Father Raymond Brown

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lorarose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What a can of worms! How did the dissenters start to dissent? That is a little bit like asking how anyone, on an issue that can be seen from a liberal perspective or a conservative one, choses sides.

What makes one a liberal or a conservtive? I suspect that it starts with general outlook on life type of predisposition; maybe it is partially genetic, partially nurture and early influences. But I suspect that long before adulthood, most people have a general bent one way or the other.

There was an explosion of dissent about the time Humanae Vitae came out, and much was started there. Some of the dissent started with a new way of looking at Ecclesiology, which Vatican II did; some of where that went was caused by more enthusiasm than good sense; some of it by people wtih agendas. And people who dissent often have their own agendas, and will use whatever is handy in whatever fashion they choose, never mind that what they are using is being misquoted and misused.

And, frankly, there are a hugh number of people who are “well educated”, but never learned to think in a discriminating manner. They listen at about half speed; in other words, they don’t really hear what is said, but what they think was said. :They are too quick to respond, often before they have much, if any grasp of what they are responding to. The net result is that they take true statements and make them into lies.

There is also a great overuse of “popular” analysis; it often has been dumbed down, or not well done to begin with, and the information they get is somewhat like the old game of telling a story, person by person, in a group; what come out at the end isn’t what started.

And then there is the biggest problem with common sense.

It’s not common. :rolleyes:
 
I might be opening up a great big can of worms here, but I thought I’d start this thread. What do you guys / gals think about his biblical scholarship?
 
If I remember correctly, he denies the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Therefore he is a heretic and his scholarship is worthless.
 
What Phil said.

I don’t agree with all of Brown’s conclusions, but he certainly wasn’t a heretic, nor did he ever intend to teach anything against the Church.

Fr. Mitch Pacwa is quick to defend Brown, noting that he was a regular prayer of the rosary, was a kind and genial man, etc. (I have this from a friend who had an IRPS course with Fr. Pacwa, and Brown came up in discussion.)
 
I read that Father Brown denied the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Anyone else have any information to that effect?
 
40.png
ServusChristi:
I read that Father Brown denied the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Anyone else have any information to that effect?
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard that. He does have a two-volume work on the Resurrection, but I haven’t read it, and I haven’t heard that in it he denies the Resurrection.

I think the issue with Brown is that he often sought to determine what we could learn from the Scriptural accounts alone, that is, what Scripture alone tells us. That’s not to say that he believed in sola Scriptura… he didn’t: he believed everything the Church taught. Rather, his approach was, “Let’s see what we can learn from the biblical accounts and them alone.” On this basis, he argued that the infancy narratives may not be historical accounts per se, while at the same time believing in the Church’s dogmas concerning the conception and infancy of Jesus.

Now, I think that this method has some uses, but it also has some (big) limitations (it seems to result in a “two-truth” approach: that which is true according to Scripture, and that which is true according to the Magisterium). However, the Church does allow her scholars to use this approach, and hence Brown’s “toleration” by the Magisterium.
 
My understanding of his methodology was that he believed one should go at the Scriptures without any prior notions (in other words, without being bound by the dogmas of the Catholic Church).

We need someone with actual sources from Father Brown to come in here. Right now we are speculating from second hand sources.
 
Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today

The following link is a profound criticism of many of the presuppositions held by Fr. Raymond Brown by Cardinal Ratzinger:
tcrnews2.com/RatzingerExegesis88.html
 
The revelation of God to men was a progressive revelation. There is little evidence in the Old Testament that its authors believed in an after-life and what there is suggests they believed, more or less what the pagans as, did, which was that after death men lived in a shadow world. Exceptions would be the “hints” or forecasts of the Gospel which we Christian believe to be in the Scripture, truths of which even the authors might have been unaware. We believe that the New Testament is a kind of “key” to the Scriptures, which opens the door to the full meaning of the Jewish Scriptures.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, Fr. Brown actually asserts the sacred writer of Job made an error with regard to religion. I’ve read Job, and I don’t see it. I don’t see where the writer of Job denies there is an afterlife. I agree that Job (the character in the Book of Job) was wrong about his view of religion (e.g., he erroneously believed only the guilty suffer). But it was not the writer of Job that was in error. Do you see the difference?

Yet, this is what Fr. Brown asserts, contrary to magisterial condemnation. No Catholic is permitted to assert the sacred writer of Scripture had erred and still be in agreement with Catholic magisterial teaching.
 
From Fr. William Most:
geocities.com/Athens/7273/crisissc.htm

Raymond E. Brown in many places, such as NJBC (p. 1169), insists that Vatican II allows us to say that there are all kinds of errors in Scripture, in science, history and even in religion - only things needed for salvation are protected by inspiration. Hence he insists that Job 14. 13 ff raises the possibility of an after life, and then denies it. Brown said that if anyone tries to differ from this position of his, it is an “unmitigated disaster”.

… Brown (“Jesus God and Man”) accumulates NT text after text to show** ignorance in Jesus**. Yet, twice, on pp. 42 and 68) Brown admits that all his evidence is inconclusive. Why then not just believe the Church? Brown is not even sure Jesus knew much about the afterlife ( p. 56): “We cannot assume that Jesus shared our own sophistication on some of these questions. . . how can we be sure that he knew it [heaven] was not above the clouds?” Jesus even had at least one superstition (“St. Anthony’s Messenger,” May , 1971, pp. 47-48) in supposing demons inhabited desert places, while Paul thought they lived in the upper air."

Can someone explain to me how Job 14 denies the afterlife? Job (the person, not the book) can and did make errors. But is Job 14 erroneous in matters religious? If you agree with Fr. Brown on this, can you please explain?
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
From Fr. William Most:
geocities.com/Athens/7273/crisissc.htm

Can someone explain to me how Job 14 denies the afterlife? Job (the person, not the book) can and did make errors. But is Job 14 erroneous in matters religious? If you agree with Fr. Brown on this, can you please explain?
Click to expand...
After reading all these posts and reading about Fr. brown on EWTN, I can’t see the argument that says he is not a dissenter. Perhaps you can correct me? I have no background in Scripture scholarship, but can read and trust orthodox priests and academics. Most seem to thing Brown is heterodox.
 
Without even diving into the argument of whether or not Brown is a dissenter, I have to say that I find it hard to believe that any questions about him stem from the fact that he is such a lofty scholar who cannot express himself outside of “nuanced” scholarly language. His works are celebrated for how “approachable” they are; his New Testament work served as my textbook when I was a sophomore in college. He is hardly a scholar’s scholar; rather he is supposedly our best hope for inculcating college students with a sense of Scripture.
 
QUOTE=Fortiterinre] I have to say that I find it hard to believe that any questions about him stem from the fact that he is such a lofty scholar who cannot express himself outside of “nuanced” scholarly language. Richard Feynman, the physicist, once stated that, if competent researcher could not explain his work to a freshman majoring in the subject, he didn’t know what he was talking about. He applied it to himself. Once when he was unable to explaining a new concept to a class, he concluded on the spot that he really didn’t understand it himself, and that it needed more work.

I tend to apply that to all who claim to be experts.
 
Raymond Brown never said “I do not believe this or that” dogma. What he did do was ask questions in such a way to cast doubt of the veracity of most parts of the Bible.

A steady diet of his type biblical 'scholarship" would lead anybody right out of the Catholic Church.

I suggest reading The New Biblical Theorists (1983), by Msgr. George A. Kelly to understand the damage wrought by his exegesis.
 
why do dissenters sing the praises of bible scholar Fr. Raymond Brown? was the original questions. number one don’t lump all dissenters together, their opinions are all over the map, just as is true for orthodox Catholics. number two, he is so highly regarded because he is regarded as the most authoritative proponent of the historical critical method of bible scholarship that has dominated the field for the last one hundred years, one of the few proponents of that method who always maintains that magesterial teaching trumps his own opinions i.e. on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Number 3 the only persons of his stature on the conservative side are evangelicals, due to the nature of Catholic universities and institutes that have acted to almost totally quash orthodox scholarship at the higher academic levels, so that voice does not get heard. Where we benefit is that in the orthodox wing we have so many fine writers, Shea, Hahn etc. who produce reliable scholarship that we non-academics can enjoy.
 
Thank you everyone - I’ve really learned alot here.
While I know the only one who can truly speak for Fr. Brown - is Fr. Brown himself (are there links where he addressed his critics?)
I think what I have run into is people who have used his work for their own heterodox goals.
Someone mentioned that Fr. Brown left it up to the Church to “trump” his writings. I had not heard this before or considered it.
Certainly the dissenters I know never mentioned this (surprise surprise)
 
40.png
Lorarose:
Thank you everyone - I’ve really learned alot here.
While I know the only one who can truly speak for Fr. Brown - is Fr. Brown himself (are there links where he addressed his critics?)
I think what I have run into is people who have used his work for their own heterodox goals.
Someone mentioned that Fr. Brown left it up to the Church to “trump” his writings. I had not heard this before or considered it.
Certainly the dissenters I know never mentioned this (surprise surprise)
Click to expand...

Here is something by him: 🙂​

Mary, the First Disciple.

It should give a taste of him, at least. ##
 
Lorarose,
40.png
Lorarose:
While I know the only one who can truly speak for Fr. Brown - is Fr. Brown himself (are there links where he addressed his critics?)
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any links, however Fr. Brown’s book Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine is intended by Fr. Brown, it seems, as a rebuttal against his critics. I also have Fr. Brown’s Critical Meaning of the Bible and his The New Jerome Biblical Commentary . These texts give you a pretty good understanding of Fr. Brown’s views.

I just purchased the book The new biblical theorists: Raymond E. Brown and beyond by Msgr George Kelly. I haven’t read it yet, but I’ve read other works by Msgr Kelly and liked them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top