Shocking admissions by catholic theologian on the resurection and virgin birth

[sirach2v4]

When Fr. Brown died several years ago, his passing was noted by many, who thought he was a great biblical scholar. He WAS on the Pontifical Bible Commission for a while, owing to the perception of his bible scholarship.

He seems to have a knack for finding loopholes to jump through or cracks for driving a wedge in.

He is an example of what you can get away with saying in the Church. This is proof that you will not be struck by lightning if you say something that disagrees.

There are probably lots of things to say about Brown. My view is this: why would the good Lord wait all these centuries to overturn what the church – East and West – has believed? And, if there is something wrong in the Bible, then why did God choose Brown to set us all straight?

In a broader sense, is there some NEW message of salvation or despair from Brown? It doesn’t seem that Brown has had much of an impact, unless I am missing something.

 

[Contarini]

lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn’t a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.

The article is highly misleading. Brown does not say that the resurrection accounts are unhistorical. There’s a technical sense in which the resurrection itself can’t be historical–no one actually saw it happen (people saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, but they didn’t see him actually come back to life). He also does not say that the virginal conception was invented. The article dishonestly quotes passages where Brown is mentioning various possibilities and makes it look as if he agrees with them.

Many folks on this forum think of Brown as a dangerous liberal. He was certainly not an official spokesman for the Church. But he was indeed a well-respected scholar who was honored by several popes and never condemned as a heretic. His opinions were much more nuanced than this article makes them appear. The article is a piece of dishonest propaganda.

Edwin

 

[pablope]

The article is highly misleading. Brown does not say that the resurrection accounts are unhistorical. There’s a technical sense in which the resurrection itself can’t be historical–no one actually saw it happen (people saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, but they didn’t see him actually come back to life). He also does not say that the virginal conception was invented. The article dishonestly quotes passages where Brown is mentioning various possibilities and makes it look as if he agrees with them.

Many folks on this forum think of Brown as a dangerous liberal. He was certainly not an official spokesman for the Church. But he was indeed a well-respected scholar who was honored by several popes and never condemned as a heretic. His opinions were much more nuanced than this article makes them appear. The article is a piece of dishonest propaganda.

Edwin

That’s what I thought. The article is a misrepresentation to score points. A quote here, a quote there…and it could be, Brown could be presenting someone’s point and is then attributed to him.

 

[Cathoholic]

Concerning Mary’s Perpetual Virginity,

DaddyGirl stated:

Wide support for the doctrine of perpetual virginity was not established until the 4th Century, I think, as per several religion texts.

Actually I think there WAS very wide support among the early Church Fathers concerning the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

One might say it wasn’t stated very explicitly initially, I would agree with that.

One also might say: But when the Fathers are looked at, they initially refer to Mary merely as “The Virgin”.

But it wasn’t until people calling themselves Christians denying this doctrine (THAT’S what was NEW in the 4th Century–not doctrinal affirmation but doctrinal denial of Mary as a Perpetual Virgin), that the Fathers were forced to be more specific on an otherwise discreet subject. At this point they were pretty-much required to refer to Mary as “Ever-Virgin” to deal with the deniers.

Before then, “The Virgin” was meant as “ever Virgin”.

You are right about religion texts, etc. sometimes asserting this denial but when I went back and read the Fathers for myself, I was thoroughly convinced they DID affirm Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

I wrote a study for our local Bible study group and the following is just one excerpt concerning this subject . . .

Mary as Ever-Virgin was quite naturally assumed and discussed synonymously in the early Church with the term “the Virgin”.

Many of the ancient Church Fathers just matter-of-factly referred to the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Ever-Virgin” (Aeiparthenos). St. Basil was one of those.

Here St. Basil does NOT use the phrase “ever-Virgin” (but by other writings St. Basil assumes you know Mary IS “Ever-Virgin”).

**ST. BASIL THE GREAT ** The angel of the Lord was sent to the holy Virgin, who was descended from David’s line. Far it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe no one turned his attention to the altar, as the divine apostle said: but about this we will speak more accurately later.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III Chap 2

Let’s look at the same writings of his earlier in his book (we have many other quotes too but I won’t post those here) . . .

What did St. Basil mean by the “Holy Virgin”?

Fortunately he tells us (the “holy Virgin” is used synonymously with “ever-virgin” elsewhere in this same writing) . . .

**ST. BASIL THE GREAT ** For what greater thing is there, than that God should become Man? And the Word became flesh without being changed, of the Holy Spirit, and Mary the holy and ever- virgin one, the mother of God. And He acts as mediator between God and man, He the only lover of man conceived in the Virgin’s chaste womb without will or desire, or any connection with man or pleasurable generation, but through the Holy Spirit and the first offspring of Adam. And He becomes obedient to the Father Who is like unto us, and finds a remedy for our disobedience in what He had assumed from us, and became a pattern of obedience to us without which it is not possible to obtain salvation.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III Chap 1

Another quote from our Perpetual Virginity of Mary Bible study:

So we see St. Basil referring to Mary interchangeably with different monikers. And what were they?

“The Virgin” = "The Holy Virgin” = “Ever Virgin one” = “eternal virgin” = “ever virgin”

Did you get that? St. Basil uses these terms interchangeably quite naturally without any felt need to start in with definitions (because he knows his readers ALREADY know the definitions).

“The Virgin” = The Holy Virgin” = “Ever Virgin one” = “eternal virgin” = “ever virgin”

St. Athanasius does the same thing (again I won’t give all the quotes) . . .

St. Athanasius:

“Mary” = “the virgin” = “ever virgin”

No felt need to defend it.

Objection: But WHY in history are men like St. Basil and St. Athanasius using these terms like this interchangeably, but BEFORE in history they do not seem to be using “ever virgin” interchangeably with “the virgin”?

Answer: Probably because the denials of such were just starting to “percolate” and word of such denials I am sure got back to these great men. So rather then condemn someone publicly for a heresy that is asserted privately (remember it must be private at least as far as the evidence we have as it is NOT public until Helvidius), these men started to use these terms interchangeably to catechize their people.

And notice also what ISN’T happening.

Objector: What’s that?

Answer: When St. Basil and St. Athanasius are using terms like this interchangeably as we have seen, NOBODY is correcting them!

You will see NO LETTER to St. Basil or St. Athanasius admonishing them over this issue.

You will see NO LETTER from a Bishop or anyone else saying: “Hey Basil. Why in the world are you referring to Mary one time as “the Virgin” and later as “Ever Virgin”

In contrast, when Christians began PUBLICLY denying this doctrine, the statements against them and actions were swift and quite scathing (both in the Western Church and the Eastern Church).

In our Bible study we look closely at the Second Council of Constantinople and work backwards carefully looking at all of the relevant Church Fathers on this issue and the Biblical context of what they taught, and it was striking how matter-of-factly the Early Church Fathers all seemed to assume you knew of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Q: What made the Fathers be more specific later on?

A: People calling themselves “Christians” who were now trying to re-define Mary’s Perpetual Virginity into something less than it is (i.e. Helvetius and later, Bonosus).

 

[Cathoholic]

With the CCC available (and all of the great footnotes and references in it) this will help to dispel some of the confusion that theologians may have sometimes inadvertently sown.

Tertullian apostatized, Helvidius was excoriated over this denial of his and Eunomius of Cyzicus was an Arian.

No ancient Church Fathers denied Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. I have checked in an exhaustive fashion and at least I couldn’t find any. I am also quite sure my non-Catholic friends would remind me of these denials if my research was incomplete on this.

 

[brumano]

For many…Jesus was not accepted to be related to David, as your link explains, because they were not blood related. And factual discrepancies in the Christian canon, mentioned in the link you posted, lead to other questions and doubts

 

[Cathoholic]

One more thing.

I wanted to address the statement:

For many…Jesus was not accepted to be related to David . . .

But these “many” were wrong.

Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God almighty who has taken flesh upon Himself.

But the flesh that Jesus took upon Himself was taken from the Blessed Virgin Mary . . . . flesh of the Virgin Mary who herself was from the tribe of Judah (Mary is a Jew), Mary is of the tribe of David. Mary is a “Judah-ite.”

Yet Joseph in some sense was Jesus’ “father” although NOT BY FLESH UNION but by law. Sometimes as Catholics, we call Joseph “Jesus’ foster-father”.

This is why it doesn’t matter when the deniers of Jesus try to parse His genealogy via “matrilineality” or “patrilineality”. Jesus is the Son of David via the flesh (through Mary) AND the son of Joseph (by law, NOT by marital union). Either way (actually both ways), Jesus is "the “Son of David”.

**CCC 437 ** To the shepherds, the angel announced the birth of Jesus as the Messiah promised to Israel: "To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."32 From the beginning he was “the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world”, conceived as “holy” in Mary’s virginal womb.33 God called Joseph to “take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, so that Jesus, “who is called Christ”, should be born of Joseph’s spouse **into the messianic lineage of David.**34

Jesus was known by Jews AND Gentiles alike as the “Son of David” (tribe of Judah).

Jesus was **NOT **ever proclaimed to be the son of the tribe of Gad. Jesus was NOT the son of Asher. Jesus was not the son of Benjamin or any of the other twelve tribes (except of course the tribe of Judah—the Davidic lineage—that’s one reason WHY Jesus is called “Son of David” ).

MATTHEW 9:26-27 26 And the report of this went through all that district. 27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.”

Here is what the Pharisees DON’T say . . . .

**
NOT MATTHEW 12:22-23 (Phantom verse) ** 22 Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it they said, No it can’t be the son of David. Come to the Temple and we will show you Jesus’ genealogy. He is of the tribe of Asher and not of Judah therefore Jesus could NOT be the “son of David” and therefore Jesus could not be the Messiah.

Here is what the Pharisees DO say (they just insult Jesus but they never challenge Jesus’ genealogy) . . . .

**MATTHEW 12:22-24 ** 22 Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Be-elzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”

Even the Canaanites knew of Jesus’ genealogy!

MATTHEW 15:21-22 21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.”

Even blind people knew about Jesus’ genealogy!

MATTHEW 20:29-30 29 And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. 30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”

Jesus is telling the Pharisees here that He, Jesus, is the Messiah of “the Christ”. Jesus is ALSO telling them He (Jesus) is the Eternal only-begotten Son of God.

MATTHEW 22:41-46 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, 44 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet? 45 If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions.

Why didn’t the Pharisees just say: “Well Jesus, we’ve checked your genealogy out down at the Temple and we see you are of the tribe of Asher? Because Jesus was NOT of the tribe of Asher (or any other tribe except Judah) and all the people knew this.

Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, the son of David. And Caiaphas could have trotted out Jesus’ genealogy at Jesus’ trial if he wanted to discredit Jesus’ Messiahship—but Caiaphas never did that! Why? Because Jesus was a Jew and they all knew this and all the people already knew this.

That’s why the Pharisees would plot EVEN to kill the raised Lazarus (John 12:10), but didn’t even consider attacking Jesus’ genealogy to disqualify Jesus as Messiah. Because there wasn’t anything to attack in Jesus’ genealogy to disqualify Him with. Because Jesus is a Jew. Because Jesus is of the tribe of Judah. Because Jesus is the Son of David (who himself was of the tribe of Judah). That’s WHY “Salvation is of the Jews” as John 4:22 states (Jesus is the reason John 4:22 is true). These are some of the reasons we also know of Mary’s genealogy (we will look at a St. Thomas Aquinas comment on in the next post concerning this).

Continued . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

The people on Palm Sunday acknowledged Jesus as the Son of David.

MATTHEW 21:8-9 8 Most of the crowd spread their garments on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!”

Even INFANT “sucklings” miraculously gave testimony (Infants had not given God praise this way since the Israelites crossed the Red Sea—see Wisdom 10:20-21) to this fact while praising Jesus as God . . .

MATTHEW 21:15-16 15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “**Hosanna to the Son of David!” **they were indignant; 16 and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise’?”

When Bartimaeus, the blind beggar, and son of Timaeus (see Mark 10), was repeatedly calling out to Jesus ““Son of David, have mercy on me!”; Jesus DIDN’T say “Bart! You have no idea what my lineage is!” No. Jesus answers to Bartimaeus’ cry of “Son of David”. Bartimaeus already knows Jesus genealogy (genealogies were big items in an ancient Hebrew culture), the people although crabbing at Bartimaeus for other reasons, never accuse him of the wrong genealogy.

The Council of Ephesus discussed Jesus taking His flesh from the Blessed Virgin Mary . . .

COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431 A.D.) . . . So he who existed and was begotten of the Father before all ages is also said to have been begotten according to the flesh of a woman, without the divine nature either beginning to exist in the holy virgin, or needing of itself a second begetting after that from his Father. . . .
—From Second letter of Cyril to Nestorius (Declared by the council of Ephesus
to be in agreement with Nicaea; 431 A.D.)

The Catechism suggests Mary’s tribal membership (Mary is a Jew and Jesus who took flesh from Mary would likewise be a Jew) . . .

CCC 488a “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” . . . .

Notice Mary is not an “Asherite” or a “Reubenite” or “of the tribe of Naphtali” but is a “Jewish woman”. Yet the prophetess Anna IS described in Luke’s Gospel as being of the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36).

The Council of Chalcedon states Jesus is . . .

• Consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity
• Consubstantial with us as regards his humanity

This is the exact same teaching St. Paul assumes all his readers know when he says . . .

**ROMANS 1:3b ** (Jesus Christ) who was descended from David according to the flesh . . .

But ALSO says . . .

ROMANS 1:4a 4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit . . .

If Jesus takes His flesh from Mary, and Jesus is the “Son of David” according to the flesh, it is evident that Mary is of the tribe of Judah.

St. Paul states in 2nd Corinthians that Jesus “descended from David” . . .

**2nd CORINTHIANS 2:8a, c ** 8 Remember Jesus Christ, . . . descended from David, as preached in my gospel, . . .

Well WHAT guys in the early Church denied this stuff? Heretics denied it.

Which heretics? Guys like the Manichean heretics.

Let’s listen to St. Thomas Aquinas . . .

Faustus the Manichean argued thus, in the desire to prove that Christ is not the Son of David, because He was not conceived of Joseph, in whom Matthew’s genealogy terminates. Augustine answered this argument thus (Contra Faust. xxii): “Since the same evangelist affirms that Joseph was Mary’s husband and that Christ’s mother was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, what must we believe, but that Mary was not a stranger to the family of David: and that it is not without reason that she was called the wife of Joseph, by reason of the close alliance of their hearts, although not mingled in the flesh; and that the genealogy is traced down to Joseph rather than to her by reason of the dignity of the husband? So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David: because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity.” For as Jerome says on Matthew 1:18: “Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman. Hence it was that they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being descended from the same stock.”

See St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Third Part Q. 31. Article 2. here)

There is much more evidence but I will leave it at this.

So when people say:

For many…Jesus was not accepted to be related to David . . .

I agree many SAID this. But also remember that these “many” who said such, were just plain wrong.

 

[Cathoholic]

Typo alert. Sorry about that.

In post 28 I said,

Jesus is telling the Pharisees here that He, Jesus, is the Messiah of “the Christ”. Jesus is ALSO telling them He (Jesus) is the Eternal only-begotten Son of God.

I meant:

Jesus is telling the Pharisees here that He, Jesus, is “the Messiah” (or “the Christ”). Jesus is ALSO telling them He (Jesus) is the Eternal only-begotten Son of God.

 

[Dan_in_Georgia]

Consider the fact that there are pictures and hints about a man born of a virgin who would rise from the dead in the Old Testament, written centuries before Jesus was even born. There is definitely more to these stories than meets the eye. For example, in the book of Genesis, you have a recurring theme of favored sons being born miraculously and then being taken for dead but then becoming great leaders:

Sarah was a barren woman who miraculously gave birth to Abraham’s favorite son Isaac who was taken for dead before Abraham was about to sacrifice him (prefiguring the crucifixion) but God ultimately made Isaac a patriarch of all Israel.

Rachel was a barren woman who miraculously gave birth to Jacob’s favorite son Joseph who was taken for dead by Jacob when his brothers turned him over to the foreigners, but then God ultimately made Joseph ruler of the known world at the right hand of the king of Egypt.

Plus you have the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. (“God with us”)

 

[Sheeniac]

There are many ways of reading and interpreting the Bible. The one that is in vogue right now with theologians and biblical scholars is the historical-critical method. This is taught in many seminaries as well.

There is much to be gained from this approach, but even PE B16 has confirmed that it is not the be-all, end-all. But you’d never know it from talking with many Biblical scholars.

Raymond Brown is a noted theologian in that school of thought. I’d describe it, but wikipedia would do a much better job. One thing to note that in its purest form, the approach assumes that prophets do not prophecy and miracles do not exist.

So you can see, it can lead one out of one’s faith quite easily. BUT… it has many strengths and can offer much insight.

For my Scripture class (4 years, offered by Diocese), we used this method but not in its purest form. I supplemented my readings with the Navarre commentary and liberal use of the RSV-CE Study Bible (Scott Hahn and his crowd). They bring in more tradition and Church Fathers into the mix.

 

[anthonymarie]

lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

I went through a similar phase. I think what brought it on for me was thinking that all that mattered was that I knew a lot about God and I lost track of the importance of having a relationship with Him. I think what brought me back was reminding myself that if I was truly friends with Christ I’d never doubt His existence because how could you doubt someone you know personally and are friends with exists?

I found that, what helped was stepping back from apologetics and the “God debate” for a while and concentrating on simple literature like The Lives of the Saints, The Imitation of Christ and (I always liked this although it does contain a small number of criticisms of Roman Catholicism) The Philokalia. Just meditating on God and talking to Him, trying to re-establish a friendship with Him, helped a lot.

I’m not saying you are in the same situation I was but maybe this is worth a try?

 

[Gorgias]

Also, to clarify, this article was not written by Raymond Brown, it was written about Raymond Brown by Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen.

Exactly. Joe & (name removed by moderator) have hit it right on the nose: this is an attempt to make Brown appear to say something that he wouldn’t support, if he were alive to defend himself. There was another thread on this topic recently in which this exact web page was discussed, and in which we reached the same conclusions: the author of the page is effectively taking Brown’s words and attempting to use them to demonstrate that Christianity is without credibility. It’s hardly a fair explanation of what Brown was attempting to say…

 

[johnbres2]

The man is not speaking from Catholic Dogma or tradition. He is, frankly. a heretic; someone who knows the truth of the Church and knowingly chooses to reject it. Pray for him, but pay him no mind.

Not so! " A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid." Tit. 3:10. Let’s consider him admonished once.

 

[CaptFun]

lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn’t a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.

Your tone seems to indicate that you know what is true. Follow that instinct in this case.
The Resurrection and Virgin Birth are among the 12 articles of the Creed! Among the most certain and important things there are!

8 am, day one theology – that is taught to schoolchildren. As for any theologian who teaches otherwise (or SEEMS to disingenuously) I leave you with these:

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel

7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!

9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

These sentences are among the strongest statements in the Bible. So stand firm. Or rather KEEP standing firm on these doctrines which have been singled out and stressed
since almost the beginning.

I don’t know about this theologian (or care much for his secondhand opinions of what HE thinks the Pope thinks) in this matter … but whether he is teaching against established doctrine … or is just being misunderstood as possibly doing so … we have this standing warning to discern for false teaching(s) from St. Paul:

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ.

14 And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.

15 So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

In my opinion your doubts ABOUT your doubts are the better doubts to have.
We are called to FAITH … which is always much better and clearer than murky, empty doubts.

HE IS RISEN! Thanks be to God! And to you Blessed Mother, Ever Virgin.

 

[manualman]

There are many ways of reading and interpreting the Bible. The one that is in vogue right now with theologians and biblical scholars is the historical-critical method. This is taught in many seminaries as well.

There is much to be gained from this approach, but even PE B16 has confirmed that it is not the be-all, end-all. But you’d never know it from talking with many Biblical scholars.

Raymond Brown is a noted theologian in that school of thought. I’d describe it, but wikipedia would do a much better job. One thing to note that in its purest form, the approach assumes that prophets do not prophecy and miracles do not exist.

Awesome post I’d like to expand upon. This method is often followed to unreal extremes of near atheism or Deism as best. For example, Jesus prophesied in the gospels that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Not terribly far in the future after the ascension, it actually happened. H-C scholars look at that and say “Since nobody can foretell the future like that, this is obviously not an actual quote from Jesus, it is a statement made up by his followers tacked on AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem in order to give weight to Jesus’ claims.”

They use their Deistic assumptions to “prove” a saying of Jesus is not authentic.

IMO, that’s not scholarship, it’s just faithlessness dressed up in academic robes.