In this book, Bauckham assumes that every family in Nazareth owned farmland. The fact that Jesus is a craftsman, according to Bauckham, simply tells us what Joseph and Jesus did on the side to make extra money. Thus the title "tekton" was what made their family unique from the other farmers. After this assertion, he writes on pp 183-4:
Bauckham's appeal to Hegesippus is interesting, but not convincing in isolation. He acknowledges that the story might be legendary (fine), but argues that the details are too specific to have been invented (not fine). I'm open to the possibility that there was a Joseph/Clopas family farm, but I'll need a bit more evidence. Moreover, even if the land did belong to Jesus' nephews, it is a further assumption to trace ownership back to Joseph.
Another note: Bauckham uses the phrase "peasant farmers" suggesting that the farmland was not nearly large enough to support the extended family. I agree with Chris that Jesus was probably not among the utterly destitute. I also found his insights about upper-class artisans very helpful. So I suppose that my problem is really with Bauckham's argument.
To our readers: do you feel comfortable making the assumptions that Bauckham makes? Secondly, if the plot of land was in Jesus' family, is the phrase "peasant farmers" helpful?