The Brothers of Jesus and his Mother’s Virginity

The Thomist 63 (1999): 83-104 THE BROTHERS OF JESUS AND HIS MOTHER'S VIRGINITY JOSE M. PEDROZO Pontifical College Josephinum Columbus, Ohio IN CONNECT!ON WITH his extensive work on the historical Jesus during the last few years, John P. Meier has dealt with the issue of the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" on several occasions.1 In particular, he has maintained that "from a purely philological and historical point of view, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters ofJesus were his siblings."2 He has arrived at this opinion from his treatment of the data in the New Testament and "a few noncanonical passages, viewed purely as potential historical sources."3 In this paper the discussion will center on the latter, postponing a detailed study of the biblical evidence and examining only the relevant noncanonical sources.4 1 John P. Meier, A MarginalJew: Rethinking the HistoricalJesus, vol. 1, The Roots ofthe Problem and the Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 318-32, 354-63. See also the two articles, "The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 1-28; and "On Retrojecting Later Questions from Later Texts: A Reply to Richard Bauckharn," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997): 511-27. 2 Meier, A MarginalJew, 332. 3 Cf. Meier, "The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus," 7. 4 For a concise but insightful critique of Meier's methodological and philosophical presuppositions see J. Augustine DiNoia, review ofAMarginalJew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, by John P. Meier, Pro &clesia 2 (Winter 1993): 122-25. Also expertly to the point is JosephT. Lienhard, The Bible, the Church, andAuthority (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 1-8, who delineates some basic flaws in Meier's biblical method, including the fact that it is not quite as objective as it claims to be (cl. 7). For additional material, see Roch Kereszty, "Historical Research, Theological Inquiry, and the Reality ofjesus: Reflections on the Method ofJ.P. Meier," Communio 19 (1992): 576-600; Avery Dulles, "Historians and the Reality of Christ," First Things 28 (December 1992): 20-25; and Richard J. Neuhaus, 83 84 JOSE M. PEDROZO Although historical labels are often misleading, I will denote as Epiphanian5 the notion that "the brothers and sisters of Jesus" were the children ofJoseph by a previous marriage. I will denote as Helvidian6 the opinion that "the brothers and sisters of Jesus" were the natural children of Mary and Joseph after Jesus' birth. By Jeromian7 I denote the idea that Jesus was Mary's only child, virginally conceived, and that the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were individuals related to him, not as true half siblings but via close non-filial blood ties to either Mary or Joseph. Meier believes that, in contrast to what he calls the "cousin approach," "both the Epiphanian solution and the view that the 'brothers of Jesus' were real brothers can find supporters in the 2d and 3d centuries."8 He goes on to assert that "the antiquity "Reason Public and Private: The Pannenberg Project," First Things 21(March1992): 55-60. Kereszty observes that "if Meier had more 'empathy' for the biblical meaning of Mary's virginity as a definitive consecration of her body-person by the Holy Spirit, he would not be so selective in evaluating the biblical evidence" ("Historical Research," 597 n. 33). 5 After St. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (ca. 315-403), who opposed the antidikomariamitoi, a heretical sect in Arabia that denied Mary's virginity postpartum. Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 78 (GCS 37:452-75); and Augustine, De haeresibus 56 (CCL46:325). 6 After the layman Helvidius who around 383 espoused the idea in Rome. Cf. Augustine, De haeresibus 84 (CCL 46:338). 7 After St. Jerome (331 ?--420) who defended Mary's perpetual virginity against Helvidius. Cf. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate beatae Mariae adversus Helvidium (PL 23:193-216). 8 Meier,A Marginal Jew, 329. The label "the cousin approach" is misleading. First of all, the argument is not that "brother" means "cousin." The argument is that, in the special case of Jesus, the term "brother" does not necessarily denote "blood brother." Secondly, no one in the early Church held the Epiphanian view and argued...