On the Tenth Day of Meier...

On the tenth day of Meier, his Marginal Jew brought to me, 10) Jesus' family, 9) a long stretch of endnotes, 8) Jesus' language, education, and social status, 7) origins of Jesus of Nazareth, 6) part 2 criteria for the historical Jesus, 5) part 1 criteria for the historical Jesus, 4) agrapha and Nag Hammadi, 3) Tacitus and other Jewish sources; 2) Josephus and the books of the canon; and 1) and an introduction to the historical Jesus.

I should be able to finish the eleventh and twelfth days of Meier tomorrow, because I underlined the last chapter some time ago :-) So today, chapter 10, "In the Interim... Part II: Family, Marital Status, and Status as a Layman. It is an interesting chapter to read given that Meier is Roman Catholic. There are potential landmines for him in this chapter that are of little concern to us Protestants.

Immediate Family
Meier suggests that Nazareth might have had 1600 people. He concludes with most that Joseph was likely already dead by the time Jesus was thirty. Perhaps Mary was around 14 when Jesus was born.

He spends a good deal of time discussing the question of whether James, Joseph, Simon, Jude, and Jesus' sisters were really his brothers and sisters. Or were they cousins or children of Joseph from an earlier marriage? The standard Roman Catholic position is that they were cousins. In the Eastern church, they are Joseph's children from an earlier marriage. One new tidbit I didn't know is that Martin Luther and John Calvin held to Mary's "perpetual virginity" as well--that she never had any other children after Jesus and that the birth of Jesus itself miraculously did not alter her physical virginity.

Meier is keen to point out that Rudolf Pesch, Catholic author of a German two volume commentary on Mark that argues James, etc. were "true siblings," has never been censured by the Roman Catholic Church, despite the controversy his commentary caused. Similarly, he points out that the idea that they were cousins does not appear in Christian literature until Jerome in the late 300's. The idea that they are children from an earlier marriage appears in the Protogospel of James in the 2nd century. But the "true siblings" view was held by Hegesippus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus in the second century.

After discussion of the gospels, Paul, the early church, etc., Meier draws what to most of us is the obvious answer, "the most probably opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were true siblings" (331). I hate church constraints on historical and exegetical conclusions. They don't help anything but simply force sincerely truth-seeking scholars to have to play games. Churches should worry about theological beliefs, not historical and exegetical conclusions, except in those very few cases like the resurrection where historical belief is inextricably tied to theological belief.

Jesus Married?
This is also very important to Catholics. It is often important to Protestants too in an unthinking way. But I can't think of anything that would have been theologically problematic if Jesus had been married and had had sex.

But of course, there is no evidence of Jesus ever having been married, other than the fact that it was the default. But Meier notes that the New Testament and other early Christian literature had opportunity to mention that Peter had been married. Women followers of Jesus are mentioned, including his mother. There would have been no problem with him being married. Why would his wife not be mentioned? There would have been no need for a cover up.

Further, Meier notes that there were celibates in the ancient world, not least probably John the Baptist and many Essenes.

Layperson
Here Meier points out the simple fact that Jesus was not a priest while he was on earth. Only Hebrews in the NT says anything about Jesus' priesthood and here it is a heavenly priesthood. "We should think of Jesus as belonging to a pious Jewish laity that regularly went up to Jerusalem to worship even as it bewailed the failings of at least the upper-level priests who officiated there" (349). There may even have been an anticlerical aspect to his ministry.