Looking for thoughts on: Raymond E. Brown Collection (5 vols.)

I was poking around today and noticed this collection on sale from the Verbum Madness (which I wasn't following all that well). Does anyone know of any good reviews on this? I'm most interested in his volumes on the Infancy and Death. As an evangelical (I believe he is Catholic) will I find these useful? <-- Not trying to start a forum war but genuinely curious. I have a lot of commentaries on the gospels but these volumes seem unique. 20% off a decent deal?

https://www.logos.com/product/5750/raymond-e-brown-collection

Thanks in advance.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Wanat

I have Death of the Messiah and as a Catholic am not offended by your question (if that helps). His approach follows the typical modern criticisms of Scripture, treating it as non-historical. Some insights are interesting, some I dislike.

if you’re looking for a work from a historical-critical perspective, you might find it useful. If not, it might not be worth it.

hope this helps

DAL

The set has been cheaper before. Save your money 💰 The only two volumes worth having are introduction to the NT and the Gospel of John.

DAL

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091470#Comment_1091470

Depends on your pocketbook. I'm not catholic nor Catholic. But I have his commentaries (which heavily overlap this collection), and they're quite good. Your issue is more likely to be how scholarly you want (instead of belief-variation). Brown is pretty scholar-disciplined. Puts stuff on the table.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091472#Comment_1091472

Depends on your pocketbook. I'm not catholic nor Catholic. But I have his commentaries (which heavily overlap this collection), and they're quite good. Your issue is more likely to be how scholarly you want (instead of belief-variation). Brown is pretty scholar-disciplined. Puts stuff on the table.

catholic and Catholic, eh? Reminds me of the fellowship and Fellowship issue in churches of Christ. Big “F” and little “f.” I wonder what the difference is between the little “c” and big “C.”

DAL

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091474#Comment_1091474

catholic and Catholic, eh? Reminds me of the fellowship and Fellowship issue in churches of Christ. Big “F” and little “f.” I wonder what the difference is between the little “c” and big “C.”

DAL

Presumably, making that distinction is a claim to be part of an ancient church but not a member of the Church led by the Pope? 🤷‍♂️

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091474#Comment_1091474

Depends on your pocketbook. I'm not catholic nor Catholic. But I have his commentaries (which heavily overlap this collection), and they're quite good. Your issue is more likely to be how scholarly you want (instead of belief-variation). Brown is pretty scholar-disciplined. Puts stuff on the table.

catholic and Catholic, eh? Reminds me of the fellowship and Fellowship issue in churches of Christ. Big “F” and little “f.” I wonder what the difference is between the little “c” and big “C.”

DAL

I've always understood "catholic" to mean the universal church (as per its use in the Apostles Creed) and Catholic to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091480#Comment_1091480

I've always understood "catholic" to mean the universal church (as per its use in the Apostles Creed) and Catholic to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

This is mine as well.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091470#Comment_1091470

I have Death of the Messiah and as a Catholic am not offended by your question (if that helps). His approach follows the typical modern criticisms of Scripture, treating it as non-historical. Some insights are interesting, some I dislike.

if you’re looking for a work from a historical-critical perspective, you might find it useful. If not, it might not be worth it.

hope this helps

This does help so thank you! I’m curious what you mean by non-Historical. If you have time, could you elaborate?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091480#Comment_1091480

I've always understood "catholic" to mean the universal church (as per its use in the Apostles Creed) and Catholic to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that pretty much sums up (if I understand nominal church creeds). I don't think I've been terribly shy about the highly regarded Literalist Church (membership, 1).

Ted Weis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091487#Comment_1091487

While I'm not Roman Catholic, I've found each book in this collection to be valuable. With regards to the Passion Week, you probably can't find more detailed studies than Brown's Death of Christ and Schnabel's Jesus in Jerusalem.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

Hi,

I find Brown's books useful. He's moderately critical. With the Gospel of John commentaries (not included in this set, you can find them in the AYB commentary series) he has some very complicated source theories regarding the original (hypothetical?) Johannine Community (perhaps also with the "Introduction to the Gospel of John" in this set? Haven't had time to read that). Brown's AYB is one of my top 3 to-go-commentaries.

He's very thorough. With the Birth of the Messiah and the Death of the Messiah according to John F. Evans' Commentary Guide you must be "a quick reader", as he says it's much too long for many. I can verify that. But they are a tome of treasure if you know what to look for, in my opinion.

Mostly I like his timing and chronological order of the New Testament Books in his "Introduction to the New Testament." But that's just me. Hope this helps.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091480#Comment_1091480

Catholic to refer to the Roman Catholic

Catholic means Catholic not just Roman (Western) Catholic ...Now that FL offers an Eastern-Rite Catholic package i.e. Catholic but not Roman, this should be easier to remember. Admittedly, there are only 18 million non-Roman but Catholic members of the Catholic Church.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091503#Comment_1091503

I met a Byzantine Catholic that claimed they’re the real deal. They consider Roman Catholic “brothers” along with the protestants, but that’s it. Also they don’t worship statues, he said they have “icons” and they “venerate” not “worship” them. It was an interesting conversation. He said something about the pope too, but I can’t remember exactly what it was.

DAL

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091485#Comment_1091485

I have Death of the Messiah and as a Catholic am not offended by your question (if that helps). His approach follows the typical modern criticisms of Scripture, treating it as non-historical. Some insights are interesting, some I dislike.

if you’re looking for a work from a historical-critical perspective, you might find it useful. If not, it might not be worth it.

hope this helps

This does help so thank you! I’m curious what you mean by non-Historical. If you have time, could you elaborate?

Sure. I mean he doesn’t treat the New Testament accounts of the Passion as historical accounts, but as theological stories. So if he encounters something in the NT that doesn’t match his assumptions, he treats it as an error on the part of the accounts.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091504#Comment_1091504

I don't know who you met, but yes, Byzantine Catholics are the real deal. They share communion with Western Catholics but not with Protestants. There are a number of dual rite priests in the US i.e. priest who celebrate in both the Latin and Byzantine rites - same church building, different congregations in many cases. Why? simply a matter of numbers of a particular rite in a particular city. All Catholics venerate not worship images - whether sculpture or icons or frescos or . . . the form is a matter of culture and nothing more. Byzantine Catholics, like all the Eastern rite Catholics, recognize the Pope ... that is the major element that makes them Catholic rather than Orthodox.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091508#Comment_1091508

So if he encounters something in the NT that doesn’t match his assumptions, he treats it as an error on the part of the accounts.

Note: David is right that my tone here is not appropriate - my desire to defend Brown against one of the most serious charges that can be made against an academic caused me to forget to read the post in light of respecting David's right to his view.

Okay, you are misrepresenting Brown at this point. Brown is a thorough and traditional historical-critical scholar who lets the text speak for itself even when that disagrees with his personal theological position. He does not use assumptions to manufacture errors. A reasonably accurate accessment:

[quote]"Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith. Some traditionalists criticized his questioning of whether the virginal conception of Jesus could be proven historically. He was regarded as occupying the center ground in the field of biblical studies,^[opposing the literalism found among many fundamentalist Christians while not carrying his conclusions as far as many other scholars."

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091510#Comment_1091510

So if he encounters something in the NT that doesn’t match his assumptions, he treats it as an error on the part of the accounts.

Okay, you are misrepresenting Brown at this point. Brown is a thorough and traditional historical-critical scholar who lets the text speak for itself even when that disagrees with his personal theological position. He does not use assumptions to manufacture errors. A reasonably accurate accessment:

[quote]"Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith. Some traditionalists criticized his questioning of whether the virginal conception of Jesus could be proven historically. He was regarded as occupying the center ground in the field of biblical studies,^[opposing the literalism found among many fundamentalist Christians while not carrying his conclusions as far as many other scholars."

You might disagree with my assessment. But “misrepresent” implies an intent to deceive. And you are wrong there. If you think I misunderstand him, it is possible. But he has offered opinions in Death of the Messiah that are seemingly at odds with Catholic teaching on Biblical interpret.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091512#Comment_1091512

My previous post was lost. To sum up, I didn’t intend to accuse him of dishonesty, but of having a blind spot. I can see how my poor phrasing could sound like an accusation and I apologize for that.

He makes several assertions (for example, of the accounts of the Crucifixion being non historical, and saying some date from the second century AD) that are definitely contested among scholar.

Hence, my original response saying that it has value as a historical-critical source but has some problems.

Once again, I apologize for any confusion my poor phrasing caused.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091519#Comment_1091519

We're good - I have no objections to your views as now presented.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091524#Comment_1091524

In retrospect, thanks for pointing it out. I had no idea how harsh I sounded until I reread it. 🤦‍♂️

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091526#Comment_1091526

Thank you everyone. I think I’ll pass on this one due to some strange views he is presenting.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091530#Comment_1091530

Now that Matillo has considered his options (I agree with DAL), there's 2 resources on March sale, in the critical-mold for others' consideration:

This one gets some kudos from surprising sources (eg Neusner). And it's being compared to Schweitzer's Quest:

https://www.logos.com/product/52868/a-myth-of-innocence-mark-and-christian-origins

The second one looks directly at 'miracles' in the period surrounding Jesus. The question surrounds what a 1st century person would consider unusual (even Paul's dangerous opponents had 'the power').

https://www.logos.com/product/7957/the-jewish-context-of-jesus-miracles

Both of these won't meet ones devotional needs, suffice it to say.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1091530#Comment_1091530

From my perspective, which--I, too, am Catholic--is really not very friendly to the late Fr. Brown's school of thought, he is nonetheless necessary reading and makes many valuable points.

As a historical critical scholar, he was excellent, in his time. One of the best.

His exegesis does seem to have become more sympathetic to a traditional Catholic reading as he neared the end of his life.

Nonetheless, I read him not because I think he is always right, or because I think he was doing the right thing in general, but because he did a better job of what he was doing than just about anyone else doing it ever had done or has done since. I also highly doubt anyone--Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Jewish--who could plausibly claim to be in his league would disagree with that assessment. He's decently readable, too.

How would I correct his work? Well, let me point you to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's 1988 essay on the subject, republished and available from Faithlife with the title "Biblical Interpretation in Conflict: On the Foundations and the Itinerary of Exegesis Today."