King is sailing, they say

Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible by Raymond Brown 

Catholic priest Raymond Brown was an unquestioned authority on the New Testament.  He is most well known for his numerous New Testament commentaries, although I must say that 101 Questions on the Bible is the first thing I have read from him.  Being primarily a Protestant, I thought I would read something from the Catholic point of view.  It was very illuminating.  The book is fairly short; at about 140 pages I knocked it off in an evening, just in time to return it to the library.  It is also a fast read and never dull.   The book’s intent is to collect the 101 most common questions that Brown received during his years of lecturing and teaching.  The questions phrased as if asked by a hypothetical student, and arranged in such a way that answers and questions flow naturally into each other.  Stylistically,  this is a very well written book for the layman.Now for the content: I found this book fascinating on a number of levels.  First there is the questions themselves.  Most seem to pre-suppose questions from a fundamentalist Protestant, as it argues for the differences in interpretations, translations and apocryphal books.  It is interesting that while Brown recommends the paraphrased The Good News Bible, he highly condemns The Living Bible as it has a literalist slant to it.  This is one aspect of the book that is unavoidable.  While Brown spends a lot of time explaining some harmonies between Protestantism and Catholicism, he also condemns a literalist reading of the Bible, and Fundamentalists specifically.  After answering questions about his views on Biblical inerrancy (it is not inerrant, nor should certain portions be taken literally) and historicity (large portions are mythical), Brown devotes a large portion of the book tackling Fundamentalism. 

Fundamentalism, according to Brown, as a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, derived just after 1910 as a response to the developing art of biblical criticism and the Darwinian view of creation.  Fundamentalists are seen as a “problem” to the Catholic believer and a hindrance to a true Biblical understanding.  In Brown’s words, “a literalist reading of the Bible is intellectually indefensible and is quite unnecessary for the defense of the basic Christian doctrines”.   Brown also gives advice for Catholics confronting fundamentalists, and also a warning.  Since many fundamentalists have thoroughly studied Biblical text to develop elaborate apologetic arguments to support their literalist positions, most Catholics, including the priesthood are generally not as well versed in the Bible nor are they particularly good expositors.  Brown’s advice to the Catholic reader then is basically not to argue with them.  As an ex-Fundamentalist, I found that pretty amusing. However, as an ex-Fundamentalist, and with that mindset, this brings up other issues concerning key doctrines.  For instance, the doctrine of Mariology, and the Immaculate Conception, which Brown admits gets its main influence from the non-Canonical Proto-Gospel of James, a likely second century work.  How can this idea, which originates in a late non-Canonical work become essential for salvation?  Brown tries to justify it by its inference in the Book of Luke, but otherwise cites numerous catechismal documents issued by the Church supporting his position.  I am not sure what the official position of the Catholic church is on Biblical inerrancy (lots of Googling on the subject just lead to a numbing array of articles and confusing documents – there seem to be lots of positions here).  But Brown seems to want it both ways.  He claims that the Bible is not scientifically or historically inaccurate, should in no way be taken literally, and is loaded with mythic language, characters and stories, and somehow still retaining its inspiration from God.  But only those parts of the Bible which require faith for salvation need to be taken literally.  Of course, no question is asked about when those portions of the Bible contradict, and sadly this is never discussed.  Brown of course refers to a Church document which him this authority.  In other words, the Church government takes precedence over The Word of God. I am not arguing this belief; if Catholics want to believe that God reveals himself through Church government, like a legislative body, that is their right to do so.  And it may be necessary for the modern Catholic church to do so!   

Protestants like to chastise Catholics because of their reverence for papal authority.  However Protestants have tried to interpret the Bible without such authority and as a result have branched into thousands of separate denominations.  So while Brown would say that God speaks through the Catholic church to interpret the Bible, I instead take it to mean that the Bible is insufferably impossible to interpret, because it is not a coherent whole and is riddled with contradictions.  So Brown and myself may agree on this, but choose to resolve it differently.      I highly recommend this book for any Fundamentalist, or any Christian for that matter.  It will open your eyes to other viewpoints from I think Catholics will also learn quite a bit about their faith.  I wish some of the questions would not have been such obvious softballs (a few justifying the anathemas from the Council of Trent would have been nice), but it is still a worthwhile read and counter to today’s rampant Fundamentalism.