Could you speak about how some epistles expand others? I think James, one of the Peter epistles and Jude expand each other. I have read them, it just wasn't immediately obvious to me
Dan: Would you say that the Pastoral Epistles were written by supporters of Paul who sought to restate Pauline theology/ethics, while preserving what they perceived to be Pauline intent, or would you say that these were forgeries meant to domesticate Paul, or otherwise make Paul more palatable in an era after the delay of the parousia? What are the best counter-arguments in favor of Pauline authorship?
None of those, they were probably written in the second century to boost the credibility of the doctrines the current church leadership wanted to advance. It's unlikely that Paul's theology was any consideration at all. The doctrines in the Pastorals are basically the complete opposite of Paul.
can you tell me the scripture where Paul told the apostles to not procreate because he believed they were living at the end time. I got this from John of New on YT who stated he got it from you. I looked in bible hub and cannot find it, so I am not writing it properly to bring it up. Let me know. I have an interest in critical analysis of Christian scriptures. Thank you!
There are 7 undisputed letters that most scholars agree on: 1 Thess, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians Philemon Philippians and Galatians. These are accepted for similar reasons that the others are contested. They're included in early collections of Pauline writings, and the vocabulary and theology match more closely. A History of the Bible by John Barton is a fantastic book and covers this kind of topic and much much more.
Well, they're not pseudo-epistles. They're definitely letters written by one Christian to another. They're just pseudographia - written by someone different than the person tradition has attributed them to.
I would like to see some interaction from Luke Timothy Johnson‘s work on the pastoral epistles. He’s considered one of the most authoritative figures when it comes to 1st and 2d Timothy and Titus, and he holds two traditional authorship. And when it comes to his scholarship he’s actually more independent and he taught at Yale.
My question is "why is there no mention of Jesus or Paul found from any contemporary ( from the lifetime) records outside of the Christian bibles from that era? Pliny the elder makes no mention and Josephus was born after Jebus died. No Roman,Greek, Egyptian,Persian,Asian . Nothing ....
In Jesus and Pauls lifetime the movement was simply not big enough or important enough to attract notice. Later writings like Acts really dramatize the goings on, and numbers of people that were involved.
@@scambammer6102 Shouldn't at least one historian from that region during that era would at least have mentioned Jesus a" man god" bringing back dead healing blind walk on water etc etc?? Jeeezzz ya think 🤔
@@Nudnik1But supposing those things didn’t happen, why would any major historian really care about some Jewish radical preacher who doesn’t concern their narrative? This argument is not a good one at all historically speaking.
It is taught in many accredited, mainstream seminaries and has been for about 60-70 years now. The sad part is that many pastors don’t teach this in their congregations. But as a 2022 graduate from a Lutheran seminary I assure it was absolutely taught to us.
@@rev.chuckshingledecker In this case, "seminary" and "institute" refer to LDS Church religion courses for high schoolers and college students/adults, respectively.
Academic study and personal devotional study are conducted differently because they seek different goals. That is true for every religious perspective.
@@jamescrane6583 Incomplete, certainly. There's always more to know. But there are times that Mormonism disagrees with other Christian denominations in ways that agree with the scholarly consensus, too. Most Christian denominations believe in ex nihilio creation (creation from nothing), but the LDS Church and scholarship agree that that idea was unknown to the primitive Church and organization out of chaos was the original belief. Or the existence of a consort for the Lord; a Heavenly Mother, as the LDS Church calls her, is attested in temple archeology. Devotional traditions have their conflicts with scholarship, to be sure. And church leaders are not leading biblical scholars, nor have they ever been. The same is true outside of religion, too. Patriots and national leaders tend to have beliefs that are out of sync with academic historians' findings as well. Champions of institutions and corporations tend to adhere to dogmatic historical claims that academics dispute or sometimes cannot abide. Disillusion erasing dogmas is a common part of academic learning. It's the 'corruption of the youth' that Socrates was executed for.
Interesting video and I liked the unbiased, academic representation. I wonder, though, if most of these concerns could be reconciled by acknowledging that Paul was hugely influential on the early church and its development. He could have very likely been the one to develop and establish those frameworks that would be put into practice later on. It seems outlandish to assume that Paul was completely not concerned with the long-term future of the church... but again I'm not an academic biblical scholar. Not trying to dispute, just sharing my thoughts.
So if they were written later, what's the point behind the 2 Timothy 4 coat request, or the drink some wine for your IBS suggestion? Is there a legitimate attempt to deceive the original readers?
One possibility is that these were added to make the letter sound more personal and therefore more believable. This is not too different from tactics used by con artists today. Another possibility is that the personal aspects of the epistle are authentic, and were attached to the doctrinal components that were written by someone else. Compiling independent texts into a single one was commonly done (2 Corinthians is probably a composite, the Diatesseron is explicitly one, and it's speculated that the Gospels of Luke and John could be).
They claim to be from Paul, which is a lie. The point is that they aren't trustworthy. You can obviously agree with whatever points they make, but you can't call them holy. They are deceptions.
Does it matter if a large chunk of the books accepted as the word of God were written with the intent to deceive? To some yes, to others, no. We get to figure out what that means to us and why.
The pastoral epistles are titled as such because they are different from letters to communities, instead of a single or few readers. We would expect the language to be different. Not a very good foundation for an argument.
It's unusual for me to agree with the "scholarly consensus," but I do this time. Well, almost. Personally I think the personal aspects of 2 Timothy are authentic, but the doctrinal aspects are not. It's hard for me to believe that the beauty and emotion of 2 Timothy was made up by the same clumsy hack that wrote the rest of the Pastorals. 🤣
Wow, When you distill out the best arguments from the tedious volumes of writing on this subject it really shows how weak the argument is against Pauline authorship is. I thought there was a much stronger case. By the logic presented here I should assume every private email I get from my boss that doesn’t contain the exact same themes and vocabulary as the company wide email he sent out three years ago should be assumed with high levels of certainty to be fraudulent.
You're doing a lot of rhetorical heavy lifting by making this as gray as possible. Obviously you've never gotten a scam email pretending to be your boss just to phish information from you. I've seen that & I could tell, so your analogy is pretty weak.
No, it would be more like your boss saying "I sent this company-wide email out three years ago," and you noticing that the email refers to policies and processes that weren't implemented until this year and also several coworkers telling you the email wasn't sent out three years ago.
@@maklelan Traditionally as I understand it, Timothy is understood to have been a letter written to an individual instructing him how to conduct church business on behalf of Paul years after his general epistles to the Corinthians and others. Are you saying you saying it is the other way around chronologically? That the undisputed letters were written after the letters to Timothy?
@@AnonYmous-xp1ym I personally hope timothy is a forgery, it says some stuff I don't like especially in 1 timothy 2, but I had no idea the evidence of it being a forgery was so weak. Scams are common yes, but the evidence that this is a scam as presented here is objectively very weak to anyone who has ever written an email to different groups of people years apart for completely different reasons and in different circumstances...unless Dan is saving the persuasive evidence for later for some reason. Maybe he is.
You seem like a nice guy and obviously you’re a scholar, but the idea that’s overwhelming consensus it’s just total nonsense and it’s a bit disingenuous in my view, if you mean the overwhelming consensus maybe critical or liberal scholars sure, but not among biblical scholars in general I can name like several that don’t think that’s at the top of my head, Dennis McDonald, Greg Evan’s, darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, Craig Blomberg, Craig Keener, Michael Kruger, Raymond Brown, N.T Wright, David Thompson, and Bruce Metzger, and Richard Bachman those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. So for you to say that’s overwhelming consensus, when I in some of the most prominent biblical scholars of today, except for Metzger and Brown of course, I find this notion to be a bit disingenuous, it depends on what you mean by consensus though. And Marcia rejecting the pastoral pistols is not good evidence that they were forgerys, Marcin was alive in the second century far after they would’ve been written, and him not using them is not good evidence because of course he didn’t use them, he rejected the old testament and rejected references to the Old Testament, so of course he would reject the pastoral pistols like the book of Timothy which read that all scripture is God breathed. And the overwhelming consensus on the early church fathers, like Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Justin martyr, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Polycarp, irenaeus, and so on,It’s weird that you wouldn’t quote One of them but instead you’re gonna quote the Marcia’s. Them missing from the codex vaticanus, it’s not evidence of them being forgeries the book of Philemon is not so not in there, The epistle of Barnabas is in there though and so are a few apocryphal books. Why couldn’t have been before the second century you’re begging the question. Unfortunately I just find your case incredibly weak it’s based on argument some silence, and question Begging, saying because he use different vocabulary therefore they couldn’t have been written by him, even Bart Ehrman Who believes that they are forgeries doesn’t believe this is a very strong argument. then being different is not evidence that they’re forgeries, these are the pastoral pistols are not the book of Romans or Corinthians so yes they’re going to be different. In an introduction to the New Testament and Dr. Carson, says it’s surprising that people don’t think the pastoral pistols are written by Paul because the doctrine is the same, and it’s often overlooked at times.
Unless Bauckham has changed his mind, he's acknowledged that the Pastorals could have been written after Paul's death, but even those scholars you've listed acknowledge that it has long been the consensus that they were not written by Paul. Other than that, I'm not interested in trying to relitigate the scholarly consensus regarding the pseudonymous origins of the Pastoral Epistles.
Good points. But of course McClellan gives you HIS opinion on what the consensus is. "And Marcia rejecting the pastoral pistols" Sorry but THIS is a Gospel I'd love reading, sounds ready-made for HBO ;)
@@notanemoprog I like reading him too he’s very interesting, I think I was a little bit too harsh. It depends on what he means by consensus though, I shouldn’t say it’s disingenuous because I don’t wanna attack peoples motives, and he does seem genuine in the video, he doesn’t come off as somebody who is lying at all, so I should really not used terms like disingenuous unless. They’ve actually shown to be so. I was just saying that Marcia is not very good evidence, has he rejected a lot of the New Testament and the entire Old Testament. And I think he probably rejected it more for theological reasons than actual historical reasons.
@@maklelan OK I apologize if I was a bit too harsh I don’t think you’re being disingenuous, I was just a little confused by the term consensus, I appreciate the reply as well you seem like a really nice guy, and your accountant seems like something I would like. But unfortunately I just didn’t find your arguments to be that convincing, but I probably just need to do more research, you are a scholar after all, and I usually do trust scholars opinion on issues, but I’m a little skeptical. Sorry if my comment came off mean or I was in the most respectful. I shouldn’t have attacked your motives by calling you disingenuous, because your video doesn’t strike me as somebody who is dishonest at all, and generally it’s not good to attack peoples motives because it’s hard to prove motives. I wasn’t referring to the claim they weren’t written by Paul I was responding to whether or not they were forgeries, that was the main claim I was responding in my comments, i’m sorry if I was unclear about that, I will try next time to be more respectful. Evans also said he’s not against the idea of them possibly not being written by Paul, i’m still finishing his book fabricating Jesus. And Polycarp didn’t really quote the pastoral epistles, Because it seems that the debate among on the early church and even centuries after, where surrounding the of Hebrews, Philemon, and the book of Jude, I don’t really see the pastoral pistols come up that much, i’ve been reading JB Lightfoot, and Michael Krueger. According to Michael Heiser he’s not an expert on the New Testament, but I still think he’s opinion is worthy of mentioning, his view is that Paul might’ve started writing the earlier pastoral pistols, but after the time of his death other writers continued and companions of Paul, continued writing them after his death, he has a similar opinion when it comes to the pentateuch the first books of the Old Testament, he believes that Moses wrote most of them but when he died Joshua continued writing in the book of numbers, what is your opinion on the matter because you are a scholar so it would be good to get your opinion on the subject, and it’s debatable whether or not Moses even existed among scholars so that would be even more interesting. I was mostly responding to your claim that they were forgeries, i’m I don’t really care about the authorship as much, I think it’s probably sure he didn’t write them. I’ll subscribe because your videos seem interesting.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Please bear in mind that scholars use the word "forgery" as a technical term, here is how Bart Ehrman in _FORGED: Writing in the Name of God-Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are_ (2011) defines the concept: (p. 9) "Many early Christian writings are “pseudonymous,” going under a “false name.” The more common word for this kind of writing is “forgery” (I give more precise definitions of these terms in Chapter 1). In the ancient world forgery was a bit different from today in that it was not, technically speaking, against the law. But even though it was not an illegal activity, it was a deceitful one that involved conscious lying, as the ancients themselves said." (p. 24-25) "But as it turns out, there are also two kinds of pseudepigraphal writings. Sometimes a writing was published anonymously, with no author’s name attached, for example, the Gospel of Matthew. But later readers and copyists asserted that they knew who had written it and claimed it was by a well-known, authoritative person, in this case the disciple Matthew. In writings of this sort, which are wrongly attributed to a well-known person, the author is not trying to deceive anyone. He or she remained anonymous. It is only later readers who claimed that the author was someone else. This kind of pseudepigraphy, then, involves a “false ascription” a work is “ascribed” to someone who didn’t write it. The other kind of pseudepigraphy does involve a kind of intentional deceit by an author. This is when an author writes a work claiming to be someone else. This is what I am here calling forgery. My definition of a forgery, then, is a writing that claims to be written by someone (a known figure) who did not in fact write it. Over the years I have had several people object to my use of the term “forgery,” and I well understand the hesitancy of other scholars to use the term. In modern times, when we think of forgery, we think of highly illegal activities (forging precious stones, money, or books for profit) that can send a person to prison. Ancient forgers were not as a rule thrown in jail, because there simply weren’t laws governing the production and distribution of literature. There were no copyright laws, for example. But ancient authors did see this kind of activity as fraudulent, they recognized it as deceitful, they called it lying (and other even nastier things), and they often punished those who were caught doing it. So when I use the term “forgery,” I do mean for it to have negative connotations, in part because, as we will see, the terms used by ancient authors were just as negative, if not more so." You can read this book on Internet Archive btw
Dan, these are very poor arguments (in fact they are not arguments at all--just bald statements) against the authenticity of the pastoral epistles. You enumerate scores of differences between the authentic and the "pseudepigraphical" Paul--but without actually demonstrating it.
Those are your feelings on the matter, but as I pointed out in the video, those concerns don't convince the majority of scholars and they're just rooted in a presupposition about the authenticity of the texts.
@@maklelan Sure, I hear you. But actually your summary is book marked by two contradictory statements: at the beginning you say not all, but many scholars believe the pastorals weren't written by Paul; yet at the end you say the overwhelming majority of scholars disbelieve in the authenticity of the pastorals. What's your personal view?
If that 1/3 weren't comprised of language from so much later. As it is, this is a bit like if I gave you an "original" copy of Shakespeare that was 2/3 original, and 1/3 full of language like "hip" and "groovy" from the 1960's instead of the 1600s. Would you suppose "oh, well, 2/3 of this seems pretty legit, and maybe youth culture in the 1960s was heavily influenced by the Bard who just happened to coin this particular set of original terms" or would you be more likely to conclude that what I handed you was a fraud, and certainly the parts that were clearly written in the 1960s or later are fraudulent? But hey, if your cult/orthodoxy demands you believe this particular set of books was 100% written by certain people etc etc etc to spite all evidence to the contrary, than hey, by all means, carry on.
I really appreciate this type of summary of the academic data.
Indeed, hope he actually issues an actual Bible Dictionary one day!
Yes, indeed, jusf what we need!
The academic data I’m on who though? There are several scholars who disagree.
Dan, your postings are always informative and a pleasure to watch.
Thanks!
Dan, I so appreciate your material here!
Excellent
Could you speak about how some epistles expand others? I think James, one of the Peter epistles and Jude expand each other. I have read them, it just wasn't immediately obvious to me
Great explanation broseph
Dan: Would you say that the Pastoral Epistles were written by supporters of Paul who sought to restate Pauline theology/ethics, while preserving what they perceived to be Pauline intent, or would you say that these were forgeries meant to domesticate Paul, or otherwise make Paul more palatable in an era after the delay of the parousia? What are the best counter-arguments in favor of Pauline authorship?
None of those, they were probably written in the second century to boost the credibility of the doctrines the current church leadership wanted to advance. It's unlikely that Paul's theology was any consideration at all. The doctrines in the Pastorals are basically the complete opposite of Paul.
Hey Dan. Will you check the response to this video by the RUclips creator Testify?
can you tell me the scripture where Paul told the apostles to not procreate because he believed they were living at the end time. I got this from John of New on YT who stated he got it from you. I looked in bible hub and cannot find it, so I am not writing it properly to bring it up. Let me know. I have an interest in critical analysis of Christian scriptures. Thank you!
Did Polycarp write them?
Why do they agree he wrote the more accepted ones? What books would explain that?
There are 7 undisputed letters that most scholars agree on: 1 Thess, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians Philemon Philippians and Galatians. These are accepted for similar reasons that the others are contested. They're included in early collections of Pauline writings, and the vocabulary and theology match more closely.
A History of the Bible by John Barton is a fantastic book and covers this kind of topic and much much more.
Great clear explanations they are pseudo epistles and should be excluded as not true letters, written by impostors.
Well, they're not pseudo-epistles. They're definitely letters written by one Christian to another. They're just pseudographia - written by someone different than the person tradition has attributed them to.
it's all bullshit, these 3 letters are just a little more so
I would like to see some interaction from Luke Timothy Johnson‘s work on the pastoral epistles. He’s considered one of the most authoritative figures when it comes to 1st and 2d Timothy and Titus, and he holds two traditional authorship. And when it comes to his scholarship he’s actually more independent and he taught at Yale.
he says there is no way to know if they are forged
@@scambammer6102 Yes I never denied that.
My question is "why is there no mention of Jesus or Paul found from any contemporary ( from the lifetime) records outside of the Christian bibles from that era?
Pliny the elder makes no mention and Josephus was born after Jebus died.
No Roman,Greek, Egyptian,Persian,Asian .
Nothing ....
In Jesus and Pauls lifetime the movement was simply not big enough or important enough to attract notice. Later writings like Acts really dramatize the goings on, and numbers of people that were involved.
@@timdavis1543 yet no historian from then mentions Jebus or Paul or miracles ???
Pliny the elder makes no mention.
@@Nudnik1 you added miracles thus moving the goal post
@@scambammer6102 Shouldn't at least one historian from that region during that era would at least have mentioned Jesus a" man god" bringing back dead healing blind walk on water etc etc??
Jeeezzz ya think 🤔
@@Nudnik1But supposing those things didn’t happen, why would any major historian really care about some Jewish radical preacher who doesn’t concern their narrative? This argument is not a good one at all historically speaking.
Will this be taught in Come Follow Me? Why isn't it taught in seminary or institute?
It is taught in many accredited, mainstream seminaries and has been for about 60-70 years now. The sad part is that many pastors don’t teach this in their congregations. But as a 2022 graduate from a Lutheran seminary I assure it was absolutely taught to us.
@@rev.chuckshingledecker In this case, "seminary" and "institute" refer to LDS Church religion courses for high schoolers and college students/adults, respectively.
Academic study and personal devotional study are conducted differently because they seek different goals. That is true for every religious perspective.
It seems that everything that the LDS church taught me about the Bible is wrong, or at least very incomplete.
@@jamescrane6583 Incomplete, certainly. There's always more to know.
But there are times that Mormonism disagrees with other Christian denominations in ways that agree with the scholarly consensus, too. Most Christian denominations believe in ex nihilio creation (creation from nothing), but the LDS Church and scholarship agree that that idea was unknown to the primitive Church and organization out of chaos was the original belief. Or the existence of a consort for the Lord; a Heavenly Mother, as the LDS Church calls her, is attested in temple archeology.
Devotional traditions have their conflicts with scholarship, to be sure. And church leaders are not leading biblical scholars, nor have they ever been.
The same is true outside of religion, too. Patriots and national leaders tend to have beliefs that are out of sync with academic historians' findings as well. Champions of institutions and corporations tend to adhere to dogmatic historical claims that academics dispute or sometimes cannot abide.
Disillusion erasing dogmas is a common part of academic learning. It's the 'corruption of the youth' that Socrates was executed for.
Christians and apologists hate these facts.
As a Christian I’m totally seething 😡 😂seriously though this stuff is very interesting.
Interesting video and I liked the unbiased, academic representation. I wonder, though, if most of these concerns could be reconciled by acknowledging that Paul was hugely influential on the early church and its development. He could have very likely been the one to develop and establish those frameworks that would be put into practice later on. It seems outlandish to assume that Paul was completely not concerned with the long-term future of the church... but again I'm not an academic biblical scholar. Not trying to dispute, just sharing my thoughts.
@0:58 *Pauline Epistles
Yep, it does seem that he meant to say that one of our earliest references to the Pauline epistles excludes the pastoral epistles.
So if they were written later, what's the point behind the 2 Timothy 4 coat request, or the drink some wine for your IBS suggestion? Is there a legitimate attempt to deceive the original readers?
One possibility is that these were added to make the letter sound more personal and therefore more believable. This is not too different from tactics used by con artists today. Another possibility is that the personal aspects of the epistle are authentic, and were attached to the doctrinal components that were written by someone else. Compiling independent texts into a single one was commonly done (2 Corinthians is probably a composite, the Diatesseron is explicitly one, and it's speculated that the Gospels of Luke and John could be).
Does it truly matter if Paul wrote them? Isn't the content what matters?
They claim to be from Paul, which is a lie. The point is that they aren't trustworthy. You can obviously agree with whatever points they make, but you can't call them holy. They are deceptions.
Does it matter if a large chunk of the books accepted as the word of God were written with the intent to deceive?
To some yes, to others, no. We get to figure out what that means to us and why.
yes it matters
The pastoral epistles are titled as such because they are different from letters to communities, instead of a single or few readers. We would expect the language to be different. Not a very good foundation for an argument.
It's unusual for me to agree with the "scholarly consensus," but I do this time. Well, almost. Personally I think the personal aspects of 2 Timothy are authentic, but the doctrinal aspects are not. It's hard for me to believe that the beauty and emotion of 2 Timothy was made up by the same clumsy hack that wrote the rest of the Pastorals. 🤣
Wow, When you distill out the best arguments from the tedious volumes of writing on this subject it really shows how weak the argument is against Pauline authorship is. I thought there was a much stronger case. By the logic presented here I should assume every private email I get from my boss that doesn’t contain the exact same themes and vocabulary as the company wide email he sent out three years ago should be assumed with high levels of certainty to be fraudulent.
You're doing a lot of rhetorical heavy lifting by making this as gray as possible. Obviously you've never gotten a scam email pretending to be your boss just to phish information from you. I've seen that & I could tell, so your analogy is pretty weak.
No, it would be more like your boss saying "I sent this company-wide email out three years ago," and you noticing that the email refers to policies and processes that weren't implemented until this year and also several coworkers telling you the email wasn't sent out three years ago.
@@maklelan Traditionally as I understand it, Timothy is understood to have been a letter written to an individual instructing him how to conduct church business on behalf of Paul years after his general epistles to the Corinthians and others. Are you saying you saying it is the other way around chronologically? That the undisputed letters were written after the letters to Timothy?
@@AnonYmous-xp1ym I personally hope timothy is a forgery, it says some stuff I don't like especially in 1 timothy 2, but I had no idea the evidence of it being a forgery was so weak. Scams are common yes, but the evidence that this is a scam as presented here is objectively very weak to anyone who has ever written an email to different groups of people years apart for completely different reasons and in different circumstances...unless Dan is saving the persuasive evidence for later for some reason. Maybe he is.
@@maklelan And also your boss retired two years ago 🤣
Saul of Tarsus was a deceiver
I'm curious to hear your reasoning.
You seem like a nice guy and obviously you’re a scholar, but the idea that’s overwhelming consensus it’s just total nonsense and it’s a bit disingenuous in my view, if you mean the overwhelming consensus maybe critical or liberal scholars sure, but not among biblical scholars in general I can name like several that don’t think that’s at the top of my head, Dennis McDonald, Greg Evan’s, darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, Craig Blomberg, Craig Keener, Michael Kruger, Raymond Brown, N.T Wright, David Thompson, and Bruce Metzger, and Richard Bachman those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. So for you to say that’s overwhelming consensus, when I in some of the most prominent biblical scholars of today, except for Metzger and Brown of course, I find this notion to be a bit disingenuous, it depends on what you mean by consensus though. And Marcia rejecting the pastoral pistols is not good evidence that they were forgerys, Marcin was alive in the second century far after they would’ve been written, and him not using them is not good evidence because of course he didn’t use them, he rejected the old testament and rejected references to the Old Testament, so of course he would reject the pastoral pistols like the book of Timothy which read that all scripture is God breathed. And the overwhelming consensus on the early church fathers, like Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Justin martyr, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Polycarp, irenaeus, and so on,It’s weird that you wouldn’t quote One of them but instead you’re gonna quote the Marcia’s. Them missing from the codex vaticanus, it’s not evidence of them being forgeries the book of Philemon is not so not in there, The epistle of Barnabas is in there though and so are a few apocryphal books. Why couldn’t have been before the second century you’re begging the question. Unfortunately I just find your case incredibly weak it’s based on argument some silence, and question Begging, saying because he use different vocabulary therefore they couldn’t have been written by him, even Bart Ehrman Who believes that they are forgeries doesn’t believe this is a very strong argument. then being different is not evidence that they’re forgeries, these are the pastoral pistols are not the book of Romans or Corinthians so yes they’re going to be different. In an introduction to the New Testament and Dr. Carson, says it’s surprising that people don’t think the pastoral pistols are written by Paul because the doctrine is the same, and it’s often overlooked at times.
Unless Bauckham has changed his mind, he's acknowledged that the Pastorals could have been written after Paul's death, but even those scholars you've listed acknowledge that it has long been the consensus that they were not written by Paul. Other than that, I'm not interested in trying to relitigate the scholarly consensus regarding the pseudonymous origins of the Pastoral Epistles.
Good points. But of course McClellan gives you HIS opinion on what the consensus is.
"And Marcia rejecting the pastoral pistols"
Sorry but THIS is a Gospel I'd love reading, sounds ready-made for HBO ;)
@@notanemoprog I like reading him too he’s very interesting, I think I was a little bit too harsh. It depends on what he means by consensus though, I shouldn’t say it’s disingenuous because I don’t wanna attack peoples motives, and he does seem genuine in the video, he doesn’t come off as somebody who is lying at all, so I should really not used terms like disingenuous unless. They’ve actually shown to be so. I was just saying that Marcia is not very good evidence, has he rejected a lot of the New Testament and the entire Old Testament. And I think he probably rejected it more for theological reasons than actual historical reasons.
@@maklelan OK I apologize if I was a bit too harsh I don’t think you’re being disingenuous, I was just a little confused by the term consensus, I appreciate the reply as well you seem like a really nice guy, and your accountant seems like something I would like. But unfortunately I just didn’t find your arguments to be that convincing, but I probably just need to do more research, you are a scholar after all, and I usually do trust scholars opinion on issues, but I’m a little skeptical. Sorry if my comment came off mean or I was in the most respectful. I shouldn’t have attacked your motives by calling you disingenuous, because your video doesn’t strike me as somebody who is dishonest at all, and generally it’s not good to attack peoples motives because it’s hard to prove motives. I wasn’t referring to the claim they weren’t written by Paul I was responding to whether or not they were forgeries, that was the main claim I was responding in my comments, i’m sorry if I was unclear about that, I will try next time to be more respectful. Evans also said he’s not against the idea of them possibly not being written by Paul, i’m still finishing his book fabricating Jesus. And Polycarp didn’t really quote the pastoral epistles, Because it seems that the debate among on the early church and even centuries after, where surrounding the of Hebrews, Philemon, and the book of Jude, I don’t really see the pastoral pistols come up that much, i’ve been reading JB Lightfoot, and Michael Krueger. According to Michael Heiser he’s not an expert on the New Testament, but I still think he’s opinion is worthy of mentioning, his view is that Paul might’ve started writing the earlier pastoral pistols, but after the time of his death other writers continued and companions of Paul, continued writing them after his death, he has a similar opinion when it comes to the pentateuch the first books of the Old Testament, he believes that Moses wrote most of them but when he died Joshua continued writing in the book of numbers, what is your opinion on the matter because you are a scholar so it would be good to get your opinion on the subject, and it’s debatable whether or not Moses even existed among scholars so that would be even more interesting. I was mostly responding to your claim that they were forgeries, i’m I don’t really care about the authorship as much, I think it’s probably sure he didn’t write them. I’ll subscribe because your videos seem interesting.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Please bear in mind that scholars use the word "forgery" as a technical term, here is how Bart Ehrman in _FORGED: Writing in the Name of God-Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are_ (2011) defines the concept:
(p. 9)
"Many early Christian writings are “pseudonymous,” going under a “false name.” The more common word for this kind of writing is “forgery” (I give more precise definitions of these terms in Chapter 1). In the ancient world forgery was a bit different from today in that it was not, technically speaking, against the law. But even though it was not an illegal activity, it was a deceitful one that involved conscious lying, as the ancients themselves said."
(p. 24-25)
"But as it turns out, there are also two kinds of pseudepigraphal writings. Sometimes a writing was published anonymously, with no author’s name attached, for example, the Gospel of Matthew. But later readers and copyists asserted that they knew who had written it and claimed it was by a well-known, authoritative person, in this case the disciple Matthew. In writings of this sort, which are wrongly attributed to a well-known person, the author is not trying to deceive anyone. He or she remained anonymous. It is only later readers who claimed that the author was someone else. This kind of pseudepigraphy, then, involves a “false ascription” a work is “ascribed” to someone who didn’t write it.
The other kind of pseudepigraphy does involve a kind of intentional deceit by an author. This is when an author writes a work claiming to be someone else. This is what I am here calling forgery. My definition of a forgery, then, is a writing that claims to be written by someone (a known figure) who did not in fact write it.
Over the years I have had several people object to my use of the term “forgery,” and I well understand the hesitancy of other scholars to use the term. In modern times, when we think of forgery, we think of highly illegal activities (forging precious stones, money, or books for profit) that can send a person to prison. Ancient forgers were not as a rule thrown in jail, because there simply weren’t laws governing the production and distribution of literature. There were no copyright laws, for example. But ancient authors did see this kind of activity as fraudulent, they recognized it as deceitful, they called it lying (and other even nastier things), and they often punished those who were caught doing it. So when I use the term “forgery,” I do mean for it to have negative connotations, in part because, as we will see, the terms used by ancient authors were just as negative, if not more so."
You can read this book on Internet Archive btw
Dan, these are very poor arguments (in fact they are not arguments at all--just bald statements) against the authenticity of the pastoral epistles. You enumerate scores of differences between the authentic and the "pseudepigraphical" Paul--but without actually demonstrating it.
Those are your feelings on the matter, but as I pointed out in the video, those concerns don't convince the majority of scholars and they're just rooted in a presupposition about the authenticity of the texts.
@@maklelan Sure, I hear you. But actually your summary is book marked by two contradictory statements: at the beginning you say not all, but many scholars believe the pastorals weren't written by Paul; yet at the end you say the overwhelming majority of scholars disbelieve in the authenticity of the pastorals. What's your personal view?
it's not like Dan invented these facts lol. he is just the messenger. you seem to not understand what the word "contradictory" means.
1/3 of Pauline language is different in pastoral epistles while 2/3 is the same? Well isn't that an evidence for Paul being the author?
You're not allowed to ask questions, just follow the academic consensus...
@@IrishEagIe 😅
@@gtartaris1757 😁
If that 1/3 weren't comprised of language from so much later. As it is, this is a bit like if I gave you an "original" copy of Shakespeare that was 2/3 original, and 1/3 full of language like "hip" and "groovy" from the 1960's instead of the 1600s. Would you suppose "oh, well, 2/3 of this seems pretty legit, and maybe youth culture in the 1960s was heavily influenced by the Bard who just happened to coin this particular set of original terms" or would you be more likely to conclude that what I handed you was a fraud, and certainly the parts that were clearly written in the 1960s or later are fraudulent? But hey, if your cult/orthodoxy demands you believe this particular set of books was 100% written by certain people etc etc etc to spite all evidence to the contrary, than hey, by all means, carry on.
@@IrishEagIe Oh, I do see some consensus following going on here, but not a lot of thought....