Fr. Raymond Brown

[TOME]

BrianC,
I agree with you about the pope’s view of the proper historical-criticism which is why I wrote he didn’t throw the baby out with the bath. I think our Holy Father’s faith and knowledge allows him to approach modern biblical scholarship as a valuable and essential tool and is not as defensive about this scholarship as some. I read several critics of his work “Jesus of Nazareth” from a more “liberal” point of view and I found it amusing in that a major criticism was our Holy Father’s failure to use some more popular scholars in his writings. I found this amusing because if you read this work plus others the pope has written it seems he does not de-value their works but using their works he rejects their conclusions often by ignoring them (could one consider that as a left handed compliment?). But in regards to Raymond Brown he does use him now and again which I think says something about Fr. Brown’s scholarship - it was a human endevor therefore far from perfect, but it wasn’t void of great merit either.

I forgot to put the name of the publication Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar and other founded - a true lapsis mentis- it was “Communio” and if my memory serves me well (which would be the first time in a long time) Ignatius Press can either trace it roots to “Communio” or was greatly influenced by this publication.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

You’ve stated things well IMO. I’ve been trying to make this point a lot in the last week or two, but to little avail. Challenging the scriptures to get everything we possibly can from them is some folks cup of tea. It’s not threat to their faith. For others its a huge threat. I don’t know how it can be resolved. Those who dislike critical analysis because it threatens faith, will never be appeased by anything the person who wishes to “squeeze” the scriptures says. I can see nothing to do but to keep responding that these things are not cause for concern. For every person who loses faith through study, another gains faith through study. I suspect its what your faith consists of in the first place, or what you wish it to consist of that makes the difference. I’m not sure, short of psychoanalysis for everyone how it can be resolved.

 

[dcdurel]

You’ve stated things well IMO. I’ve been trying to make this point a lot in the last week or two, but to little avail. Challenging the scriptures to get everything we possibly can from them is some folks cup of tea. It’s not threat to their faith. For others its a huge threat. I don’t know how it can be resolved. Those who dislike critical analysis because it threatens faith, will never be appeased by anything the person who wishes to “squeeze” the scriptures says. I can see nothing to do but to keep responding that these things are not cause for concern. For every person who loses faith through study, another gains faith through study. I suspect its what your faith consists of in the first place, or what you wish it to consist of that makes the difference. I’m not sure, short of psychoanalysis for everyone how it can be resolved.

The problem is not with "critical analysis", the problem is trying to make critical analysis primary order to come up with the teachings of the Gospel.  
  Raymond Brown constantly made his interpretation or the interpretation of other scholars who he agreed with as the primary way of determining the  teachings of God.   He seemed to have no idea at all that the Church did not learn a single doctrine from the scripture.  All doctrines the Church learned were directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  Jesus taught the apostles EVERYTHING directly and again when He sent the Holy Spirit.  Thus, there is no doctrine which the Church learned from scripture.  The limits on critical analysis are so evident when we realize the brilliant protestant scholars who have spent their entire lives  using this method and they still had no idea what Jesus meant when He said, "this is my body."

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The problem is not with “critical analysis”, the problem is trying to make critical analysis primary order to come up with the teachings of the Gospel.
Raymond Brown constantly made his interpretation or the interpretation of other scholars who he agreed with as the primary way of determining the teachings of God. He seemed to have no idea at all that the Church did not learn a single doctrine from the scripture. All doctrines the Church learned were directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Jesus taught the apostles EVERYTHING directly and again when He sent the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is no doctrine which the Church learned from scripture. The limits on critical analysis are so evident when we realize the brilliant protestant scholars who have spent their entire lives using this method and they still had no idea what Jesus meant when He said, “this is my body.”

I’m sorry but you’ve lost me. I have no idea what you mean re: Brown. he made his interpretation ? you don’t complete this thought at all. We learn nothing of our doctrine from scripture? we learn it directly from Jesus and the Spirit. Is this written down somewhere? I get that Jesus taught the apostles but its not written down? Well to be fair there are many brilliant protestant theologians. They might disagree with us on some things. I would agree they are wrong, but they of course would argue otherwise.

 

[SRLAUREL]

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

The truth is that, although Fr. Brown was a prolific and scholarly writer, at least some of his conclusions border on heresy. It is because he is so widely read in “scholarly” circles that I am concerned. These are the people deciding on our commentaries in new Bibles.

Some of his comments seem to be essentially, “I believe because of faith, not because it’s true” followed by his account of how it isn’t true. This is what some of his conclusions boil down to.

What Fr Raymond Brown is sometimes criticized for is holding firmly to the Catholic notion that we are NOT a sola scriptura Church. For instance, with regard to certain marian dogmas he says that the evidence supporting them in the scriptures is not adequate HOWEVER, they are dogma which the church in her wisdom holds and has always held in some sense precisely because she is NOT a sola scriptura church. In other words, Scripture, for all its normativeness is NOT the only source of truth or faith for us. Sounds pretty orthodox to me.

The poster who noted that those threatened by Fr Brown’s work often are those who embrace a fundamentalist approach to Scripture is true. It is also true that their approach to the sources of faith are not particularly Catholic when they do this, and can samck of Protestant or evangelical fundamentalism as well. By the way, putting R Sugenis in the same category as Raymond Brown in terms of Biblical scholarship is a bit like putting Matthew Fox in the same category of systematic or dogmatic theologians as Thomas Aquinas, or Rod McKuen in the same category of poets as Emily Dickenson. Giving his criticism of Raymond Brown’s work credibility is like giving credibility to an eighth grade biology student who criticizes the work of a nobel prize winning biologist. There are reasons Raymond Brown was head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission twice under two different popes; lousy scholarship, simplistic faith, or heterodoxy was not among them.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The problem is not with “critical analysis”, the problem is trying to make critical analysis primary order to come up with the teachings of the Gospel.
Raymond Brown constantly made his interpretation or the interpretation of other scholars who he agreed with as the primary way of determining the teachings of God. He seemed to have no idea at all that the Church did not learn a single doctrine from the scripture.

That statement being fiction, it is unsurprising he had no such idea.​

All doctrines the Church learned were directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Jesus taught the apostles EVERYTHING directly and again when He sent the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is no doctrine which the Church learned from scripture. The limits on critical analysis are so evident when we realize the brilliant protestant scholars who have spent their entire lives using this method and they still had no idea what Jesus meant when He said, “this is my body.”

Any one with the slightest understanding of critical scholarly methods, would not expect it to give the answers that dogmatic theologians give - that is not its purpose. It is a complete waste of time & effort to discuss critical scholarship with people who can’t even be bothered to understand what the thing is that they presume to attack.​

The idea that Jesus never relied on the OT for doctrine is as well supported as the fantasies of those who imagine that the US was colonised by Hebrews in 600 BC. The Shema was quoted by Jesus from Deuteronomy 6 - not originated by Him; it teaches the Unity of God. It was a doctrine the Apostles learned from the Pentateuch - not from Jesus. He learned the Psalms from the Tanakh - just as they did. The NT is studded with quotations from the Tanakh by Him & them.

 

[utunumsint]

What Fr Raymond Brown is sometimes criticized for is holding firmly to the Catholic notion that we are NOT a sola scriptura Church. For instance, with regard to certain marian dogmas he says that the evidence supporting them in the scriptures is not adequate HOWEVER, they are dogma which the church in her wisdom holds and has always held in some sense precisely because she is NOT a sola scriptura church. In other words, Scripture, for all its normativeness is NOT the only source of truth or faith for us. Sounds pretty orthodox to me.

The poster who noted that those threatened by Fr Brown’s work often are those who embrace a fundamentalist approach to Scripture is true. It is also true that their approach to the sources of faith are not particularly Catholic when they do this, and can samck of Protestant or evangelical fundamentalism as well. By the way, putting R Sugenis in the same category as Raymond Brown in terms of Biblical scholarship is a bit like putting Matthew Fox in the same category of systematic or dogmatic theologians as Thomas Aquinas, or Rod McKuen in the same category of poets as Emily Dickenson. Giving his criticism of Raymond Brown’s work credibility is like giving credibility to an eighth grade biology student who criticizes the work of a nobel prize winning biologist. There are reasons Raymond Brown was head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission twice under two different popes; lousy scholarship, simplistic faith, or heterodoxy was not among them.

I agree with everything said. However, it is still important to read these authors in a critical way by reading counter arguments, however inadequate they may be. If what Fr. Brown says is true, this should become evident to a discerning reader (as it has done for me).

Another important point to make is that those who read Fr. Brown should have a good understanding of HC as a method especially when used to discover certain historical facts. Here is a quote from John P. Meier in his artice 28 “Jesus” paragraph 3 in the NJBC.

The sole focuse of this article is the “Jesus of history” or the historical Jesus - the Jesus who is knowable or recoverable by the means of modern historical-critical research…The “Jesus of history” is a modern theoretical reconstruction - a fragmentary, tentative portrait painted by modrn scholards - and is not to be identified naively with the full reality of the Jesus who actually lived in the 1st century AD (the “real Jesus”). In a sense, this distinction between “historical” and “real” holds true for any figure of ancient history. There was more to the real Socrates or Nero than what we can know today. This is a fortiori true of Jesus, not only because of our fragmentary sources but also because of the depths of the mystery involved. The historical Jesus should also be distinguished from the “earthly Jesus,” i.e. Jesus as portrayed during hi life on earth. The Gospels purport to depict the earthly Jesus; they do not aim at depicting the historical Jesus, though they are the chief sources for our modern recontructions. German authors often distinguih between the historical Jesus and the historic Christ,…The former refer to a scientifically reconstructed figure; te latter, to the object of Christian faith and worship, which has had an impact on Christianity through the ages. However, this distinction [is not obeserved by all scholars] Some recent scholards perfer a three-part distinction: 1)descriptive historical knowledge about Jesus; 2)those aspects of such hisotrical knowledge that can become significant to us today, 3)faith-knowledge of Jesus as Lord and Christ. This article is directl concerned only with the first type of knowledge, though this first level naturally leads to the second and third levels. For methodological reasons the quest for the historical Jesus prescinds from what is known by faith, but by no means denies it.

It is important to note that HC can only ever provide a tentative reconstruction of the historical Jesus and that the method is concerned with what is historically knowable *with certitude *about Jesus. That Jesus is God is not an object of historical knowledge because this fact transcends what is humanly verifiable or knowable. It is a revelation. Herein lies the distinction between revealed faith and what is knowable using human reasoning. **That we cannot prove scientifically that Jesus is God in no way means it is not true. ** There is much that HC can teach us, but it is only a foundation for a greater understanding of the revelation of God which must be accepted on faith.

Which leads me to one final point. A practitioner of HC may be a great historical critic and not be a great theologian. The same person can be judged using different criteria.

God bless,
Ut

 

[IrishBrigade]

QUOTE=THurifer2;3011691]Any scholars out there with an opinion on the late Fr. brown.

…my experience with Father Brown came this past year, when I set out to write my own exegesis of the New Testament, that I wanted to circulate among the parishioners of my church…our pastor, unfortunately, but no doubt correctly, felt my writing style to be too ‘didactic’ for general parish consumption, so I must reevaluate my goals…I believe his Introduction to the New Testament to be one of the finest analytical texts I have read…another would be Harper’s Bible Commentaries…for exegetical purposes, and a detailed excursion into theological hermaneutics, Father Brown’s work is unsurpassed…he is, and will be, missed…