Having grown up King James only, this subject was brought to my attention many times. “Jesus was born of a virgin, but the modern Bible translations call Joseph His father.” Just take a look at the chart below:
This is a selection of common Bible translations. As you can see, the KJV and the NKJV are the only ones that don’t call Joseph Jesus’s father.
The newer translations clearly call Joseph His father, and even the NKJV contains this in the footnote.
To someone who is KJV-only, this could make it seem like the new translations are trying to change verses which undermine key biblical doctrines.
When I considered myself to be KJV-only this was one of the things which discouraged me from trying out other translations of the Bible. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is very important, and any modifications to the text that change it should be noted.
I realize now that there are a couple of things about this question that any serious student of the Bible ought to be aware of.
If you consider yourself to be KJV-only, and are looking into this issue with newer translations of the Bible, then please consider the following points:
Point #1: To say new Bible translations teach this is cherry picking.
Cherry picking is when you select and consider only the evidence that is supportive of your own conclusions.
The simple fact is that the modern translations, such as the NLT, NIV, ESV, and many more, do in fact teach the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
For example, just look at the very next chapter. In Luke 3:23, every one of those same Bible translations acknowledge that Joseph was only thought to be the father of Jesus.
Here we see that all of the same modern Bible translations acknowledge that Joseph was only “supposed” (or thought) to be Jesus’s Father.
Earlier in Luke, all the new translations contain the interaction between Mary and the Angel in which Mary confirms she is a virgin, and the Angel tells her that the pregnancy will be from God.
They also all contain the same story from Matthew Chapter 1, which clearly shows that Mary had conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit and it’s linked back to the prophecy by Isaiah which states that the “virgin will conceive a child and his name will be called Immanuel.”
As you can see, the claim that the modern translations distort or deny the Virgin Birth on the basis of Luke 2:33 is plainly false, and a perfect example of cherry picking on the part of KJV-onlyists.
“But removing even one point weakens the doctrine”
Some will say that “removing” even one clear reference to a key doctrine like this weakens the teaching of that doctrine. But this argument is deeply flawed for several reasons.
First, KJV-onlyists need to provide evidence that this reference was “removed” to begin with. The new translations are translated using manuscripts that are older and closer in date to the originals than the KJV translators had access to. The older manuscripts don’t use the name of Joseph in Luke 2:33, but the later ones, the ones used by the KJV translators, do. If anything, this indicates that the name of Joseph was added to that verse at a later time, and was likely not in the originals.
Second, as demonstrated above, there are still plenty of very clear references to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth to teach it from the newer translations. Those references are abundantly clear and provide more than enough evidence to support the Virgin Birth. There are many Christians who have never read the KJV, yet still believe the Virgin Birth because it is taught in the Bible they use.
To claim that any difference from the previous translation of this single verse undermines this doctrine is to completely ignore the entirety of the rest of Scripture.
Point #2: Calling Joseph Jesus’s father, does not undermine the Virgin Birth.
Some KJV-onlyists call out the modern translations as being “anti-virgin-birth” on the basis that they call Joseph Jesus’s father in Luke 2:33. But what they fail to realize that calling Joseph His father accurately describes Joseph’s relationship to Jesus as Mary’s husband.
This is super simple. It happens all the time, even in our own modern culture. A man who marries a woman with children is called the children’s step-dad and may even be referred to as the children’s father if there is a legal adoption. There is plenty of evidence in Scripture of Joseph doing this very thing.
Joseph Takes Mary as his Wife
Look at the interaction between Joseph and the angel who tells him that Mary is with child.
In Matthew 1:18-25 Joseph is considering sending Mary away secretly after discovering that she is pregnant. This is a legal action, which he would have every right to do under the Old Covenant law. But an angel stops him and convinces him that this was all done in accordance with God’s will. Then it says in verse 24 that he, even after having knowledge of her condition being pregnant with a child that is not his, he still chooses to take her as his wife.
In the Old Testament, there is a law which dictates that if a man died having no children, then his brother would marry the man’s widow and raise up the children under his brothers name. In this scenario, the offspring would be biologically the brother’s children, but would legally belong to the deceased man. This, while having its clear differences from the story of the Virgin Birth, demonstrates the concept in Jewish culture of a man being called the father of children that are not biologically his.
This practice of adoption is exactly what Joseph is engaging in. While the child (Jesus) is not biologically his, Joseph is the legal husband of Mary, and is therefore the legal father of her child.
Joseph assumes every legal right and responsibility of a father
We see Joseph fulfilling his legal responsibility of providing for the child. Many scholars believe that Jesus would have been born under a family members roof. Since Joseph was returning to his family’s home in Bethlehem for the census, it’s likely that the place Jesus was born would have been provided by a member of Joseph’s family. He also raises Jesus to continue in his own line of work. In Matthew 13:55 some ask “is this not the carpenter’s son,” but we see in Mark 6:3 we see that some also ask “is this man (Jesus) not the carpenter?” It was common for a man to follow in the vocational footsteps of his father, and that is exactly what Jesus does with Joseph.
Also present in 1st century Jewish culture was the right of a father to name his children. We see in the accounts of the story found in Matthew that Joseph is the one who officially gives Jesus His name.
Legally, Joseph is Jesus’s father.
Joseph is necessary to establish Jesus’s right to the Davidic throne.
Refusing to call Joseph Jesus’s father, actually jeopardizes Jesus’s claim to the Davidic throne.
In the gospels, we have only two accounts of Jesus’s ancestry pointing back to King David. Both of which utilize Joseph in the lineage, one in the sense that he was thought of as the father of Jesus, and the other establishes the line using Mary as Jesus’s mother, but only since she was married to Joseph.
While some scholars say that the lineage listed in Luke could be detailing Mary’s line back to David, there simply isn’t any concrete evidence for this. Instead, this could be another example of what is called a Levirate marriage, utilizing the same legal process that was detailed above to explain the different father listed for Joseph. This article from GotQuestions.org explains it nicely. On top of that, a persons lineage was typically traced through their father and both lineages make a point of saying that Joseph was the father, whether merely supposed or not, of Jesus.
If Joseph can’t in any way be called Jesus’s father, then how do we establish Jesus’s descent from King David?
If Joseph can’t in any way be called Jesus’s father, then what exactly is he? Is he just the guy that raised Him as his own?
All too often in our culture, we hear stories of about men who do not raise their children. How can we call that man a father, then refuse to attribute fatherhood to Joseph when he raised a child who was not his own?
Conclusion
While many KJV-onlyists accuse the new translations of the Bible of calling Joseph Jesus’s father, this simply isn’t true.
Newer translations are simply using the best available data to translate the most substantiated manuscripts we have available, manuscripts which weren’t available to the translators of the KJV. Calling Joseph Jesus’s father in Luke 2:33 does not in any way hinder the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and it accurately shows Joseph’s relationship to Jesus as his earthly, legal father. Those who are considering trying out a translation other than the KJV can rest easy on the fact that, whatever their choice is, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is securely taught in the Scriptures.
