Marginal Jew by Fr. John P. Meier

[NLMoss]

I was browsing the local book store tonight and saw the “Marginal Jew” series by Fr. John P. Meier about the historical Jesus.

In the 1970s, before I actually returned to Catholicism, I lived in NYC and attended mass sporadically, especially mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. During Lent of 1977, I believe it was, when Cardinal Terence Cooke was there, I recall a series of sermons given at mass by a Father John Meier. I remember this Fr. Meier giving very powerful sermons that were very inspiring and fascinating. He was a guest homilist at the Cathedral under the auspices of Cardinal Cooke who seemed to hold this Father Meier in high regard. He gave excellent sermons at that time.

I am wondering if the author could be the same Father John Meier who spoke at St. Pat’s Cathedral and if so, how well received is this 3-volume series Marginal Jew by the Church. In leafing through the book, I found the historical background and the description of how Jesus might have lived based upon where he came from, socioeconomic status, etc., fascinating.

However, on searching the net, I saw that Commentary magazine had reviewed volume I in 1992 and gave the impression that Fr. Meier questioned the virgin birth, etc. I skimmed only what was available for general consumption which was the beginning of the review only so I cannot say whether the entire review was favorable or unfavorable.

I really do not know how controversial the book was or how compatible the premise of the books is with our catechism. If not compatible, can anyone suggest books or authors that might give faithful historical background based on what we do know of our Lord? Not just from a Biblical standpoint but also background on how life was lived at that time for Jews in the region and therefore how life for Jesus might have been when growing up.

Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[Cockney_Clive]

An interesting work and of some value. Not without some scholarly mistakes and challenging doctrinal issues. Here is a quote from Father Gerald O’Collins S.J.

The dream of a Cartesian-style, scientific objectivity has been rightly abandoned by many scholars in various disciplines. Curiously it reamins alive in certain biblical quarters: specifically, among some who do their research into the history of Jesus. The importance of John Meier’s A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, for instance, is somewhat reduced by his attempt, which naturally cannot always be maintained, to do his work as a ‘neutral’ historian - by merely describing the ‘facts’ and declining to explain and evaluate the purpose of Jesus’ life.

from Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus; p216.

In other words, this is a work of historical research but the Christ was so much than merely history. Faith and Salvation are not part of the equation in Meier’s work, scholarly though it is.

 

[adnauseum]

I read the second volume and found it interesting - a fascinating and to me inspiring discussion of the background and significance of the phrase “The Kingdom of God” as it was used by Jesus. That section of the book alone justified it to me.

If I recall correctly, he takes a middle of the road position on the reality of some of Christ’s miracles - neither confirms nor denies the validity of some, which some might find too accomodating on his part.

I think the volumes are pretty good for a reader with a scholarly attitude, which you seem to have.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

NLMoss:

…can anyone suggest books or authors that might give faithful historical background based on what we do know of our Lord? Not just from a Biblical standpoint but also background on how life was lived at that time for Jews in the region and therefore how life for Jesus might have been when growing up.

Well, the “Anchor Bible Commentary” series really helped me out alot.
In addition, I recommend “Biblical Archeology Review”, a bi-monthly magazine, which keeps up with many discoveries and theories, old and new, from scholars of a wide range of opinions.

I now go on to state that “A Marginal Jew” is a fine work and of considerable use as an apologetic tool. It goes into verse-by-verse detail to establish the historicity of New Testament characters and their motives–it confirms the traditional Christian view of John the Baptist and his mission by examining all the available traditions (biblical and extra-biblical) about him.
Subsequently, while Meier does not state that Jesus did or did not actually perform miracles, he concludes at lenght that The Lord most certainly was known througout his ministry as a miracle worker.
Meier also defends the Gospel of John to the death from critics who hold it to be totally non-histroical.

The book does appear to dissent from Orthodox teaching on certain issues: the historicity of the Virgin birth, Jesus’ childhood experiences, and the “brothers” of the Lord as children of Mary, for example, seem to be sticking points which Catholics might find poopy. But the bulk of his deductions on these subjects escapes heresy. On the issues of whether or not the Virgin Birth actually happened, Meier declines to side one way or the other, and states one must decide for themselves based upon how much of the Church’s authority they accept.

So asside from a small number of discrepancies, this book gets down to the nitty-gritty. You pick it up a little curious, and finish it a scholar. Perhaps I’m overexaggerating; perhaps my writting is jumbled, but it is definately of use for students of biblical history.

 

[HagiaSophia]

NLMoss:

If not compatible, can anyone suggest books or authors that might give faithful historical background based on what we do know of our Lord? Not just from a Biblical standpoint but also background on how life was lived at that time for Jews in the region and therefore how life for Jesus might have been when growing up.

Can anyone enlighten me?

One of the best I’ve read in the past on this subject is : Mary and Joseph,: Their lives and times by Denis O’Shea (long out of print but certainly available via the “used books” online searches for probably about $10.00). It deals with the lives of Mary and Joseph and stops at the birth of Christ. In other words, it talks about the times, and traditions of the pre-Incarnation period which gave me a whole new dimension in reading about Christ later on. Interesting and very readable, not like a text book at all.

 

[patg]

Not that some people think it matters a lot but *Jesus: A Marginal Jew *does display the Imprimatur.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

patg:

Not that some people think it matters a lot but *Jesus: A Marginal Jew *does display the Imprimatur.

Pardon me, but the Imprimatur from what?, and where? Just curious.

 

[patg]

whowantsumadebo:

Pardon me, but the Imprimatur from what?, and where? Just curious.

From the copyright page:

Imprimatur New York June 25,1991
The Most Reverand Patrick J. Sheridan, V.G.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Oh.

 

[Fidelis]

From an interview with Scott Hahn in This Rock Magazine:

The influence of John Meier

KEATING Let’s turn now to the Jesus Seminar, which has been in the news for much of the year.

HAHN Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News came out with cover stories during Holy Week, and they featured the Jesus Seminar, which is extremely radical, but they also highlighted the more moderate views of Fr. John Meier, who is a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and a leading New Testament scholar at Catholic University of America.

Meier had an opportunity to respond to the Jesus Seminar, and in many ways his response was to the point, but much of what he said left a bit to be desired. For instance, he insists on driving a wedge between the Jesus of history and the historical Jesus. We’re used to hearing about the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. But Meier is doing something different. He’s driving a wedge between the Jesus of history and the historical Jesus, insisting that historical critics can only investigate the historical Jesus. The Jesus of history is a much larger figure, but we’re not able to retrieve him through historical-critical methods. So the historical Jesus is nothing more than the Jesus that the critics are capable of recreating with their limited methods.

KEATING That is, by looking directly at Scripture itself.

HAHN Perhaps there’s a bit of a sola scriptura approach, but it’s not just that. The Jesus of historyis the real Jesus, the Jesus you would have encountered in the first century. The historical Jesus is the Jesus the practitioners of the historical-critical methods must be content with, nothing more.

KEATING Is there any way we can reach back and find the Jesus of history?

HAHN In Meier’s methodology, no. The ideal he envisions is a Catholic, a Jew, and a Protestant, all biblical scholars, trapped in the basement of Harvard’s library, and they aren’t allowed out until they reach consensus.

KEATING This seems reminiscent of John Rawls in his political philosophy a quarter century ago.

HAHN A lowest-common-denominator approach. Meier says we have to begin with the concession that the Gospels have limited value as historical records-

KEATING This is just an assumption on his part.

HAHN Not just an assumption, really. Using the hermeneutic of suspicion, he reaches his conclusion. In the field he is considered a moderate, at some points even a conservative. As a Catholic he says he must conclude his historical-critical studies by saying that Christ was probably born at Nazareth, not Bethlehem.

In a presidential address to the Catholic Biblical Association, Meier argued on historical-critical grounds that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters, presumably through Mary.

KEATING The standard Protestant approach.

HAHN What made it so ironic was that the Catholic Biblical Quarterly then published a response by an Evangelical Protestant scholar in England, Richard Bauckham, arguing for one of the traditional Catholic approaches to understanding the “brethren of the Lord.” He said that the “brethren” might have been offspring from a previous marriage of Joseph.

But in the U.S. News article, the reporter describes how “Meier keeps his academic work and his faith separate. He says, ‘You can’t mix theology and historical research without causing tremendous confusion.’<|>” For me that’s the issue. Meier drives a wedge-a methodological separation -between his faith and theological beliefs on the one hand and his historical-critical conclusions on the other.

To see the entire article:
**SCOTT HAHN ON THE POLITICIZED BIBLE **
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9609fea1.asp

 

[oneelbk]

John Meier is not to be trusted. Here’s the following from an old article by a priest who was a great scholar and didn’t see the need to soft-pedal or deny the miracles of Jesus or place the Jesus of history in contrast to the Christ of faith, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf (from the forthcoming book Signs of the Times):

"Regardless, the bishops have a duty to protect the Catholic faithful by informing them that Fr. Brown does not transmit the Faith in union with the Magisterium. They should weigh in the balance words of Fr. John Meier, an exegete ally of Fr. Brown:

‘Ray Brown still takes all kinds of vicious attacks—not from learned conservatives but from the sort of Neanderthal know-nothing types. If they ever knew what some of the rest of us are doing, they’d have a heart attack… Ray has become the lightning rod. One might say he has taken our scholarship upon himself and has borne the weight of us all.’"

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

John Meier is not to be trusted. Here’s the following from an old article by a priest who was a great scholar and didn’t see the need to soft-pedal or deny the miracles of Jesus or place the Jesus of history in contrast to the Christ of faith, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf (from the forthcoming book Signs of the Times):

"Regardless, the bishops have a duty to protect the Catholic faithful by informing them that Fr. Brown does not transmit the Faith in union with the Magisterium.

So why was the same Fr. Brown twice made a member of the PBC ? Only the Pope can do that - what does it say for his discharge of his office that he let a man who did not “transmit the Faith in union with the Magisterium” onto a Curial body ? Is it not just possible that the Pope had a better understanding of what is compatible with Catholicism than the critics of Fr. Brown, & acted accordingly ?​

A Pope in 1943 allowed for the use of the methods employed by Fr. Brown. Another Pope in 1993 called the same methods “indispensable”. How very “modernist” of them. They obviously had no idea of what was compatible with being Catholic.

To attack Catholic critical scholars for using critical methods, in is effect a claim that the Popes since Pius XI are incompetent or heretical or not Popes.

They should weigh in the balance words of Fr. John Meier, an exegete ally of Fr. Brown:

‘Ray Brown still takes all kinds of vicious attacks—not from learned conservatives but from the sort of Neanderthal know-nothing types. If they ever knew what some of the rest of us are doing, they’d have a heart attack… Ray has become the lightning rod. One might say he has taken our scholarship upon himself and has borne the weight of us all.’"

There is no way, by historical criteria, to show that an alleged miracle about 2000 years ago was a true miracle.​

• Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown’s Theories
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
  The “Neanderthals” often confuse issues & criteria that ought not to be confused - as that first article shows. And then go on to blame as “heretical” or “modernist” those who do not confuse such things. Fr. Meier is spot on, sad to say.

From the article:

• In addition to Cardinal Shehan, such eminent peers of Fr. Brown as Msgr. George A. Kelly, Fr. William Most, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, Fr. Rene Laurentin, and John J. Mulloy were highly critical of the Brown revisionism of the Catholic Church’s age-old theology of inspiration and inerran
  I’m sure they were - but, that they were, tells us nothing about the merits of the case, on either side. We are not told anything of what exactly was being criticised, or of why.

Scholars criticise scholars & their proposals. It may seem hard to believe this, but, oddly enough, students reading for theology degrees comes across things called books. A book is something people write - as are papers & theses. And sometimes, even very clever people don’t always agree - not even when they study the very same things; even when using the same methods. So each criticises what the other has to say. All of this is part of the exchange of ideas, suggestions, disagreements, interpretations & information that is normal academic life.

Then we read:

• Specifically, in his book *Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine *(1985), Fr. Brown again put the Virgin Birth — a central dogma of the Catholic faith — in the category of “doctrines for which there is slender basis in Scripture.”
  It is pretty slenderly-based in the Bible. Election OTOH, which is much better evidenced in the Bible, receives almost no attention at all in everyday Catholicism. Even though it is of great importance to the meaning of Jesus Christ.

. From which it does** not follow** that he:

• was denying it
• was saying that it was not important
• was saying it was not a dogma
• did not believe it
  (I owe him a debt of thanks for showing how it could be credible as a Christian belief & not a mere addition of no importance.) How “central” as a “dogma” is it ? That is a totally different issue. ISTM there can be debate about that. I look forward to reading Father Meier - I’m sure that he has a great deal of value to say.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I recommend instead, Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/57954sm.jpg

Here’s an excerpt:

…for my portrayal of Jesus…I trust the Gospels. Of course, I take for granted everything that the Council and modern exegesis tells us about literary genres, about authorial intention, and about the fact that the Gospels were written in the context, and speak within the living milieu, of communities. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to incorporate all of this, and yet ***I wanted to portray the Jesus of the Gospels as the real, “historical” Jesus in the strict sense of the word. I am convinced, and I hope the reader will be, too, that this figure is much more logical and, historically speaking, much more intelligible than the reconstructions we have been presented with in the last decades. ***I believe that this Jesus–the Jesus of the Gospels–is a historically plausible and convincing figure.

 

[utunumsint]

I recommend instead, Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/57954sm.jpg

Here’s an excerpt:

I think this is a great quote, and I 100% agree with the Pope’s approach as opposed to Meier’s distinction between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of History, the first being the Jesus as reported by the Gospels, the second being the unknowable Jesus who actually lived in Israel 2000 years ago.

On another note, the Pope does explicitly affirm that his book was by no means an exercise of the magisterium, and reflected his own personal search for the face of God. In this sense he respects the rights of scholars to develop theories in opposition to his own.

The Pope (Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote an introductory Preface to the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church and made the following statement among others:

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office. Thus the present document was established. It contains a well- grounded overview of the panorama of present-day methods and in this way offers to the inquirer an orientation to the possibilities and limits of these approaches.

I think by saying this, Cardinal Ratzinger was affirming clearly that the PCB was by no means a branch of the magisterium (it had not been since 1969 I think). I believe this was done to preserve the integrity of the method, but also to distance the church from it’s more radical uses. For example, it would not be good to allow the church to officially endorse “…structuralism to materialistic, psychoanalytic and liberation…” forms of HC. But it is still legitimate for a scholar to apply the method in this way. It can also lead to further insights into the nature of our faith that the magisterium may or may not incorporate at a later date.

My point in all this is to emphasize that there is a wide spectrum of opinion and disagreement that are acceptable within the Catholic faith. We should look through them all and try our best to sift the wheat from the chaff, while at the same time being faithful to the teachings of the magisterium.

God bless,
Ut

 

[richardeekw]

I recommend instead, Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/57954sm.jpg

Here’s an excerpt:

YES! YES! YES!
I am “drunk” studying this non-fictional work by Joseph Ratzinger.

P.Meiers and other Scholars are very helpful in applying the various critical methods in studying Scripture; but what is historical-critical method must not stop at “History” because Sacred Scripture is an “Inspired Word of God” and must me treated as such.

Do read Joseph Ratzinger work everyone; because we need his explanation to halt "“Speculative Theologies”.

 

[TOME]

I agree whole heartily with all who recommend Pope Benedict XVI’s book “Jesus of Nazareth” and I would add I hope all here would read all the works of this good man. (When he became Pope I yse to joke with my friends that his papalacy should be considered Pope John Paul II’s first mircle).

One note in regards to the theme of this thread and “Jesus of Nazareth”, if you look in the bibliography in the back of this book I think its in the notes on chapter 4, our Holy Father has, for me, an interesting comment about Fr. Meier’s work. Pope Benedict basiclly says it shows both the strength and weakness of the modern scholarship and he suggest that people should read a commentary on “Marginal Jew” given by a priest whose name I forget but it is in the pope’s notes.

One of the great things about our Holy Father, he is not afraid to use all that is good about modern biblical scholarship but at the same time he is well aware and critical of its weaknesses. But again he is not afraid and actually welcomes the truth where ever he finds it which I think is a good lesson for us all.

 

[oneelbk]

To say, “To attack Catholic critical scholars for using critical methods, in is effect a claim that the Popes since Pius XI are incompetent or heretical or not Popes,” is assinine.

First of all, no one was saying anything about the recent pontiffs.

Second, A) It in no way follows that to say that to criticize a certain scholar on the merits of their work (or lack thereof) is to call a Pope incompetent or heretical or not a Pope. Popes are infallible when they teach on faith and morals, not when they make appointments. Plus, it is granted that Fr. Brown was a brilliant man and had much to offer the Church. It must also be granted, however, that as he got older his work became less and less orthodox and more and more divorced from the way that the Church has said the Bible must be studied, which is with the analogy of faith. And the popes who appointed him in '72 and '96 were also, for all their great gifts, men who, while appointing men like Wright, Arinze, and Ratzinger, also appointed people like Cassaroli, Kaspar, and Martini to prominent posts.
B) It is not the fact that scholars such as Brown and Meier use critical methods to study Scripture that is the problem. Miguens, Shehan, Most, René Laurentin, John McHugh, George Kelly, William Most, and Fr. Juniper Carol are/were critical scholars, as well. The difference is that these people used the analogy of faith – as insisted upon by every pontiff since Leo XIII and by Dei Verbum. Brown, Meier & Co. snigger at the analogy of faith. Indeed, to doubt the miracles in the Gospels is to go against DV and the magisterial document “Historicity of the Gospels.”

As for the critics of these scholars not backing up their criticisms with actual arguments, read Kelly’s The New Biblical Theorits or the four articles Fr. Richard Gilsdorf penned on the problems with Brown’s work. Or wait until The Signs of the Times comes out next year which will reprint these articles. Just because you don’t know their arguments against Brown, etc., doesn’t mean they’re not out there. It just means you haven’t looked hard enough.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…there is a wide spectrum of opinion and disagreement that are acceptable within the Catholic faith. We should look through them all and try our best to sift the wheat from the chaff, while at the same time being faithful to the teachings of the magisterium.

I agree.

The deposit of faith is much like a beautiful symphony, and when one hears a wrong note, it kinda makes you cringe. Much of the “*the reconstructions we have been presented with in the last decades” *are simply music that is in many respects is “off-key.”

As I read Pope Benedict’s book, its wonderful to be able to finally read a rebuttal to all the “historical Jesus” reconstruction that finally makes sense. So much of his text expands my understanding, and yet nothing in it makes me cringe, like so many others have.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…read Kelly’s The New Biblical Theorits.

The text by Msgr. Kelly is another outstanding book!

The New Biblical Theorists - Raymond E. Brown and Beyond
by MSgr. George A. Kelly

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I also recommend the follow online articles:

Biblical Interpretation in Crisis by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory by Msgr. George Kelly
Crisis in Scripture Studies by Fr. William Most
Critique of the Documentary Theory by Fr. William Most
**Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown’s Theories, **by Henry King
The Modernist, Secularist Historicism of Raymond Brown and Brian Tierney, by Dave Armstrong
Historicity of Gospels by Fr. William Most
Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism by C.S. Lewis

 

[utunumsint]

The text by Msgr. Kelly is another outstanding book!

The New Biblical Theorists - Raymond E. Brown and Beyond
by MSgr. George A. Kelly

http://i.biblio.com/b/944m/47576944-0-m.jpg

I also recommend the follow online articles:

Biblical Interpretation in Crisis by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory by Msgr. George Kelly
Crisis in Scripture Studies by Fr. William Most
Critique of the Documentary Theory by Fr. William Most
Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown’s Theories, by Henry King
The Modernist, Secularist Historicism of Raymond Brown and Brian Tierney, by Dave Armstrong
Historicity of Gospels by Fr. William Most
Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism by C.S. Lewis

Thank you for these links Dave.

This is from Cardinal Ratzinger.

We need to introduce at this point what I have already called the diachronic approach to exegetical findings. After about two hundred years now of exegetical work on the texts, one can no longer give all their results equal weight. Now one has to look at them within the context of their particular history. It then becomes clear that such a history is not simply one of progress from imprecise to precise and objective conclusions. It appears much more as a history of subjectively reconstructed interrelationships whose approaches correspond exactly to the developments of spiritual history. In turn, these developments are reflected in particular interpretations of texts. In the diachronic reading of an exegesis, its philosophic presuppositions become quite apparent. Now, at a certain distance, the observer determines to his surprise that these interpretations, which were supposed to be strictly and purely “historical,” reflect their own overriding spirit, rather than the spirit of times long ago. This insight should not lead us to skepticism about the method, but rather to an honest recognition of what its limits are, and perhaps how it might be purified.

I’m still reading it, but all I can say is, Amen!

God bless,
Ut