What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus: God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections
Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free.
This is an OCR edition with typos.
Excerpt from book:
CHAPTER III ON THE FABLED OCEAN Drake had returned to England with no wish to rest. Burning with the desire to thread the mazes of the fabled Pacific, he used every effort to persuade the Queen and her counsellors to sanction his mighty project. But contrary influences were at work, and for four years he was obliged to wait. At last his time and opportunity came. Elizabeth contributed a thousand pounds to the expedition, on condition that everything should be kept a profound secret. In November, 1577, Drake stood on the deck of his ship in his "loose, dark, seaman's shirt, belted at the waist," and his scarlet cap, watching, with who knows what deep fervor and what secret excitement, the squadron riding in Plymouth harbor that was to carry him on his perilous voyage and realize his great dream. His ships were mere cockle-shells, no larger than modern coasters: the Pelican of one hundred tons and eighteen guns, the Elizabeth of eighty tons, and the Marigold, a bark of thirty tons, both carrying sixteen guns, the Swann, a provision ship of fifty tons, and the Christopher, a pinnace of fifteen tons. These vessels, manned by a hundred and fifteen men and fourteen boys, were fitted out for a long and dangerous voyage. For munition they carried "cartridges, wildfire, chainshot, guns, pistols, bows, and other weapons." With this squadron Drake planned to sail into a chartless and unknown ocean, to brave a shadowy world which superstition had peopled with every inconceivable terror of storm, darkness, and fire. To his crew his final destination was a secret, and, when the squadron finally put to sea on the 13th of December, its alleged destination was Alexandria. Not until they had reached the coast of Morocco was the real object of the venture known. Through stress of gale...
This is an OCR edition with typos.
Excerpt from book:
CHAPTER III ON THE FABLED OCEAN Drake had returned to England with no wish to rest. Burning with the desire to thread the mazes of the fabled Pacific, he used every effort to persuade the Queen and her counsellors to sanction his mighty project. But contrary influences were at work, and for four years he was obliged to wait. At last his time and opportunity came. Elizabeth contributed a thousand pounds to the expedition, on condition that everything should be kept a profound secret. In November, 1577, Drake stood on the deck of his ship in his "loose, dark, seaman's shirt, belted at the waist," and his scarlet cap, watching, with who knows what deep fervor and what secret excitement, the squadron riding in Plymouth harbor that was to carry him on his perilous voyage and realize his great dream. His ships were mere cockle-shells, no larger than modern coasters: the Pelican of one hundred tons and eighteen guns, the Elizabeth of eighty tons, and the Marigold, a bark of thirty tons, both carrying sixteen guns, the Swann, a provision ship of fifty tons, and the Christopher, a pinnace of fifteen tons. These vessels, manned by a hundred and fifteen men and fourteen boys, were fitted out for a long and dangerous voyage. For munition they carried "cartridges, wildfire, chainshot, guns, pistols, bows, and other weapons." With this squadron Drake planned to sail into a chartless and unknown ocean, to brave a shadowy world which superstition had peopled with every inconceivable terror of storm, darkness, and fire. To his crew his final destination was a secret, and, when the squadron finally put to sea on the 13th of December, its alleged destination was Alexandria. Not until they had reached the coast of Morocco was the real object of the venture known. Through stress of gale...
109 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1967
About the author
Raymond E. Brown
139 books103 followersRoman Catholic priest, member of Society of Saint-Sulpice and a prominent biblical scholar, esteemed by not only his colleagues of the same confession. One of the first Roman Catholic scholars to apply historical-critical analysis to the Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 28, 2024
THE EMINENT CATHOLIC BIBLICAL SCHOLAR LOOKS AT JESUS
Father Raymond Brown (1928-1998) was perhaps the greatest biblical scholar (certainly the greatest among Catholics) of the 20th century; he wrote many other masterful books, such as ' The Birth of the Messiah,' and 'The Death of the Messiah.'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1967 book (which received both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur), “The belied that Jesus is God and man involves a whole complex of understanding, a complex in which the biblical evidence has a very important formative role. The first chapter in this book is concerned with an aspect of the contribution that the biblical evidence makes toward our understanding of Jesus’ divinity.” (Pg. x) He continues, “The second chapter is concerned with an aspect of the contribution that the biblical evidence makes toward our understanding of Jesus’ humanity. Nowhere does the problem about the reality and fullness of Jesus’ humanity appear more clearly than in the question of how much knowledge Jesus possessed… These two chapters were the product of a christological study that I did in the summer of 1965, prompted by experiences in teaching the biblical background of a course on the Trinity while the professor os that course was at the Vatican Council.” (Pg. xii-xiii)
He points out, “Throughout most of the New Testament there tends to be a distinction between God (= the Father) and Jesus.” (Pg. 6; e.g., Mk 10:18, 15:34; Eph 1:17) He continues, “Tangentially related to our discussion are a number of texts which seem to state that Jesus is less than God the Father.” (Pg. 9; e.g., Jn 14:28; Mk 13:32; Phil 2:5-10)
He observes, “Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition… Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before 58. The first likely occurrence of ‘God’ for Jesus is in Rom 9:5… we could thus date the usage to the late 50’s.” (Pg. 30)
He explains, “The slow development of the usage of the title ‘God’ for Jesus requires explanation. Not only is there the factor that Jesus is not called God in the earlier strata of New Testament material, but there are also passages … that by implication reserved the title ‘God’ for the Father. Moreover, even in the New Testament works that speak of Jesus as God, there are also passages that seem to militate against such a usage… The most plausible explanation is that in the earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the use of the title ‘God’; hence ‘God’ was a title too narrow to be applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the God to whom he prayed. Gradually… in the development of Christian thought ‘God’ was understood to be a broader term.” (Pg. 33-34)
He acknowledges, “This study will necessarily seem pointless of objectionable only to the theological positions at the two ends of the spectrum. To the absolute minimalist who thinks that Jesus knew no more than any other man, the attempt to leave place for the divine in his consciousness will seem forced. To the absolute maximalist who says that Jesus was God and therefore knew everything that God knows, the uncovering of evidence of limitation will seem blasphemous. To all the more nuanced positions in between the study will offer evidence that must be faced. If the study has the byproduct of making Jesus seem more human, this too can be a service to Christian truth.” (Pg. 44-45)
He notes, “there are gospel passages which portray Jesus as learned … The Gospels present Jesus as not hesitating to contradict current exegesis when such exegesis conflicted with his own interpretation of his role or of the demands of the kingdom of God. Yet in questions of authorship, literary form, historicity, and principles of hermeneutics, the Jesus of the Gospels reflects the often inadequate and even erroneous ideas of his time.” (Pg. 54)
He suggests, “in the two instances of Jesus’ knowledge of the future that we have studied, the Gospel evidence… would demand no more than that Jesus would have had firm general convictions about the unrolling of God’s plan in a way that would lead to death and victory for him and to punishment for Jerusalem. This type of conviction is characteristic of the Old Testament prophets. Neither in their case nor in Jesus’ do we have really scientific proof for a detailed foreknowledge of unpredictable future events, a foreknowledge that would be given by God alone.” (Pg. 70)
He argues, “When we turn to the question of Jesus’ thought about himself as the Messiah, we are in an area for which Scripture gives us little evidence… Often in Catholic circles it is not sufficiently emphasized that in the oldest tradition of Peter’s confession (Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20) Jesus did not affirm Peter’s estimate of him as the Messiah, but ordered silence and spoke of suffering. To the point-blank question of the high priest, ‘Are you the Messiah?’ Jesus answers in a qualified manner, ‘You have said so.’ This probably means that, while Jesus will not refuse the title and thus deny his unique role … the phraseology is not what he would spontaneously choose and he is not happy about its implications.” (Pg. 82-83)
He asks, “Can theology admit that [Jesus’] intellect was also a tabula rasa, activated not by infused knowledge but by human experiences, as are other men’s intellects? In this case it would have taken Jesus time to formulate concepts, and he might have found some of the concepts of his day inadequate to express what he wanted to say. One would then be able to say that his knowledge was limited, but such limitation would not at all exclude an intuitive consciousness of a unique relationship to God and of a unique mission to men. The struggle of his life could have been one of finding the concepts and the words to express that relationship and that mission. Proving such a theory obviously goes far beyond the task and the capabilities of exegesis.” (Pg. 95)
He concludes, “let me insist that the evaluation of the Gospel evidence given above, if correct, does nothing to detract from the dignity of Jesus. The whole discussion has been predicated on an acceptance of him as ‘true God of true God.’ If in the Gospel reports his knowledge seems to have been limited, such limitation would simply show to what depths divine condescension went in the incarnation---it would show just how human was the humanity of Jesus… But when all is said and done, the great objection that will be hurled again and again against any exegete (or theologian) who finds evidence that Jesus’ knowledge was limited is the objection that in Jesus Christ there is only one person, a divine person…. Perhaps the best answer to this objection is to call upon Cyril of Alexandria… who said of Christ, ‘We have admired his goodness in that for love of us he has not refused to descend to such a low position as to bear all that belongs in our nature, included in which is ignorance.’” (Pg. 100-102)
This is an excellent, yet brief, treatment of the subject, that will be of great interest to those (not just Catholics, certainly) studying Christology or the Historical Jesus.
Father Raymond Brown (1928-1998) was perhaps the greatest biblical scholar (certainly the greatest among Catholics) of the 20th century; he wrote many other masterful books, such as ' The Birth of the Messiah,' and 'The Death of the Messiah.'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1967 book (which received both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur), “The belied that Jesus is God and man involves a whole complex of understanding, a complex in which the biblical evidence has a very important formative role. The first chapter in this book is concerned with an aspect of the contribution that the biblical evidence makes toward our understanding of Jesus’ divinity.” (Pg. x) He continues, “The second chapter is concerned with an aspect of the contribution that the biblical evidence makes toward our understanding of Jesus’ humanity. Nowhere does the problem about the reality and fullness of Jesus’ humanity appear more clearly than in the question of how much knowledge Jesus possessed… These two chapters were the product of a christological study that I did in the summer of 1965, prompted by experiences in teaching the biblical background of a course on the Trinity while the professor os that course was at the Vatican Council.” (Pg. xii-xiii)
He points out, “Throughout most of the New Testament there tends to be a distinction between God (= the Father) and Jesus.” (Pg. 6; e.g., Mk 10:18, 15:34; Eph 1:17) He continues, “Tangentially related to our discussion are a number of texts which seem to state that Jesus is less than God the Father.” (Pg. 9; e.g., Jn 14:28; Mk 13:32; Phil 2:5-10)
He observes, “Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition… Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before 58. The first likely occurrence of ‘God’ for Jesus is in Rom 9:5… we could thus date the usage to the late 50’s.” (Pg. 30)
He explains, “The slow development of the usage of the title ‘God’ for Jesus requires explanation. Not only is there the factor that Jesus is not called God in the earlier strata of New Testament material, but there are also passages … that by implication reserved the title ‘God’ for the Father. Moreover, even in the New Testament works that speak of Jesus as God, there are also passages that seem to militate against such a usage… The most plausible explanation is that in the earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the use of the title ‘God’; hence ‘God’ was a title too narrow to be applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the God to whom he prayed. Gradually… in the development of Christian thought ‘God’ was understood to be a broader term.” (Pg. 33-34)
He acknowledges, “This study will necessarily seem pointless of objectionable only to the theological positions at the two ends of the spectrum. To the absolute minimalist who thinks that Jesus knew no more than any other man, the attempt to leave place for the divine in his consciousness will seem forced. To the absolute maximalist who says that Jesus was God and therefore knew everything that God knows, the uncovering of evidence of limitation will seem blasphemous. To all the more nuanced positions in between the study will offer evidence that must be faced. If the study has the byproduct of making Jesus seem more human, this too can be a service to Christian truth.” (Pg. 44-45)
He notes, “there are gospel passages which portray Jesus as learned … The Gospels present Jesus as not hesitating to contradict current exegesis when such exegesis conflicted with his own interpretation of his role or of the demands of the kingdom of God. Yet in questions of authorship, literary form, historicity, and principles of hermeneutics, the Jesus of the Gospels reflects the often inadequate and even erroneous ideas of his time.” (Pg. 54)
He suggests, “in the two instances of Jesus’ knowledge of the future that we have studied, the Gospel evidence… would demand no more than that Jesus would have had firm general convictions about the unrolling of God’s plan in a way that would lead to death and victory for him and to punishment for Jerusalem. This type of conviction is characteristic of the Old Testament prophets. Neither in their case nor in Jesus’ do we have really scientific proof for a detailed foreknowledge of unpredictable future events, a foreknowledge that would be given by God alone.” (Pg. 70)
He argues, “When we turn to the question of Jesus’ thought about himself as the Messiah, we are in an area for which Scripture gives us little evidence… Often in Catholic circles it is not sufficiently emphasized that in the oldest tradition of Peter’s confession (Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20) Jesus did not affirm Peter’s estimate of him as the Messiah, but ordered silence and spoke of suffering. To the point-blank question of the high priest, ‘Are you the Messiah?’ Jesus answers in a qualified manner, ‘You have said so.’ This probably means that, while Jesus will not refuse the title and thus deny his unique role … the phraseology is not what he would spontaneously choose and he is not happy about its implications.” (Pg. 82-83)
He asks, “Can theology admit that [Jesus’] intellect was also a tabula rasa, activated not by infused knowledge but by human experiences, as are other men’s intellects? In this case it would have taken Jesus time to formulate concepts, and he might have found some of the concepts of his day inadequate to express what he wanted to say. One would then be able to say that his knowledge was limited, but such limitation would not at all exclude an intuitive consciousness of a unique relationship to God and of a unique mission to men. The struggle of his life could have been one of finding the concepts and the words to express that relationship and that mission. Proving such a theory obviously goes far beyond the task and the capabilities of exegesis.” (Pg. 95)
He concludes, “let me insist that the evaluation of the Gospel evidence given above, if correct, does nothing to detract from the dignity of Jesus. The whole discussion has been predicated on an acceptance of him as ‘true God of true God.’ If in the Gospel reports his knowledge seems to have been limited, such limitation would simply show to what depths divine condescension went in the incarnation---it would show just how human was the humanity of Jesus… But when all is said and done, the great objection that will be hurled again and again against any exegete (or theologian) who finds evidence that Jesus’ knowledge was limited is the objection that in Jesus Christ there is only one person, a divine person…. Perhaps the best answer to this objection is to call upon Cyril of Alexandria… who said of Christ, ‘We have admired his goodness in that for love of us he has not refused to descend to such a low position as to bear all that belongs in our nature, included in which is ignorance.’” (Pg. 100-102)
This is an excellent, yet brief, treatment of the subject, that will be of great interest to those (not just Catholics, certainly) studying Christology or the Historical Jesus.
January 13, 2022
A small book about Jesus' understanding of his self, his nature. Did Jesus believe he was what the Creeds said he was? Raymond E. Brown says that the answer would be, not exactly. Can we tell from the Gospel accounts what Jesus understood about his nature, human or devine or both. In one hundred very precise and exact pages Brown examines what we can know about that self understanding.
This book was required reading when I was a student at The Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California in 1974. With all the readings I had to get through in that first year of Theological study I don't think I got to the end of this book until now. While this book was published in 1967, the year I finished high school, it still reads as a contemporary work.
This book was required reading when I was a student at The Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California in 1974. With all the readings I had to get through in that first year of Theological study I don't think I got to the end of this book until now. While this book was published in 1967, the year I finished high school, it still reads as a contemporary work.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews