Brown knows that the "intent" of the biblical author is the crux of the issue. He writes:

On the other hand, church writers interpreted the literal sense of the Bible with great latitude, for they did not have to justify a correspondence between the meaning they found in the text and the author's original intent. The latter outlook has echoes in the sophisticated reaction of some modern literary critics against the historical-critical quest for the author's intent, which they regard as unknowable.⁶⁷

Notice that Fr. Brown feels no compulsion to match the words one reads in Scripture with the biblical author's original intent. They are totally divorced from one another. Why? Because if a person such as Fr. Brown reads words in Scripture which claim, for example, that the world was created in six days, or that Goliath was a nine-foot giant whom David knocked out with a single stone, but he finds them too fanciful and hard to believe, then he can simply dismiss them as being non-factual accounts similar to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and claim that the author never intended otherwise.

Fr. Brown cleverly tries to pass off "fiction" as one of the options available to biblical exegetes by comparing Scripture to other human writing (NB: remember from the earlier part of this essay that Fr. Brown does not believe that Scripture contains the very words of God, since, he claims, that God does not communicate with words). Thus he writes:

In the quest for the literal sense of any writing, it is important to determine the literary form the author was employing. In a modern library, books are classified according to the type of literature: fiction, poetry, history, biography, drama, etc...A history and a novel may treat the same person or event, but we expect different degrees of fact and fiction from them, whereas in regard to poetry the issue of fact and fiction is irrelevant....Factual history is a type of literature; fiction is another; both exist in the Bible...If one correctly classifies a certain part of the Bible as fiction, one is not destroying the historicity of that section, for it never was history; one is simply recognizing the author's intention in writing that section.⁶⁸

If one does not have his antenna raised, Fr. Brown's words might appear innocuous to the average Catholic. But Fr. Brown did something very tricky. Notice how he does not speak of the literal meaning but of the "literal sense." What is a "literal sense"? Obviously, it cannot be the literal meaning, or Fr. Brown would be in our camp, and he assures us he is not. In Fr. Brown's world, "literal sense" is equivalent to "fiction." Here Fr. Brown stretches the meaning of words to the absolute breaking point. The divergence of what we normally understand between the symbolic and the literal, Fr. Brown now bridges by appealing to the author's literal intent to use fiction. In other words, the literal meaning of the text is no longer what we use to judge its meaning; rather, we judge the meaning based on whether the author intended to write fiction. If he intended to write fiction, then writing fiction was what he "literally" intended, and thus fiction becomes the "literal sense" of his words. You have to hand it to Fr. Brown. This is an ingenious way of twisting the issue.

In the end, who is to decide when the biblical writer "intended" to write fiction? Well, Fr. Brown and the historical-critical exegetes, of course. With what criterion will they judge whether it is fiction? On their "scientific" opinions regarding what are the established "facts" of life, of course (e.g., all life evolved over billions of years; men are not swallowed by whales; snakes don't talk; donkeys don't talk; giants like Goliath never existed; strongmen like Samson are a myth; their wasn't enough rain to create Noah's flood; there was not enough room for Noah to put two of every animal on the ark; the angel of death did not kill all the firstborn of Egypt; the Gospel are not historical biographies of Jesus' life; etc, etc).

This is a clever and effective way for liberals to deny the content of Scripture and at the same time dress up their views in intellectual garb so that it can have the appearance of studied research. In reality, it is only Fr. Brown's subjective opinion on the meaning of Scripture. I wonder what Fr. Brown would have done if we interpreted his New Jerome Biblical Commentary in the same way he interprets Scripture - by what we think his "intent" is? We could posit all kinds of sinister motives for Fr. Brown's teachings, none of which he would like (e.g., that he is demonically possessed and is bent on destroying the Catholic faith). He would be the first to claim that we could never know his true intent, since we don't know the inner recesses of his heart.

Fr. Brown goes on:

Literary criticism, however, does not view the text as a "window" onto a historical world...but as a "mirror" reflecting a world into which the reader is invited. In other words, the referent of the text as such is not the "real world" of history (e.g., exodus or crucifixion) but the literary world signified by the text. In the case of the biblical texts, the literary world is generated by the theological interpretation of the reality (e.g., escape from Egypt as divine liberation for covenant life; the death of Jesus as salvific paschal mystery)..."⁶⁹

This is quite ironic. For all the descriptions of a primitive-thinking and cretinous culture Fr. Brown and the historical-critical exegetes foist on the mentality of the biblical writers, they nevertheless allow the same writers to be quite ingenious in dressing up historical events so that the history is minimized and the "literary world" radiantly blooms before our eyes. It seems odd that such primitive-thinking individuals possessed such ease in assenting to this higher dimension of literature. According to Brown, the biblical writers have little ability to "write history in the Western sense of the term" and are hampered with a "naive prescientific outlook," but they have no problem flowering their writing as if they were William Shakespeare himself, indulging their prose with highfalutin literary genres (e.g., "fiction, poetry, drama, biography"). Imagine how much acumen it takes to alter the historical reality of an event and replace it with deep and penetrating philosophical or theological messages. Some of our best university students find this difficult to do, but they usually have little problem in stating the bare facts of an event. To Fr. Brown the biblical writers are so good at producing the world of make-believe one might think that they would have to be educated at Harvard or Yale in order to be so convincing, but none of this lack of tutelage seems to bother Fr. Brown. He can make the biblical writers adept or inept whenever he chooses, that is, whatever supports his higher-critical theories.

As usual, Fr. Brown then has the audacity to seek support from the Catholic magisterium for his flagrant illogic:

...the reference to the author's intention in the definition affirms that those who produced the biblical books had in their times a message to convey to their readers and that it is important for us to have this message in mind when we read the texts and ask what they now mean for us...The quest implied in the definition matches Pius XII's statement in DAS (EB 550): "Let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal...so that the mind of the author may be made clear."⁷⁰

What did Fr. Brown just do? By now you ought to be able to pick it out yourself. Yes, he twisted Pius XII's words, once again. Before he extracted the quote from Pius XII, Brown asserts that the literal words we read in Scripture may have nothing to do with the intent of the biblical author. But is that what Pius XII said? No, in fact, Pius XII said just the opposite. Pius said that in order to know the "mind of the author" we "discern and define" the "literal" sense of the biblical words. That is, we can only know the author's intent by understanding the literal meaning of his words. Pius XII neither puts adjectives on his use of "literal" (e.g., it is not the "literal sense"), nor mentions anything about seeing "fiction" in Scripture, nor about having some precognition of the author's intent apart from the author's literal words. Yet Fr. Brown pulls the magician's cape over Pius XII's words and utters his historical-critical abracadabra, and presto! Pius XII now agrees with Fr. Brown.

Of course, Fr. Brown's emphasis on "intent" eventually reveals its own insidious intent (pun intended) because it results in Fr. Brown's ultimate desire to limit biblical inerrancy to "matters of salvation." He writes: "The distinction between the author's thought world and the message he conveys in writing is important in discussing the limits of biblical inerrancy."⁷¹ A literal reading of Fr. Brown's words shows that his intent in focusing on the "intent" is so that he can say that the biblical author made mistakes in his historical accounting and did not intend to give literal truth.

Lastly, by referring to "matters of salvation" we might think that Fr. Brown has at least salvaged some truth from the Bible. However, being curious about what they really meant by this phrase, I once asked one of his astute admirers how one defines "matters of salvation." His reply was: "Whatever is in the Nicene Creed, that's all."⁷² Anything else in Scripture is up for grabs, and that is precisely why Catholic biblical scholarship has met its demise.

Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.
President, Catholic Apologetics International
May 12, 2004

Endnotes:

1) Please note here also that Fr. Brown believes, in line with the theories of "historical criticism," that Genesis was not written by Moses (even though the Pentateuch states he was the author over a dozen times), and neither was it written during the time of Moses, but rather, was an "eleventh century B.C." document, which historical critics base on it affinity to the Mesopotamian legend about the Babylonian god Marduk. As Fr. Richard Clifford, S. J., states in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, (edited by Fr. Raymond Brown): "In Mesopotamian culture, evidently the model for most of the stories in Genesis 1-11, scribes explored beginnings through stories and cosmogonies, not through abstract reasoning....Genesis 1-11 then is a single story, an unusually sustained 'philosophical' and 'theological' explanation of the human race....The biblical writers have produced a version of a common Mesopotamian story of the origins of the populated world, exploring major questions about God and humanity through narrative" (pp. 8-9).

2) Paulist Press (New York, NY, 1975), p. 51.

3) The complete quote from Meier reveals the insidiousness of the entire "historical critical" school in Catholicism. Meier writes: "Ray Brown still takes all kinds of vicious attacks - not from learned conservatives but from the sort of Neanderthal know-nothing types...If they ever knew what some of the rest of us are doing, they'd have a heart attack...Ray has become the lightening rod. One might say he has taken our scholarship upon himself and has born the weight of us all" (National Catholic Reporter, February 22, 1980, p. 20. Cited from The New Biblical Theorists: Raymond Brown and Beyond, by Monsignor George A. Kelly (Servant Books, 1983), pp. 7-8.

4) Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 447.

5) Principles of Christian Theology, 1966, p. ix

6) Historicism and Faith, p. 37.

7) Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, p. 25.

8) The Bible in Human Transformation, p. 26.

9) America, 11-20-1976.

10) "Polygenism" is the belief that the human race was produced by multiple numbers of first parents who each descended at various times from non-human ancestors. This ruling by Pius XII was, of course, a fatal blow to the infiltration of evolution theory into Catholic thinking, although, to this day, its proponents have a difficult time admitting it.

11) The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, p. 12. Although Fr. Brown follows this with "it will become apparent that I am not inclined in that direction,"we must point out two things: (1) Fr. Brown has no justification for introducing the topic of Christ's bodily resurrection by means of an interrogative, since, if Brown believes the resurrection occurred, there is simply no reason to question it; (2) the fact remains that Brown does not explicitly say that he rejects the historical-critical view that there was no bodily resurrection of Christ, but only that he is "not inclined" to their view. Rather than calling it "heresy," Fr. Brown leaves us with the impression that in the future he has the option of being inclined toward their view.

12) The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, p. 35.

13) The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 8-9.

14) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 1169.

15) Walter M. Abbot, SJ, edition.

16) The Austin Flannery edition has a slightly different syntax, which for English readers, lessens the force of the Fr. Brown's argument. Flannery puts the clause "for the sake of our salvation" immediately after "God," thus attempting to indicate God's motivation for giving us Scripture, that is, so that we can be saved. It reads: "...we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures." In the Abbott edition, "for the sake of our salvation" is put at the end of the sentence and thus might lead someone to regard it as modifying "truth" rather than "God."

17) Latin: "directe et necessario sequitur immunitas absoluta abl errore totius Sacrĉ Scripturĉ...cum divina Inspiratio per se ipsam tam necessario excludat, et respuat errorem omnem in qualibet re religiosa vel profana..."

18) Paragraph 124 states: "Equally intolerable is the theory of those who...have no hesitation in maintaining that divine inspiration pertains to nothing more than matters of faith and morals."

19) Cited from Fr. Brian Harrison's essay The Truth of Scripture; Paul VI's Contribution to Dei Verbum 11, pp. 174-175.

20) Ibid., p. 177.

21) Ibid. Paul VI did the same in his Apostolic Exhortation Quinque iam anni in December 1970 as he said: "Even the divine authority of Scripture itself is called in question by a radical application of what is commonly called 'demythologization.'"

22) Against Faustus the Manichean, 33.7; A.D. 400. It is interesting to note that in his books Fr. Brown uses the apparent contradictions between Matthew and Luke to cast much doubt on the reliability of the infancy narratives.

23) Exposition of the Psalms, 147.10; A.D. 392-418.

24) Epistle 82, 3; A.D. 405.

25) Against Heresies 2, 28, 2; 4, 33, 8.

26) Dialogue with Trypho, 65.

27) Nineteenth Festal Letter, 3.

28) Orations 2, 105.

29) Panacea Against All Heresies 70, 7.

30) Homilies on Matthew 1, 6.

31) Letters 27, 1.

32) The references are: (1) Augustine, Gen. Ad Litt., 2, 9, 20; PL 34, 270-271; (2) Epistles 82, 3: PL 33, 227; CSEL 34, 2, p. 354; (3) St. Thomas, De Veritate q. 12, a. 2, C.; (4) Council of Trent, Ses. IV, de canonicis Scripturis: Denz. 127; (5) Leo XIII, Encycl. Providentissimus: EB 121, 124, 126-127; (6) Pius XII, Encycl. Divino Afflante: EB 539. See Flannery edition, page 757.

33) I am indebted to Fr. Brian Harrison for this keen observation.

34) Inside the Vatican, March 1996, p. 20.

35) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990), p. 1169. It is rather interesting that the Nihil Obstat given to the commentary was issued by the three editors, namely, Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and Roland Murphy, which are listed as its "censores deputati" (Emphasis mine). NB: Although Joseph Fitmyer and Roland Murphy are not subjects of my present critique, the reader should be aware that they, and all the contributors to the NJBC, are of the same opinion about Scripture as Fr. Brown. For example, Jospeh Fitzmyer makes it clear in his book A Christological Catechism that he firmly believes there are errors in Scripture (NY: Paulist Press, 1982), pp. 8, 10, 15, 19, 22, et al.

36) Inside the Vatican, p. 14, Nov 1995.

37) Originally published in Kairos, June 18, 1998; reprinted in Catholic World Report, Oct. 2001, p. 5.

38) Catholic World Report, October 2001.

39) John Vennari, "The Oberammergau Passion Play," Catholic Family News, Part III, July 2003.

40) John Paul II has endorsed this document, although it is not known whether he specifically endorses the historical-critical theory that the Gospels were written by authors other than the four Evangelists.

41) His Mercy Endures Forever, para. 24.

42) Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Crises Facing the Church (Paulist Press, New York, NY), pp. 7, 25, 55, 65, 91.

43) Ibid., p. 25.

44) Ibid., p. 112. Emphasis mine.

45) Robert A. Sungenis, The Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, The Gospel According to Matthew, Vol. 1 (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), p. 102.

46) For example, Fr. Brown stated in a conversation with Gerry Matatics that he did not believe the events of Caesarea Philippi recorded in Matthew 16:13-20 actually took place, and that Jesus did not say: "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church." This is the type of "fiction" that Fr. Brown sees all over Scripture.

47) Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Editorial, February, 2004, Kenneth Baker, S.J., editor, in review of Raymond Brown's 900 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday, 1997).

48) Crises Facing the Church, pp. ix, 9.

49) Crises Facing the Church, p. 7.

50) NB: I am not condoning the Church's reaction to Brown. They should have clamped down harder on his excesses, but since there is a crises in Church discipline, men like Brown think they have free reign.

51) Crises Facing the Church, pp. 7-8.

52) Crises Facing the Church, p. 11. Emphasis his.

53) Crises Facing the Church, p. 12.

54) NJBC, p. 1203.

55) Paragraph 37.

56) NJBC p. 1171.

57) Crises Facing the Church, pp. 12, 16. For CFN reader's information, Pope Leo XIII's 1881 encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientae flatly denies Brown's assertion regarding Eve, stating clearly that she was formed only when taken from the rib of Adam.

58) NJBC, p. 1149.

59) NJBC, p. 1171.

60) Crises in the Church, p. 18.

61) Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy, "The God Who is There" (IL: Crossway Books, 1990), p. 353, chapter 5, note 1.

62) Crises Facing the Church, p. 33.

63) Paul Tillich lived in adultery. Karl Rahner had an illicit relationship with a women. Teilhard de Chardin created false paleontological specimens, etc, etc.

64) The editor, Eugene H. Maly, S.T.D., S.S.D. (deceased), Dean of Theology, Professor of Scripture, Mount St. Mary's Seminary of the West, Cincinnati, Ohio, writes: "Again, according to Daniel 5:31 Babylon was conquered by 'Darius the Mede.' Actually, it was captured by the Persians who had already conquered the Medes...But this does not affect the truth of the story that all these kingdoms would one day give way to the messianic kingdom" (The Good News Bible, p. xi, emphasis theirs). Liberal exegetes desire the "Persian" answer because it allows them to say Persia was one of Daniel's "four kingdoms" (Daniel 2:36-40), which would make the fourth kingdom Greece, and thus limit the extent of Daniel's prophecy to the time of 165 BC, well below the time of the Roman empire or to the end of time. To the liberals, Daniel was written by a Greek in the second century BC who already knew the events which took place in the past and wrote the book of Daniel as if Daniel were "prophesying" the events. The reality, however, is that the editor of the GNB has his history eschew. Darius did not come before Cyrus. There were two different men, with the name "Darius." One was Darius the Mede, the other was Darius I, a Persian, but they had nothing to do with one another. Darius I was Persian by birth, and a cousin of king Cyrus. He was not a Mede. Darius the Mede did not precede Cyrus as king of Babylon, rather, he began his reign seven years after the death of Cyrus.

65) Good News Bible with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha, Today's English Version, Second Edition (Catholic Bible Press, a division of Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, et al. 1993) with imprimatur from "Most Reverend William H. Keeler, D.D., President, National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

66) NJBC, p. 1165.

67) NJBC, p. 1148.

68) NJBC, p. 1151, 1152.

69) NJBC, p. 1159.

70) NJBC, p. 1148.

71) NJBC, p. 1149.

72) Verbatim quote from Fr. Peter Stravinskas, as we were discussing Fr. Brown's commentary on St. John.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7