Parergon: At What Time the Nuptials Were Celebrated between the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph

I. Since in Thesis III we disputed concerning the marriage of the Blessed Mother of God with St. Joseph, we think it will not be foreign to the matter if, as a certain complement of the matter, we also touch upon this question, which in these our days has been sharply debated among Catholic doctors: not indeed in order that we may impose an end upon the question, but lest in this our treatise readers should lack acquaintance with a question which is of no small moment.

II. First it must be supposed that learned interpreters of the Scriptures are now in this opinion: that it was placed in the custom of the Jews, at least in the later age, with respect to the celebration of marriages, that a twofold action was distinguished in it: the prior, by which the man betrothed (ἐμνηστεύετο, אֵרַשׂ) the wife; the other, by which the man received her from those in whose power she was (ἔλαβεν, לָקַח) and led her home. This latter action was not accustomed to follow the former immediately, but some greater or lesser space of time intervened between the two.

The distinction of this twofold action, which is said to have had place among the Jewish people in the last centuries before Christ, if we believe the Rabbis, must be said to have been in use also in the first age, namely in the time of Moses, at least now and then; or it must be said that even then it was permitted to separate the action of receiving the bride from the betrothal. For although generally the action by which marriage is entered into is accustomed in the Old Testament to be signified by this formula, by which the man is said to receive a wife or to receive someone to himself as wife (Gen. IV, 19; VI, 2; XII, 19; 1 Kings XXV, 39; 2 Paral. XI, 21; XIII, 21; Esd. X, 44; Nehem. XIII, 25; Hos. I, 2; etc.), nevertheless mention is also made of that twofold action distinguished according to time, as in Deut. XX, 7: Who is the man who has betrothed (μεμνήστευται, אֵרַשׂ) a wife and has not received her (οὐκ ἔλαβεν αὐτήν, לֹא לְקָחָהּ)? Moreover this latter action is that to which the name of nuptials is given.

Yet it is certain that in antiquity all things were also completed by one action: the asking of the bride, the giving and receiving, and the solemnity of the nuptials, as is clear in the marriage of Tobias and Sara (Tob. 10-17). Nor did any delay intervene, so far as the circumstances allowed, between the betrothal and receiving of Rebecca, the wife of Isaac (Gen. XXIV, 51-67).

It must further be supposed that that betrothal, which the Rabbis teach to have been distinct and separate from the receiving or nuptials in the later age, was not of the same account as our espousals are. For by that betrothal a right in the thing was obtained by each spouse, so that intercourse which had been had by the bridegroom with the bride before he had brought her home would not be judged fornicatory but marital, and the offspring would be judged legitimate. Wherefore a bridegroom who wished to send away a bride not yet led home had to send her away, no otherwise than a legitimate wife, by giving a bill of repudiation. Nevertheless, although that intercourse was judged legitimate, with account taken of the right of marriage, it was nevertheless reputed less honorable, indecent, base, as signifying a mind poured forth too much toward lust; wherefore by the law of honesty the man was prohibited from knowing his bride while she was still remaining in the house of her parents. You have these things clearly set forth by the distinguished Father Patrizi in his Dissertation published separately, On the First Mission of the Angel to Joseph. To tell the truth, we have not yet been persuaded that what certain learned men, following the Rabbis, hand down concerning such a distinction prevailing in the later age between betrothal and nuptials is true, namely that some not very short time was accustomed to intervene between them, and in the meantime the mingling of the spouses was held dishonorable. And indeed, if you deny this latter point, no question now remains, and therefore, when you hear that the Virgin was betrothed to Joseph, you at once understand her to be truly his wife, without defect of any right whatsoever. Therefore the question which we treat supposes (without affirming) that which the Rabbis and learned men hand down, the disputation being instituted with those who receive it.

III. These things having been premised, it is asked whether the mission of Gabriel to Mary (Luke I, 26), and therefore the conception of Christ, which immediately followed it, occurred before the nuptials of Joseph with Mary, that is, after the betrothal of both had indeed been completed, but before the Blessed Virgin was received by Joseph and led home, or after the nuptials had been completed. There are those who affirm that it occurred before the nuptials; there are those who deny it. Among those affirming, in our age the distinguished Father Patrizi holds the first place, who in interpreting the Scriptures has acquired the greatest praise for himself, so that he is second to none of his equals, indeed is readily judged the prince of all. Among those denying, the distinguished Vincent De-Vit stands out, who with set purpose attacked the opinion of Patrizi (Life of St. Joseph, written by the priest Vincent De-Vit, second edition with additions, Modena, 1868). Let us weigh the arguments of each part.

IV. And first indeed the affirmative opinion cannot be confirmed from the fact that, by Luke, the Blessed Virgin, when she was greeted by the Angel, is called only betrothed; for, as the same Patrizi notes, this same appellation is made by Luke of Blessed Mary at the time at which no one doubts that the nuptials had been completed (Luke II, 5). Therefore the first argument is proposed thus. St. Joseph did not accompany the Blessed Virgin when she undertook the journey to visit Elizabeth; but if the nuptials had already been completed, and Mary and Joseph were living together, Mary would not have undertaken, without her husband as companion, a sufficiently long journey, such as that from Nazareth to the city of Judah (that is, as several interpreters with Reland judge, the city of Judah to the south of Jerusalem). Therefore. The major is proved from the ignorance of the mystery of the virginal conception in which Joseph was after the Virgin had returned to Nazareth, so that for this reason he thought of sending her away. For if he himself had gone together with the Virgin to the house of Zachariah, he certainly would have received knowledge of that mystery, which Elizabeth had made known with great cries. The minor is proved because it hardly seems becoming that a recently married maiden should commit herself to a long journey without the company of her husband and enter another's house.

The second argument. When the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ, she and Joseph had not yet come together: before they came together she was found having in her womb (Matt. I, 18). But the expression to come together, used of a woman and a man after mention has been made of betrothal (ibid.), signifies that the man and the betrothed woman come together into the same house for the sake of perpetual common life; but that verb is very rarely employed to signify marital intercourse (cf. Patrizi, loc. cit.). Therefore the nuptials had not yet been completed, for by these the bride was led into the house of the man, or they came together into one place.

The third argument, which is the principal one, is drawn again from the words of Scripture, which are to be accepted in their proper signification. Therefore they say: it cannot happen that before the virginal conception that thing occurred which Scripture clearly testifies was done afterward. But Matt. I, 18 ff. teaches that Joseph, when the Blessed Virgin was already bearing in her womb, had not yet received his wife, but received her after the Angel taught the mystery and shook off every fear; for Joseph received her in order to obey the Angel commanding (v. 24). Now this phrase, to receive a wife, openly signifies the nuptials themselves. Therefore the nuptials were made after this first mission of the Angel to Joseph; therefore they had not been entered into before the Blessed Virgin was greeted by the Angel.

V. The argument of the opinion denying that the virginal conception occurred before the nuptials (if we wish to select the more efficacious arguments) is twofold. The first supposes what the adversaries also grant: that the nuptials, if they were made after the virginal conception, could not have been made except in the fourth month from that same conception. For as soon as the Virgin conceived, rising with haste she went to Elizabeth and remained there almost three months; after which also the carrying of the womb is accustomed to appear. Therefore the argument is proposed thus. Christ willed to be born of a woman joined to a man, in order that he might provide for the honor of his Mother and of the offspring born; since, when he was to be brought forth into the light, the mystery of the virginal conception and birth could not yet be known commonly. But the honor of the Virgin would not have been provided for if, after three months from that conception, the nuptials had been entered into, but only if they had been entered into before that same conception. Therefore. The major is proved both by the authority of the Fathers observing this (cf. Maldonatus on this place) and by the sense of the faithful, and from consideration of the fact itself, for which no stronger reason than this can be devised: why God, willing to be born of a Virgin, nevertheless willed to be born of a married woman, so that he himself was also commonly thought to be the son of the man of that same Virgin (Luke III, 23). For the other goods following from these nuptials could also have been obtained by another way. But the honor thereby furnished to nuptials seems to have been a certain effect rather (although intended secondarily) than the end of this economy. The minor is proved. Although intercourse between spouses before the nuptials was held legitimate as to the validity, so to speak, of the conjugal act, yet, the adversaries themselves admitting it, it was judged dishonorable and base, so that it could also deservedly be punished. Now, once the nuptials had been entered into in the fourth month, and the offspring had been brought forth into the light after six months from the nuptials, one of these two things would have had to be said by those ignorant of the mystery: either that the Blessed Virgin had conceived from adultery, or at least that she had acted against the law, since she had had intercourse with her spouse before the nuptials. Although the former would have been especially unbecoming to the Blessed Virgin, nevertheless no one fails to see how the latter too would have been opposed to the modesty and estimation of the most chaste Virgin. Shall we think that God did not take care lest his Mother and her husband be affected by this base disgrace? Therefore.

The other argument is said from the Scriptures, yet by the aid of a certain reasoning, and refining that argument we propose it thus. Joseph, ignorant of the mystery, wished to send away the Blessed Virgin secretly (Matt. I, 19 ff.). Namely, the Evangelist brings forward two reasons why Joseph wished to send away Blessed Mary secretly: since he was, he says, just, and was unwilling to expose her, he wished to send her away secretly: so that from the fact that he was just, he wished to send her away; but from the fact that he did not wish to expose her, to defame her, he wished to send her away secretly. But why this, unless in order that he might provide for her honor? This indeed we are taught clearly enough by Matthew, who gives this reason for the secret sending away, as such: namely, because Joseph did not wish to expose her, that is, to defame her. Now, first, that can rightly seem to be affirmed: that this secret sending away, which Joseph was considering, was nothing other than his own secret departure from the Blessed Virgin. Indeed, first, that we may remove a scruple, consider, I ask, that these phrases can be equivalent to each other: to send away a wife, and to depart from her. The Apostle teaches us this (1 Cor. VII, 10, 11), where the same sense underlies these two verbs in these phrases: that a woman not depart from her husband, and that a man not send away a woman. This being posited, we say that, in this sending away which Joseph was considering, we must not think of any handing over of a bill of repudiation, or of an active sending away which would have had to be made by handing over a bill of repudiation. For the adverb secretly, attached to the sending away, sufficiently indicates that there is no speech of a sending away by a bill of repudiation. For even if this had been done among a few, say among relatives, or if the bill had been given secretly to the Virgin alone, nevertheless this act was of itself of public right; because it was a legitimate act, which could also be brought forward in a public judgment, wherefore the way was open to the exposure or defamation of the Virgin. Nor should you think that accidentally the bill could have remained hidden. To put off this opinion, consider the intrinsic circumstances of the fact. Namely, the Blessed Virgin did not enter marriage spontaneously, but by law, and by the same law she was bound to be joined to the nearest agnate; and therefore, if she married Joseph, she married him for this reason: because by law she pertained to him. Wherefore if Joseph had given Mary a bill of repudiation, it could not have happened that her relatives would not ask from him why he was casting Mary away or why he was unwilling to celebrate the nuptials; so that for this reason the matter easily would have been brought to public judgment. Joseph could not escape these troublesome questions unless by secretly withdrawing himself in flight into a distant region without a plan of return. Therefore, if Joseph wished to send Mary away secretly, not to expose her, he could only have thought of some departure from her.

If these things are proved, it is easy to proceed further and to pursue the argument in this manner. But the secret departure of Joseph could indeed have provided for the honor of the Virgin if it had been carried out after the nuptials, but by no means if before them. Therefore, since he wished to depart in order to provide for her honor, it must be said that the nuptials had already been completed when Joseph was thinking of the sending away or departure. Indeed, suppose the nuptials had not yet been entered into and Joseph had departed. When the offspring was brought forth by the Virgin before the nuptials, which had never been completed, the Virgin herself and the offspring would first have been exposed to the same disgrace which was spoken of in the former argument. Then the most holy Mother would have been exposed to a greater, indeed a greater disgrace. For others, seeing the offspring before the nuptials, and not seeing the spouse at all but understanding that he had gone away, since the question would spontaneously offer itself, "Why did the spouse (whose justice, besides, could have been known) depart while the nuptials were unfinished and not yet return?" would have thought themselves to have at least a probable argument for judging that he had for this reason left the bride: because he knew that she had conceived, but not from himself. Wherefore the departure of Joseph would rather have been a cause why the fame of the Virgin would undergo a more certain danger. On the contrary, if Joseph had departed after the nuptials, men could indeed have suspected evil concerning him, but not concerning the Mother, who would have given birth at a legitimate time; especially since then, no probable reason to the contrary existing, the fame of honesty which the Virgin enjoyed among her own would have exerted all its force for repelling any suspicion whatever. Joseph certainly weighed these things; wherefore, if he considered a sending away, choosing rather the loss of his own honor than of the honor of his wife, it must be said that he thought of departure from a married woman, and therefore that the nuptials, when he was thinking these things, had already been completed, and for that reason before the virginal conception (arg. 1).

To this returns the argument of Eusebius of Caesarea in the Questions on the Gospels, defending this very opinion (cf. Mai, New Collection of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, part 1, p. 2).

Finally, this too may be observed. When a daughter-heiress had to marry a near agnate, probably the leading of the bride into the house of the bridegroom was not deferred, but it happened immediately after the betrothal, or each at once lived together, especially if the mother of the daughter also was dead. For with whom did the betrothed daughter remain? If with relatives, why not with him to whom she had been betrothed? Will you say that Mary, betrothed, still remained in the temple under the care of the priests? You will compose that with greater difficulty with her going all the way to the house of Elizabeth. But we most probably believe that her mother was already dead.

VI. Thus far we have set forth the arguments of each side. Moreover the adversaries have nothing to reply directly to the arguments of the second, denying part, by which they truly satisfy them. For even they themselves concede that intercourse between spouses before the nuptials was illicit, nor do they know how to explain in what manner Joseph could have provided for the honor of the Virgin if he had sent her away while the nuptials were unfinished.

On the contrary, the arguments of those affirming seem to admit of a suitable solution. As regards the principal argument taken from the words receive Mary thy wife, and he received his wife, different persons respond differently (cf. De-Vit, cited work); to us this response seems sufficiently suitable. Namely, the adversaries argue as if, in Matthew, these words receive thy wife signified that act by which the marriage is completed, by which someone in the Old Testament was said to receive a wife or to receive someone to himself as wife. But that is what we deny. For the phrase in Matthew is: παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου; παρέλαβεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. The Latin interpreter indeed could not express the article; but certainly in Greek the article is not idle. Therefore we observe that it is one thing to receive some woman as wife, or as one's wife, or to oneself, εἰς γυναῖκα ἑαυτῷ; another thing to receive some woman (or, the name being expressed, Mary), τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ; just as in Italian it is one thing prendere Maria in sua consorte, another prendere Maria la sua consorte. This latter phrase, since the article can be resolved into a relative, is identical, as to sense, with this: prendere Maria, la quale e sua consorte. Therefore the words of the Angel yield this sense: do not fear to receive Mary, ἥτις ἐστὶ γυνή σου, who is thy wife; which certainly stands farthest away from the sense which would be expressed by this phrase: do not fear to receive Mary as thy wife. Therefore the sense of the words of the Archangel is this: do not fear to receive Mary, who is thy wife; not, however, this other: do not fear to receive Mary as thy wife.

The words of the Angel having thus been explained, it is clear, first, that the proper formula of entering marriage, to receive a wife, does not occur there; it is clear, secondly, that, on the contrary, it is supposed by the Angel that Mary is already the wife of Joseph: who is thy wife; and therefore from these very words especially an argument is elicited for the contrary opinion.

Nevertheless perhaps the difficulty is not yet solved; for another phrase remains to be explained: to receive Mary. For it is asked of what receiving there is speech here; nor does any other receiving seem able to be understood than that which was performed after espousals, so that for this reason that apposition τὴν γυναῖκά σου can signify thy bride, or she who is destined for thee as wife. But we deny that it is required by the context that the verb παραλαμβάνειν (which frequently has the same force as the simple λαμβάνειν) be interpreted of conjugal receiving. Namely, since there no longer occurs this expression: the receiving of a wife, or receiving as wife, but only the receiving of her who is wife, it is permitted to apply another interpretation which neither is repugnant to the word receive, nor extorts that sense which, if the preceding arguments are true, is certainly false. For this right belongs to disputants until the falsity of their opinion has been demonstrated. Therefore we observe that up to this point Joseph had done nothing externally, nor in any way had he broken off his relations with the Virgin by any external act. He was still turning over the whole matter in his mind, and his entire act had remained within (he wished to send her away, while he was thinking these things); so that by will indeed he had already sent away his wife, but this will had not proceeded to an external act. To Joseph thus disposed the Angel stands by, immediately addressing him, in order to remove him from that will. The command to receive is opposed to the will to desert; but because this was contained in the mind only, there was need of no other receiving than that by which that will would be put off: namely, a receiving of the mind is commanded, by which Joseph would approve his marriage and would wish to remain in it. "But what is it to receive? Surely to retain at home; for already he had sent her away in mind, but, he says, retain her though sent away." Thus Chrysostom, homily 4 on Matthew. But if this interpretation of the verb to receive seems to you less proper, remember that, when something absurd or certainly false would follow if the words were accepted in the proper sense, it is permitted to recede a little from the proper signification of the words.

The other arguments are less troublesome. For as regards that which is drawn from the words before they came together, since the adversaries themselves also teach that this verb συνελθεῖν sometimes occurs among the classical writers in the signification of marital intercourse, it is not repugnant that here too it was used in this sense. Certainly Jerome (on this place) accepted that word in this sense. Hence he denies that Mary and Joseph ever came together.

But to the first argument it may be answered, first, that it is not certain that Blessed Joseph was not a companion to his wife on the journey. For what if we say that, since he did not wish to be detained by his hosts, lest he be compelled to remain there for a long time, which perhaps his wife had already proposed, he sent her away before she herself entered the house? But at least he returned to receive her. Let us grant this too. Then therefore Elizabeth, congratulating him, signified to him the mystery of the Virgin. As you see, we are dealing in hypotheses. But this hypothesis, I think, rests upon a false foundation. For it is supposed that Elizabeth, in the manner of women, was desirous of making known the secret of the Lord. On the contrary, the care with which Elizabeth herself, after the conception of John (Luke I, 24), concealed the grace of God, and the silence of the Blessed Virgin herself toward her husband, show that they had learned from the Lord not to reveal to others the mysteries wrought in them, unless by some special reason they were moved to this by God himself, as happened when Mary greeted Elizabeth; and in that meeting it is not certain that other persons were present. The revelation of so great a mystery, which a human witness could not have confirmed, was being left to God. Therefore there was no reason why Elizabeth should manifest this to Joseph when he came to her ¹.

¹ Here the rashness of the more recent rationalist interpreter Heinrich Aug. Wilh. Meyer would have to be corrected; he, at chapter 1 of Matthew, v. 18, and again at chapter 1 of Luke, v. 38, observes that the narrative of Matthew concerning Joseph's doubt and the narrative of Luke concerning the Annunciation to Mary cannot be composed together, but that the one is excluded by the other, so that one or the other must be false. But why? Because, first, Mary would have acted psychologically against the nature of women by concealing from her husband the revelation received; and, secondly, she would also have behaved against her own duty, namely of wife to husband, by not manifesting to him a matter of such moment and one which concerned him so greatly. But if Mary had had to wait for God to reveal the mystery to Joseph, she ought to have been warned of this by the Angel.

Namely, 1. what the Most August Mother of God would do, who by supernatural perfection and holiness exceeds all men and Angels, is to be argued from the natural, and generally faulty, loquacity of women! 2. Who has ever numbered this also among the duties of a wife toward her husband: that one spouse is bound to manifest to the other those things which God immediately works in that spouse above the order of nature? But it concerned Joseph to know this. Certainly not on account of any right which belonged to Joseph to the knowledge of this mystery; for such a right would finally have been a right of man toward God acting in his own creature as it pleases him, a right demanding from God the manifestation of his works, which right is absurd enough. But it concerned Joseph to know this lest, without knowledge and without fault, he should attempt something which least of all befitted the divine Mother and her offspring. Namely he whose interest it was that Joseph know the mystery was God himself, in order that the work begun by him, according to the order of Providence freely established by him, might obtain a happy outcome. But in order that this should happen, it was enough to warn Joseph when doubt began to enter his mind. Nor, 3. was there need that Mary be taught by the Angel that knowledge of the mystery would be communicated from heaven to Joseph; for the most wise Virgin, imbued with the interior light of nature and grace, knew most certainly that God would do what the order of his Providence required. Therefore it was enough for her to commit herself to that same Providence with full confidence.

Besides, 4. this author did not see how inept is that which he supposes. Namely, he supposes that the narrative of the angelic colloquy made by Mary to Joseph ought to have repelled every doubt from the same. Certainly the Blessed Virgin did not think thus, and deservedly. For divine faith in this fact was necessary for Joseph, in order that he might execute the parts entrusted to him in that divine affair; but only divine testimony begets divine faith. Ought Joseph to have had such testimony from his wife alone, and did she herself have to believe that her testimony should be regarded as such by her husband? It is evident that unless God himself had made Joseph certain, there would never have been sufficient reason for him to believe that which had been divinely done in his wife. Therefore the most prudent Virgin acted most prudently in committing the whole matter to God.

But, secondly, what prevents us from believing that the Blessed Virgin, as wife, accomplished that journey without the company of her husband? Do the adversaries not wish that the Blessed Virgin, as betrothed, entered upon this journey alone? But if this was not unbecoming for one betrothed, why would it not be becoming for one married? But do not from this gather that the Blessed Virgin undertook the journey without any company; for a maidservant could have been at hand ². Perhaps you will object the poverty of the Virgin, with which domestic service does not agree well; which poverty you seem to learn from the offering of the same Virgin on the day of her purification (Luke II, 24), when those things are compared which are found in Lev. XII, 8; for it is certain that her hand did not find, nor could she offer, a lamb. But I wish you to observe that from Leviticus V, 11 itself it is clear that the condition of those who offered two turtledoves or two young doves was not the lowest among the Hebrews, but rather the middle one. And indeed there is reason why we should believe that the Blessed Virgin, a daughter-heiress for the whole inheritance (whose parents besides, if we apply faith to certain ancient narratives, were not without superfluous goods), had something in goods, since for this reason she married, that the goods of her father might be preserved in his family. But her husband sustained life by the carpenter's art. Say rather that he exercised the carpenter's art: that alone we know from the Gospel. For neither was the sole necessity of sustaining life the reason among the Hebrews why arts of this sort were exercised. For the Rabbis will teach you that, when after the captivity the Jews had given themselves to commerce, the usage prevailed among them that anyone, while he could, should learn some art. Therefore also in the age of Christ you will find some in the Scriptures exercising an art not more noble than the carpenter's art, whom without cause you would think to have been poor. Indeed you have Simon the tanner, with whom Peter is hosted (Acts X, 6); Alexander, probably an educated man, a coppersmith (2 Tim. IV, 14); Paul himself, who had spent his whole youth in learning the disciplines of the Hebrews, exercising the tentmaker's art, which he certainly did not need for the sustenance of life, and with him Aquila, with whom he remained as a guest (Acts XVIII, 2, 3). Therefore there is no reason why you should fear to assign a maidservant to the Blessed Virgin; and this was also the opinion of the mystical doctors of the preceding age (cf. in the Exercises of St. Ignatius, the Contemplation on the Nativity of Christ).

² The distinguished Hug (Gutachten über das Leben Jesu von Strauss, p. 86 seq., new edition) affirms that it was not permitted to daughters who were not yet under the power of a husband to undertake a long journey especially; but that a husband could grant the faculty, a companion from the relatives having been added.

Having weighed all these things, we incline to that opinion which affirms that the nuptials of the Blessed Virgin with St. Joseph were made before the conception of Christ. Far be it, however, that with the distinguished De-Vit we should desire that opinion, which we approve less, hereafter to be exiled from commentaries on the Scriptures. No private person has the right to punish with ostracism an opinion which most learned and most Catholic men maintain. But although your opinion may seem to you most probable (most probable, I say; for in questions of this sort the certitude which some boast is at the most nothing but a certain moral certitude, that is, a great or very great probability), it does not thence follow that the same will also seem so to the rest.