Father Raymond Brown

[Lorarose]

I am looking for links/articles on Father Raymond Brown.
I have noticed that most catholic dissenters I know sing his praises.
Why is that?

 

[PhilVaz]

I consider him moderate (not liberal/modernist, nor conservative, in the middle), got me a “yellow rating” for PetersNet which is now CatholicCulture.org

For example, he argues against the radicals of the Jesus Seminar

But he does have his critics from the “conservative” side

The Most Theological Collection

see especially The Consciousness of Christ and Free From All Error

Phil P

 

[Hananiah]

Here is a traditionalist critique of Fr. Brown’s scholarship:

Fr. Brown and the Demise of Catholic Scripture Scholarship

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I like some of his work, but I’ve grown more skeptical of it as I’ve moved from being a dissenting “Curran” Catholic to becoming a conservative Catholic.

Fr. Brown seemed heavily influenced by the historical critical method of exegesis, and I believe he had put too much trust in the effectiveness of this method of biblical interpretation.

What also concerned me is that he did his own Nihil Obstat for his New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Why? Shouldn’t that have been done by a third party? In his commentary, I believe he teaches contrary to the Catholic faith when he asserts that the Bible can have errors in it.

He’s a good transitional scholar for those evangelizing Protestants, as his Biblical interpretation is as Protestant as anything coming out of the Union Theological Seminary. Much of his scholarship is sound, some of it I believe goes too far.

Here’s an article by conservative Catholic author, Robert Sugenis, which discusses the historical errors of the historical critical method:

Historical Criticism: Blessing or Curse?
catholicintl.com/epologetics/hist_crit.asp

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hananiah,

Thanks for the link to the other article by Robert Sugenis. I don’t think I had that one.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Here’s another …

**Crisis in Scripture Studies **by Fr. William Most
geocities.com/Athens/7273/crisissc.htm

God bless,

Dave

 

[johnMark]

itsjustdave1988:

What also concerned me is that he did his own Nihil Obstat for his New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Why? Shouldn’t that have been done by a third party? In his commentary, I believe he teaches contrary to the Catholic faith when he asserts that the Bible can have errors in it.

Does it matter if he did his own Nihil Obstat? I guess what I am wondering is does this somehow invalidate the Nihil Obstat? Also, given the Nihil Obstat doesn’t this give more weight or authority to Brown’s book? Does Sungenis’ article have the same “authority” as Brown’s book does that imploys the historical critical method?

I am trying to understand how this all fits together in way of Brown’s book using said method and having the Nihil Obstat while Sungenis’ article not having the NO yet criticizing Brown.

Mark

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does it matter if he did his own Nihil Obstat?

I suppose it doesn’t. I’ve just never seen an author approve his own work for publication by giving himself a Nihil Obstat. Seems a bit irregular, no? Do you know of another example of such?

I’ve seen so many things with a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur that are seemingly inconsistent with Catholic teaching that I don’t even think these things matter much anymore. Consequently, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur neither add to are detract from the merits of one’s scholarship, in my opinion.

I took a Scripture course in my master’s studies, which included a study of the applicable magisterial texts with regard to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Part of the course also included a study of works by Fr. Brown, which is when I began to suspect Fr. Brown’s view as being somewhat inconsistent what the magisterial texts seemed to be teaching. This made me scratch my head a bit and take a new look at Fr. Brown’s position which I had previously trusted rather uncritically.

Currently, I tend more toward the scholarship of Fr. William Most and Robert Sugenis with regard to the inerrancy of Scripture. Seems more in line with magisterial teachings, in my opinion.

God bless,

Dave

 

[dcs]

itsjustdave1988:

I’ve just never seen an author approve his own work for publication by giving himself a Nihil Obstat. Seems a bit irregular, no? Do you know of another example of such?

St. Robert Bellarmine once issued an instruction removing one of his own works from the Index. Not to compare Fr. Brown with St. Bellarmine, of course, as the latter defended the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture while the former worked to undermine it.

In the Preface to Michael Davies’ book Partisans of Error (about the Modernist Tyrell and the apostate Loisy), a couple of Fr. Brown’s propositions are compared to the condemnations of St. Pius X’s Syllabus Lamentilabi Sane (I may have misspelled that). These propositions of Brown’s are condemned. Not a good sign.

 

[Esquire]

Be careful citing to Mr. Sungenis. I really enjoyed his works “Not by Faith Alone” and “Not by Scripture Alone”, but his current position against heliocentrisim and in favor of geocentrism is, to say the least, a bit troubing.

 

[Catholic2003]

Dei Verbum states:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

I take this (“for the sake of salvation”) to say that the Bible is not a science book or a history text, but an inerrant guide for matters of faith and morals. This is why believing in heliocentrism or evolution is consistent with the Catholic faith.

Question for the crowd: Is it consistent with the Catholic faith to believe that II Peter was not written by St. Peter? Obviously, how you feel about Fr. Raymond Brown is going to depend quite a bit on how you answer this question.

 

[otm]

And I would be cautious of citing Michael Brown to anything. He seems to be much more interested in spin than facts. And if that upsets you, look back to the editorial analysis, his response, and the editor’s response to his response in back issues of National Catholic Register.

The historical critical method has been addressed by the Church for the areas in which it has gone too far. I have not heard anything from the Vatican criticizing Brown, but more than enough from the conservative wing of the church laity. And I suspect that not a little of the criticism comes from people who do nopt know how to read critically; that is, to carefully listen to, and understand the position that Brown takes. He is always careful to deliniate what he is asking and how he is asking it; always respectful of the Magesterium, and always points to the fact that what we believe is backed by Tradition.

He wasn’t on a Pontifical Commission on Scripture becasue he was a fool or a heretic. Much of what he says is hard to understand; but that is often due to several factors, among which he uses language specific to his task (scholarly language, which is nuanced), and the fact that often people reading him are doing so in somewhat of a vacuum in regards to the scholarly study of Scripture. His purpose is that of a scholar, not a pastor, and his approach is different.

And, I suspect if he were alive today, he would be among the first to agree that the historical critical method is but one tool, and not necessarily the foremost tool.

 

[Lorarose]

Thank you all.
The reason I ask is this:

Fr. Raymond Brown’s works are widely read and studied in my area.
I have not read his works - but I notice a different attitude towards the bible among those who study his writings.

They do not seem to believe that some events that are described in the New Testament actually took place.
They question beliefs that I thought were required of catholics - such as the perpetual virginity.
They question the authorship of the N. Testament books.

So…I am confused about where scholarship ends and where heresy begins.

 

[tmak]

Lorarose,

With a careful reading of “The Death of the Messiah” by Brown you will discover that his main purpose and goal is to get at what the evangelists intented to convey. I my mind he is very careful and well balanced in his research.

Where do people get their questions about perpetual virginity from Brown’s work?

Tom

 

[dcs]

Esquire:

Be careful citing to Mr. Sungenis. I really enjoyed his works “Not by Faith Alone” and “Not by Scripture Alone”, but his current position against heliocentrisim and in favor of geocentrism is, to say the least, a bit troubing.

Since it doesn’t make him an heretic, there’s no reason it should be troubling.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is it consistent with the Catholic faith to believe that II Peter was not written by St. Peter?

This is a question pertaining to history, not a question pertaining to faith. Whereas, whether or not the Bible is inerrant is a question pertaining to faith, which has been asked and answered by the Church. The Bible is inerrant.

The part of Dei Verbum that I’d like to emphasize is:

since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit

Fr. Brown asserted the author of Job made an error with regard to religious truth. He believed that the author of Job denied an afterlife. In other words, Fr. Brown asserts that the Holy Spirit denied the afterlife, thereby contradicting himself within Holy Writ. Hmmmmmmmm… don’t think so. What Fr. Brown has asserted is against the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. I believe he was too heavily influenced by the Protestant biblical scholarship he learned at the Protestant seminary he attended.

Dei Verbum is not the first magisterial teaching on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. You ought to read the others and understand the Dei Verbum did not set out to change Catholic teaching, but to affirm it.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I gotta agree with DCS. I’m more troubled by Fr. Brown’s assertion that the Bible contains errors than any theories of which celestial body is the center of the universe. The former disputes a dogma of Catholicism, the latter does not.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In addition to Dei Verbum …

Pope Paul VI, Dei Verbum, 1965:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

… I suggest a comparison of Fr. Brown’s assertions as compared to Providentissimus Deus:

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 1893:
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden … to admit that the sacred writer has erred. **… so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.****" **(PD, 20)

Also, see *Divino Afflante Spiritu *…

**Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

This teaching [the complete inerrancy of the Bible], which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. (DAS, 4)

Pope Pius XII also asserted Scripture as having “freedom from any error whatsover” (DAS, 1)

When I come across a passage or appearant conflict in Scripture, I’m more comfortable admitting that I don’t know the answer than asserting I DO KNOW that the inspired author had made a mistake. The latter seems somewhat prideful.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Tom,

Where do people get their questions about perpetual virginity from Brown’s work?

One possibility may be from Fr. Brown’s book, Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine. Under the heading “Doctrines about which the Scriptures are Virtually Silent”, he stated:

there is virtual silence on a subject that has later come to be regarded as a matter of Catholic faith … the continued virginity of Mary

I don’t believe Fr. Brown was challenging the doctrine, but merely stating that the Bible alone is “virtually silent” with regard to it. People writing about Fr. Brown’s exegesis have often glossed over the distinction.

Fr. Brown commented on this misunderstanding later in the same book:

I insist that the two Marian issues would have to “remain open questions” only for those who pretend that the historical-critical method is all-sufficient. Catholics are not in that position and neither are many Protestants. (ibid., p. 71, emphasis added)

Sola Scripturist love to quote from Fr. Brown’s exegesis as if Fr. Brown was a Sola Scripturist. However, he was not.

Fr. Brown also asserts that “the [Marian] doctrines stem from a reflection on the role of Mary in salvific history.” He asserts this reflection, commonly called Sacred Tradition, as a source of legitamite authority.

The problem, I think, is that in an effort to prove our doctrines to Protestants, we often attempt to create a proof from the “Bible alone” which is a false start. Catholic authority is not derived from the Bible alone, but from the Bible and Tradition. So when Fr Brown refutes that Marian doctrines are proved by Scritpure, he sounds, to one who has a Sola Scripturist viewpoint, as though he is refuting Marian doctrines. He is not.

God bless,

Dave

 

[Fidelis]

Lorarose:

I am looking for links/articles on Father Raymond Brown.
I have noticed that most catholic dissenters I know sing his praises.
Why is that?

None of this so far addresses the fair question that was originally brought up: why is it that those in open dissent of the Catholic Church seem to have an affinity for Fr Brown’s work?

Coincidence? Because dissenters are smarter than the orthodox? Affirmation? Why?