Joseph, Being a Just Man (Matt 1:19)

Author(s): ANGELO TOSATO

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4 (October, 1979), pp. 547-551
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43715606
Accessed: 30-09-2016 01:59 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 144.173.6.94 on Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Joseph, Being a Just Man
(Matt 1:19)

ANGELO TOSATO*
Pontificia Universitas Lateranensis
S. Giovanni in Laterano 4
I -001 84 Roma

The discussion of Matt 1:19 in Raymond Brown's recently published

book on the gospel infancy narratives1 and in Myles Bourke's interesting
review of this important work,2 suggests the desirability of some words of
clarification which hopefully will contribute towards a better understanding
of this text.
Matt 1:19 reads: 'I(oaf|(p 5e ó avrļp aòifjç, Síicaioç <öv Kai pr ' GéXcov
aòxf|v SEiYjaaiíaai, eßot)XT10r| Xá0pa anoXvaai auiīļv. The RSV translates:
"And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to
shame, resolved to send her away quietly."
The fact leading up to Matt 1 : 19 is clear: Mary, Joseph's betrothed, even
before she had begun to live with him, is found to be with child (Matt 1:18).
According to the text of Matt 1:19, the moral-juridical situation in which her
husband finds himself is less clear.3 Joseph, "being a just man," that is an

*1 would like to thank my friend Fearghas Ó Fearghail, who has contributed a great deal to
this study, bringing to my notice Raymond Brown's book and the review of it by Myles Bourke,
and exhorting me to put in writing the fruit of repeated exchanges of ideas.
1 R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in
Matthew and Luke (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977).
2 CBQ 40 (1978) 120-24.
3 A fundamental premise for the understanding of this text is that of taking the text as it is.
It does not help to force the elementary meaning of the terms. Therefore: a. dikaios - "a just
man," in the sense of God-fearing (cf. Matt 1 :20: mē phobēthfs), viz. a conscientious observer of

547

This content downloaded from 144.173.6.94 on Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 548 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 41, 1979

observer of the law, is faced with an alternative: he must either expose his
betrothed to public trial or public shame (course of action rejected), or he
must divorce her secretly (course of action preferred).
Until the contrary is shown, we must presume that our author (Matthew
or pre-Matthew) is aware of written and oral Jewish matrimonial law and has
outlined Joseph's position accurately. It is our task to discover that law with
the help of biblical and extra-biblical writings, and, in the light of our
findings, to clarify the gospel text.
The case of a woman's lack of fidelity to her betrothed in the period of
time between the stipulation of the marriage contract and the consummation
of the marriage is treated in Deut 22:23-27.4 Two cases are distinguished: that
of seduction (vv 23-24) and that of violation (vv 25-27). In the first case the
woman is consenting; seducer and seduced are both reckoned to be guilty and
are liable to death. In the second case the woman is not consenting; the
violator is guilty and is, therefore, liable to death. The violated woman is an
innocent victim and is exempt from punishment. Furthermore, a criterion is
adduced to assess the guilt or the innocence of the parties in concrete cases. If
the crime takes place in the city, seduction is presumed because the crying out
of the woman would have been heard; if in the country, violence is presumed
because the crying out of the woman would not have been heard. More than
that is not specified.
This deuteronomic text is quoted in the Qumran Temple Scroll with a
brief addition that aims to improve the criterion for distinguishing between
seduction and violence. The biblical expression "in the country" ( b'sdh , Deut
22:25) is to be understood in the sense of "in a place far-away and hidden from
the city" ( bmqwm rhwq wstr mh'yr, 1 lQTemple 66:4-5).

the divine commandments; see G. Schrenk, "Dikaios" TWNT2 (1935) 184-93; S. Liebermann,
Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942) 69-7 1 ; D.
Hill, "A Note on Matthew 1, 19," Exp Tim 76 (1964-65) 133-34; b. kai = "and," not "but" as in
R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 127-28; c. deigmatizein = "to exhibit," "to expose," here:
citing before a court; see H. Schlier, "Deigmatizõ" TWNT2 (1935) 31-32; d. apolyein - "to
repudiate," "to divorce;" see J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New
Palestinian Evidence," TS 37 (1976) 212-13.
4 Notin Deut 22: 13-21 nor in Deut 22:20-21 as R.E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah, 127)
cites it. This law concerns the wife who, having begun to live with her husband, is accused by him
of not having been found in a virginal state. Philo (Spec. Leg. 79-82) and Josephus (Ant 4.8.23
§§246-48) also understand it in this way. Nor is the present case treated in Deut 22:23-24, as
"others" say, according to M.M. Bourke (CBQAO [1978] 121); see e.g. Str-B 1.51-53. The norm
goes from v 23 to v 27. One cannot take vv 23-24 in isolation. This leads to a misunderstanding of
the norm's significance. The scribe of the Temple Scroll does not leave a space between the norm
concerning the seduced betrothed (Deut 22:23-24; cf. 1 lQTemple 66: 1-4) and the norm concern-
ing the violated betrothed (Deut 22:25-27; cf. 1 lQTemple 66:4-8); see Y. Yadin, The Temple
Scroll (Jerusalem: 1977) 2.208-09; 3. pl. 81.

This content downloaded from 144.173.6.94 on Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 1:19 549

Philo treats the same norm at length {Spec. Leg. 3.72-78). In his v
geographical criterion is insufficient for a just evaluation of the facts
could occur within the city and seduction outside it. The positio
woman, therefore, "demands careful inquiry from the judge who m
make everything turn upon the scene of the act."5
No other indications emerge from the ancient versions apart from
Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 22:26 which in the case of violence decrees in confor
the biblical text, "To the young woman you shall do nothing; there is
attributable to the young woman which is punishable by death.
added, however, "But the husband shall divorce her with a bill of
('Ihn gbť yptrynh mnyh bgyt*).6 This last provision reflects the an
mishnaic halakah of more rigorous Palestinian religious circles.7
circles, norms of particular sanctity, applicable originally only to th
caste, were extended to all Israelites. In actual fact, the betrothed w
has been violated is juridically designated as zona (= "prostitute"

5 Spec. Leg. 3.77, according to the translation of F. H. Colson, LCL, 7.52 1 . See
Ant 4.8.23 §§251-52 and Sipre Deut 22:27.
6 Lit. "But the husband shall send her away from himself." The Polyglot o
translates into Latin, sed vir dimittet earn a se libello repudii.
1 Tg. Ps.-J. contains material of different origin and date; see R. Le Déaut, Intr
la littérature targumique (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1966) 89-101 . But its h
which are in contrast to those of the Mishnah are very likely premishnaic; see, h
statements of Ř. Le Déaut ( Introduction , 173-75). Compare, for example, Tg. Ps.-
with m. Meg. 4:9. In our specific case, the norm of Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 22:26 (the Is
divorce his betrothed who has been violated) contrasts with that of m. Ketub. 4:8 (only
not the ordinary Israelite, has this obligation). The antiquity of this law is guarant
Jewish texts of the pre-Christian era: Jub. 33:7-9; 41:20; lQapGen 20:15. The first
33:7-9) concerns Jacob and Bilhah, his wife-slave, with whom Reuben treachero
intercourse. It reads: "And when Jacob returned and sought her, she said unto him
clean for thee, for I have been defiled as regards thee; for Reuben has defiled me, and
me in the night, and I was asleep, and did not discover until he uncovered my skirt an
me. . . . And Jacob did not approach her again because Reuben had defiled her" {A
see L. Finkelstein, "The Book of Jubilees and the Rabbinic Halaka," HTR 16 (19
Tamar and Shelah are concerned in the second text ( Jub 41:20). By a subterfug
intercourse with Judah, her father-in-law, and she becomes pregnant by him.
partially justified because she acted to save a right which was hers. By the law of levir
to be given in marriage to Shelah, the third son of Judah. But now, since she has had
with Judah, "For that reason she was not given to Shelah" (A POT, 2.72). Cf. th
consequence of the act in Gen 38:26: "And he (= Judah) did not lie with her again." The
(lQapGen 20: 15) concerns Sarah and Abraham. The Pharaoh has taken Sarah fro
(20:9, 1 1 , 14) to make her his wife (20:9, 27). Abraham asks God for help and prays: "
be able to defile my wife away from me tonight" (w'l yslt blyly' dn Itm' 'ntty mn
explains F. Rosenthal (J NES 18 [1959] 83) "to make my wife unclean for me." S
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (BibOr 18 A; 2d ed.; Ro
Institute, 197 1) 62-67, 1 30-33. In these three texts, therefore, the halakah of Tg. Ps.-
is assumed: the married woman, who has been violated by a third person is, by this

This content downloaded from 144.173.6.94 on Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 550 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 41, 1979

who has had an illegitimate relationship, viz. a relationship of "prostitution"

( zènût ). And according to biblical and mishnaic law she is still permitted to be
the wife of an ordinary Israelite; a priest on the contrary is forbidden to marry
her.8
In the light of this regulation (also in its more rigorous extension), it is
evident that by the law itself the pregnancy of Mary can signify two very
different things: she has either been seduced or she has been violated. Only if
the first case is verified can she be morally and juridically designated (insofar
as she is consenting) as an adulteress. Until the facts are established by trial,
however, she is only a suspected adulteress.9
How is a husband to behave towards his wife whom he suspects of
adultery? The fundamental principle is that she, as in the case of an established
adulteress, cannot be retained as a wife by her husband.10 Only afterwards,
and on condition that suspicion of adultery has been removed, can she be
taken back by her husband. This is permitted by the less rigorous halakah
received in the Mishnah (see ra. Sota 4:4), but is forbidden by the halakah of
the more rigorous circles. The question then arises as to how the suspicion of
adultery can be resolved. For the husband and wife who are already living
together, the procedure is that of the "water of bitterness."1 1 In the case of the
husband and wife who have not yet begun to live together, as in the case of
Joseph and Mary, the procedure known to us is that implied by Deut
22:23-27. 12 It was not obligatory, however, to resolve the suspicion of adultery
(see ra. Sota 1:3; 3:6; 4,2). It should be borne in mind that in the initiation of

precluded for ever from her husband. Confirmation of the antiquity and importance of this
halakah may be found in the Mishnah itself: br'swnh hyw 'wmrym sis rìsym yws 'wt wnwtlwt ktbh
h'wmrt tm'h 'ny Ik. . . (m. Ned. 11:12). "Beforetime they used to say: There are three women that
must be put away yet they may take their ketubah: such that say, *1 am unclean to thee . . .*" ( The
Mishnah [trans. H. Danby, London: Oxford 1933] 280). See Ch. Albeck-Ch. Yalon, ššh sdry
mšnh (Jerusalem/ Tel Aviv, 1952-58) 3.369; M. A. Friedman, "The Ransom Clause of the Jewish
Marriage Contract," Gratz College Anniversary Volume (ed. I.D. Passow and S.T. Lachs;
Philadelphia: Gratz College, 1971) 68-69.
8 Lev 21:7, 14; m. Ketub. 4:8; Sipre Num 5:13; cf. b. Ketub. 51b. Josephus appears to
contradict himself: in Ant. 3. 1 2.2 §276, the "prostitute" is forbidden only to priests; in Ant. 4.8.23
§245, she is forbidden also to the ordinary Israelite.
9 There does not appear to be sufficient evidence to affirm, as does R.E. Brown ( The Birth
of the Messiah, 127), that Joseph "assumes that she has been unfaithful," and neither is it
necessary to raise the question of whether "many today might be offended by the thought that
Joseph could regard Mary as an adulteress."
10 m. Sota 5:1: thus R. 'Aqiba, but so also R. Zechariah b. ha-Kazzab (c. 10-80 a.D.). See
m.Ned. 11:12 ; m. Yebam. 2:8; Sipre Num 5: 14, 28 (cf. m. Sota 6:3); Sipre Deut 24:4; Tg. Ket. Qoh
7:26.
11 See Num 5:1 1-31 and the tractate m. Sota.
12 Not that of the "water of bitterness"; see m. Sota 4:1, correctly referred by to M.M.
Bourke ( CBQ 40 [1978] 122).

This content downloaded from 144.173.6.94 on Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 1:19 551

such a defamatory process, the husband's intention was not so mu

resume or to begin cohabitation, as to accuse the woman and to li
himself from her after having obtained public "satisfaction" (hopefully
out of having to pay the kètûbbâ ; cf. ra. Sota 4:2). 13 If the husba
humanitarian grounds did not wish to have recourse to the public autho
and thereby expose his wife to public disgrace,14 he had to proceed wit
divorce on his own initiative and pay the kètûbbâ. This obligation is im
not only by the more rigorous halakah, but also by the less rigorous.
At this point we can return to Matt 1:19. "Being a just man," J
cannot now take Mary as his wife. "And not wishing to expose her," i.e.
wishing to subject her to the shameful trial of the suspected adulter
"decided to divorce her in secret," i.e., without public trial, takin
himself the responsibility of the act of divorce. With the exclusion of th
solution, only the second remains for him. The angel, by removiň
suspicion of adultery and of violence, makes Mary acceptable to her hus
"Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, because tha
is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit" (Matt 1:20).

13 This is particularly evident if the husband is living in accordance with the more rig
halakah.

14 For instance, through a desire to share in what could have been a drama sutiered in
silence because of a sense of shame.

This content downloaded from 144.173.6.94 on Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms