Raymond Brown (now deceased) was a Roman Catholic Christian who most definitely believed in the supernatural.
Therefore, the accusation by conservative Christian apologists that the majority of New Testament scholars are “liberal” and therefore biased against the supernatural cannot be used against the work of Raymond Brown.
Sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations (or, in some cases, even centuries) from the events that they detail.
The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, for example, were penned by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years following his death.
s AD, being removed from the passion events by only two or three years!
The title of the book (in two big volumes) is Brown states he intends to do this by examining the four gospels in parallel rather than vertically, the historically preferred pattern of study.
Most scholars (liberal and conservative) consider Brown a moderate.
His views were considered compatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, an institution not known for a liberal bias under Pope John Paul II, the time period in which this book was written. I found it refreshingly honest; devoid of an agenda; with no attempt to convert the reader to his point of view.
Paul also quotes from Luke’s gospel, in connection with the Lord’s supper, in 1 Corinthians 11:“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”In addition, 1 Timothy 6 also makes reference to Pontius Pilate, suggesting that its author (in my view, Paul) was aware of the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ trial. If – as I maintain – the pastoral epistles are genuinely Pauline, then Luke’s gospel (or, at the very least, Luke’s source material) must predate AD60 by far enough to be regarded as Scripture at the time of the writing of 1 Timothy (probably the early 60? Furthermore, I would argue, it is likely to also predate the writing of 1 Corinthians in the early 50’s.
Paul is also evidently aware of the 12 disciples (e.g. This is also consistent with evidence from other areas.