Joseph the Carpenter in Islam [Part 1]

A Comparative Analysis between Christianity and Islam

Masud Masihiyyen

The Christian teaching that Joseph the Carpenter became Jesus’ foster father through Mary’s betrothal to him before the annunciation sounds scandalous to many Muslims. I even remember how a professor of religion at my school presented Jesus’ infancy narrative and His affiliation with Joseph the Carpenter in Matthew’s Gospel as a contradiction. The professor’s conclusion was that Joseph’s depiction as Jesus’ father in the first section of the first Gospel undermined the Christian doctrine identifying Jesus as the Son of God. Of course, he reached this wrong conclusion by ignoring the fact that Joseph had become a foster father to Jesus through God’s will and choice.

In Christianity Joseph the Carpenter’s portrayal as Jesus’ foster father is related to the Incarnation. When the Son of God decided to become incarnate and assume human nature, He was born of a virgin who was pledged to be married to a man from David’s house. God chose to inform Joseph of the miraculous conception and made him the protector of both Mary and Infant Jesus by incorporating him into the plan of mankind’s salvation (Matthew 1 and 2).

Still, the New Testament emphasizes the fact that Joseph the Carpenter was considered Jesus’ biological father by people who were unaware of Jesus’ miraculous conception (Luke 3:23). Jesus’ affiliation with Abraham’s progeny through Joseph the Carpenter in Matthew 1:1-16, on the other hand, did not mean that Joseph was Jesus’ physical father. Jesus would be the son of Joseph in a similar sense that He was called the son of Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1) through His birth from a virgin in accordance with a prophecy (Matthew 2:22-23). Abraham and David were not Jesus’ biological fathers, nor was Joseph. Jesus was called the son of Abraham and David since He descended from their progeny. In the same way, Jesus was called the son of Joseph the Carpenter since He was affiliated with Joseph’s genealogy through Mary and became Joseph’s legal son.

Interestingly, the Qur’an contains not even a single reference to Joseph the Carpenter in sharp contrast to Joseph’s presence and significant role occurring mostly in the narratives of Jesus’ birth and infancy in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. Although the New Testament teaches that Joseph was informed of Jesus’ miraculous birth by an angel in his dream (Matthew 1:20-21) very much like Mary, who was visited by the Archangel Gabriel and received the annunciation of Jesus’ miraculous birth (Luke 1:26-38), in the two independent accounts of Jesus’ nativity and childhood in the Islamic scripture Mary is the only person to hear the news in an angelic vision (Surah 19:17-21 and Surah 3:45-47). Things get more puzzling when we remember that almost all the data in the infancy narratives in the Qur’an were drawn from apocryphal Christian literature, that is, from a few non-canonical Gospels of Infancy. Even though these writings present more information about Joseph the Carpenter than the canonical Gospels, Muhammad’s mechanism of plagiarism from these texts somehow did not make Joseph’s appearance in Jesus’ story crucial.

Two possibilities concerning Joseph’s absence from the Islamic scripture come to mind at this early stage of our examination: either Muhammad’s ignorance of the subject or Muhammad’s deliberate choice of exclusion.¹ The first possibility turns out to be weak when we remember that the non-canonical writings about Jesus’ nativity and infancy, from which Muhammad drew his peculiar version of the stories, unanimously present Joseph as a significant figure. If Muhammad deliberately excluded Joseph the Carpenter from the narratives in the non-canonical Gospels of infancy, he did this perhaps because he mistakenly thought that Joseph’s presence in Jesus’ story could not be reconciled with Mary’s miraculous conception.

Since the account of Jesus’ nativity and infancy in the Meccan period of the Qur’an (Surah 19) shows discrepancies with the narrative in the Medinan period (Surah 3) – due to the fact that Muhammad made use of two different and unrelated non-canonical Gospels of Infancy (Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of James) – it is necessary to analyze these stories with regard to Joseph the Carpenter in two parts and witness Joseph’s exclusion from the stories with its outcomes. Accordingly, in the second part of the article I shall examine Jesus’ birth narrative in Surah 19 and discuss what Joseph’s omission from the original texts that Muhammad abused has cost him whereas in the third part I shall focus on Jesus’ birth narrative in Surah 3 and discuss if Joseph was likewise omitted from this chapter. However, this examination should be preceded with a comparative study of Joseph’s existence in Christianity and Islam, which is the main theme of this first article.

Joseph the Carpenter in the New Testament

Interestingly, Pauline epistles, universal epistles and the Apocalypse in the New Testament do not make a single reference to Joseph the Carpenter. More, even in the Gospel of Mark we can find no mention of Joseph. Below are given the references to Joseph the Carpenter in the canonical Gospels:

Obviously, almost all of the references to Joseph the Carpenter in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke are found in the narrative of Jesus’ nativity and infancy. Both these Gospels give the basic information that Mary was betrothed to Joseph before the angelic visit that announced Jesus’ miraculous birth. Again, in both these Gospels Jesus’ identification as an inhabitant of Nazareth (Nazarene) is associated with Joseph’s being His adoptive father. As for the differences, Matthew recounts the events occurring prior to the annunciation and right after Jesus’ birth from Joseph’s perspective, showing him as a righteous person chosen and guided by God through prophetic dreams for Mary and Infant Jesus’ protection. Evangelist Luke, on the other hand, emphasizes Mary’s role in this significant period of Jesus’ life and relates the events from Mary’s perspective. Accordingly, the good news of Jesus’ birth is delivered to Joseph in Matthew whilst to Mary in Luke. Still, both Matthew and Luke affiliate Jesus with Joseph on their respective version of Jesus’ genealogy.

We owe the information that Jesus’ foster father Joseph was a “carpenter” to Matthew, who reveals this detail through the narrative of Jesus’ visit to His hometown during His prophetic ministry. People who know Jesus’ family designate Him as the son of the carpenter. However, while recording the same narrative, Mark avoided mentioning Joseph and ascribed his occupation to Jesus. To compare and contrast:

When these verses are read together and comparatively, Jesus’ designation as a carpenter in Mark actually corresponds to his consideration as Joseph’s son in Matthew, the word “carpenter” pertaining to Joseph and implying Jesus’ affiliation with His foster father on the basis of an occupation.³ The reason underlying this difference in formulation and Joseph’s omission from Mark’s Gospel is that unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark the Evangelist did not talk of Jesus’ nativity and infancy and therefore did not deem it necessary to incorporate Joseph into his Gospel in the later period of Jesus’ ministry. The natural question why we find Joseph mentioned in the Gospel of John although John – very much like Mark – did not write anything about Jesus’ birth and childhood cannot be answered unless John’s distinct writing style is remembered. In the first place, John did not write a synoptic Gospel. Second, he was the last Evangelist to pen his testimony about Jesus and could therefore confirm and strengthen the teachings present in the previously written Gospels. Third, a comparative study of all the Gospels demonstrates that John’s Gospel is more thematically associated with and similar to Luke’s Gospel. Actually, if we put these four Gospels into two groups, Luke and John would form a pair as Luke’s Gospel contains more parallelism with John’s Gospel.⁴

There are a few points in the Gospels that enable us to conclude that Joseph the Carpenter passed away before Jesus started His prophetic ministry. First, Matthew and Luke never say that Joseph was present with Jesus’ mother and relatives when Jesus preached and performed miracles in Israel. Second, in John’s Gospel Joseph is not mentioned either in the account of Jesus’ first miracle in Galilee (2:1-11) or at the time of His crucifixion although in both these cases Jesus addresses His mother, and in the second case He entrusts her to His beloved disciple (19:26-27). There would have been no need for this had Joseph been alive.

Joseph the Carpenter in the non-canonical Gospels of Infancy

In addition to these, Joseph the Carpenter occurs in the non-canonical Gospels of Infancy, which were penned from the second century onward by unknown authors and ascribed to some apostles/holy figures. Unsurprisingly, these Gospels are concerned with the period of Jesus’ birth and infancy, being products of people who wanted to provide more information on the era prior to both Jesus’ annunciation and the beginning of His prophetic mission in His thirties. Although the Gospels of Infancy are not a part of the New Testament canon, some of the teachings found in these writings made their way into some traditional doctrines taught by the Churches that had existed prior to the Reformation. We have access to the texts of the following apocryphal Gospels of Infancy:

• Gospel of James (aka Protoevangelium) 
• Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 
• Arabic Gospel of the Savior’s Infancy 
• Infancy Gospel of Thomas 
• History of Joseph the Carpenter 
• Gospel of the Nativity of Mary 

Of these non-canonical writings, the History of Joseph the Carpenter is designed as an account of Joseph’s life through Jesus’ eyes since Jesus seems to be narrator of the major events occurring in His foster father’s life right after his selection as Mary’s guard and caretaker. In addition to designating Joseph as both a carpenter and a priest in the Temple,⁵ the narrative also gives the age of Joseph at the time of his death (he is claimed to have been 111) with a detailed depiction of his passing away.

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary is a comparatively short non-canonical text that repeats the traditional teachings stated about Joseph the Carpenter in the two major Gospels of Infancy (Gospel of James and of Pseudo-Matthew) and reflects its author’s aim to reconcile the Christian tradition concerning Joseph with the infancy narrative in the canonical Gospel of Matthew.

The Arabic Gospel of Infancy and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are two non-canonical documents with several parallelisms, and in these writings Joseph mostly occurs in association with the miracles Jesus supposedly performed in His childhood. Unlike the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Arabic Gospel of Infancy relates Jesus’ birth in a cave and the miracles accompanying it, and in this particular section Joseph is again given a significant role.

The Gospel of James and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew can be regarded as the two major apocryphal Gospels of Infancy that shaped the fundamental Christian tradition regarding Mary and Joseph. These writings teach that Joseph was a widower that was chosen by the high priest through divine guidance and sign to take Mary out of the Temple and live with her when Mary did not want to get married, but had to leave the Temple at around the age of 12. Obviously, these narratives support the traditional Christian tenet of Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is not held by the Reformed Churches.

Joseph the Carpenter in Islamic Tradition

Although Joseph the Carpenter is not even once mentioned in the Qur’an, there are a few vague references to him in some traditional reports and narratives related to Mary. For example, while trying to convey some meaning to the obscure and incomplete story of Mary’s conception and delivery in Surah 19, Ibn Kathir reported the following information:

It must be noted that this report bears a blatant discrepancy to the chronology of the events given in Surah 19. According to the Quranic narrative, Mary placed a veil between people and herself before the angelic visit and her subsequent pregnancy (Surah 19:17-19), not after it as it is mistakenly claimed by Muhammad bin Ishaq.

Although not perfectly accurate, this traditional story illustrates the influence of the non-canonical Gospels of Infancy on the Islamic commentaries related to Mary, for the source of the idea that Mary was accused of fornication with Joseph (Yusuf in Arabic) because of her miraculous pregnancy are definitely the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of James. Observing the influence of some apocryphal Gospels of Infancy on the Qur’an is nothing unsurprising and unusual since Muhammad designed his peculiar version of Jesus’ birth and infancy narratives in Surah 19 and Surah 3 from the distortion of the material borrowed from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of James, respectively. More to the point, this influence went beyond the Qur’an and leapt into Islamic tradition concerning these stories as I discussed at length and proved in my article entitled “Unravelling a Knot of the Qur’an”.

Nonetheless, the occurrence of Joseph’s name in the commentary quoted above is rather odd and puzzling since the author of Surah 19 did not write anything implicit or explicit about Joseph the Carpenter! Did this peculiar reference in the Tafsir originate from the accidental endorsement of the story recounted by Christians? Did Muhammad bin Ishaq plagiarize more than enough and incorporate this story into the Islamic version of the narrative, thus betraying the Qur’an for the sake of defending it?

In another and more detailed account of the events concerning Mary’s pregnancy in the Islamic tradition, we find the information that Joseph was Mary’s relative (cousin) and a carpenter. The story also depicts and praises Joseph as a pious person serving in the Mosque along with Mary:

The claim in this traditional Islamic report that Mary served in one of the largest places of worship (a mosque in Islamic terminology) is obviously associated with Mary’s depiction in the non-canonical Gospels of Infancy as a person dedicated to the Jewish Temple. Further, Joseph’s identification as Mary’s relative is not surprising since the combination of the information given about Joseph’s lineage in the canonical Gospel of Matthew with that given about Mary’s lineage in the non-canonical writings takes us to the same conclusion. Both Joseph and Mary descended from the tribe of Judah, which makes them related.

Another similar Islamic report portrays Joseph and Mary as a pair working in the same place and doing the same task of carrying water for use in the mosque:

People who are familiar with the nativity stories in the non-canonical Gospels of Infancy can guess that the tendency to associate the angelic annunciation to Mary with her carrying water in the Islamic report above originated from the following section in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew:

Of course, the traditional Islamic story contains a few discrepancies with Pseudo-Matthew’s narrative due to the perversion of the original source. Although in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew the messenger appeared in human form to Mary and announced Jesus’ birth while Mary was sewing the veil of the Temple on the third day of her stay in Joseph’s house, the Muslim figure relating this story conflated two distinct revelations to Mary (one on the second day while she was at the fountain and the latter on the third day while she was alone in Joseph’s house) and consequently taught that Mary heard the news of Jesus’ birth from Gabriel and got pregnant when she entered a cave to get some water from a spring.⁶

What concerns us more at this point of our study is the difference concerning Joseph’s presence and role in the traditional Islamic report. According to the two major non-canonical Gospels of Infancy, Joseph did not serve in the Temple, but was appointed Mary’s guardian when Mary had to leave the Temple after her puberty. More, Mary had settled in Joseph’s house when she experienced an angelic vision at a fountain, but at this time Joseph was away and occupied with his work. Joseph returned home and found Mary pregnant, upon which he suspected her and thought that she was guilty of fornication. Later he was warned in a dream and understood the miraculous nature of Mary’s conception.

In the traditional Islamic narrative, however, Joseph served in a mosque and was both Mary’s relative and co-worker. This is why they used to go together to a cave and get some water for use in the mosque. One single day Mary went to the spring alone, and this unique visit coincided with Gabriel’s apparition to her, the annunciation of Jesus’ birth, and Mary’s conception. Naturally, Joseph questioned Mary with regard to her abrupt pregnancy:

Despite these differences, there are a lot of similar elements that demonstrate the influence of Pseudo-Matthew’s material on the Islamic story. In both narratives Joseph the Carpenter was connected to Mary through a major place of worship (the Jewish Temple versus one of the largest mosques) and acted as both Mary’s guardian and partner. Further, in both versions Joseph the Carpenter was not present when an angel of the Lord appeared to Mary and announced Jesus’ birth. Finally, in both versions Joseph was in charge of Mary’s chastity and became therefore the first male to wonder the cause of her pregnancy.

In the light of the traditional Islamic report it is possible to say that Joseph’s depiction as Mary’s relative and co-worker and thus Joseph and Mary’s presentation as “a pair” might correspond to Mary’s betrothal to Joseph in the canonical Gospels. After all, the traditional Islamic reports quoted above claim that Joseph was the only male figure in Mary’s life just before the annunciation and that Joseph was not present in the cave at the time of the annunciation and Mary’s conception, which functions to imply that he was not the biological father of Mary’s son.

While answering the question if Mary is believed in Islam to have been married or betrothed to Joseph, an Islamic website makes a comparative analysis of the basic Christian and Muslim tenets regarding Mary’s virginity and betrothal and evaluates the assertion of Joseph’s being Mary’s husband:

First, Abdullah Anik Misra, the author of this article, is obviously reluctant to consider Ibn Kathir’s commentary an Islamic source. As we saw above, Joseph was actually mentioned in a story attributed to Muhammad bin Ishaq. Second, the last sentence in the above section is logically flawed as the Qur’an does not always reveal to its reader the things that are true. For instance, Ishmael’s mother Hagar is never mentioned in the Islamic scripture. Do we have to conclude that Hagar was not mentioned in the Qur’an because she did not actually exist in history?

Abdullah Anik Misra later confesses that he is aware of the few references to Joseph the Carpenter in some Islamic sources, but does his best to poison the well by casting doubt upon their reliability as he is not pleased with this particular information:

Misra also fabricates a couple of logically fallacious pretexts in an effort to make Joseph’s removal from Mary’s story more plausible through the denial of Mary’s betrothal. First, he erroneously thinks that one unsubstantiated claim will suffice to prove another:

The traditional Islamic claim that the Bible was distorted is always proposed as part of a myth and with no evidence. This is why it should not be taken seriously, but rather ignored as a lie and slander. Besides, the alleged assertion that the Bible was partly distorted does not necessarily make the story of Mary’s betrothal to Joseph the Carpenter unreliable as it is impossible for Muslims to know with certainty which part was changed and which part remained intact. How can they prove that specifically Mary’s betrothal was an invented story later attached to the Bible?

Second, Abdullah Anik Misra baffles us by formulating the following statement:

This is one of the most bizarre and ridiculous Islamic arguments I have ever heard in my life! Misra expects us to believe that Mary’s consternation at the time of her visit by an angel and the prediction of Jesus’ birth would dismiss the possibility of her betrothal. However, he has no capacity to infer that Mary was surprised at the angel’s words because this incident took place before her marriage and because she was still untouched by a man then. More to the point, the angel did not include Mary’s marriage into the prediction of her conception, implying that she would be pregnant and bear a child before and out of her marriage. This would prevent Mary from mistakenly assuming that a child would be given to her through her to-be-husband. After all, why would there be need for an angelic annunciation if Mary would conceive through normal means?

Later Misra presents another absurd argument:

Jesus’ miraculous birth was meant by God to be an effective proof of what to the Children of Israel? The author of the Qur’an could never come up with a good and valid theological reason for Jesus’ unique birth in the stories of the former prophets. Why would God choose this specific means of miracle to show His might specifically to the Children of Israel, a monotheistic community already believing that God is almighty? Moreover, how would it be possible to show the Children of Israel that Mary conceived while she was a virgin? Doubters would always doubt even if Mary had not shaken hands with a man until her conception. How would it be possible to show Mary’s virginity to such people? Finally, Misra forgets that a miracle is something supernatural and does not need to be plausible and believable by human standards. The more believable, the less a miracle! 

Being unaware of these facts, Misra continues to elaborate on this argument of his:

Here Misra exposes the absurdity of his contention through his reference to the story of Mary’s accusation by her folk in Surah 19. The writer of the Qur’an taught that Mary was charged with fornication although she was not betrothed. Thus, Joseph’s absence from the story did not stop people from approaching Mary with suspicion and doubting the plausibility of a virgin birth. We also cannot stop wondering if Joseph’s presence in the story would really restrict Allah’s might? Would it be impossible and unthinkable for Allah to make Baby Jesus speak in the cradle and miraculously tell the Children of Israel that Joseph the Carpenter was not His biological father?

While presenting these arguments Misra also commits a false analogy as he disregards the fact that in the New Testament Jesus’ miraculous birth from a virgin mother is not revealed to the public. Even in the Qur’an we cannot see Jesus refer to His miraculous birth. Although He is claimed to have spoken in the cradle for the sake of defending His mother against the accusations of her people, Jesus’ first speech does not contain the word “virgin” or explain the miraculous means of and reasons for Mary’s pregnancy. According to the story in Surah 3, Jesus does not talk of Mary’s virginity in public during His ministry either.

Misra attempts to explain the reason underlying Mary’s withdrawal to a distant place in Surah 19 right after her conception:

This argument also makes little sense, if any at all. The reason for Mary’s withdrawal is not stated in the Qur’an, and Misra is only using his right to make a guess. His presumption gives birth to the question why Mary would ever want to return to her folk after delivery if she feared to face the charges of fornication. How did her worries about the degradation of religion through her come to an end? Who told her to return to her people and why? If she could return only after Jesus’ birth because she knew that her baby would miraculously speak in order to indirectly defend his mother’s chastity, would it be impossible for Allah to prove Mary innocent before her delivery?

Misra makes further efforts to convince the reader that the version of Mary’s story in the Qur’an is much better than the Biblical account in that it does not mention Joseph and depicts Mary as a strong virgin needing the help of no companion: 

We must remind Misra that the story in Surah 19 undermines his theory. Allah did not directly defend Mary’s chastity, but supposedly imposed this task on Baby Jesus, Mary’s male child. In short, there occurred need for an intervention and the help of a male even if Mary did not have a husband or fiancée or guardian. Further, the story of Jesus’ birth and infancy in Surah 3 relates Mary’s dedication to the Temple and depicts Zechariah as Mary’s guardian determined by Allah:

According to Surah 3, some men had to cast lots to be Mary’s guardian just before the annunciation of Jesus’ birth:

Although we cannot know anything about this group of men thanks to the vagueness of the verse, this reference seems to have been borrowed from the non-canonical Gospel of James (Chapter 9), which confirms that the man who was made Mary’s guardian before the annunciation was Joseph the Carpenter. This connection destroys all of Misra’s arguments and theories through the endorsement of Joseph’s existence in Mary’s life in the Qur’an. Of course, Muslim scholars argue that Surah 3:44 is a repetition of Surah 3:37 and that in the later verse Zechariah is meant. In case of either interpretation, the Qur’an agrees that Mary needed a male guardian in her life and was not always without a companion. We have to ask Misra why Allah chose to put Mary, a miraculously born child living in the Temple and getting her food directly from above (Surah 3:44), under a man’s (Zechariah’s) care? Why did Mary need a male guardian?

Abdullah Anik Misra concludes his comparative analysis by summarizing his basic argument that Joseph’s presence in Mary’s story in the Gospels is a result of the Biblical distortion:

We feel obliged to ask Misra how he can know with certainty and prove historically that Joseph’s designation as Mary’s husband was a false doctrine later inserted into the Bible through perversion. Does he have access to the original form of the New Testament documents and do those texts not confirm Mary’s betrothal to Joseph? This is a greater mystery that awaits solution.

Finally, Misra ignores that the accounts of Jesus’ nativity and infancy in Surah 19 and 3 were plagiarized by Muhammad from the non-canonical Gospels of Infancy as I have shown in a number of comprehensive articles so far! Therefore, our primary question must be why we cannot find a single reference to Joseph the Carpenter in Surah 19 although Mary and Jesus’ story in this chapter was adopted from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, which has various references to Joseph and describes him as Mary’s guardian and an indispensable character in the course of some main events. We shall seek a solution to this real mystery in the second part of the article through the comparative analysis of Mary and Jesus’ story in Surah 19 with the narratives about Mary and Jesus in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.

Continue with Part 2.