F
FishyPete
Guest
Thank you, it works.
- Status
E
edward_george
Guest
FATHER Raymond Brown was a fantastic scholar, actually. How about instead of reading things about him you read things he actually wrote? His “Death of the Messiah” is as good a commentary on the Passion Narratives as you’ll find, drawing from history, textual issues, and the tradition–he is one of the few who can strike the balance between intense scholarship and the doctrine of faith.
-ACEGC
F
FishyPete
Guest
This is the point, I am completely naive in terms of the actual works (actually I am naive on most things concerning the faith, so please dont be angry at my ignorance, thats why i come here for answers). I have read that he denies the virgin birth and the infancy narrative as mere story and speculation. How does one reconcile this as a Catholic? So please tell me, are these stories about him wrong? How can one defend a man who does not believe in a virgin birth?
E
edward_george
Guest
I’m not aware that he does deny the Virgin Birth, having read a few things he wrote. His Introduction to the New Testament includes a lengthy section (pp 219-20) about different arguments put forth both for and against the historicity of the Virginal Conception, but without taking a position on it one way or the other, since to do so is outside of the scope of what kind of work he is doing in this book. When he is commenting on matters of Scriptural scholarship, it is not a matter of making theological judgments about this or that teaching, but talking about what is reported in Scripture as a matter of what was written, by whom it was written, what they intended/believed when they wrote, and how it was received at the time. Furthermore, I highly doubt his books would be taught from and so widely lauded in the seminary here if he were incredibly unorthodox.
I apologize if I sound angry, as that’s not my intention at all. It is better to read what an author has written and see for yourself than to just read about them and what people on the internet have to say.
-ACEGC
E
edward_george
Guest
I should also add that while I have not read it, all the reviews for his book-length commentary on the Infancy Narratives (which I intend to buy one of these days, since I enjoyed his commentary on the Passion Narratives so much) are overwhelmingly positive–25 reviews on Amazon, all 4 or 5 star, and all of the comments have nothing but good things to say. Several commenters even said the book did not undermine, but rather strengthened their faith. Take that as you will, but it seems like most of the people criticizing Fr. Brown haven’t actually read his work, and those who have read his work have nothing but good things to say.
-ACEGC
-ACEGC
F
FishyPete
Guest
From a “positive” review:
but Brown’s Catholicism doesn’t color the book excessively. For example, he admits that it is unlikely Mary took a vow of virginity, and also that the “brothers of Jesus” were probably his brothers in the usual biological sense. More generally, Brown openly recognizes the historical improbability of certain events (such as the visit of the Magi), and doesn’t strain to impose dubious harmonizations on the infancy stories or to concoct interpretations meant to uphold the literal truth of the NT.
Mary is not a perpetual virgin? Really?
I’m sorry, but my faith has no room for Father Brown (pun not intended) - as I am a Catholic, not a Protestant.
but Brown’s Catholicism doesn’t color the book excessively. For example, he admits that it is unlikely Mary took a vow of virginity, and also that the “brothers of Jesus” were probably his brothers in the usual biological sense. More generally, Brown openly recognizes the historical improbability of certain events (such as the visit of the Magi), and doesn’t strain to impose dubious harmonizations on the infancy stories or to concoct interpretations meant to uphold the literal truth of the NT.
Mary is not a perpetual virgin? Really?
I’m sorry, but my faith has no room for Father Brown (pun not intended) - as I am a Catholic, not a Protestant.
E
edward_george
Guest
There’s a difference between saying “It was unlikely that Mary took a vow of virginity” and “Mary was not perpetually a virgin.” Think about it. There is a difference there. All Brown is attempting to do is show from the history why what’s in the text is likely to be there. There no need to be snarky or to make implications about his faith or lack thereof.
-ACEGC
F
FishyPete
Guest
He clearly stated that he believed Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that he had doubts of Peter being the rock.
How can I, as a Catholic, have any acceptance of anything he’s written if he takes those stances? Not being snarky
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Pete, If you actually read the text Fr. Brown’s indicates that these brothers and sisters were more than likely from a previous marriage of St. Joseph. And I would go to the actual text concerning Peter rather than believing the interpretation of some review.He clearly stated that he believed Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that he had doubts of Peter being the rock.
How can I, as a Catholic, have any acceptance of anything he’s written if he takes those stances? Not being snarky
F
FishyPete
Guest
I tell ya, finding the truth about who said what and why shouldn’t be that hard. But for some reason it is.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Very smart guy, some troubling ideas.He clearly stated that he believed Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that he had doubts of Peter being the rock.
How can I, as a Catholic, have any acceptance of anything he’s written if he takes those stances? Not being snarky
Tread carefully around Fr. Raymond Brown.
F
FishyPete
Guest
Troubling meaning he was right? Or troubling mean he was a little “out there” shall we say?
D
DCNBILL
Guest
I tell ya, finding the truth about who said what and why shouldn’t be that hard. But for some reason it is.
that is why the call it “research” and not “done”. I have it always found it best to go to the original material and read and make my own decision on what the author is saying rather than rely on some others opinion.
God bless you in your thirst for God and His revelation!
F
FishyPete
Guest
Further, If I was to even remotely accept Fr. Browns studies as being even remotely accurate, I would lose my faith double quick. After reviewing his actual words, I can’t fathom in the slightest how Popes have consulted him, outside of having inter-faith dialogues.
He refutes all of the First two parts of Mathew as being fanciful imagination! Formed exclusively on traditions found in the OT. Hey, that’s all well and good to further a theological cause, but come on, this flys in the face of Catholicism as a whole.
What am I missing here, and yes I just read HIS words not a review of his words.
E
edward_george
Guest
Please show me where exactly Fr. Brown, in his own words, takes the stances you say he does.He clearly stated that he believed Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that he had doubts of Peter being the rock.
How can I, as a Catholic, have any acceptance of anything he’s written if he takes those stances? Not being snarky
And as to your second comment, let’s say that someone is clearly in the wrong on some point (although you are yet to show how Fr. Brown is); does this mean that every single thing they say, then, is inaccurate or untrustworthy? I know of scholars whose views I agree with on some points but not others, and that on matters of scholarship which are not crucial to the faith itself. There are a number of the Church Fathers–Origen and Tertullian come to mind–who held unorthodox positions on some things, but this does not mean that the entirety of their work is to be discarded as untrustworthy. Were this the case, those two fathers that I mentioned would not be read in the Liturgy of the Hours.
-ACEGC
F
FishyPete
Guest
You bring up valid points!
E
edward_george
Guest
- I’ve been reading Brown as required reading in my seminary classes, and I’m yet to lose my faith as a result. If anything I’ve come to understand and appreciate the Bible more.
- Did you really read his words that quickly? In the course of this discussion? Or are you relying yet again on someone else’s opinion of him?
- Where does he “refute all of the First two parts of Mathew as being fanciful imagination?” Please cite your sources if you’re going to make bold claims like this about a man’s scholarship.
F
FishyPete
Guest
rtforum.org/study/lesson26.html
- Parallels to Old Testament events. Form-critical theory assumes that the early Christians took ideas and scenes from the Old Testament and shaped them into their own stories about Jesus. Brown believes that the origin of Matthew’s first two chapters is “a pre-Matthean narrative patterned on the infancy of Moses and built around angelic dream appearances to Joseph.”8 Brown thinks that the idea of the angelic dream-appearances to this Joseph may have been taken from the Old Testament narrative of the Patriarch Joseph, who was a “man of dreams” (cf. Gen 37:19), and that the stories of the Slaughter of the Innocents and the Flight into Egypt are derived from the description of Moses in the book of Exodus: at the time of the birth of Moses, the Pharaoh had given orders that all of the newborn male babies of the Hebrews were to be killed; and later the Lord said to Moses: “Go back to Egypt, for all of the men who were seeking your life are dead.”9 However, it is to be noted that this form-critical reasoning is based upon an application of the primitive-society theory of Émil Durkheim made by Bultmann and Dibelius, according to which the first generations of Christians were for social and religious matters incapable of much rational thought or original ideas, and so they depended upon Old Testament stories to produce religious fantasies according to the needs of their group. There is no historical basis for this theory. Also, form-critics systematically ignore the parallelism between the Old and the New Testaments set up by the divine authorship of the Bible, which explains these parallels in a much more convincing manner.
E
edward_george
Guest
Okay, this is an article written by someone else who is criticizing Brown. What is said even here is hardly equal to “refuting the first two parts of Matthew as fanciful imagination.” So Brown says that sometimes the authors of the New Testament used Old Testament language to emphasize who Jesus was–in this case, linking him to Moses. That actually strengthens the case for what is depicted in the NT, not diminishes it. There are numerous such episodes of the NT authors doing this, and all it does is further their point, that Jesus was who he said he was, the Messiah, the Son of God, the one foretold by all the prophets. Everything I’ve read from Brown only serves to draw that out further.
-ACEGC
F
FishyPete
Guest
And that’s why I post questions here, because good people like you enlighten simple people like me!
- Status