Joseph & Mary's marriage

[Angainor]

Tom:

O.K. The angel is telling her what “will be”, not what is now, so “ How can this be, since I am still a virgin” does not change the case. If you’re Mary, the angel tells you what will be, ya think she wouldn’t naturally know that the child would be the result of sexual intercourse? That is “if” she planned to have sexual relations. It still makes no sense to ask how it will be if she intends to have sex. Remember the angel didn’t tell her the child would be a result of being “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit until after she asks how. Why would she ask if she thought it would be a result of sex? She wouldn’t. Why wouldn’t the angel tell her to begin with that the child would be conceived by the union of her and the Holy Spirit? The only reason I can think of is to prove or show, her intent to remain a virgin. “how can this be”? Gives you something to think about doesn’t it?

Good points. I can see what you are saying.

However, when the angel told Mary she was going to be with child, if Mary was thinking in the long-term and also thinking about sexual intercourse, I think her most likely answer would be a simple and obediant “Yes.” Meaning, any plans I had about remaining a virgin must now be scrapped, for the angel of the Lord had told me to have a child.

I think, however the angel may have meant it, that Mary was thinking in the immediate future. “How can I possibly be having a baby since I am a virgin.”

I think it is human nature to think about your immediate situation in that case. If someone walked up to me and said “you are going to be a parent”, the first thing I would think was, “What? What are you taking about? I didn’t do anything.” I can tell you I wouldn’t be thinking about conceiving down the road, even if that person was an angel.

 

[Cormier6083]

Angainor:

I was listening to Catholic Answers: Live last Thursday (1/16/2005). Someone asked if Catholics believed Joseph and Mary were really married. I was following the answer which was making a lot of sense: Joseph and Mary were really married, Mary had taken a vow of abstinence, consummating the marriage wasn’t strictly unnecessary…

Then at the very end of the answer, the apologist threw in a new twist and just left it like that. He said St. Jerome thought Joseph “wouldn’t dare touch” Mary because Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

I thought this was a terrible way to end the answer because it opened up many more questions for me. That made it sound that Joseph and Mary did not have a real marriage. If Mary took a vow of abstinence, that’s one thing, but if Joseph didn’t dare touch Mary, that is completely different. If Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, then she couldn’t really be Joseph’s spouse as well, could she?

Joseph was not married to Mary when he heard the news of the birth of the savior, Jesus. At first, Mary did take a vow of abstinence. Then when Joseph heard of the news, he did not become Mary's spouse but acted as her spouse because she needed help and people would stone Mary because she had a child and no husband. I hope this answers some questions for you. God Bless! En Nomine Patris, et Fili, et Spritus Sanctus.

 

[Tom]

Angainor:

However, when the angel told Mary she was going to be with child, if Mary was thinking in the long-term and also thinking about sexual intercourse, I think her most likely answer would be a simple and obediant “Yes.”

Absolutely correct, if she indeed was even considering sexual relations, remember she was betrothed, she knew what would occur after she and Joseph lived together.

Angainor:

Meaning, any plans I had about remaining a virgin must now be scrapped, for the angel of the Lord had told me to have a child.

Not quite that easy “if” she had dedicated herself to God as a virgin. A vow like that was for life, when told she would conceive she was shocked, how could God expect her to break her vow? Was God relieving her of her commitment?

Angainor:

I think, however the angel may have meant it, that Mary was thinking in the immediate future. “How can I possibly be having a baby since I am a virgin.”

She was betrothed! She knows what married people do. Come on, that’s a stretch.

Angainor:

I think it is human nature to think about your immediate situation in that case. If someone walked up to me and said “you are going to be a parent”, the first thing I would think was, “What? What are you taking about? I didn’t do anything.” I can tell you I wouldn’t be thinking about conceiving down the road, even if that person was an angel.

O.K. play-act it out. You are Mary, a 15-16 year old woman, you realize you’re not like all the other girls, there’s something very different about you, and you don’t sin. You’re engaged (betrothed) to Joseph, you understand the relationship of marriage. Now, the angel visits you, read the exact words, and keep in mind you don’t yet know that the child will be from the union of the Holy Spirit. It’s only natural to think that the angel is referring to after the marriage and sexual relations. How can it be any other way? There should have been no confusion, and no question, as you said a simple obedient “yes”.
Hey, this is a “bomb shell” take it slowly. And remember, Mary ONLY brings us closer to Jesus, she doesn’t “compete”.
You see what the reference to Numbers is? That even after the birth of Jesus, since Joseph accepted her into his house as his wife while under a vow, the vow could never be broken. This is the reason Mt addresses Joseph, to tell us that he knew of the vow and took her into his house and accepted her under this vow.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.

 

[MaggieOH]

Tom:

You see what the reference to Numbers is? That even after the birth of Jesus, since Joseph accepted her into his house as his wife while under a vow, the vow could never be broken. This is the reason Mt addresses Joseph, to tell us that he knew of the vow and took her into his house and accepted her under this vow.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.

Tom,

I had not thought about that particular point!! Of course, that makes a lot of sense and gives strength to the numbers reference.

MaggieOH

 

[Angainor]

Cormier6083:

…he did not become Mary’s spouse but acted as her spouse…

Are you sure about that? On the radio apologist show from 1/16/05 made it quite clear that although it was not an average marriage, they “were, in fact, married”.

 

[Benadam]

Tom:

“if” she planned to have sexual relations. It still makes no sense to ask how it will be if she intends to have sex.

I agree, the natural response would be something like;

“So, we’re gonna have a boy?!”

 

[RobbyS]

Pug:

It seems somehow un-Jewish for a woman to permanently vow to not have sex (and not have children therefore). I can’t think of any in the OT right now. Can you? Or are there examples of these virginity vows in secular writings of the era? Numbers 30 for me is just about vows, and not about a particular virginity vow.

Careful about that “unjewish” thing. Rabinical Judaism is only one kind of Judaism. and celibacy was known among the Essenes. John the Baptist lived such a life and also OUR LORD.

 

[DianJo]

MaggieOH:

Whilst it is true that the Protoevangelium of James, as well as the Pseudo-Gospel of Matthew detail the nativity of Mary, these writings are entirely spurious. They mix facts with fiction or embellishment. For example they claim that Anna and Joachim were wealthy and that Joachim was spurned because he was without issue. Also, the writer who is allegedly James could not be James because of the error in the information concerning the "sons’’ of Joseph. Their father is named as Alphaeus in the Gospels (see the list of the Apostles in Matthew and Mark).

I know that these writings are so called “spurious” but it still gives us some insight into the Jewish life. I would like to do some further research on my own about this piece and the information contained in it. Any reference will be greatly appreciated.

These stories indicate that the early Christians certainly believed that Mary was a virgin and that she had made a vow, but the information on Joseph is inaccurate. He was not a widower, and the Gospels do not say that he was a widower with other sons. This is the mere speculation of the Greek writer who did not understand the Jewish family relationships and thus he speculated on how the four men: James, Judas Thaddeus, Simon and Joseph (Joses or Joset) could be related to Jesus since it was known that Mary did not have other children.

I have never heard that this was a Greek writer, just that it was not the James that it is purported to be because it was written too late (around 120 AD (?)). Can you give me reference to that information?
I have also never heard that Joseph was NOT a widower. I’ve always heard that it was “probable” that Joseph was a widower since he was so much older than Mary and “probably” had other children. It was also one of the reasons he was such a “good choice” for Mary. Please give the reference for this also. As I said above, I’d like to research this myself. Where did you find this info.?

---

Much thanks.

 

[Angainor]

Tom:

O.K. play-act it out. You are Mary, a 15-16 year old woman…

OK, I admit the conversation between Mary and the angel does make sense if Mary had a virginity vow.

I still think it also makes sense without one.

If the angel said “You will be with child”, I have to imagine what mental picture would then form in Mary’s mind. If she pictures herself as “with child”, then might she not picture herself “showing” with a big belly “with” a “child” in there. If she further pictures “you will be”, she might reasonably project the image of herself with a big belly out into the future a couple of months. If she mentally traced back in time, she would put the time of conception somewhere near her present, and ask, “how will this be, since I am a virgin?”

Might she also mistakenly think that the angel might know she will have a big belly because he somehow can tell the process has already started (like a doctor might be able to tell). Then her response of “how will this be, since I am a virgin” would be particularly appropriate.

 

[MaggieOH]

I have never heard that this was a Greek writer, just that it was not the James that it is purported to be because it was written too late (around 120 AD (?)). Can you give me reference to that information?
I have also never heard that Joseph was NOT a widower. I’ve always heard that it was “probable” that Joseph was a widower since he was so much older than Mary and “probably” had other children. It was also one of the reasons he was such a “good choice” for Mary. Please give the reference for this also. As I said above, I’d like to research this myself. Where did you find this info.?

Much thanks.

It is supposition that Joseph was a lot older than Mary. The Scripture does not tell us his age. He could have been a man who was perhaps 8-15 years older than Mary.

I did not “find” information except from the same sources that everyone else has used. The difference is that I have taken the time to read the material and discovered that there were problems with it. I have studied this over a period of time, and no I cannot remember the exact source that discussed the fact that the writer was Greek.

On the other hand if you read the letter from St. Jerome that prefaces the Psuedo-Gospel of Mark, I think that this will give a clue about the source. There is a similarity between the two documents. Both documents are spurious and should not be taken as even being “Church tradition”, since there is nothing in these documents that is totally consistent with the Scripture, just embellishments.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

RobbyS:

Careful about that “unjewish” thing. Rabinical Judaism is only one kind of Judaism. and celibacy was known among the Essenes. John the Baptist lived such a life and also OUR LORD.

I do not think that I would push the habits of the Essenes in this regard. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the family from which Mary sprang did have an ancestry within the Essene sect, but it is not essential to the matter of a vow.

In order to respond to the point about being “un-Jewish”, I reply that this kind of response indicates a lack of understanding of Judaism. My response to the original question is: if this did not relate to a vow of virginity, why else would it get a mention in Numbers in that manner? The whole of the context is that of making a vow, and if the father or the husband (or husband to be) hears of it and does not object then the vow cannot be broken.

A betrothal in that society is not like a betrothal in our own society. They used matchmakers to bring a couple together. They did not “fall in love”. The first stage of the marriage is more or less a “getting to know you” time. The couple are not forbidden to have an intimate relationship during that time.

Also, living together did not mean that the couple shared a bed or bedroom in that society. It is more than likely that Joseph and Mary did not share a bedroom because Joseph was only too well aware he was Mary’s guardian and husband.

All of the misconceptions that we have about Mary and Joseph stem from the imposition of our 20th and 21st century understanding of marriage. We do not seem to be prepared to take into account the differences in society over 2000 years ago, and therefore we cannot comprehend how it is possible for a young woman to be married and have a vow of virginity. The answer is that the marriage was a necessity under the Jewish law. Mary had to have a husband. Yet there is no law that says that they “must” have children or even more than one child.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

OK, I admit the conversation between Mary and the angel does make sense if Mary had a virginity vow.

I still think it also makes sense without one.

If the angel said “You will be with child”, I have to imagine what mental picture would then form in Mary’s mind. If she pictures herself as “with child”, then might she not picture herself “showing” with a big belly “with” a “child” in there. If she further pictures “you will be”, she might reasonably project the image of herself with a big belly out into the future a couple of months. If she mentally traced back in time, she would put the time of conception somewhere near her present, and ask, “how will this be, since I am a virgin?”

Might she also mistakenly think that the angel might know she will have a big belly because he somehow can tell the process has already started (like a doctor might be able to tell). Then her response of “how will this be, since I am a virgin” would be particularly appropriate.

I do not think that a young woman who had the modesty of Mary would be thinking in terms of the shape of her belly when she asked that question. Again, I think that you are superimposing your own imagery onto Mary. No the question itself indicates that Mary was not thinking in terms of a more intimate relationship with Joseph, but in terms of her vow. What is important here is the translation from one language to another. Our English understanding of what might have been said is more than likely to be faulty.

MaggieOH

 

[catholic2]

MaggieOH:

It is supposition that Joseph was a lot older than Mary. The Scripture does not tell us his age. He could have been a man who was perhaps 8-15 years older than Mary.

I did not “find” information except from the same sources that everyone else has used. The difference is that I have taken the time to read the material and discovered that there were problems with it. I have studied this over a period of time, and no I cannot remember the exact source that discussed the fact that the writer was Greek.

On the other hand if you read the letter from St. Jerome that prefaces the Psuedo-Gospel of Mark, I think that this will give a clue about the source. There is a similarity between the two documents. Both documents are spurious and should not be taken as even being “Church tradition”, since there is nothing in these documents that is totally consistent with the Scripture, just embellishments.

MaggieOH

Some accounts place Joseph at 111 years of age when he died! This would place Joseph at around 80 to 90 years of age when he was betrothed to Mary. check out the “Death of St. Joseph” thread in this forum.

 

[MaggieOH]

catholic2:

Some accounts place Joseph at 111 years of age when he died! This would place Joseph at around 80 to 90 years of age when he was betrothed to Mary. check out the “Death of St. Joseph” thread in this forum.

I have just been surfing and found the document called the “Death of St. Joseph”. It claims that Joseph was around 123 years of age when he died. It also claims that Joseph was a temple priest as well as a carpenter, and that it was Jesus who related the story to his Apostles.

That is the kind of thing that makes these writings so spurious. The “facts” are embellishments.

It is like the people who perceive that Mary and Joseph fell in love and were married, and that Jesus had living grandparents. None of that kind of supposition can be established from the Scripture.

The only thing that I can conjecture about the marriage and death of Joseph is that Joseph was dead prior to the beginning of the public life of Jesus. There is probably a very sound reason as to why that is the case.

Maggie

 

[Tom]

Angainor:

OK, I admit the conversation between Mary and the angel does make sense if Mary had a virginity vow.
I still think it also makes sense without one.

Well, I really can’t imagine an engaged young woman, who fully plans to have sex with her husband, who knows “how” babies are conceived, being told by an angel she will become pregnant, and have a son, questioning “how it will be”. As Benadam said:

Benadam:

I agree, the natural response would be something like;
“So, we’re gonna have a boy?!”

“If” she thought the angel meant she was already pregnant? But the angel clearly uses future tense, not present. That’s really a huge stretch, and it’s adding a lot to Scripture.
Sorry, maybe I’m just not trying hard enough. You know what we need to do? We need to take some time and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance on this issue, I won’t ask anyone who believes she remained a virgin; you don’t ask anyone who thinks she had sex, let’s just let the Holy Spirit work within us. After all, this issue has been around for 2,000 years (almost), there’s no big rush in deciding now.
Just a question, how does her imagining her “big belly” have an effect? I didn’t quite follow the line of reason.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ be with you,
Tom

 

[Benadam]

MaggieOH:

I have just been surfing and found the document called the “Death of St. Joseph”. It claims that Joseph was around 123 years of age when he died. It also claims that Joseph was a temple priest as well as a carpenter, and that it was Jesus who related the story to his Apostles.

That is the kind of thing that makes these writings so spurious. The “facts” are embellishments.

It is like the people who perceive that Mary and Joseph fell in love and were married, and that Jesus had living grandparents. None of that kind of supposition can be established from the Scripture.

The only thing that I can conjecture about the marriage and death of Joseph is that Joseph was dead prior to the beginning of the public life of Jesus. There is probably a very sound reason as to why that is the case.

Maggie

Hi Maggie,
I believe the Orthodox believe he was an older man who’s passions were well tamed by the time he became Mary’s husband. You would probably know more on that than I would.

Whole cultures have been molded in this image of wizened and tamed male having become a man prepared to love a wife rather than need her for emotional reasons. Makes a nice picture but it doesn’t really eat meat like a life that sanctifies humanity would.

For example the story of Sara and Tobias who’s example of virtue over vice sanctifies the state of marriage. I tend toward this image of Mary and Joseph, of two young people helping each other in virtue putting their souls before any other thing.

You know how when two people fight and win a victory over an enemy would be so very close and bonded. Now that to me would be an awesome married life. It’s how I tend to think of Mary and Joseph.

 

[MaggieOH]

Benadam:

Hi Maggie,
I believe the Orthodox believe he was an older man who’s passions were well tamed by the time he became Mary’s husband. You would probably know more on that than I would.

Whole cultures have been molded in this image of wizened and tamed male having become a man prepared to love a wife rather than need her for emotional reasons. Makes a nice picture but it doesn’t really eat meat like a life that sanctifies humanity would.

For example the story of Sara and Tobias who’s example of virtue over vice sanctifies the state of marriage. I tend toward this image of Mary and Joseph, of two young people helping each other in virtue putting their souls before any other thing.

You know how when two people fight and win a victory over an enemy would be so very close and bonded. Now that to me would be an awesome married life. It’s how I tend to think of Mary and Joseph.

I think that you have made a very good point about the sanctification of marriage that comes if the two are much younger.

My own view (and all thoughts I have expressed are totally my own) is that the new testament spurious works known as the apocrypha were written by the one source or by parties associated with the original source. It could be that the Protoevangelium of James, being the first of the manuscripts was written by someone who had heard the Gospel story but did not totally understand what he had heard. I assume that the mere fact that he had difficulties with the idea that Jesus had “brethren” because he did not understand the Hebrew/Aramaic terminology and that this language lacked a word for cousin. That is the reason that I believe that the writer was probably of Greek/Latin origin, rather than of a Jewish background. The other apocrypha manuscripts appeared later and at various times over the centuries. They are not original works. Jerome wrote against the Pseudo-Gospel of Matthew and even named the source of the writing. The fact that there were so many similarities between this work and the Protoevangelium of James should not be overlooked.

I find it very hard to accept the story that appears in that source. It indicated that only a few of the available men were called to the Temple, but that would not necessarily be correct either. If Mary was in the Temple and the chief priests selected her husband for her, then they would have called up all who were eligible to marry Mary from her own tribe, not just a few elderly men who were old enough to be her great-great grandfather.

Maggie

 

[prodromos]

MaggieOH:

If Mary was in the Temple and the chief priests selected her husband for her, then they would have called up all who were eligible to marry Mary from her own tribe, not just a few elderly men who were old enough to be her great-great grandfather.

No they wouldn’t, because most of those men would not be willing to respect a vow of virginity. Elderly widowers would have been selected because they would already have children and would have no reason not to respect such a vow.

John

 

[Benadam]

prodromos:

No they wouldn’t, because most of those men would not be willing to respect a vow of virginity. Elderly widowers would have been selected because they would already have children and would have no reason not to respect such a vow.

John

It’s obvious that it’s unlikely that a man who is called in the bible a ‘just’ man would have been picked out of a group. I think that’s why the story with the sprouting branch happened. I think it more likely that Mary and Joseph were both set apart amongst their peers. They probably both knew that they were a little different than most others around them. I think that this is what attracted Joseph to Mary. Who else would want to become close to a woman of such purity but a just man. I’m thinking that a Marriage union that happens out of personal attraction was something commonly thought of as base and unreliable for the foundation of families back then to a degree that the thought that Mary and Joseph were married because they were in love with each other didn’t occur to those who began pondering them. So began explanations that evolved into stories that to me just don’t fit the spaces in the Gospel puzzle.

Everytime I hear those stories I get this sense that a projection from another culture and time is intermingling with the biblical account.

 

[MaggieOH]

prodromos:

No they wouldn’t, because most of those men would not be willing to respect a vow of virginity. Elderly widowers would have been selected because they would already have children and would have no reason not to respect such a vow.

John

I disagree with your comment John. The reason that I disagree is based upon the Book of numbers relating to vows. It clearly says that if a girl has taken a vow and after hearing about it the father (or in the case of a wife) does not ask her to repudiate, or does nothing about it on the day of hearing about it, then the girl/wife is bound by the vow.

This applies to the vow of virginity. If the chief priests knew about the vow, and they were under an obligation to find a husband for Mary within the tribe of the House of David, then they would call upon all of the eligible men, not just a few. It is not beyond the realms of probability that if Joseph, who being a righteous and just man, had also made the vow of Nazirite, would be prepared to be a husband to Mary and maintain her virginity as well as his own.

The problem that I see is that too many seek their answer in terms of what they would do today, rather than on what a Jew at this particular time would do.

Maggie