Introduction

          The limited scope of this paper means that it will of necessity be a rather cursory investigation of the presuppositions underlying the exegetical work of the late Fr. Raymond Brown, but before beginning a critique of his work, I will first give a brief defense of the modern Historical Critical method itself, and only then will I proceed to examine a few of the presuppositions involved in Fr. Brown’s research.  In critiquing Fr. Brown's essays in The Critical Meaning of the Bible, and his response to Cardinal Ratzinger found in the Course Reader, I will focus on two particular problems affecting his work and how these presuppositions are viewed from an Eastern Christian perspective:  beginning with (1) his rationalist and conceptualist understanding of the nature of knowledge, including his tendency to fall into an historicist doctrinal revisionism; and (2) his "ecumenical program" of exegesis, and related to this, his tendency to fall into what I would call a "sola scriptura" position, evincing a de facto discontinuity between scripture and tradition.  Finally, in the last part of the paper I will propose some solutions to the philosophical problems affecting modern biblical exegesis.

Defense of the Historical Critical Method

          The incarnational and historical nature of divine revelation itself requires that one approach the biblical texts as he would any other historical documents.  Now this does not mean that the exegete investigates the texts without reference to the regula fidei of the Church, for it must be remembered that he is doing his research within the context of the Church’s faith and living tradition.  Thus, the analogy of faith is necessary, but proper methods of historical research are also necessary, because “Christian revelation does not come primarily as propositions which reveal truth in an abstract manner detached from historical reference,” but is instead the revelation of God through historical events, and as a consequence of this, as Williamson goes on to say, “Historical study is necessary [in order] to understand the historical contexts of the biblical authors and their audiences, as well as to understand the meaning of the words, literary conventions, and concepts the biblical writers employed.” [1]  If one does not do this kind of historical research, there is a danger that the biblical text could be emptied of any objective content and in the process could simply become a pious tool open to the subjective manipulation of meaning by those advocating a fundamentalistic ideology, and which would tend to absolutize the inspired text by failing to recognize the limited nature of human language. [2]

          Now although the Historical Critical method arose after the Enlightenment, and in some sense under the auspices of Enlightenment rationalism, it does not follow of necessity that the rationalist presuppositions of the Enlightenment are inherently present within the method itself.  It is important to note that a method is simply a tool, and as such it has no presuppositions within it at all; instead, presuppositions are brought to bear on a method of research by its practitioner, and thus if the method is to be used properly in a Christian context, it is important that the exegete be aware of his own presuppositions, of their nature and their source. [3]

          Williamson’s attack on what he calls the “overly positive” attitude of the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission as it concerns the use of the Historical Critical method lacks foundation, because the example he gives of a scholar who misuses the method, fails to take into account that the presuppositions of the scholar in question (i.e., John J. Collins) are not inherent within the method itself, but are found within the mindset of the individual exegete named. [4]  For example the idea that “autonomy” is a prerequisite to any critical investigation of the texts of scripture is a position founded upon the Enlightenment view of the nature of reality and of how knowledge is obtained, but this epistemological position is not inherent in the Historical Critical method itself, and can be dispensed with.  In other words, the idea that knowledge is acquired by solitary individuals in a vacuum, rather than by persons living in communion with each other, is not a necessary prerequisite to doing a critical investigation of sacred scripture.  Man, as described by Gunton, does not need to be “autonomous” in the Kantian sense of that term in order to critically examine the world around him, nor does he need to be the “cause” of the nature, either moral or ontological, of the things he studies. [5]  Thus, rather than posit the possibility of negative a priori presuppositions within the Historical Critical method itself, Williamson should instead attack the prevailing epistemology of Western culture, and distinguish between the tools of research and the presuppositions of those who use, or rather, misuse them.

Fr. Raymond Brown’s Presuppositions

          Having briefly defended the use of the Historical Critical method and the idea that there are no a priori presuppositions inherent it, I will now move on to examine some of the problematic presuppositions present within the work of Fr. Brown.  This critique is of course limited in scope, and it is not my intention to give the impression that all of Fr. Brown’s work is problematic; instead, I simply intend to highlight a few problems I found within the classes required reading.

          The first problem centers on what I would call a “rationalist” or “conceptualist” presupposition present within Fr. Brown’s writings, and because of this “conceptualist” viewpoint he tends to reduce the datum of revelation to rational concepts.  An example of this can be found in his statements about Christ and whether or not He experienced the Beatific Vision in His human mind. [6]  Even the way in which Fr. Brown frames this topic betrays a modern Western mindset, because he reduces the Beatific Vision to intellectual categories in a manner that is foreign to Eastern Catholic thought on this topic.  In the Eastern Church the Vision of God is understood in experiential and relational terms, and not in a conceptualist framework; and as a consequence, the Eastern tradition holds that Christ experienced the Vision of God in its fullness in His assumed human nature from the moment of His conception in the womb of Mary, and this divine experience, which transcends any act of human intellection, is not affected by any perceived limitation in Christ’s human mind or knowledge.

          As Christos Yannaras wrote, the Western view gives “. . . priority of the intellect as the way of knowledge, reducing truth to a coincidence of thought with the object of thought (adaequatio rei et intellectus), an understanding of nature and person as definitions resulting from rational abstraction,” and this metaphysical worldview is quite simply unacceptable to Eastern Catholic philosophers and theologians. [7]  In this particular case Fr. Brown has uncritically accepted a limited Western philosophical position, treating it as if it were some kind of “universal norm,” and then without proving this to be the case, has applied this Western “norm” to a biblical problem without questioning whether or not the Western philosophical outlook is the only way of approaching the topic.

          Fr. Brown’s position on this issue also betrays a mild form of historicism, for while it is true that dogmatic formulations of the Magisterium are historically conditioned, it is false to hold that the substance of what is taught by a Magisterial definition is changeable.  The doctrine may be reformulated at a later date, but the reformulation cannot contradict what has already been defined, because “. . . the meaning of dogmatic formulas, . . . remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when [they are] expressed with greater clarity or fuller understanding.” [8]  I don’t see how Fr. Brown’s views on this topic can be reconciled with the Church’s earlier teaching, because his position is not simply a clarification of the previous teaching, but is in fact a denial of it.

          As the Holy Father has taught, it is important “[t]o understand a doctrine from the past correctly, [and to do this] it is necessary to set it within its proper historical and cultural context,” but one cannot reduce the truth to a certain historical period or to a certain historical purpose, because to do that is a denial of “. . . the enduring validity of truth.” [9]   Fr. Brown’s distinction between insights that are pre-resurrectional and those that are post-resurrectional does not, at least as it concerns the topic of the Beatific Vision, appear to be appropriate in an Eastern Christian context, remembering of course the non-conceptual mode of understanding the divine presence which is central to Eastern theology, for the Vision of God surpasses both intellect and sensation, while elevating both mind and body into the Godhead through a gift of uncreated grace. [10]  The Eastern Church holds that Christ possessed the uncreated Light of the Vision of God from His conception, not as an act of intellection, but as an experiential reality, and that this experience of the uncreated divine glory was veiled to those around Him, except on Mt. Tabor where the three apostles were given the uncreated eyes of the Spirit with which to see Christ’s true radiance during the Transfiguration.

          In some sense, the conceptualism of Fr. Brown, which still pervades much of Western Catholic thought, has been surpassed by the teaching contained in Dei Verbum [11], hopefully the personalist thrust of that document will affect Catholic exegesis to a greater and greater degree with the passage of time. 

          I will now move on to examine the “ecumenical program” of Fr. Brown and how it may lead to a reductionist view of the Church’s understanding of the biblical tradition.  One of the strengths that Fr. Brown sees in the ecumenical approach may also be one of its weaknesses, for as he says, “Ecumenical discussions profit from being subject to the control of the written text rather than to speculations that go far beyond the text,” [12] but the deposit of divine revelation itself goes beyond the text because it includes sacred tradition.  In fact, in an Eastern Christian context, scripture is a part of the living tradition which precedes it, and although scripture becomes normative in establishing theological language about God, scripture cannot be clearly understood without tradition.  It is only in the life of the Church, expressed through her liturgical worship, that scripture becomes fully alive, reactualizing the events recorded for the sake of our salvation. [13]  As Fr. John Breck states in his book, Scripture in Tradition, “. . . the only way we can avoid the futility of so much contemporary study of the Bible is by situating the Word of God again in its proper ecclesial and liturgical context.” [14]

          What Fr. Brown tends to do in his “ecumenical program” of interpretation, is to reduce divine revelation to scripture alone, and in the process he introduces a discontinuity between what scripture meant, and what scripture means. [15]  This discontinuity fails to account for the unity of scripture and tradition, and the holistic nature of the development of the Church’s doctrine through time.  The Church cannot simply impose a foreign idea upon the biblical text, but this is precisely what Fr. Brown argues is possible.  He justifies this idea by saying that, “Just as the Church is justified in proclaiming an afterlife even though Job 14:13-22 rejected it (while the other biblical authors accepted it), so can the Church later teach doctrinally something that an individual NT author, in passing, seems not to have accepted.” [16]  Here Fr. Brown appears to confuse the unfolding nature of the divine pedagogy with the false notion of additions to the Church’s faith by the Magisterium after the close of divine revelation.  Brown comes to this conclusion, because under the presuppositions within which he operates, there is a division between scripture and the living tradition of the Church.

Solution to the Philosophical Problems in Biblical Exegesis

          Now that I have completed my brief overview of the situation, I will propose a twofold solution to the philosophical problems affecting biblical exegesis, the first part of the solution was mentioned by Fr. Brown in his response to Cardinal Ratzinger, when he said that, “We can never think that the fundamentalist tendency has been overcome for all times and that we can now proceed as if it were a dead issue; it recurs in every generation.” [17]  This statement is true, and it is a timely warning, but I would add that just as the fundamentalist perspective lurks in the background and must be resisted, so too, the perspective of Enlightenment rationalism lurks in the background and must be constantly expunged.  We must be on guard for both extremes.  But in my estimation, the real answer to the problems inherent in the Western philosophical tradition, is to reevaluate that tradition itself in the light of the Eastern Christian philosophical and theological tradition. 

          This is precisely what Dr. Scott Pentecost has done in his dissertation entitled Quest for the Divine Presence, where he has shown that the way to overcome the rationalist mindset in modern philosophy, a mindset that makes man the arbiter of meaning for things in the world, is to replace that worldview with the symbolic metaphysic of the Eastern Christian world. [18]  The East sees creation along with scripture, as symbols that contain the reality of God’s uncreated energy, and as a consequence, man discovers meaning in the world, he does not create it.  The idea of a dualism of “orders of knowing” that posits a knowledge of the world autonomous from its creator is rejected by the East, because it “. . . renders metaphysically unintelligible any intimate relation of the world, and thus of man, to God, leaving only the extrinsic relation of creation understood in terms of efficient causality,” and this causal relation ultimately destroys the symbolic meaning of the world as a disclosure of the divine to man. [19]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited and Referenced:

Fr. John Breck.  Scripture in Tradition:  The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church.  (Crestwood, NY:  St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001).

Raymond E. Brown, S.S.  The Critical Meaning of the Bible.  (New York:  Paulist Press, 1981).

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.  Scripture, the Soul of Theology.  (New York:  Paulist Press, 1994).

Colin E Gunton.  Enlightenment and Alienation:  An Essay towards a Trinitarian Theology.  (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985).

George A. Maloney, S.J.  A theology of Uncreated Energies.  (Milwaukee:  Marquette University Press, 1978).

Richard J. Neuhaus (Editor).  Biblical Interpretation in Crisis:  The Ratzinger Conference on the Bible and the Church.  (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1989).  Article by Raymond E. Brown, "The Contribution of Histical Biblical Criticism to Ecumenical Discussions," pages 24-49. 

Scott F. Pentecost.  Quest for the Divine Presence:  Metaphysics of Participation and the Relation of Philosophy the Theology in St. Gregory Palamas’s Triads and One Hundred and Fifty Chapters.  (Ann Arbor, MI:  UMI Dissertation Services, 1999).

Archbishop Joseph Raya.  Transfiguration of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  (Combermere, Ontario:  Madonna House Publications, 1992).

Peter S. Williamson.  Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture:  A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.  (Rome:  Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001).

Christos Yannaras.  “The Distinction Between Essence and Energies and its Importance for Theology.”  St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 19 (1975):  pages 232-245.

Course Reader:  Brown, Raymond E., S.S.  “The Contribution of Historical Biblical Criticism to Ecumenical Church Discussion.”  Biblical Interpretation in Crisis:  pages 24-49

Church Documents:

Pope John Paul II.  Fides et Ratio.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1998).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Mysterium Ecclesiae.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1973).

Pontifical Biblical Commission.  The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1993).

Second Vatican Council.  Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1965).

The Historical Critical Method and Fr. Raymond Brown

by Steven Todd Kaster

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Bibilical Foundations

Dr. Minto

16 November 2004

_____________________________________

End Notes:

[1]  Peter S. Williamson.  Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture:  A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.  (Rome:  Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001).  Page 220.

[2]  see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.  Scripture, the Soul of Theology.  (New York:  Paulist Press, 1994).  Pages 58-59; and see Pope John Paul II’s speech in IBC, 18.

[3]  see Brown Course Reader article, 45.

[4]  see Williamson, 237-243.

[5]  see Colin E Gunton.  Enlightenment and Alienation:  An Essay towards a Trinitarian Theology.  (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985).  Pages 59-62.

[6]  see Raymond E. Brown, S.S.  The Critical Meaning of the Bible.  (New York:  Paulist Press, 1981).  Page 87.

[7]  see Christos Yannaras.  “The Distinction Between Essence and Energies and its Importance for Theology,” St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 19 (1975): pages 232-245.

[8]  Mysterium Ecclesiae, no. 10.

[9]  Pope John Paul II.  Fides et Ratio.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1998).  Page 109.

[10]  See George A. Maloney, S.J.  A theology of Uncreated Energies.  (Milwaukee:  Marquette University Press, 1978).  Pages 88-89; see also Joseph Raya.  Transfiguration.  (Combermere, Ontario:  Madonna House Publications, 1992).  Page 52.

[11]  see Dei Verbum, nos. 2-6.

[12]  Richard J. Neuhaus (Editor).  Biblical Interpretation in Crisis:  The Ratzinger Conference on the Bible and the Church.  (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1989).  Article by Raymond E. Brown, "The Contribution of Histical Biblical Criticism to Ecumenical Discussions," page 26.

[13]  see Fr. John Breck.  Scripture in Tradition:  The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church.  (Crestwood, NY:  St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001).  Pages 13-14.

[14]  Breck, page 14.

[15]  see Brown, pages 78-81; and Brown Course Reader article, 28.

[16]  Brown, pages 78-79.

[17]  Brown Course Reader article, 43.

[18]  see Scott F. Pentecost.  Quest for the Divine Presence:  Metaphysics of Participation and the Relation of Philosophy the Theology in St. Gregory Palamas’s Triads and One Hundred and Fifty Chapters.  (Ann Arbor, MI:  UMI Dissertation Services, 1999).  Pages 127-200.

[19]  Pentecost, page 49.

Copyright © 2004-2025 Steven Todd Kaster