In this light it can also be noted that the interpretation of 1.25a as not only underlining that the child was not Joseph’s but also indicating that he was doing what any righteous Jew would do, abstaining from intercourse during pregnancy, does not fit very well at this point in the account. It would be strange to emphasize again at this stage that the child was not Joseph’s but someone else’s when, on this reading, that had already been dealt with by the angelic announcement and equally strange to insert a comment about this aspect of Joseph’s law-observant righteousness just here.
