wrong, it is your responsibility to reveal you are correct.





.

I've never stated that their age is known; simply that it is recorded in an apocryphal work (which records Joseph's age as being "elderly"). I don't have any responsibility to you or anyone to prove anything. I've said quite plainly that all are certainly free to reject the source, or to accept it. I simply think it's incorrect to say that it "isn't recorded anywhere".

However, for those who wish to state the age given in the Protoevangelium is wrong, then they should be able to provide evidence to back that up.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Where does wiki say "the author was a liar"?

It's an extrapolation. The text says "I James, wrote this." and that is not true. Ergo, it's a lie, and the author lied.

What it says about pseudoepigraphical works is that "The authenticity or value of the work itself, which is a separate question for experienced readers, often becomes sentimentally entangled in the association. Though the inherent value of the text may not be called into question, the weight of a revered or even apostolic author lends authority to a text: in Antiquity pseudepigraphy was "an accepted and honored custom practiced by students/admirers of a revered figure".[2] This is the essential motivation for pseudepigraphy in the first place."

An accepted practice in its time in other words. Standards were different. Judging the past by today's standards is not an accurate historical method you know. The work would not have been seen as "authored by a liar" because of the standards in place (an 'honored' custom even).

two things. One. Accepted practice does not make the practice correct. For example, Abortion is a widely accepted practice... is it right then?

secondarily, you would think that God, who is truth, there is no lie in him, no untruth could pass his lips or be in his scriptural record, would condone a lie as a method of transmitting his truth?

no. I reject that. Read up on what God said about untruthful prophets. In your rush to support your beloved work, you are basically supporting dishonesty as a method for truth.

Hmm, call me crazy, but isn't 150 AD during the 2nd century AD?

Really? aw shucks.

of course it is. The point was, you are using 150 AD as some arbitrarily true date. It could be any time in the 2nd century, and MAY have been later, there is no subsantiation either way.

What some Catholics understand is there were many reasons books made the 'to be avoided' list which did not mean that everything in them was false. In terms of 'over the course of time', my understanding is there are no longer any books on the 'list', so I'm not sure what your point is.

the point is, a Pope said "don't use this." now, it's open season, and is pretty much the earliest, and basic evidence used to support some of the Marian dogmas.

it's rather convenient that what a Pope says is supposed to be of import... but is ignored when it serves it's purpose. You would think a Papal decree was supposedly infallible... ah well. Guess those who make the decisions decided to file that one under the "well, it's not Ex Cathedra this time."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about the credibility of the source. What I offered as an answer to the question was there was an apocryphal work which gives the ages, with a certainty that people were capable of developing their own opinion as to how authentic it is. Which is much more truthful than saying "it's not recorded anywhere", now isn't it?

true. and it's something I never said. I corrected that inaccuracy. But evidence does not point to it's credibility. YOU are certainly entitled to ignore that at your leisure.

Yes. Not everything recorded is true. Not everything recorded outside of Scripture is false.

I agree. But that is no support of something being true.

saying "well, some things outside of scripture can be true, therefore this is true" is flawed logic.

[qutoe]
So, what evidence do you have that the ages of Mary and Joseph as recorded in the Protoevangelium of James are false?[/quote]
I already posted it. You don't believe it.

However, for those who wish to state the age given in the Protoevangelium is wrong, then they should be able to provide evidence to back that up.

more than once? why?

 

[narnia59]

It's an extrapolation. The text says "I James, wrote this." and that is not true. Ergo, it's a lie, and the author lied.

And this means that everything recorded in it is a lie? Quite obviously there are many things recorded that are true. There is no evidence that the ages recorded are a lie.

two things. One. Accepted practice does not make the practice correct. For example, Abortion is a widely accepted practice... is it right then?

If everyone knows the practice is widely accepted, then it's not "false" for everyone knows the practice is in place and is an acceptable form of writing. In terms of killing a human, not really a comparison in my book.

secondarily, you would think that God, who is truth, there is no lie in him, no untruth could pass his lips or be in his scriptural record, would condone a lie as a method of transmitting his truth?

There is a reason the book was rejected from the canon of Scripture. Yet again, not all that is in it is a lie.

no. I reject that. Read up on what God said about untruthful prophets. In your rush to support your beloved work, you are basically supporting dishonesty as a method for truth.

It is not my 'beloved' work. I simply view it as yet one of many period documents that were considered to be apocryphal writings.

Really? aw shucks.

of course it is. The point was, you are using 150 AD as some arbitrarily true date. It could be any time in the 2nd century, and MAY have been later, there is no subsantiation either way.

All I said was it is thought to have been written around 150 AD. Which I believe is true.

the point is, a Pope said "don't use this." now, it's open season, and is pretty much the earliest, and basic evidence used to support some of the Marian dogmas.

it's rather convenient that what a Pope says is supposed to be of import... but is ignored when it serves it's purpose. You would think a Papal decree was supposedly infallible... ah well. Guess those who make the decisions decided to file that one under the "well, it's not Ex Cathedra this time."

Frankly the document is not used as basic evidence to support some of the Marian dogmas for there are genuine infallible papal decrees to handle those.

It is interesting to me how ruffled people's feathers get when it's brought up however. It brings into evidence that the concept people have of Mary and Joseph being a young couple in love who would never not have normal marital relations is simply a tradition not supported in Scripture. Scripture does not tell us how old they were. It certainly does not contradict the idea that Joseph was indeed an elderly widower. Yet some will deny that to even be a possibility based upon their tradition.

true. and it's something I never said. I corrected that inaccuracy. But evidence does not point to it's credibility. YOU are certainly entitled to ignore that at your leisure.

I agree. But that is no support of something being true.

saying "well, some things outside of scripture can be true, therefore this is true" is flawed logic.

And yet, many things it records are indeed true. There is no basis for stating the rest is false. The truth is, Scripture does not tell us their ages. What the Protoevangelium does is lead some folks who have pre-conceived notions based in their tradition to admit that.

 

[Uphill Battle]

And this means that everything recorded in it is a lie? Quite obviously there are many things recorded that are true. There is no evidence that the ages recorded are a lie.

No, it means it shouldn't be trusted.

If everyone knows the practice is widely accepted, then it's not "false" for everyone knows the practice is in place and is an acceptable form of writing. In terms of killing a human, not really a comparison in my book.

of course not! your book misses the point.

I don't give two figs what the acceptable practice was or was not.

If it's contained lies, it shouldn't be used as a source for truth.

Frankly the document is not used as basic evidence to support some of the Marian dogmas for there are genuine infallible papal decrees to handle those.

where do you think they got if from? And don't give me the "It's not basic evidence." line. It gets trotted out over and over on apologetic threads. It's one of the first things Marian devotees reach for.

It is interesting to me how ruffled people's feathers get when it's brought up however. It brings into evidence that the concept people have of Mary and Joseph being a young couple in love who would never not have normal marital relations is simply a tradition not supported in Scripture. Scripture does not tell us how old they were. It certainly does not contradict the idea that Joseph was indeed an elderly widower. Yet some will deny that to even be a possibility based upon their tradition.

And yet, many things it records are indeed true. There is no basis for stating the rest is false. The truth is, Scripture does not tell us their ages. What the Protoevangelium does is lead some folks who have pre-conceived notions based in their tradition to admit that.

I'm sorry, I laugh every time I see Traditionalists who point the finger at traditions.

 

[narnia59]

where do you think they got if from? And don't give me the "It's not basic evidence." line. It gets trotted out over and over on apologetic threads. It's one of the first things Marian devotees reach for.

There is nothing in Catholic theology that identifies the ages of Mary and Joseph either. It's use in apologetic work is to present an alternate possibility that is generally excluded from the thought of many because it is outside of their tradition, not scripture.

I'm sorry, I laugh every time I see Traditionalists who point the finger at traditions.

Not pointing a finger at all. Just pointing out the obvious. My faith background recognizes Sacred Tradition. It is quite contradictory however when one rejects 'tradition' but then have their own traditional way of thinking that influences the way they read Scripture. Hence, even though Scripture nowhere defines the age of Mary and Joseph, many never even consider the possibility that Joseph was indeed elderly with children when he and Mary were betrothed because of their tradition, yet deny they read scripture from the point of view of a specific tradition.

 

[Uphill Battle]

you do realize that the "tradition" of not thinking of Joseph as a doddering octegenarian, would be because it's not the norm?

it's less about traditon, and more about common extrapolation.

If a text says "such and such married such and such" the first assumption would be that they were of relatively marriagable age, and much closer in age.

the Old man young woman scenario would be an abberation, not a matter of course.

 

[jckstraw72]

arguing about this is retarded. Narnia answered the OP get over it.

and im pretty sure St. Clement of Alexandria references it before Origen.