Josephology: On Joseph and Mary's Marriage, Part II 

I started typing up a really long honkin' reply to a comment left on my previous post, Josephology: On Joseph and Mary's Marriage, but 'cause it got s'darn long, I figured I might as well make another full post outta it. :-P

A frequently-made argument about Joseph and Mary's marital status is by citing Bible passages "proving" they weren't actually married at the time of the Annunciation. However, this is the result of POOR TRANSLATIONS, not historical reality.

It is a MISTRANSLATION when you read Mary say, "I'm not married". A more accurate translation is, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" (NAB) or "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (Douay-Rheims); you also find this in many other translations. Also, the angel commands Joseph to take Mary into his home to complete the final stage of marriage; it is again a MISTRANSLATION when you read versions that tell him to "not be afraid to marry" her.

The fact that Joseph and Mary were married, not betrothed, prior to the Annunciation has absolutely, positively nothing to do with opinions or religious differences. It is simply a case of the historical reality of Jewish marriage customs at the time, which is clearly documented by many authors; you can read just a few resources in my previous post.

But, what the heck, here are some more. :-)

Mistranslations of Luke and Matthew

"Current translations of Matthew 1:20 are based on the suspicion hypothesis and separate 'do not fear to take Mary your wife' from what follows by a comma, and by a conjunction such as 'for,' thus interpreting that the clause 'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit' is new information for Joseph. Such news, however, would hardly be a reason to allay fear in the above biblical sense, but rather a cause for it. Grammatical analysis of the conjunctions gàr and dè in Matthew 1:20 shows that they may be interpreted in the sense of 'indeed ... but," rather than "for ... and.' The angel is telling Joseph that he should not hesitate to continue with the marriage, for though Mary is indeed pregnant by the Holy Spirit, he is nevertheless to have an important role in that work: to act as Mary's husband and to name the child. The translation could thus read: 'Joseph, Son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife even though that which is conceived in her is indeed of the Spirit and that is Holy. She will bear a son, whom you will give the name Jesus ...'

...

"Mary conceives as a virgin while betrothed to Joseph, who is of the house of David. 'Betrothed' is again understood to mean that all the formal contractual agreements for the marriage had been finalized, while Mary's statement to the angel indicates that Joseph had not yet made the final step of taking her into his home. Luke 1:34 should be translated 'since I have no marital relations with a man,' which is a common meaning of ginōskō (know) when applied to a man and a woman, used also in Matthew 1:25. It should not be translated 'since I have no husband,' as the Revised Standard Version does, since the betrothed could be called husband and wife even before the act of coming together in the same house, as seen in Matthew 1:16,19,20,24."
~ Larry M. Toschi, OSJ; Joseph in the New Testament

Marriage Customs of Joseph and Mary's Time

"Since the question [of Mary and Joseph's espousals] is of interest strictly to Catholics, it seems preferable to quote non-Catholic authorities. None of these can justly be accused of interpreting the gospel account in favor of any Catholic theory regarding Mary's vow of virginity and St. Joseph's fatherhood. We will present here four representative non-Catholic opinions.

"Montefiore, the eminent Jewish scholar, comments on Matthew 1:18 as follows: 'They had not yet lived together in one house as man and wife although they were legally married according to Jewish law.'

"The Jewish Encyclopedia repeats the same thought. 'The root, "to betroth," from which the Talmudic word "betrothal" is derived, must be taken in this sense, i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete sense of the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage, and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.'

"According to Gorge Foot Moore, 'Betrothal was a formal act by which the woman became legally the man's wife; unfaithfulness on her part was adultery and punishable as such; if the relation was dissolved, a bill of divorce was required. Some time elapsed after the bridegroom claimed the fulfillment of the agreement before the bride was taken to her husband's house and the marriage consummated. The term employed for betrothal, kiddushin, has religious associations; it is an act by which the woman is, so to speak, consecrated to her husband, set apart for him exclusively.'

"Finally, we turn to Shailer Mathews, who appears to hold no brief for the virginal conception of Christ but who definitely considers Jesus the legitimate son of the marriage because of the betrothal. He writes, 'Betrothal among the Jews in the time of Jesus was in the process of transition. ... The status of the man and woman was ... practically the same as that of married persons, although now it was generally customary for the wedding ceremony proper to be celebrated at the expiration of a year. ... There seems to have been no reason why betrothed persons should not live together as man and wife without a subsequent marriage ceremony. The children of such a union would be legitimate.' He concludes that according to the narrative of Matthew and Luke, the contemporary Jewish customs were followed out by Mary and Joseph.

"... The summaries of many other studies can be adduced to uphold this view that the betrothal of Joseph and Mary linked them in a valid marriage, which was later solemnized by the wedding ceremony. This conclusion is further confirmed by a sort of aprioristic argument proposed by Macabiau and modeled on reasoning of Suarez: The gospels make it clear that Jesus was considered the legitimate son of Mary and Joseph. Therefore, one would be prone to conclude that Jesus had been conceived in Mary at a time when genuine marriage rights were considered by the public to belong to His virginal parents."
~ Francis L. Filas, SJ; Joseph: The Man Closest to Jesus

Labels: joseph, josephology, mariology, mary

---

posted by Lisa, sfo | Permalink | 4 comments |links to this post

Josephology: On Joseph and Mary's Marriage 

As Christmas approaches and we contemplate the birth of our Savior, I think it's a good time to clear up the confusion over what led up to His birth -- namely, that Mary wasn't married at the time of the Annunciation.

Contrary to popular misunderstanding, Mary was not an "unwed mother" at the moment of the Incarnation, nor was she merely "engaged" to Joseph -- she was truly and legally married to him; a wife. Jesus was conceived, as is proper, within the bond of Holy Matrimony, not outside it. Following are some resources that address the nature and validity of Joseph and Mary's marriage.

Joseph and Mary's Marriage and the Incarnation

"In Hebrew Law the betrothal was not a simple promise of marriage in the future, but, with binding force, was equivalent to it. In Deuteronomy, as in the Gospel, the betrothed was called 'wife' because she was indeed that. Accused of infidelity, she would be obliged to suffer the punishment for adultery, and she would be stoned to death. Did her betrothed die, she would be looked upon as a widow. Nor could she be rejected except through the same process of divorce as the Law required for a married woman.

"Cohabitation, however, was generally postponed for some months, perhaps a year. The rabbis held the bride should be given the time to prepare her trousseau, the groom, to fulfill the promises of the [marriage] contract and prepare the home.

"Actually, the betrothed could have marital relations and if the bride conceived a child by her groom, no fault would be found. Because of these facts, the endless controversies carried on later about Mary's conception of the Incarnate Word, some affirming that she was truly married, others denying it, are absolutely pointless -- a mere war of words." [emphasis added]
~ Michel Gasnier, OP; Joseph the Silent

* * *

"In the Book of Luke we read that the Angel Gabriel appeared to a virgin named Mary, betrothed to a man named Joseph. From the point of view of our own time and culture, this seems to tell us that, at the time the angel announced the conception of the Son of God, Mary and Joseph were merely engaged.

"Was this really so? ... According to Jewish custom, the betrothal was not merely an engagement but had the force of marriage, including the marital rights.

"... Lest there be any doubt about this understanding of 'betrothal,' the Church herself has given us an explanation of the 'betrothal' of Joseph and Mary. 'According to Jewish custom, marriage took place in two stages: first, the legal, or true marriage was celebrated, and then, only after a certain period of time, the husband brought his wife into his own house. Thus, before he lived with Mary, Joseph was already her 'husband.' " (Op. cit., Redemptoris Custos, n. 18)

"Thus the betrothal of Joseph and Mary refers to an actual marriage. Yet there was a period of possibly [up to] one year following the betrothal in which the couple did not live together. ... The Jews did not consider it unlawful or even necessarily unusual for a woman to conceive a child during the one-year period. This explains why no one thought it was unusual or at least unlawful for Mary to be with child during this time. Otherwise, it would have been a great scandal in the little town of Nazareth, and it could have made her subject to the law and its punishment."
~ Dominic De Domenico, OP; True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church

* * *

"Nor let the word 'espoused' be understood, as by some it has been understood, as if Mary were at the time only promised in marriage, that is, betrothed. No. The nuptials had already been celebrated, according to the true sense of Scripture, a point which has been clearly established by the Holy Fathers and Doctors, and, in particular, by the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas. Thus we find St. Matthew calling Joseph the husband of Mary, and Mary the wife of Joseph."
~ Edward Healy Thompson, MA; The Life and Glories of St. Joseph

The Validity of Joseph and Mary's Marriage

"The Scripture testifies clearly that Joseph was the husband of Mary and that Mary was his wife. One could not be a husband or a wife if one did not marry. The Scripture would not call him husband if it meant that he was not Mary's husband. (Cf. Mt. 1:18-20)

"Still, one should not wish to rely here on a private interpretation of the Scripture unless it is consistent with Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. The Fathers of the Church, including St. Augustine, have unanimously upheld the genuineness of this marriage. It is also the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, the universal Doctor of the Church. Besides, the teaching has been upheld by papal encyclicals in more recent times.

"According to the view of St. Augustine, there are three goods of marriage: offspring, fidelity, and sacrament. All three of these, he says, have fulfillment in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. ... Offspring is more perfectly fulfilled in the marriage of Joseph and Mary because the offspring is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who infinitely surpasses all created persons.

"There is fidelity because there is no adultery. ... As the offspring of the marriage, Jesus is also the final end or cause of this marriage. In this sense, the marriage is a sacrament of the New Testament. Following the appearance of an angel in a dream to Joseph, we see that their previously valid marriage becomes a marriage of two people who believe in Christ, a new reality."
~ Dominic De Domenico, OP; True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church

* * *

"It is clear from more than one passage in the Holy Gospel that Mary was truly Joseph's wife, and Joseph truly Mary's husband, for she is expressly called the wife of Joseph, as Joseph is called the husband of Mary. If Joseph be sometimes styled by the Fathers simply the guardian, not the husband, of Mary, this way of speaking was not intended to exclude the reality of the matrimonial bond which united them, but only to rebut any possible surmise which might arise against their virginal purity."
~ Edward Healy Thompson, MA; The Life and Glories of St. Joseph

Labels: joseph, josephology, mariology, mary

---

posted by Lisa, sfo | Permalink | 4 comments |links to this post