Were Mary and Joseph Married or Engaged at Jesus’ Birth?
Mary and Joseph in the Bible
The atmosphere of our church service was pregnant with expectation: four candles of the Advent wreath and the colored lights from the tree and wreaths lit the darkened room. My wife and I were among the tens of millions gathered on Christmas Eve to rehearse the Nativity story again. As one of the readers read aloud Luke 2:5, I was struck by the New International Version (NIV) translation: “Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.” Chronologically, the narrative had advanced some eight months from Luke 1:26-27, where it stated that Gabriel was sent to a virgin named Mary “pledged to be married to a man named Joseph.” The Greek verb mnēsteuō was translated identically in both verses.
The translation suggested to me that an unmarried Jewish couple was traveling a long distance unaccompanied by other family members. And the woman—still only pledged in marriage—was in an advanced state of pregnancy. If such a situation is still scandalous in the Middle East, how much more in first-century Judea!1
Were Mary and Joseph married or engaged when they traveled to Bethlehem? Seen here is a mosaic of the Journey to Bethlehem from the Chora Church in Istanbul.
Later I checked other translations of Luke 2:5. The English Standard Version (ESV) uses “betrothed,” an archaic Middle English word. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) uses “engaged,” while the New Living Translation (NLT) says “fiancée.” Again, these English versions suggest that the couple’s marriage was incomplete. This discovery led me into an in-depth word study as well as a look at ancient marriage. And what I found was surprising.
Matthew’s Gospel seems to be clearer. In the genealogy, Joseph is called the “husband of Mary,” who gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:16). Describing the background of their relationship, Matthew 1:18 reads, “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph.” Here Matthew uses the same Greek verb as Luke. However, after Joseph decides to divorce Mary because of her unexpected pregnancy, an angel warns him in a dream not to do so. The angel advises him to “take Mary as his wife” (Matthew 1:20). When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel commanded him: He took Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:24). Luke’s version seemingly contradicts Matthew’s, according to present English translations.
The Greek verb mnēsteuō is used eight times in the Septuagint (the third-century B.C.E. Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). Four uses in Deuteronomy (22:23, 25, 27, 28) deal with the legal issues surrounding an engaged woman having illicit sexual relations. If the incident happens in a city (22:23), both the man and the woman are to be stoned to death; if a rape happens in the country, only the man is to be stoned. The man is considered guilty because he has violated another man’s wife (22:24).
In the three uses in Hosea, God himself is speaking. Regarding Israel’s future day of redemption in 2:16, God declares: “You will call me ‘my husband.’” Then he states in verses 19–20: “And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD.” The NRSV translates “wife” here, while the NIV, ESV and New King James Version (NKJV) all read: “I will betroth you.” Because of the context wherein God declares that he is a husband forever, it is clear that his relationship with Israel extends beyond an engagement stage; they will metaphorically be husband and wife.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
The Hebrew verb aras, translated mnēsteuō in Greek, refers to Jewish marriage practice in which the groom contractually pays a bride-price (mohar) to the bride’s father (Genesis 34:12). According to Old Testament scholar Douglas Stuart, “This was the final step in the courtship process, virtually equivalent in legal status to the wedding ceremony.”2 According to the Mishnah Ketubbot 5.2, the betrothal would last a year, with the bride remaining in the home of her father. Recalling the legal texts in Deuteronomy mentioned earlier plus the equation of David’s betrothal to Michal as marriage (2 Samuel 3:14), we see that under Jewish law, a betrothed woman was considered to be married.
Returning to Joseph, he would have paid the bride price to Mary’s father at their engagement (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:27). Despite his misgivings, Joseph then obeyed the angel’s command to marry Mary (Matthew 1:20). The time of formal engagement, whether a full year or not, had passed between them. So Joseph and Mary had begun to live together except for sexual relations (Matthew 1:25). Luke’s understanding of mnēsteuō must be expanded to include both the betrothal/engagement as well as marital cohabitation. Therefore a better translation of Luke 2:5 would be: “Mary his wife who was expecting a child.” (The NKJV attempts a hybrid with “betrothed wife.”) English translations that suggest the couple was still only in the engagement stage of fiancé/fiancée must be discarded. Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem as a full husband and wife under ancient Jewish law.
Mark Wilson is the director of the Asia Minor Research Center in Antalya, Turkey, and is a popular teacher on BAS Travel/Study tours. Mark received his doctorate in Biblical studies from the University of South Africa (Pretoria), where he serves as a research fellow in Biblical archaeology. He is currently Associate Professor Extraordinary of New Testament at Stellenbosch University. He leads field studies in Turkey and the eastern Mediterranean for university, seminary and church groups. He is the author of Biblical Turkey: A Guide to the Jewish and Christian Sites of Asia Minor and Victory through the Lamb: A Guide to Revelation in Plain Language. He is a frequent lecturer at BAS’s Bible Fests.
Notes
1. Joseph Fitzmyer anticipated my questions by suggesting that readers and listeners should not be overliteral because the account does not intend to answer questions such as: “What was she doing on a journey with Joseph, if she were merely his fiancée or betrothed? And worse still, pregnant as well”; see Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (New York: Doubleday, 1981), p. 407. To ask such questions, according to Fitzmyer, is to miss the point of Luke’s story. But in liturgical use such authorial nuances are lost. He also notes that Luke never calls Mary the “wife” of Joseph and perhaps was not aware of Palestinian Jewish marriage customs. This blog post assumes that Luke, because of his knowledge of Jewish customs and possible interview with Mary herself (cf. Luke 1:2), used familiar marital language that had a broader semantic range than translators give it today.
2. Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 31 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. 59.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on January 12, 2017.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
Related reading in Bible History Daily
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Issues involving daily Jewish life and doctrine existing at that time were not included in the gospel text because they were generally known and regarded at the time. So the knowledge has been lost in context over the Centuries. Now-a-days, Christians are not Jews, unlike Jesus’ original followers. In fact over the years, and lost in translation is the fact that Jesus’s real name in translation would be Joshua, not Jesus.
The Interlinear Bible uses “betulah” to describe Mary at the time of her conception with Jesus. This leaves no room for doubt that the young woman was a virgin. However, customs of the time, as have been frequently noted elsewhere, make it clear that parents sought husbands for their adolescent daughters and that the signing of the ketubah, or marriage contract, ensured that the couple were married even though for various reasons they frequently were still not cohabiting. A year or more might pass before the bridegroom arrived to take his bride to her new home. The reasons might be, among others, the bridegroom being away working, having been conscripted by the Romans for their army, not being able to support a wife yet, or still in the process of building an addition to his father’s house where the young couple could live in something resembling privacy. Another reason could be that the bride was simply too young and it would be dangerous for her to have children. Compare this with the later European custom among royalty in particular of children being engaged to each other in childhood or even infancy, to secure the marriage. Since no mention is made of a brother or even a father in the Gospels for Mary, she may have been the child of a widowed mother who was anxious to secure a permanent place in society for her child by an early espousal. The word “espousal” is not synonymous with “engagement.” Once espoused, the girl was legally married regardless of age or whether she was cohabiting with her husband. The signing of the marriage contract was the act by which the couple was legally married; a wedding ceremony might follow month or even more than a year later. So Mary was officially “espoused” to Joseph but not living with him at the time the angel announced to her that that Holy Spirit would impregnate her. It was important that the young woman be a virgin, and of the House of David. Mary was both. Joseph was also of the House of David, so for the sake of appearances, the child would be his son and belong to the same Davidic branch as his father as well as his mother. We know that Mary was from at least a Levitical family because her cousin Elizabeth, who became pregnant in old age at least six months earlier, was married to a Levite. It is not clear in the Greek translation whether she was related to Elizabeth on her mother’s or father’s side. As for Jesus being married, there is silence on that issue in the Gospels. It was not necessary for a man to be married to take part in many religious ceremonies in the first century. Jesus’ cousin John likewise was not married, yet he was conducting rituals of immersion in the Jordan River. Unfortunately, a great deal of pietitistic effluvia has entered the Nativity story, mainly from anti-Semitic sources in the early and medieval periods. Also, a great deal has been borrowed from extra-canonical sources as to Mary’s family, though not so much as the names of her parents appear in the canonical Gospels. It is my sincere hope that these things will be expunged, because they are nothing but superstition and embroidery to the basic story, which reveals a marriage that was strictly according to Jewish law at the time.
You use the term: “Palestinian Jewish marriage”
May I remind you that the name Palestine was given to Judea only in the year 125 CE about 92-96 years after Yeshua was crucified.
135 CE
(Jeʹsus) [Lat. form of the Gr. I·e·sousʹ, which corresponds to the Heb. Ye·shuʹaʽ or Yehoh·shuʹaʽ and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”].
What’s new? A kid in religious class knows Bible(and NewTestament)is not a textbook of history or physics or biology but has a preisemeaning like a derivation symbole d/dx in maths though incomplete; complete: dy/dx. themntioned J.Fitzmayer, R.E.Brown,J.P.Meier – RC biblical scholars in details explained it.
Read for ex.1965, RC Catholic Commentary on Matthew 19:12 (Jesus rejecting his family and wife)for the sake of preaching the arriving kingdom of God
ps. BAR maybe should ask someone to clarify the meaning of such terms like “Joseph”,”Nazareth” – historical or just nicknames “nazarine” (like Samuel or john The BAptist)
We must know the perfect one meaning(andtruth) before the End (1 Cor 15:24) very near finally because of the glorius stupidity in the Universe esp. in Akademia
More than engaged, less than married.
It is written this man Jesus was a rebel among the Jews. He protested many Jewish Laws and Customs one of which was requirements of men. This is why in certain places the question arises among the people and even ask of Jesus by a religious group having legal authority. The question was “By What Authority Do You Do And Say These Things?” Further indication that he was in fact not Married. It is Important to remember that was a social and political activist that Started and Lead a protest against The mainstream Jewish religious Community on many points of the law. For this reason despised then killed by his enemies as a protest against Roman taxes “In reality”.
Thank you for the article as believers tend to not think about the situation or treat it as a “gray” area. It is not a “gray” area as you have so made the case.
I recently listened to a message that did touch on this subject and then more so on the specific birthplace of Jesus as foretold in the scriptures. [Invalid URL removed by site admin]
More information about Bible marriage customs in the book, Shout of the Bridegroom (Covenant Publishing, 2002.) Dr. Glenn Greenwood, now deceased, spent his lifetime studying the customs, and I was privileged to help him write his final book.