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

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

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 said:

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 said:

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).

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.

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

MJ. Smith said:

David Wanat said:

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.

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."