Talk:Raymond E. Brown

message: *"even of opposing views" – a little vague; maybe something more specific can be installed? 
*"He was clearly Catholic, treading a conservative midpath between text and church authority, yet managed to be clearly modern in his textual criticism." – this is very conjectural. His views are inconsistent with very recent Catholic teaching, from the Second Vatican Council, which said that everything in Scripture is from the Holy Spirit and without error. Trc | [msg] 09:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. VCII said scripture is without error on matters relating to salvation. It also continues to be Church policy that scripture should be interpreted by those who know best, and granted that Father Brown was appointed to advise the pope on the bible, one can assume that he is one of those persons, no? PiCo 07:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assorted Improvements to Language of Article

message: An anonymous editor keeps inserting:
:"His approach to Scripture, of unimpeachable orthodoxy, praised by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI," 
Aside from removing links in the process, there are problems:
Firstly, the statement is unsourced. If the statement is going to stay, WP:V says the burden is on the one trying to keep it, to provide sources.
Secondly, even if Brown the person was of unimpeachable orthodoxy, that doesn't mean the approach to scripture of Brown was. What exactly is the "orthodox approach to scripture" — is it verifiable (e.g., defined in some council, or a Papal vitae or bull, or in the Catechism)? I think the intention is to say Brown is orthodox, not his approach to scripture; so even if sourced this needs to be reworded.
Thirdly, was Brown praised because he was of unimpeachable orthodoxy, or because he was polite, or because he helped the poor, or for some other reason? Without sources we have no way of knowing.
So please, anonymous editor, comply with WP's policies and do not insert that clause again until you have properly sourced it. » MonkeeSage « 13:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I just wanted to point out on the article that much of his work has been given Nihil obstats and Imprimaturs. Brown even had the power to grant a Nihil obstat. (Runwiththewind 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nihil obstat and Imprimatur 

message: I've removed the list of book awards, which is not specific enough and not sourced. The Catholic Book Award, for instance was for a book which Brown co-authored with three others. Not notable enough here? I have left the section about honorary degrees, but the request for citations remains as I have some doubt about these - again, no specifics and no sources. Can anyone help?
Rbreen 15:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  book awards 

message: "Brown's approach assumed that Scripture may contain error in matters not pertaining to salvation..." There is a fact tag up on this one. I cannot find any reference that would indicate that this is correct. It seems to be a private interpretation. "The Fundamentalist Challenge" by Fr. Raymond Brown in fact states the contrary, so I am removing this section because it is at odds with Fr. Raymond E. Brown's views on the subject. (Runwiththewind 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reread the quote: "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible communicates without error that truth which God intended for the sake of our salvation." In other words, it's only the truth intended for the sake of our salvation that is without error. But when the author of Mark wrongly states who was High Priest when David's men ate the consecrated food, that's just a regular old mistake (not about anything intended for the sake of our salvation). Jonathan Tweet 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for questioning Brown's view. In researching it, I've stumbled across some good material relevant to the topic and included it in the article. Jonathan Tweet 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion of Fr. Brown on scripture  

message: For anybody not clear on what they are reading here on this article my following experience will help clarify what is happening from the Roman Catholic position. Fr. Brown was a Roman Catholic.
*(1)Wikipedia does not contain an imprimatur nor is it approved by the Holy See.
*(2)Not everyone accepts the Second Vatican Council and some have rejected it outright. I do not trust opinions on the Holy See not made by the Holy See. Holy See commentary is approved with their Imprimaturs.
*(3)Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have made it clear that rejecting Vatican II is wrong in their eyes. Read APOSTOLIC LETTER LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE (Pope Benedict XVI) and APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM (Pope John Paul II).
*(4)Not everyone accepts the Catechism of the Catholic Church approved by the Pope because they have rejected the Second Vatican Council. Both the above Apostolic Constitutions clearly state this is an error.
*(5)The Holy See has never said that Father Brown was not in full communion with the Church contrary to what some critics might say.
*(6)Trust in God and receive full communion by accessing only Holy See approved statements on Fr. Brown, or which contain an imprimatur.
*(7)Father Brown’s name is Father Brown, not Brown.
*(8)Anyone can comment or edit this wikipedia article about Fr. Brown. Obviously it was a mistake to assume that only Roman Catholics, like Fr. Brown would have an interest in presenting the case he actually made rather than the case some people think they have against a good priest like Fr. Brown. I could not handle the malice on this page directed against this priest who has since passed away. I have found love from him and about him through the Holy See.
God bless you all and a special blessing to anyone who seeks the truth through the Pope’s teachings. The fullness of truth, not half of it, will be yours I am sure. God bless the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (Runwiththewind 21:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reverted the above edit, and I'm not sure why, so I put it back. Jonathan Tweet 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father Brown was in Full Communion with the Church contrary to criticism here 

message: Aggiornamento occured at Vatican II. What is going on here with the Father Brown bashing is simply Vatican II rejection. Pope John XXIII in his opening speech on October 11, 1962 decried the "prophets of gloom" and doom. If there is a Church policy to try and renew the condemned prophets of doom and gloom who wish to go back to the days of ultraconservativism then the onus is on those who reject Aggiornamento to show where these prophets have been accepted back into the Church. (Runwiththewind 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggiornamento rejection is not Catholic 

message: People interested in Father Brown would do well to consult []. Here is an example of why WP:UNDUE undue weight is assigned to minority views that do not represent the actual position of the Roman Catholic Church. (Runwiththewind 13:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical-critical method and Brown 

message: Make sure people are not confusing Modernism (Roman Catholicism) with the historical-critical method.(Runwiththewind 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernism (Roman Catholicism)]] is not the [[historical-critical method]] 

message: I think I have an observation that may help this issue.  There are three topics at hand, (1) application of historical methods to scripture, (2) the position that scripture contains errors, (3) the view that inspiration is limited to certain parts of scripture.  Now, everyone seems to be conflating all these.  But, in affirming the use of (1), there is no logical necessity for affirming (2) and / or (3).  So, while Church teaching documents may be shown supporting the limited use of (1), I believe the controversy is over (2) and (3) (which, one should note, have not been shown to be affirmed by any Church teaching documents that I know of).  I think this matter is being obscured by the false assumption that accepting (1) entails accepting (2) and thus (if one wants to believe in inspiration anymore) also accepting (3). 129.11.76.215 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the critics of Father Brown and the Historical-critical Method want to claim essentially is that any Imprimatur granted to Brown's work mean nothing. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary still contains the imprimatur it received back in the 1960s, over 40 years ago. The imprimatur has never been revoked so what the critics are doing is going back as early as they can to critic Brown's earlier work which he subsequently corrected in later editions and pretending that the corrects never happened. They also claim that Brown's current position is that the Bible contain errors. That is rubbish and without any validation what-so-ever. (Runwiththewind 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some points for discussion 

message: To quote from the article Brown remains controversial among traditional Catholics because of his denial of the inerrancy of the whole of Scripture and his casting doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith. This is weasel worded. Brown never made any such statement. The citation... Henry V. King. "Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown's Theories", The Wanderer, September 10, 1998, pp. 1, 11. Retrieved on 2007-06-23. ... says nothing about Brown claiming Biblical inerrancy. It makes the unfounded claim that Brown supports this position. Nowhere does it quote Brown saying anything about Bible inerrancy. 
*The whole case for the Brown critic is the claim that Brown states that the Bible contains errors. Since Brown's last work, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary is clearly the historical-critical method commentary in question, where does Brown make this claim. I want to see reference to this commentary. I think saying Brown's position is that the Bible contains errors is simply false and misleading. (Runwiththewind 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that Father Brown rejects Biblical inspiration is clearly false. The NJBC which Father Brown granted a Nihil Obstat on and edited has a whole section on Inspiration between pages 1023-1033 which starts by citing Vatican II documents as the key documents on Inspiration.(Runwiththewind 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a large portion of the criticism was based on an unfounded criticm of Father Brown it is removed. (Runwiththewind 15:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no quote from Brown that the Bible in inerrant in the citations given. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary contains an Imprimatur that has not been revoked. It is free from moral and doctrinal error. Your claim doesn't actually support Biblical inerrancy. In the commentary on the book of Job there is no statement in the section in question that Job wrote errors. (Runwiththewind 10:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone here quoted that p.1169 of The New Jerome Biblical Commentary denies Biblical inerrancy. It does not deny Biblical inerrancy. Read all of Dei Verbum again. It is exactly in line with the policy of Vatican II. (Runwiththewind 19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does Brown state that the Bible contains errors? (Please quote below) 

message: I added the dispute tag because there is already a dispute ongoing at traditionalist Catholics that is managing to find its way across to other articles like this one and Church Dogma like Dei Verbum. (Runwiththewind 10:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be an explanation of what information provided on this page is disputed - without specific points, it's difficult to know whether the issues are outstanding or not. Anyone care to help? --Rbreen 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no explanation of what the dispute tag is about after requesting comment a month ago, so evidently this is no longer an active dispute. I have removed the dispute tag. Rbreen (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag added 

message: The article contains this statement:  
Brown's work was controversial among traditionalists who objected to his position that the Bible, including the Gospels, contains historical errors, and the elements of his work that they regarded as casting doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.
Can someone please identify, by publication and page number, where Brown explicitly wrote that the Bible "contains historical errors" (bold added)?  Specifically, please show where Brown used the word "errors" to characterize something in the apostolic autographs per se.
Msgr George A. Kelly, in his article on catholic.net cited as Note 25 above, does not use the word "errors" in criticising Brown's analyses.  The word "errors" appears nowhere in Kelly's essay.
Richard David Ramsey (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Errors"? 

message: User:EALacey decided my data had no relevance in improving this article on Mr. Brown. I decided to drop the subject. Kazuba (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No revelance

message: Substituted at 03:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Raymond E. Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040422213341/http://academic.shu.edu/btb/vol28/btb98_PTI_4.html to http://academic.shu.edu/btb/vol28/btb98_PTI_4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified