Of all of the pericopes which form the “infancy narratives” in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, perhaps none has a wider ranging history of interpretation among orthodox Christians than Matt. 1:18-25. It deals with what is often referred to as the “doubt of Joseph,” although even that terminology presupposes a particular mind set with regard to the event narrated. A fairer, less biased approach to the data would be to speak of the “hesitation of Joseph” or even his “dilemma” about what he should do vis-à-vis Mary and her Child, as we shall see. But even these descriptions, perhaps, fail to characterize adequately the motives of Joseph who in Matthew’s account is simply, but with great precision, styled “the just man” (Matt. 1:19). All of the major interpretations of this episode, from the Patristic era to the present, fall into three categories agreed upon by virtually all the analysts. [1]

​​

​

 

1. Hypothesis of Adultery

 

In order to accept this interpretation, which seems to be all but universal at least in North America at this point in time, one must make an assumption that is not strictly warranted by the text. The assumption is that when St. Matthew states “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:18b), he is inviting the reader or hearer to know the source of Mary’s pregnancy of which Joseph at the time was ignorant. Fr. Raymond E. Brown, S.S. serves as a modern apologist for this position. In fact, he translates this verse: “it was found that she was with child – through the Holy Spirit” [2] and he further explains:

 

I have separated this expression by a dash in order visually to mark it off as an explanation that Matthew offers to the reader. The fact that the child was conceived through the Holy Spirit is not part of the narrative flow here; rather that news comes to the dramatis personae from an angel's revelation in vs. 22. But Matthew wants the reader to know more than do the characters in the story, so that the reader will not entertain for a moment the suspicion that grows in Joseph’s mind. [3]

​

This assumption, in fact, has very ancient roots and is already found in the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James which was composed prior to 200 A.D., possibly even by a few decades. Here are the salient features of that text:

 

Now it was the sixth month with her, and be- hold Joseph came from his building, and he entered into his house and found her great with child. And he smote his face, and cast himself down upon the ground on sackcloth and wept bitterly, saying: With what countenance shall I make concerning this maiden? for I received her out of the Lord my God a virgin, and have not kept her safe. Who is he that hath ensnared me? Who hath done this evil in mine house and hath defiled the virgin? ... And Joseph arose from off the sackcloth and called Mary and said unto her 0 thou that wast cared for by God, why hast thou done this? Thou has forgotten the Lord thy God ... And Joseph said: If I hide her sin, I shall be found fighting against the law of the Lord: and if I manifest her unto the children of Israel, I fear lest that which is in her be the seed of an angel, and I shall be found delivering up innocent blood to the judgment of death. [4]

 

Interestingly this text, which begins with Joseph inferring violence toward Mary or adultery on her part, moves to his entertainment of the possibility of Mary’s conception by “the seed of an angel” which properly moves into the second hypothesis as we shall see. It certainly casts the justice of Joseph in a strange light while providing an apt illustration of the beauty and sobriety of the canonical gospels when compared with their apocryphal counterparts.

​

We also find the hypothesis of adultery held most probably even prior to the Protoevangelium of James by St. Justin Martyr (+ c. 165) in his Dialogue with Trypho. [5] This position was also given most powerful backing in the preaching of two of the great Western Fathers of the Church, St. Ambrose (339-397) and St. Augustine (354-430) and by possibly the greatest Father of the East, St. John Chrysostom (354-407). As Fr. Sottocornola points out in the case of Ambrose, however, “it seems that from neither of the two places where the Saint speaks of this question, can his stand be deduced with absolute certainty.”[6] Nevertheless, in both his Liber Secunda Expositionis Evangelii secundum Lucam [7] and his De Institutione virginis [8] he deals with the matter in ways that clearly assume this position even if they are not intended as an explicit commentary on ​Matt. 1:19. Sottocornola argues similarly with regard to Augustine, i.e., that, while Augustine assumes that St. Joseph suspected Our Lady of adultery in the comments he makes, he never considered the question directly in itself or as an ex professo commentary on Matt. 1:19. [9] The fact remains that St. Augustine made his position abundantly evident. [10]

​​

​

He Refused to Inflict Pain

 

The case of the position of St. John Chrysostom seems to be beyond dispute. In his fourth homily on St. Matthew, he preaches:

​

Since he was just, that is merciful and self-controlled, he wished to dismiss her privately. Not only was he reluctant to punish her; but he would not even deliver her up. Have you ever seen anyone who so loves wisdom and who is free from all tyrannical bent? He was so free from (jealousy) this plague of the soul, that he refused to inflict pain on the virgin even in the slightest degree. Accordingly, since it seemed that by law, he was no longer permitted to keep her, and since it appeared that to denounce her and to bring her to trial was of necessity to condemn her to death, he chose neither course but began to elevate himself above the law. [11]

​

Yet on the other hand, Fr. Sottocornola adduces two other texts of Chrysostom, one whose authorship is disputable, but the other of unquestioned authenticity, in which he seems to hold that Joseph knew of the supernatural origin of Mary’s pregnancy. This leads him to state that “St. John Chrysostom’s stand cannot be determined with certitude.” [12]

​

 

Joseph suspected adultery?

​​

The Akathistos Hymn of the Greek Church dating from the late fifth or early sixth century in its third kontakion also accepts the hypothesis that Joseph suspected adultery. [13] With such powerful liturgical reinforcement and the weight of such great Fathers of the Church this position was bound to become deeply imbedded in the psyche of the faithful. It was implicitly manifested, for instance in the mystical writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) [14] and Maria Valtorta (1897-1961). [15] No other possible interpretation is even considered in the commentary offered in the authoritative Jerome Biblical Commentary. [16]

​

As we shall see further, each interpretation offered to explain the meaning of Matt. 1:18-25 necessarily involves an understanding of how Joseph can rightly be described as a just man (anèr dikaios) according to Matt. 1:19. Death by stoning was prescribed by the Jewish law as punishment for a betrothed virgin and the man who committed adultery [17] with her (cf. Deut. 22:23-25) although, as Canon McHugh argues with documentary evidence, “this was not obligatory and was not the practice in New Testament times.” [18]

​

In any case supporters of the “adultery hypothesis” usually opt for an understanding of Joseph’s justice as being equivalent to “obedience to the law.” [19] But there is a weakness in this theory. If Joseph’s conduct is taken as evidence of legal observance, why did he not denounce Mary publicly instead of trying to conceal her guilt. Brown responds:

​

Deuteronomy required the stoning of the adulteress; but in a less severe legal system the command to “purge the evil from the midst of you” could have been met by divorcing her. In this interpretation, while Joseph’s sense of obedience to the Law forced him in conscience to divorce Mary, his unwillingness to expose her to public disgrace led him to proceed without accusation of serious crime ... He was upright but also merciful. [20]

​

There seems to be a certain inconsistency in accentuating Joseph’s sense of legal justice in one breath and then tempering it in the next. St. John Chrysostom shows himself to be even more ingenious on this point by insisting that Joseph’s obedience was so great that he “transcended” the law. [21] I believe that Canon McHugh deals effectively with the question of Joseph’s “legal justice” and the concomitant “adultery hypothesis” thusly:

 

The first weakness of this interpretation is that it implies a certain conflict in Joseph’s mind between the obligation of obeying the law and the desire to spare Mary’s reputation; yet the gospel text contains no hint of any conflict, Matthew does not write ‘being an upright man, but not wishing to bring the matter into the open’; on the contrary, the text reads ‘being an upright man and not wishing to bring the matter into the open’, as if the two ideas were parallel, not contradictory. It was because of his integrity, not in spite of it, that Joseph wished to keep the divorce quiet. Secondly, there was no legal or moral obligation to divorce an unfaithful wife or fiancée; indeed, the prophecy of Hosea implies that the husband who pardoned an errant wife would be closer to God (Hos. 2:18-19, 21-2, 25). Thirdly, if Joseph had planned to keep the divorce secret in order to spare Mary’s reputation, it would have been a singularly inept plan, for anyone should have realized that the story was bound to come out very soon. Matthew could not possibly have expected his readers to think this. [22]

 

But even beyond the necessary textual considerations there are theological ones. Here are some framed by Fr. Bulbeck:​​

​

God chose men who were not yet perfect for the spreading of the kingdom of grace, but He chose a perfect woman to co-operate in the Hypostatic Union. It would seem out of place for Joseph, who had been chosen by God to be the protector of Mary’s virginity, himself to suspect that very thing. St. Peter Chrysologus says: “Sponsus sponsam accusaret de crimine? Sed erat ipse innocentiae testis. Culpam diceret? Sed erat ipse custos pudoris. Urgeret adulterium? Sed erat ipse virginitatis assertor.” [23]​

​

​

 

​2. Hypothesis of Suspended Judgment.

 

Let us allow Fr. Bulbeck to present this theory to us concisely.

​

According to this theory, Joseph comes to know that Mary is pregnant, remaining ignorant of the cause. He has such a high esteem for her that he cannot suspect her. He suspends judgment about her. In this mind he does not wish to bring the matter into publicity, but is minded to put Mary away secretly. [24]

​

This position was first championed by St. Jerome (c. 347-420) who wrote:

​

How could Joseph be called just if he concealed the guilt of his spouse? What speaks in defense of Mary is precisely the fact that Joseph, knowing her chastity and marveling at what had happened, buried in silence a fact whose mystery he did not understand. [25]

​

Because of Jerome’s formidable authority on questions about the interpretation of Scripture in the Middle Ages, many medievals followed in his wake. One of them, Conrad of Saxony (+ 1279), presented this pious thought in beautiful Latin prose, once attributed to St. Bonaventure and probably borrowed from the Opus Imperfectum incorrectly attributed to St. John Chrysostom:

​

O inestimable tribute to Mary! Joseph believed in her chastity more than her womb, in grace more than in nature! He believed that it was more possible for a woman to conceive without a man than for Mary to be able to sin. [O ineffabilis laus Mariae, magis credebat Joseph castiti eius quam utero eius, et plus gratiae quam naturae, possibilius credebat mulierem sine viro concipere, quam Marian posse peccare]. [26]

​

Finally, this conjecture was given its classical form by Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) who speculated upon the psychological state of Joseph and described it as “stupefaction.”

​

Joseph was unable to judge or suspect the Virgin harshly. Influenced in one direction by the factual evidence he perceived, but swayed in the other by the exalted sanctity of the Virgin, as he knew it from experience, he withheld all judgment because he was overwhelmed by a kind of stupefaction and great wonder. It was indeed a consummate act of justice not to be carried out of himself in so grave a matter, nor to be blinded by extreme passion or feeling. He persuaded himself that the event could have occurred without sin. Consequently, he was unwilling to expose Mary; but since for him nothing in the matter was sufficiently clear, he believed that it pertained to justice to be separated from such a woman and to dismiss her in secret. [27]​

​

Eventually this position would win the adherence of a great many Catholic exegetes from Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637) and Josef Knabenbauer (1839-1911) [28] to Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P. (1855-1938), [29] Ferdinand Prat, S.J. (1857-1938), [30] Franz Michel Willam [31] and Francis Filas, S.J. [32] It is also found in the Venerable Mary of Agreda’s (1602-1665) Mystical City of God. [33]

 

As we had recourse to Fr. Bulbeck for the presentation of this second hypothesis, so we shall let him expose its inherent difficulties:

​

This second theory fails to supply a sufficient reason. Joseph is dikaios, possessing all virtues. He is certain of Mary’s innocence; he is certain that by leaving her he will make things difficult for her; and he has no positive reason, apart from his bewilderment, for exposing her to this difficult situation. It cannot be argued that he could rely on Providence to protect her. This argument only holds if he knows for certain that the conception is due to divine intervention.

​

Another difficulty against this theory arises from the fact that Joseph fears to take Mary to wife even though he is certain that she is innocent. As the Opus Imperfectum says: “Nec Joseph timuisset, nisi ex parte aliquatenus credidisset.” [34]

​

This is, as Xavier Léon-Dufour puts it, a curious kind of justice indeed! [35]

​​​

​

​

3. Hypothesis of Reverential Fear

 

Both of the previous theories are predicated upon Joseph’s ignorance that Mary is with child by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18). We have already seen Fr. Brown’s insistence upon this point. [36] But, is there any reason why we should assume that the Evangelist is giving the reader of his gospel information which was withheld from St. Joseph? Indeed, without the bias which has accumulated from the presentation of these first two hypotheses in preaching and catechesis over the centuries, would not one be inclined to take the words “she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit” Matt. 1:18) at face value? If God chose his most perfect creature to be the Theotókos, the God-bearer, would he have chosen as her husband someone who could not share or respect her “secret”? Why, indeed, should Joseph be considered an “outsider” to the ineffable mystery of Incarnation? This third hypothesis deals most effectively, I believe, with these substantive objections.

​

While this theory itself has some strong Patristic and subsequent support in the tradition, as we shall see, it was brought to the fore again in the year 1957 by Xavier Léon-Dufour’s essay, “L’Annonce à Joseph” [37] and that of Karl Rahner, S.J., “Nimm das Kind und seine Mutter.” [38] Subsequently a number of other scholars have adopted this position [39] and, fortuitously, Canon René Laurentin has proposed it to a wide public in his Les Évangiles de l’Enfance: Vérité de Noel au-delà des Mythes. [40] Laurentin argues that Matt. 1:18 “states the problem set for Joseph: not the simple fact Mary was pregnant, but the transcendent cause of this outstanding event, namely, the Holy Spirit.” [41]

​​

​

Joseph enlightened by the Lord

 

If this is so – and the text itself speaks prima facie in favor of this view [42] – how does Joseph know? Basically two responses are proposed. Rahner [43] and McHugh [44] among others [45] hold it as most logical that Mary told Joseph of her virginal conception. While I think this position can be well argued in light of their betrothal and the deep empathy that must have existed between them as the two most immediate human collaborators in the mystery of the Incarnation, [46] I find even more compelling the line of reasoning advanced by Pietro Barbagli, O.C.D.:

​​

We can take note that God intervenes directly to manifest to all concerned parties the mystery of the Incarnation: to Zechariah the announcement of the birth of the Precursor comes from an angel; to Mary most holy it is the same archangel Gabriel who brings the message from God; Elizabeth is enlightened by the Holy Spirit on the “great things” accomplished by the Lord in her kinswoman; the shepherds are invited by the angels to the crib of Jesus; Simeon and Anna recognize in the baby by the revelation of the Holy Spirit the Messiah.

​

Given this ordinary “economia” of God, it is natural to expect that Joseph, too, united so intimately to the mystery of the Incarnation, would be enlightened directly by the Lord: Luke says nothing about this, but the text of Matthew supplies for his silence. [47]

​

It is apparent that Brown will tolerate neither solution to Joseph’s knowledge of the virginal conception as a partisan of the hypothesis of adultery, but it is interesting to notice his explicit reason for rejecting the proposal that Joseph was informed by Mary. He says:

 

The suggestion that it was Mary who told Joseph about the divine origins of her pregnancy is questionable inasmuch as it presupposes something like the Lucan annunciation to Mary, a scene of which Matthew betrays no knowledge. [48]

​​

This, of course, runs counter to the inference made by Barbagli as well. But, in a deeper sense it is disquieting because of the underlying presuppositions that (a) the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke are such discrete entities that they bear no verifiable relationship to each other, that (b) the narratives of both Matthew and Luke may be far removed from the reality which they purport to portray and that therefore (c) the data on something as fundamental as the virginal conception which comes to us through these two gospels may be irreconcilable. Such reasoning about a central tenet of faith would seem to be at odds with #19 of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, and the basic harmony [49] between these two accounts which the Church has always taken for granted and which I readily assume in this presentation along with Fr. Barbagli. If Matt. 1:18 does not imply the Lucan account of the annunciation, its point of reference is truly baffling.

​

The next logical question, then, is: If Joseph knew the origin of Mary’s pregnancy, why does the text say that he was “unwilling to put her to shame” (Matt. 1:19)? Let us have recourse here to the philological analysis rendered on this topic by Canon McHugh:

​​

Joseph wanted to release Mary from the obligation of marrying him because of his reverence for her and for God. In addition, ‘he had no desire to expose her’, and therefore decided to keep the divorce secret. The verb translated ‘to expose’ (deigmatísai) means simply ‘to expose what is hidden’, and therefore the text does not necessarily imply that Joseph’s motive was ‘not to expose her to public disgrace’, as so many commentators assume; it can mean that Joseph had no desire ‘to divulge her secret’, as at least two of the Greek Fathers [Pseudo-Basil and Eusebius of Caesarea] insist. Hence a less misleading translation would be: ‘he had no desire to bring the matter into the open.’ [50]

​​

Léon-Dufour proposes a similar translation saying that “Joseph withdraws, taking care, in the refinement of his justice before God, not to ‘divulge’ the mystery of Mary.” [51]

​​

It should be noted here that Léon-Dufour speaks of Joseph “withdrawing from” rather than “divorcing” Mary. He argues further that, while the verb apòlusai clearly designates the act of divorcing in other parts of the gospel, [52] the addition of the adverb láthra (quietly) “annuls an act whose first effect is to publicly render a divorced woman free to remarry.” [53] Virtually all the authors admit with Fr. Brown that “According to the practice known from later rabbinic writings, a totally secret divorce was not possible, since the writ of repudiation had to be delivered before two witnesses.” [54]  Hence to speak of Joseph’s intended quiet separation or withdrawal from Mary does no violence to the text. 

​

Why, then, would Joseph “waive his right of marrying?” [55] Mary? I think Laurentin assesses the evidence correctly in making this response:

​​

What Joseph knew, according to Matthew 1:18, is that this child belonged to God alone. Justice required that he not seek to make his own either the holy offspring that was not his or this wife who belonged to God. He therefore withdrew quietly to avoid putting Mary in an awkward situation. He left the resolution to God, the author of the event. The account gives no further details, as they are of no importance for the meaning. [56]

​

While Laurentin appropriately attributes Joseph’s willingness to withdraw his rights over Mary and her child to his justice, it may be equally and correctly attributed also to his reverential fear of God. This, in fact, is the position of several other contemporary authors who also support this hypothesis [57] and is a position that has had its supporters since the Patristic era.

​​

Perhaps its first major exponent was Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340) who held that Joseph deemed Mary too exalted for him to live with. [58] St. Basil the Great (c. 330-379) said that Joseph was afraid to be called the husband of a woman who had conceived by the Holy Spirit. [59] The Armenian version of The Commentary on the Diatessaron by Ephraem the Syrian (c. 306-373) offers similar testimony. [60] So, too, does the sublime poetry of Romanos the Melodist (c. 490-c. 556) who has Joseph speak in a way that evokes Exod. 3:1-6:

​

O luminous one, I see a flame, a fire which surrounds you and I am terrified of it. Mary, protect me and do not consume me. Your guiltless womb is suddenly become a furnace filled with fire; let it not melt me, spare me, I beg of you. You wish that I as Moses of old should also take off my shoes, that I should approach you and listen to you and that, enlightened by you, I should say to you – Hail unespoused spouse. [61]

​

Less dramatic, but far more influential in the West was a text attributed to Origen (c. 185-254) but held by Laurentin to be the work of a sixth century bishop. [62]  For centuries it was a reading at Matins of the Vigil of Christmas.

​

Joseph was just, and the Virgin was immaculate; but when he wished to put her away, this happened from the fact that he recognized in her the power of a miracle and a vast mystery which he held himself unworthy to approach. Humbling himself therefore before so great and ineffable a phenomenon, he sought to retire, just as St. Peter humbled himself before the Lord and said, ‘Depart from me, 0 Lord, for I am a sinful man,’ and as the ruler confessed who sent word to the Lord, ‘I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof, for I have considered myself not even worthy to come to Thee,’ or as St. Elizabeth said to the most blessed Virgin, ‘And how have I deserved that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’ In like manner did the just man Joseph humble and look to himself and fear to enter into a union with such exalted holiness. [63]

​

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) repeated this argument substantially, invoking the authority of the Fathers and developing the parallels with Peter (Luke 5:8), the centurion (Matt. 8:8) and Elizabeth (Luke 1:43). [64] St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) in the nineteenth of his conferences to his daughters of the Visitation cites St. Bernard as his authority for this same view. [65]

​​

It seems that St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) may have changed his mind on this matter since he was evidently willing to accept the hypothesis of suspected adultery according to Augustine in his commentary on St. Matthew,[66] but in the Supplementum to the Summa Theologiae compiled by Reginald of Piperno he argues that Joseph feared to cohabit with Mary, not because he suspected fornication, but out of reverence for her sanctity. [67] St. Bridget of Sweden (1303-1375) is also credited by Salmerón as a witness to this third hypothesis. [68]  Alfonso Salmerón, S.J. (1515-1585) himself, however, is far more important on this matter than merely as a recorder of previous opinions. One of the original disciples of St. Ignatius of Loyola, a theologian at the Council of Trent, a papal diplomat and Scripture scholar, he vigorously advanced this argument also on strictly philological grounds [69] as we shall see.

​

Finally, the question must be asked: How can this theory hold up in the face of the angel’s word to Joseph:

​

Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:20-21).

 

The response is that

​​

The combined authority of Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine has conditioned men to approach St. Matthew’s story with [the] presupposition ... that Joseph knew nothing of God’s intervention until the angel appeared to him, and this view has been preached and taught for so many centuries that it is commonly read into Matthew’s text. [70]

 

And – we must add – has influenced the translation of this passage into the modern languages.

​

“Any translation,” says René Laurentin, “must respect the operative Greek particles (gar … de).” [71]  In the standard English translations gar is translated as “for” in the clause “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” De occurs between “she will bear” and “a son” and, as in many other instances, cannot be rendered into English. [72] In 1966 A. Pelletier wrote an important article giving numerous New Testament illustrations of the employment of the formula men gar ... de and gar ... de as illustrating an objection and then contrary affirmation. [73] In this he was confirming with strictly grammatical arguments the line already advanced by Léon-Dufour in his pioneering article on the annunciation to Joseph. [74] On the basis of these studies Laurentin translates the verses in question as follows:

​

Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home, for although that which is begotten in her comes from the Holy Spirit, it is you who will call the son she bears by the name of Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:20-21). [75]

 

In this case it is seen that the angelic announcement to Joseph is not to dispel either his suspicion that Mary has been involved in adulterous conduct or his ignorance of the source of the pregnancy, but to confirm that, despite the divine overshadowing of Mary in the face of which Joseph has genuine holy fear, it is God’s express will that he exercise the role of father toward this child and husband toward Mary.

 

Interestingly, already in the sixteenth century Alfonso Salmerón had proposed that in this passage gar should be translated certe (certainly), sane (admittedly, to be sure). [76] Léon-Dufour renders the text under discussion “without a doubt (sans doute) that which is conceived in her is the work of the Holy Spirit.” [77]  Canon McHugh achieves the same end, although with less economy, by translating freely

​

Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. I say this because, although her child has been conceived by the Holy Ghost, she will bear a son to whom you must give the name Jesus. [78]

​

The point of all this is that “Joseph acts out of fear of God, in order not to usurp a posterity that belongs to God alone and not to take a wife whom God has drawn into his sacred orbit.” [79]  Further, by addressing Joseph as “son of David” and not “son of Jacob” it is made clear that in exercising his role according to God’s will Joseph will make Jesus a “son of David.”[80] Finally, it seems to me that this third hypothesis does justice to Joseph’s justice in a way that neither the first nor the second hypothesis manages to do. Joseph is just because he reveres the marvel that God has wrought in Mary and refuses to demand for himself that to which he has no strict right until he is commanded to do so. How much injustice has been done to the name of this holy patriarch – and consequently to God’s perfect plan – in the past two millennia in order to assign a rigid kind of justice to him! Perhaps God has chosen to wait till these times for his divine justice to vindicate the perfection in virtue [81] of that man whom Matthew simply but with absolute precision described as “just.”

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

[1] Abbreviations

NDM Stefano De Fiores, S.M.M. e Salvatore Meo, O.S.M. (eds.), Nuovo Dizionario di Mariologia (Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1985)

PG     Patrologia Craeca (Migne)

PL     Patrologia Latina (Migne)

SC     Sources Chretiennes, Lyons

Cf. Michael O'Carroll, C.S.Sp., Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc.; Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1982) 123-4; Francis L. Filas, S.J., Joseph: The Man Closest to Jesus (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1962) 134-52; John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1975) 164-72; Guy-M. Bertrand, C.S.C., Saint Joseph dans les Ecrits des Pères (Paris et Montreal: Fides, 1966) 86-93; R. Bulbeck, “The Doubt of St. Joseph,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 10 (l948) 296-309; Franco Sottocornola, S.x., “Tradition and the doubt of St. Joseph concerning Mary’s virginity,” Marianum 19 (1957) 127-141; Urban Holzmeister, S.J., De Sancto Joseph Quaestiones Biblicae (Roma, 1945) 74-6; Antonio A. Sicari, O.C.D., “‘Joseph Justus’ (Matteo 1, 19): La Storia dell' Interpretazione e le Nuove Prospettive," Cahiers de Josephologie 19{1971) 64-68.

​

[2] 2 Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1977) 122.

​

[3] Brown 124.

[4] Quoted in Henri Daniel-Rops, The Book of Mary trans. Alastair Guinan (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1960) 148-149.

[5] PG 6, 657C; English trans. in Sottocornola135.

[6] Sottocornola 130.

[7] PL 15,1554C.

[8] PL 16, 315C.

​

[9] Sottocornola 123; cf. Bulbeck 301.

[10] PL 33, 657; 38, 338 & 510; cf. Filas 139-140.

[11] PG 57, 43. English trans. in Filas 140.

[12]  Sottocornola 136-137.

[13] Akathistos: Byzantine Hymn to the Mother of God trans. Paul M. Addison, O.S.M. (Rome: Mater Ecclesiae Centre, 1983) 18 (#6).

[14] Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary trans. Sir Michael Palairet (London: Burns & Oates, 1954) 163-164.

[15] Maria Valtorta, The Poem of the Man-God I:  The Hidden Life trans. Nicandro Picozzi, Rev. Patrick McLaughlin (Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, 1986) 124-129.

​

[16] John L. McKenzie, S.J., “The Gospel According to Matthew” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1968) 66-67.

[17] The act would not be considered fornication but adultery because of the binding nature of Jewish betrothal. Cf. McHugh 159-60; Brown 123-4; Bulbeck 300.

[18] McHugh 165; also 161 n. 22,165; McKenzie 67.

[19] Brown 127; Brown et al. (eds.) Mary in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; New York: Paulist Press, 1978) 84-85; Rene Laurentin, The Truth of Christmas Beyond the Myths: The Gospels of the Infancy of Christ trans. Michael J. Wrenn & associates (Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s Publications, 1986) 267.

[20] Brown 127.

[21] Cf. above reference to n. 11.

​

[22] McHugh 165-166.

[23] Bulbeck 302-3. The quotation from St. Peter Chrysologus is PL 52, 588D.

[24] Bulbeck 303.

[25] PL 26, 24. English trans. in Ferdinand Prat, J., Jesus Christ His Life, His Teaching and His Work I trans. John J. Heenan, S. J. (Milwaukee:  Bruce, 1950) 71; Cf. Xavier Léon-Dufour, S.J., “L’Annonce à Joseph” in Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l'honneur de André Robert (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1957) 391 n. 2 for a possible precedent for Jerome’s position.

​

[26] English trans. by Filas144; Latin text in McHugh 164 n. 2. Filas gives Pseudo-Chrysostom, Opus Imperfectum in Mattheum, hom. 1 in PG 56, 632 as his source on p. 660 n. 9 while McHugh gives the Quaracchi edition of the Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae as his on p. 165 n. 2. Evidently St. Antoninus of Florence (1389-1459) also made this text his own, cf. O’Carroll 124. On this heavily borrowed text cf. also Sottocornola 134-135.

​

[27] In III Q. 29, disp. 7, sec. a, n. 6. English trans. given in Filas 142-143.

[28] Cf. Holzmeister 76 n. 7.

[29] Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P., The Gospel of Jesus Christ I trans. members of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1938) 28-29.

​

[30] Prat. 68-73.

[31] Franz Michel William, Mary the Mother of Jesus trans. Frederic Eckhoff (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1946) 79-83.

[32] Filas 151-152.

[33] Mary of Agreda, Mystical City of God II: The Incarnation trans. Fiscar Marison (Albuquerque, NM: Corcoran Publishing Co., 1949) 302.

​

[34] Bulbeck 303.

[35] Léon-Dufour 392. Cf. also McHugh 166.

[36] Cf. above reference to n. 3.

[37] Cited above in n. 25. He followed up with a subsequent essay entitled “Le juste Joseph (Mt 1:18-25),” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 81 (1959) 225-31. Subsequent references will be to the first article.

​

[38] Geist und Leben 30 (1957) 14-22. English trans.: “Take the Child and His Mother,” Theology Digest 6 (1958) 169-73. Subsequent references will be to this English version.

​

[39] E.g. Pietro Barbagli, O.C.D., “Ioseph, Fili David, Noli Timere Accipere Mariam Coniugem Tuam (Mt. 1,20)” in Maria in Sacra Scriptura – Acta Congressus Mariologici-Mariani Anno 1965 in Republica Dominicana Celebrati 4: De Beata Virgine Maria in Evangeliis Synopticis (Rome: Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis, 1967) 445-63;  J. M. Germano, S.C.J., “Nova et vetera in pericopam de sancto Ioseph (Mt 1, 18-25),” Verbum Domini 46 (1968) 351-60; Henry Wansbrough, O.S.B., “St. Matthew” in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1969) 906; Sicari 62-83; Tracisio Stramare, O.S.J., “Giuseppe, ‘Uomo Giusto’ in Mt. 1, 18-25,” Rivista Biblica 21 (1973) 287-300; McHugh 164-72; O'Carroll 123-124; Stramare, “Giuseppe” in NDM 635-638.

​​

[40] (Paris: Desclée & Descleé de Brouwer, 1982). The English trans. which I am following, is cited in n. 19 above. The relevant matter is found on 265-270.

[41] Laurentin 265.

[42] Cf. McHugh 169-70. Bulbeck in n. 55 on 305-306 cites many authors who read the text in this way.

[43] Rahner 170-171.

[44] McHugh 167.

[45] Cf. Bulbeck 304-305.

[46] This line of thought is beautifully drawn out by Henri Caffarel,“Prends chez toi Marie, ton épouse” (Paris: Éditions du Feu Nouveau, 1983) 36-37, 113-114.

[47] Barbagli 462 (my trans.).

[48] Brown 127.

​

[49] Cf. Stramare NDM 640.

[50] McHugh 168-9; Cf. also Germano 353-355; Stramare 290.

[51] Léon-Dufour 396 (my trans.).

[52] Cf. also Brown 128; Filas 135.

[53] Léon-Dufour 396 n. 2.

[54] Brown 128; Laurentin 266. Even Filas who holds vigorously for the second hypothesis is constrained to admit that no divorce could be completely private; cf. Filas 136.

​

[55] McHugh 169.

[56] Laurentin 266. On this point cf. also Rahner 171-2; Stramare 293-294; Stramare NDM 638.

[57] Laurentin himself readily acknowledges this saying that Joseph “acts justly out of respect for the plan of God” 266. Cf. also McHugh 169; Germano 356-360. Stramare attributes Joseph’s desire to withdraw to both his justice and his reverential fear 293 and NDM 638.

[58] PG 22, 884B-D; English trans. in O’Carroll 138.

[59] PG 31, 1463D; English trans. in Bulbeck 297 and Sottocornola 135.

[60] SC 121, 67, but the Syrian version records suspicion on Joseph’s part, cf. O’Carroll 133.

[61] SC 110, 15 & 36. English trans. in O’Carroll 312.

[62] “Table Rectificative des Pièces Mariales inauthentiques ou discutées contenues dan les deux Patrologies de Migne” in Court Traité de Théologie Mariale (Paris: Lethielleux, 1953) 139. On the other hand Bulbeck offers arguments in favor of authorship by Origen 297 n. 11.

​

[63] PL 95, 1I64C. English trans. in Filas 145-146.

[64] 64 In Laudibus Virginis Matris, Horn. 2 in J. Leclercq, O.S.B. (ed.), S. Bernardi Opera Omnia Rome, 1966) IV, 31-2. English trans. in Magnificat: Homilies in Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Bernard of Clairvaux and Amadeus of Lausanne (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications Inc., 1979) 26-27.

[65] Œuvres de Saint François de Sales VI; Les Vrays Entretiens Spirituels (Annecy: Nierat, 1895) 36136-2. English trans. in The Spiritual Conferences of St. Francis de Sales (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1906) 374-375.

[66] #116, quoted in Germano 351.

[67] Supplementum Q. 62, a. 3 ad 2. Cf. Bulbeck 306, n. 57a.

[68] Cf. Prat 72, n. 35.

[69] Cf. McHugh 167-168.

​

[70] McHugh 170.

[71] Laurentin 266.

[72] Cf. William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957) 170. In the Latin text gar is translated by autem.

[73] “L’Annonce à Joseph,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 54 (1966) 67-68. Cf. Laurentin 266, 511-512; Stramare 296.

[74] Léon-Dufour 393-394.

[75] Laurentin 266.

​

[76] Léon-Dufour 393 n.1; Stramare 295-296.

[77] Léon-Dufour 393.  Stramare follows suit in Italian by translating senza dubbio. 295.

[78] McHugh 171-172.

[79] Laurentin 267-268.

[80] McHugh 172.

[81] Cf. C. Spicq, O.P., “‘Joseph, Son Mari, Étant Juste’ ... (Mt. I, 19),” Revue Biblique 71 (1964) 206-214, especially 208-209. Although Spicq wrote against Léon-Dufour’s thesis, he produced a well-documented study of what a first century Jew would have understood by the description “just”; in effect it connoted “perfect”.

​

​

​