Fr. Raymond Brown

[Donald45]

I wouldn’t necessarily insult fundamentalist-style Catholics by comparing them to protestants.

No insult was intended, but, as a former Protestant for most of my life, I’m well-acquainted with this interpretive approach. Consider this description in The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document, The Interpretation of the Bible In the Church:

"Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture… The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis."

---

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm

In light of the above, it’s clear that the fundamentalist approach to biblical interpretation [1] arose within the Protestant movement, [2] is intimately associated with Protestantism as well as with an opposition to historical-criticism, and [3] is rejected by the Catholic Church as a valid method for properly understanding Scripture. Therefore, those Catholics who adopt such a method have, knowingly or not, embraced an essentially Protestant----and non-Catholic----approach to biblical interpretation.

The truth is that, although Fr. Brown was a prolific and scholarly writer, at least some of his conclusions border on heresy.

The Church itself has never officially made such a declaration. In any case, in a previous post, I did recommend that he be read eagerly, though not without questioning some of his conclusions.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The truth has to be the highest importance.

I would agree completely.

The Church indeed should tell us all we are to believe for Divine Revelation is the truth.

**Divine revelation is indeed truth. But it is the defining of it that gets to the problem. There are many who think differently in defining it. We must as human beings with minds and graced by God make an individual decision, giving due regard to the heavy weight to be assigned the Church’s opinion. **

If you read things that are not truthful it is your choice. If you are negatively influenced that is your choice. The Church has a right to regulate materials issued in her name.
**Indeed, but what do you mean by being issued in her name? Are you suggesting that one cannot write about the Church without permission? I do not believe Brown for instance ever was published through the vatican. **

This insures the truth is not being corrupted. So yes, if I believe in the truth of the Church I will read what she has to say. This then prepares me to understand what I read from doubtful sources. When we look up a word in the dictionary we are looking for a reference point. You still can choose to use the word another way with much confusion to the listener.

**So are you saying in the final analysis that you set aside your own beliefs and accede to the Church’s position always. ? **

One should have a very mature understanding of Church teachings so your reference point is intact.

One must be firmly grounded in the faith.

The Church offers a propostiion that you can accept or not.

Agreed

FYI - I am orthodox.

Thanks but unfortunately I’m getting confused with all these labels. So far I’ve heard of liberals, progressives, Traditionalists, Orthodox, Conservatives, and Fundamentalists. I’m no longer sure what Orthodox vs. tranditionalist, vs. conservative would be. But thanks for offering. I am progressive, though I’m called liberal, but that’s what I think CTA is…so who knows.

 

[MrS]

Mrs S

Isn’t Bob SUngenis a sedevacantist?

sorry I did not see this earlier… His debate with the sedevacantists is available on DVD from his web site. He has spoken often of his love for the Pope, both JPII and for BXVI. And he is also very open when he sees a problem need to be discussed, pope or laity.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Any scholars out there with an opinion on the late Fr. brown.

An extremely liberal instructor that I have hails Fr. brown as the greatest biblcal scholar the church has had in the past century.

“Greatest” ? I don’t know - the number of Biblical scholars in the CC alone during the last century or so is not exactly small ​

What I do think is that the CC in the US has been greatly enriched by having a scholar of his stature among its members.

As for the difficulties, real or alleged: he didn’t claim to be inerrant, or all-wise, or beyond criticism. No scholar could be - scholarship, Biblical or other, does not work in that way; so pointing to difficulties does not disqualify what he has to say. Like any scholar, he should be read critically, & intelligently - not treated as an infallible (or worthless) oracle. Not everybody is going to profit from reading him - he’s not Holy Writ, just as he’s not the Antichrist. Nor does it follow that because some may or do find that kind of scholarship destructive, everybody will.

 

[Brian_C]

I don’t object to Brown’s teachings as much as I object to them being taught as a rule. He certainly has some brilliant insights. I do object to the condescention and derision heaped on those who don’t agree with everything Brown has to say.

 

[dcdurel]

Brown seemed to have a protestant approach to scripture, in which private interpretation was above the Gospel the apostles handed down through the Church as the Catholic faith.
The Church teaches the Gospel the apostles handed down is the source of all saving truth. The Church never taught that private interpretation of scripture is the source of all saving truth.

Brown highly praised Protestant scholarship. Yet this same Protestant scholarship that had no idea what Jesus meant when He said, “This is My Body”.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Brown seemed to have a protestant approach to scripture, in which private interpretation was above the Gospel the apostles handed down through the Church as the Catholic faith.
The Church teaches the Gospel the apostles handed down is the source of all saving truth. The Church never taught that private interpretation of scripture is the source of all saving truth.

Brown highly praised Protestant scholarship. Yet this same Protestant scholarship that had no idea what Jesus meant when He said, “This is My Body”.

That certainly doesn’t make his work something not to be studied. There are plenty of excellent protestant theologians around. Obviously on some points we would be in disagreement, but that does not logically invalidate the areas where we do not.

 

[utunumsint]

One of the strengths of the historical-critical method is also its limitation. It cannot afford the luxury of trusting the Gospel writers. Based on its methods, there are several things with historical criticism must place outside of the scope of verifiable history. For example, I believe Fr. Brown rejected the historicity of the virgin birth. But on the other hand, he did believe that the resurrection as an event rests on a firm historical ground.

In the Pope’s new book, “Jesus of Nazareth”, he comments on this limitation and how the method can lead to infinite doubts and argumentation that only approaching the gospels according to faith can truly overcome. (By the way, he is not dismissing the value of historical criticism by any means).

If you are going to read Fr. Brown, I suggest **not **reading his works alone, but compare his works with other books, even if some may consider them inferior. The point is that his conclusions are not uncontested. You should also read Dei Verbum.

The only problem with this is that it take a lot of work and reading to do this. If you are not academically inclined, I would avoid doing this. Of if you do, post some of the things that disturb you on this forum to get some differing opinions. I’m sure there are lots of people here who would be glad to oblige you.

God bless,
Ut

 

[SpiritMeadow]

One of the strengths of the historical-critical method is also its limitation. It cannot afford the luxury of trusting the Gospel writers. Based on its methods, there are several things with historical criticism must place outside of the scope of verifiable history. For example, I believe Fr. Brown rejected the historicity of the virgin birth. But on the other hand, he did believe that the resurrection as an event rests on a firm historical ground.

In the Pope’s new book, “Jesus of Nazareth”, he comments on this limitation and how the method can lead to infinite doubts and argumentation that only approaching the gospels according to faith can truly overcome. (By the way, he is not dismissing the value of historical criticism by any means).

If you are going to read Fr. Brown, I suggest **not **reading his works alone, but compare his works with other books, even if some may consider them inferior. The point is that his conclusions are not uncontested. You should also read Dei Verbum.

The only problem with this is that it take a lot of work and reading to do this. If you are not academically inclined, I would avoid doing this. Of if you do, post some of the things that disturb you on this forum to get some differing opinions. I’m sure there are lots of people here who would be glad to oblige you.

God bless,
Ut

I think you make some excellent points. What happens on this forum constantly is people are approaching every question it seems from two basic places. Nobody is meaning to be condenscending so much as they are not willing to accept these statements of “you shouldn’t read that” as debate.

We have two ways of looking it seems. 1. The person who has a belief set and looks first to the Church to determine whether something new is acceptable. If the Church says no, they won’t read it but only criticisms of it. I term them apologists. 2. Those who have a belief set, but don’t feel that that should play any part in their investigation of new things. They worry about whether it fits their beliefs afterwards. They look to the church but are not bound by it.

I’ve tried to raise this but with little success. Until we agree that we view these topics from two radically different points of view, we will continue to talk past each other.

 

[buffalo]

Remember, if you isolate and limit your research to Bible passages then you limit your understanding of the Bible.

You cannot interpret without Tradition.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Remember, if you isolate and limit your research to Bible passages then you limit your understanding of the Bible.

You cannot interpret without Tradition.

I would agree with you if what you are attempting to uncover is the fullness of meaning of Scripture from a pastoral/salvation stance. However, when one is examining them from a purely historical/critical method one is attempting to understand what the writer believed and what he was attempting to convey and to whom. That would limit the inquiry to the texts themselves I would think I am assuming that what you mean by tradition is that which is uncovered outside the text themselves. Certainly there are passages within the text that refer to tradition and that would be included within a historical/critical examination.

Certainly this would not eliminate consultation with other documents contemporary with the writing in question. This kind of examiniation can of course help us in discerning what was understood commonly in the community. And no doubt it may in some instances include material we might today define as “tradition”.

 

[utunumsint]

I would agree with you if what you are attempting to uncover is the fullness of meaning of Scripture from a pastoral/salvation stance. However, when one is examining them from a purely historical/critical method one is attempting to understand what the writer believed and what he was attempting to convey and to whom. That would limit the inquiry to the texts themselves I would think I am assuming that what you mean by tradition is that which is uncovered outside the text themselves. Certainly there are passages within the text that refer to tradition and that would be included within a historical/critical examination.

Certainly this would not eliminate consultation with other documents contemporary with the writing in question. This kind of examiniation can of course help us in discerning what was understood commonly in the community. And no doubt it may in some instances include material we might today define as “tradition”.

I have read Raymond Brown’s Introduction to New Testament Christology, and I also have the New Jerusalem Bible Commentary in which Fr. Brown has a few articles. I really do appreciate his work, but sometimes I find myself alienated by his condescending tone. The words naive are thrown around quite often when discussing a certain points of history. If you disagree with his view, you are considered naive. I’ve seem others on this thread use the same tactic.

For example, I can understand that the nativity stories are highly condensed and structured packages of theological truth that were probably not said verbatim, or in a way closely resembling what Matthew or Luke wrote. *But I refuse to say they are not based on some sort of historical foundation. * What the real historical foundation was, we will probably never know. But no one can tell me definitively that Matthew or Luke made them up. I do not believe I am naive for saying this.

On the other hand, from a historical perspective, I can see why there is very little else that can be used to corroborate these stories whether from the Bible or from other historical documents. Therefore saying that they rest on a sure historical foundation is going beyond what we can claim using the methods of historical criticism.

But from the perspective of faith, we can believe in the historicity of the Gospels, even on some of these disputed points. We have every right as believers to place our trust in the gospel writers. That their stories are not historically baseless theological constructs.

On top of this, in the history of historical criticism, there have been very drastic reversals of opinion on some of the most sure points. even now, you can find different schools of HC who disagree with one another.

My point is, they are only one voice. A very useful voice, maybe, but not the final word in how we should interpret the word of God, by any means.

God bless,
Ut

 

[East_and_West]

Mrs S

Isn’t Bob SUngenis a sedevacantist?

uh… no. Traditionalist yes. Sedevacantist no.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have read Raymond Brown’s Introduction to New Testament Christology, and I also have the New Jerusalem Bible Commentary in which Fr. Brown has a few articles. I really do appreciate his work, but sometimes I find myself alienated by his condescending tone. The words naive are thrown around quite often when discussing a certain points of history. If you disagree with his view, you are considered naive. I’ve seem others on this thread use the same tactic.

**I tend to agree. Scholars in general can be guilty of this. I’ve confronted a Presbyterian Minister and a Cath. Proff about statements they made that were absolute. In both cases I asked them if in deed what they said was not the minority opinion. IN both cases, they agreed reluctantly, the Catholic prof was actually quite haunty. My only point was that one has a duty to say its the minority opinion rather than state the contrary as fact. **

For example, I can understand that the nativity stories are highly condensed and structured packages of theological truth that were probably not said verbatim, or in a way closely resembling what Matthew or Luke wrote. *But I refuse to say they are not based on some sort of historical foundation. * What the real historical foundation was, we will probably never know. But no one can tell me definitively that Matthew or Luke made them up. I do not believe I am naive for saying this.

**I would tend to agree here as well. No doubt they were based on historical fact. I’ve not yet reached an opinion on how much. **

On the other hand, from a historical perspective, I can see why there is very little else that can be used to corroborate these stories whether from the Bible or from other historical documents. Therefore saying that they rest on a sure historical foundation is going beyond what we can claim using the methods of historical criticism.

But from the perspective of faith, we can believe in the historicity of the Gospels, even on some of these disputed points. We have every right as believers to place our trust in the gospel writers. That their stories are not historically baseless theological constructs.
I cannot speak definitively on this certainly but my suspicion would be that there are no constructs of whole cloth if you will. I assume there is a factual kernel in every story.
On top of this, in the history of historical criticism, there have been very drastic reversals of opinion on some of the most sure points. even now, you can find different schools of HC who disagree with one another.

That is hugely true. This is a constantly evolving area. As one blogger said today…not all of it is progress either. There continue to be such advances in other disciplines that can have a huge impact here as well. Almost anyting one sees today in terms of ancient study involves a multi-disiplinary approach

My point is, they are only one voice. A very useful voice, maybe, but not the final word in how we should interpret the word of God, by any means.

God bless,
Ut

Well Said!

 

[buffalo]

It wold behoove everyone here to read the foreword of Jesus of Nazareth by PBXVI.

 

[Brian_C]

Agreed. It would be great for everyone here to read everything recent by Benedict, though.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree, I’m merely perused the latest encyclical but what I’ve seen is wonderful. I’ve started from the beginning with Clement and am on a long read to read em all. I recommend this to everyone.

 

[TMC]

On the other hand, from a historical perspective, I can see why there is very little else that can be used to corroborate these stories whether from the Bible or from other historical documents. Therefore saying that they rest on a sure historical foundation is going beyond what we can claim using the methods of historical criticism.

But from the perspective of faith, we can believe in the historicity of the Gospels, even on some of these disputed points. We have every right as believers to place our trust in the gospel writers. That their stories are not historically baseless theological constructs.

Although I am certainly not as well versed in Scriptural study as many here, I feel compelled to comment that these two paragraphs are pretty much right on. When some people of faith here about critical study of the Bible, they get mad, offended, or panicky because, IMHO, they do not distinguish between that type of critical scholarly study and faith. I don’t know much about Ray Brown, but it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if many historical critical scholars that find no support for the historical accuracy of the virgin birth still believe in it as a matter of faith.

There is nothing wrong with saying as a scholar “I think that this passage of this book was a later addition”, or “has been redacted” or “is not well founded factually” and saying as a person of faith that the same passage has important and inspired meaning. Some folks don’t get that saying that you think the last chapter of the fourth gospel was added by a later hand, is not the same as repudiating the message of John, or calling the Gospel a fake.

That said, I am just beginning my journey into serious biblical study, but I can already see 1) its not for everyone and 2) its misunderstood by many of the Faithful.

 

[TOME]

Brian C,
I agree that it would be wise to read the recent works of Pope Benedict XVI ( I added “XVI” in case some thought I was referring to Benedict XV).

But I would go further and suggest reading all or as much of his writings as you can. Plus, I would suggest we read the works of the theologians who contributed to the publication our Holy Father began in the 1970’s with Hans Urs Balthasar and others.

Given the season, there is a short work (actually three sermons) on Advent by Benedict “What it Means to Be a Christian” that I found to be a good source of meditation.

In keeping with the season and the inevitable flood of threads on Mary, the Immaculate Conception etc. I think there are three works of Benedict that are good sources of authentic apologetical argumentation that is deeply scriptural - applying what I beleive is the best in modern scriptural scholarship (even Raymond Brown).
They are, “Mary The Church at the Source” this contains important essays by Balthasar as well, “Daughter Zion” and “Introduction to Christianity”

I think these three works and the many other works of our Holy Father in a way praises the works of Raymond Brown and others in that Pope Benedict uses the works of these scholars - he is not afraid of them nor does he reject them outright (he is the first to point out their short comings but he doesn’t throw out the baby with the bath). And I found in the preface of “Jesus of Nazareth” a telling line inwhich he points out the important contribution American scriptural scholars in our understanding of the Gospels as an oragnic whole. I am certain (given the pope’s use of Brown’s work on the Gospel of John) that part of this praise was directed to Raymond Brown.

 

[Brian_C]

Lol, I’d say at least anything that Ignatius publishes.

Yes, Benedict sees the merit of the historical critical approach. However, he also cautions us that the historical critical approach is not an end unto itself but should be used in concert with our faith and tradition.