My ‘thin air’ assertion has been challenged.
Since I’ve not seen the DATA behind the reason the CHURCH decided to teach that Joseph was ‘elderly’; I’ll continue in my Unbelief of church ‘tradition’.
Since I’ve not seen the DATA behind the reason the CHURCH decided to teach that Joseph was ‘elderly’; I’ll continue in my Unbelief of church ‘tradition’.
I certainly have no problem with that. People have their own ways of coming at tradition. And, just for clarification, I wouldn't say that the Church teaches this particular view of St. Joseph; it is just a very old tradition. And I tend to be uncomfortable rejecting such unless there are good reasons, e.g. archaeological evidence. In the case of these particular ideas about St. Joseph, of his being an elderly widower whose children were the brothers and sisters of the Lord, we can say they are ancient indeed. The Protoevangelium of James, which is not accepted by the Church as being authentic or binding in any way, was written about the middle of the second century and it includes these details about him. Of course, it is a fraudulent document and so isn't authoritative, but its witness is still historically important. It demonstrates that at least by that time, about A.D. 145, these stories were established and being spread. I don't say this as a means of suggesting you should accept any of it, but only to give you an idea of how old it is, which for me is a very important factor for consideration.