Joseph was actually married to Mary, right?

[AmbroseSJ]

Ambrose-

My post (#170) contains an exact quote from the footnotes produced by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch for The Gospel of Matthew in the Ignatius Study Bible. The quote begins with the words “Two interpretations…” and continues to the end of the post. The two theories noted by Hahn and Mitch are commonly held…they are not novelties proposed by me.

I recommend a close reading of the text in question. Matthew 1:18 clearly indicates that Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. The text does NOT say, “Mary was found to be with Child, but Joseph was clueless as to how this ocurred.”

I dunno…Dr. Hahn generally knows his stuff, don’t you think?

Sorry if I seemed to be attributing these two theories to you (I wasn’t.) I also believe Dr. Hahn knows his stuff very well. I don’t agree with his theories in this instance though.

As a matter of fact, I used to subscribe to the reverence theory, which is not a new theory of Dr. Hahn’s in any event. I now hold fast to the theory I already mentioned.

I recommend a close reading of the text in question. Matthew 1:18 clearly indicates that Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. The text does NOT say, “Mary was found to be with Child, but Joseph was clueless as to how this ocurred.”

It also doesn’t say anywhere that St. Joseph already knew, and that the purpose of the Angel’s visit was to prevent his “over-reverence.” That is stretching the text to the breaking point. It is self-evident that the Angel is giving St. Joseph the first news of how Mary could be with child. Why would this have been necessary, if he already knew?

 

[Randy_Carson]

It also doesn’t say anywhere that St. Joseph already knew, and that the purpose of the Angel’s visit was to prevent his “over-reverence.” That is stretching the text to the breaking point. It is self-evident that the Angel is giving St. Joseph the first news of how Mary could be with child. Why would this have been necessary, if he already knew?

Actually, I think it does.

Matthew 1:18
18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

The text does not say, “she was found to be with child mysteriously” or “she was found to be with child and no one could explain how this happened”. It says, “she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph knew that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit. So, was the angel’s visit redundant? A friend of mine answers thusly:

As for the angel clearly stating to Joseph that the child was from the Holy Spirit, it would have served as confirmation of what he may have suspected or guessed had happened to Mary. Even if Joseph already knew, the angel’s appearance isn’t necessarily redundant in that his message was both on the origin of the child, and that Joseph was to have no fear that he was being entrusted to so great a task as being foster father to God’s Son.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Actually, I think it does.

Matthew 1:18
18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

The text does not say, “she was found to be with child mysteriously” or “she was found to be with child and no one could explain how this happened”. It says, “she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph knew that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit. So, was the angel’s visit redundant? A friend of mine answers thusly:

As for the angel clearly stating to Joseph that the child was from the Holy Spirit, it would have served as confirmation of what he may have suspected or guessed had happened to Mary. Even if Joseph already knew, the angel’s appearance isn’t necessarily redundant in that his message was both on the origin of the child, and that Joseph was to have no fear that he was being entrusted to so great a task as being foster father to God’s Son.

Well, as I said, I myself used to subscribe to the reverence theory. I think it is proof texting Scripture to fit to a certain theory, so I no longer give it any credence.

As for your friend’s explanation; Now it is being suggested that Joseph “guessed” that Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit. That is way beyond anything implied in the Scriptures. Is Joseph getting “feelings” for the truth that angelic messengers come round to confirm? Please. That is really forcing an idea on those passages. I believe it robs St. Joseph of his courageous Faith in Mary and in God as well.

 

[catholicsuffer]

Actually, I think it does.

Matthew 1:18
18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

The text does not say, “she was found to be with child mysteriously” or “she was found to be with child and no one could explain how this happened”. It says, “she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph knew that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit. So, was the angel’s visit redundant? A friend of mine answers thusly:

As for the angel clearly stating to Joseph that the child was from the Holy Spirit, it would have served as confirmation of what he may have suspected or guessed had happened to Mary. Even if Joseph already knew, the angel’s appearance isn’t necessarily redundant in that his message was both on the origin of the child, and that Joseph was to have no fear that he was being entrusted to so great a task as being foster father to God’s Son.

First, I like to say that I am a big fan of Scott Hahn, as I have stated in other threads me and him had the same experience with the Mass, in that we both were guided by the Holy Spirit in the revelation that the Mass was the Book of Revelation.
Now, that being said, I would say that he does get a little over-excited to say the least. I certainly think that AmbroseSJ is making a whole lot better sense in this matter and is in-fact correct.
On Matthew 1:18, it does not state that at that time it was reveal to Saint Joseph that he knew that Saint Mary was with a child through the Holy Spirit. I think a better interpretation of this verse would be that he knew she was with a child but not necessarily that Saint Joseph knew how it came about only that he knew she was with a child and that is why the Angel appear to him to let him know that it was in-fact by the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:18 is letting the readers of the letter know that it was via the Holy Spirit. Too much is being read into the verse.

 

[choy]

And Jesus was referred to by the people of Nazareth as “the” son of the carpenter, and not “A” son. If there were others born after, he would probably been referred to as the eldest son, or something of that sort. As has already been mentioned, it was likely that Joseph was probably a widower with children when he and Mary came together. So, that could be a reason for the mention of “brothers.” If I were to call someone here my brother (or sister) in Christ, that doesn’t mean that we are biologically related.

just to add, its not uncommon in other cultures to call someone a brother or sister if they are related to you, even if they are first cousins or distant cousins.

even today, in cultures like we have in the Philippines, older brothers are referred to as “kuya” to convey respect. this would literally translate to as older brother but can also be used somewhat like a title attached to the person’s name, like “Kuya Bob”. now the use of this is not limited to siblings as you can also call your male cousins that are older than you “kuya”. and since Filipinos recognize a huge extended family structure, like if your parents cousins who has children older than you, you’d still addres them as “kuya” or if female, “ate” (ah-teh). now literally translated to english it all translates to “older brother” or “older sister”. there’s no distinction even in the native language if its a sibling or a cousin or distant relative

 

[CWBetts]

And Jesus was referred to by the people of Nazareth as “the” son of the carpenter, and not “A” son. If there were others born after, he would probably been referred to as the eldest son, or something of that sort. As has already been mentioned, it was likely that Joseph was probably a widower with children when he and Mary came together. So, that could be a reason for the mention of “brothers.” If I were to call someone here my brother (or sister) in Christ, that doesn’t mean that we are biologically related.

Not necessarily. I tend to believe that Joseph was a young man, which does not go against Church teaching. Think about it, Joseph walked from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The he walked to Egypt, and several years later back to Nazareth. Is this the activity of an old man? Again this view is not official Church teaching, but then neither is the idea that St. Joseph was a widower with ither children. Just another aspect to consider.