www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Icons & Iconography St. Joseph the Natural Father of the Lord?

St. Luke 2:48
Emphasis mine


Why are there some who object to the fatherhood of St. Joseph, especially the priest in the article? Our Lady the Theotokos did not, she even referred to St. Joseph as "thy father".

alice, I agree with all of your points and see no reason for them to upset even in the slightest.
Neil, you made me laugh out loud.
Good fast everyone!

It's certainly something a good father would do.

Personally, I've never liked the term "foster" father in reference to Saint Joseph; somehow the term just doesn't speak of permanence... On the other hand, Sacred Scripture notes that even the disciples presumed Jesus of Nazareth to be the son of Joseph (John 1:45). Of course we know the Truth.

Someone wrote that Saint Joseph was not the "typical" father. How so? Is this due solely because Saint Joseph was not the biological father of Our Lord. I know many men who are every bit a father to children they have adopted.

Biology does not guarantee "fatherhood." One need only to look at Herod's relationship to his sons, Alexander, Aristobulus and Antipater. All three were charged with treason and executed on Herod's orders. After the execution of Alexander and Aristobulus, Augustus reported remarked, "It is better to be Herod's pig (hus), than his son (huios)."

I'd rather have Saint Joseph as model of fatherhood over Herod.

I thank Father David and Dewi for their kind words and must admit to being delighted that I've brightened someone's day with laughter.

Miller,

You say


Yet, following up on Deacon John's point above, the very article that you praise, and on which you rely as dispositive of your arguments says:


And what else is a "father", but a guardian - many is the "father" who has played no biological role in the creation of the one for whom they fulfill that role.

In my life, I've been blessed to have fathered 5 wonderful and beautiful children and we share between us bonds that exist in no other relationship. At the same time, there are another half-dozen children, all now adults, who at some point in their lives effectively 'adopted' me as 'Dad' at some point or for some period in their lives when they needed someone to call by that name or to fulfill that role. I had no biological relationship to any of them, nor even any such legal kinship relationship as would satisfy the common usage of 'foster-father', 'adoptive father', or anything of that ilk. Rather, I was there when they needed a father and blessed that they saw fit to bestow the epithet on me.

That Virtuous Joseph fulfilled that role for the human God-Child, providing shelter for Him, affording Him sustenance, spiriting Him to the safety of Egypt, and, generally, 'fathering' Him, seems to me to make a strong case for reverencing him - honoring him - in the role that God asked that he play in the life of Jesus. For you to presume to disparage your Orthodox sister as being guilty of pursuing a course of spirituality not in keeping with Orthodox theology seems to me to be both over-bearing and judgemental.

Both you and Halia in your comments and interpretations appear to equate Orthodoxy, "o"rthodoxy, and Orthodox tradition with a self-defined rigidity that seeks to stifle original thought and is unbecoming to a vibrant Faith. There is much in Eastern theology and spirituality that is not open to innovation, modification, or development, and should not be. The actual biological relationship (or, rather, that there was not such) between Joseph and the Child Jesus is certainly among those hide-bound dogma. However, to reject veneration of Holy Joseph in the God-pleasing earthly role that he fulfilled and decry that, in doing so, he did not present a model for others to mirror, from which they can draw inspiration, and in their own fulfillment of which they can implore his guidance and intercession, is to deny what God saw in him - a suitable earthly father to the most important Child Who ever graced this mortal plain. That strikes me as rather presumptuous!

Many years,

Neil

I do not speak for "Eastern theology" but only of Orthodox theology.
I do not see any desire or evidence in Orthodoxy to follow the route of Roman Catholicism to adopt a thology or symbolism of the "Holy Family".
There is no basis in our liturgy and tradition for this innovation. That is how traditions with a small "t" evolve and I see no evidence of it.

To me it looks like an attempt to graft a foreign branch onto the root.



Iconography is not just art or personal interpretation; iconography conveys our Eastern Orthodox theology. To gain an insight in the theology of iconography as well as the meaning of canonical icons, I advise you to consult the following works starting (as always) with Ouspensky's The Meaning of Icons. which has English translations of the canons you want to look at. The iconographer's manuals also have tranlsations of the prayers and some of the canons.

Iconography Manuals:
An Icon Painters Notebook: The Bolshakoy Edition. An Anthology of Source Materials. Trans. and Ed. Gregory Melnick. Torrance, CA: Oakwood Publications: 1999.

The Painter,s Manual of Dionysius of Fourna. London: Sagittaurius Press, 1978.

Ouspensky, Leonid. & Vladimir Lossky. The Meaning of Icons. Rev. Ed. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982.

Ouspensky, Leonid. Theology of the Icon. Vol. 1., Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978.


This book also is worth buying for its translatiions of the various canons:

Bigham,Steven Images of God the Father in Iconography and Other Studies.
See pages pages 109- 151 for an excellent translation.

For my brothers and sisters in Christ,



http://fr-d-serfes.org/lives/stjoseph.htm

Mr (Mrs, Ms) Miller,

I do not have the time to purchase and read the anthology that you just suggested (which may be acedia on my part.) If you (or anyone else) would be so generous, please just cite the Council and the Canon and I can Google it, i.e. Nicaea I, Canon XI.

God Bless You,

Dr. Eric

I am late to this discussion, but to return to the question(s) about the portrayal of St Joseph and the Holy Family:
I am a Byzantine Catholic iconographer, and have refrained from painting St Joseph holding the Child out of deference to (some)Orthodox sensibilities. However, after long discussion with those who oppose portraying St Joseph holding the Child, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments are neither persuasive nor internally consistent. In fact, many of those who oppose this portrayal even oppose my portrayal of St Joseph behind, and not touching, Christ (see my website, under "Saints": www.eigththdayicons.com )

It is said that no one but the Virgin should be shown touching Christ, but the tradition has plenty of exceptions to this: Simeon, both in the icon of the Presentation and in portrait icons, the nursemaids in the Nativity icon, St Thomas, St Christopher, etc. (I was told that the icon of St Christopher carrying Christ is "not an Orthodox icon", though I found it on the site of the GOA!)

It is also said that to show St Joseph holding the Child implies natural fatherhood, and this will erode belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. However, the Romans have been portraying St Joseph like this with no discernable erosion of this belief, in either theology or popular piety, in spite of the wacky opinion one of the other posters noted.

In the end I concluded that there is a big difference in the way St Joseph is perceived, and that devotion to St Joseph is largely underdeveloped among the Orthodox, with happy exceptions like Alice and her priest. There certainly does not seem to be the widespread sense of the dearness and nearness of the saint.

On the question of the Holy Family, I tend to think that objections to showing St Joseph touching the Virgin have more substance, and have not done that icon....

If you want to read an exhaustive discussion on the topic, go to the Iconofile website and search the Forum for "St Joseph">

Dear Daniel the Iconophile,

It is good to see you back here!

Thanks for the informative post.

It truly has been a very long time. I hope that you are well.

In Christ,
Alice

Daniel, my brother,

Let me echo Alice's welcome. It's good to see a post from you.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks, Neil and Alice; it is nice to be back.

By the way Alice, I completely agree with you on the age of St Joseph. When I first painted him, influenced by my (modern) Roman youth, I painted him youngish. Every time I have done St Joseph since he has been greyer. But I agree: probably 40ish rather than 80s. There is a reason why the Protoevangelium, however much it has enriched our traditon, is not canonical. It is more poetry than history. And if, as tradition holds, St Joseph died just before Our Lord began his public ministry, and if he lived roughly the biblical 4 square and 10 years, that would put him at around 40 at the time of Christ's birth.

Differences in the perception of St Joseph, while intensified by fairly recent developments regarding devotion to the saint, apparently go back quite far. There is a mosaic in Polermo Italy from the 12th century of the Nativity. While the artist is most likely Greek (that part of Italy being very Byzantine at the time) the treatment of the subject may well have been influenced by the sensibilities of the Norman patron. The image differs from typical Byzantine Nativity icons in several ways: the Virgin is sitting upright, not reclining, and St Joseph is off to the side, but instead of the Devil tempting his faith, as in the typical treatment, he is wrapped in his robe, contemplating the mystery of the birth of the Son of God.
I would submit that this is more likely the case than the doubtful Joseph of the Protoevangelium. In Scripture, St Joseph is seen doubting only when first confronted with the news that his betrothed is with child. But after the angelic visitation which reassures him that her pregancy is miraculous he is never shown as anything but faithful; arising without question in the middle of the night to take his charges to safety, for example.