Raymond Brown???

[misericordie]

Hello all, I would like to know if the writings of Raymond Brown are in sinc with catholic tradition and are faithful to the Magisterium??? I heard that for exegesis the best is the late Father LaGrange (NOT Reginald Garrigou LaGrange, but another Dominican(Italian) called LaGrange=many years ago. He has something to do with the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem??

 

[JLove]

He is not the best. In so much that his ideas aren’t always the most traditional. From what I can recall he doesn’t really go against the magisterium, but the things that we are free to believe differently about, he does just that. I wouldn’t recommend his work for the uneducated. (but that’s not you so go ahead) But there is a lot better stuff out there.

 

[patg]

As is usually the case, it depends on who you ask, which tradition you are talking about, and which part of the relevant documents you quote to make your case.

“Tradition”, for example, changed radically in 1943 with the publication of *Divino Afflante Spiritu *by Pius XII. This document was essentially the Magna Carta of biblical analysis which moved the world of Catholic biblical scholarship to a whole new level - endorsing the historical-critical methods and emphasizing consideration of the “literary form” and the culture and world-view of the author.

These concepts form the basis for much of Raymond Brown’s work. The problem is, you can find quotes from *Divino Afflante Spiritu *and from *Dei Verbum *which endorse Brown’s writings and probably just as many which condemn his writings. You also have to remember that all such writings are basically speculative endeavors.

The bottom line is that the church allows and supports considerable research and debate in this area. The catholic reader should likewise investigate a variety of authors in order to form a balanced and complimentary view of the subject. Some will recommend Lee Strobel for a traditional approach, I recommend Brown and Margaret Ralph. You should always see both sides.

Pat

 

[Freddy_Medina]

JLove:

He is not the best. In so much that his ideas aren’t always the most traditional. From what I can recall he doesn’t really go against the magisterium, but the things that we are free to believe differently about, he does just that. I wouldn’t recommend his work for the uneducated. (but that’s not you so go ahead) But there is a lot better stuff out there.

Just what are “the things that we are free to believe differently about” when it comes to Sacred Sripture?

 

[philipmarus]

There is good article on the flaws of Raymond Brown’s New Jerome Biblical Commentary on EWTN website.

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DESTBIB.TXT
I prefer the Navarre Bible series which uses the Tradition of the Church.

 

[waltb]

A good critique of Ray Brown’s work can be found in the book “The New Biblical Theorists” by Msgr. George Kelly.

 

[BibleReader]

Ray Brown is okay. He died a few years ago, but I was able to consult with him on some of the magazine articles I have written. He was somewhat misunderstood.

Birth of the Messiah is a great way to introduce yourself to Father Brown’s work.

 

[serendipity]

I think relying on only one source of criticism greatly limits the perspective that you can draw from the Bible. It is such an amazing book, and the more commentaries I read on it, the more threads I am able to see as links through out the entire book, and alos the more I am able to hear words form scrpiture speak to me on my own life.

I liked the information that Brown gives in his New Testament book on alleged dates of the writings, background of the content, and allegations of veracity or lack there of. I hope that more work will be done in this field from a Catholic perpsective in the future.

I like the fact that Brown presents arguments that he might not agree with, in order to say “these perpectives also exist,” so that when you find yourself in a debate with some one about meaning of a passage, you are less likely to be surprised and need time to recollect yourself when a tradition less consistent with Catholic teaching surfaces in a discussion.

However, I have also read books by Hahn and Damasus Winzen. Winzen’s book is again mroe liek a handbook, but less through than Brown’s New Testment book (perhaps becuase Winzen attempts to cover the entire Bible). And Hahn’s works centers around themes. Each person has a different approach, which collectively provides me with a greater ability to see things in scripture.

 

[philipmarus]

BibleReader:

Ray Brown is okay. He died a few years ago, but I was able to consult with him on some of the magazine articles I have written. He was somewhat misunderstood.

Birth of the Messiah is a great way to introduce yourself to Father Brown’s work.

From the article I cited above:

Fr. Raymond Brown argues that Jesus only intended to renew Israel,but not to found a Church. “The older blueprint supposition by which Jesus had the Church clearly in mind and had already planned its structure, sacraments, etc., has little or no textual support…” What of our Lord’s famous words to St. Peter,declaring him the rock on which He would build His Church, and promising that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? This doesn’t impress Raymond Brown, who calmly assures his readers that this and other passages to which appeal may be made “. . . have no parallel in the other Gospels and probably represent post-resurrectional understandings specifying Jesus’ intentions.” To translate: Jesus didn’t say these things; they were invented afterward and don’t represent what He intended

Whats misunderstood?

There’s an article by Msgr. George Kelly (link below) which relates Rev. Brown’s conclusion that “the stories of Christ’s birth are dubious history”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html

 

[JLove]

Freddy Medina:

Just what are “the things that we are free to believe differently about” when it comes to Sacred Sripture?

The Church has only defined a relatively small number of biblical passages. (i.e. The “born again” passage from John 3:5, the Church has declared that this is dealing with baptism. To deny that is to be in error.) So, anything the Church has not formally defined is open to interpretation. Granted of course that it is not blatently contrary to the faith.

 

[MrS]

waltb:

A good critique of Ray Brown’s work can be found in the book “The New Biblical Theorists” by Msgr. George Kelly.

Late last year, a critique (Lecture) was given at the Catholic Biblical Inerrancy Conference titled “What Have They Done to God’s Word”

The subject matter was primarily on the serious mistakes of Fr Brown. The DVD of the Conference and the CD are available at www.catholicintl.com for those interested. This is the site of the Catholic Apologetics International - Robert Sungenis. He is often a topin on these threads… his expertise is Apologetics, his passion/hobby is physics. And every time he rattles the cages of other catholics (like those here at CA :bigyikes: ), he makes most smile, and a few pull their hair out. So far, he has a remarkable record for accuracy and truth, but still has his critics.

Get the CD, it is at the very LEAST, very INTERESTING.

 

[philipmarus]

Late last year, a critique (Lecture) was given at the Catholic Biblical Inerrancy Conference titled “What Have They Done to God’s Word”

The subject matter was primarily on the serious mistakes of Fr Brown. The DVD of the Conference and the CD are available at www.catholicintl.com for those interested. This is the site of the Catholic Apologetics International - Robert Sungenis.

I got a free audio tape from Mr. Sungenis called
“Raymond Brown and the Demise of Catholic Biblical Scholarship”
which was very good. The talk on this tape tries show the ways
Raymond Brown and others twist the wording Dei Verbum sic}
from Vatican II to justify their conclusions. According to this talk one of the tactics Rev. Brown uses is putting his conclusions calling into doubt authentic, traditional catholic teaching is to phrase his criticisms in the form of a question - so he doesn’t appear to directly challenge Church teaching. According to Sungenis on the tape, a typical Brown response would be something like: Given what Modern Biblical criticism has learned, Can we seriously maintain that Jesus intended to found a Church?
Sly.

 

[misericordie]

philipmarus:

I got a free audio tape from Mr. Sungenis called
“Raymond Brown and the Demise of Catholic Biblical Scholarship”
which was very good. The talk on this tape tries show the ways
Raymond Brown and others twist the wording Dei Verbum [sic}
from Vatican II to justify their conclusions. According to this talk one of the tactics Rev. Brown uses is putting his conclusions calling into doubt authentic, traditional catholic teaching is to phrase his criticisms in the form of a question - so he doesn’t appear to directly challenge Church teaching. According to Sungenis on the tape, a typical Brown response would be something like: Given what Modern Biblical criticism has learned, Can we seriously maintain that Jesus intended to found a Church?
Sly.

Thanks!! I always knew Ray Brown was very suspect. When so many liberal and disenting catholics LIKE him something is up. NOW have you heard anything about La Grange?? I belive he had something to do with the Biblical School in Jerusalem and that HE WAS VERY HOLY AND ORTHODOX for a change.
[/QUOTE]

 

[CharlesT]

I’ve read two books by Brown: “An Introduction to the New Testament” and “Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine.”

I recommend both. They are intelligent, very well written and entirely compatible with chruch teaching. Both have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

Brown was a superb scholar and took a solid, well reasoned middle course between his critics on both the right and the left.

Best wishes.

 

[BibleReader]

philipmarus:

From the article I cited above:

Fr. Raymond Brown argues that Jesus only intended to renew Israel,but not to found a Church. “The older blueprint supposition by which Jesus had the Church clearly in mind and had already planned its structure, sacraments, etc., has little or no textual support…” What of our Lord’s famous words to St. Peter,declaring him the rock on which He would build His Church, and promising that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? This doesn’t impress Raymond Brown, who calmly assures his readers that this and other passages to which appeal may be made “. . . have no parallel in the other Gospels and probably represent post-resurrectional understandings specifying Jesus’ intentions.” To translate: Jesus didn’t say these things; they were invented afterward and don’t represent what He intended

Whats misunderstood?

There’s an article by Msgr. George Kelly (link below) which relates Rev. Brown’s conclusion that “the stories of Christ’s birth are dubious history”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html

Hi, Phillipmarus.

**“The older blueprint supposition by which Jesus had the Church clearly in mind and had already planned its structure, sacraments, etc., has little or no textual support…” **does not mean “Fr. Raymond Brown argues that Jesus only intended to renew Israel,but not to found a Church.” It means, “Has little or no textual support.” Read what Father Brown said. ONLY what he said. What the author of the analysis does is typical of what Father Brown’s critics do. Suppose I say, “Nothing written in this thread, so far, argues against the existence of the Jersey Devil.” That is simply true, is it not. Yet, it is NOT grounds for asserting that “BibleReader argues that the Jersey Devil exists.” The author of those non-boldface words in blue is similarly jumping to an unjustified conclusion.

**Raymond Brown…assures his readers that this “You are Peter,” etc.] and other passages to which appeal may be made “. . . have no parallel in the other Gospels and probably represent post-resurrectional understandings specifying Jesus’ intentions” **does not mean “Jesus didn’t say these things; they were invented afterward and don’t represent what He intended.” It means, they “have no parallel in the other Gospels and probably represent post-resurrectional understandings specifying Jesus’ intentions.”

I’m not playing a game. Each of the non-boldface blue-text conclusions goes a negative step beyond Fr. Brown’s truism. This is typical of the logic of criticisms I have read.

Fr. Brown may have made errors here and there LIKE YOU DO, IN THIS VERY POST, but I wouldn’t blow my stack over them. I think that Fr. Brown’s main problem is that he was clear about the Bible. I think that, by and large, people want the Bible to say what THEY want the Bible to say.

 

[philipmarus]

I’ve read two books by Brown: “An Introduction to the New Testament” and “Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine.”

I recommend both. They are intelligent, very well written and entirely compatible with chruch teaching. Both have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

The trouble with with Brown’s books that Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur is he usely gives it to himself and/or by his close associates that share his views. See the NJBC and JBC to verify this.

In Brown’s Birth of the Messiah he call’s into question the infancy
narratives.

The problem with Brown’s work is :

“As it stands Brown’s book has underlying assumptions that make it hard to be used by a Roman Catholic who wants to see the infancy narratives in an integral way, connected with the traditions and practices of the Church…The temptation of many critics is to think that their view is the only complete and “scientific” view of a text, whereas in reality it is only the first step for determining its true meaning.”

See Review in Homiletic and Pastoral Review
catholicculture.org/usertools/print.cfm?id=4071&itemtype=Library+Document

While Brown moderated his views in An Introduction to the New Testament, “the content and tone of the book remains strongly historical-critical, and it fails to present a truly unified view of the relationship between higher criticism and the living tradition of the Church.”

I believe this extreme view was criticized in the 1993
documentThe Interpretation of the Bible in the Church by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and by Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fr. Raymond Brown, whose work carries the Imprimatur of Bishop O’Keefe of NY, states:

“[C]ritical investigation points to religious limitations and even errors [in Scripture.]”

(Brown, R., The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Paulist Press, NY, 1981, pg. 16, Imprimatur: Bishop O’Keefe, NY).

Elsewhere, he states:

“Well, critical investigations also point to religious errors in the Bible, for example, Job’s denial of an afterlife.” (Brown, R.,
Theological Studies, March 1981, pgs. 18-19).

On the contrary, Fr. George A. Kelly, whose book also *ironically *carries the Imprimatur of the same Bishop O’Keefe of NY, asserts:

“If the Bible can err on truths that pertain to God’s revelation of himself and to man’s salvation, then Christianity itself comes across to modern-minded people as incredible… This subject–the inerrancy of scripture–is probably the chief area of disageement between the Catholic Church and her new biblical theorists [such as Raymond Brown]. … Like the Church, scripture cannot be wrong about what God has
***revealed. … ***”

(Kelly, G., The New Biblical Theorists - Raymond E. Brown and Beyond, Servant Books, MI, 1983, P. 153-154, Imprimatur: Bishop O’Keefe, NY).

Taking the position opposed to Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. George Kelly quotes from Vatican II peritus Cardinal Augustin Bea:

“'In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this
inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms’ … Certain scholars do not accept this. … Brown insinuates a denial of inspiration and inerrancy as the Church defines both” (ibid., 155).

One book having an Imprimatur explicitly contradicts another book having an Imprimatur from the very same bishop. They both cannot be correct, so which one is in accord with Catholic doctrine?

It seems to me that in context with footnote 5 of Dei Verbum 11, Paul VI shows the intent of Vatican II’s teaching on inerrancy, by which he cites and affirms the teachings of Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu:

“it is absolutely wrong and forbidden … to admit that the sacred writer has erred… This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.”

Hmmm… Fr. Brown isn’t lookin’ too correct at this point.

My diocese has replied to a query from me, and has responded in part:

***Your discussion with the other Catholic over the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is very sad to learn of, for to deny the inerrancy of Scripture is flat out heterodox – or in layman’s terms, flat out ***heresy. The official teachings of the Catholic Church, although often greatly assisted by theologians, is never governed by them.

You can read the entire response here:
Inerrancy in Sacred Scripture

 

[philipmarus]

I’m just a layman and am not giving Imprimatur to myself the way Raymond Brown did asserting they are free from error.

 

[CharlesT]

philipmarus:

The trouble with with Brown’s books that Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur is he usely gives it to himself and/or by his close associates that share his views. See the NJBC and JBC to verify this.

In Brown’s Birth of the Messiah he call’s into question the infancy
narratives.

The problem with Brown’s work is :

“As it stands Brown’s book has underlying assumptions that make it hard to be used by a Roman Catholic who wants to see the infancy narratives in an integral way, connected with the traditions and practices of the Church…The temptation of many critics is to think that their view is the only complete and “scientific” view of a text, whereas in reality it is only the first step for determining its true meaning.”

See Review in Homiletic and Pastoral Review
catholicculture.org/usertools/print.cfm?id=4071&itemtype=Library+Document

While Brown moderated his views in An Introduction to the New Testament, “the content and tone of the book remains strongly historical-critical, and it fails to present a truly unified view of the relationship between higher criticism and the living tradition of the Church.”

I believe this extreme view was criticized in the 1993
documentThe Interpretation of the Bible in the Church by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and by Cardinal Ratzinger.

I’m certainly not an expert in the field, philipmarus, but:

1. Fr Brown did not give himself the imprimatur or nihil obstat for the books I read. Whether the people who did were his friends or not doesn’t strike me as relevant. The books were declared free of moral and doctrinal error and approved for publication by people authorized and approved by the Church to make such determinations.
2. I haven’t read “The Birth of the Messiah” and so can’t comment on either the work or its critics. But I see nothing wrong with the fact that there may be disagreement between well meaning and intelligent people on such matters. There is room in the Church for scholarly debate. It’s been going on for centuries.
3. The criticism that Fr Brown’s Intro to the NT “fails to present a truly unified view of the relationship between higher criticism and the living tradition of the Church” strikes me a little like criticizing an apple for being an orange. The Intro is a work of historical criticism, not a work of theology or an exposition of the tradition of the Church. That being said, it is neverthelss free of moral and doctrinal error.

Best wishes.

 

[CharlesT]

itsjustdave1988:

Fr. Raymond Brown, whose work carries the Imprimatur of Bishop O’Keefe of NY, states:
Elsewhere, he states:On the contrary, Fr. George A. Kelly, whose book also *ironically *carries the Imprimatur of the same Bishop O’Keefe of NY, asserts:
Taking the position opposed to Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. George Kelly quotes from Vatican II peritus Cardinal Augustin Bea:
One book having an Imprimatur explicitly contradicts another book having an Imprimatur from the very same bishop. They both cannot be correct, so which one is in accord with Catholic doctrine?

It seems to me that in context with footnote 5 of Dei Verbum 11, Paul VI shows the intent of Vatican II’s teaching on inerrancy, by which he cites and affirms the teachings of Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu:
Hmmm… Fr. Brown isn’t lookin’ too correct at this point.

My diocese has replied to a query from me, and has responded in part: You can read the entire response here:
Inerrancy in Sacred Scripture

Dave,

I do not understand inerrancy to mean the literal historicity of every statement in the scriptures. Do you?

Best