The image of Jospeh and Mary as extremely poor is enduring. It fits the born in a manager ethic and many a good exhortational point about the son of God coming from poverty. The evidence for this point largely hangs not on the lack of space in Bethlehem during the birth narrative but the offering of doves (the offering of the poor Lev 12:8) at Jesus’ presentation at the temple. A little historical cultural context helps here and presents a slightly different picture.

Joseph had a skilled trade

Joseph had a trade, traditionally he is described as a carpenter.  This is consistent with early church history, with Justin Marty reporting both Joseph and Jesus as carpenters and commenting on Jesus making “ploughs and yokes”[1].  However research suggests this is an overly narrow reading of the word:

“builder” is a more accurate translation: “It is evident that the word does not mean ‘carpenter’ as that word is understood today. In the context of first-century Israel, the τέκτων was a general craftsman who worked with stone, wood, and sometimes metal in large and small building projects.” Campbell’s research indicates that most of the tektōn references in the LXX and Jewish literature of Jesus’ day refer to stone construction[2]

The Complete Word Study Dictionary supports this variation with examples from the LXX:

to fabricate, and tíktō, to produce, bear, bring forth. An artificer, especially a worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). A craftsman of wood (Sept.: 2 Sam. 5:11; 2 Kgs. 12:11; Is. 40:20); an artificer of iron (Sept.: 1 Sam. 13:19); of brass (Sept.: 1 Kgs. 7:14).[3]

The broader production meaning (supported in other dictionaries like the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament[4]) makes sense in an environment where stone seems more abundant than timber. 

Having a trade meant that Joseph was not at the bottom rung of society. For sure the fabulously wealthy elites of the empire and less fabulously wealthy but still the inner circle of Herodian political class would think a Nazarite craftsman incredibly poor.   

Nazareth was an economical modest location

Having a trade was one thing, but the couple’s location needs considering.

Joseph was based in Nazareth which formed part of what was at the time the “relatively prosperous and peaceful”[5] region of Galilee. 

Within the region though Nazareth which is considered insignificant in the text (John 1:46).  While in a great region, the town was somewhat isolated from the main thoroughfares.  It seems as small place of perhaps only a few hundred people at most and as Wright notes:

the meager archaeological evidence suggests that the Nazareth of Jesus’ day was a small agricultural village with limited opportunities beyond subsistence living for its residents[6]

However at least Joseph had a trade and one which would not be restricted by the scale of the village given its proximity to other centres.  As Meier notes (of Jesus but equally true of Joseph):

His was not the grinding, degrading poverty of the day laborer or the rural slave[7]

While poor by our western standards, even in poor Nazareth Joseph had a modest economic position in the context of the times, not middle class but perhaps mid blue collar.  Certainly we should not expect grinding poverty.

Why an offering of two birds?

The primary evidence for the claimed poverty of Joseph and Mary is the offering of two birds when Jesus was presented in the Temple in Luke 2:24.  Under the Law offering two pigeons or doves was the poor person’s alternative to a lamb – which was the appropriate offering.  The NET notes this offering points to the “humble roots of Jesus’ family” not being able to afford a lamb[8] and others repeat the same essential point[9],[10].

Side note the exact Mosaic Law basis of the Temple visit is uncertain – Edwards suggests it may be an evolution of Mosaic practices since it doesn’t exactly align with what we find in the Pentateuch[11]. 

However there is an alternative explanation which only becomes apparent if we have access to the social-historical context.  Jeremias presents evidence that Jerusalem suffered from an enormous price differential to the rest of Judea.  Specially on temple worship he notes:

Because of the huge demand, the price of doves for sacrifice was inflated by city profiteers to as much as a hundred times the normal price (M. Ker. i.7; cf. pp. 33f)[12].

The incident doesn’t prove they were at the bottom economic rung of society.  Rather, Joseph and Mary are being exploited by the ruthless temple traders.  This factoid about pricing also forms the background to Jesus describing the traders in the temple as a “den of robbers” in Matthew 21:12-13. 

As a tradesman in lowly Nazareth Joseph could provide a modest future for his family.  However he couldn’t protect the family against the predatory pricing of the temple merchants.  Under their economic oppression almost everyone was forced into the humiliating ‘poor person’s sacrifice’.

While Joseph and Mary may have anticipated a humble but predictable future, all of that was upended by the arrival of an angel with unlikely but welcome good news. 

by Daniel Edgecombe

_______________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 244.

[2] Klaus D. Issler, “Exploring the Pervasive References to Work in Jesus’ Parables,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57 57, no. 2 (2014): 326–327.

[3] Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

[4] Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 342.

[5] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Volume One, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New Haven;  London: Yale University Press, 1991), 282.

[6] Paul H. Wright, “The Size and Makeup of Nazareth at the Time of Jesus,” in Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels, ed. Barry J. Beitzel and Kristopher A. Lyle, Lexham Geographic Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 36.

[7] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Volume One, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1991), 282.

[8] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

[9] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Lk 2:22–24.

[10] Craig A. Evans, Luke, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 39.

[11] James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke, ed. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2015), 82.

[12] Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, trans. F. H. Cave, C. H. Cave, and M. E. Dahl (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 121.