One more thing that I should have included in the video: Be wary when someone says the "vast majority of scholars believe X". When Dan McClellan says "an overwhelming majority of scholars" believe that the pastoral letters aren't really written by Paul, this strikes me as a big overstatement. In a relatively recent survey, The British New Testament Conference (made up of biblical scholars across the ideological spectrum) held a vote on which epistles they think are Pauline and which are not. While more than half think Paul didn't write the pastorals, the votes were nearly evenly split between "yes" and "unsure". This is not a vast scholarly consensus. Not even close. Why does a large minority either support Pauline authorship or are "unsure" if the arguments are so overwhelmingly against my position? Would Dan say that the BNTS not be reflective of scholarship as a whole?
Well said. The argument from majority, or the similar argument from authority, often used by the likes of William Lane Craig or Kent Hovind (or Bart Ehrman, I'm not picking sides, he does it as bad as anyone) doesn't mean a thing. As many have said (Dr Robert M Price comes to mind) it's the strength of the evidence that should be considered.
I suspect his answer would be to argue that those who accept or are uncertain about Pauline authorship of the epistles are not "real scholars", in short the "no true Scotsman" fallacy
So, there is a small quarter of the scholars who would probably convert to Catholicism after a few more considerations, another small quarter who _very_ probably would do so on getting certainty about Pauline authorship, but skirting away from that certainty, and a big half who are decided to not convert and also not let Pastorals change their minds. Thank you for the stats.
@@bengreen171 _"So we are left with a very significant proportion of scholars who say Paul is not the author, and that might well be a big understatement."_ Over the centuries prior to German Bibelkritik of the 19th C. an even larger consensus said they were genuine. Catholic bishops.
@@bengreen171 _"We saw it in the last few years where people with no expertise rejected medical advice for political reasons and pure selfishness."_ Normally, it is taking medical advice that's supposed to be a selfish act. Meaning, normally it's up to you to take your doctor's advice or not. Fun fact, the word "selfish" is not in the Bible ...
In the Internet Age , anyone can skim through information that most people aren't familiar with and then speak like an expert, no matter how outlandish their claims are.
What these people think happened… Conspirator 1: I’m going to write this letter to the church to encourage them to be more fervent in prayer, to reject greed and wrath and to inspire hope. Conspirator 2: Well those teachings will not go over well with the church. Conspirator 1: Why not? They seem inline with the teachings of Christ to me. Conspirator 2: Right but nobody knows you Ronald. “The Epistle of Ronald”, nah here’s what we do. You’re gonna write the epistle BUT you’re also going to pretend to be Paul and add some biographical information about him. Conspirator 1: But Paul’s dead (apparently), people will know it wasn’t written by him. It seems stupid, I’m not going to do that, I’ll call it “the epistle of Ronald” and if people don’t read it people don’t read it whatever. Conspirator 2: What if we address it to Timothy? Conspirator 1: Timothy? The companion of Paul and Bishop of Ephesus? Won’t he just say I’m a liar? Which I would be, pretending to be his dead friend. Conspirator 2: Perhaps but it will lend it a certain credibility don’t you think? Conspirator 1: It really won’t. But screw it, let’s do it.
@@scambammer6102 Epistemic, from the root word: Epistemology. It is the investigation of how we know things. What is knowledge? To what extent and under what circumstances can it be attained? These are the questions epistemology seeks to answer. When something is said to have epistemic strength, it is being claimed that its conclusions are relatively well grounded, evidenced, and its conclusions follow from its premises.
@@scambammer6102 You can say that. Doesn't make it true. You're in a comments section of a channel dedicated to demonstrating the epistemic strength of Christianity. You don't have to like it or even believe it, but the essence of Christianity is demonstrably valid. The question is whether it is sound. You clearly do not think so. That's fine. If you were more mature, you'd be more respectful about stating your position. The way you try to psychoanalyze believers, knowing nothing about them only suggests your behavior is motivated by insecurity or lack of "epistemic strength" in your own position. I was an atheist until I entered my 20s. I came to Christianity because of the philosophic arguments in favor of God's existence and the historical evidence in favor of Christianity. You understand that everyone, everywhere, for all time, including you, have a degree of wish fulfillment in their fundamental beliefs, right? Whether the believer wishes that their belief be true or not has nothing to do with the validity of their belief. I'm perfectly okay with people disagreeing with me, however, I prefer respectful conversational debate to immediate (and objectively incorrect) dismissal of my position. Would you like it if I turned that around on you and said: "Atheism has zero epistemic strength. You just believe it because you want to."? Would you concede that would be disrespectful of me as well as blatantly false? Humans at this moment in time do not get to know whether Atheism, Pantheism, Panentheism or Orthodox Theism are the correct model. We each evaluate the evidence and make a bet based on the balance of probabilities. You choose Atheism for now. I can accept that and treat you with respect. I choose Orthodox Theism and Christianity in particular. Can you accept that and treat me with respect?
One should not necessarily accept the consensus of scholars, but one should not necessarily accept the consensus of orthodox tradition, either. The professors of the undergrad university I attended did not accept Ephesians, Colossians, II Thessalonians, or the pastorals as genuinely from Paul, nor any of the universal letters as coming from Peter, Jude, etc. The seminary I attended didn't take a hard position either way.
Fantastic video! When I first arrived at university, the topic of Pauline authorship was the very issue that prompted me to start studying apologetics. I wish I had acess to a video like this back then! Thank you for your wonderful ministry
@@HarryNicNicholas Matthew 24:36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.
@@HarryNicNicholas Dan is a self-described “faithful” LDS. If his intellectual prowess impresses you, bear in mind those same reasoning skills have led him to accept what you would call “myth”.
Most of us want things to be black and white, but with the bits and scraps of of sources we have regarding ancient texts it's impossible to know the truth purely from a secular point of view. Too many self-proclaimed experts or "scholars" over-generalize the data and insist on black-and-white conclusions that the data simply do not support. Dan does a great job of illustrating this. In evaluating the truthfulness of the words of scripture, there is no substitute to the witness of the Spirit. The scholarly studies are important and actually kind of fun, but they can never completely prove what "the real truth" is. The best way to understand the scriptures and know of their truthfulness is to try living one's life unselfishly in the way that Christ counseled . . . to follow Him.
See Dr Stephen Boyce's podcast who I mentioned in the video and which I linked in the description. He covers those topics well. I may do some shorter videos on it someday, but his podcast is a goldmine.
Excellent analysis. The case for the authenticity of the pastorals is not as clear-cut as for other disputed letters like 2 Thessalonians, but a strong case can be marshaled nonetheless.
Not only are the arguments against the authenticity of various Pauline epistles weak, they are often circular. For example, the argument goes that" the Pastorals are inauthentic because they mention the office of bishop (or elder or overseer, whatever word a specific translation might use) and we know that these offices didn't originate until the middle of the second century" and "f you ask "How do we know they didn't exist until the middle of the second century?" and we will be told "because the Pastoral epistles weren't written until the middle of the second century"
@@Michael-bk5nz imagine thinking that the early church didn't have "helpers," "leaders," "older people," or "teachers." It is incredible how people can look at a language and read a normal word as an official title in a rigid structure...
Thanks for this. Stumbled on Dan's videos on tiktok. it would seem like todays scholars are mainly secularists. I think the church should definitely be responding to these arguments.
Thank you, Erik. Great response video. Dan got me with the detail that Codex Vaticanus lacked the pastoral letters, but your observation that Vaticanus also lacks Philemon, a widely attested Pauline letter, is notable. The hypothesis that Vaticanus (and perhaps a few others) omitted personal letters like these has some traction, the kind of evidence that Dan neglects to tell his listeners.
Glad it was helpful! It's just a hypothesis but I think it's a good one considering how the Mutatorian Canon groups them out in such a way and that personal letters were probably not publicly read in congregations.
His problem is he assumes it is a complete Bible, but if you read the sources, you will notice that they say that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaticus are the earliest “nearly complete” manuscripts, they are high-quality manuscripts and well-preserved, but it is also quite clear that parts of both have been lost
@@HarryNicNicholas don’t you have a job or a family or something more important to do than be on a religious RU-vid channel commenting on a vid you don’t believe in anyway. Are you lonely ? Are you having an existential crisis ? Or are you just the butt in the joke
@sj appiyah he's a mormon?? Big shocker for me... someone else said he was a "faithful" LDS member and I didn't believe it at first, but many people say he is and I checked some of his videos, couldn't find a biography but there are hints about his beliefs
@@franzescodimitra8815 nah he upfront and said that he is a member of the church of LDS. To be fair though, you wouldn’t necessarily know that he was one if you were to watch most of his videos. Now that being said, it’s weird that he says that Lilith was “vilified” as if the mythological demoness was some type of misunderstood victim who got a bad rap.🤷🏿♂️
What is wrong with that? Do you think the letters and manuscripts of what is the Bible today were written in English for the Christian Americans? Do probably don’t even know who translated the Bible you read, or do you?
@@hjtapia74the problem with this is that McLlellan is arrogant enough to think that HE has all the answers that 2,000 years worth of scholars, theologians, and scribes don’t have and that HE can put out the correct Bible. There are already more than enough translations in circulation, and they vary in degree of accuracy in word for word to thought for thought. The two most accurate translations are NASB and ESV, and those are translated from roughly 25,000 available manuscripts in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac,and Coptic.
Thanks for referencing Dr. E. Earle Ellis. I had the privilege of serving as his grader/assistant for a brief time as well as taking several courses from him.
As an atheist, this is mind blowing to me, to hear Christians refusing to accept the views of the scholarly consensus when it comes to this subject. Writing styles and various other means of determining whether the authors are the same play a part don't they. It's understandable that a believer would refuse to accept this tho. Intellectually dishonest also tho.
Atheists try not to make appeal to authority fallacy challenge. Let me tell you what you sound like. In a town, person A is suspected of murder. The consensus of detectives of the town thinks A is guilty. Therefore, A is guilty. Doesn't matter how much evidence you have against it, A is guilty. What happened to reviewing arguments and seeing if the reasons for claims are valid? I suppose you're just intellectually dishonest for not blindly following claims made by scholars.
11:40 yes in fact, that's exactly what a forger would do. for the record, I don't hold 1 & 2 Tim as forgeries but the rhetorical question at the above time stamp is a silly one. No, really. That was very silly.
@@tylerdipietrantonio711 well according to you, irrelevant details make a document more credible. If the forger used your logic, he'd opt for the more credible route exactly for the reasoning you gave. get it?
It would be interesting to see you do a video addressing the claims that gnostics make. It would be an understatement to say that their claims are strange and highly contrary to what the scriptures say.
You completely misstated McClellan's argument based on Greek vocabulary. McClellan was NOT arguing that the Pastoral Epistles couldn't have been written by Paul because they contain words that didn't exist while Paul was alive. His argument is it unlikely that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles because 1/3 of the vocabulary used in those epistles are NOT used in the other Pauline Epistles. Each of us has an active vocabulary made up of the words we are comfortable using. We are acquainted with the meanings and uses of other words, but they don't readily come to mind when we're describing an concept or expressing a thought. Paul was no different. The fact 1/3 of the words used in the Pastoral Epistles are words he didn't use in his other writings is strong evidence Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles. It's NOT proof positive Paul didn't write them, but it is very strong evidence he did not.
@@originalkwao3365 Please forgive my replying even though the discussion has been declared closed. You've misstated the merits of the type of word choice analysis to which I alluded. This type of analysis is widely accepted in academic circles, not just in Bible studies. Such studies are used for practical reason both in academia an in other areas. For example, suppose a new manuscript is found that was supposedly written by Jane Austin. A computerized word choice analysis could not prove Austin wrote the manuscript, but it could all-but eliminate her from being its author. Take another example from outside the academic world: The FBI used word choice analysis to identify the Unabomber. Ted Kaczynski had written a number of academic works. By comparing the word choice (and word order) of those works with the missives received by the Unabomber, the FBI was able to single out Kaczynski from all the other academic authors whose works the FBI had studied. That led to his arrest. These methods of analysis are used to determine the likely authorship of recently discovered manuscripts and to catch criminals. Applied to books of the New Testament, these methods tell us that it is highly unlikely Paul is the author of all the works attributed to him. Saying such studies are meaningless doesn't make it so, anymore than declaring the subject closed doesn't end the discussion.
@@DKWalser So the other books agreed by scholars as written by Paul which also has some words that are not found anywhere in other writings what do u say of such also, not only Paul but others like Luke, etc? Like the book of Galatian he talked about?
They're mostly all gay liberals that browse places like r/academicbible to get fed mainstream "sholarship" opinions from Rockefeller funded seminaries; if you argue with them you'll see they just view the bible as a purely human literary work to be used at convenience to advance social libralism.
@@notanemoproghe thing about Dan is that he won’t blatantly lie on a lot of his videos off-rip. What he WILL do, is routinely overstate his case, conveniently leave out the points that would weaken his arguments, and spin clever half-truths that he knows would be difficult to falsify. This video alone is proof.
Here before Dan McClellan overstates his case by appealing to consensus, flaunting his PhD and insults you. Don’t forget about calling all scholarship that is Christian “aPoLoGeTiCs” I (ironically) patiently wait for the day he actually does counters Christian scholarship with data. So much for data > dogma
thank you for your videos against Dan McClellan, I can't tell you how many of his fan boys just post his videos acting as though he's a infallible authority
10:54 Yeah, precisely the point. Philippians and Thessalonians allow the interpretation "or simply those that took the lead" - and that is exactly what the pastorals exclude.
Ellis needs to call it a "development" - if he had admitted that the directives given in Pastorals were always there from Pentecost, and therefore understood but left unstated in Philippians and Thessalonians, he'd have had to convert. So, what you are saying is, this "development" is kind of optional for Christians these days? That's where we Catholics believe _all of_ the Bible.
@@HarryNicNicholas "No evidence" Let's break that down a bit. 1: "NO" evidence. Incorrect. Objectively false. You just happen to not like, or disagree, with the evidence we have. 2: Based on your emphatic, and mildly ridiculous statement, its clear you're coming from a place of emotional significance. I suspect you want and need to be right for some personal reason. 3: These sorts of statements in my experience come from folks who have little invested into the question. While your emotional reaction is real, the details of this response is often inherited from someone else. Like how so many internet-atheists seem to run on the same tape. "Skydaddy" this, and "skydady" that. You would benefit from some of your own reading, and some of your own thinking. At the very least it will make you more interesting. 4: You are infantilizing a vast group of people, of which you do not know the vast majority. Your statements say very little about us, and quite a bit about you. Please try to be more humble in the future. You'll be better received, and you won't shame yourself in the process.
Sooo.. when these letters were written to different people, in different places, covering different matters, the fact that the contents are different is a sign that the same person didn't write them?
Can you rebut this guys other video where he claims that John 1 doesn't actually teach Jesus is god in the greek. It has been bothering me for a while. Thanks
@@TestifyApologetics amen here is ammo Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. “We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7). Hippolytus “The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]). Ignatius a.d. 30-107 Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV As it was said Psalms 45:6 Your throne, O God(אֱ֭לֹהִים)Elohim, is for ever and ever: the scepter of your kingdom is a right scepter. Psalms 45:7 You love righteousness, and hate wickedness: therefore God(אֱלֹהִ֣ים)Elohim your God((אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ)Elohim, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. Isaiah 48:15 I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. Isaiah 48:16 Come you near to me, hear you this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, has sent me. Isaiah 48:17 Thus said the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD your God which teaches you to profit, which leads you by the way that you should go.
Honestly this is going to get to the point where every single book of the Bible will be questioned if it was written by its claimed author. It's kind of annoying, great work as always.
@@HarryNicNicholas Dang that's rude. Anyway the Gospels are anonymous in the sense of the books themselves don't say who wrote them. But church history as well as second and third generation apostles as well as Church fathers attribute the works to these figures. Not to mention that all of them date back to less than a hundred years after Christs death. God didn't write the Gospels, or any book of the Bible for that matter. The Judeo-Christian definition for "word of God" is something completely different from the Muslim definition.
I always had doubts about about this guy Dan McClellan and he claims that he not atheist but a member of LDS . All of his (Dan) explanation are very much pro skeptic ,pro lgbt and pro left wing ( i am not a right wing). Thanks for providing a countering argument. All the time he says data does this or that.
11:30 this is painful to listen to. You think a forger somehow WOULDN'T want to include things that make the letters seem more authentic? Such as personal remarks etc? These forgers clearly do have the authentic Pauline epistles to work from, so they have a lot they can do here. I'm hoping we get to sentence construction at some point. A couple of the Pauline epistles have extremely lengthy initial sentences, which use Pauline vocabulary to an extent but which are hugely long, and totally out of keeping with the kind of short blunt sentences that characterise the authentic Paul.
Dan confuses me. He does do some great scholarly work and is clearly very smart, but it also seems like his representation of the data is under the presupposition that the text couldn’t be inspired? And then at other times it sounds like he’s trying to view the text through a Latter Day Saint lense. I don’t really know his stance on theism vs atheism or if he’d consider himself a Mormon or just a scholar, but I’d be curious to find out.
It's only us christians who have Bias uh? This sounds like Ad Hominem fallacy, i could accuse you to have a Bias too, and after that we Will be in a ping pong game that Will leave us in nowhere. In The case of Erik, i can say that he is Just a Man that wants to defend his Faith, i never watched a video that he includes political views in It, on The contrary of Dan Mcllellan, which IF you did not noted, he clearly have a leftist agenda in his objectives, Just see some of his videos, like the videos he made about women in The bible, you can see clearly feminist ideas in It, or when he SIMPLY forced a really bad interpretation of leviticus to tell that the bible does not condemmn homossexuality, but The texts say it clearly does, i can see clearly leftist ideas in Mcllellan apresentantions, It's not because i am a Christian, i can't see The same leftist agenda in some skeptic authors like Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Paula Fridkensen and Dale Allison. But The same agenda of Mcllellan i can see in schorlars like his orientantor Francesca being really feminist and with some absurd interpretations of the bible(yes i read some parts of her book, they are so garbage that i Just closed The book and did not finished), Candida Moss and Joel S Baden with the ideas that christianity is the white Men religion. Good schorlaship? Mcllellan in his books Just have views that are not very Common in schorlaship, like the texts of Genesis and The Exodus story were invented after The Babylonic exile, he say this Just for contributes with his views that in The ancient world YHWH was Just a pagan God, but this is not good at all, because even some skeptics says that the Exodus happened, and we have clearly evidence of egyptian influence in The text, he does not hold this view or Tells us about because Will Just destroy his objectives. And finally, Mcllellan a Christian? Ok, i Will try to not be The judge right here, but i can say with confidence that he is not Christian, in fact, he is probably an Atheist, because liberal theology like he does, is not christianity, is another religion, and do you think a Christian would Just make videos telling that the bible condones slavery, condemmns women, Trinity is not in The New testament, John 1 is not talking about Jesus being God, refutes some Christian videos about people telling evidence for Jesus Ressurection, Exodus and Moses are fiction, and more and more. Some of These views are Just so extreme, that not even many liberal schorlas hold, even if he holds this schorlaship, he could not be a Christian more, because some(or even all) of them are essential for The Christian Faith, and he does not only have these views, but also respond The Christians who tries to defend their Faith, that does not Just classify him as "non-christian", but also classify him as against Christian Faith. And again, this is not good schorlaship, because we have many authors who say The opposite of his ideas, including liberal authors, and with the fact that some of his ideas are absurd(like no trinity in The New testament) and in The majority of The videos he gives no good evidence for what is he talking about, we could easily classify his videos as Argumentum ad verecundiam. Plus, Dan Mcllellan likes youtubers like Paulogia, which is a youtuber who does Atheist content and counter apologetics, and he is a friend of Kipp Davis, which is SIMPLY The worst bible schorlar in RU-vid, because Kipp clearly have an Atheist ideology and he wants to people like AronRa analysis The bible. Conclusion: Dan Mcllellan is not a reliable schorlar, because he have clearly liberal ideas against The bible and a leftist agenda to promove, we can not Trust his analysis because The majority of them have The Argumentum ad verecundiam, and he does not provide any good evidence for what is he talking about. Sorry If i commited mistakes in my text, i am learning english right now. Good night.
@@TestifyApologetics The majority of scholars think they are, and the entire point of my video was to share what the scholarly consensus is, not to relitigate it. If you're presenting your own original research, by all means, publish it and let's see what the specialists in that field have to say. If you're just sharing observations that have already been in circulation among those specialists, and have already been responded to by critical scholars, they don't seem to have been incredibly convincing.
@maklelan Sure, and the primary point of my video wasn't so much to rebut you specifically (although you appear to agree with consensus) but to share that the arguments that have persuaded the scholarly consensus aren't particularly convincing and what has been said by others in response to them because people are not always getting that side of things. I am simply providing arguments and reasons why I and others don't find the forgery thesis convincing. Rather than pointing to consensus please feel free to let me know where I'm wrong. I worry that if we just point to consensus, it's a bit like pointing out that the entire field is just making the same mistakes or is using the same weak arguments, and it becomes a bit unhelpful.
@@TestifyApologetics But scholars have already responded to those arguments that you suggest identify "mistakes or weaknesses," and you didn't bother acknowledging, much less engaging, those responses. For instance, immediately after you cited arguments to the effect that the linguistic numbers don't problematize Pauline authorship, you quoted two sentences from Bart Ehrman, but ignored the sentence right before your quote, which pointed out that arguments about word usage have become quite refined over the last ninety years, and "in almost every study done, it is clear that the word usage of the Pastorals is different from that in Paul's other letters" (the footnote there is pretty revealing, too). So you didn't so much put a finger on a mistake as you did just cherry pick some arguments that supported your claims and ignore the many arguments that responded to and complicated those cherry-picked arguments. That's quite a misleading thing to do, but also a quite easy thing to explain. You are wholly committed to a dogma about authorship, and that's always going to bias your thinking, whether you want it to or not, and whether you are aware of it or not (as decades of research in the cognitive science of religion have demonstrated). Trying to reason with such dogmatic commitments is also a waste of time, though, and I have far better things to do. I hope you enjoy the fruits of your credibility enhancing displays.
Have you ever read Leonhard Euler's "A Defense of the Revelation"? I read it over the weekend (it is short) and found it to be one of the best/most concise defenses of Scripture. It is amazing how in some ways so little has changed in the last few hundred years. The "Freethinkers" in Euler's time sound exactly like the atheistic apologists today. Thought about this channel afterwards because it covers many of the same ideas you talk about here.
@@TestifyApologetics It is more of a philosophical defense, but it utterly solved any "problem" there could be with divine hiddenness (for me at least), amongst other things.
I mean, if we wanna get technical about it, it's quite possible that Paul didn't actually pen a good portion of his letters. And we only have the ones we have to look at, nevertheless the ones lost over time. Tertius penned the letter to the Romans, possibly because of Paul's age or eye sight. The letter to Galatians, Paul himself writes that he is using large letters, and he could have likely had someone scribe the rest. In his letters to the Corinthians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, Paul specifically writes "I, Paul, write this greeting..." and it could also imply that it is his 'signing off" on a letter that was scribed by Tertius, Timothy, Mark, Barnabas, or some other brother that was writing for him. But let's be honest, none of the people bringing up arguement ms about questioning the epistles of Paul, actually care if he wrote it or not or if they were written years after Paul by someone else entirely. They just want to hand wave repentance and faith in Jesus because they are too in love with their sinful hearts to bend the knee to the King. Weaklings. It's sort of cute, Watching all these modern day "Well ackshually" youtubers, try so hard with everything they can to find faults in ancient writings that have literal millennia of established church history. Like ants on the shoulders of an ancient giant, trying to scream into his ear.
I was once swayed by the "scholarly consensus" on issues like these, but they really are shockingly weak arguments in most cases. The "obviousness" that some pressume for Markan Priority and the inauthenticity of the long ending are the most frustrating, with this one as a distant third. I have searched for an actual compelling reason to be convinced on these issues and there's just nothing there but a paradigm and a bizarre stubburnness about it.
Maybe I’m being too reductionist, but it seems like part of the argument against the Pastorals is “these letters aren’t precisely uniform with the content of their predecessors, therefore fake!” Yes, because we all know the only way for a single person to write letters to different people with different needs/levels of understanding is to copy down the same exact things every time ad nauseam. I don’t know. Again, I’m reducing the argument to its simplest form, but I think it’s silly. 🤷♀️
All the points that McClellan brings up, taken collectively, are adequately convincing to indicate that Paul did not write the pastoral epistles. I hadn't even heard of such an accusation before this video of NT forgeries. I have another rabbit hole to go down with regards to my biblical studies.
Sure, go to my about page to contact me. I get a lot of emails so it may take some time. If it's not something within my lane (mostly historical reliability issues) I may have to refer you to someone else.
Hehe, early Christians believed... Marcion rejected... MARCION WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN HE WAS A GNOSTIC! Which is a syncretic dualistic religion and not Christianity. Lmao Also "all these scholars agree with me". Well you, if that just isn't an argument from authority! Just tell us their arguments! That's all that matters.
Don't Trust him, by The contrary of Dan Mcllellan, which IF you did not noted, he clearly have a leftist agenda in his objectives, Just see some of his videos, like the videos he made about women in The bible, you can see clearly feminist ideas in It, or when he SIMPLY forced a really bad interpretation of leviticus to tell that the bible does not condemmn homossexuality, but The texts say it clearly does, i can see clearly leftist ideas in Mcllellan apresentantions, It's not because i am a Christian, i can't see The same leftist agenda in some skeptic authors like Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Paula Fridkensen and Dale Allison. But The same agenda of Mcllellan i can see in schorlars like his orientantor Francesca being really feminist and with some absurd interpretations of the bible(yes i read some parts of her book, they are so garbage that i Just closed The book and did not finished), Candida Moss and Joel S Baden with the ideas that christianity is the white Men religion. Good schorlaship? Mcllellan in his books Just have views that are not very Common in schorlaship, like the texts of Genesis and The Exodus story were invented after The Babylonic exile, he say this Just for contributes with his views that in The ancient world YHWH was Just a pagan God, but this is not good at all, because even some skeptics says that the Exodus happened, and we have clearly evidence of egyptian influence in The text, he does not hold this view or Tells us about because Will Just destroy his objectives. And finally, Mcllellan a Christian? Ok, i Will try to not be The judge right here, but i can say with confidence that he is not Christian, in fact, he is probably an Atheist, because liberal theology like he does, is not christianity, is another religion, and do you think a Christian would Just make videos telling that the bible condones slavery, condemmns women, Trinity is not in The New testament, John 1 is not talking about Jesus being God, refutes some Christian videos about people telling evidence for Jesus Ressurection, Exodus and Moses are fiction, and more and more. Some of These views are Just so extreme, that not even many liberal schorlas hold, even if he holds this schorlaship, he could not be a Christian more, because some(or even all) of them are essential for The Christian Faith, and he does not only have these views, but also respond The Christians who tries to defend their Faith, that does not Just classify him as "non-christian", but also classify him as against Christian Faith. And again, this is not good schorlaship, because we have many authors who say The opposite of his ideas, including liberal authors, and with the fact that some of his ideas are absurd(like no trinity in The New testament) and in The majority of The videos he gives no good evidence for what is he talking about, we could easily classify his videos as Argumentum ad verecundiam. Plus, Dan Mcllellan likes youtubers like Paulogia, which is a youtuber who does Atheist content and counter apologetics, and he is a friend of Kipp Davis, which is SIMPLY The worst bible schorlar in RU-vid, because Kipp clearly have an Atheist ideology and he wants to people like AronRa analysis The bible. Conclusion: Dan Mcllellan is not a reliable schorlar, because he have clearly liberal ideas against The bible and a leftist agenda to promove, we can not Trust his analysis because The majority of them have The Argumentum ad verecundiam, and he does not provide any good evidence for what is he talking about.
These arguments sound a lot like someone saying, "We know the John Wick movies aren't Keanu Reeves movies, because none of the elements from the Matrix trilogy are present in them." Which is absurd, because we see him in the movies. The fact that they are different stories, in different genre's, accounts for the differences, despite having the same actor in the lead. The same guy can play both characters, because people can do different things in different contexts, and still be the same person. Paul writing to a beloved son, possibly with a different script writer (the amanuensis), is going to sound different than Paul the Apostle writing to a wayward church.
The guy really picked a random collection or Biblical text to call a forgery. Who even knew what the "pastoral epistles" were before this video? Great work Testify.
10:24 It's not just a question of Pastoral letters containing bishops and deacons. It's about them making admission to these ranks depend on acceptance by previous such. When David Bawden assembled an "emergency conclave" in 1990, there was no immediate plan for when and by whom anyone elected would be ordained bishop. A layman may be elected Pope or bishop of any other city (St. Ambrose was not even baptised when elected bishop of Milan, he received baptism, confirmation, episcopal consecration (including priestly ordination) on the same day. But if accepting, he has to accept to be consecrated bishop as soon as possible. As mentioned, no bishop was present at the emergency conclave - not even any lower clergy. If there had been any, he or one of them, would probably have been elected in priority over David Bawden. This means, it took bishops confronted with his claim to be the real Pope 21 years before two of them accepted to "impose hands on him" ... because of 1 Timothy 5:22. *Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.* This is a prooftext against the idea that people after the apostles and outside their immediate vicinity just need someone electing them to have an office. Or at least to exercise it. And that it's officeholders who do the imposition of hands, i e in this case not confirmation, but ordination, consecration. A bishop ordained by St. Timothy would have an episcopal lineage: himself - 1) back to St. Timothy - 2) back to St. Paul - 3) back to the "prophets and doctors," in Antioch, Acts 13 - 4 or 3) back to one of twelve apostles or including one of them if Simon Niger was Simon Peter - 5 or 4) back to Christ, before Ascension. The other direction of episcopal lineage is called apostolic succession. Do you see now, why Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy more than Philippians is a challenge to Protestantism?
Wow! I understand that you needed to explain why his reasons weren't very good. But did you really have to crush him into a fine powder like that? Really good stuff man!
Thanks! There are many ways, like becoming a channel member or sending a super thanks. Click the three dots next to the download button for super thanks, or look for the join button for monthly. It's on the left. You can also go to www.patreon.com/isjesusalive to be a monthly patron or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
@@HarryNicNicholas because I can. Because I don't live in a atheistic nation that kills people for doing so. Or do you wish to encroach on my liberties?
0:58 _"Marcion and Taitian probably rejected the Pastoral Epistles because they conflicted with their beliefs, not on historical grounds"_ Couldn't the same be said of the church fathers who endorsed certain gospels over others?
You can try to make that argument, but it's easy to show these other Gospels are later forgeries and the Gospels are written by knowledgeable, scrupulous people who were close to the facts. That topic makes up the majority of my videos.
@@TestifyApologetics Where exactly do the church fathers give "historical ground" arguments and evidence for the truth of the canonical gospels over the apocryphal ones? Or better yet, for the legitimacy of the Pastoral Epistles?
Marcion was not even a Christian, he was a Gnostic heretic. And our gospels and letters were already used by people like Policarp, who knew disciples of Jesus
@@joetaylor1976 It’s not ok cause it’s not true lol. Paul did indeed write Timothy along with all the other pastoral epistles, as hard as it is for you to accept
Wait, so did Paul teach that Jesus was coming back really soon (in his lifetime or shortly thereafter) or not? Because Jesus made it pretty clear he intended to come back really soon and establish the kingdom of God on earth within a generation, not 2000 years later. What is the consensus on Paul's stance regarding the immediacy of Christ's return?
That's false. The word "generation" can refer to a time frame of 30 years, but there are times when "generation" is used poetically to refer to a class of people. So Jesus said that the Jewish People would not pass away before the second coming. The Jews are still with us....
It’s also worth noting that the objections to Pauline authorship in modern circles arose among 19th century German scholars from Pietist backgrounds who were convinced Paul’s concept of holy orders/ordination was purely functional (despite him addressing the matter almost nowhere else in his writings), taking a skeptical eye to ecclesiastical authority of the sort Paul casually mentions Timothy and Titus have as members of the 1st century presbytero-episcopacy (the Pastorals were definitely written prior to the division between presbyterate and episcopate that emerged in the 2nd century given the equivocation between πρεσβυτερος and επισκοπος in Titus 1). It seems those among whom this skeptical 19th century trend developed had a vested (or should I say “unvested”) interest in rejecting any document which viewed holy orders/ordination as anything more than the functional view maintained in Lutheran Pietism. This is an observation the famed Oxford New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright has made in a number of his books about Paul, also noting that the Greek stylistic differences between even 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians are substantial, yet very few see this as grounds for arguing inauthenticity.
12:12 didn't know Paul's situation? What? They clearly had the Pauline epistles in front of them, and I bet they had Acts as well. That's as much as YOU know about Paul, despite much of it being fictional, so how could you tell the difference? As I said, it beggars belief that you're saying a forger wouldn't include details to make the forgery seem more realistic.
He's saying the opposite. He's saying that forger would have lined up the personal details with those found in Acts and Paul's letters, but he doesn't. The personal details in Timothy aren't taken from other letters (as you claim). For example, personal details in 2 Timothy include mentions of Onesiphorus, who is not mentioned in Acts or Paul's letters. Why would a forger try to make his letter sound more realistic by including people not mentioned elsewhere? If it beggars belief that a forger wouldn't include such details, then you've got a problem with Peter's letters. Sceptics often cite the lack of personal details as a reason to believe Peter is forged. You'd either need to find such details in Peter or concede that it's not beggars belief to omit them.
@@markwebb7576 I am understanding you now, however I've not been clear enough I don't think, because my point wasn't that a forger would make his work agree with the authentic epistles, my point was that the forger would make his work appear like the authentic epistles. There are a lot of issues with the authentic epistles, and it seems likely that they contain interpolations, the question is just how many and which verses are they. You may notice that Acts doesn't even seem to know that Paul wrote any letters, which seems weird actually if Paul's letters were known to the author of the book of Acts, being written fifty or a hundred years later than Paul was writing. It's a bit of a puzzle. And as I say, there are internal questions, if not problems. I'm not sure there is enough information in the epistles to actually reconstruct Paul's journey around the Mediterranean world, but Acts doesn't agree with any version you could reconstruct. This is partly explained by the fact that some epistles are missing and others are conflated. 1 Corinthians mentions a previous letter and 2 Corinthians seems to be a fragmentary compilation of two or three letters with very different tones. So maybe the forger, writing in the second century, with Acts and the epistles, reasoned that his letter should also contain some of the journey stuff, and some of the personal stuff, as well as the theology he wanted to include, and he did his best to make those details resemble the disjointed and fragmentary nature of the material he already had about Paul. The fact that we can still apparently have disagreement about it to this day, because the video is right, professional historians don't think these were written by Paul, is itself a testament to the fact that the forger did a good job. And if the argument is that the details don't make clear sense so they must be genuine, then I can't help but think a good forget would know to put in those kinds of unverifiable details to give more of a sense of authenticity.
It's only us christians who have Bias uh? This sounds like Ad Hominem fallacy, i could accuse you to have a Bias too, and after that we Will be in a ping pong game that Will leave us in nowhere. In The case of Erik, i can say that he is Just a Man that wants to defend his Faith, i never watched a video that he includes political views in It, on The contrary of Dan Mcllellan, which IF you did not noted, he clearly have a leftist agenda in his objectives, Just see some of his videos, like the videos he made about women in The bible, you can see clearly feminist ideas in It, or when he SIMPLY forced a really bad interpretation of leviticus to tell that the bible does not condemmn homossexuality, but The texts say it clearly does, i can see clearly leftist ideas in Mcllellan apresentantions, It's not because i am a Christian, i can't see The same leftist agenda in some skeptic authors like Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Paula Fridkensen and Dale Allison. But The same agenda of Mcllellan i can see in schorlars like his orientantor Francesca being really feminist and with some absurd interpretations of the bible(yes i read some parts of her book, they are so garbage that i Just closed The book and did not finished), Candida Moss and Joel S Baden with the ideas that christianity is the white Men religion. Good schorlaship? Mcllellan in his books Just have views that are not very Common in schorlaship, like the texts of Genesis and The Exodus story were invented after The Babylonic exile, he say this Just for contributes with his views that in The ancient world YHWH was Just a pagan God, but this is not good at all, because even some skeptics says that the Exodus happened, and we have clearly evidence of egyptian influence in The text, he does not hold this view or Tells us about because Will Just destroy his objectives. And finally, Mcllellan a Christian? Ok, i Will try to not be The judge right here, but i can say with confidence that he is not Christian, in fact, he is probably an Atheist, because liberal theology like he does, is not christianity, is another religion, and do you think a Christian would Just make videos telling that the bible condones slavery, condemmns women, Trinity is not in The New testament, John 1 is not talking about Jesus being God, refutes some Christian videos about people telling evidence for Jesus Ressurection, Exodus and Moses are fiction, and more and more. Some of These views are Just so extreme, that not even many liberal schorlas hold, even if he holds this schorlaship, he could not be a Christian more, because some(or even all) of them are essential for The Christian Faith, and he does not only have these views, but also respond The Christians who tries to defend their Faith, that does not Just classify him as "non-christian", but also classify him as against Christian Faith. And again, this is not good schorlaship, because we have many authors who say The opposite of his ideas, including liberal authors, and with the fact that some of his ideas are absurd(like no trinity in The New testament) and in The majority of The videos he gives no good evidence for what is he talking about, we could easily classify his videos as Argumentum ad verecundiam. Plus, Dan Mcllellan likes youtubers like Paulogia, which is a youtuber who does Atheist content and counter apologetics, and he is a friend of Kipp Davis, which is SIMPLY The worst bible schorlar in RU-vid, because Kipp clearly have an Atheist ideology and he wants to people like AronRa analysis The bible. Conclusion: Dan Mcllellan is not a reliable schorlar, because he have clearly liberal ideas against The bible and a leftist agenda to promove, we can not Trust his analysis because The majority of them have The Argumentum ad verecundiam, and he does not provide any good evidence for what is he talking about. Sorry If i commited mistakes in my text, i am learning english right now.
“There is no evidence this style of writing wasn’t used earlier” isn’t an argument. There is also no evidence that an invisible incorporeal all power elephant doesn’t live in your closet.
11:13 Douglas Tenyon Silver misses that the Pastorals do not just give directions about qualifications for office, they specify that the personal recipients, who got St. Paul's hands imposed on them, are the ones who impose hands and doing so apply the qualifications. Hence, the majority of Protestant scholars, being Liberal Protestants, more concerned with staying non-Catholic than with staying Christian, need to conclude that they weren't Pauline.
Meh, it's a puzzle for historians. But the epistles - and the gospels - are rife with references to the Exodus, Wanderings and Conquest; which never happened. Those tales are myths, as well as most of the characters in them. When did Abraham supposedly live? ~1900 BCE. Where was he supposedly from? "Ur of the Chaldees." Who were the Chaldees? The Chaldeans, who didn't exist until after 1,000 BCE and didn't rise to rule Ur until centuries later. It's the same with all the Patriarchs: relegated to myth. David may have existed but if so ruled over small villages, not a kingdom.
It's only us christians who have Bias uh? This sounds like Ad Hominem fallacy, i could accuse you to have a Bias too, and after that we Will be in a ping pong game that Will leave us in nowhere. In The case of Erik, i can say that he is Just a Man that wants to defend his Faith, i never watched a video that he includes political views in It, on The contrary of Dan Mcllellan, which IF you did not noted, he clearly have a leftist agenda in his objectives, Just see some of his videos, like the videos he made about women in The bible, you can see clearly feminist ideas in It, or when he SIMPLY forced a really bad interpretation of leviticus to tell that the bible does not condemmn homossexuality, but The texts say it clearly does, i can see clearly leftist ideas in Mcllellan apresentantions, It's not because i am a Christian, i can't see The same leftist agenda in some skeptic authors like Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Paula Fridkensen and Dale Allison. But The same agenda of Mcllellan i can see in schorlars like his orientantor Francesca being really feminist and with some absurd interpretations of the bible(yes i read some parts of her book, they are so garbage that i Just closed The book and did not finished), Candida Moss and Joel S Baden with the ideas that christianity is the white Men religion. Good schorlaship? Mcllellan in his books Just have views that are not very Common in schorlaship, like the texts of Genesis and The Exodus story were invented after The Babylonic exile, he say this Just for contributes with his views that in The ancient world YHWH was Just a pagan God, but this is not good at all, because even some skeptics says that the Exodus happened, and we have clearly evidence of egyptian influence in The text, he does not hold this view or Tells us about because Will Just destroy his objectives. And finally, Mcllellan a Christian? Ok, i Will try to not be The judge right here, but i can say with confidence that he is not Christian, in fact, he is probably an Atheist, because liberal theology like he does, is not christianity, is another religion, and do you think a Christian would Just make videos telling that the bible condones slavery, condemmns women, Trinity is not in The New testament, John 1 is not talking about Jesus being God, refutes some Christian videos about people telling evidence for Jesus Ressurection, Exodus and Moses are fiction, and more and more. Some of These views are Just so extreme, that not even many liberal schorlas hold, even if he holds this schorlaship, he could not be a Christian more, because some(or even all) of them are essential for The Christian Faith, and he does not only have these views, but also respond The Christians who tries to defend their Faith, that does not Just classify him as "non-christian", but also classify him as against Christian Faith. And again, this is not good schorlaship, because we have many authors who say The opposite of his ideas, including liberal authors, and with the fact that some of his ideas are absurd(like no trinity in The New testament) and in The majority of The videos he gives no good evidence for what is he talking about, we could easily classify his videos as Argumentum ad verecundiam. Plus, Dan Mcllellan likes youtubers like Paulogia, which is a youtuber who does Atheist content and counter apologetics, and he is a friend of Kipp Davis, which is SIMPLY The worst bible schorlar in RU-vid, because Kipp clearly have an Atheist ideology and he wants to people like AronRa analysis The bible. Conclusion: Dan Mcllellan is not a reliable schorlar, because he have clearly liberal ideas against The bible and a leftist agenda to promove, we can not Trust his analysis because The majority of them have The Argumentum ad verecundiam, and he does not provide any good evidence for what is he talking about. Sorry If i commited mistakes in my text, i am learning english right now. Good night.
Pretty sure the only one that came under _some_ doubt depending on who you talk to was the book of Hebrews. Most people i talk to still say Paul wrote it, but others aren't so sure But that's it.
@@TestifyApologetics "conservative scholarship or anything he deems as apologetics." You didn't need to say the same thing twice Erik. Late edit: By this I mean Dan dismisses any conservative scholar that disagrees with him as an apologist, not that all conservative scholars are actually apologists. Dan and I exchanged a few comments on another video where he said that the only people who disagree with the idea the Israelites practiced child sacrifice are "scholars with confessional commitments",
I’ll give you a lot of credit for your research and you make some good points. I still would generally agree with the scholarly consensus but at least you have given me food for thought. I follow Dan Mc and I’m going to see if he has responded to this.
Where did this guy Dan Mclellan come from lol. He just appeared out of nowhere and seems to be recycling the same half baked and trite arguments we hear from critical scholars all the time. Seems kind of sus. Almost like Tik Tok and RU-vid are intentionally heating his videos
DAN Mcllellan is leftist, here are some facts In The case of Erik, i can say that he is Just a Man that wants to defend his Faith, i never watched a video that he includes political views in It, on The contrary of Dan Mcllellan, which IF you did not noted, he clearly have a leftist agenda in his objectives, Just see some of his videos, like the videos he made about women in The bible, you can see clearly feminist ideas in It, or when he SIMPLY forced a really bad interpretation of leviticus to tell that the bible does not condemmn homossexuality, but The texts say it clearly does, i can see clearly leftist ideas in Mcllellan apresentantions, It's not because i am a Christian, i can't see The same leftist agenda in some skeptic authors like Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Paula Fridkensen and Dale Allison. But The same agenda of Mcllellan i can see in schorlars like his orientantor Francesca being really feminist and with some absurd interpretations of the bible(yes i read some parts of her book, they are so garbage that i Just closed The book and did not finished), Candida Moss and Joel S Baden with the ideas that christianity is the white Men religion. Good schorlaship? Mcllellan in his books Just have views that are not very Common in schorlaship, like the texts of Genesis and The Exodus story were invented after The Babylonic exile, he say this Just for contributes with his views that in The ancient world YHWH was Just a pagan God, but this is not good at all, because even some skeptics says that the Exodus happened, and we have clearly evidence of egyptian influence in The text, he does not hold this view or Tells us about because Will Just destroy his objectives. And finally, Mcllellan a Christian? Ok, i Will try to not be The judge right here, but i can say with confidence that he is not Christian, in fact, he is probably an Atheist, because liberal theology like he does, is not christianity, is another religion, and do you think a Christian would Just make videos telling that the bible condones slavery, condemmns women, Trinity is not in The New testament, John 1 is not talking about Jesus being God, refutes some Christian videos about people telling evidence for Jesus Ressurection, Exodus and Moses are fiction, and more and more. Some of These views are Just so extreme, that not even many liberal schorlas hold, even if he holds this schorlaship, he could not be a Christian more, because some(or even all) of them are essential for The Christian Faith, and he does not only have these views, but also respond The Christians who tries to defend their Faith, that does not Just classify him as "non-christian", but also classify him as against Christian Faith. And again, this is not good schorlaship, because we have many authors who say The opposite of his ideas, including liberal authors, and with the fact that some of his ideas are absurd(like no trinity in The New testament) and in The majority of The videos he gives no good evidence for what is he talking about, we could easily classify his videos as Argumentum ad verecundiam. Plus, Dan Mcllellan likes youtubers like Paulogia, which is a youtuber who does Atheist content and counter apologetics, and he is a friend of Kipp Davis, which is SIMPLY The worst bible schorlar in RU-vid, because Kipp clearly have an Atheist ideology and he wants to people like AronRa analysis The bible. Conclusion: Dan Mcllellan is not a reliable schorlar, because he have clearly liberal ideas against The bible and a leftist agenda to promove, we can not Trust his analysis because The majority of them have The Argumentum ad verecundiam, and he does not provide any good evidence for what is he talking about. Sorry If i commited mistakes in my text, i am learning english right now. Good night.
I can understand why uncertainty regarding Paul's authorship of books like 2 Thessalonians may arise, due to its seemingly unique teaching about the "Son of Lawlessness", but of all things, why question the Pastorals? They are just personal letters from one friend to another. Why would someone looking to write in the name of Paul come up with something like that in the first place? What would they hope to gain in forging a seemingly personal letter that is rather light on theology and doctrine?
Because Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes Luke's gospel verbatim, which would prove at least 3 gospels were written before 70 AD. That is non negotiable to certain secular academics.
In The case of Erik, i can say that he is Just a Man that wants to defend his Faith, i never watched a video that he includes political views in It, on The contrary of Dan Mcllellan, which IF you did not noted, he clearly have a leftist agenda in his objectives, Just see some of his videos, like the videos he made about women in The bible, you can see clearly feminist ideas in It, or when he SIMPLY forced a really bad interpretation of leviticus to tell that the bible does not condemmn homossexuality, but The texts say it clearly does, i can see clearly leftist ideas in Mcllellan apresentantions, It's not because i am a Christian, i can't see The same leftist agenda in some skeptic authors like Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Paula Fridkensen and Dale Allison. But The same agenda of Mcllellan i can see in schorlars like his orientantor Francesca being really feminist and with some absurd interpretations of the bible(yes i read some parts of her book, they are so garbage that i Just closed The book and did not finished), Candida Moss and Joel S Baden with the ideas that christianity is the white Men religion. Good schorlaship? Mcllellan in his books Just have views that are not very Common in schorlaship, like the texts of Genesis and The Exodus story were invented after The Babylonic exile, he say this Just for contributes with his views that in The ancient world YHWH was Just a pagan God, but this is not good at all, because even some skeptics says that the Exodus happened, and we have clearly evidence of egyptian influence in The text, he does not hold this view or Tells us about because Will Just destroy his objectives. And finally, Mcllellan a Christian? Ok, i Will try to not be The judge right here, but i can say with confidence that he is not Christian, in fact, he is probably an Atheist, because liberal theology like he does, is not christianity, is another religion, and do you think a Christian would Just make videos telling that the bible condones slavery, condemmns women, Trinity is not in The New testament, John 1 is not talking about Jesus being God, refutes some Christian videos about people telling evidence for Jesus Ressurection, Exodus and Moses are fiction, and more and more. Some of These views are Just so extreme, that not even many liberal schorlas hold, even if he holds this schorlaship, he could not be a Christian more, because some(or even all) of them are essential for The Christian Faith, and he does not only have these views, but also respond The Christians who tries to defend their Faith, that does not Just classify him as "non-christian", but also classify him as against Christian Faith. And again, this is not good schorlaship, because we have many authors who say The opposite of his ideas, including liberal authors, and with the fact that some of his ideas are absurd(like no trinity in The New testament) and in The majority of The videos he gives no good evidence for what is he talking about, we could easily classify his videos as Argumentum ad verecundiam. Plus, Dan Mcllellan likes youtubers like Paulogia, which is a youtuber who does Atheist content and counter apologetics, and he is a friend of Kipp Davis, which is SIMPLY The worst bible schorlar in RU-vid, because Kipp clearly have an Atheist ideology and he wants to people like AronRa analysis The bible. Conclusion: Dan Mcllellan is not a reliable schorlar, because he have clearly liberal ideas against The bible and a leftist agenda to promove, we can not Trust his analysis because The majority of them have The Argumentum ad verecundiam, and he does not provide any good evidence for what is he talking about. Sorry If i commited mistakes in my text, i am learning english right now. Good night.
Claiming that Marcion rejected the Pastoral Epistles on theological grounds is no different than claiming that Tertullian and other church fathers accepted them for the same reason. It's far from convincing. The question is really not "Is it at all possible that Paul also wrote the Pastoral Epistles?" The question is "Is it *most likely* that he did?" Sure, you can say that any one of the arguments against him writing the epistles isn't conclusive on its own, but when a dozen of them occur together...
All of these arguments against Pauline authorship seem to be grasping at straws. it baffles the mind that scholars could accept these arguments as convincing and yet reject all the undesigned coincidences, which to me are far more convincing clues to the authorship.
Thematic argument doesn't sit well with me. I didn't recognize my own work when it was plaigerised. I did a degree during covid and uploaded my essays. When I was asked to review a piece to improve it, I went online to find sources and found forum posts that I really enjoyed. I then realized it was word for word copied and pasted from one of my essays when I read over my work again. My writing style was completely different to what I was used to. I can only guess my essay was given out by the assessor to somebody perhaps as an example and they used it themselves. When concentrating or in the zone about a topic which is to be read aloud or judged by others you will write extremely differently compared to a letter to a friend. My essay used thesauruses, my wife proof read it, I changed the structure to flow. Its not "my writing style". I'm sure Paul would have done the same. Hes clearly a well educated scholar
Dan is an expert, but as an expert he has a bias toward Argumentum ad verecundiam and Argumentum ad populum -- where the population are his collection of acceptable scholars. And this argument is usually Dan's opinion as he does not have a survey or a poll of the vast majority of scholars. He just claims that the vast majority support his view. This is not to say that these alone make his conclusions wrong, but he relies on this stuff too much -- it is a short cut, lazy dismissal. Fortunately, he often follows up with additional details, but not always. And leading with those informal fallacies (for me) puts a bad cast on the rest of what he has to say afterward, like the conclusion is foregone before he even thinks about it because "everyone who is anyone just KNOWS" . He then sometimes compounds it by arguments from ignorance: "there is no evidence that X" so X is wrong. I prefer a separate analysis independent of what others say with the reliance on a lack of evidence only used as support either for not knowing at all or on the difference between a position with evidence vs a position with no evidence. (Those are hard to find so, its easier to just say "There is no support" or something like that). As for myself -- I almost prefer that none of the Pauline corpus was in the Bible. But of those missives that found their way in, I do not have a grudge against any in particular. I do not think the arguments against the pastorals are very good -- and I lean rather heavily on the personal references in those letters for my sense of their authenticity from Paul. But that does not automatically make them valid; I'm on the fence about Paul. I think Paul was a brave, noble and absolutely dedicated disciple of Christ. That goes a long way with me. But I have my doubts about his relationship to/leadership of the rest of the entity or organization begun by Jesus. I have even wondered if he was ultimately an apostate or something like it. I wonder how much the ascendancy of Paul in the text was due to the apostate and heretical anti-Jewish Marcion and his influence on canon. When Dan (or anyone else) relies upon Marcion as a witness on Paul, I don't feel I have been particularly well served. I even suppose it is Marcion's fanboy approach to Paul that began my questioning of Paul as a source for sound doctrine. I'm not anti-Paul, at least not yet, but I am anti-Marcion.
You are on the right trail. I seriously don't say that to sound condescending, no: you're very wise to ask the questions you're asking This rabbit hole goes very deep. Over the past five years I've come to a conclusion which would have all three branches of Christendom counting me heterodox. Regardless, my name means God is my Judge. And through this five-year process, Jesus has become my Teacher / Rabbi. And now things make sense. Including his warnings about false prophets and false Christs. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it. 'And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.' (Mark10:52) Anyway, your comment cheered me up. Follow Jesus.
In The case of Erik, i can say that he is Just a Man that wants to defend his Faith, i never watched a video that he includes political views in It, on The contrary of Dan Mcllellan, which IF you did not noted, he clearly have a leftist agenda in his objectives, Just see some of his videos, like the videos he made about women in The bible, you can see clearly feminist ideas in It, or when he SIMPLY forced a really bad interpretation of leviticus to tell that the bible does not condemmn homossexuality, but The texts say it clearly does, i can see clearly leftist ideas in Mcllellan apresentantions, It's not because i am a Christian, i can't see The same leftist agenda in some skeptic authors like Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Paula Fridkensen and Dale Allison. But The same agenda of Mcllellan i can see in schorlars like his orientantor Francesca being really feminist and with some absurd interpretations of the bible(yes i read some parts of her book, they are so garbage that i Just closed The book and did not finished), Candida Moss and Joel S Baden with the ideas that christianity is the white Men religion. Good schorlaship? Mcllellan in his books Just have views that are not very Common in schorlaship, like the texts of Genesis and The Exodus story were invented after The Babylonic exile, he say this Just for contributes with his views that in The ancient world YHWH was Just a pagan God, but this is not good at all, because even some skeptics says that the Exodus happened, and we have clearly evidence of egyptian influence in The text, he does not hold this view or Tells us about because Will Just destroy his objectives. And finally, Mcllellan a Christian? Ok, i Will try to not be The judge right here, but i can say with confidence that he is not Christian, in fact, he is probably an Atheist, because liberal theology like he does, is not christianity, is another religion, and do you think a Christian would Just make videos telling that the bible condones slavery, condemmns women, Trinity is not in The New testament, John 1 is not talking about Jesus being God, refutes some Christian videos about people telling evidence for Jesus Ressurection, Exodus and Moses are fiction, and more and more. Some of These views are Just so extreme, that not even many liberal schorlas hold, even if he holds this schorlaship, he could not be a Christian more, because some(or even all) of them are essential for The Christian Faith, and he does not only have these views, but also respond The Christians who tries to defend their Faith, that does not Just classify him as "non-christian", but also classify him as against Christian Faith. And again, this is not good schorlaship, because we have many authors who say The opposite of his ideas, including liberal authors, and with the fact that some of his ideas are absurd(like no trinity in The New testament) and in The majority of The videos he gives no good evidence for what is he talking about, we could easily classify his videos as Argumentum ad verecundiam. Plus, Dan Mcllellan likes youtubers like Paulogia, which is a youtuber who does Atheist content and counter apologetics, and he is a friend of Kipp Davis, which is SIMPLY The worst bible schorlar in RU-vid, because Kipp clearly have an Atheist ideology and he wants to people like AronRa analysis The bible. Conclusion: Dan Mcllellan is not a reliable schorlar, because he have clearly liberal ideas against The bible and a leftist agenda to promove, we can not Trust his analysis because The majority of them have The Argumentum ad verecundiam, and he does not provide any good evidence for what is he talking about. Sorry If i commited mistakes in my text, i am learning english right now. Good night. AQUI É BRASIL 🥊
