Enigmatic Christ

Enigmatic Christ

Preeminence surrounds scholar Raymond Brown as the leading authority on Roman Catholic biblical studies. Recognized for his close analytical observations of the epistles, the Gospel of John, and the fluctuation of Christology, Brown applies a critical lens to the New Testament. In his book, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, Brown encourages his audience to grasp and formulate the identity of Jesus. Comprehension for non-specialist readers comes from the three divisions of the book. For Brown separately examines the definition of Christology and methods that characterize its discussion today, Jesus's evaluation of himself, and the evaluation of Jesus by Christians of the New Testament period. However, criticism has arisen surrounding Brown’s theories, simply proliferating the argument of the true identity of Christ.

A major discord is derived from Brown’s close analysis of the dating of New Testament writings, such as the synoptic Gospels, letters from Peter, James and Jude, as well as his total rejection of apostolic authorship of Mathew and John. However, Brown opts not to exclude any texts from his consideration merely on the grounds that they have been influenced by the post-resurrection experience of the early church. For Brown is attempting to glean new understanding from passages not to define Jesus historically, but rather to seek indication of a self-aware Christ. Brown states, "some [Gospel texts] reflect a later insight not yet achieved in the ministry of Jesus”, from this juncture Brown’s intention is to define self-designations of the historical Jesus from tacit self-understandings that may plausibly be assigned to him.

What emerges from Brown’s survey is a Christ who is conscious of his relation to God and who would have anticipated, if not articulated, titles and classifications such as "Messiah" and "Son of Man" that were later "combined, honed or interpreted" by the early Christians. Brown ultimately concludes, "There is continuity between the Christology of Jesus and the Christology of the church”. Although Brown draws from widely overlooked citations in the New Testament and formulates logical arguments, there is still shadow of doubt. For Brown receives constant criticism for his manipulation of the Gospels, mainly his repudiation of John and Matthew’s apostolic authorship. Also, conflicting conceptions arise from his miscalculations of dates of books and letters of Paul. What Father Brown does manage to leave in his defense, along with his decades of research, is his emphasis that the study and interpretation of Jesus is an incessant process.

Admittedly so, there are certain misapprehensions in Brown’s analysis of the Gospel. Following a majority view that Luke and Matthew drew heavily upon the Gospel Mark and a collection of Jesus’ quotations entitled the “Q”, Brown attempts to dissect the narrative of Luke. For Brown’s rendering of the internal structure of the Gospel Luke serves as a template for his analysis. First, he discusses the narrative and its interpretation within biblical scholarship. Then, Brown outlines conventional theological categories such as Christology and eschatology. Finally, He identifies the historical conflicts, as well as the literary relationships between the synoptic Gospels. However, in his close analysis of Luke, Brown allows himself certain liberties that are grounds for debate. For example, in the Gospel of Luke the author of the text does not name himself within the narrative, instead a second-century manuscript title names him as Luke, a name also found in the Pauline Epistles (in Philemon 24, Colossians 4:14 and II Timothy 4:11), Brown includes this in his analysis without validation. However, the more popular controversy remains around Brown’s views of the fourth gospel.

Published in a 1965 journal article entitled Theological Studies, scouring for a label of Jesus as “God” in the New Testament, Brown concluded, "Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God" and "there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition”(Brown, 551). He continues his argument, "Gradually, in the development of Christian thought God was understood to be a broader term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that God had to be able to include both Father and Son."(Brown, 555). However, after thirty years of research and re-examining, Brown names in An Introduction to New Testament Christology, "three reasonably clear instances in the NT [Hebrews 1:8-9, John 1:1, 20:28] and in five instances that have probability, Jesus is called God” (Brown, 189). This usage lead Brown to theorize about