On pp. 69-71 of his book, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2007), Catholic apologist John Salza has a section entitled “A Comparison Between Joseph and Peter” in an attempt to provide Old Testament typological support for the dogmatic Catholic teaching on the nature of Peter’s supremacy. On p. 72, Salza lists these purported parallels:
· They both are asked a question by a king.
· They both receive a divine revelation from God
· They both answer the king with an infallible declaration.
· They both are appointed by a king over his kingdom and subjects.
· They both receive a sign from the king of their royal authority (King Pharaoh gave Joseph a signet ring, and King Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. The pope also wears a signet ring and robe as a sign of his authority, just as Joseph did).
· Both of their names are changed by a king.
· They both are called “father” of their people (See Gen 45:8)
· They both are given a bride (King Pharaoh gave Joseph the bride Asenath, and King Jesus gave Peter the bride, the Church).
· They both are brought from slavery to freedom by a king (King Pharaoh brought Joseph out of the slavery of Egypt, and King Jesus brought Peter, an uneducated fisherman, out of the slavery of sin).
Salza concludes that “These parallels are not mere coincidence.” The reality is that such “parallels” are indeed coincidental.
Salza and other Catholic apologists often appeal to purported typological parallels between Old Testament events and objects (e.g., the Ark of the Covenant; Eve) with Mary to “prove” the Immaculate Conception and/or the other Marian doctrines. Using such a methodology, one can "prove," just as one "proves" the Papacy and/or Marian Dogmas, that Joseph, the adopted father of Jesus and husband of Mary, was "immaculately conceived" Consider the following (note, while I am being tongue-in-cheek, such parallels are just as sound [in some instances, better] than the parallels Salza draws between Joseph of Egypt and the apostle Peter):
Typological Parallels between Joseph of Egypt and Joseph, the adopted Father of Jesus (St. Joseph) proving the latter’s sinlessness
Both had a father called Jacob
Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:2
St. Joseph: Matt 1:15
Both had prophetic dreams
Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:5-9
St. Joseph: Matt 1:20-24; 2:13
Of course, there is a difference, as Joseph was rather arrogant in his high position as favourite son of Jacob, as well as the then-future veneration he would receive from his brothers. This can be explained away as St. Joseph was the sinless, due to (1) it being “fitting” that the adopted Father of the second person of the Trinity would be raised by a sinless person just like his mother and (2) St. Joseph being called “righteous” (δικαιος) in Matt 1:19.
Both left their homes and went to Egypt
Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:28
St. Joseph: Matt 2:13
While some may argue that this typological parallel breaks down as Joseph of Egypt was sold into slavery while St. Joseph was warned in a dream (see above) to flee to Egypt, this can be easily understood as St. Joseph, the antitype, being greater that Joseph of Egypt, the mere Old Testament type—the latter was sent by sinners, showing his being a sharer of sinful flesh, while the latter fled to protect the Holy One of Israel, the second person of the divine Trinity, showing that he was a partaker of the sinlessness thereof.
Both were known for their sexual purity and chastity
Joseph of Egypt: Gen 39:7-15
St. Joseph: As with the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, too, was a perpetual virgin. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Quamquam Pluries, mandated devotion to St. Joseph on the basis of his worthy, virginal state:
We judge it of deep utility for the Christian people, continually to invoke with great piety and trust, together with the Virgin-Mother of God, her chaste Spouse, the Blessed Joseph; and We regard it as most certain that this will be most pleasing to the Virgin herself . . .In truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it. But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any [by means of his chastity] to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures. For marriage is the most intimate of all unions which from its essence imparts a community of gifts between those that by it are joined together. Thus in giving Joseph the Blessed Virgin as spouse, God appointed him to be not only her life's companion, the witness of her maidenhood, the protector of her honour, but also, by virtue of the conjugal tie, a participator in her sublime dignity . . . Fathers of families find in Joseph the best personification of paternal solicitude and vigilance; spouses a perfect example of love, of peace, and of conjugal fidelity; virgins at the same time find in him the model and protector of virginal integrity."
Both saved people from famine
Joseph of Egypt: Gen 41:14f; 47:13f
St. Joseph: Joseph was the adopted father of Jesus, whose Eucharistic flesh is the true Manna from Heaven (John 6:31-33, 41, 50, 51, 58), which is not perishable, unlike manna (John 6:27), but produces eternal life to the one who eats the flesh of the Son of Man (John 6:53f), again showing that, just as Mary is a secondary mediator of grace won by her son on the cross, St. Joseph is a secondary mediator of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the protection from spiritual hunger and famine, of course, being an antitype of protection from physical hunger and famine, the Old Testament type.
