Raymond Brown: Anti-Catholic, ignorant or other?

[BibleReader]

PhilVaz:

BibleReader << those same little children would be ASTONISHED at, and LAUGH at, those Christians who think that the Adam and Eve story is history. They would think the ancient Hebrew version of, “WHAT???!!! THEY THINK THAT THE CAT-IN-THE-HAT REALLY EXISTED???!!!” >>

Yes, you mean these Christians who wrote the Catechism:

1. By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
2. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.”
3. As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).
4. “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is… ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

There are certainly symbolical and figurative elements in the story, but Adam/Eve certainly appear historical according to the Catechism. Although Georgetown theologian John Haught would agree with you (see his Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution, page 80-81).

Phil P

Hi, Phil.

I’m going to “colloquialize” my presentation, here, to more quickly and efficiently make my point.

Our current pope not only approved the Catechism paragraphs you scanned-into the thread here, but he may have actually drafted them.

Now, let us assume that he did.

Do you REALLY think that Ratzinger would tell an audience, “Well, yes! There was this guy, Adam, and this girl, Eve. And neither had belly-buttons, because neither was ever in a womb, attached to an umbilical cord attached to a placenta, having been created directly by God, like the angels, with no intervening parents. And at first God, after He brought this belly-buttonless guy Adam into existence, tried unsuccessfully to partner him up with various animals – see Genesis 2:18 to 20 – because, well, God was a little thick-headed, to tell you the truth! But finally God figured it out! He pulled the girl, Eve, out of Adam’s side, like a modern-day clone, and built-up Eve out of the guy’s rib, and introduced them!”

Yes, the Adam and Eve account, at Genesis 2:18-20, portrays God as being sorta “stupid.” Read it. It does.

Believe me, believe me, even Ratizinger does not believe the literal truth of the story. He, too, knowsw that it is FICTION.

The Adam and Eve story is one big typological metaphor, teaching theology. I repeat: It is very obvious in Hebrew. Even ancient Hebrew children MUST have realized that it was a kind of “Dr. Seuss” piece of fiction, teaching religious truth.

Ratzinger also either approved, or personally drafted, Catechism Paragraphs 128, 129 and 130.

In my opinion, the Paragraphs you site are simply only making conscious use of the same metaphors.

 

[PhilVaz]

BibleReader << In my opinion, the Paragraphs you site are simply only making conscious use of the same metaphors. >>

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. I wouldn’t agree with the word “fiction” but I would agree with the word “myth” and that some sections of the story are “symbolical” or “figurative.” For example:

1. The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolical language when it affirms that “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” [Genesis 2:7] Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

And

1. The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice.” [cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511] This grace of original holiness was “to share in…divine life.” [cf. Vatican II LG 2]

Christoph Schonborn as I understand is the author of much of the Catechism, but no matter, its still a “sure norm for faith.”

Ratzinger has written his own commentary on Genesis. I’ll quote some of that on Adam/Eve perhaps later…

I agree the Church doesn’t answer the question whether Adam/Eve had belly buttons, but I’ll say they did since I accept human evolution as fact. However, the teaching that Adam/Eve were literal and historical also appears to be taught. What else could “our first parents, Adam and Eve” mean? (see especially paragraphs 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392).

Phil P

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic2003-

This seems to me to be an accurate description of what the Church’s magisterium requires of faithful Catholics as regards the Marian dogmas.

The problem nowdays is that people like him are only concernend with the “cover your rear” attitude and then the sky is the limit when it comes to “scholarship”. After they say the magic words “I believe in everything the Church teaches” they think they are free to say whatever they want. Here is that same passage again, and you will see what Im getting at:
A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin…Look at this, is a blanket statement such as “there is NO evidence” out of line or not? Did the CC make up these things about Mary out of thin air from scratch hundreds of years after the fact because they felt like it? If he wanted to rephrase it to say: “There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in the NY Times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin…” that would sound more accurate and in line with his claims.

And it all comes down to the simple question which I keep posing, why does a so called “scholar” continue to believe in something which he himself believes is made up out of thin air? Doesnt a scholar strive for proof of why they believe in something?

If an accurate presentation of what the Church’s magisterium actually teaches is interfering with your apologetics efforts, I have to wonder if you are truly presenting the Catholic faith in all its fullness, or if you are only presenting one narrow viewpoint that you would wish to impose upon everyone.

When I try to present the faith in its fullness I go at it with the belief that there really is evidence that does affirm any given Church teaching.

 

[PhilVaz]

Fr. Brown << There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin… >>

Catholic Dude interpretation of Fr. Brown << Look at this, is a blanket statement such as “there is NO evidence” out of line or not? Did the CC make up these things about Mary out of thin air from scratch hundreds of years after the fact because they felt like it? >>

No, I understand Fr. Brown as saying there is no direct, explicit evidence from the New Testament that Mary thought she was conceived free of original sin. The NT is either “silent” on the issue (and thus not contradictory to Catholic dogma) or we can find implicit support in "kecharitomene" (not sure if Fr. Brown discusses that text). Second, it took time for the concept of original sin to be developed, so the Immaculate Conception (Mary free from original sin) could only develop after the original sin teaching was worked out.

However Fr. Brown is knowledgeable enough to know the dogma is based on the development of doctrine through the centuries, culminating in the 1854 definition of Pius IX. The same Church and the same development that taught the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the canon of the New Testament. No big deal. Now stop hammering Fr. Brown for no good reason.

Fr. Brown is certainly aware of Juniper Carrol’s wonderful 3-volume set Mariology:

“The conviction of the writers relative to her holiness is founded, necessarily, in revealed truth which became more explicit with the passing of time. In denying that she herself had ever sinned, the Fathers placed her merit in a distinct class above the rest of human-kind, and no eulogy was too great to describe her, nor were any words adequate to convey the measure of her holiness. She was “most pure”; “inviolate”; “unstained”; “unspotted”; “blameless”; “entirely immune from sin”; “blessed above all”; “most innocent.” If she was free from sin without qualification, then why not also from original sin?” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, volume 1, page 348, and see all the evidence in these three volumes).

And Fr. Brown called Max Thurian’s book on Mary “not only the best Protestant evaluation of the Mariological question, but far better than many Catholic treatments” (see Brown, Gospel of John [Anchor Bible, 1969], page 107). Calvinist Thurian states:

“…we can assert nothing other than this, for this is the most as well as the least that we can state to those who on the one hand would wish to speak of Mary as if she were sinful or on the other as separated from our condition as human creatures. We do not see how either the one or the other can be legitimately proved from the Gospel. Mary, full of grace, Daughter of Zion, the Mother of God Incarnate, the symbol of Mother Church is holy because in her the Gospel sees the living sign of a unique and pre-destined choice of the Lord, the response of faith from a perfectly human creature, but one who was also totally obedient.” (Mary, Mother of All Christians [Herder, 1963] by Max Thurian, page 25)

Post these statements on the board where you found the Fr. Brown statements for clarification.

And I’m still looking for the explicit documentation from dcdurel where Fr. Brown “doubted” the physical, bodily resurrection.

Phil P

 

[BibleReader]

PhilVaz:

I agree the Church doesn’t answer the question whether Adam/Eve had belly buttons, but I’ll say they did since I accept human evolution as fact. However, the teaching that Adam/Eve were literal and historical also appears to be taught. What else could “our first parents, Adam and Eve” mean? (see especially paragraphs 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392).

Phil P

It’s not just the “belly button thing.” Genesis 2 really does portray almighty God as “stupid.” These, plus pun-style jokes built into the text not apparent in English, plus things like God making man the same way a potter makes pots, and the textual contradiction about which tree is “in the middle of the Garden” (Genesis 2:9, the “Tree of Life”; Genesis 3:3, the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad”), make it clear that the Adam and Eve story was KNOWN BY ITS AUTHORS to be fiction, and LISTENERS WERE EXPECTED TO APPREHEND THAT it is fiction.

When the Catechism refers to our “first parents,” could it be that the Catechism is merely harkening-back to the* religious* lessons of the myth by personifying those lessons with lesson-encapsulating names “Adam” and “Eve,” and the lesson-encapsulating title “our first parents,” and not teaching that Adam = the first man and Eve = the first woman?

Read the last sentence of Paragraph 359 (1994 Edition): “The last Adam is indeed the first…” Despite everything else in that Paragraph, that Paragraph finishes by saying that Adam in the Bible is really Christ!

Read the first few words of Paragraph 375: “The Church, interpreting the symboilism of Biblical language…”

This affects the meaning of the Paragraphs to 379 inclusive.

Paragraph 388 affirms my perspective: The Adam and Eve story is really about Christ the Redeemer.

Paragraph 390, while it says that Genesis 3 refers to an actual historical primeval event, expressly declares the language to be figurative.

Why would the folks in the Magisterium do such a thing?

Because that is how the Church decided to simply the theology of Original Sin: “We are made of the same sin-leaning trash our first parents were made of.”

However, YOU should beware of going beyond the language of 390. Let me quote it…

"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.

Note that it DOESN’T actually say, “Adam = the first historical human man; Eve = the first histoprical human woman.” It talks about an “EVENT” and a “DEED.” Functionally, it talks only about a first SIN.

This is in the same book which says that “The last Adam is indeed the first…” See discussion of 359, above.

In truth, it is EVE who represents mankind in need of salvation, including the historical first man and first woman, in the Original Sin story in Genesis. That is why Genesis takes the trouble to CALL her “Eve” (from hawwa, “living”), Genesis 3:20, and to declare her “mother of all the living.”

ADAM, on the other hand, is Christ! Again, look at Paragraph 359.

Paragraphs 391 and 392 are about angels and demons.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Paragraphs 391 and 392 are about angels and demons. >>

What I was looking at in these paragraphs is the language "our first parents."

1. Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice…

392 … We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents…

And paragraph 375, while affirming symbolical / figurative language in Genesis, also clearly defines “our first parents” as Adam and Eve. Paragraphs 402 and following repeatedly refers to “Adam’s sin” and “Adam and Eve’s” sin. “By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve commited a personal sin…” (paragraph 404). Now you are saying we should interpret this as meaning Adam/Eve were not real, historical people?

I’ll agree the garden is probably figurative, the talking snake is probably figurative, the other symbols in the garden are probably figurative (trees, flaming swords, etc) but the human beings mentioned in the story, namely “Adam” and “Eve” appear to be crucial for the original sin doctrine. Unless you are going to re-define original sin as having nothing to do with “our first parents, Adam and Eve,” as Georgetown theologian John Haught does.

Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 107ff) on original sin:

“Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.” (De Fide)

“Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race.” (Sent communis)

“Original Sin is transmitted by natural generation.” (De Fide)

“In the state of Original Sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity.” (De Fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatis, Denz 788ff)

But I will reflect on what you wrote, I need to do more study on this. I might quote some more Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis, and other sources. We’re getting off the topic of Fr. Brown and his supposed wicked heresies.

Phil P

 

[BibleReader]

PhilVaz:

I’ll agree the garden is probably figurative, the talking snake is probably figurative, the other symbols in the garden are probably figurative (trees, flaming swords, etc) but the human beings mentioned in the story, namely “Adam” and “Eve” appear to be crucial for the original sin doctrine. Unless you are going to re-define original sin as having nothing to do with “our first parents, Adam and Eve,” as Georgetown theologian John Haught does.

Phil P

I think right there is your error, in the underlined section.

Isn’t the point of “descent” from “Adam” and “Eve” that inclination to sin, and inherent alienation from God, but for the grace of the cross, are intrinsic to humankind – not just “Adam” and “Eve”?

In other words, when the Church refers to “Adam” and “Eve,” this is just customary allegorical shorthand for “humankind.”

Refer again to what I pointed out in the Catechism paragraphs – there’s always some kind of reference to “Adam” and “Eve” as symbols.

Note also what I have pointed out and what you have admitted to – nothing else in the Adam and Eve story is historical. The story is absurd if that other material is historical. Among other things, we would have to conclude that God is an idiot. (He had trouble finding a suitable partner for Adam, matching him up with dogs and cats and monkeys and such. Genesis 2:18-20.

Why do you pick on one isolated part of the story as “history”? It really is essentially the same thing as declaring “Spot” and “Puff” as being the only historical aspect of the gradeschool Dick and Jane readers.

By the way, What is Original Sin?

It’s not a sentence extended to billions for the sins of two by an unjust God. That’s allegory.

Instead, it is a state of profound alienation from God, arising from our being human (of human descent), such that to enter into friendship with God we need “saving” – grace.

Without grace, we simply aren’t worthy of “shaking hands with” God.

That’s why Christ had to suffer and die – to purchase that grace from God’s justice.

That’s why Adam in the story receives the fruit of the tree from Eve. That is Christ “becoming sin,” as in 2 Corinthians 5:21 (where Paul is implicitly asking us to “grow up” in our understanding of why Christ had to suffer and die).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

BibleReader:

By the way, What is Original Sin?

It’s not a sentence extended to billions for the sins of two by an unjust God. That’s allegory.

Instead, it is a state of profound alienation from God, arising from our being human (of human descent), such that to enter into friendship with God we need “saving” – grace.

Without grace, we simply aren’t worthy of “shaking hands with” God.

That’s why Christ had to suffer and die – to purchase that grace from God’s justice.

That’s why Adam in the story receives the fruit of the tree from Eve. That is Christ “becoming sin,” as in 2 Corinthians 5:21 (where Paul is implicitly asking us to “grow up” in our understanding of why Christ had to suffer and die).

BibleReader,
Could you explain a bit more what you mean by this?

You say that Original Sin is “not a sentence extended to billions for the sins of two by an unjust God” and that such a conception is allegory. I am uncertain then what, in your view, explains the transmission of this state of alienation from God.

In order to do you the service of trying to understand your comment before I asked this question I looked up some of your old posts to see if you elaborated on it.

Here, in a thread about Mary and Original Sin forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=517227#post517227 you say:

Human flesh says, “I’m hungry! Give me food! Give me sex! Give me warmth! Give me space! Give me rest! Leave me alone! Hey! What you’ve got is better than what I’ve got! Give it to me! Give me entertainment! Don’t make me work!” Etc., etc., etc., etc. “Feed me!” Human flesh wants to be fed.

When God joins a human will to that hungry mass of flesh, those demands, outside of grace, are all the will hears. Probably, the will is hypothetically aware of altruistic alternatives, but when those are thrown on a scales, with an empty stomach on one side and the altruistic alternative on the other, the empty stomach wins every time.

That is Original Sin – the state of alienation from God’s goodness which afflicts us.

Now, God was aware that it would be like this, when He created us. So, in a sense, creation wasn’t complete until Christ suffered and died on the cross, purchasing the grace which enables us, if we befriend it in the mystical, ineffable grace process, and so appreciate, and opt for, the altruistic alternative, defeating the seklfishness of our alienated state in the process.

Because the suffering and death of Christ on the cross comprised the completion of our creation, in the sense just described, In the Garden of Eden we see Eve drawn out of thge side of the Old Testament Adam, and in John’s Gospel we see the waters of salvation, activated by the saving blood of Christ, following Eve out of Adam’s side in the case of the New Testament Adam, Christ.

So, the answer to your question is, If all you look at is unsaved man, then you’re right – God produced a defective product! But God does not think like that. God was aware that His Son was on the way. Since the grace of the cross solves the problem, God did not really create a defective product, knowing that the grace of the cross, whichg goes forwards and backwards in time, would be there for all to accept.

When you say that God “created a defective product” do you mean that God created humankind in a state of alientation? My understanding is that, while union or friendship with God was not *proper *to our nature, God bestowed it upon us as a gift and we subsequently lost that gift.

In another thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=515123#post515123) you state:

Sometimes one reads that both Mary and Jesus were “immaculately conceived.”

I never liked this kind of analysis. Technically, their conceptions, vis a vis the stain of Original Sin, were different.

Mary was saved from Original Sin by a special application of the grace of the cross to her conception.

I don’t think that Jesus was saved from Original Sin by the same kind of application of the grace of the cross.

Why would Jesus need to be “saved from orginal sin?” Wasn’t He born without the stain of sin because he was born from an already justified woman? In other words, didn’t Mary’s Immaculate Conception and the subsequent Incarnation *constitute a break in the transmission of original sin *among humankind?

Again, I am trying to understand your idea regarding Original Sin, and hope that my questions are lucid enough that you may understand the difficulties I am having.

Any insight is appreciated, thanks,
Verbum Caro

 

[Verbum_Caro]

bump for BibleReader.

(yes. I went there. I shamelessly bumped my own post).

 

[BibleReader]

Verbum Caro: When you say that God “created a defective product” do you mean that God created humankind in a state of alientation? My understanding is that, while union or friendship with God was not *proper *to our nature, God bestowed it upon us as a gift and we subsequently lost that gift.

BibleReader: Actually, I wrote, "If all you look at is unsaved man, then you’re right – God produced a defective product! " BUT I DON’T ONLY LOOK AT UNSAVED MAN. I also look at the salvation process God intended for all time. God produced a product that was “defective” in the sense that He knew that it would need saving, but He also all along, from *before *creation, intended to provide the accompanying salvation process.

**Verbum Caro [initially quoting BibleReader]: **“I don’t think that Jesus was saved from Original Sin by the same kind of application of the grace of the cross.”

**Verbum Caro: **Why would Jesus need to be “saved from orginal sin?” Wasn’t He born without the stain of sin because he was born from an already justified woman? In other words, didn’t Mary’s Immaculate Conception and the subsequent Incarnation *constitute a break in the transmission of original sin *among humankind?

**BibleReader: **No. Jesus WASN’T “saved” from Original Sin. That would violate “blemishness” and the need for a “blemishless lamb” to suffer and die to pay for grace.

The Church teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived by virtue of the action of the grace of the cross. If Christ was blemishless because He was made of such flesh – flesh preserved from death by the sacrifice of the cross – then the death of anyone on Earth could have qualified to solve the problem of Original Sin – God could have simply bootstrapped the sacrificial victim to blemishlessness by creating one of those time paradoxes which are really contradictions by sending back in time the grace won by the sacrifice of the non-Christ victim, to render the Original-Sin-laden individual blemishless, and so eligible to earn by suffering and death of a blemishless victim the very grace employed to make him blemishless. It’s all a mind-boggling Rube Goldberg contraption!

In fact, Christ was blemishless simply because God Himself is blemishless.

No mechanism, no “gizmo,” such as having been conceived out of the flesh of the Immaculate Conception, herself, saved Christ from being blemished.

Jesus and Mary were blemishless in different ways for different reasons.

Congratulations for being as deep as you are, friend! Nobody else has wandered with me where you and I are currently wandering!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thank you BibleReader for your response, and for helping me to understand your posts a bit better.

]
In fact, Christ was blemishless simply because God Himself is blemishless.

Can’t argue with that!

But could you help me out some more?

On another thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61270) you said:

If all-loving God, overflowing with love, creates free will beings who are less than God, then “before grace,” procedurally, we are garbage that does nothing but choose against God, because we have no good reason to not sin.

Outside of the impact of grace, all we want to do is sin, sin, sin, sin, sin.

We are pigs.

Now, for the justice in the all-just God, this is a problem. In effect, before grace, the justice of the all-just God says, “These pigs don’t deserve improvement so that they can shake My hand, in the Beatific Vision! I will NOT give them that for free! SOMEBODY’S got to pay for that grace!”

In response, the Son of God says, “I will! I’ll pay!”

God the Father responds, “I accept your loving offer! And I lovingly offer up this wonderful Son of Mine, Whom I love with something akin to desperation, to suffer and die at the hands of these pigs, to pay for the grace of the pigs’ salvation!”

So, God didn’t create the “grace.” His Son kind of created access to the grace, by truly purchasing it from God’s Own justice, by His suffering and death.

Forgive me for ripping this out of context of its orginal thread on Uncreated Grace, and I hope that I don’t do you a disservice.

But this above post as well as a few of your others dealing with original sin and creation seem to indicate to me that you beleive that God created Adam and Eve (or our original parents, or the first human beings, etc – I know that the names Adam and Eve are a whole other topic for you) in a sort of incomplete way. Do I read you right? Were they created in a state of “orginal depravity”? Or were they created in a state of orginal justice (which could, admittedly be raised even higher by grace later on) that they subsequently LOST in some way?

I am still trying to understand exaclty how you view orginal sin.

Thank you for sticking with me on this, and for your patience in explaining your view to me!

 

[BibleReader]

Verbum Caro:

Thank you BibleReader for your response, and for helping me to understand your posts a bit better.

Can’t argue with that!

But could you help me out some more?

On another thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61270) you said:

Forgive me for ripping this out of context of its orginal thread on Uncreated Grace, and I hope that I don’t do you a disservice.

But this above post as well as a few of your others dealing with original sin and creation seem to indicate to me that you beleive that God created Adam and Eve (or our original parents, or the first human beings, etc – I know that the names Adam and Eve are a whole other topic for you) in a sort of incomplete way. Do I read you right? Were they created in a state of “orginal depravity”? Or were they created in a state of orginal justice (which could, admittedly be raised even higher by grace later on) that they subsequently LOST in some way?

I am still trying to understand exaclty how you view orginal sin.

Thank you for sticking with me on this, and for your patience in explaining your view to me!

Well, to answer the question we have to be careful of teminology.

Read this statement carefully: The grace of the cross never didn’t go backwards and forwards in time.

Let me repeat that: The grace of the cross never didn’t go backwards and forwards in time.

The Adam and Eve story is really a fictional hypothetical. It is of picture of what we WOULD BE, AND OF HOW WE WOULD HANDLE EVERY SINGLE MORAL DECISION, IF the grace of the cross were NOT available.

In effect, the story of Adam and Eve is a picture of our “dark side” – the ugly, disgusting, self-indulgent son-of-a-serpent which is the thing the grace acts upon.

At no moment in history was this grace unavailable. (That’s one of the reasons why the Adam and Eve story is a fiction.)

Probably, folks like Ted Bundy, who was addicted to having sex with girls as he strangled them to death, so that he was making love to Death, itself, are a good portrait of what each of us CAN become if we really efficiently and thoroughly reject and wipe out the impact of grace in our personal lives.

Ted Bundy was “original depravity” completely liberated from Actual Grace.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

so how much of the Bible would you consider fiction?
you could come to similar conclusions on lots of OT stuff…
Cain & Abel, Noah, flood, Babel, Abram, Sodom, methusela, melchizedec, etc all these and more could be fiction

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

dcdurel quoting some jewish site on Fr. Brown << Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real. “It is quite obvious,” Brown writes, “that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.” >>

Has nothing to do with your previous claim that Brown denied or “doubted” the physical, bodily resurrection. Nothing.

I agree with Brown here: there ARE apparent contradictions in the resurrection accounts (the where, when, who, the detailed circumstances, but not the what “that Jesus rose from the dead” which is what the Gospel accounts agree on). But I also suggest that the Gospel accounts can and have been reconciled, we should see them as complementary (see for example, the book Easter Enimga by John Wenham, and this article on resurrection harmony).

Now how about some documentation from Fr. Raymond Brown himself where he doubted the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Or will you admit you were wrong there?
Phil P

Phil, I quoted the Jewish authors of this article in which they said:
Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.
They are putting into words the exact idea that Brown was trying to convey.
Brown is saying that the Gospel accounts are false, Jesus never appeared post-resurrection. He is also saying that the authors of the Gospels lied when saying they were witnesses to events happened.

   If Brown here in effect concedes that the evidence within the gospel is indecisive, in a work of some ten years later he surrenders the external evidence, the testimony of the early Fathers, saying: 'Second-century information about the origins of the Gospels (often reflecting scholarly guesses of that period) has not held up well in modern scholarship. . . .

Thus Brown is saying that there is no reliable historical evidence in either scripture or Tradition that Jesus appeared post-resurrection.
The Church says, there is reliable evidence in both scripture and Tradition, and based on this reliable evidence the Church proclaims the resurrection and post resurrection appearances as true.

 

[PhilVaz]

dcdurel << Phil, I quoted the Jewish authors of this article in which they said: Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors. >>

Does not answer this question (here I’ll bold it and make it a little larger for you)

Did Fr. Brown doubt or deny the bodily / physical resurrection? If so, quote Brown directly.

Brown probably doesn’t accept the Matthean authorship of Matthew, nor the Johannine authorship of John, but that is a separate question from whether he denied or affirmed the bodily / physical resurrection of Jesus.

dcdurel << Thus Brown is saying that there is no reliable historical evidence in either scripture or Tradition that Jesus appeared post-resurrection. >>

That’s not true, and I won’t accept anything less than a direct quote from Fr. Brown himself DENYING or “doubting” (your word) the bodily / physical resurrection. You said he did, now quote Brown directly, put up or (to be extremely blunt) shut up.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

dcurel, here I’ll help you out.

This is the book you want to look up and quote directly and in context:

The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

I don’t have this book, but I can attempt to find it and quote from it directly as well. But you made the claim, now back it up, quote Fr. Brown directly. Sorry to be blunt again, but put up or shut up. :tsktsk:

Phil P

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

dcurel, here I’ll help you out.

This is the book you want to look up and quote directly and in context:

The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

I don’t have this book, but I can attempt to find it and quote from it directly as well. But you made the claim, now back it up, quote Fr. Brown directly. Sorry to be blunt again, but put up or shut up. :tsktsk:

Phil P

I already quoted what he wrote in the book. I will do so again:
** “Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances,” explains Brown, “the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem.”**
** “We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee. Variations in place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative.”**

He is saying the Gospels cannot be harmonized, because the the Gospel writers were NOT eyewitnesses to the resurrection as they claimed. In other words, the Gospels are not true.
He also says the same thing of the infancy narratives, that they are not completely true.
Of course, the Church teachings on the historical facts of the infancy narratives and the resurrection DON’T originate from the bible, but from apostolic Tradition. In other words, the eyewitnesses to the post-resurrection appearances handed down these facts to the successors of the apostles, the bishops, in tradition. The bible accounts are a witness to the facts of the resurrection.
But, Raymond Brown denies apostolic Tradition as the pure truth, but only the “lived experience of the people”. Thus the foundation of the teachings of the Church are rejected as not completely true.

Do you understand what he is writing or not?
Again he shows his doubts in his book, The Birth of the Messiah: A commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, Garden City, New York: 1977, p. 505.
"It was this interaction [of the eschatological and the historical] that Pope Paul pointed to in the same address when he spoke of the resurrection as “the unique and sensational event on which the whole of human history turns.” This is not the same, however, as saying that the resurrection itself was a historical event, even though editorial writers quoted the Pope’s speech to that effect."

Of course the Pope just referred to the resurrection as a historical event on which “the whole of human history turns.” Here he is even trying to get the Pope to refuse to affirm the historical facts of the resurrection.

But, Brown, because of his doubts, denies the literal words and writes, "This is not the same as saying the resurrection was a historical event."

Thus, Brown, in his writings, denies apostolic Tradition as the word of God, for it is no longer the word of God handed down from the God, through the apostles, to the succeeding generations in the Chuch, but it now includes the “lived experiance of the people”, which can include every whim, fancy and opinion, heretical belief and error, then proceeds to cite the historical facts in the Gospels as made up events. Then, he says that he believes the Church dogmas on these teachings, even though Tradition contains error and scripture contains error. But Church teachings are based on scripture and Tradition. Thus he is saying that he believes the Church teachings on these events even though the these teachings are based on error. He makes the Church the transmitter of error.
In other words, Brown separates the historical events from the teachings. He tries to say the teachings do not stem from the historical events themselves. That way he can doubt the evidence for historical event (which means doubting the historical event itself ) and still claim to believe the teachings.

Again, this is pure stupidity.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Again, this is pure stupidity. >>

All right, you win. But I’d like to get Brown’s book on the bodily resurrection to read that in context. You are relying on a secondary source. I do not agree with Brown, the Gospels are historical, and Vatican II and the Catechism agree they are historical.

Phil P

 

[BibleReader]

Catholic Dude:

so how much of the Bible would you consider fiction?
you could come to similar conclusions on lots of OT stuff…
Cain & Abel, Noah, flood, Babel, Abram, Sodom, methusela, melchizedec, etc all these and more could be fiction

Hi, Catholic Dude.

Your list is all Genesis. So, you “How much of GENESIS would you consider fiction?,” not “How much of the Bible?”

The only reason why I make this correction is that very, very, very, very few people get past the stories you mention in their reading of the “Bible.” I.e., they never really actually READ the Bible.

The two creation accounts are intentional fiction teaching theology.

Cain and Abel are intentional fiction teaching theology.

I believe that Noah and the flood are intentional historical fiction teaching theology. (There really is really NEAT evidence, world wide, of a flood, and there is evidence of an ark in Ararat. However, I don’t think that the theology teaching inspired writer really CARED whether the story was non-fiction.)

The tower of Babel story MIGHT be able to be described as “really loose historicxal fiction.” Mostly, it is fiction.

Abram existed.

Sodom certainly existed.

Methusela is an exaggeration.

Melchizedek may have been a special presence of God on Earth, and so may be non-fiction.

ALL of the stories you list here teach theology at the typological level, not just at the plaintext level. Usually, the typological level – referred to as the *sensus plenior *level by Catholic commentators – is more important than the plaintext level.

 

[Psalm45_9]

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deiverbum.html