Historical Jesus, Week 11, Page 1 of 10 The “Brothers” of Jesus: The History of Interpretation Week 11, Lecture 38 1 In Chapter 10 Meier Continues his “Interim Reflections” on the “hidden life” of Jesus before his public ministry. This is the first of 2 lectures on what the NT calls the “brothers” of Jesus. The next lecture will focus on the 1st century understanding of these relatives. This lecture will focus on the tradition from the 2nd century to the 21st century. In this chapter Meier goes back-and-forth in time. I have arranged my remarks in roughly reverse chronological order. I will work my way backwards from the present time to the 2nd century The Common View -- of people who do not have advanced religious education Catholics: “brothers” are cousins Protestants: “brothers” are siblings A Nuanced View of the 20th & 21st Centuries Common Teaching2 of Catholic Church: “Brothers” are cousins, distant relatives Some exegetes and theologians, however, have proposed that the “brothers” were in fact siblings of Jesus, i.e., children of Mary and Joseph E.g. Rudolf Pesch, a Catholic German exegete 1976, Das Markusevangelium, pages 322-25.3 He is mentioned in Mary in the New Testament, 1978. 4 The editors note that Pesch had not been condemned by Rome. As of the time of Meier’s writing, 1991, there had been no condemnation from Rome. As for Meier himself, he was named a monsignor after this book was published.5 I know of no condemnation of Pesch since that time.6 So, while the traditional view is still the “common teaching” of the Church, it is being questioned by some scholars. The Enlightenment (18th Century) Some Protestants began to regard “brothers” of Jesus as siblings. A Common Protestant View Today The Original Protestants at the time of the Reformation (16th Century) Many contemporary Christians are surprised to discover that: 1 I have decided to number the lectures throughout the course consecutively. Lectures 1-37 were given in Weeks 1-10. This lecture relies heavily on “In the Interim: . Part Part II: Family, Marital Status, and Status as a Layman. The Immediate Family of Jesus.” Chapter 10 in John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, volume 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Anchor Bible Reference Library (Doubleday, 1991) pages 330-332. I also draw heavily on the insights of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Christological Catechism : New Testament Answers (Paulist, 1991), “Question 7. How Are We to Understand the References to the Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in the New Testament? 2 There is a great difference in Catholic thought between the “common teaching” of the Church and a “dogma” of the Church. A full discussion of this is a matter for a course on Systematic Theology, which would take us too far afield. Furthermore, it would be an area in which I have no special competence. Here I will state simply, a dogma of the Church is something the Church considers essential to Christian truth. Whoever denies a dogma is not a “real / true Christian;” such a person is a heretic. The common teaching of the Church is simply that -- what the Church commonly teaches. Someone can question the “common teaching” of the Church and be considered a “loyal Catholic,” rather than being considered a heretic. Over the centuries many “common teachings have been changed. The details are matters for a course in Church History. 3 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1. 319. When I first read Meier years ago, I did not have a copy of Pesch’s Markusevangelium. My dear friend Father Franz Graef gave me his copy several years ago before he died. 4 Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, editors, Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Romany Catholic Scholars (Fortress Press; Paulist Press, 1978) page 172, note 139. 5 In 1994, after the publication of volume 1 of A Marginal Jew, Meier was named a monsignor by Pope John Paul II, at the request of John Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop of New York. Neither the pope nor the cardinal were considered to be “liberals.” 6 A quick check (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Pesch ) reveals no condemnation before Pesch died in Rome in 2011. Historical Jesus, Week 11, Page 2 of 10 Martin Luther: “brothers” are cousins. Luther accepted perpetual virginity of Mary. John Calvin: “brothers” are cousins Calvin accepted perpetual virginity of Mary. Roman Catholic Church maintained what is still the “common teaching.” The “brothers” are cousins. The differences between the views of Catholics and Protestants are more complex, when one examines their histories. 4th Century. This Roman Catholic view dates back to the late 4th century. In 383 Jerome wrote a treatise entitled Against Helvidius. At this time Jerome was trying to get men & women to join monasteries & convents. He argued that the celibate life was holier than Christian marriage. In fact he said quite a few derogatory things about marriage. A Christian named Helvidius argued that Christian marriage and Christian celibacy are equally holy ways of life. He argued that the NT obviously teaches that Mary & Joseph had marital relations after the birth of Jesus -- This was clear because Jesus had “brothers and sisters,” according to the NT. Jerome argued: the “brothers” of Jesus were his cousins. This became the dominant view in the Western Church .ach / aḥ )7 can refer to many relatives, including cousins) אח Jerome argued that the Hebrew Preview: An earlier View We are going to see that there was an earlier view: the “brothers” of Jesus were Joseph’s children by a prior marriage. Jerome could not use this argument, because he was arguing for celibacy for men as well as for women. For his argument to work, he needed both Mary and Joseph to be virgins. That is why Jerome could not argue that the brothers of Jesus were step-brothers.8 Meier’s comment about Jerome While all this is perfectly correct, the number of OT passages where in fact ʾāḥ as[sic] indisputably means cousin is very small—perhaps only one! It is simply not true that adelphos is used regularly in the Greek OT to mean cousin, and the equivalence cannot be taken for granted.9 This opinion is also shared by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, quoted by Meier: It is significant that Joseph A. Fitzmyer, who discusses with care the many possible meanings of adelphos in the Gospel According to Luke, 1. 723–24, nevertheless states apodictically on p. 724: “Jerome thought that adelphos could mean ‘cousin,’ but this is almost certainly to be ruled out as the NT meaning.…”10 My Thoughts -- Not Meier’s! There is more than a little bit of “smoke and mirrors” going on in Jerome’s arguments. He reminds me of the preacher who made a note in the margin of his sermon: Argument weak. Pound on pulpit! Now we are going to go back to the second century -- and we will see that there were several views at this time. 2nd Century, Hegesippus In the 2nd century Hegesippus, a Christian, taught that the “brothers” of Jesus were true siblings. Hegesippus believed in the virginal conception, so technically he believed the relatives were half-brothers of Jesus. That is, they were children of the same mother, but not of the same father -- since Joseph had no role in Jesus’ conception. Hegesippus calls James adelphos kuriou (literally brother of the Lord); He also calls Jude adelphos Elsewhere Hegesippus speaks of an “uncle” theios,11 and a “cousin,” anepsios of Jesus. 7 The word sounds like ach, with the “ch” pronounced as in the German name “Bach.” Scholars prefer the dot under the h (ḥ) because in this system one English letter corresponds to one Hebrew letter. 8 Liturgical note. If a prayer at Mass mentions “Mary, ever virgin,” that prayer dates from the fourth century or later. For example: Eucharistic Prayer I, from 4th century Rome, mentions “Mary, ever Virgin;” Eucharist Prayer II, from 2nd - 3rd century Rome simply mentions the “virgin” Mary. 9 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1. 325. 10 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1. 360, endnote 36, which supports a claim Meier makes on page 329 of his text. Historical Jesus, Week 11, Page 3 of 10 This is important. It shows that Hegesippus means “brother” by adelphos; When he means “cousin” he says anepsios The writings of Hegesippus have been lost. We have only excerpts from him, quoted by the 4th century church historian, Eusebius. 2nd Century, Tertullian Tertullian was arguing against the docetic Christology of Marcionites. Marcion was a heretic who wanted to get rid of things that were “too Jewish” -- like the entire OT! Marcion also deleted the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke. He did not want to admit that Jesus was born! He & his followers claimed that Jesus was not fully human, he only seemed human. The Greek word dokeō means “to seem,” hence our word “docetic.” Tertullian’s main point was to argue that Jesus really was human. In this context, he argues that Jesus really was born, and had real brothers and sisters. Tertullian called the brothers & sisters of Jesus, along with his mother, “his blood relatives.” 12 Tertullian, like Hegesippus, accepted the virginal conception, so he regarded these relatives as half-brothers & sisters. 2nd Century, Irenaeus. 13 The Incarnate Word recapitulates Adam Adam came from Earth, while Earth was “still” adhuc a virgin -- no other humans had yet been born. The Word came from Mary, while she was “still” adhuc a virgin.