Pontifical Theological Faculty of St. Mary’s University
THE VIRGINITY OF SAINT JOSEPH IN THE LATIN FATHERS AND MEDIEVAL ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS
Fr. Florent Raymond Bilodeau
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology - St. Mary’s University, Baltimore, Maryland.
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Licentiate in Sacred Theology
St. Mary’s University - Baltimore, Maryland - 1957
Transcribed by Ray from a photocopy of the original dissertation provided by
THE KNOTT LIBRARY - ST. MARY’S SEMINARY & UNIVERSITY - 5400 ROLAND AVENUE - BALTIMORE, MD 21210
For non-commercial use -
With the permission of St. Mary’s Seminary & University, May 2003
Saint
Joseph has often been called “the hidden saint.” Indeed, we know very little about his life. The gospels, those of Matthew and Luke in particular, contain two short accounts concerning his mission. The Fathers present us with brief and scattered explanations of the gospel accounts. The early medieval ecclesiastical writers devote a little more space to him. However, it is only in the late Middle Ages that we find works which treat of Saint Joseph ex professo.
Why then
was scant attention given to this great saint for so long a period
of time? Various reasons are adduced. It seems that this obscurity
was required by the very nature of his mission. His vocation
consisted mainly in protecting and supporting Mary and the Christ
Child during the years which preceded the public life of Our
Lord. God had willed that Saint Joseph’s mission take place during the period of Christ’s hidden life. When Jesus began His public ministry, Saint Joseph’s position as the supposed natural father of Jesus had served its purpose. Also, the early Fathers speak of Joseph only occasionally and with restraint, because the special relationship existing between Joseph, Mary and Jesus could not be emphasized without endangering the dogmas of the faith. In fact, despite the comparatively infrequent assertions of the Fathers concerning Saint Joseph’s fatherhood, we find heretical groups such as the Ebionites, and men such as Cerinthius and Carpocrates stating that Joseph was the carnal father of Jesus. Still another reason is that the heresies in the early Church attacked the fundamental doctrines of Christianity: the divinity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity. It was necessary for the Fathers to concentrate on the essentials, that is, repel the attacks against the more important dogmas of faith. The truths which were not of immediate importance, such as those pertaining to Saint Joseph, were kept in the background.
One striking
fact, however, is that whenever the Fathers speak of Jesus and
Mary and their relationship, they point out Joseph’s place as the husband of Mary and the father of Jesus. Now, from these two facts flows the theology of Saint Joseph: Joseph is authentically the father of the Son of God; Joseph is Mary’s
husband, the guardian and the protector of the Holy Family, which
is an image of the Church.[1] Because of
his Position as head of the Holy Family, theologians deduce his
prerogatives: his holiness, his great dignity, his purity, etc.
This is well expressed in Leo XIII’s encyclical on Saint Joseph, “Quamquam Pluries” (August 15, 1889), the largest papal document on this saint: “For
he (Joseph) indeed, was the husband of Mary and the father, as
was supposed, of Jesus Christ. From this arise all his dignity,
grace, holiness, and. Glory.”[2]
Saint
Joseph’s role as the protector of the Holy Family was extended to the whole Church. On December 8, 1870, Pius IX declared Saint Joseph “Patron
of the Universal Church.”[3] His patronage thus extends to all persons and to every group or class of persons in the Church: husbands, fathers, the rich, the poor, and especially the workers. With regard to this last group, Benedict XV, on July 25, 1920, issued a special “Motu Proprio”pointing
out Saint Joseph as the patron of workmen.[4]
One may ask what is the relation of Saint Joseph’s virginity, the subject of this paper, to the theology of Saint Joseph. Strange as it may seem, the question of Saint Joseph’s virginity is closely linked to his union with Mary. In fact a study of this marriage gives rise to two questions: the virginity of Mary and Joseph’s virginity. The former is not within the scope of this work. Suffice it to say that it is of faith that Mary was perpetually a virgin.[5] The second question is the subject of this essay. Our aim is to show that there is a basis in the Latin Fathers and Medieval ecclesiastical writers for the almost universal belief among the faithful that Joseph was perpetually a virgin.
Our work is limited to the writings of the Latin Fathers and to the more important Medieval ecclesiastical writers. Material from the Greek Fathers will be used at times as corroborative evidence. We will treat of the ecclesiastical writers up to Saint Thomas inclusively. One who is acquainted with the existing literature on Saint Joseph may be tempted to ask why this investigation should end at this point, when, in fact, it seems that it is precisely after Saint Thomas, in the late Middle Ages, that we find the greater part of the documents concerning this saint. Men such as Gerson, Bernardine of Siena, Isidore Isolani, and many others of this period wrote works which not only indirectly treated of Saint Joseph, but were primarily intended to spread devotion to this great saint. We may answer that, as far as our subject is concerned, Saint Thomas and his master, Saint Albert the Great, stand out in a unique way. The position of Saint Thomas especially may be described as one wherein the thought of his predecessors is crystallized and the consent of his successors prepared. [6]
The question
of Joseph’s virginity is diffuse. The Fathers and the ecclesiastical writers refer to it here and there in their commentaries on the first and second chapters of Matthew and Luke and in their explanations of the problem of the “brethren of the Lord.” As we have mentioned before, the Fathers were occupied with the refutation of errors which attacked the very roots of Christianity. Often the true state of their mind on the question of Joseph’s virginity is hard to determine. Many of their texts are not clear on the subject. At any rate, we can see from their writings that the idea of Joseph’s virginity was in the back of their minds: something perhaps that many took for granted or found unnecessary to speak about more explicitly.
In this
paper we shall first give the scriptural basis for Joseph’s
virginity: the gospel texts related to this question, and the
notion of virginity as applied to him. Secondly, we shall present
the testimony of the Latin Fathers. Thirdly, we will give evidence
from Medieval ecclesiastical writers. A synthesis of this question
and a theological evaluation of it will conclude this work.
CHAPTER I
THE VIRGINITY OF SAINT JOSEPH:
A. SCRIPTURAL “BASIS”
Sacred Scripture has no direct reference to the question of Saint Joseph’s virginity. It does, however, bring out the fact that Joseph, while being the true father of the Son of God and the husband of Mary, is certainly not the natural father of Jesus. Indirectly it shows that the union between Mary and Joseph, while a true marriage, was primarily virginal.
As
a preliminary to this question, it may be wise to say that the
scriptural source of direct information concerning Saint Joseph
is limited to the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. The last
one has only two references to the saint.[7] So
we have to look to the accounts of Matthew and Luke for our treatment
of the question of Saint Joseph’s virginity.[8]
In fact, apart from a few comparisons taken from texts of the Old Testament, [9] and ideas drawn from the Apocrypha, the above two gospels
will constitute, for the Latin Fathers and, later ecclesiastical
writers, the main sources of information on Saint Joseph, at
least on his virginity.
As we have said before, the union between Mary and Joseph was a true marriage, but primarily virginal. Luke’s entire account is replete with the words “his parents” and. “they.”[10] Joseph is called the “husband of Mary,”[11] the father of Jesus and Jesus is the “Son of Joseph.”[12] Words such as these point to the fact that this union was a true marriage. In contrast to this, Scripture brings out the point that this marriage was free from all intercourse. It appears clearly that Joseph had no relations with Mary, at least up to and including the birth of Christ: “He did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn son.” [13] Mary’s virginity is indirectly affirmed in Matthew’s quotation of the prophecy of Isaias: “Behold the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son; and they shall call his name Emmanuel.”[14] Mary is also “a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph of the house of David.”[15] It appears also from their accounts that Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus:
And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ.[16]
Now the origin of Christ was in this wise. When Mary his mother had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.[17]
These
assertions are given strength when we see the Evangelist refer
to Jesus as the “supposed son of Joseph”: “And they kept saying, ‘is this not Jesus the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know? How then does he say, “I have come down from heaven”?’”[18]
The above
texts and references are not adduced as clear indications of
Joseph’s virginity. As we have stated at the beginning
of this chapter, their value consists mainly in bringing out
the idea of a virginal marriage: a thought frequently in the
minds of the Fathers when they speak of Joseph and Mary.
B. NOTICE AND USE OF THE TERM “VIRGINITY”
We have
used many a time the word “virginity” in connection with Mary and Joseph. What is meant precisely, when we predicate the term “virgin” of a person? We
shall attempt briefly to bring out the meaning of this term and
to determine its precise use in this dissertation.
Perhaps
this is the first idea that comes to mind when we see the term “virgin”: an unmarried woman or a person, man or woman, who has not had sexual intercourse. The word “virgin,” as an adjective, may also mean something pure, fresh, unsullied, unadulterated, undefiled. Virginity, the state of being a virgin, may be either internal or external. These two elements are brought out in Saint Augustine’s definition of virginity: “Virginity
is continence by which the integrity of the flesh is preserved,
consecrated, and vowed to the very Creator of the body and the
soul.”[19]
Here
Augustine brings out the idea that virginity involves the preservation
of the integrity of the flesh. This external virginity is referred to by theologians as material virginity. It is verified when one abstains from all venereal pleasure. It consists in keeping “the
natural condition of physiological integrity with which we are
born into the world.” [20] Material
virginity is lost by sexual intercourse (even if it is licit),
by the sin of pollution, or finally, in women, by a voluntary
or accidental act which causes the breaking of the hymen.
Augustine’s definition brings out another idea. In virginity, the integrity of the flesh is consecrated and vowed to God the Creator of the body and soul. This idea of Augustine’s implies the general theological notion of formal virginity, and also two other ideas intimately bound up with the above notion: the virtue of virginity and the vow of virginity. Formal or internal virginity consists in the “firm
determination of the will to perpetually abstain from all venereal
pleasure, even from those acts which are licit in marriage.” [21] When this determination of the will is supernaturalized, we have the virtue of virginity. Saint Thomas brings this out clearly.[22] He also states that the virtue of virginity implies the vow of virginity.[23] The
words “preserve, consecrate, and vow” of Augustine’s
definition thus summarize the basic notions in the concept of
virginity.
Augustine
refers to virginity as continence. Here he is using the latter term in a specific sense. Continence usually means the battle that the mind wages against all the sensible and inordinate impulses of the flesh. It
can, however, designate virginity, in so far as it is concerned
with the repulsion of the more violent desires of the flesh.[24] Virginity also differs from chastity (even perfect chastity)
in that “virginity must be preserved perpetually, while
chastity, even perfect, can be observed by him who consented
beforehand to carnal pleasure.” [25] It is important
to remember that the word “virginity” of itself implies the notion of perpetuity; however, at times it may denote only a period of one’s
life.
In this
paper the term “virginity,” when predicated of Saint Joseph, will denote external or bodily virginity, at least in the statements of the Latin Fathers. Here we mean: that natural condition of physiological integrity with which men are born into the world and which is lost by sexual intercourse either licit or illicit. However, when certain Medieval and later ecclesiastical writers speak of Joseph’s
vow of virginity or of his resolve to remain a virgin, then it
is evident that the term refers to formal or internal virginity.[26] With
these basic notions in mind, we can now proceed to the core of
our dissertation.
CHAPTER II
EVIDENCE FROM THE LATIN FATHERS OF THE CHURCH
We find
no general tradition in the Latin Fathers on the question of
Saint Joseph’s virginity. In fact, the material on Saint Joseph in their writings is comparatively scant. Very
few speak at any length on this saint.[27] Our information,
save a few scattered references, is practically confined to Saints
Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine. Refutation of heretics, sermons, scriptural commentaries, especially on Luke and Matthew, make up the general area from which knowledge pertaining to Saint Joseph may be obtained. On the specific question of Joseph’s virginity, their writings bring out four points with varying degrees of clarity: 1) Joseph did not generate Jesus. 2)
He never had intercourse with Mary. 3) He was not married before
his betrothal to Mary. 4) He always remained a virgin.
A. JOSEPH
NOT THE NATURAL FATHER OF JESUS
Joseph
certainly did not beget Jesus. This is the unanimous opinion
of the Fathers.[28] Not that most of them specifically mention Joseph with
regard to this point, but they exclude the possibility of his
having been the natural father of Jesus when they proclaim the
divinity of Christ and assert that Mary was a virgin “in partu.”That
Joseph did not generate Jesus is clearly stated in many places
by Saint Ambrose, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine and not a few
Greek Fathers.
Saint Ambrose (d. 397) restates in a more pointed manner Saint Luke’s idea that the belief that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus was limited to the Jews of that period:
First of all no one should be surprised at the text, ‘who was thought to be the son of Joseph’. [29] For rightly was this just a supposition because by birth (Christ) was not (the son of Joseph); but the supposition existed because Mary who had brought Him forth was espoused to ‘Joseph her husband.’[30]
Saint Jerome (331-420) brings out the idea that the reason why Joseph was called the father of Jesus was to protect Mary’s reputation:
The
Evangelists call Joseph a father, Mary calls him ‘father.’ Not that he had been truly the father of Jesus, but that he was thus considered by all in order to safeguard Mary’s
reputation.[31]
Many
comparisons are drawn between Mary’s motherhood and Joseph’s fatherhood: “just
as Mary is virginally the mother, so also is Joseph virginally
the father.”[32] Mary abstained from fleshly pleasure, Joseph likewise.[33] What the Holy Spirit has done for Mary with regard to the birth of Christ, this also He has done for Joseph.[34]
Again,
Augustine (354-430), in an analysis of Joseph’s fatherhood, brings out the idea that the husband of Mary is not the natural father of Jesus, though he is the true father of the Son of God. One
can be a father without physical generation.[35] Joseph is father by love, not by the flesh.[36] The
genealogies make of Joseph a true father, but not one according
to the flesh.[37] Augustine’s Sermo 51 is replete with assertions that Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus.[38]
There is no need to dwell any longer on this point; it is clearly asserted in the Fathers.
B. JOSEPH A VIRGIN WHILE WITH MARY
Another
prominent idea with regard to the question of Joseph’s
virginity, is the often repeated assertion that he had no relations
with Mary.[39] Indeed this statement is clear from the
fact that the Fathers emphasize Mary’s perpetual virginity;
but it is interesting to see how they bring out this idea.
Jerome
states that Joseph would not have dared to violate “a temple
of God, a swelling place of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his
Lord.”[40] Ambrose says that “Joseph, a just
man, would not have spread this folly that he had sexual relations
with the Mother of the Lord.”[41] In the
next chapter, he comments on the words of Ezechiel: “It
will not be opened and it will be closed:”[42]
It will not be opened by him to whom she was espoused, it will not be permitted, in fact, that she through whom the Lord will pass be opened. And after Him (Christ), it will be closed, that is, Joseph will not open it.
Saint Gregory the Great and many other Fathers refer to this saint as the “guardian and protector of Mary’s inviolate virginity.”[44]
However, it is the great Saint Augustine who gives us the most information on this subject. His aim is to bring out more clearly an idea which we have already seen in our analysis of the scriptural references pertaining to Saint Joseph: the marriage between Joseph and Mary, though a true marriage, was virginal. Augustine uses the very expression “virginal
marriage.”[45] He states that such a union is just as much a marriage as one in which sexual relations take place. Joseph’s and Mary’s
marriage in which charity reigned instead of intercourse is thus
a true marriage.[46] In another
work, he states that is possible for spouses to decide to abstain
forever from the use of carnal concupiscence. Then the conjugal bond would not be dissolved, but rather strengthened because of the purer love and the absence of the desire for carnal pleasure. Such,
he concludes, was the case regarding the marriage of Mary and
Joseph.[47] In many other places, Augustine brings out this same idea of a true marriage, but one free from intercourse.[48]
He also gives us statements which would indicate that Joseph’s virginal chastity transcended the virginal marriage with Mary. Some passages would lead us to conclude that Joseph not only never knew Mary during her entire life, but also had no relations with any other woman, at least from the time of his betrothal to Mary. After
stating the idea that the marriage of Mary and Joseph, a virginal
union, is nonetheless a real marriage, Augustine draws the following
conclusion:
Thus every good of marriage was fulfilled in the parents of Christ: offspring, loyalty, and the sacrament. We recognize the offspring in Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself; the loyalty, in that no adultery occurred; and the sacrament (that is, the indissolubility) because of no divorce.
Showing Saint Joseph as an example of a man who did not despise servile work, Augustine tells a group of monks that “this just man chosen to be a witness of perpetual conjugal virginity, he to whom was espoused the Virgin Mary, who brought forth Christ, was a carpenter.”
After saying that Saint Joseph could not possibly have broken the bond of marriage when he saw that Mary was pregnant, Saint Augustine adds that Joseph “did not judge the bond of conjugal faith to be broken thus because the hope of sexual intercourse was absent.” Augustine also eulogizes Joseph’s great purity:
Let his greater purity confirm his fatherhood; let not holy Mary reprimand us, for she was unwilling to place her name before that of her husband, but said, ‘Thy father and I have been seeking thee sorrowing.’ Therefore, let not perverse murmurers do what the virginal wife did not do. Let us count (the generations of Christ) through Joseph, because as he was a virginal (chaste) husband, so was he a virginal (chaste) father.
Another text, supposedly of Augustine, gives us the idea that Joseph was a virgin:
Preserve, O Joseph, together with Mary your wife, the virginity of your members, for out of virginal members is begotten the power of angels. Let the spouse Mary be the mother of Christ in the flesh, by preserving her virginity; you, however, are also to be the father of Christ by safeguarding her chastity and honor.
C. “BRETHREN
OF THE LORD”
So far we have but expressed in greater detail, and with more precision two ideas from the gospels: Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus, and his marriage with Mary was a virginal union. One would logically ask whether or not the Latin Fathers speak of Joseph’s life before he was betrothed to the Blessed Virgin. Here many Fathers and ecclesiastical writers denied Joseph’s virginity by their declarations that the “brethren of the Lord” were his children from a former marriage. They are Origen, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Theophylact, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary of Poitiers. This list, at first sight, seems to outweigh the evidence we have just presented. However, a closer look at the statements of these men gives us a different impression. First of all it is important to note that most of them, save Ambrose and Hilary of Poitiers, were Greek Fathers. The Eastern Fathers were highly influenced by the Apocrypha, a group of writings of a religious character which at times made pretensions to divine authority. These writings elaborate on Saint Joseph. Very little of what they say is of historical value. The Apocrypha, however, are significant in that they represent an attempt to supplement the comparatively few details of the gospels on the subject of the hidden life. They attest to the fact that devotion to Saint Joseph was alive in the first centuries. All of them, save the gospel of the Nativity of Mary, ascribe to Saint Joseph children from a former marriage.
Under the influence of these spurious writings, many subscribed to the idea that the “brethren of the Lord” were the children of Joseph by a previous wife. It is important to note that none are emphatic in holding this point. They adopt it because it is an easy solution to the thorny question of explaining the relationship between Our Lord and His so-called “brothers,” James, Joseph, Simon and Jude. Another reason why they take up this view is to safeguard the perpetual virginity of Mary. Origen (185-253), for instance, states that it is precisely in order to protect Mary’s virginity, that some call the “brethren of the Lord” sons of Joseph:
Induced by the report of the Gospel named after Peter or the Book of James, some affirm that the ‘brethren of Jesus’ are sons of Joseph by a former wife whom he wedded before Mary. However, those who make this assertion ultimately wish to safeguard the dignity of Mary’s virginity in order that the body chosen to minister to the Word… might never know man’s consortship.[58]
Ambrose incidentally alludes to the “brethren of the Lord” as being most probably the sons of Joseph, but he finds ample proof of Mary’s virginity in the fact that the word “brother” can also signify “cousin”:
The ‘brethren of the Lord’could
have been born from Joseph and not from Mary. This indeed anyone will find if he looks at the question more diligently. We
have not thought to investigate those things because the
name “brother”is evidently common to many.
In another work Ambrose alludes to the same idea: the “brethren of the Lord” are the sons of Joseph by a previous wife, then he indicates the reason for his statement: the protection of Mary’s virginity:
Some
people, guided by stupidity, make the impious assertion that
these are the true brothers of the Lord and that they were
born from Mary, since, as they say, Joseph was not called
the true father of the Lord.[60]
This statement is difficult to understand clearly. It seems to signify that some believe that, because Joseph is not called the true father of the Lord, the “brethren of the Lord” then had to be born of Mary. In any event, the idea is sufficiently brought out that Ambrose denies Joseph’s virginity only to protect Mary’s.
Saint Jerome, with his usual directness and energy, refutes the tales of the Aprocrypha and says that the Scriptures indicate that the word “brethren” signifies “cousin”:
Certain people who follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, fancy that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ are the sons of Joseph from another wife and invent a certain woman, Melcha or Escha. As is contained in the book which we wrote against Helvidius, we understand as ‘brethren of the Lord,’ not the sons of Joseph, but the cousins of the Savior, children of Mary – The Lord’s maternal aunt – who is said to be the mother of James the Less and Joseph and Jude, who as we read, were called ‘brethren of the Lord’ in another passage of the gospel. Indeed all Scripture indicates that ‘cousins’ are called ‘brethren.’
As he mentioned in the above text, Jerome does show that in scriptural usage “brethren” may refer to “cousins.” He adduces many examples from both the Old and New Testaments to illustrate this point: notably the idea that Abraham is called the brother of Lot while we know that the latter was his nephew, and the fact that James and Jude, two of the ‘brethren of the Lord,’ are clearly referred to in the gospel of Saint Mark as sons of Mary who is evidently the sister of the Blessed Virgin. He also shows by means of examples taken from the Scripture, that the word “till” designates a length of time up to which a condition shall continue, prescinding from all notion of change thereafter. He then adds that the word “firstborn” merely refers to the male child who opens the womb, not necessarily to him who has brothers. From the preceding evidence we can accept the general conclusion of Jerome: the “brethren of the Lord” were not sons of Joseph either before or after he was betrothed to Mary.
D. JOSEPH ALWAYS A VIRGIN
Jerome, in what is without doubt the greatest tribute paid to Joseph’s virginity in the writings of the Fathers, emphatically asserts that Joseph remained a virgin just as Mary did:
But just as we do not deny what is written, we do reject what is not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe because we read it. That Mary consummated marriage after her childbirth we do not believe because we do not read it. Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage, for virginity is itself a fruit of marriage, but because there is no license to draw rash conclusions about holy men. For if we wish to take the mere possibility
into consideration, we can contend that Joseph had several
wives because Abraham and Jacob had several wives and that
from these wives, the ‘brethren of the Lord’were
born, a fiction which most people invent with not so much pious
as presumptuous audacity. You say that Mary did not remain a virgin; even more do I claim that Joseph was virginal through Mary, in order that from a virginal marriage a virginal son might be born. For if the charge of fornication does not fall on this holy man, and if it is not written that he had another wife, and if he was more of a protector than a husband of Mary, whom he was thought to have as his wife, it remains to assert that he who merited to be called the father of the Lord remained virginal with her.
Though this text does not explicitly mention that Joseph was always a virgin, this idea can be easily deduced. Saint Jerome affirms that a first marriage from which would have been born the “brethren of the Lord” is pure fable. Of a third marriage no one thinks: “It is not written that he had another wife.” Virginity can be lost outside of marriage by a sin of impurity; but this again is excluded by Jerome’s text: “the charge of fornication does not fall upon this holy man,” and also by the gospels which call Joseph “a just man,” and finally by the very nature of his mission as the guardian of the Son of God and of His Mother.
What can be concluded from the evidence we have just presented on Saint Joseph’s virginity? Since there is no general tradition on this point in the Western Fathers, certainly no comprehensive argument can be drawn. Our information basically stems from Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine. Can we conclude that they believed that Joseph had always remained a virgin, that is, that he maintained physiological integrity?
The three Fathers just mentioned do bring out the idea that Joseph was perfectly chaste from the time he was betrothed to Mary until his death. This they do by continually repeating the idea that he was not the natural or carnal father of Jesus, and that his union with Mary was virginal. It is also implied that no impurity took place outside of this marriage, a fact that appears more clearly from the very nature of his mission, and from the gospel expression, “a just man,” which is attributed to him. The gospels and some ecclesiastical writers lead us to believe that he died within this virginal union. Thus the possibility of a marriage after the one with the Blessed Virgin is excluded.
As to the period preceding the betrothal to Mary, the evidence in favor of Joseph’s virginity is very weak because of the apocryphal influence on the Fathers with regard to the question of the “brethren of the Lord.” Jerome certainly did not. There is a possibility that Augustine may have subscribed to that opinion. His statements on this point are not clear. Yet when the amount of evidence he gives in favor of Joseph’s virginity is considered, it seems safe to say that he probably held the opinion that Saint Joseph was not the father of the “brethren of the Lord.”
As a final note on this question, we can safely say that Jerome did believe the Joseph always remained a virgin, Ambrose clearly did not, and Augustine probably shared Jerome’s view.
However, it remains for the Medieval ecclesiastical writers to give us more precise information on this subject. The preceding statements of the Fathers are important, notonly in themselves, but because they will serve as grounds for more definite assertions on the question of Saint Joseph’s virginity.
Chapter III
Testimony from the Medieval Ecclesiastical Writers
During this period (circa 600-1300), as we would expect, the attention given to Saint Joseph stems mainly from texts of Saints Jerome and Augustine. These writers speak of Augustine’s idea that the marriage between Mary and Joseph was a perfect marriage, one without divorce and fornication. However, the ideas of Jerome with regard to this question have a greater influence. These men adopt his solution of the question of the “brethren of the Lord” and emphasize his idea that Joseph “remained a virgin.” From these two points, they deduce that Saint Joseph was perpetually a virgin.
In general the ideas on this question during this period may be thus summarized: 1) Joseph’s virginity is compared to Mary’s: just as Mary is a virgin so also is Joseph. 2) It isthe general belief of the Church that Joseph was a virgin. 3) Joseph and Mary both made a vow of virginity.
A. JOSEPH’S VIRGINITY COMPARED TO MARY’S
Many writers of this period draw comparisons between Joseph’s virginity and that of Mary: as Mary preserved virginity, so also did Joseph. In some instances this idea is not clearly brought out, but it can be seen or at least certainly deduced from the statements of these writers. One such example is Venerable Bede (673-735), who constitutes a fitting transition or link between the Fathers and Medieval ecclesiastical writers. He tells us that “not only the Blessed Mother of God, but also the most holy witness and guardian of her chastity remained free from absolutely all marital acts.” By itself this statement does not necessarily show that Joseph was a virgin all his life. However, after reading the context, one is led to draw this conclusion, for we see that Bede has just excluded the possibility of the “brethren of the Lord” as children of Joseph from a former wife, and the possibility of his having had other children from Mary. He then adopts and develops Jerome’s solution of this problem: the “brethren of the Lord” are not truly brothers and sisters, but cousins:
There were indeed heretics who thought Joseph, the husband of the ever Virgin Mary, had generated from another wife those whom Scripture calls the ‘brethren of the Lord.’ Others, with still more cunning, thought that he (Joseph) would have given birth to others from Mary herself after the birth of the Lord. But, my dearest brethren, without any fear on this question, we must know and confess that not only the Blessed Mother of God, but also the most holy witness and guardian of her chastity, remained free from absolutely all marital acts; in scriptural usage, the ‘brothers and sisters of the Lord’ are called, not their children (of Mary and Joseph), but their relatives.
Alcuin (735-804) repeats this statement of Venerable Bede practically verbatim when commenting on the gospels of Matthew and John.
Rabanus Maurus (d. 856) also takes over and amplifies Jerome’s interpretation of the “brethren of the Lord”: they are cousins and not children of Joseph. Then he adds: “Catholic devotion teaches and it must be admitted that the parents of Our Lord were always endowed with an unspoiled virginity.”
From this statement and in the light of his ideas on the “brethren of the Lord,” we can reasonably conclude that he believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and Joseph. The words, “Catholic piety teaches and it must be admitted,” show that this belief was widespread, and perhaps universal, in the ninth century.
Abelard (1079-1142) tells us that “Joseph, as Saint Jerome recalled, remained a virgin, just as his spouse did.” Peter Comestor (d. 1179) brings out the same idea: “Joseph remained a virgin with a virgin.” Peter Lombard (1100-1160) repeats Augustine’s idea that the marriage between Joseph and Mary was a perfect union: one wherein loyalty reigned, one without divorce or conjugal intercourse.
B. BELIEF OF THE CHURCH THAT JOSEPH WAS A VIRGIN
Saint Peter Damian (988-1072) took up the idea of Rabanus Maurus, that is was the belief of Catholics that Joseph and Mary were virgins, but expressed it more directly. After stating that Christ had become man, not in the respectability of marriage, but in the closed womb of a virgin, he adds: “And if it does not suffice for you that not only the mother is a virgin, there remains the belief of the Church that he who served as the father is also a virgin.”
Hugh of Saint Victor (1100-1141) appeals to the general belief that Joseph was a virgin as proof that he was not the father of the “brethren of the Lord.” Commenting on the verse, “I saw none other of the Apostles except James the brother of the Lord,” he says:
Not a few affirm that he was thus called the brother of the Lord, because he was the son of Joseph, the putative father of the Lord, by another wife: but this is not a proven fact, since Joseph is believed to have been a virgin; therefore another solution must be sought.
Then he gives Jerome’s solution to the problem of the “brethren of the Lord.” In his commentary on Galatians, Peter Lombard (d. 1160) repeats the statement of Hugh of Saint Victor in very similar language.
C. JOSEPH AND MARY BOTH MADE A VOW OF VIRGINITY
Saint Albert the Great (1206-1280) brings out a new idea on Joseph’s virginity, one which will be repeated by later theologians, among whom is his disciple Saint Thomas Aquinas: Joseph and Mary both made a vow of virginity. Albert the Great mentions this more than once. He looks at the vow of virginity of Mary and Joseph as a “conditio sine qua non” for the virginity of this union, an idea that was to be repeated often by later theologians. He brings out this idea very well in his explanation of the words “Mother, Jesus, Mary and Joseph.” Under the name “Joseph” he writes:
Here is the fourth name which deserves the homage of virtue, because she (Mary) was espoused to the just Joseph, but not united to him in concupiscence. Reflect also on the vow of virginity of both these spouses, for it is stated that the angel was sent by God to a virgin espoused to a man named Joseph. And this is said because she was found to be with child before they were united. Since therefore she had been espoused before this was revealed to her, that is since she had been entrusted to his care, as the Fathers repeat, up to the time when, because of her physical condition, she was found to be with child, this union would not have continued unless, by mutual consent, they had already made a vow of virginity.
Albert the Great looked upon Joseph’s virginity as only one of his virtues, as a necessary ornament of his holiness. He refers to Joseph as the “dux virginitatis conjugis.” In other places he states that Joseph made a vow of perpetual chastity, an expression which he seems to use as practically synonymous with the expression, “vow of virginity.” In the text, he uses those two phrases interchangeably.
In a general way, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the disciple of Saint Albert the Great, summarizes the opinions we have seen throughout this paper on the question of Joseph’s virginity.
When commenting on the texts of Saint Augustine, he does emphatically state that Joseph had absolutely no relations with Mary. However, he does not express his opinions as to whether or not Augustine’s statements, by themselves, warrant the conclusion that this virginity covered the entire period of Joseph’s life. This can be seen in many of the Angelic Doctor’s statements, such as this one:
We must answer to the second objection that Saint Joseph, as St. Augustine says (De Nup. Et Concup. Lib. I), called the Mother of God his wife only because of the promise of marriage that they had given one another, even though he had never known her, nor was he ever to do so.
However, when he comments on Saint Jerome’s text, he sees in it a clear indication that Joseph was always a virgin:
With regard to Saint Joseph, as Saint Jerome states (Contra Helvid. c. 19), we must rather believe that he remained a virgin, because we see nowhere that he had another wife and because a saint does not succumb to fornication.
The above statement, with its context, gives us a general evaluation of the greater part of the evidence we have presented on the question of St. Joseph’s virginity. Implied in that text are three ideas: 1) There is no evidence for the idea that the “brethren of the Lord” are sons of Joseph from a former wife. 2) Saint Joseph had absolutely no relations with Mary (this from the context; see 3, q. 28, a 3, ad 2; Opera 11, 524). 3) It is fitting that Saint Joseph be virgin because of his holiness and dignity.
This third point, an argument of fitness, is expressed by Saint Thomas more directly in one of his other works. His argument is that if Our Lord, when dying on the cross, required that it be a virgin, Saint John, who was to take care of His mother after his death, how much more fitting would it not be that he who was chosen to be the spouse of Mary be also a virgin and remain one.
Saint Thomas also repeats the affirmation of his predecessor, that both Mary and Joseph made a vow of virginity. Saint Thomas answers in the affirmative. Then he adds:
It is not believed that the Mother of God made an absolute vow of virginity before her espousal to Saint Joseph… However, after her marriage, in accordance with the customs of her day, together with her husband, she made a vow of virginity.
Further on in the same article, he insists that both Mary and Joseph made this vow.
D. LATE MEDIEVAL, MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY CONSPECTUS ON THIS QUESTION
The preceding opinions of Saint Thomas and of his teacher, Saint Albert the Great, will serve as the basis for further speculations on this question. Their ideas will be repeated and developed by later theologians. We shall now give a brief resumé of what we believe to be the main ideas on this question from the thirteenth century to the twentieth.
The ecclesiastical writers of the end of the Middle Ages and theologians of the Modern Period had more to say about Saint Joseph. Men such as Jean Gerson, Bernardine of Siena, Isidore Isolani, Suarez, and Saint Francis of Sales, contributed much to the development of the theology of Saint Joseph. They upheld the doctrine of Joseph’s perpetual virginity. Most of them said that his virginity was strengthened with a vow. In any case, they look upon Joseph’s virginity as necessary to protect that of Mary. Here they only bring out more clearly what had been implied in the works of Albert the Great and of others. Suarez, Saint Francis of Sales, and Bossuet give us good illustrations of this view.
After saying that the Holy Spirit had protected the union of Mary and Joseph in everything, especially in this “re gravissima,” that is, with regard to virginity, Suarez adds: “By the same revelation, the Blessed Virgin understood that her spouse had freely consented to perpetual virginity, in order that no harm would come to the protection of her own virginity.”
Saint Francis of Sales brings out the idea that both Joseph and Mary made a vow of virginity in order to help one another in their marriage:
Both had vowed to remain virgins all their lives; and now God wants them to be united through the bond of a holy marriage, not in order that they break their promise or repent of their vow, but that they be strengthened and help one another to persevere in their holy endeavor; that is why they renewed their vow of living virginally for their whole lives.
He also refers to Mary as a virginal tower which is reinforced with incorruptible wood, a beautiful figure from the Canticle of Canticles illustrating the protective role of the virginal Joseph over his virgin spouse.
Coupled with this view that Joseph’s virginity was necessary to protect that of Mary is the idea that such a doctrine is also very fitting because of the holiness of Saint Joseph and the dignity of his mission. This view, implied in Saint Thomas, was taken up by men such as Gerson, Suarez, Francis of Sales, and others. It is the basis of the contemporary opinion on the virginity of Saint Joseph.
Today, whenever theologians speak of Saint Joseph’s prerogatives, they include his perpetual virginity. Many reasons are given for this truth, almost all of them are arguments of fitness. Thus Mueller says that we should believe that Joseph was always a virgin because of the high value placed on virginity by Jesus and Mary, who always remained virgins, and because of the eminent dignity of Saint Joseph which flows from his most intimate association with our Savior.
Cardinal Lépicier sees a good indication of the fittingness of this doctrine in the analogy of the virginal disciple, an argument introduced by Saint Thomas: “As Christ dying (on the cross) did not entrust His mother to any man save a virgin (Saint John), so also God had to provide for her no spouse except a virgin.” His reason for this opinion is that the preservation of Mary’s virginity required a vow of perpetual virginity on Joseph’s part.
Louis d’Argentan and others say that both made a vow of perpetual virginity in order to protect one another’s virginity. Later on, he repeats Gerson’s idea that the Holy Family on earth was an image of the virginal Trinity in Heaven.
Other writers want to draw an argument from Sacred Scripture. They deduce it from Mary’s question: “How shall this happen since I do not know man?” Her question, they say, would be meaningless unless, as Catholic tradition holds, she made a previous compact with Joseph, unless, by a revelation from above, or from her intimate acquaintance with Joseph, she had been assured that her virginity would in no way be endangered.
In our mind Scheeben sums up very well the reasons given today for the virginity of Saint Joseph. After saying that the doctrine of Joseph’s perpetual virginity could not be defined because it lacks dogmatic evidence, he immediately adds:
It
certainly may be presumed, partly from the sublime
vocation of Joseph and the analogy with the virginal
disciple who was assigned a similar and close relationship
to Christ and Mary, partly from the fact that the
virginal marriage of Joseph with Mary required
from him also a vow of virginity. The latter indicates a virginal inclination which ruled his whole life.[98]
CONCLUSION
From the preceding evidence given for Saint Joseph’s perpetual virginity, one necessarily notices that the arguments in favor of this doctrine involve two factors: 1) They show that Joseph was a virgin during all the time that he lived with Mary. 2) They adduce conclusive evidence that he was not the father of the “brethren of the Lord.” Both these factors, taken separately, are clear, especially the first one. However, when put together they do not constitute a very conclusive proof, because of certain secondary aspects entering into the question. Did Joseph die before Mary? Could he not have lost his virginity in another way?
Very few of the statements we have adduced take all the different possibilities into consideration. However, all these different aspects are excluded at one time or another, so that, as a whole, we have good evidence for the opinion that Joseph was always a virgin. It seems that, as time went on, these two factors were united and included under specific declarations that Saint Joseph always remained a virgin.
These two factors stand out as separate, especially in the Fathers, where the argument in favor of Saint Joseph’s virginity is mainly negative. In the writings of the few Latin Fathers who speak about him, it appears that Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus, that he never had intercourse with Mary, and that he was not married before his betrothal to Mary. Saint Jerome’s assertions, of themselves, bring out his perpetual virginity.
It is to be noted that the Fathers keep very close to Holy Scripture. Their ideas that the marriage between Mary and Joseph was a virginal union, a perfect marriage, and that the “brethren of the Lord” were cousins are nothing more than the clearer expression of what is definitely implied in Holy Scripture.
Taken by themselves, the statements of the Medieval ecclesiastical writers do not present a very clear proof. They must be interpreted in the light of their contexts. Thus the statements comparing Joseph’s virginity to Mary’s or declaring that such a doctrine is the general belief among the faithful, and affirmation that Joseph made a vow of virginity, must be joined to the view of these writers on the question of the “brethren of the Lord.” Then we see that when these men said that Joseph was a virgin, their assertions included Joseph’s entire life.
It is only with the late Medieval and Modern ecclesiastical writers that the argument is clearly formulated: Joseph was always a virgin; he had to remain a virgin in order to protect Mary’s virginity. Such a doctrine is also very fitting because of the holiness and dignity of Saint Joseph, which flow from his mission as spouse of the Blessed Virgin and foster father of Jesus. This is also the argument presented today.
It must be remembered that comparatively little attention was given to this question till the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Modern Period. The Latin Fathers and the Medieval ecclesiastical writers were concerned with more timely problems. Often Saint Joseph’s virginity is mentioned, but not given further thought. Yet it seems pretty clear that such a belief was in existence among these men who reflect the mind of the people to a great extent.
How then would one classify this doctrine theologically? There is indeed nothing defined on Saint Joseph’s virginity. In fact, the pronouncements of the Holy See say nothing bearing directly on this question. Now and again papal encyclicals refer to Saint Joseph as “the most chaste spouse of Mary,” and as a “witness of her virginity.” He is also called “the patron of virgins.”
We may safely say, with regard to Saint Joseph’s perpetual virginity, that today it would be rash to deny this doctrine or to speak against it. However, as Durand points out, not one theologian has ever claimed that this was a dogma of faith or even a doctrine that could be defined. We can also say that, on this point, there is no general tradition which clearly reaches back to antiquity. Indeed over a period as long as the one covered, the statements are comparatively few and far apart. However, there is a basis for this doctrine in the writings of the Latin Fathers and ecclesiastical writers.
If we were to characterize the teaching in favor of Joseph’s virginity, perhaps the best note we could give to this doctrine is that it is at least very probable. The basis for this statement is Tradition, which includes not only the writings of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, but also, and perhaps more so, the belief of the faithful, which, since the time of Peter Damian, has become more and more pronounced in favor of this opinion. Thus, today, this opinion has gained “all but the universal agreement of theologians.” They present many a reason for accepting this belief: in particular, the virginal marriage of Mary and Joseph, the near impossibility of the hypothesis that the “brethren of the Lord” are son of Joseph, and especially the dignity and holiness of Saint Joseph which flow from his mission as spouse of the Blessed Virgin and foster father of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mueller’s view gives us a good outlook on the question of Joseph’s virginity. After stating that the Fathers and later theologians have data from which Saint Joseph’s virginity can be deduced, he concludes his discussion in this manner:
When due consideration is given to all these strikingly significant facts -- the high value placed upon virginity by Jesus and Mary, the eminent dignity of St. Joseph because of his most intimate association with our Savior, the Godman, who Himself was a virgin, and the Virgin Mother of God -- must it not then appear most unlikely, an utter anomaly, if in spite of all this, St. Joseph did not also share in this prerogative of perpetual virginity? Thus it came to pass that this belief in St. Joseph’s perpetual virginity has worked its way finally to its general acceptance by Catholic Theology and by the joyful willing faith of the Catholic people.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES
Abelard, Sermones et opuscula ascetica, Sermo 1, In annunciatione Beatae Virginis Mariae, ML 178, 382A
Albert the Great, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, Opera Omnia, ed. By Prost and Gigaud, Lyons, 1651, IX
Alcuin, Commentaria in sancti Joannis evangelium, ML 100, 771-772.
Ambrose, Homilia in Lucam, ML 15, 1589.
________, De institutione virginis, ML 16. 315, 317, 320
________, Commentaria in epistolam ad Galatas, ML 17, 344.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas, Opera Omnia, ed. By Fretté, Paris, 1876, XXI
________, Summa theologica, ed. By Drioux, Paris, 1861, X, XI.
Augustine, Contra Faustum, ML 42, 214.
________, Contra Julianum Pelagianum, ML 44. 810, 811.
________, De consensus evangelistarum, ML 34, 1071.
________, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, ML 44, 421-422.
________, De opera monachorum, ML 40, 560.
________, De sancta virginitate, ML 40. 397, 398, 400, 428.
________, Sermo 51, ML 38, 338-351.
________, Sermo 195, ML 39, 2110.
Basil, Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem, MG 31, 1462-1463
Bede, In sancti Joannis evangelium exposition, ML 92, 662C-D.
________, In Marci evangelium exposition, ML 92, 185A.
Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne, Premier panégyrique de saint Joseph, Oeuvres oratories, ed. By Lebarq, Paris, 1891, II.
Chrysostom, Homiliae 4, 5 in Matthaeum, MG 57, 47, 58.
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in Joannem, MG 73, 636-637.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 7 de Petre, MG 33, 615.
De Sales, François, Entretiens spirituals, Oeuvres de saint François de Sales, ed. By Nierat, Annecy, 1895, VI.
Epiphanius, Adversus haereses, MG 41. 386-407, 429, 707, 907.
Gregory of Nyssa, In resurrectione Christi, MG 46, 647.
Gregory the Great, Homilia 26, ML 76 1201
________, Moralium, bk. 5, ML 75, 856.
Haymo of Halberstadt, Homilia 13, Dominica infra octavam nativitate Domini, ML 118, 83C-D.
Hilary of Poitiers, Commentarius in Matthaeum, ML 9, 922.
Hugh of St. Victor, Quaestiones et decisiones in epistolam ad Galatas, ML 175, 555C
Jerome, Adversus Helvidium, ML 23, 183-211.
________, Commentaria in Matthaeum, ML 26, 88.
Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, MG 6, 658.
Origen, Commentarius in Matthaeum, MG 13. 875, 877-878.
Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 175, ML 52, 657B.
Peter Comestor, Historia scholastica, bk. 1, ML 198, 1539A.
Peter Damian, Opusculum 17, De coelibatu sacerdotum, ML 145, 384
________, Testimonium veteris testamenti in Cantica Canticorum, ML 145, 1145B
Peter Lombard, Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas, ML 192, 101C.
________, Sententiarum, bk. 5, De ecclesiasticis sacramentis, ML 192, 1107C.
Rabanus Maurus, Commentarius in Matthaeum, ML 107, 753B.
Rupert of Deutz, Commentarius in Cantica Canticorum, bk. 2, ML 168, 871D
Suarez, Franciscus, De mysteriis vitae Christi, Opera Omnia, ed. By Berton, Paris, 1866, XIX.
Theodoret, Interpretatio epistolae ad Galatas, MG 82, 468.
Theophylact, Enarratio in evangelium Matthaei, MG 193. 293-294, 968.
WORKS:
Books:
Carol, Juniper B., O.F.M., Fundamentals of Mariology, New York, Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1956.
Cayré, F., A.A., Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, tr. By H. Howitt, Paris, Desclée, 1940, I and II.
D’Argentan, L.F., Conférences théologiques et spirituelles sur les grandeurs de las sainte Vierge, Paris, Périsse, frères, 1858, I.
Denziger, Henricus, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum, et declarationum de rebus fidei, et morum, tr. By Roy J. Deferrari, St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., 1957.
Filas, Francis J., S.J. Joseph and Jesus, A Theological Study of Their Relationship, Milwaukee, the Bruce Publishing Company, 1952.
________, The Man Nearest to Christ, Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Co., 1944.
Guillon, Marie-Nicholas-Sylvestre, Bibliothèque choisie des Pères de l’Eglise Grecque et Latine, Bruxelles, Mequignon-Harvard, 1830, XX.
Lépicier, Alexio Maria, O.S.M., Tractatus de sancto Joseph, Sponso Beatissimae Mariae Virginis, Paris, P. Lethellieux, 1908.
Masson, A.L., Jean Gerson, sa vie, son temps, ses oeuvres, Lyons, Librairie générale Catholique et classique, 1894.
Merkelbach, Pater Fr. Ben., O.P., Quaestiones de castitate et luxuria, Rome, Marietti, 1926.
Michel, C., and Peeters, P., Evangiles apocryphes, Textes et documents pour l’étude historique du Christianisme, ed. By Hemmer and Lejay, Paris, Librairie Alphonse Picard et fils, 1911, I.
Mueller, Joseph, S.J., The Fatherhood of Saint Joseph, tr. By Athanasius Dengler, O.S.B., St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., 1952.
Rondet, Henri, Saint Joseph, tr. By Donald Attwater, New York, P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1956.
Scheeben, M.J., Mariology, tr. By T.L. Geukers, St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., 1946, I
Schmid, Bernard, O.S.B., Manual of Patrology, St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., 1903.
Tanquerey, Ad., Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, 27 ed., Paris, Desclée, 1944, II.
Tillemont, D., Mémoires pour server à l’histoire ecclésiastique du dix premiers siècles, Paris, ed. By Robustel, 1692, I.
Thompson, Edward A., The Life and Glories of St. Joseph, New York, Burns and Oates, Ltd., 1888.
Articles:
Blanco, M., O.P. “Virginidad de San José,” Ideales, 26 (1927) pp. 202-218
Collins, John J., S.J., “Our Lady’s Vow of Virginity,” Catholic Bible Quarterly, 5(1943) pp. 371-380
Durand, Alfred, “Frères du Seigneur,” Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi Catholique, 2 (1911) cols. 131-148.
Ginns, R., O.P. “Varia,” Revue biblique, 8 (1906) pp. 505-506.
Holzmeister, U., “Quaestiones Biblicae de Sancto Joseph,” Verbum Domini, 24 (1944) pp. 33-183.
________, “De Nuptiis Sancti Joseph,” Verbum Domini, 19 (1939) pp. 70-75.
Lagrange, M.J., O.P. “Varia,” Revue biblique, 8 (1906) pp. 505-506.
Leclercq, H., “Saint Joseph,” Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, 7 (1927) cols. 2656-2666.
Michel, A., “Saint Joseph,” Dictionnaire de théologie Catholique, 8 (1924) cols. 1510-1521.
________, “Jesus-Christ,” D.T.C., 8 (1924) cols. 1156-1170.
Rondet, Henri, S.J., “Saint Joseph et la théologie sur saint Joseph,” </
