Joseph (husband of Mary)

← Encyclopedia

Joseph is the husband of Mary in the Christian Gospels, a craftsman of Nazareth remembered as the legal and foster father of Jesus, and venerated across most of Christianity as Saint Joseph. He is not the patriarch Joseph of the book of Genesis, the dreamer sold into Egypt; the two share only a name, though the later Joseph is also, pointedly, a man to whom God speaks in dreams. The coincidence is exact enough to have shaped how the later Joseph is read: a builder summoned by night-visions, set in motion toward Egypt, the second great dreamer of his line. He stands at a hinge of the Christian story — the man through whom Jesus is joined, by law and lineage, to the house of David, and the man who is conspicuously not the child’s natural father — and he carries that double office in near-total silence.

Guido Reni, “Saint Joseph and the Christ Child,” c. 1640 — Google Art Project, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

What the record holds

What the New Testament actually reports about him is sparse. He appears in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke and almost nowhere else, and the two evangelists hand him radically different roles. Matthew gives Joseph the active part and tells the whole story from his side. The two are betrothed — a binding first stage of marriage in the Jewish practice of the time, so that Mary is already legally Joseph’s wife though they have not yet lived together — when she is found to be with child. Joseph, whom Matthew calls a just man unwilling to expose her, resolves to dismiss her quietly, until an angel of the Lord turns him from that course in the first of his dreams, addressing him as son of David and telling him not to fear to take Mary as his wife, for the child is conceived of the Holy Spirit and is to be named Jesus. Three further dreams steer the household: a warning to flee with mother and child into Egypt before Herod’s slaughter of the children, word that it is safe to return once Herod is dead, and a final caution that redirects them away from Judaea to settle in Nazareth. In every scene Joseph rises and obeys without a word; the agency is his, the speech is the angel’s. Matthew’s Joseph is a figure of right action under instruction — the just man who does what he is shown and asks nothing.

Caravaggio, “Rest on the Flight into Egypt,” c. 1597, Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

Luke, by contrast, leaves Joseph almost wholly passive and reorders the geography. There is no dismissal, no dream, no flight; instead a census draws the couple from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the birth, and the family carries the infant to the Temple for the rites of presentation and purification. The two accounts converge only at the essentials they were each written to secure — that Jesus is born of a virgin and of David’s line — and they secure the second through Joseph. Both Gospels trace a royal genealogy through him to David, and both, in the same breath, withhold biological fatherhood. The descent runs by law, not by blood: in the Jewish frame a father’s acknowledgment made the child his own, and Joseph confers Davidic sonship precisely by naming the boy, the act Matthew’s angel commands. That two genealogies — Matthew’s descending from Abraham, Luke’s ascending to Adam — name different fathers for Joseph himself is an old difficulty; among the explanations canvassed by Raymond Brown is a levirate marriage in the line, though Brown treats the divergence as a sign that the lists are theological constructions before they are records of descent.

The trade attached to Joseph is itself less fixed than the English renders it. The Greek word the Gospels use, tektōn — applied to Jesus as “the carpenter” in Mark and to Joseph as “the carpenter” in Matthew’s hometown scene — names a worker in hard materials generally, in wood or in stone, a builder and artisan rather than a joiner specifically. In the stone-built villages of Galilee, where timber was scarce, the word may point as readily to a mason or a builder on the larger sites of the region as to a maker of yokes and doors. The exact craft is unrecoverable; what the word fixes is a man of the building trades, working with his hands.

Georges de La Tour, “Joseph the Carpenter,” c. 1642, Louvre, Paris — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

After the boyhood scene in the Temple — the twelve-year-old Jesus found among the teachers, and the family’s return to Nazareth where, Luke says, the child was obedient to them — Joseph disappears from the record entirely. He is absent at Cana, absent at the cross, never named again in any Gospel. The texts report no word he ever spoke and no account of his death; the early and persistent Christian assumption that he died before the public ministry is inference drawn from his silence, not narration. Out of that double absence — no recorded speech, no recorded end — grew one of his most enduring titles: patron of a peaceful death, the man held to have died with Jesus and Mary beside him, before the sorrow of the cross.

The portrait tradition supplied

Raphael, “The Marriage of the Virgin” (Sposalizio), 1504, Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan — Joseph holds the flowering rod that marked him out. Via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The fuller figure belongs to later tradition, and it begins with a single second-century text. The Protevangelium of James, composed around the year 145 and never received into the canon, supplies almost everything the Gospels omit: Mary’s parentage and childhood, her dedication in the Temple, and the choosing of her guardian. In its ninth chapter the high priest gathers the widowers of the people, each bringing a rod; a dove issues from Joseph’s rod and settles on his head, marking him out, and Joseph protests — in the translation of M. R. James — “I have sons, and I am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I become a laughing-stock to the children of Israel.” From that scene descends the whole iconographic Joseph: the aged widower, already a father, taken not as a husband in the ordinary sense but as Mary’s protector. The device is doctrinally load- bearing. By making Joseph old and his sons the children of an earlier marriage, the Protevangelium preserved Mary’s perpetual virginity while accounting for the “brothers of Jesus” named in the Gospels.

That last problem became one of the long fault-lines of Christian reading, and the three classic answers are still distinguished by the names of their fourth- century proponents. The Helvidian view, after the writer Helvidius whom Jerome answered, holds that the brothers were the natural children of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus — the reading most modern exegetes favor, and the one toward which much Protestant interpretation leans in taking the Gospel data at face value. The Epiphanian view, after Epiphanius of Salamis, makes them Joseph’s sons by a prior marriage, the position the Eastern churches have generally held and the one the Protevangelium dramatizes. The Hieronymian view, after Jerome, construes the brothers as cousins and became the standard Western Catholic answer. The three turn on questions left genuinely open by the texts — Joseph’s age, the sense of the Greek adelphoi, the scope of Mary’s virginity — and the churches that divide over them have never agreed which the Gospels intend.

The dreamer of the New Testament

The shared name with the Genesis patriarch is not the only thing that binds the two Josephs; both are men whom God reaches in sleep, and the later tradition read them together.

Philippe de Champaigne, “The Dream of Saint Joseph,” c. 1642–43, National Gallery, London — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The Latin schoolmen who debated whether dreams could carry divine truth set Joseph the husband of Mary among the small company of biblical dreamers — beside the patriarch in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon — whose visions were taken as the warrant that God may genuinely speak by night. The dream is the hinge of Matthew’s whole infancy account: four times an angel addresses Joseph asleep, and four times he wakes and acts, so that the survival of the child turns on a sleeping man’s obedience to what he is shown. Augustine, sorting visions in the twelfth book of his commentary on Genesis, granted that God instructs through dreams while denying that the dreamer can verify any one of them unaided; Gregory the Great, in the fiftieth chapter of the fourth book of his Dialogues, sorted dreams by their causes and ranked divine revelation highest among them; Thomas Aquinas, asking in the Summa Theologiae whether divination by dreams is unlawful, listed the dream-interpreting holy men of scripture among the cases that any account of licit dreaming had to admit. Across that long argument Joseph’s four dreams stood as the New Testament’s clearest instance of the highest category — the dream that is plainly God’s word and is simply to be obeyed.

Texts and scholarship

The whole of Joseph rests on a handful of verses, and the scholarship is correspondingly concentrated on the infancy narratives that contain them. The standard study is Raymond E. Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (rev. ed., New York: Doubleday, 1993; reissued in the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library), which treats Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2 together as theological compositions and works out, among much else, how Joseph confers Davidic descent by legal rather than biological fatherhood and how the two divergent genealogies are to be read; the work’s standing is reflected in the cataloged editions and apparatus that have followed it. On the trade, the brief Greek word tektōn and what it implies about a Galilean builder is reassessed in Matthew K. Robinson’s study of Jesus’s vocation in Mark 6:3, which collects the evidence that the term names a worker in wood, stone, or metal without settling the specific craft.

The non-canonical material has its own textual tradition. The Protevangelium of James survives in numerous Greek manuscripts and early versions; the classic English rendering is M. R. James’s in The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), and its account of Joseph the aged widower is the source of the dominant Western iconography. The decree by which Pius IX named Joseph Patron of the Universal Church, Quemadmodum Deus of 8 December 1870, is the foundational document of the modern cult and the model for the later magisterial texts on Joseph, down to Leo XIII’s encyclical Quamquam Pluries (1889) and John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation Redemptoris Custos (1989). For the older legendary and theological strata — the apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter, the medieval office and sermons, the slow rise of the March feast — the primary witnesses are scattered across patristic, liturgical, and apocryphal collections rather than gathered in a single critical corpus.

Cult and patronage

From the elderly, just guardian of the apocryphal tradition grew the medieval and modern cult of the silent laborer. Devotion to Joseph spread slowly in the Latin West — far behind the cult of the Virgin, and slower still than the cults of the apostles and martyrs — and gathered force only in the later Middle Ages, carried forward by mendicant preachers and by writers such as Jean Gerson, who in the early fifteenth century campaigned for a feast in his honor. His commemoration on 19 March was extended to the universal Roman calendar in 1621 under Gregory XV. The image that consolidated alongside the feast was the Protevangelium’s: an aged, bearded man, often shown apart or asleep, holding a flowering staff in memory of the budded rod — present at the nativity and the flight, then withdrawn from the scene.

The modern centuries raised him sharply. On 8 December 1870, by the decree Quemadmodum Deus issued through the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Pius IX proclaimed Joseph Patron of the Universal Church and elevated his March feast to the highest rank; Leo XIII’s encyclical Quamquam Pluries of 1889 developed the theology of his guardianship, and a century later John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation Redemptoris Custos (1989) took the same title — guardian of the Redeemer — for its theme. In 1955 Pius XII added a second observance, Saint Joseph the Worker, on 1 May, deliberately set over against the secular labor festivals of that date and binding the carpenter of Nazareth to the dignity of work itself. Around these feasts cluster his patronages: of workers and craftsmen, of fathers and of families, of the dying and of a holy death, and of the Church entire. The Eastern churches, which keep his memory on the Sunday after the Nativity among the ancestors of God, and the Protestant traditions, which retain him in the nativity story but not in a cult, mark him more soberly; the elaborate devotional Joseph is largely a Latin growth.

Historically, almost nothing about the man can be established. The historical- critical reading, of which Brown’s commentary is the standard example, treats the infancy narratives as theological compositions rather than reportage — written to locate Jesus within David’s line and to assert a virginal conception — so that the figure of Joseph functions within that argument as much as he preserves the memory of an actual carpenter. The devotional tradition ran the other way. A man defined in scripture by obedience and silence drew to himself, over fifteen centuries, the offices of provider, protector, and exemplary father, until the least-quoted figure of the nativity stood at the head of the Holy Family, his craft made an emblem of honored work and his quiet end the pattern of a good death.

The Gospels give him no recorded word. The tradition gave him the rest.

→ Related: Andrew The Apostle · Guardian Angel · Christianity · New Testament · David · Mary · Jesus Christ · Holy Spirit · Gabriel · St Matthew · Apocrypha · Nicodemus · Philip The Apostle · Thomas Aquinas