What do you think?
Rate this book
Introduction to the New Testament Christology
To understand the New Testament issues about the identity of Jesus and why there is a debate, and thus to gain the biblical background to read further an reflect with discrimination on modern proposals.
Paperback
First published August 18, 1994
9 people are currently reading
257 people want to read
About the author
Raymond E. Brown
137 books100 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
May 1, 2018
As stunningly good as his earlier book. If ever there was an example of putting inelligence and faith together, this is that example. He does not make his work the focus. The focus is always Jesus and his sharing of life with us. To say that the words of the NT do not fully express the life of Jesus is not heresy but understanding.
The last words that Fr. Brown wrote in this book are a wonder:
"Sometimes there is a tendency to think of the Johannine proclamation of preexistence as the earliest expression of the future dogma. For John, however, Jesus’s previous existence with God is more than a creedal dogma; it is the linchpin n understanding the whole Christian life. Moses and the Prophets could tell us how to live; but only Jesus who is truly of God and comes down from being with God can give us God’s life."
====================================================================
Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology. 1994, Paulist. Xii, 226.
25 Thinking for oneself about Jesus is not easy, however, for we all have presuppositions that tend to color the NT picture. In AD 325 the Council of Nicaea solemnly defined the divinity of Jesus, in 451 the Council of Chalcedon solemnly defined his full humanity (in everything except sin). Since that time most Christians have affirmed that Jesus is true God and true man. But such an appreciation has never been easy to uphold evenly. God is by common understanding unlimited (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, etc): human beings are by nature limited. How then can one be divine and human at the same time? There has been a tendency to choose or favor one of these two components in Jesus’ identity over the other.
27 Those who reject the divinity of Jesus have most often thought through their position and are clear about their denial. Those who have problems with the humanity of Jesus are often not even aware of their bias. Theoretically it is just as serious a deviation from Christian dogma to underplay the humanity of Jesus as to underplay his divinity;(26) but since opponents of Christianity deny the divinity, believing Christians are far more sensitive about limitation placed on the divinity than they are about limitations placed on the humanity. Realistically, it may well be that most Christians tolerate only so much humanity as they deem consonant with their view of the divinity.
26. Pope Leo the Great, Sermon on the nativity …: It is as dangerous an evil to deny the truth of the human nature in Christ as to refuse to believe that his glory is equal to that of the Father.
38-39 #2 There are instances where the citation of Scripture attributed to Jesus shows no critical sense but reflects the imprecise ideas of his time:
*In Mark 12:36 and par. Jesus cites Ps 110 (“The Lord said to my Lord”) and attributes this psalm to David. This is not just a general attribution, for Jesus’ whole argument rests on the fact that David himself composed the psalm. Almost all modern scholars, Catholics included, think of the psalm as uttered by a proclaimer of royal oracles at the coronation or anniversary of the king. Personal authorship by David is most unlikely.
64-5 There is no question that according to the Gospels Jesus’ miracles caused people to wonder and admire, but that was a secondary effect. When there is an attempt (on the part of the devil, Herod, the Pharisees, or the people) to make it primary by asking Jesus to show off miracles, he I pictured as refusing. In one of his parables, he is remembered as skeptical about whether the miraculous effectively sways those who are not otherwise persuaded: “If someone should rise from the dead, they will not be convinced” (Luke 16:31). …
We get a better sense of Jesus’ extraordinary deeds if we use the most common designation given them in the Synoptic gospels themselves: dynamis (“act of power”). The iracle was not primarily an external proof of the coming of the kingdom (i.e., the fact that Jesus worked miracles proved that the kingdom had come), but one of the means by which the kingdom came. The acts of power were weapons Jesus used to reclaim people and the world from the domination of evil. When Jesus heled the sick or resuscitated the/dead, he was breaking satanic power that manifested itself in illness and death. That is why Jesus’ healings were so often associated with demonic possession.
66 His fellowship and sharing table with them was an anticipation [88] of the eschatological banquet in which the gracious mercy of God was already being extended.
[88] Notice that I have been speaking of anticipation. There is a long debate among scholars about whether Jesus’ eschatology was realized (the kingdom of God is totally here at this moment) or future (the kingdom will come later). … Although there are absolutists on either side, it is impossible to exclude all elements of either attitude from Jesus’ proclamation.
72 There is not a word in the Gospels to indicate that at any stage of his life Jesus was not aware of a unique relationship to God; … n. 97. In BRTOQ 97-99 I warned against the inexactness of phrasing the issue of Jesus’ awareness of divine identity under the heading of “Did he know he was God?” The person who opts for that phraseology generally has a Trinitarian understanding of the term “God,” not fully achieved till several centuries after Jesus’ time. … Much older is the nonterminological issue of whether Jesus knew his divine identity.
74 In Mark Jesus reacts by commanding the disciples “to tell no one about him.” That cannot imply that Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah was wrong, for the heading of the Marcan Gospel (1:1) identifies Jesus as the Messiah. Rather the silence is part of the Marcan picture of a Jesus who before the time of his condemnation to death will not accede to that identification lest the necessary element of suffering in it be overlooked. [n. 99 … This Marcan silence or secrecy motif is often regarded as a Marcan creation and not an authentic memory from the ministry of Jesus. The standardization and the repletion of the secrecy motif may indeed be Marcan, but we cannot be certain that some memory of reticence stemming from Jesus’ ministry has not been generalized.]
134-5 Precreational Preexistence. Incarnation means that at his human conception the Son of God did not come into existence rather he was a previously existing agent in the divine sphere who took on flesh in the womb of Mary. Technically incarnation does not tell us whether this agent was created (as were the angels who exist in the divine sphere) or existed with God before any creation.
135 Obviously if the Son became human, he must have preexisted; but for how long? That is not clear from either the Philippians or the II Corinthians passage. In reference to the Philippians passage some would claim that Jesus’ being equal to God has to include eternal preexistence. But equality in status and glory seems to be the main focus of the hymn, and one may wonder whether the wording can be pushed to include equality in every aspect.
140 Among the Gospels only John openly supposes an incarnation in which the divine Word becomes flesh and dwells among us as Jesus Christ … Under ministry Christology we saw that, much more than the Synoptics, John lets Jesus’ exalted status dominate the picture of his earthly career.
142-3 CHAPTER 10. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THESE CHRISTOLOGIES.
Thus far I have been treating (under the rubric of the “moments” used to vocalize them) the Christologies of the NT. Obviously, however, Christological reflection did not cease with writing of the books that the church accepted as the NT For instance, when in the 2d to the 4th centuries the Christian proclamation was heard by those trained in formal Greek philosophical thinking, inevitably there arose questions about the phrasing of Christology that had not been raised in the 1st century; and in fidelity to NT directions the church rejected certain proposals as inadequate. Let me concentrate on the statements of Christology at Nicaea (true God of true god) and at Chalcedon (true God and true man) both as a way to complete the NT survey just given and as an entrée into analyzing its fundamental direction.
152 In the 4th and 5th centuries the question of Jesus as God and man was not an abstract question debated in the scholars’ chambers; it was a question of what God and Christianity were all about. I submit that, if we take the trouble to understand, it remains all of that even in our century.
204 Why then should we not think that Johannine Christology involves specification and interpretation that goes beyond Jesus? None of that suggests falsehood, misunderstanding, or creation from nothing on the part of the evangelist. Rather it does justice to a fundamental principle without which discussions of Christology become hopelessly middle. The language of religious belief developed between the time of Jesus and the writing of the NT.
213 Sometimes there is a tendency to think of the Johannine proclamation of preexistence as the earliest expression of the future dogma. For John, however, Jesus’s previous existence with God is more than a creedal dogma; it is the linchpin n understanding the whole Christian life. Moses and the Prophets could tell us how to live; but only Jesus who is truly of God and comes down from being with God can give us God’s life.
The last words that Fr. Brown wrote in this book are a wonder:
"Sometimes there is a tendency to think of the Johannine proclamation of preexistence as the earliest expression of the future dogma. For John, however, Jesus’s previous existence with God is more than a creedal dogma; it is the linchpin n understanding the whole Christian life. Moses and the Prophets could tell us how to live; but only Jesus who is truly of God and comes down from being with God can give us God’s life."
====================================================================
Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology. 1994, Paulist. Xii, 226.
25 Thinking for oneself about Jesus is not easy, however, for we all have presuppositions that tend to color the NT picture. In AD 325 the Council of Nicaea solemnly defined the divinity of Jesus, in 451 the Council of Chalcedon solemnly defined his full humanity (in everything except sin). Since that time most Christians have affirmed that Jesus is true God and true man. But such an appreciation has never been easy to uphold evenly. God is by common understanding unlimited (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, etc): human beings are by nature limited. How then can one be divine and human at the same time? There has been a tendency to choose or favor one of these two components in Jesus’ identity over the other.
27 Those who reject the divinity of Jesus have most often thought through their position and are clear about their denial. Those who have problems with the humanity of Jesus are often not even aware of their bias. Theoretically it is just as serious a deviation from Christian dogma to underplay the humanity of Jesus as to underplay his divinity;(26) but since opponents of Christianity deny the divinity, believing Christians are far more sensitive about limitation placed on the divinity than they are about limitations placed on the humanity. Realistically, it may well be that most Christians tolerate only so much humanity as they deem consonant with their view of the divinity.
26. Pope Leo the Great, Sermon on the nativity …: It is as dangerous an evil to deny the truth of the human nature in Christ as to refuse to believe that his glory is equal to that of the Father.
38-39 #2 There are instances where the citation of Scripture attributed to Jesus shows no critical sense but reflects the imprecise ideas of his time:
*In Mark 12:36 and par. Jesus cites Ps 110 (“The Lord said to my Lord”) and attributes this psalm to David. This is not just a general attribution, for Jesus’ whole argument rests on the fact that David himself composed the psalm. Almost all modern scholars, Catholics included, think of the psalm as uttered by a proclaimer of royal oracles at the coronation or anniversary of the king. Personal authorship by David is most unlikely.
64-5 There is no question that according to the Gospels Jesus’ miracles caused people to wonder and admire, but that was a secondary effect. When there is an attempt (on the part of the devil, Herod, the Pharisees, or the people) to make it primary by asking Jesus to show off miracles, he I pictured as refusing. In one of his parables, he is remembered as skeptical about whether the miraculous effectively sways those who are not otherwise persuaded: “If someone should rise from the dead, they will not be convinced” (Luke 16:31). …
We get a better sense of Jesus’ extraordinary deeds if we use the most common designation given them in the Synoptic gospels themselves: dynamis (“act of power”). The iracle was not primarily an external proof of the coming of the kingdom (i.e., the fact that Jesus worked miracles proved that the kingdom had come), but one of the means by which the kingdom came. The acts of power were weapons Jesus used to reclaim people and the world from the domination of evil. When Jesus heled the sick or resuscitated the/dead, he was breaking satanic power that manifested itself in illness and death. That is why Jesus’ healings were so often associated with demonic possession.
66 His fellowship and sharing table with them was an anticipation [88] of the eschatological banquet in which the gracious mercy of God was already being extended.
[88] Notice that I have been speaking of anticipation. There is a long debate among scholars about whether Jesus’ eschatology was realized (the kingdom of God is totally here at this moment) or future (the kingdom will come later). … Although there are absolutists on either side, it is impossible to exclude all elements of either attitude from Jesus’ proclamation.
72 There is not a word in the Gospels to indicate that at any stage of his life Jesus was not aware of a unique relationship to God; … n. 97. In BRTOQ 97-99 I warned against the inexactness of phrasing the issue of Jesus’ awareness of divine identity under the heading of “Did he know he was God?” The person who opts for that phraseology generally has a Trinitarian understanding of the term “God,” not fully achieved till several centuries after Jesus’ time. … Much older is the nonterminological issue of whether Jesus knew his divine identity.
74 In Mark Jesus reacts by commanding the disciples “to tell no one about him.” That cannot imply that Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah was wrong, for the heading of the Marcan Gospel (1:1) identifies Jesus as the Messiah. Rather the silence is part of the Marcan picture of a Jesus who before the time of his condemnation to death will not accede to that identification lest the necessary element of suffering in it be overlooked. [n. 99 … This Marcan silence or secrecy motif is often regarded as a Marcan creation and not an authentic memory from the ministry of Jesus. The standardization and the repletion of the secrecy motif may indeed be Marcan, but we cannot be certain that some memory of reticence stemming from Jesus’ ministry has not been generalized.]
134-5 Precreational Preexistence. Incarnation means that at his human conception the Son of God did not come into existence rather he was a previously existing agent in the divine sphere who took on flesh in the womb of Mary. Technically incarnation does not tell us whether this agent was created (as were the angels who exist in the divine sphere) or existed with God before any creation.
135 Obviously if the Son became human, he must have preexisted; but for how long? That is not clear from either the Philippians or the II Corinthians passage. In reference to the Philippians passage some would claim that Jesus’ being equal to God has to include eternal preexistence. But equality in status and glory seems to be the main focus of the hymn, and one may wonder whether the wording can be pushed to include equality in every aspect.
140 Among the Gospels only John openly supposes an incarnation in which the divine Word becomes flesh and dwells among us as Jesus Christ … Under ministry Christology we saw that, much more than the Synoptics, John lets Jesus’ exalted status dominate the picture of his earthly career.
142-3 CHAPTER 10. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THESE CHRISTOLOGIES.
Thus far I have been treating (under the rubric of the “moments” used to vocalize them) the Christologies of the NT. Obviously, however, Christological reflection did not cease with writing of the books that the church accepted as the NT For instance, when in the 2d to the 4th centuries the Christian proclamation was heard by those trained in formal Greek philosophical thinking, inevitably there arose questions about the phrasing of Christology that had not been raised in the 1st century; and in fidelity to NT directions the church rejected certain proposals as inadequate. Let me concentrate on the statements of Christology at Nicaea (true God of true god) and at Chalcedon (true God and true man) both as a way to complete the NT survey just given and as an entrée into analyzing its fundamental direction.
152 In the 4th and 5th centuries the question of Jesus as God and man was not an abstract question debated in the scholars’ chambers; it was a question of what God and Christianity were all about. I submit that, if we take the trouble to understand, it remains all of that even in our century.
204 Why then should we not think that Johannine Christology involves specification and interpretation that goes beyond Jesus? None of that suggests falsehood, misunderstanding, or creation from nothing on the part of the evangelist. Rather it does justice to a fundamental principle without which discussions of Christology become hopelessly middle. The language of religious belief developed between the time of Jesus and the writing of the NT.
213 Sometimes there is a tendency to think of the Johannine proclamation of preexistence as the earliest expression of the future dogma. For John, however, Jesus’s previous existence with God is more than a creedal dogma; it is the linchpin n understanding the whole Christian life. Moses and the Prophets could tell us how to live; but only Jesus who is truly of God and comes down from being with God can give us God’s life.
January 27, 2021
Really challenging and insightful introduction into the complicated field of New Testament Christology (specifically the Chistology of the New Testament and 1st century church, not the later developments of the 4th and 5th centuries).
Brown opens up all the “cans of worms” that New Testament scholars wrestle with when considering question like the knowledge of Jesus, the timing of His Messianic realization (according to the various authors of the New Testament), and many others.
The book offers incredible insights into the various purposes of the gospel accounts in their presentations of Jesus and His mission, along with striking and clear arguments in favor of the dogmas to latter be worked out at Nicea and Chalcedon.
I really appreciated Brown’s distinguishing between parousia, resurrection, ministry, early life, conception, and preexistence Christologies. Each has something unique and helpful to provide to the overall picture of Christ so long as they aren’t pressed to the exclusion or limitation of another. “How impoverished would be our understanding of the revelation in Christ had the earlier ways of speaking about the identity of Jesus been erased in favor of the Nicene formulation” (pg. 149)!
The appendix is also incredible, giving many arguments and verses in favor of the divinity of Christ in the NT, along with insights into Messianic expectations and the Johannine Christology. Worth a read!
Brown opens up all the “cans of worms” that New Testament scholars wrestle with when considering question like the knowledge of Jesus, the timing of His Messianic realization (according to the various authors of the New Testament), and many others.
The book offers incredible insights into the various purposes of the gospel accounts in their presentations of Jesus and His mission, along with striking and clear arguments in favor of the dogmas to latter be worked out at Nicea and Chalcedon.
I really appreciated Brown’s distinguishing between parousia, resurrection, ministry, early life, conception, and preexistence Christologies. Each has something unique and helpful to provide to the overall picture of Christ so long as they aren’t pressed to the exclusion or limitation of another. “How impoverished would be our understanding of the revelation in Christ had the earlier ways of speaking about the identity of Jesus been erased in favor of the Nicene formulation” (pg. 149)!
The appendix is also incredible, giving many arguments and verses in favor of the divinity of Christ in the NT, along with insights into Messianic expectations and the Johannine Christology. Worth a read!
May 11, 2023
I’m Jewish, and I read this to understand all the different Biblical perspectives of Christ. Although a bit dense, this book is good for debate on different perspectives. Although this introduction certainly takes a certain perspective on the topic, this author didn’t let faith or anything else blind his scholarly viewpoint.
Want to read
September 6, 2022I need to read this book.
November 4, 2025
A very enlightening book that I will return to for further insights. Brown begins the book by laying out the standard scholarly and non-scholarly positions of NT Christology. A basic takeaway being that to scholars, the NT does not present Jesus as an ordinary man. Brown then goes into detail that most Christians will tend to slant their personal view towards John’s gospel where we miss out on the illuminating portraits in the Synoptics. I found particularly interesting and convincing the chapters on Jesus’ knowledge and general humanity, that on aspects of issues of the day (I.e, biblical knowledge or predicting the future) Jesus portrayed mostly ordinary knowledge or knowledge that would not exceed a true prophet or holy man. Where Jesus was exceptional was in the titles he used, such as Son of Man. Jesus was also the only known figure in the 1st century to be considered the Messiah according to Brown, which the Lord may not have used for himself due to the confusion of expectations. The later chapters then go into Christological events in the Lord’s life such as the birth and resurrection. The appendices are insightful detailing certain and uncertain locations where Christ is referred to as God, on overview of resurrection historicity, and John’s gospel. I particularly was encouraged by this book overall, and enjoyed the theme throughout the book that Nicea’s proclamation on Christ’s nature was the general trajectory the NT was headed in. I would recommend this book and will continue to look back at it for further insight
August 12, 2012
This was one of my textbooks used in my Spiritual Direction certification programs. I loved it. It was my first exposure to an in depth discussion about what I had experienced most of my life in terms of who Jesus was in respect to the role he plays in the divine plan. In a nutshell it is a very thorough evaluation of how Jesus came to be acknowledged by his followers in the various terms we commonly refer to him as:
Messiah
Annointed King of David's lineage
Christ
Jesus Christ
Rabbi
Prophet
High Priest
Savior
Master
Lord
the Son
Son of Man
Son of God
God
Messiah
Annointed King of David's lineage
Christ
Jesus Christ
Rabbi
Prophet
High Priest
Savior
Master
Lord
the Son
Son of Man
Son of God
God
October 22, 2015
This is a very accessible book by a fine Catholic biblical scholar. His goal is to provide an introduction to the New Testament's view of Christ and covers what Christ seem to think of himself as well as the disciples and others. It is a good start if you want to dig more into the early church's evolving view of Christ.
January 9, 2014
Tempered, even-handed, cautious (to a fault), a wonderful little book. His appendix on the texts that deal with Jesus being called God is helpful, even if I don't agree with several of his designations. Overall, reverential and intellectually honest. I must read more of R.E. Brown!
February 13, 2013
Helpful to know which texts are clearest representation of Jesus' divine nature. Overall, too skeptical.
January 21, 2008
Read this as a textbook in college. It provoked a lot of thought.
January 18, 2016
excellent generalist overview of the subject by a scholar.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews