Talk:Joses

message: I find no entry for Joses in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Before mentioning this fact in the entry, can anyone find an entry for the Joses, brother of Jesus, who is mentioned in Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55 and Mark 15:40. Perhaps he's just not that important to the RC Church. Wetman 22:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections. Entered. --Wetman 10:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not in the CathEn

message: So Wetman reverted back to the previous version, once again claiming that he is reverting surpressing:
*First of all he is reverting a POV tag (which I placed and which was met by my edits) without any explanation.
*He reverts to version that creates redundancy by recounting the same stuff twice (Mark and Matthew)
*He reintroduces the wrong meaning of Joses as "He that forgives" when it is indeed "The Lord will increase"
*Above can be seen his observation that Jose has no distinct article in the CathEn. He might have overseen that Joses is mentioned, albeit with the statement that nothing is known of him (which is quite accurate), but his inclusion of a non-information (by linking to a ToC) is beyond me. This clearly serves to imply a certain view.
*Connected to that his extremely POV statement that "The primary meaning of the text would be clear and sufficient, were it not for the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, not directly attested in the New Testament, which developed during the 2nd century and later became dogma of the Roman Catholic Church." In other words, Catholics got it wrong and without them everything would be fine. That it wouldn't be fine is indicated by the fact that Joses in Mark is a "brother of the Lord" and the son of a different (!) Mary. Now, I am not about pushing either view as fact, but Wetman and the previous version did exactly that: assert one view as fact and ridicule opposing views (and not only here).
*Eisenman overkill. If we want to state his view than we should do this and first provide a lenghty introduction from his POV. Eisenman identifies Joses and Joseph Barsabbas and we will and shall state that. Then we can explain about Barsabbas or link to him.
*Finally, a bogus genealogy without attributing it to an author, clearly assering that Jesus is the son of Joseph. Wetman you may think so, everyone may think so but one thing it is not is NPOV.
Therefore I am compelled to revert his undoing of my recent efforts. Str1977 (smile back) 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wetman's revert

message: I note that the only two references to the article deal with content which seems to have been added by a party who has since been brought to arbitration for his similar conduct elsewhere. I wonder whether that party's conflation of information to present an opinion which was observed elsewhere is also present here. John Carter 15:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I took the tags off since the content dispute is old news. Ovadyah (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and accuracy tags 

message: Some modern writers, such as Robert EisenmanEisenmann, Robert, James the Brother of Jesus, 1997: xviii;  or James Tabor, however claim that Mary of Clopas actually refers to Jesus' mother as well. 
I moved content about Mary of Clopas to talk in case anyone wants to discuss the changes. Ovadyah (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary of Clopas

message: The Gospel of Matthew closely mirrors these two passages in  and  but uses Joseph instead of Joses.
The KJV says Joses for both of these verses.  Is Joseph a modern NKJV translation error?  I'll check some Greek sources to see which is right. Ovadyah (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Sources

message: The identification of Joses as Joseph Barsabbas makes sense.  He is also referred to as Justus in Acts 1:23.  Justus was third in the hereditary line of succession of the Desposyni after James the Just and Simeon of Jerusalem as Bishops_of_Jerusalem. Ovadyah (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Joseph Barsabbas]]

message: I believe that this article might best reasonably be a redirect to Desposyni. The subject seems to have received little if any independent academic or religious attention, and what material there is one the subject could reasonably be added to that article. I have seen no particular evidence of notability as per WP:NOTABILITY, and any substantive discussion of theories relating to the subject might well wind up giving possibly minor or fringe theories undue weight. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please indicate exactly where you see evidence that this individual was canonized. I see the banner on the top of this page, but I see no evidence in the article itself supporting canonization by anyone. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

text: *Please indicate exactly which reliable sources indicate the "high probability" you refer to. Also, I note that those other individuals you referred to, the Jameses, I do note that the Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible on page 737 in my edition, lists the following as the entry for Joses: "1. One of the brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:5). At Matt. 13:55 he is called Joseph. 2. A brother of James the younger (Mark 15:40, 47). At Matt. 27:56 he is called Joseph (11)." That is the entire entry on Joses. On page 669, the entry on James contains 5 different Jameses, each of which receives much more content. And, once again, I note that, so far as I can see, this article and topic has not, at least to my eyes, necessarily ever received the coverage required to meet the specific notability requirements. I suppose I could nominate it for deletion on that basis, and had considered as much, but thought this to be the more acceptable way to proceed. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservative religious scholar/polemicist Ben Witherington mentions Joses in his book Brother of Jesus Google .  Ignocrates (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: FIrst, I would ask the above editor to refrain from insisting on describing academics in prejudicial terms. Secondly, mentions is the right description of that work. I would urge him to perhaps read WP:BIO which indicates that significant coverage of the subject is required to establish notability. The passing reference to the subject in that link falls well short of "significant coverage". John Carter (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'm not required to prove anything to you.  I'm expressing my opinion here like any other editor.  Second, I hope more editors will participate to get even wider input, but there is already enough feedback to establish a consensus to keep the article.  Third, if you choose to ignore the input of the Community and impose your POV on the article, you may find yourself in AN/I, where you will get a refresher course in how to seek a WP:CONSENSUS.  Ignocrates (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, one of the reasons for your hope is your inability to provide the requisite sources to substantiate that the subject meets minimum notability requirements. Actually, as per WP:BURDEN, it is incumbent on someone to provide such information. And I note that your previous history involves you and only one other editor. I believe that it is to be expected that there will be other editors involved, and I hope that you allow them to speak for themselves rather than attempting to bypass such input. Just please notice that any violations of WP:CANVASS shall probably be noted. The process has some time to complete in general. And, please note that WP:CONSENSUS explicitly refers to consensus based on the evidence presented. Perhaps, in the future, you might allow such to continue on its own, without trying to rush things? John Carter (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Think this proposal has died, so removed the tag from brothers of Jesus. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: The spelling for Joses (or Joset) in Mark 6.3, 15.40, and 15.47 is (Greek Ἰωσῆτος Iōsētos).  Ignocrates (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, sure, but we wouldn't normally write the genitive case of a name in the article unless there's anything significant. Are you suggesting that the genitive ιωσητος indicates a different nominative than ιωσης? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a big deal, but it shows more clearly how Josetos could be transliterated into Justus.  Ignocrates (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek spelling 

message: Jose = Joses?
Joses is a name, usually regarded as a form of Joseph, occurring (...):
* Jose, one of the names in the genealogy of Jesus: Luke 3:29
I find "29 which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eli-e'zer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi," at www.bartleby.com/108/42/3.html, but in New International Version: (...) the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, in New Living Translation Er was the son of Joshua. Joshua was the son of Eliezer. 
So the Jose of King James Version is not Joseph! Yeshua (name) may mean God (YHWH) is rescue/help, wereas Joseph means YHWH will add (→ She (Rachel) named him Joseph, saying, "May Yahweh add another son to me.").  Luke in a German bible: Lukas 3, 
* 28 Melchi, Addi, Kosam, Elmadam, Er,
* 29 Joschua(‡), Eliëser, Jorim, Mattat, Levi, 
(‡) → [Josua], 
--Schwab7000 (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke 3: Genealogy of Jesus