JOSEPH, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ ' (Matt. i. 16). By Matthew he is said to have been the son of Jacob, whose lineage is traced by the same writer through David up to Abraham. Luke represents him as being the son of Heli, and traces his origin up to Adam. This is not the place to attempt to recon cile these two accounts, as it would lead to discus sion and detail, for which we have not space : but it may be mentioned that Luke appears to have had some specific object in view, since he introduces his genealogical line with words of peculiar import :— Jesus being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli' (Luke iii. 23)— cln gvoAkitero, as was supposed,' in other terms, as accounted by law, as enrolled in the family re gisters ; for Joseph, being the husband of Mary, became thereby, in law (voilos), the father of Jesus. And as being the legal father of Jesus, he might have his origin traced in the line of Mary's family, as well as in that of his own.
The statements of Holy Writ in regard to Joseph are few and simple. According to a custom among the Jews, traces of which are still found, such as hand-fasting among the Scotch, and be trothing among the Germans, Joseph had pledged his faith to Mary ; but before the marriage was consummated she proved to be with child. Grieved at this, Joseph was disposed to break off the con nection ; but, not wishing to make a public ex ample of one whom he loved, he contemplated a private disruption of their bond. From this step, however, he is deterred by a heavenly messenger, who assures him that Mary has conceived under a divine influence. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name _Tesus ; for he shall save his people from their sins' (Matt. i. sq. ; Luke i. 27). To this account various objec tions have been taken ; but most of theni are drawn from the ground of a narrow, short-sighted, and half-informed rationalism, which judges every thing by its own small standard, and either denies miracles altogether, or admits only such miracles as find favour in its sight ; attempting not to learn what Christianity is, nor what was suitable and proper in the days of Christ, but to construct a Christianity of its own, and then to impose the new creation on the writers of the Gospel, and the pri mitive church.
Joseph was by trade a carpenter, in which busi ness he probably educated Jesus. In Matt. xiii. 55, we read, 'Is not this the son of the carpenter?' and in Mark vi. 3, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary ?' The term employed, TEKTWP, is of a general character (from reiixtu, I forni'), and may be fitly rendered by the English word arti ficer' or `artizan,' signifying any one that labours in the fabrication (faber in Latin) of articles of ordinary use, whatever the material may be out of which they are made. Accordingly, sometimes it denotes a smith as well as a carpentcr or joiner, and in the Septuagint the additional terin 'iron' (o-o37)pov) or wood ' (EoXr.ov) is employed, in order to denote its specific application. If some doubt may exist whether carpenter ' is the necessary rendering of the word when applied to Joseph, yet there is no impropriety in that rendering, for not seldom the word, when used without any explana tory addition, has that signification. Schleusner (in vac.) asserts that the universal testimony of the ancient church represents our Lord as being a car penter's son. This is, indeed, the statement of Justin Martyr (Dial. Cii771 TyPh071e, sec. 88), for he explains the term 76CTUIV, which he applies to Jesus, by saying that he made Itporpa Kai plouRhs and yokes ; but Origen in replying to Celsus, who indulged in jokes against the humble employment of our Lord, expressly denied that Jesus was so termed in the Gospels (see the pas sage cited in Otho's yustizz llfartyr, tom. ii. p. 3o6, Jenze 1843)—a declaration which suggests the idea that the copies which Origen read differed from our own ; while Hilarius, on Matthew (quoted in Simon's Dictionnaire de la Bible, i. 691), asserts, in terms which cannot be mistaken, that Jesus was a smith (ferrum igne ncentis, nzassamqneformantis, etc.) Of the same opinion was the venerable Bede ; while others have held that our Lord was a mason, and Cardinal Cajetan that he was a gold smith.