by Robert Sungenis

Dear Fr. Stark,

I have received your letter of March 10. Let me address some of the points you present:

As to the idea that "criticism of Raymond Brown is very shopworn and threadbare," and your request to "leave off this overworked pet project of biblical fundamentalists," I can safely tell you that I am just getting started in my treatment of Fr. Brown's theology and hermeneutic, and my verve has only increased after reading your letter and its insistence on perpetuating these errors. Allow me to explain:

You write:

"DAS explains that Catholic scholars are now free (as they were formerly forbidden) to embrace the methods of the earlier critics but not their theology. Indeed how could it be otherwise? The Church cannot endorse error. It is dishonest therefore to associate Father Brown with Protestant - or even Catholic - liberalism. He is a biblical scholar, not a dogmatic theologian, so not to be compared with Teilhard, Rahner, et al."

Fr. Stark, with all due respect to you, all I can say is that either you are terribly naive, or you just haven't studied Fr. Brown and the historical critical school as much as you think you have. Perhaps before you start accusing other people of being "dishonest," you should pay closer attention to the facts.

As my article indicated, Fr. Brown taught at a liberal Protestant seminary, Union Theological Seminary. He said he had more in common with the Protestant liberals than he did with Catholic traditionalists, whom he called various derogatory names. He adopted the very hermeneutic that the liberals of Union Theological seminary taught, which they obtained mainly from Protestant Rudolph Bultmann. Brown praised the work of Gianfranco Ravasi and Vittorio Fusco, who are members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission who made no excuses about their use of Bultmann's Formgeschichte. Brown quotes and cites many liberal Protestant scholars in his books. So to say that there is no connection between Brown and the Protestants is mere wishful thinking.

As for your defense that Brown was not a "dogmatic theologian," then perhaps it would have been better for him to stop acting as one through his constant insinuation from his biblical exegesis that Scripture is saying something different than what traditional Catholic dogma has taught, including his entertaining of the idea that Scripture does not support Mary's perpetual virginity, or that 1 Cor 14 may indeed offer no prohibition for woman to be priests, and about a dozen other issues that he took upon himself to suggest new "dogma" for the rest of us.

Chief among these is his new "dogma" that Dei Verbum 11 taught Scripture is only inerrant when it speaks on matters "for the sake of our salvation." If that is not the most insidious concept ever to foist itself on the Catholic Church, I don't know what is. If Brown's concept of biblical inerrancy is what you believe, Fr. Stark, then I guess you will have to consider me your theological enemy. If it is the case, I will fight you with every last breath in my body, and I don't say that lightly.

As for your comment that "DAS explains that Catholic scholars are now free (as they were formerly forbidden) to embrace the methods of the earlier critics but not their theology. Indeed how could it be otherwise? The Church cannot endorse error, " perhaps you should check my article again.

I didn't disparage historical criticism. In fact, I said it could be a useful tool to an exegete, and that I use it myself. So your accusation that I am somehow infringing on the teaching authority of DAS is highly misplaced. My article is about the ABUSE of historical criticism that has been engineered by people like Raymond Brown, under the pretense that Pius XII would have allowed such development. As I said in the article, Pius XII would be turning over in his grave to see what Brown and company have done with DAS. A good example of this is Pius XII's teaching on biblical inerrancy (a teaching that says biblical inerrancy extends beyond mere religious or soteriological concepts), which is diametrically opposed to Brown's teaching that Scripture is only inerrant on matters of salvation. That is the difference readers of CFN are asked to understand, Fr. Stark.

As for your comment that "HG does not take away in large measure what was granted in DAS. Pius XII did not play such games with his encyclicals. HG is monitory regarding polygenism and evolution, but there is no reprimand of biblical scholars or their newly endorsed critical methodology. Nor did Pius backtrack on DAS at any time," cleverly phrasing your objections might go unnoticed by the average person, but they won't get by me.

Pius XII may not have mentioned "historical criticism" directly, but it is obvious from the wording of HG that he was "reprimanding" those who were abusing historical criticism and deriving false conclusions from it. For example, in paragraph 23 Pius writes:

Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual...By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

I'm sorry to say, Fr. Stark, what Pius XII has described above is precisely what Fr. Brown and the new hermeneutic have done. Fr. Brown advocates that many historical narratives of Scripture not be interpreted literally so as to avoid all the difficulties of having to harmonize seeming contradictory texts. He advocates that we pay attention merely to the "symbolic" or "spiritual" sense in those cases.

Then in paragraphs 25-26 he shows the damage this new hermeneutic has done:

It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology....Some also question whether angels are personal beings. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substances, should be also modified...

In paragraph 38 Pius takes a clear shot at the Wellhausen theory that many Catholic biblicists were using:

This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis...do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense...If, however, the sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations...it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

I'm sorry, Fr. Stark, but this is not what I find in the teaching of Raymond Brown, who believes that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not free from error.

Pius XII was already beginning to see the abuses of historical criticism, mainly in the works of Teilhard de Chardin, which is one reason why Pius XII condemned his works. This was later confirmed in his list of theologians, such as de Lubac, Kung and Schillebeeckx, et al, who were considered a threat to the Church, for they were also abusing the historical-critical method. Teilhard used historical criticism to claim that, if the Genesis narratives were not necessarily historically accurate or even historical in nature, then we could opt for such scientific theories such as polygenism. Hence, HG put limits on how far the Church was going to let historical criticism go.

So yes, please allow me a little poetic license to say that Pius XII "took back with one hand what he gave with the other."

As for your comment that I "quote Ray Brown misleadingly," I do appreciate your adding the next sentence, but I don't think it makes my quote "misleading." In fact, I think your addition helps prove my point.

If someone is trying to say, emphatically and without doubt, that others are wrong in denying the bodily resurrection, would he not use a more forceful and positive objection, such as "Those who say there is no bodily resurrection of Christ are wrong, and there is no possibility that a Catholic can or should accept such a conclusion from historical criticism"?

Instead, Brown merely says "it will become apparent that I am not at all inclined in that direction." Notice that Brown does not come right out and say that he rejects their view as a possible answer, or that their view is wrong, but only that he is not inclined to their view! Here is a blatant heresy staring him in the face, as well as showing precisely where the loose cannon of historical criticism can end up, but all Brown can say is "I'm not inclined in that direction"??

Without a firm negation of their view, who is to say that tomorrow Fr. Brown might not be inclined toward their view (although not fully embracing it for he knows it would get him excommunicated in a heartbeat). You see, Fr. Stark, we're not interested in what Fr. Brown's "inclinations" are, for they shift with the wind and never really say anything dogmatic. We're interested in him making clear and concise statements that the dangers of historical criticism are seen in the very colleagues of his who end up denying dogmas of the Christian faith based on the principles he is promoting.

The proof is in the pudding. Go and examine the other "interrogatives" that Fr. Brown is famous for formulating. In almost every case, the interrogative represents his desire that the alternative interpretation either be adopted or that it be revisited by the hierarchy due to Brown's distaste for the traditional view.

Everything from papal infallibility, apostolic succession, the role of bishops and priests, the role of women, and many others have been "questioned" by Brown in the same way that he phrases the question about Christ's resurrection, but without a qualifier. It seems nothing is sacred for him, except his historical criticism.

I can see why you picked the Resurrection quote from Brown, since it is the only one that gives any semblance of Brown's hesitation, and even at that it is hardly worthy. Brown had no hesitation in using Bultmann's Formgeschichte to suggest that 1 Cor 14 or Gen 3:16 were culturally biased and historically irrelevant since they weren't dealing with "for the sake of our salvation."

But as misleading as Fr. Brown's interrogatives can be, he doesn't put his interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 in the form of an interrogative. His interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 is reserved for the indicative and exclamatory. Why? Because his belief that Dei Verbum 11 taught that Scripture is errant when it speaks outside salvation is the foundation for everything else Fr. Brown teaches, the foundation of his whole life's work in Scriptural study, and the countless doctoral dissertations that his fellow liberals have written to stake out their careers in biblical exegesis.

To concede that Dei Verbum 11 does not say what they claim it says would mean that all the major seminaries and universities in the world would just have to close up shop, and they are not about to let that happen, since their paychecks come from those very institutions. But as my third article for CFN shows, Brown and company's interpretation of Dei Verbum 11 is a blatant lie, and I am happy to tell the world that fact.

As for your comment that "The 1964 Instruction of the PBC establishes the Three-Stage Theory of gospel formation as official policy. In other words, Catholic are encouraged to see the gospels as products of writers who were not eye witnesses," all I can say Fr. Stark is that you and Fr. Brown have a bad habit of 'reading into' the 1964 PBC statement what you want to see.

Here is what Brown says about the 1964 PBC statement:

"...Stage Two recognizes that the christology of the early Church was post-resurrectional in origin and was read back into the accounts of the ministry. It allows for development within the pre-Gospel stage of the Jesus tradition, and is a stage of formation close to what scholars isolate by form-critical analysis. Stage Three acknowledges considerable freedom of authorship by the evangelists. It is a stage of formation close to what scholars isolate by redaction criticism. Note that the Roman Catholic Church has gone on record stating that the Gospels are not literal or chronological accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus."

As Fr. Brown does with Dei Verbum 11, he misinterprets the 1964 PBC document. If by any of the foregoing statements Fr. Brown is suggesting that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all I can say to him, and you, is that the 1964 PBC NEVER makes such a conclusion, and neither does any other official Catholic statement.

Below is what the 1964 PBC says. I will underline the places that Fr. Brown emphasized, since he thought that these sentences supported his view that the Gospels were written by unidentified scribes:

Stage Two: The Preaching of the Apostles

VIII. The apostles proclaimed above all the death and resurrection of the Lord, as they bore witness to Jesus. They faithfully explained his life and words, while taking into account in their method of preaching the circumstances in which their listeners found themselves. After Jesus rose from the dead and his divinity was clearly perceived, faith, far from destroying the memory of what had transpired, rather confirmed it, because their faith rested on the things which Jesus did and taught. Nor was he changed into a 'mythical' person and his teaching deformed in consequence of the worship which the disciples from that time on paid Jesus as the Lord and the Son of God. On the other hand, there is no reason to deny that the apostles passed on to their listeners what was really said and done by the Lord with that fuller understanding which they enjoyed, having been instructed by the glorious events of the Christ and taught by the light of the Spirit of Truth. So, just as Jesus himself after his resurrection 'interpreted to them' the words of the Old Testament as well as his own, they too interpreted his words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners. 'Devoting themselves to the ministry of the word,' they preached and made use of various modes of speaking which were suited to their own purpose and the mentality of their listeners. For they were debtors 'to Greeks and barbarians, to the wise and the foolish.' But these modes of speaking with which the preachers proclaimed Christ must be distinguished and (properly) assessed: catechesis, stories, testimonia, hymns, doxologies, prayers - and other literary forms of this sort which were in Sacred Scripture and were accustomed to be used by men of that time.

Stage Three: The Writing by the Evangelists

IX. This primitive instruction, which was at first passed on by word of mouth and then in writing - for it soon happened that many tried 'to compile a narrative of the things' which concerned the Lord Jesus - was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced other to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. With every (possible) means they sought that their readers might become aware of the reliability of those words by which they had been instructed. Indeed, from what they had received the sacred writers above all selected the things which were suited to the various situations of the faithful and to the purpose which they had in mind, and adapted their narration of them to the same situations and purpose. Since the meaning of a statement also depends on the sequence, the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense. For, as St. Augustine says, 'It is quite probable that each Evangelist believed it to have been his duty to recount what he had to in that order in which it pleased God to suggest it to his memory - in those things at least in which the order, whether it be this or that, detracts in nothing from the truth and authority of the Gospel. But why the Holy Spirit, who apportions individually to each one as He wills, and who therefore undoubtedly also governed and ruled the minds of the holy (writers) in recalling what they were to write because of the pre-eminent authority which the books were to enjoy, permitted one to compile his narrative in this way, and another in that, anyone with pious diligence may seek the reason and with divine aid will be able to find it."

X. Unless the exegete pays attention to all these things which pertain to the origin and composition of the Gospels and makes proper use of all the laudable achievements of recent research, he will not fulfill his task of probing into what the sacred writers intended and what they really said. From the results of the new investigations it is apparent that the doctrine and the life of Jesus were not simply reported for the sole purpose of being remembered, but were 'preached' so as to offer the Church a basis of faith and of morals. The interpreter (then), by tirelessly scrutinizing the testimony of the Evangelists, will be able to illustrate more profoundly the perennial theological value of the Gospels and bring out clearly how necessary and important the Church's interpretation is.

Now, let's take out all the sentences that Fr. Brown highlighted in support of his position that the Gospels were written by someone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Let's see if in these sentences the PBC says the Gospels were, or even could have, been written by someone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John .

Fr. Brown: "After Jesus rose from the dead and his divinity was clearly perceived"

Fr. Brown: "...the apostles passed on to their listeners what was really said and done by the Lord with that fuller understanding which they enjoyed"

Neither of these prove anything for Fr. Brown, since Jesus promised divine help TO THE APOSTLES to understand more clearly the truths of the faith (John 14:17-18; 15:26; 16:13; Acts 2:1-24). Naturally, they would write about these new insights after they received them at Pentecost.

Fr. Brown: "...they too interpreted his words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners..."

Fr. Brown: "From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced other to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches"

These don't prove anything for Fr. Brown, since the PBC's sentence makes no indication that the APOSTLES themselves did not make the selections and synthesis for their hearers. In fact, the only non-apostle, Luke, makes it clear in his gospel he received his information directly from the eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4), which he then selected and synthesized. We also know from other passages that Luke existed in the generation of the eyewitnesses, not in the second century (cf., Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phm 1:24), or is it your intention to impugn the integrity of St. Paul's epistles as well, considering the fact that Ray Brown thinks that St. Paul only wrote seven of the thirteen epistles ascribed to him?

Fr. Brown: "For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently"

First, this proves nothing for Fr. Brown because as far as the 1964 PBC is concerned, the "Evangelists" to which it refers are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, since the PBC gave absolutely no indication that it wished to identify or even suggest some other group of Gospel writers.

Second, the PBC makes no indication, or even suggestion, that the accounts are nothing but the truth of what occurred. The only thing the PBC points out is that each Evangelist decided on the particular "ORDER" he wanted to record the sayings. This is made abundantly clear by the PBC's quoting from Augustine, in which Augustine mentions twice that the Gospel writers have differences in the ORDER in which they express things, but he makes no mention that any of the Evangelists wrote inaccurately or made mistakes. Surely the PBC wouldn't have quoted from Augustine if they did not intend fully to embrace his view of biblical inerrancy, which, as you probably know, admitted to no mistakes, including history, in the Gospel accounts.

Hence, when the PBC says "and express his sayings not literally but differently" this is no indication that they are admitting to any historical error in the Gospels, or that someone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels, since "differently" refers to "order," "selection" and/or "synthesis," not error.

In fact, the one passage that Fr. Brown didn't highlight from the 1964 PBC says that accuracy, with no distinction between soteriology and history, was of the utmost importance to the Gospel writers. It reads: "With every means they sought that their readers might become aware of the reliability of those words by which they had been instructed."

Fr. Brown: "that the doctrine and the life of Jesus were not simply reported for the sole purpose of being remembered, but were 'preached' so as to offer the Church a basis of faith and of morals"

This proves nothing for Fr. Brown, since there is nothing to prove that the Apostles did not preach their message.

Now, to show you how devious Fr. Brown could be, note the difference in what the 1964 PBC said regarding forms and what Brown said:

1964 PBC: "But these modes of speaking with which the preachers proclaimed Christ must be distinguished and assessed: catechesis, stories, testimonia, hymns, doxologies, prayers - and other literary forms of this sort which were in Sacred Scripture and were accustomed to be used by men of that time."

Fr. Brown: "In the Bible there are passages of poetry, song, fiction, and fable where the matter of inerrancy does not even arise." (This is Brown's statement in the paragraph following the one in which he highlights his favorite parts of the 1964 PBC, found on page 115 of Crisis Facing the Church).

Now, Fr. Stark, can you tell me where the 1964 PBC included the word "fiction" in its list of literary forms? For that matter, can you show me any official document of the Catholic Church which says that literary forms in Scripture include "fiction"? Moreover, can you tell us anywhere the Church has taught that there are sections of Scripture "where the matter of inerrancy does not even arise"?

Let me help you answer that - you won't be able to find any. Reason? Because the Church has never taught it. And any suggestion that it is coming from the 1964 PBC is a figment of Ray Brown's imagination, for the PBC never used the word. Unfortunately for the public, Fr. Brown's New Jerome Biblical Commentary uses the word "fiction" about a dozen times in his section dealing with biblical hermeneutics, without one honest note to the reader that the Church has NEVER used that word to describe any part of Scripture.

Why does Brown insist on making such an interpretation of the 1964 PBC? Because Brown's allegiance to historical criticism, as well as his misinterpretation of Dei Verbum 11, leads him to do such things, but I can assure you they are not Catholic.

It is because of deceptions like this that I see all over Fr. Brown's work that you can rest assured, Fr. Stark, that I am going to pick Ray Brown's modernist hermeneutic apart piece by piece.

God be with you.

Robert Sungenis