Joseph, Saint

JOSEPH, Saint. - Husband of the Virgin Mary and foster father of Jesus (Heb. Jōsēph, apocopated form of Jēhōsēph, "May Yahweh increase"; Gk. Ἰωσήρ, Lat. Ioseph, Iosephus), a preeminent figure in the history of the infancy of Jesus, which centers on him. The few certain facts about him are reported in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, and a few other fleeting mentions are found in the Gospels. Of far lesser importance are the accounts of the Apocrypha, because of their markedly legendary character: but they have had a broad influence on tradition and on art.

I. IN HOLY SCRIPTURE

The name of St. J. appears in the genealogy of Christ as a direct descendant of David (Mt. 1:16), hence "son of David" (Mt. 1:20; cf. Lk. 2:4; 3:23 ff.), a messianic title that he legitimately transmitted to his legal Son, Jesus (v. JESUS CHRIST, genealogy).

Among the circumstances mentioned by Luke in the account of the Annunciation, the most important is that Mary, at the moment of the angelic message, was a virgin and at the same time bound to Joseph, betrothed (Lk. 1:27). Matthew attests the same (1:18), when he relates J.'s distress at the signs of his spouse's motherhood. Up to that moment was the Virgin "married" or only "betrothed" to J.? (the term desponsata, like the corresponding Italian "sposata," readily lends itself to both meanings). The answer of tradition is not unanimous: the Greeks, for the most part, speak of betrothal; the Latins, on the other hand, almost all admit that the nuptials had already been celebrated, with cohabitation in effect. But a careful exegesis of the Gospel text (Mt. 1:18-23) allows this second interpretation to be excluded. J., unaware of the mystery and troubled at the sight of his spouse become a mother, thinks of sending her away secretly (that is, giving her a regular bill of repudiation, but without publicity, cf. ibid. 1:19): at this point the Angel appears to him, who reveals the mystery of the virginal Conception, and enjoins him to "take with him Mary, his spouse": J. promptly obeys, and "takes with him (παρέλαβεν) his spouse" (ibid. 1:20-24). By these words is indicated the concluding act of the marriage contract among the Hebrews, which comprised two distinct moments: the promise (betrothal) and the introduction of the spouse into the house of the spouse, which ordinarily took place a year after the promise and was solemnly celebrated (cf. Jn. 2:1). At the time of the Annunciation, and up to this moment, the two spouses did not live together (Mt. 1:18 "antequam convenirent"): therefore they were only betrothed. Nevertheless it must be noted that betrothal, according to Hebrew custom, was a "promissio de praesenti," and essentially constituted the marriage bond, making the spouses true consorts even before cohabitation, which was the solemn and definitive seal of the marriage contract. In this way the honor of the Virgin and of her Son (for which the Latin Fathers, unaware of Hebrew customs, believed it indispensable to have the nuptial celebration precede the Annunciation) was sufficiently safeguarded.

At the birth of Jesus (Lk. 2:1 ff.), in compliance with Augustus's census order, J. moved from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, the city of David his father. From this it does not necessarily follow that he was a native of Bethlehem: the reason for the journey indicated by the evangelist is his Davidic descent (ibid. 2:4). But the tradition of his Bethlehemite origin is authoritatively confirmed by St. Justin (Dial., 78, 10: PG 6, 637). In Bethlehem Jesus was born and was laid in a manger, since there was no place for them in the "inn" (Lk. 2:7). J. with Mary was present at the adoration of the shepherds (ibid. 2:16), and after eight days, in the rite of circumcision (which was performed by the mōhēl, and not by St. J.; v. CIRCUMCISION) he imposed on the Child the name Jesus, revealed by the Angel (Mt. 1:21, 25), thus inaugurating his paternal mission.

At the Presentation in the Temple it was J. who, in his capacity as head of the Holy Family, saw to the observance of the legal prescriptions: he went to Jerusalem with his Spouse and assisted at the rite of the Purification, offering likewise for the redemption of the Child a pair of turtledoves, the offering of the poor (Lk. 2:22 ff.). He was present at the meeting with the pious old man Simeon, by whom he was "blessed" together with Mary, and he heard the fateful foreboding about the Son and the Mother (ibid. 2:34 ff.). After this event he probably returned to Nazareth, perhaps to settle his affairs (ibid. 2:39). After some months he is again in Bethlehem, at the time of the coming of the Magi: although the Gospel account (Mt. 2:1 ff.) makes no mention of J., it is beyond doubt that he was present at the adoration and received in his hands the gifts of those wise men. Immediately afterward, warned in a dream by the Angel, he had to save the Child from Herod's snares, taking refuge in Egypt (ibid. 2:13 ff.), where he stayed with the Holy Family until the death of the King, probably a year. Warned again by the Angel, he returned to the land of Israel (ibid. 2:19 ff.). This time he thought of settling in Bethlehem, but, admonished by the Angel, he left Judea, which was governed by Archelaus, and returned to Nazareth, where he stably dwelt with Jesus and with Mary (ibid. 2:22 ff.), seeing the Son of God grow under his eyes, in wisdom and grace (Lk. 2:40, 52), who was subject to him (ibid. 2:51).

Of the long and silent period of Nazareth, which extends to the beginnings of Jesus's public life (some thirty years), only one episode is narrated by St. Luke: the paschal pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when Jesus had reached the age of 12 (Lk. 2:41 ff.). The loss of the Boy was followed by the anguished searches on the part of J. and Mary, who found him on the third day in the Temple. J.'s paternal solicitude emerges quite delicately from the words of the Mother: "Son, why have you done this to us? behold your father and I, sorrowing, were seeking you" (ibid. 2:48). After this event, the Holy Family returned to Nazareth: the remainder, up to the beginning of the public life, is described by the Evangelist with the laconic phrase: "erat subditus illis," Jesus was subject to J. and to Mary (ibid. 2:51).

It is known from the Gospels that J. practiced, and together with him Jesus, a manual trade: τέκτων, which the Vulgate translates faber (Mt. 13:55; cf. Mk. 6:3). What the specific trade was (faber lignarius, or ferrarius, or murarius?), has been discussed since antiquity, since it cannot be exactly determined from the generic word reported. More commonly it is held that it was the trade of carpenter or joiner, an opinion that has solid support in tradition: setting aside the testimony of the Apocrypha, already in the 2nd century St. Justin wrote that Jesus with J. constructed "ploughs and yokes for oxen" (Dial., 88: PG 6, 888); the Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopic versions also explain it in this sense. It is not excluded, however, that occasionally he also practiced one of the other related trades.

From these brief Gospel notices the moral figure of the Saint also stands out in some way: a most religious man, upright, industrious, obedient, gentle, tenderly attached to Jesus and to Mary. Moreover, in Mt. 1:19 there is found an explicit eulogy, which is a panegyric: "cum esset iustus." Even if one wishes to understand the word in the restricted sense of a faithful observer of the law, from the context there emerges a righteousness that is accompanied by many other virtues: prudence, charity, gentleness, patience, faith, obedience.

Nothing is known from the Gospels about G.'s death. It occurred in all probability in the last years of Jesus' hidden life. Certainly he is completely absent from the public life, while more than once mention is made of the Mother and even of the "brothers." The very title of "son of Mary," sometimes given to Jesus by the people (cf. Mk. 6:3), confirms in some way that the Madonna was by then a widow. Moreover, the mission of St. G. had ended at the moment when Jesus and his Mother no longer needed a man to protect them in life and in honor. As the place of death one naturally thinks of Nazareth: the apocryphal History of Joseph (ch. 27) places his tomb in this city; so too do the three Synaxaria, the Alexandrian (with the date of death July 20, still preserved in the Greek liturgy), the Arabic-Jacobite (same date) and the Ethiopian (Aug. 2). In 1106 the abbot Daniel is said to have seen the said tomb in the underground of the church of the Annunciation in Nazareth. In 1901, some believed they had discovered G.'s tomb in another place, outside the said church, about 60 meters to the west toward the hill. But both the one and the other identification lack any solid foundation (cf. U. Holzmeister [v. bibl.], p. 109).

II. IN THE APOCRYPHA

Apocryphal literature developed around St. Joseph many legendary motifs, not without interest for the influence they had on tradition and art. The principal Apocrypha that dealt with the Saint are: the Protoevangelium of James (2nd cent.); the Pseudo-Thomas (probably 3rd cent.); the Pseudo-Matthew (5th cent.); the De nativitate Mariae; the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy; and particularly the History of Joseph the Carpenter (4th or 5th cent.; ed. C. Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha, Leipzig 1876, pp. 122-39: Latin version from the Arabic text; Coptic and Armenian versions have also come down to us). The first five Apocrypha cover only the period of Jesus' Infancy. The last claims to recount the story of Joseph from the very mouth of Jesus in a conversation with the Apostles; for the story of the infancy it mostly follows the Protoevangelium of James and the canonical Gospels; it has as its own the accounts of the last days and the death of Joseph, and is interesting for its ideas on the afterlife. According to these accounts, Joseph entered into marriage a first time, at the age of 40, with a woman by the name of Melcha or Escha, with whom he lived 49 years; by her he had 4 children, those who later would be called "brothers of the Lord" (some apocryphon adds 2 daughters): the youngest would be James, the presumed author of the Protoevangelium that bears his name and witness of the events of Jesus' Infancy. Left a widower at the age of 89, Joseph continued to exercise his trade of carpenter in Bethlehem his native town, when he was sought out by the priests to be given as spouse to a girl of 14 years by the name of Mary. But, since there were other competitors, the high priest entrusted the choice to the divine will, which was manifested by the miracle of the flowering rod, and, according to the Pseudo-Thomas, by the appearance of the dove on Joseph's head. The influence of this episode is well known, especially of the flowering rod — moreover quite evocative for its symbolism — in the iconography of the Saint and in Christian art: one recalls the famous painting by Raphael The Marriage of the Virgin (Milan, Pinacoteca Brera). After two years followed the Annunciation; Joseph was absent. When he returned, in his spouse the signs of maternity were evident. Besides the Saint's distress, the Apocrypha relate the episode of the test of bitter water (cf. Num. 5:11 ff.), from which resulted the innocence of Joseph and Mary. There follow the other episodes of the birth and infancy of Jesus up to the age of 12 (journey to Bethlehem, flight into Egypt, return to Nazareth, etc.), which correspond in substance to those of the canonical Gospels, but with frequent glosses and amplifications, and with an exuberance of the miraculous that falls into the ridiculous. Some details are not only futile, but scarcely respectful toward Joseph: thus, for example, the reasoning put into his mouth on the arrival at Bethlehem (Protoevangelium of James, 17); at Nazareth he finds himself more than once in embarrassment because of the lively disposition of the child and his punitive miracles (Pseudo-Thomas, 3 ff.).

According to the apocryphal History, Joseph would have died at the age of 111, after having spent some twenty years with Jesus at Nazareth. In his last days the sick man would have felt nausea at food and drink, and would have been in the grip of strong distress; but Jesus would have consoled him, praying the Father to send the archangels Michael and Gabriel: these would have received his soul at its departure from the body, which, entrusted to the custody of two angels, would have remained incorrupt "until the banquet of a thousand years" (C. Tischendorf, op. cit., pp. 126-37).

What most jars in the Apocrypha, beyond the frequent frivolous episodes, is the asserted decrepit age of Joseph at the time of his marriage to Mary. It is a legend that must be rejected, although it has taken hold in the popular imagination, down to the present day. Perhaps at first it may have seemed a useful expedient to demonstrate to the simple in a clear manner the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God. But it immediately reveals itself as paradoxical, on an obvious consideration, which is one of strict theological fitness: the dignity and honorableness of Mary would not have been preserved — since the virginal conception had to remain a secret — if her spouse had been a decrepit old man of 90; moreover, an old man of such an age could not have been regarded as the father of Jesus. It was therefore necessary that between Mary and Joseph, at the act of marriage, there should not be an unbridgeable gap of years. These reasons, which after Suárez are unanimously invoked by theologians, also have a solid support in the most ancient representations (of the first five centuries), in which, as G. B. De Rossi had the merit of pointing out (Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 3 [1865], pp. 25-32), and after him R. Garrucci (Storia dell'arte cristiana, Prato 1873-81, pls. 279, 280, 365, 417, 447, etc.) and G. Wilpert (Sarcofagi, pls. 15, 20, 26, etc.), the Saint is never represented in the likeness of an old man, but of a young man or of a mature man in the full vigor of his years, for the most part without a beard. Only later, through the influence of the Apocrypha, did people begin to represent him with a beard and white hair and in senile features (cf. Wilpert, Mosaiken, pp. 754, 763, 770). It is not possible, however, to determine exactly the age of Joseph at the time of his marriage to Mary: it must probably have hovered around 30-40 years. And, if he died shortly before the beginning of Jesus' public life, he must have been at death about 60-70 years old, taking into account that the hidden life at Nazareth lasted about 32-34 years.

Another unpleasant point in the Apocrypha is the first marriage and the consequent widowerhood of St. Joseph: but on this see further below.

III. IN THEOLOGY

In the patristic era, and also in the Middle Ages, J. was left almost in the shadows. In vain does one search the whole of Greek or Latin patrology for a single homily or discourse on the Saint. Chrysostom and the author of the Opus imperfectum speak of him with great reverence, but incidentally, in their commentaries on Mt. 1:18 ff. Other Fathers do not fail to mention the Saint when they deal with the genealogy of Christ. Frequent allusions or references are found in the writings of St. Augustine (especially in the questions on the genealogy, Marriage, and Virginity). St. Peter Chrysologus, St. Ephrem and St. Bede speak of St. J. with much admiration, but they are mere phrases; very well known is the saying of St. Ephrem: "No one can worthily praise St. J." (Op. Syriaca, 3, 600; cf. Eph. Theol. Lovan., 5 [1928], pp. 221-24). St. Bernard, in the celebrated homily Super missus est, weaves a fine panegyric, however brief, of St. J. (PL 183, 60).

Even in the great scholastics there is very little on St. J. For the first homilies one must descend to the 15th century, which marks a great advance in the doctrine and cult of St. J.: there are 15 extensive homilies, which are owed to Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly (d. 1420), to G. Gerson (d. 1429) and to St. Bernardino of Siena (d. 1444). In the 16th century the Summa de donis s. Ioseph of the Dominican Isidoro Isolani (v.) stands out, published at Pavia in 1522 and reprinted several times down to 1887 (on the development of the doctrine and cult up to the Council of Trent the work of J. Seitz [v. bibl.] gives an excellent account). After Trent, with the developments of the treatise De Verbo Incarnato and of Mariology, and with the progress of the cult of St. J., theology fixes its attention more and more on the Saint, investigating and illustrating his prerogatives in the light of the Gospel data and of theological principles; also among exegetes, and above all among preachers and ascetical writers, interest in St. J. is continually growing (ample bibl. in A. H. Lépicier, [v. bibl.], pp. 363-73). Among the theological treatments are to be noted: P. Morales, In cap. I Matth., de Christo, S.ma Virgine... veroque eius Sponso, 2 vols., Paris 1869; a historico-scriptural dissertation De s. Ioseph published by the Servites in 1750 at Augsburg; V. Sedlmayr, Dissertationes de s. Ioseph (17 arts., in his Theol. Mariana, II, Munich 1758, pp. 420-57); A. Calmet, Dissert. de s. Ioseph (Opera, VII, Venice 1774); G. M. Schenck, De s. Ioseph, Augsburg 1850; P. V. Mercier, St Ioseph d'après l'Ecriture et la tradition, Paris 1895; C. H. Jamar, Theologia s. Ioseph, Louvain 1897; G. Sinibaldi (v. bibl.); A. H. Lépicier (v. bibl.). Also important for the doctrine is the work of G. C. Trombelli, Vita e culto di s. G., Bologna 1767. Also to be remembered are the two celebrated panegyrics of B. Bossuet (Opere, I, Liège 1862, p. 557 ff.), rich in doctrine, and the elevations of St. Francis de Sales, Sur les vertues de st Joseph (Opere, III, Paris 1862). Among the great theologians, Suárez deals with St. J. in Disput. VII and VIII of the commentary on the 3rd part of the Summa. Also the monographs on the cult of the Saint contain good considerations of a theological order. More and more frequent, in theological or biblical journals, are articles on the prerogatives of the Saint, especially on his "fatherhood," and on other particular questions.

The points that most interest theology are the mission and the holiness of St. J. The mission is defined essentially in his position as head of the Holy Family, particularly as spouse of Mary Virgin and "father" of Jesus: from this follow special relations to the mystery of the Incarnation. A prolongation of his mission is his patronage over the universal Church.

1. Spouse of Mary

The appellation is contained explicitly in the Gospels: vir Mariae (Mt. 1:16, 19; cf. Lk. 2:4): it is the foundation of all the greatness of St. J. The truth of this marriage is clearly attested in the Gospel, which calls J. "husband of Mary" (Mt. 1:19: ἀνὴρ) and Mary "consort of J." (ibid. 1:20-24; cf. Lk. 1:27; 2:5). J. and Mary, already betrothed at the time of the Annunciation, then inaugurate their living together (Mt. 1:24) and continue it forever (betrothal and leading of the bride into the bridegroom's house: the two constitutive acts of marriage, in full effect, in Hebrew custom): they were therefore true spouses. On this truth no doubt would ever have been raised, had it not been for the virginal character of the marriage itself. It was in fact ordained by God, and as such accepted by the two spouses, for the safeguarding and honor of the virginity and divine motherhood of Mary: therefore the use of conjugal relations was excluded in it. For this reason already some Fathers at times used expressions that could cause difficulty: thus, for example, St. Maximus of Turin: "J. was always the spouse of Mary, but not her husband" (PL 57, 639); likewise St. Jerome, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Bernard.

But their words can easily be understood in the right sense, inasmuch as they had principally in view the perpetual virginity of Mary, and therefore, instead of the terms "husband," "wife," "marriage" (which ordinarily suggest the use of marriage), they used by preference the more generic and yet true ones of "spouse,"

"bride," "espousal." Among the explicit deniers, in antiquity, is the Pelagian Julian of Eclanum, refuted by St. Augustine (PL 42, 810 ff.), and in the Middle Ages Gratian, whose erroneous opinion gave the scholastics occasion to clarify the distinction between the consent of the spouses in the ius ad corpora, which constitutes the marriage contract, and the use of that same right, which is not of the essence, since the spouses can renounce it, for one reason or another, for a certain time or in perpetuity (Peter Lombard, Lib. Sent., IV, dist. 30, 2 f.; St. Thomas, Sum. Theol., 3rd, q. 29, a. 2; cf. J. Seitz [v. bibl.], pp. 134-49).

On the virginal character of G.'s marriage to Mary there can be no doubt, since the perpetual virginity of Mary ante partum and post partum is a truth of faith; the biblical difficulties to the contrary, still tenaciously repeated by Protestants and rationalist critics (Mt. 1:16, 25; Lk. 2:7; the "brethren of Jesus"; the genealogies of the Savior, etc.), are victoriously resolved by Catholic exegesis (U. Holzmeister [v. bibl.], pp. 34-54). Therefore not only must a vow or purpose of virginity in Mary be admitted (as is rightly deduced from Lk. 1:34), but also its acceptance on the part of St. G. It follows that, at least after his marriage to Mary, G. lived in perfect chastity. For the preceding period, however, opinions differ. The account of the Apocrypha concerning a previous marriage of G. enjoyed wide credit in the Eastern tradition, whose writers willingly accepted this notice as an easier solution to the biblical difficulty of the "brethren of the Lord": these would be sons of G. by a previous marriage. The opinion entered and is still found in the Eastern liturgical books, especially the Greek ones. The Latins, on the other hand, with few exceptions (St. Hilary, Gregory of Tours, the Ambrosiaster), unanimously understood the "brethren of the Lord" in the improper sense of "cousins," following the authoritative information of Hegesippus (around A.D. 180, in Eusebius: PG 20, 380); for this reason they rejected wholesale the legendary account of the Apocrypha concerning G.'s first marriage. Today the thesis of G.'s perpetual virginity, validly defended by St. Jerome (Adv. Helvidium, 19: PL 23, 203) and then by many other Fathers and Latin writers, illustrated by St. Thomas with good theological reasons (In Mt. 12, 46; In Gal. 1, 19; cf. Verbum Domini, 24 [1944], pp. 97-99), enjoys the common consent of theologians, who regard it as certain.

Although virginal, and altogether singular and without example, G.'s marriage to Mary lacked none of its essential goods: the most perfect conjugal love, the most absolute fidelity, and also offspring: which, although virginally conceived by Mary, without her spouse having any part in it, may well be called the fruit of that virginal marriage, which was essentially ordered to that offspring.

2. Father of Jesus

Not only did the Madonna give St. G. the appellation "father of Jesus" (Lk. 2:48), which could be explained as a delicate deference, but so did the evangelist Luke himself (2:33), who moreover calls the two holy spouses together "parents of Jesus" (2:27, 41-43). It is clear that, because of Christ's virginal conception, a true and proper, that is, natural, fatherhood is absolutely excluded for St. G. The Evangelists evidently exclude any direct part of Mary's Spouse in the generation of Christ (cf. Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-38). In particular Luke takes care to note that Jesus was "reputed" the son of G.: "ut putabatur" (Lk. 3:21); therefore properly he was not. But, once true and proper, natural fatherhood is excluded, a fatherhood must be recognized in St. G. that is not fictitious, that is, founded on a mere colored title (as the cited text of Luke might suggest at first glance). It rests on a real foundation, and this is the marriage to Mary, insofar as it was ordained by God for that offspring: a fatherhood improperly so called, but real. The Angel, in enjoining the Saint to give the Child his name (Mt. 1:21), confirmed the office and the rights of this fatherhood, which was constantly exercised by G. and acknowledged by Jesus.

To designate this singular fatherhood various titles have been proposed: "putative" father, "foster" father, "adoptive" father, "legal" father, "virginal" father. None of them seems specifically appropriate, that is, such as to define properly the character of this fatherhood under all its aspects. The most commonly used title, "putative" Father, is founded on the text of Lk. 3:21, but it is simply negative, that is, it excludes the relations of natural fatherhood, and says nothing more. The other title of "foster" Father does not seem sufficient. G. was more than a mere guardian or foster father of Jesus, which is likewise for him a title of glory. Without doubt he had from God a father's heart for Jesus, as Bossuet expresses it, and his affection for the divine offspring was far superior to that of other fathers for the sons they have begotten: but paternal affection and care can also be had for a person who is a stranger, which certainly Jesus was not for St. G. Less happy is the title of "adoptive" Father: apart from the contradiction of a creature adopting the Creator as a son, there is the fact that adoption is a positive, accessory act, by which a stranger is received as a son into one's family. Now neither was Jesus a person a stranger to the family, of which St. G. was the head, nor on the part of the latter was a positive juridical act needed to found his relations of fatherhood toward Jesus: this was antecedent and native, since Jesus from birth was the "son" of St. G. The other title of "legal" Father is very true: but it has the drawback of having, for the most part, a purely juridical sense. Nevertheless, if understood in its primary and fundamental sense, and with particular regard to the concrete case, it is quite well appropriate. "Legal" fatherhood, in general, is that which derives its attributions from a prescription of law, and presents itself under various aspects and denominations. "Adoptive" fatherhood too, like that of the guardian, is a legal fatherhood; likewise the fatherhood of the husband with respect to the children of his own wife had by another bed. But the primary legal fatherhood is founded, by explicit recognition of the law, in legitimate marriage, and is expressed in the well-known aphorism consecrated in all legislations: "pater is est, quem iustae nuptiae demonstrant" (cf. CIC, can. 1115). The first effect that follows from it, besides the rights of the father, is that the offspring is legitimate: that is, until proof to the contrary, it has the father who is justly recognized for it by the law: from whom therefore it inherits the name and the property. All this is important in the case of St. G. He is the legitimate spouse of Mary: in this marriage a child is born. With every shadow of dishonesty absolutely excluded, but with the veil of mystery having to remain over the manner of his virginal conception, this offspring must have a father for the primary effects of the law. This is G.: his fatherhood confers on Jesus the honor of legitimacy. And something more: the first and fundamental messianic title, that of "son of David." If the other messianic titles could come into question, no doubt was admissible for this indispensable title. From whom did Jesus derive it? Not from the Mother, although effectively and really for her he was a descendant of David according to the flesh (cf. Lk. 1:27, 69; Rom. 1:3): since juridically, and therefore for the effects of messianic recognition, the attributions of the mother had no value for the son. Jesus derived the messianic title from the "father." And when the Angel made known to G. his paternal mission toward the Messiah, he intentionally underscored this title "Joseph, filii David" (Mt. 1:20). For this reason the fatherhood of G. is greatly exalted: it is not only a "legitimate" fatherhood, but, in a certain sense, a "messianic" one. He was the necessary vehicle for the transmission of the messianic title of "Son of David" to Jesus. This fatherhood far transcends that commonly called legal, which involves a simple juridical relationship. Its foundation, altogether singular, is the divine preordination of the marriage to Mary to the birth and protection of the Incarnate Word, with a real cooperation, although indirect and moral, on the part of St. G. He, however, cannot be called the father of Jesus in the obvious and proper sense of the word, as has sometimes been suggested, even by some Catholics, for whom the virginal conception is an unshaken dogma. It may seem a question of words; but in dogmatic matters it is advisable to avoid expressions and terms that easily lend themselves to equivocation. However sublime this fatherhood and however superior by excellence and dignity to that of ordinary parents, it always remains within the sphere of fatherhoods improperly so called: fatherhood in the full and proper sense of the word is one alone: that founded on generation (cf. R. Garrigou-Lagrange, in Angelicum, 22 [1945], p. 109 ff.). Some unfortunate attempts, not easily reconcilable with the dogma, received the due censure (cf. Monitore eccl., 2nd series, 19 [1907], p. 361, for the opinion of G. Corbató, who advocated a real and proper fatherhood of St. J.; Divus Thomas [Piacenza], 5 [1928], p. 41 ff.; R. Petrone spoke of a positive instructional cooperation of St. J. in the virginal conception; the article was condemned by the Holy Office; cf. ibid., p. 361).

Recently the title of "virgin father" has been proposed as more appropriate (J. Renard; G. Breynat, for whom this is the only specifically appropriate title; J. Müller; U. Holzmeister; there is also an indulgenced ejaculation by Pius X in 1906). This is acceptable in the sense that St. J. is a part, together with Mary, of that virginal marriage in which the divine offspring was wondrously born. But it does not seem the most appropriate title: its impropriety derives from the comparison with the analogous title: "virgin Mother of Jesus." In conclusion it must be said with L. Billot (De Verbo Incarn., Rome 1927, p. 400) that there is no proper and specific title in our vocabulary for the singular fatherhood of St. J. Therefore one may use one or another of the many that tradition or Christian piety have handed down. It is advisable to retain, without excluding the others, the more common title of "putative father," however negative and inadequate: its very indeterminacy makes it preferable, since, while it denies the relation of natural fatherhood, it excludes none of the real attributions that belong to this singular fatherhood.

3. Relations of St. J. with the mystery of the Incarnation. — By the intrinsic preordination of the virginal marriage with Mary to the birth and protection of the Son of God, J. was a cooperator in the mystery of the Incarnation. But, unlike his Spouse, who cooperated directly and physically, providing the Word with human flesh from her own substance, J. cooperated only indirectly and morally, that is, inasmuch as, by his consent to that marriage and by his position in the Holy Family, he brought about the indispensable condition for the dignity and decorum of the virginal conception and for its providential concealment until the time preordained by God. In this sense, as many theologians hold (Suárez, Gotti, Lépicier, J. Müller, G. Sinibaldi, R. Garrigou-Lagrange), the mission of St. J. is of an order "terminatively hypostatic." Moreover he cooperated, remotely, in the Redemption, by protecting and nourishing the Son of God, and by sharing with him for so many years the sufferings and labors, a prelude to the sacrifice of the Cross.

4. Greatness and holiness of St. J. — By his quality of true Spouse of the Mother of God, by his "fatherhood" toward Jesus and by his relations to the mystery of the Incarnation, St. J. rises to a dignity that has no equal after that of the Mother of God. "St. J. was the Spouse of Mary, the putative father of Jesus; from this derive his dignity, his greatness, his holiness, his glory" (Leo XIII, encyclical Quamquam pluries, 15 Aug. 1899). His mission surpasses every angelic ministry and every other mission, however exalted, that may be entrusted to men, such as that of the Precursor, of the Apostles, of the supreme pontiffs, of priests. Leo XIII, having premised that there can be no higher dignity than that of the Mother of God, adds that to that greatness St. J. accedes more than any other creature: "Ad illam praestantissimam dignitatem... non est dubium quin accesserit ipse, ut nemo magis" (ibid.). Nor does Christ's praise of the Precursor stand in opposition (Mt. 11, 11; Lk. 7, 28): there the comparison is not between John and all the saints in general, but between him and the prophets of the Old Testament; or, better, the praise of the Precursor is understood within the sphere of the Old Testament.

Now, granted the principle that when God calls a creature to a special mission, he is wont to grant it all those gifts of grace that are proportionate to it (Sum. Theol., 3rd, q. 27, a. 4), it is logical to attribute to St. J. such an abundance of grace and such a degree of holiness as to place him above every other saint, after the Virgin. Add to this that his life of intimacy with Jesus for about 30 years placed him in a privileged condition for the exercise of the most sublime virtues. The preeminence of St. J., in dignity and holiness, over the other saints has had valid supporters, from Gerson and St. Bernardine of Siena to St. Teresa, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus, and today finds almost all theologians in agreement, although they do not agree on certain particular questions, moreover secondary, such as the presumed sanctification in the maternal womb (admitted by Gerson, Bernardino de Bustis, Morales, St. Alphonsus, denied by others), and impeccability (maintained by Lépicier, denied by most). Some, basing themselves on Mt. 27, 52, have even thought of an anticipated resurrection and bodily glorification of the Saint (Gerson, St. Bernardine of Siena, Suárez, St. Francis de Sales, Trombelli, Vives y Tuto; more decisively Lépicier): but it is a pious opinion, which finds no support in tradition nor even in the biblical text cited, in which, according to the best interpretation, there is question of a transitory, not perpetual, resurrection of some of the just at the time of Christ's death.

5. Patronage of St. J. - The proclamation of St. J. as Patron of the universal Church, made by Pius IX on 8 Dec. 1870 (decree of the S. R. C. Quemadmodum Deus) is the solemn recognition of his singular greatness and holiness, as also of his glory and power in heaven. In this way the Saint continues in the Church his high office of head of the Holy Family, and continues in the Mystical Body of Christ that mission which he carried out, together with Mary, around the person of the Savior. By its universality this patronage has analogies with the spiritual motherhood of Mary and her universal mediation in the distribution of graces. By this exaltation St. J. is also pointed out as a sublime model of virtue to all men, of every country and every condition (cf. the encyclical Quamquam pluries, of Leo XIII).

Popular biographies: St. John Bosco, S. G., 7th ed., Turin 1911; M. Meschler, Der hl. Joseph, 3rd ed., Freiburg im Br. 1910 (Italian trans. Rome 1910); J. J. Ouwendijk, Josef Vater van Jesus, Utrecht 1940; M. G. Dorr, G. di Nazareth, Brescia 1943. See also the biblical commentaries on Mt. 1-2; Lk. 1-2; 3:21 ff. (Knabenbauer, Fillion, Lagrange, etc.), as well as the monographs and dissertations on the infancy, the genealogies, the "Brethren" of Jesus, etc., and the Mariological treatises on the questions concerning the Annunciation and the marriage of Mary to St. G.

Questioni particolari: Fr. Patritius, De prima Angeli legatione ad Iosephum commentatio, Roma 1876; O. Bardenhewer, Marid Verkündigung (Bibl. Studien, 10, v), Friburgo in Br. 1905 (per il matrimonio di s. G. cf. pp. 120-53); O. Michael, Dogmatische Abhandlung über die Joseph-Ehe, in Theol. prakt. Quartalschr., 60 (1907), pp. 319-52; H. Rett, Die Joseph-Ehe in ihrem Original u. ihrer Nachahmung, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol., 32 (1908), pp. 590-96; E. F. Sutcliffe, S. Joseph faber lignarius, in Verb. Dom., 5 (1925), pp. 74-79; id., Iesus Christus s. Iosephi in labore socius, ibid., pp. 104-109; I. M. Bover, De cultu s. Ioseph amplificando, Barcellona 1926; R. Petrone, La paternità divina di s. G., in Divus Thomas, 31 (1928), pp. 29-49 (articolo censurato dal S. Ufficio, cf. La scuola catt., 1928, p. 202 sg.); M.-J. Vosté, De Conceptione virginali Christi, Roma 1933; G. Breynat, Paternité de st Joseph : Joseph père vierge de Jésus, in Rev. univ. d'Ostana, 6 (1936), pp. 73-80; S. (1938), pp. 81-111; G. M. Perrella, B. M. V., cum caelestem accepit nuntium, sancto Ioseph sponsalibus solis non vero nuptiis iuncta erat, in Divus Thomas, 35 (Piacenza 1932), pp. 378-98, 519-31; U. Holzmeister, Cur Ioseph tier bethlemiticum suscepereit..., in Verb. Dom., 22 (1942), pp. 263-70; id., St Joseph père vierge de Jésus, Montréal 1944; R. Garrigou-Lagrange, De paternitate s. Ioseph, in Angelicum, 22 (1945), pp. 105-15; P. De Ambroggi, Paternità verginale di s. G.?, in La scuola catt., 1946, pp. 125-31; D. Frangipane, Utrum B. V. Maria salutata iam in domo Ioseph ut coniux fuerit, in Verb. Dom., 27 (1947), pp. 99-111; U. Holzmeister, De nuptiis s. Ioseph, ibid., pp. 145-49.

Gaetano Stano

IV. IN LITURGY

The public and liturgical cult of St. Joseph is relatively recent, whereas devotion and veneration toward him is very ancient. The Eastern Church precedes the Western in this cult. In the West, from the 9th century, the cult was local and private; only from the 15th century did it become public and liturgical.

In the East, the first trace is found in Egypt. The apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter of the 4th century (translated from Greek into Bohairic Coptic, Sahidic and Arabic (cf. Evangiles apocryphes, I [Textes et documents, ed. by H. Hemmer and P. Lejy], edited by P. Peeters, 2nd ed., Paris 1924, pp. 231-232) notes, in ch. 26, June 20 as the commemorative day; likewise in the Coptic calendars (Acta SS. Martii, III, Paris 1865, p. 7, n. 11; see A. Mai, Script. vet. nova coll., IV, Rome 1828, pp. 15 ff.). Subsequently the sources are silent until the 10th century. The Menologion of Basil II (976-1025) celebrates St. Joseph on Dec. 25 together with the three magi (Acta SS. Martii, III, Paris 1865, p. 6), while other synaxaria and calendars commemorate him on Dec. 26 or on the Sunday before or after Christmas, always together with other saints (David, etc.), connected with the birth of Jesus (Synaxarium eccl. Constantinopol., Propyl. ad Acta SS. Novembris, Brussels 1902, pp. x, 344).

In the West, the abbreviated local martyrologies of the 9th century, e.g., of Reichenau (827-42), of Rheims and Trier, note the name of St. Joseph on March 19 (Martyrologia geronimiana, diplomatic ed. G. B. De Rossi and L. Duchesne; Acta SS. Novembris, II, Brussels 1894, Prolegom. XXXIV, nn. 31-34, XXXVII, n. 38, and Martyr. Hieronymianum, p. 152); the same in the martyrologies of later centuries (Stablo, Verdun, Mantua: PL 138, 1195, 1205-1259; Verona, Bibl. Capit., cod. 87, vol. I; B. Mehler, Der hl. Wolfgang, Bischof von Regensburg, Regensburg 1894, p. 163; A. Ebner, Das Sahramantar des hl. Wolfgang in Verona, p. 173). The Crusades were subsequently favorable to the spread of the cult of St. Joseph. At Nazareth, the Crusaders erected a basilica in his honor; other churches arose at Bologna (1129), at Alcester in England (1140); in France the church of St. Lawrence at Joinville became a center of the veneration of St. Joseph (1254). His cult spread through the work of great saints and theologians, such as Rupert of Deutz (d. 1133), St. Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153); and especially in the 14th and 15th centuries, with St. Bridget of Sweden (d. 1375), in Spain with St. Vincent Ferrer (d. 1419), in France with Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly (d. 1423) and with the famous chancellor John Gerson (d. 1429), in Italy with St. Bernardino of Siena (d. 1444), Bernardino da Feltre (d. 1429), Fr. Bernardino de Bustis (d. 1500), and finally in Spain with St. Teresa of Jesus (d. 1582). In these times, the various religious Orders inserted the feast of St. Joseph into their calendars: the Carmelites, the Servites (1324), the Franciscans (1399); the Dominicans and the Premonstratensians followed, while the feast is missing among the Carthusians, Cistercians, Cluniacs. All this was, however, always a private cult. But under Sixtus IV (1471-84), the feast of St. Joseph was inserted into the Roman Breviary, printed in 1479 at Venice, as a feast of simple rite, raised in 1482 to double rite with o lessons; the Breviary of 1499 contains a proper Office. Slowly, the feast of St. Joseph was accepted throughout the Church, especially as a consequence of the Tridentine Reform. In 1621 (with the decree of May 8) Gregory XV made it a feast of precept. Clement X (1670-76) raised it to the double rite of 2nd class, and Clement XI (1700-21) ordered (Feb. 3, 1714) a new Office for it, the one currently in use; the three hymns Te Joseph, Coelium Joseph, Etta quem laeti, were composed by Juan Escalar, a Spanish Carmelite. Then, together with the proclamation of St. Joseph as patron of the universal Church, the feast of March 19 was raised to double of 1st class by Pius IX (1870), and the CIC (can. 1247 § 1) enumerates it among the feasts of precept.

In the 17th century a new feast spread, that of the patronage of St. Joseph. Already many religious Orders and many confraternities, e.g., of carpenters, chose St. Joseph as special patron; to the Carmelites of Italy and Spain in 1680 was granted the feast of the patronage of St. Joseph on the 3rd Sunday after Easter; the Augustinians followed. In 1721, among the Dominicans, the feast was already endowed with an octave. Princes, emperors, kings declared St. Joseph patron of their territories: Louis XIV for France, Ferdinand III and Leopold I for Bohemia (1655) and for Austria (1675), Charles II (1665-1700) for Spain and Belgium; the prince-bishops did the same for their dioceses or territories.

Of special importance was the cult of St. Joseph for the Foreign Missions; e.g., for Canada (Urban VIII, 1637; cf. E.-L. Couanier de Launay, Histoire des religieuses Hospitalières de St-Joseph, I, Paris 1887, pp. 218-220) St. Joseph was the territorial patron and his feast was the national feast; likewise for Paraguay, for Madura, for the Mariana Islands, for China. The 17th century was a century of special cult to St. Joseph; Pius VII granted the feast of the patronage to the Roman clergy in 1809; Pius IX crowned all this cult, extending (Sept. 10, 1847) the feast of the patronage of St. Joseph to the whole Church (Dec. 8, 1870) and declaring St. Joseph "patron of the universal Church." Pius X (Oct. 28, 1913) fixed on the Wednesday of the 2nd Sunday after Easter, instead of the Sunday itself, the date of the feast of the patronage, with octave, having already replaced (July 24, 1911) the word "patronage" with that of "solemnity" of St. Joseph spouse of the Blessed V. M., confessor, patron of the universal Church.

A third feast in honor of St. Joseph is the feast of the Espousal of the Blessed Virgin and of St. Joseph, recorded at Chartres at the beginning of the 15th century, recommended by Gerson, adopted and spread on March 7 by the Friars Minor and by the Dominicans on Jan. 22, under Paul III (1537), for Jan. 23 by indult of Benedict XIII (Aug. 22, 1725; cf. G. Mercati, Per la storia della festa dello sposalizio, in Rassegna gregoriana, 5 [1906], pp. 253-58).

Then Benedict XIII (Dec. 19, 1726) inserted the name of St. Joseph into the litanies of the Saints; under Pius VII (Sept. 17, 1815) in the prayer A cunctis the name of St. Joseph was added. Pius X enriched the litanies of St. Joseph with indulgences (March 18, 1909); Benedict XV (Apr. 9, 1919) honored him with a proper praefatio (AAS, 11 [1913], p. 191), and added, on Feb. 23, 1921, his invocation to the Deus qui es benedictus, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his proclamation as patron of the Church (ibid., 13 [1921], p. 158).

Pietro Siffini

V. IN ICONOGRAPHY

St. Joseph is depicted in the triumphal arch of St. Mary Major with a virile appearance, bearded, in tunic and pallium: the angel is in the act of reassuring him according to the text of St. Matthew (1:19-22; Wilpert, Mosaiken, pl. 55); he reappears in the scene of the Presentation in the Temple (id., op. cit., pls. 57-60); then in the episode of the meeting with King Aphrodisius (id., op. cit., pls. 66-68). In the ivory cathedra of Maximian, at Ravenna, St. Joseph always appears in tunic and pallium, both in the trial of the bitter waters and in the dream, in the journey to Bethlehem, in the adoration of the Magi; he was also depicted in the Vatican chapel of John VII (705-707) in the Nativity, in the adoration of the Magi, in the Presentation in the Temple. In the East St. Joseph appears followed by his servants in the representation of the census of Quirinius in the mosaics of Kahrié-djami in Constantinople (monastery of Chora; 14th century); in the frescoes of Mistra Peribleptos (14th century), St. Joseph receives the flowering staff from the Holy Priest. On the columns of the ciborium of St. Mark he appears as an old man protecting the Virgin, grasping the flowering rod. Of particular interest are the representations of St. Joseph in Giotto at Padua, Taddeo Gaddi in the Baroncelli chapel in Santa Croce, Nicola and Giovanni Pisano in the pulpits of Siena, Pisa and Pistoia, and Arnolfo in the presepio of St. Mary Major in Rome. In the cathedral of Limburg (13th century) St. Joseph is portrayed as the gardener of the divine vineyard.

Only in the "Doni Tondo" by Michelangelo, at the Uffizi, will there be a powerfully expressive depiction of the type by which St. Joseph assumes the character of the head of the family called by God to such a most lofty task. At the same time in Germany the woodcarvers spread the sublime images of the Saint due to Dürer and to the sculptors of the wooden statues of Dottighofen and Brandenburg (1459). At the end of the seventeenth century there is found in Spain a whole series of paintings (The Rest on the Flight into Egypt by Bartolomé González, the Circumcision by Roelas, the Holy Family by Zurbarán) that present St. Joseph almost in the guise of a patriarch of the New Testament and with the precise charge of protecting and educating the divine child. At the same time the attributes of the saw and the axe are defined. Such a depiction appears in perfect form in the painting by Herrera, which places St. Joseph seated with the child on his knees, and in the very numerous paintings of Murillo, in which the Saint holds by the hand or accompanies the child Jesus. In the large painting of the church of the Capuchins of Cadiz St. Joseph supports the child already grown. In the painting by L. G. Carlier St. Joseph is even crowned by him. In later depictions, as in Tiepolo, the Saint is defined as an intercessor with the Redeemer or as a symbol of human labor justly recognized.

Eugenio Battisti

VI. IN FOLKLORE

In popular tradition the spouse of Mary is first and foremost the patron saint of the poor. The episode that more than any other has captured the popular imagination is that of the holy couple who, caught unprepared in a foreign land as the birth of the child draws near, ask for lodging and are turned away. As a psychological reaction, in the expressions of popular cult there is a re-enactment of the episode in dramatic form, with an ending that placates the charitable feeling of the popular soul. In many villages of Sicily the "banquet" or "invitation of St. J." is customary, usually held on March 19, in which the families of the well-to-do invite the poor to dinner, three of whom represent the Holy Family: a priest, and, after him, the Child, blesses the table, while the poor are served by the master of the house. In some villages the banquet takes place in church, and two priests do the serving, while a third preaches. In various localities, not only of Sicily but also of Abruzzo and Apulia, the scene takes on the character and forms of a sacred representation. A symbol of chastity, St. J. is also invoked for the protection of marriageable girls. Many charming lyric-narrative songs evoke the figure of St. J. in more or less legendary episodes imagined around the Holy Family. There also appears in popular storytelling a legend that aims to highlight the great power of St. J. in granting graces, but whose manner of demonstration (a thief who nonetheless obtains entry into Paradise) is a typical product of the imagination of the common folk. The legendary motif is linked to the Debat du Paradis, which was so popular in the Middle Ages. St. J. is also the patron of carpenters: and the guilds of master woodworkers of past centuries were the principal cultivators and promoters of his feast. This feast presents two typical manifestations: bonfires and fritters. In many places the very ancient custom of the March fires is made to coincide with the feast of St. J. Enormous piles of wood are gathered out of devotion and lit at crossroads and in the village squares, especially by boys who, when the bonfires are about to go out, jump over the flames: a memory of ancient rural rites of purification and prophylaxis. The custom of fritters is very widespread, and not only in Rome, where nevertheless the feast displays exceptional color and fervor: interest centers on the stalls of the fritter-sellers, who have original advertising gimmicks, among them the use of the "sonnet" also recalled by G. G. Belli.

Some customs mark the feast of St. J. as the beginning of the spring season: such, for example, is the custom of Sicilian fishermen who on this day burn their oldest boat, or of the boys of Itri (Littoria) who set fire to the tow of old distaffs, while the grandmothers spin around the bonfires. - See pl. LVIII.

Paolo Toschi