Joseph & Mary's marriage

[MaggieOH]

Benadam:

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.

I agree with you. That is the whole point of my own involvement in trying to set the record straight about the relationship that Mary and Joseph had with each other.

Yes, they were married according to Jewish ritual. It says in the Scripture that Joseph took her to his home. Scripture also states that Joseph did not have relations with her “until” (which does not mean it happened afterwards) the birth of the Messiah.

The fact that this relationship stayed on the same level stems from the fact that, by becoming the Mother of God (Jesus, the Messiah) in the Flesh (the one who is both human and divine), Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Under Jewish law, a man whose “betrothed” was pregnant by another man was not supposed to have a physical relationship with his wife. At the same time, Mary’s womb was sanctified by the presence of God, and it would have been considered by this Jewish couple, that Mary could not be touched because God had indeed passed through her. This is why I apply the verse from Ezekiel, not out of any attempt to see Jesus only as Divine, but to emphasize that Jesus is God, and that where God has been no one else shall enter, according to what is written in the Scripture.

Maggie

 

[prodromos]

MaggieOH:

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.

Interesting. I made my comment based on the same book of Numbers, yet we come to widely disparate conclusions.

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.

I’m afraid that I really do not follow your logic here.

John.

 

[MaggieOH]

prodromos:

Interesting. I made my comment based on the same book of Numbers, yet we come to widely disparate conclusions.
I’m afraid that I really do not follow your logic here.

John.

John,

however, it appears to me that you did not read the whole of what was written in coming to your conclusions.

The vow of virginity for a woman is one that could be overridden by either her father or her husband if they objected to the vow.

Have a look at Numbers chapter 6 where there is a description of the vow of the Nazirite. In my Jerusalem Bible it actually says a man or a woman (I find that surprising) . The vow of the Nazirite is a vow of consecration to Yahweh.

Also check out the following in the Book of Numbers:

“Every daughter who has a heritage in one of the tribes of the sons of Israel must marry into a clan of her own paternal tribe, so that the sons of Israel may each preserve the heritage of his father. No heritage may be transferred from one tribe to another.” (Numbers 36:8-9)

If the legend about Mary and Joseph is in any way correct, then the suitor for Mary would be chosen from among all of the eligible men and not amongst those who are more than likely about to fall off the perch.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

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.

PUG,

you have to look at the context of Numbers 30. If you go back to Numbers chapter 6 you will see that the kind of vow that is mentioned is that of the Nazirite that can be taken by both men and women. This vow for men normally lasts for about 12 months (St. Paul did this for a year refer Acts of the Apostles)

The wording in Numbers 30 is critical:

“If a woman makes a vow to Yahweh, or a pledge…”

A vow to Yahweh is what we call consecration to God. This is similar to the oath that is taken by the seminarians when they choose to join the priesthood. It is critical to notice the difference between the taking of a vow or pledge by a man and a woman. In the man’s case he is bound by the vow. In the woman’s case it can be annulled by either father or husband within a limited period of time. That indicates that this is not about an engagement (as we have today) but it is about something that is sacred, and if the husband objects to the vow then he can overrule her vow.

The wording of numbers 30, especially as it relates to the husband and wife, and especially the need for the husband to indicate disapproval within a short time frame, or he is to blame for his wife not being held to her vow, indicates that this is about a vow of celibacy.

Maggie

 

[prodromos]

MaggieOH:

it appears to me that you did not read the whole of what was written in coming to your conclusions.

The vow of virginity for a woman is one that could be overridden by either her father or her husband if they objected to the vow.

Hence they would not have chosen from men who would have cause to object to her vow. Since the primary purpose of marriage was to produce children, and the one who agreed to marry Mary would in effect be required to abstain from having any children, it is more likely that her husband and guardian would be selected from those who had no desire to have children, either because they already had children or whatever other reason there might be.

Have a look at Numbers chapter 6 where there is a description of the vow of the Nazirite. In my Jerusalem Bible it actually says a man or a woman (I find that surprising) . The vow of the Nazirite is a vow of consecration to Yahweh.

Same in the Septuagint. Note this vow described is not a permanent vow but only for a short period and seems to be along the lines of what Paul says in 1 Cor 7:5

Also check out the following in the Book of Numbers:

“Every daughter who has a heritage in one of the tribes of the sons of Israel must marry into a clan of her own paternal tribe, so that the sons of Israel may each preserve the heritage of his father. No heritage may be transferred from one tribe to another.” (Numbers 36:8-9)

This was so a woman’s children would be of the same tribe so that her inheritance would not go to another tribe. SInce Mary did not intend to have children I’m not sure what significance you attach to this since I presume her inheritance would have gone to her nearest relative on her dying childless. It is significant in that Jesus had his legal lineage traced through Joseph’s line, but the temple priests could not have forseen Mary becoming pregnant, or rather they would have excluded that possibility. I believe I have given everything ample consideration in coming to my conclusion.

John.

 

[Tom]

MaggieOH:

PUG,

you have to look at the context of Numbers 30. If you go back to Numbers chapter 6 you will see that the kind of vow that is mentioned is that of the Nazirite that can be taken by both men and women. This vow for men normally lasts for about 12 months (St. Paul did this for a year refer Acts of the Apostles)

The wording in Numbers 30 is critical:

“If a woman makes a vow to Yahweh, or a pledge…”

A vow to Yahweh is what we call consecration to God. This is similar to the oath that is taken by the seminarians when they choose to join the priesthood. It is critical to notice the difference between the taking of a vow or pledge by a man and a woman. In the man’s case he is bound by the vow. In the woman’s case it can be annulled by either father or husband within a limited period of time. That indicates that this is not about an engagement (as we have today) but it is about something that is sacred, and if the husband objects to the vow then he can overrule her vow.

The wording of numbers 30, especially as it relates to the husband and wife, and especially the need for the husband to indicate disapproval within a short time frame, or he is to blame for his wife not being held to her vow, indicates that this is about a vow of celibacy.

Maggie

Great post Maggie.

 

[Tom]

prodromos:

Same in the Septuagint. Note this vow described is not a permanent vow but only for a short period and seems to be along the lines of what Paul says in 1 Cor 7:5
This was so a woman’s children would be of the same tribe so that her inheritance would not go to another tribe. SInce Mary did not intend to have children I’m not sure what significance you attach to this since I presume her inheritance would have gone to her nearest relative on her dying childless. It is significant in that Jesus had his legal lineage traced through Joseph’s line, but the temple priests could not have forseen Mary becoming pregnant, or rather they would have excluded that possibility. I believe I have given everything ample consideration in coming to my conclusion.

John.

The significance is that it must be shown that Mary was of the house of David also, not just Joseph, since Joseph in actuality was not the biological father of Jesus, none of his bloodline was in Jesus. The fact that Mary was under a vow of celibacy or virginity when she was taken into the house of Joseph is also extremely important in that once accepted into his house under this vow, the vow could never be broken. Numbers is a wonderful book to understand the relationship of Mary and it explains a lot of the teachings some have such difficulty with.

 

[Benadam]

I find the whole premise that the Temple priests were aware of Mary’s vow and searched for a husband willing to remain true to it with her. The implications are too encompassing for the gospel story surrounding her to remain the same story we have recieved.

Would Joseph be able to remain an upstanding Jew had he allowed his bloodline to be adulterated by another bloodline? This is how the Temple priests would have viewed the events. Unless they were told that the vow had been broken or they were able to believe the incarnation. The implications of that would overwhelm the story as well I would think.

 

[mercygate]

Benadam:

I find the whole premise that the Temple priests were aware of Mary’s vow and searched for a husband willing to remain true to it with her. The implications are too encompassing for the gospel story surrounding her to remain the same story we have recieved.

Would Joseph be able to remain an upstanding Jew had he allowed his bloodline to be adulterated by another bloodline? This is how the Temple priests would have viewed the events. Unless they were told that the vow had been broken or they were able to believe the incarnation. The implications of that would overwhelm the story as well I would think.

Benadam, I always look forward to your posts because they are so cogent. But in this case, I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re getting at. Maybe because in my time zone it’s the middle of the night?

 

[MaggieOH]

prodromos:

Same in the Septuagint. Note this vow described is not a permanent vow but only for a short period and seems to be along the lines of what Paul says in 1 Cor 7:5
This was so a woman’s children would be of the same tribe so that her inheritance would not go to another tribe. SInce Mary did not intend to have children I’m not sure what significance you attach to this since I presume her inheritance would have gone to her nearest relative on her dying childless. It is significant in that Jesus had his legal lineage traced through Joseph’s line, but the temple priests could not have forseen Mary becoming pregnant, or rather they would have excluded that possibility. I believe I have given everything ample consideration in coming to my conclusion.

John.

Actually I do not think that you have come to the correct conclusion. I think that you are doing what too many people do in theology and apologetics - you project your own ideas upon a different time frame than our own and where the whole cultural values are very different from our own. When we do this kind of projection our understanding becomes somewhat less clear than the author of the Scripture intended.

If Mary was an only child and her parents were dead, then in that time period someone would have to chose a husband of Mary. Let us for a moment forget all about the information that came from the Protoevanglium of James because I think that this information is clouding the Truth too. If the story about Mary being in the Temple is true and she had reached the age when she had to leave because of issues relating to the maturing female; if the girl’s parents were dead; then it would be up to the nearest living relative to be her guardian and chose a husband for her. Now if that guardian just happened to be one of the Temple Priests by the name of Zachariah (the husband of Elizabeth), then it would be Zechariah who, knowing Mary’s lineage, that she belonged to the House of David and is a daughter of Aaron, would make the decision to make a call for all of the eligible men to come to the Temple so that a marriage could be arranged for her. Regardless of any vow she made as a child, under Jewish Law Mary had to be given a husband to care for her.

Again, disregard the information from the Protoevangelium and again concentrate upon Numbers 30 and the information that it contains about a woman making a vow. If, Joseph was a relatively young man (probably around 30 years of age), and after undergoing the selection process the lot fell to Joseph, who just might be a young man who did not want to take a wife, but had come to the Temple because he was called. Now let’s say that the story in the Protoevangelium actually does contain some elements of what happened and that Joseph had a tree branch that blossomed, (like the rod of Aaron), then we would more than likely accept that Joseph was chosen because the Holy Spirit knew that he was a righteous man who would not violate this pure young woman who was chosen to be the Mother of Our Lord.

Now, if at this point, upon Joseph being chosen to be the spouse of Mary, the information of the vow of consecration to the Lord is revealed by Mary, to Joseph and he does not object or annul the vow within a day of learning about it, then Joseph is held to the vow, as it is written, “Whatever that vow or pledge might be”. That means that after Jesus was born, Joseph was not allowed to request that Mary become a full “wife” to him because he had already agreed to accept her vow.

(to be continued)

 

[MaggieOH]

(cont)

Now move foreward in time to the moment when Joseph noticed that Mary was pregnant. It is as a result of the knowledge that was held between Mary and Joseph, that Mary had a vow of virginity, that Joseph was so very concerned about her state of pregnancy. He knew that he was not the cause of her pregnancy. As someone else posted, the Scripture said that Joseph is a just man, and he did not want to cause disgrace to her. This statement also casts doubt upon Joseph being a man old enough to be Mary’s great-grandfather, because if he was that old he would not have struggled over the issue of her pregnancy as much as Joseph did, and it is an indication that Joseph was not called into the Temple by the priests to explain why Mary was pregnant.

It is on this point that it could be said that the author could have been of Jewish origin or at least someone who was aware of the Levitcal laws relating to the situation of a woman who had made a vow of permanent virginity; thus indicating that the writer was aware of a traditional story but had added embellishments. From this point of view I would state without a doubt that as far as the age of Joseph is concerned, and the improbability that Joseph was a widower, there is nothing that is known about the Holy Family that supports the conclusions of the Protoevangelium.

Also if Joseph had also made a vow of celibacy, he would also be held to it by God. It is not just the vow of the nazirite that can be considered. Just as Numbers says “a vow or some other pledge” for a woman, the way is open for a man to make a similar vow and be held to it.

I put this forward as a possibility from what can be read within the Scripture, and without relying upon a source that is useful but unreliable because of its spurious nature and suspicious origin.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Benadam:

I find the whole premise that the Temple priests were aware of Mary’s vow and searched for a husband willing to remain true to it with her. The implications are too encompassing for the gospel story surrounding her to remain the same story we have recieved.

Would Joseph be able to remain an upstanding Jew had he allowed his bloodline to be adulterated by another bloodline? This is how the Temple priests would have viewed the events. Unless they were told that the vow had been broken or they were able to believe the incarnation. The implications of that would overwhelm the story as well I would think.

Benadam,

I think that I see your point regarding the Temple priests knowing of the vow and the implications upon seeing Mary’s pregnant shape.

Whilst I accept that the story about the Temple priests knowing about Mary’s vow as a possibility, I also think that it is probable that Mary did not tell them of her vow, and that this was between herself and Joseph alone. Again, keeping what is written in Numbers in mind, if Joseph knew of the vow and he did not object by annulling the vow, then he cannot force her to break it.

Good points. I hope I am understanding you.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

Tom:

The significance is that it must be shown that Mary was of the house of David also, not just Joseph, since Joseph in actuality was not the biological father of Jesus, none of his bloodline was in Jesus. The fact that Mary was under a vow of celibacy or virginity when she was taken into the house of Joseph is also extremely important in that once accepted into his house under this vow, the vow could never be broken. Numbers is a wonderful book to understand the relationship of Mary and it explains a lot of the teachings some have such difficulty with.

That sums up my argument. Mary is also of the House of David. As such her husband was chosen from the same tribe as herself. This had to be because the paternal line has to be proved, according to Judaic Law.

With regards to Mary’s vow. If Joseph knew of it and did not demand that she break it, then she is held to that vow and Joseph cannot demand that she break that vow at a later date, regardless of his age.

MaggieOH

 

[Benadam]

mercygate:

Benadam, I always look forward to your posts because they are so cogent. But in this case, I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re getting at. Maybe because in my time zone it’s the middle of the night?

mercygate, thank you for the compliment. From what I can tell about your part of the country the moonlight is bright and keeps a fog from forming. As for me, sometimes I take a picture that requires a wider lense and the picture ends up not making sense at all.

I was entertaining the possibility of some traditions and according to posts I’ve read acceptable to believe in the Roman Catholic Church as well that Joseph was a much older man picked by temple priests amongst other candidates for the purpose of being a husband to Mary that would accept her vow of abstinence.

The interelations between the people involved in the story and the response of the people in general to Jesus would be profoundly different if that were true.

There is no conflict with it untill the Incarnation becomes a reality. That event makes the intimacy described in Mary’s relationship with the temple priests a reality that would have made the Gospel unfold in an entirely different way than the story we read today.

I think those stories are a projection from the minds of a later time that put meaning onto events that made sense to them in their time rather than what the events trully meant.

Maybe you can lend me the lense I need to see the whole picture?

 

[prodromos]

MaggieOH:

Actually I do not think that you have come to the correct conclusion. I think that you are doing what too many people do in theology and apologetics - you project your own ideas upon a different time frame than our own and where the whole cultural values are very different from our own. When we do this kind of projection our understanding becomes somewhat less clear than the author of the Scripture intended.

(sigh)
What you think about me, based on the miniscule contact we have had thus far, is not only irrelavent, but borderline Ad Hominem.
In any case, my thoughts are not based on the Protoevangelium of James but on the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox church. However, I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

John.

 

[Benadam]

MaggieOH:

Benadam,

I think that I see your point regarding the Temple priests knowing of the vow and the implications upon seeing Mary’s pregnant shape.

Whilst I accept that the story about the Temple priests knowing about Mary’s vow as a possibility, I also think that it is probable that Mary did not tell them of her vow, and that this was between herself and Joseph alone. Again, keeping what is written in Numbers in mind, if Joseph knew of the vow and he did not object by annulling the vow, then he cannot force her to break it.

Good points. I hope I am understanding you.

MaggieOH

Maggie, yes you are understanding what I mean. If we entertain aevery possible scenario after the incarnation we are left having to believe that Mary lied or the priests were aware the pregnancy and no doubt thought Mary an adulteress. If her vow was known to them as lifelong then the explaining to them is unavoidable. If her vow was known to them as just untill marriage that was not a religious vow that was just a commitment to common decency.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

I find the whole premise that the Temple priests were aware of Mary’s vow and searched for a husband willing to remain true to it with her. The implications are too encompassing for the gospel story surrounding her to remain the same story we have recieved.

Would Joseph be able to remain an upstanding Jew had he allowed his bloodline to be adulterated by another bloodline? This is how the Temple priests would have viewed the events. Unless they were told that the vow had been broken or they were able to believe the incarnation. The implications of that would overwhelm the story as well I would think.

I think mercygate is right and Maggie is generous.

I left out the key word in the first paragraph. Thank you for your patience with me. I meant that I think the whole premise was false.

these senior moments are intensifying and happening with less time inbetween.

 

[Tom]

Benadam:

I find the whole premise that the Temple priests were aware of Mary’s vow and searched for a husband willing to remain true to it with her. The implications are too encompassing for the gospel story surrounding her to remain the same story we have recieved. .

Since it is not the official teaching of the Church I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. It is just one of the many possibilities. As far as what’s in the Scripture, keep in mind that Scripture is the revelation of God, not of Mary. Not even all that Jesus did and said is in Scripture why would we expect a detailed account of Mary?

Benadam:

Would Joseph be able to remain an upstanding Jew had he allowed his bloodline to be adulterated by another bloodline? .

No, read Numbers again, it isn’t Joseph who needed to marry within his tribe, it was Mary who needed to marry within her tribe, big difference. Keep in mind that no one knew what was going to happen before hand.

Benadam:

This is how the Temple priests would have viewed the events. Unless they were told that the vow had been broken or they were able to believe the incarnation. The implications of that would overwhelm the story as well I would think .

They were engaged before the annunciation, they didn’t get engaged because of it.

 

[Pug]

MaggieOH:

The wording of numbers 30, especially as it relates to the husband and wife, and especially the need for the husband to indicate disapproval within a short time frame, or he is to blame for his wife not being held to her vow, indicates that this is about a vow of celibacy.

I have been trying to digest this. I see how a vow of celibacy can fit into the context, but it seems to be only one of many possible vows to me.

I see how it talks about a vow to the Lord or before the Lord. It is usually a dedication of some sort, that can be finished at the end somehow in the temple by a set sacrifice. They even regulate how it may be paid (not with a whore’s money, for example, Dt23:18). Not every vow is a Nazarite vow. For example, Jephthath made a horrid vow and ended up making a whole burnt offering of his daughter. There seem to be a number of vows in the OT that go, if you Lord do such and such, then I will do this or that.

There are also in the numbers 30 passage the words, “binding oath to afflict herself,” or as the Douay says, “to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things”. This one more to me seems the sort that could mean virginity. The Nazarite vow did not mean celibacy typically, it more seems about hair, wine, etc., and then devoting or offering the holy hair by fire. What bothers me more with the argument is that the husband could overrule both types, the vow and the binding oath to afflict herself. So the same argument applies to both kinds. But I don’t think both would be virginity only.

This is an interesting topic because these days I don’t think people go around saying they will erect altars or sacrifice animals if God does something for them. We also don’t utterly devote (to destruction) things like the Israelites used to do.

BTW, don’t misunderstand. I have no trouble with Mary having a special vow that is rather unique to herself. It just seems a strange vow to be the only thing intended in numbers 30.

 

[Pug]

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 didn’t notice your post earlier, so I am slow to reply here.

True, I tend to talk/think in terms of Rabinical Judaism. Are you suggesting that Mary was Essene or similar, and not whatever was a standard Jewish person back then? I also tend to equate the OT to Judaism, so I think of stuff where ladies were so upset to be without child, almost cursed.