A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vol. 1

So Meier starts with the sources for Jesus' life, which basically consists of the Gospels. There is a long, thorough discussion of the reference to Jesus in Josephus, from which Meier agrees with most scholars is mostly genuine, with several obvious Christian interpolations. He then discusses other sources, which reveal a very meagre crop. There is Tacitus' reference to Christians, nothing of value in the Talmud, as well as a thorough deflation of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. Thomas consists of sayings, many of which resemble those in the Gospels. But Thomas' sayings are simpler, and many have concluded that they are more primitive and therefore earlier than the canonical gospels. Meier disagrees. He points that one reason Thomas' order of sayings does not resemble the synoptic gospels is because many of them were remembered orally, not because they proceeded them. He also points out one reason Thomas' sayings appear simpler is because the Gnostic concerns of the author/editor has pared away those elements of the original Gospel saying that were too clear or too eschatological for the author's taste. We then get a discussion of the criteria for deciding what comes from Jesus; embarrassment, discontinuity, multiple attestation and providing a motive for Jesus' execution.

We then turn to Jesus' actual life himself. We start off with a discussion of his name, and then we have a discussion of the infancy narratives. Notwithstanding the fact that Meier is a Catholic priest, by the time he is finished there is not much left of them, or the doctrine of Jesus' virginal conception. The narratives are inaccurate about precisely those childbirth rituals that Mary, the presumed source, would have to know. Both Matthew and Luke use questionable historical elements (the Massacre of the Innocents in Matthew, unattested to by any other source, the census in Luke that could not have happened at the time Luke gives) and give clearly different routes of Joseph and Mary to and from Nazareth and Bethlehem. Even more disconcerting is Meier's later discussion of Jesus' siblings, of which there were at least four brothers and two sisters. For centuries Catholics, seeking to preserve both the eternal virginity of Joseph and Mary, have sought to argue that the references in the gospels to brothers are really to his cousins. This is based on the idea that Hebrew does not distinguish between the two terms. Of course the gospels were written in Greek, which does distinguish the two. Nor were the authors of the New Testament woodenly translating Jesus' Aramaic into Greek. After all Paul refers to brother(s) of the Lord in both Galatians and Corinthians, where he is writing originally in Greek. Josephus refers to James the brother of Jesus, even though he could and did distinguished between brother and cousin. Moreover statements by Jesus such as "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother," (Matt 12:50) lose their force if the term for sibling is replaced by cousin. The safest assumption is that Jesus' siblings were Mary's children. (It has been argued that they were actually her stepchildren, being Joseph's from a previous marriage. Elsewhere Meier has written while this is not impossible, it is not supported by the gospels--where there is no clear use of the term "stepbrother"--and it is based on a late source, the second century Protoevangelium of James which is patently inaccurate about many Jewish rituals. What is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.)

Was Jesus illegitimate, as some scholars have speculated? No, the simplest explanation for references to Jesus as "Mary's son," was because the speaker wished to assert Jesus' ordinariness by referring to his ordinary parents. Mary was right near by and Joseph was presumably already dead. Was he married? No again, since while it was unusual, it was not unprecedented, as we can see from the examples of Jeremiah, the Essenes and John the Baptist. What language did Jesus speak? Almost certainly Aramaic, says Meier. If a cosmopolitan author like Josephus had trouble with Greek, it is not likely that the Greek of a marginal villager like Jesus was likely to be any better. Archaeological evidence has confirmed this sceptical attitude towards mass hellenization, as helpfully summarized in James Dunn's "Jesus Remembered." Jesus was probably literate and he was probably a layman. When did Jesus die? Most likely on April 7, 30 CE. He was executed on the eve of Passover. Meier is thorough on all matters but he is especially illuminating on why John, the most mystical Gospel is more accurate on this point than the synoptics. For they claim Jesus was executed on Passover. The answer is that the passage on Mark is a later addition, which we can see by comparison with the surrounding passage, and which Luke and Matthew unfortunately copied. Such is the conclusion to Meier's first volume, the beginning of a most scrupulous, scholarly and well-read journey indeed.


Comprehensive   January 23, 2005
Steve Jackson (New England)
30 out of 30 found this review helpful

Every once in a while, public attention turns to the person of Jesus of Nazareth. A few years ago, it was the "Jesus Seminar." Lately, Dan Brown's book THE DA VINCI CODE sparked some interest, particularly among the conspiracy minded. The impression that many people have is that the conventional story about Jesus is wrong, and the more established churches don't want you to know it.

What many people haven't been told is that there is a large body of work in recent years which is supportive of the historical accuracy of the Gospels. One such work is John Meier's series A MARGINAL JEW. Meier is a Catholic priest who teaches at Notre Dame. In 1991 he came out with the first volume. It might not be the first book you want to read on the subject, but it's a work that anyone interested in the historical Jesus should tackle. Volume two and three are out, and a fourth and final volume is promised.

Meier's work is nothing if not comprehensive. Volume 1 describes the sources for the life of Jesus, the historicity of those sources, the chronology of Jesus' life, and his background (his family, what languages he spoke, whether he could read, and the like). Meier is particularly good on some of the supposed sources for Jesus' life, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. As he shows, careful analysis of these documents indicates that they are later than and rely upon the canonical Gospels. Contra people like Crossan, it is highly unlikely that they contain a separate Jesus tradition.

This book is also interesting for a couple of other reasons. First, although the book contains the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church (indicating it is free from doctrinal error), Meier actually denies the perpetual virginity of Mary and is noncommittal on the virgin birth (both of which are Catholic dogma, or so I thought). Second, Meier disputes the historicity of portions of the Gospels, particularly the infancy narratives. For example, he thinks it unlikely that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Ben Witherington provides a review of Meier's project up to the second volume in THE JESUS QUEST. Witherington reaches more conservative conclusions while using a similar methodology.



Brilliant, intellectually honest, well written and complete   October 16, 1999
Joseph (Bethpage, New York)
21 out of 28 found this review helpful

From the beginning to the end, this book will enthrall those who are attempting to understand Jesus and his times. I could not put the book down until I completed it. For the scholar, it provides abundant resources. The inquisitive readers, like myself, can skip over the footnotes, without losing the intellectual flavor of this brilliant work. It is spellbindingly honest in its analysis. Thank you John Meier for this wonderful work. Book two is equally brilliant. I anxiously await the promised book three.


The minority brief   November 14, 2004
Mark Mills (Glen Rose, TX USA)
20 out of 44 found this review helpful

Quoting Meier: "This book grapples with one of the greatest puzzles of modern religious scholarship, the historical Jesus. As I will explain at length in Chapter 1, by the "historical Jesus" I mean the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research." In paragraph 2, he outlines his technique for adjudicating the 'scientific evidence': "I often use the fantasy of the 'unpapal conclave.' Suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic - all honest historians cognizant of 1st century religious movements - were locked up ... and not allowed to emerge until they had hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended in his own time and place."

Unfortunately, the 'conclave' is entirely in his imagination and he never elaborates on 'the scientific tools of modern historical research'.

With respect to the conclave, it is useful to put 'A Marginal Jew' in context. It was released to the public on Nov, 1, 1991. It is safe to assume the above was written down sometime in the late 80s. A few years earlier (1985), the 'fantasy conclave' had actually been realized. That conclave, now known as the Jesus Seminar, was several hundred scholars and they worked for several years on the project Meier outlines. Given the size of the Jesus Seminar, it is certain Meier knew of its activities.

In other words, Meier's 'unpapal conference' was actually taking place and Meier chose not to engage it directly. This book should be seen as a 'minority brief.' Of course, the Jesus Seminar is often vilified, so 'minority' or 'majority' is a matter of debate. He got his brief out 2 years before the Jesus Seminar's 'The Five Gospels', but an adequate rebuttal (if one can be made) will require another author.

While Meier alludes to 'scientific historigrahy', he doesn't inform the reader on the subject. By ignoring this, he makes a major mistake. The 'majority report' issued by the Jesus Seminar relies almost entirely upon textual deconstruction, the process of deducing hidden meaning via unexpected juxtaposition of a given textual record. While debatable as a science, no one can deny the computer has given us the ability to statistically analyze text for word usage patterns far exceeding anything available to pre 20th century scholars. This 'modern science' is use to great effect by the Jesus Seminar, but Meier seems incapable of dealing with it.

Faced with the juggernaut of the non-fantasy conclave's computerized textual deconstruction, Meier falls back upon traditional historiographic methods. He cites earlier publications and his favorite scholars. On an objective level, Meier cannot make a dent in the Jesus Seminar claims. In the end, Meier is relying on 'old fashion' textual decomposition. His arguments fall flat for all but the reader already confirmed in his opinion.

With this in mind, what does Meier argue? Let me outline this by describing the difference between the Jesus Seminar and Meier understandings of 'The Gospel of Thomas'. The methodology of the Jesus Seminar follows the process outlined on page one of 'A Marginal Jew'. Using textual decomposition to cross compare every 'Jesus quote' in the 4 Canonic gospels and Thomas with one another, they report the results of a 'vote on the Jesus quote' by the conclave. The results of these votes show a majority of scholars believe Thomas includes authentic and unique Jesus quotes.


In contrast, Meier argues that Thomas can be dismissed from consideration for the following reasons:

A. Thomas is heretical, so we cannot trust the redactor to preserve 'true' Jesus quotes.
B. Some scholars have concluded a few Jesus quotes in Thomas are derivations from Luke and Matthew, so we have no evidence the Thomas Jesus quotes are 'original'.
C. It would bore the reader review 1st/2nd century Jewish and non-canonic texts, A and B above are adequate.

The first argument can be construed to be the point of the book and I doubt it can be used to justify use or disuse of possible evidence. The second has been entirely undermined by the Jesus Seminar. The third may be boring, but represents the only logical research path. For example, if Thomas is held to contain independent Jesus quotes,
1. Why don't we have more copies of it?
2. Who bore the 'Thomas' tradition from apostolic times to its burial in the Nag Hammadi jar?


Excellent, if you survive the Methodology   February 10, 2002
Richard G. Wilkes (Ferndale, MI USA)
16 out of 18 found this review helpful

He begins what was at the time a 2 volume book (now up to 4) with a lot on Methodology, which actually helps to describe the work of the Jesus Seminar and modern christological and New Testament thought & research. Most people I know found that section A Drag.
However, once he actually launches into the birth narratives and begins talking about Jesus, what happened, when, and why, it's as fascinating as a detective story, and as hard to put down.
This book is for intelligent readers with open minds; those who believe God wrote the Bible and it has been handed exactly as God intended should keep looking.