The Weird Reason Ehrman Thinks 2 Thessalonians is Forged 

It's not even "modern". All of Ehrman's ideas are taken from German scholars, some from the 19th century, like David Friedrich Strauß.

Sounds like a good description of most internet atheists these days….

Yeah, that is something I notice too. The skepticism is pushed so far that sometimes it is just silly. Some of the objections are just so out there that they become more incredible than the traditional claim.

Please look up Christian Prince 🤴 about 🤔 this non-believer

He’s the king of the “half truth” in that he only gives half the information (40000 variants in the NT, Jesus being bewildered and confused at the crucifixion in mark) and gives speculation to fill in the rest, when there are already legitimate answers to them (none of the variants touch doctrine, and most are meaningless, if you actually read the whole of mark and not just the crucifixion, Jesus clearly knows how and why he is going to die)

To add on to what you are saying, I would argue that it’s possible that he’s aware of other opposing views but just forgets and/or doesn’t spend much time questioning his own opinions. It’s a bit of cognitive dissonance of sorts. He certainly is smart but when you come to the subconscious conclusion that conservative views are almost always wrong(Which is easily possible given his background), people tend to not give them much thought. It’s also possible that he’s actively aware they exist but thinks they are so bad that it’s not worth mentioning. I’ve noticed it’s easy to find holes in everyone else’s arguments without ever questioning your own. Most people seem to assume their own position and only give it up when an extremely overwhelming amount of evidence is given.

@@chancylvania do you know any RU-vid account who specify to debunk Bart Ehrman?

@@andythecrimson8877 Mike Winger is a good one. He talk a lot about Ehrmans (bad) theories in his series on Mark. Of course you’re on a channel that does that consistently does that as well. And there’s others I can’t think of at the moment

Exactly! And the idea of the Day of the Lord coming “like a thief” found in 1 Thessalonians 5:2 could easily be sourced back to Jesus’ saying about “if the master of the house had known at what part of night the thief was coming” (Matthew 24:43). It is patently absurd to assume that the resemblances between Paul’s ethical and eschatological teachings and Jesus’ sayings have no direct or indirect connection. If the historical Jesus warned about signs preceding his sudden and unexpected coming, we can be almost sure Paul and the other NT authors would have reflected this in their writings as well. Also, bonus point: it is not a decided critical consensus that 2 Thessalonians is forged. Along with Colossians it is still very much open for debate in those circles. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous. This is coming from someone who follows the critical consensus on some topics as well.

And the other thing is, even if JESUS' return is preceded by signs, the fact is the vast majority of people will be completely oblivious to those signs. So His return truly will be like a thief in the night for them. Not to mention, even the wisest among us do not know the day or hour that the chain of events preceding His return will kick into motion.

@M.E-Martinez Because they start with the (unproven) assumption that nature is all there is! So even if you have multiple attestation of someone's life, death, and resurrection, they assume it is false. If you DON'T start with that assumption (neither belief for nor against supernaturalism) then it's far more likely that these stories are true. We're talking about ANCIENT documents. It may even be that there were many more early biographies of Jesus, but they were destroyed either on purpose (persecution), normal wear and tear, or an accident. The fact that we have FOUR biographies of Jesus PLUS all of the New Testament letters would have to be a miracle in itself if nothing special happened regarding Jesus. Something had to happen for a motive for preservation, and if you don't have an anti-supernatural bias, the most likely conclusion is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

I think it might be just you. Source criticism is a relatively new phenomenon with a long ways to go before its utility is fully realized. In part, because we have so many untranslated (or under-translated) manuscripts that will soon be rendered into plain English with the advent of AI-based natural language processing. There is much to be excited about in biblical academia these days.

@M.E-Martinez some of Bart’s objections are poor, but this comment made a generalized statement about all modern objections being poor which is simply ignorant of the current state of affairs.

Sells a ton of popular books 📚 and makes a lot of money off them also. This type of stuff is encouraged at universities.

I reject the position that 2 Thessalonians is forged precisely because it is not backed by the strength of the arguments for why the Pastorals likely are-namely: 1. Oddities in the contents such as 1 Timothy 2:7 (why, to all people, would Paul have to insist on the legitimacy of his ministry to the Gentiles to Timothy?), 2. A deviating eschatology suggesting the “last days” are to come in the future as opposed to being a present reality for Paul (1 Corinthians 10:11) 3. A highly uncharacteristic and questionable salutation at the beginning of all three letters (and these alone) that deviates from all the other legitimate letters of Paul, including the disputed ones like Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, and more. From where I stand, I see eight of Paul’s letters as being undoubtedly his, two that are open for further debate and examination, and three are almost certainly not by his hand or direct involvement (the Pastorals). Let anyone who desires to say their peace on this topic do so. I welcome the exchange of ideas and opinions.

@@ManoverSuperman I looked at 1 Corinthians 10:11, and I didn't see any particular eschatology implied, and certainly none was stated. The mention of the last age doesn't seem to imply any particular time at which this last age will end. Shortly after that verse, there were some other verses that were different enough that I'm sure they'd be claimed as a contradiction and not by the same author, if they weren't in the same paragraph of the same letter. I looked at the greetings of the pastorals, and most of the others, and there's a clear pattern in all of them: first, who it's from (generally Paul, in one of them it was Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy), second, who it's to, and third, a blessing. One or more of those lines is often inflated, sometimes vastly inflated, with some descriptive material. The only difference I could detect was that the blessing had peace, mercy, and grace in the pastorals, and peace and grace in the others. Especially compared to the wide variations in wording and length, this seems very, very minor. I don't agree that 1 Timothy 2:7 is as odd as you think it is, but I see what you're reacting to.

@@ancalagonyt Thanks for your reply, friend! I enjoyed reading through it and hope to start up a decent exchange on this topic! The reference in 1 Corinthians 10:11 does, I would argue, suggest that Paul believed that the last days were the times he and those in his days were living in. The author of Hebrews (1:2) likewise affirms a belief that he and his audience are living in the last days. Couple this verse with references like Romans 13:12 that use night and day as a metaphor for the current time and the time of the coming of Christ, and Paul can be read as having believed that the “dawn” was just down the road. As he also says in 1 Corinthians 7:29: “The appointed time has grown short.” I am not sure what the verses after 1 Corinthians 10:11 really do with the subject of Paul’s eschatological views to be honest with you. I agree some scholars jump the gun on claiming contradictions, but sometimes they are actually right. The reason why the different greetings in the Pastorals are such a big deal is that we have so many letters by Paul. Whether they are written early or late, in prison or in freedom, concerning a community or an individual primarily, they are always along the lines of: “Grace to you and peace from the God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The significance shines through most clearly when we consider the fact that these greeting tags are identical in the original Greek. Why Paul would just change it for Timothy and Titus is incredibly bizarre. Even other letters from Paul that scholars challenge like Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians get the greeting right. I would argue this is more of a red flag than many take it to be. We have such a great sampling of Paul that we can be confident that this greeting was unique for Paul and only truncated on a couple occasions (1 Thessalonians and Colossians). As for 1 Timothy 2:7, I would insist that this is extremely strange, given Paul and Timothy’s relationship. It seems much more likely to me that this is an example of the author using a well-established “Paulism” than that Paul had to assure Timothy that he was a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. In all the other instances of Paul’s letters where Paul vehemently affirms that he isn’t lying, it is always with a community or church that does not know him at all (Romans 9:1) or that has strayed from his teaching and example (Galatians 1:21 and 2 Corinthians 11:31). Timothy is surely the last person Paul would have to assure of the legitimacy of his ministry.

@@ManoverSuperman I appreciate the continued high quality of the conversation. If only every internet argument could be this polite, this specific, and this clear! The verses after the others in 1 Corinthians are 10:20-21 and 10:25-27. It doesn't have anything directly to do with Paul's eschatological views. However, if these verses, which are in the same letter and fit together with no problem, were found in two separate letters, scholars would claim with certainty that the same hand could not possibly have written both. I think this is a good example of the way scholars try to interpret things in a strained manner, thereby misunderstanding them, and I ran across it while looking up the verse you mentioned. I looked at the two shortened greetings you mentioned, as well as several other NT letters. It looks to me like the pattern is this: there is usually a blessing (though in one case it's just "greetings"), and there are usually 3 parts to the blessing, one of which is mercy. Paul's normal pattern is a usually word-for-word thing with 2 parts. But there are many exceptions from this. We have 13 Pauline letters, with 5 exceptions, which is almost half. I believe that the pastorals are, if genuine, normally dated after the close of Acts but before Paul's death. IIRC, none of the other letters are dated this late. So Paul at some point (perhaps after reading one or more of the other NT letters), could have decided to change his greeting style slightly. In addition, they're a special subgroup: written to ministers. James 3:1 says "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." Adding mercy to the blessing for people who would be judged more strictly would make sense. They're grouped together in time, and in audience, and either characteristic could explain the minor changes to the greeting. For 1 Timothy 2:7, he could well have expected Timothy to share this letter with the people he was teaching to be teachers. Or he could have mentioned it as something he always mentions when talking about this topic, not pausing to think about whether Timothy needed to hear this again. On the metaphor from Romans, you could read this as a straight light = good, dark = bad metaphor. In general, you keep pointing to verses saying we're living in the last days, and clearly they thought that and said that, but that doesn't mean that what they meant by "last days" was literally only a few literal days long. In Acts 2:17, Peter is making a speech at Pentecost, quoting scripture about the last days and applying it to that time. When Acts was written that was over 30 years ago, but that wasn't a problem. Yes they believed they were living in the last days, but they never do mention how long the last days are going to last.

@@ancalagonyt Thank you once again for your commendations and the polite response. It is too easy to become testy when addressing these kinds of matters dear to people’s hearts. I am glad to have come across someone like you who both appreciates discussions on these topics as well as one who is not exasperated by ideas contrary to conventional belief. From one follower of Christ to another, this is a great blessing. Now to the matter at hand: As for the passages you cited from 1 Corinthians chapter 10, I can see what you are saying, but the matter is much more complicated than that. Scholars do not suppose Paul did not write this or that epistle on the score that they address different issues and controversies, or even simply that they are addressed with different language in separate texts. The idea is more that, if Paul spoke of the current age he was living in as the last days, he would not speak of these last days as a time yet to come, but as a present reality, as we see in Acts 2 (Peter’s sermon) and Hebrews 1. The last days are, I agree, not literally a reference to a mere matter of days before Christ’s coming, but an historical epoch directly leading up to the glorious appearing. But the fact of the matter is that the NT authors mostly believed that epoch would be short and would culminate in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the subsequent coming of Christ from heaven. It is well accepted that Paul believed the second coming of Christ was an event he and his fellow believers would live to see. References in 1 Corinthians 7, 10, and 15, as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Philippians 1:6 all suggest this belief pretty strongly. References to the other general epistles and Revelation more than confirm this view for other NT authors as well. They did not see the last days or the end times as something yet to come in the future; they saw it as their present reality. The point is that the Pastorals (especially 1 Timothy 4:1 and 2 Timothy 3:1-5) speak of this time as yet to come. This is counter to Paul’s actual beliefs. I think you make a good point about straining one’s understanding in a text, and that is definitely something to watch out for. But when we can find reasonable disparities between what we know an author taught and what he allegedly taught from a different source, there is room for further examination. Now for the matter about the greetings: I am strictly speaking about Paul’s greetings and benedictions. The only letter in the NT to simply put “Greetings” is James (1:1). My argument is that we have so many letters of Paul represented in the NT that a considerable deviation from his usual opening benediction (“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”) bears an undeniable significance. I do not think his writing to ministers has anything to do with the change. After all, 1 Timothy and Titus suggest a situation in which Paul is not in prison at the moment, making it possible that they are understood to be written before Philippians and Philemon, when Paul was in prison in Rome. Two of the five exceptions you are mentioning merely involve truncated forms of Paul’s blessing, but which still retain the form verbatim. The radical deviation in the Pastorals is not accounted for by consideration of time, place or audience, in my view. The text of the letters are such that they do not suggest an immediate or necessary public reading. Unlike even Philemon, the three Pastorals are written as if to Timothy and Titus alone. Of course these letters would eventually gain a wider circulation, but they do not read as if they were originally intended to be shared orally in a community. They are unique among Paul’s writings as being purely personal correspondences in their address. As for Paul affirming the genuineness of his apostleship by maintaining that he was not lying each time he mentioned it, this does not bear out in the other letters. I assume this is what you meant when you wrote: “He could have mentioned it as something he always mentions when talking about this topic…” In fact, he does this again in 2 Timothy 2:11 without the addendum of not lying at all! Given that you and I both agree that whoever wrote one of the Pastorals was responsible for all three, this explanation simply does not work. Another example would be found in Ephesians 3:7 and Colossians 1:23b. When Paul says in Romans 13 that “the night is far gone; the day is near” this cannot simply be a metaphor for good and evil alone. There is a conscience reference to the span of the night that has past and the nearness of the Day. The metaphor is also used in 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 in direct connection to an eschatological passage (5:1-8). The last days, it is true, is not strictly a reference to literal days, but an epoch, the final epoch. It was commenced by the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost in Acts 2 and to be brought to a close with the coming of Christ very quickly after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which took place around 70 AD. None of Paul’s authentic texts reflects knowledge of the event that would bring human history to a close, and those that are questioned on this point are because they prolong the immediacy of the second coming of Christ that Paul repeatedly expresses his belief in. Passages like 2 Timothy 3:1-5 make it sound like Paul believed the end times were in the indeterminate future, but the authentic Paul believed he was living in them. None of the signs of moral degradation in verses 1 through 5 are any different than what Paul pointed out in Romans 1.

I like Jimmy. I'll check it out.

So why does not erman just come right out and explain that the reason why first and second thesalonians are in complete agreement is because Paul wrote both in short order and sequence.

@@tomasrocha6139 Huh. It seems, by that question, that you cede the other points. Go watch Testify take down several of Ehrman's claims. The very fact that he claims "Mark said Jesus' last words on the cross were X and John said Jesus' last word were Y" is a lie in and of itself. No, those are the last words Mark and John *record* him saying on the cross. A "scholar" should know better. Oh, and he does this *constantly*!

@@tomasrocha6139 Well, there were a bunch of people there at the crucifixion, and Mark's account was mostly a compilation of first hand accounts (a second hand account). But, as any good historian knows, you don't try to present *all* the evidence you have on a subject matter, you pick and choose, especially before the printing press. So Mark chose differently than John, because their purposes were different. Again, neither said that "his last words were X", and Ehrman was claiming that they both did, and they contradicted. That's a lie. And let's discuss Testify's "special pleading". Show me it, and we'll discuss it. Good luck with that...

@@tomasrocha6139 1. Ah, you skeptics are just so easy to disprove! I mean, a 5 second Google search will get you the following: "Irenaeus (c. 130-202) testified that Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter’s teaching." 2. *You* aren't the historian, and yet *you* have the gall to tell Mark what he should and shouldn't have included. Yes, the first sin was pride, but it looks to me like you've taken that all the way to hubris! But thank you for ceding literally every point I made in my initial comment. It makes me so glad we can agree on something!

@@tomasrocha6139 Well, considering that was one man's first hand account, the right hand man's first hand account, then you are wrong, there is evidence of it. And, as Mark was also at Gethsemane (the lad who ran away naked), that's 2 first hand accounts right there. "Actual historians cite their sources." Ah, but did they in the first century? No, not really. But, just like a skeptic to apply modern standards to historical sources ...but only when it comes to the Bible! Look, you have no chance here. Not because I'm great at arguing, but because you're wrong. The easiest way to win an argument is to be right. The easiest way to be right is to be willing to be proven wrong. You refuse to do the latter so you'll never get the former.

@@tomasrocha6139 Wow, so 3 historians cited sources? Out of how many? And, it seems none of them wrote before 90 AD! And yet, out of the Gospels, at least 2 were eyewitnesses, and John specifically said he was the source. So, again, the Gospels are doing better than the other historical documents from the period. And I didn't say Mark was at the crucifixion. Don't move the goalposts. You are right, the naked young man was never positively IDed as Mark, but we still know that's who it was! Do you really think Mark didn't speak to anyone other than Peter before he wrote his Gospel, he who hung out with Barnabas and Paul? You think he didn't talk to any other eyewitnesses? As Jesus said, if they (skeptics) don't believe the law and the prophets, they won't believe even if a man comes back from the dead!

Regardless, I am happy to see there are others who are sincerely interested in these topics! Keep reading and learning! The payoffs are worth it. I typically find the view that 1 Thessalonians precedes 2 Thessalonians more convincing; especially since 2 Thessalonians 2:1 seems to comment on the content of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 as a clarification for the church. But we cannot really know for sure. That, for me, is a part of the fun and a way to remind myself not to take everything too seriously all the time.

Because this theory is bizarre, so a spade is a spade. Why are you always so reflexively defensive of Ehrman?

@@TestifyApologetics You are making scholarly arguments when you cite scholars to argue your position. But then you wrap it up in click bait language. What is it you are trying to achieve? Is it to get a long list of comments thanking you for making your audience feel better about their beliefs and then celebrate by calling critics and their arguments cynical, dishonest, weak, debunked, charlatan, lies, deceits, obfuscation, and cherry picking. (All words found in just this one comment section). You engage scholarship, but use it in a way scholars don't. When you make an argument and then call scholars or arguments you disagree with bizarre or nonsensical, you're behaving no better than Richard Carrier. So while you can say I am reflexively (which means without thought, so thanks for that) defending Ehrman, I am just expressing my disappointment with how you are presenting yourself.

A ton of videos exist about Carrier.

Honestly, a big reason is perhaps because he's the guy who gets paraded around everywhere. A TV special about early Christianity? Get Bart Ehrman. Etc.

Your friendly neighborhood filthy protestant is thankful you found a home and have settled some of your doubts. Are you Ortho or Catholic?

@@TestifyApologetics Eastern Orthodox!

​@@TestifyApologetics I apologize to you for swearing at someone in the comments of one of your posts. This week. I am finding it absolutely non-credible that individuals such as Bart Ehrman are honest, unbiased, historians absent of an Agenda. And liars rally get under my skin and I go on the attack. Very very wrong, of course. Eric, your work on this channel is teaching me how to disagree powerfully without being disagreeable. Thank-you.

Btw I can see, doubting "consensus" and just many scholars and other many scholars. I don't have enough data about that. I understood it as consensus.

There are so many good scholarly arguments against the Forgery arguments as are they themselves. The Forgery arguments are most convincing to me, but I can see how others don't see these as convincing enough. But the way how you represent these are a bit unfair. I had hoped to get more arguments, better arguments against the Forgery, but instead I got more of a "Ha Ha Bart is stupid because I don't believe it" arguments with some scholarship basis (hyperbole). So much potential wasted in my eyes. Even using Bart Ehrman as a hook is fine to me, because he is a quite prominent figure to most. Wish you the best in your future videos.

I'm not really an Old Testament expert. I don't think I need to defend the slavery passages; I think IP did a good job discussing this in his videos and on his recent stream on Capturing Christianity with Josh Rasmussen.

@@TestifyApologetics I agree. I don’t really have a problem with it . Only worry I have is the constant criticism against the book of Daniel. I hope we get more archeological finding to prove them wrong

Just to be lighthearted?

Fruit is awesome.

I don't know. I just did a 2 hour stream responding to his last video on gospel authorship about a month ago, so unless there is something really worthwhile responding to, probably not. I think IP can probably handle it on his own. I would like to do some updated videos on Gospel authorship in the future, but only if it compliments what Faith Because Reason already put out earlier this year.

The rapture is an American invention

How? The preponderance of evidence from Paul’s letters makes its quite clear that he thought Jesus would come back in his time, provided he didn’t die from causes linked to persecution or some other natural occurrence first. This is a consistent theme across just about every NT text.

What does putting your full trust in Jesus mean? It sounds nice but how does it work? Can I quit my job and have full trust that Jesus will pay my bills?

​@@ryanrevland4333If He promises to pay your bills, then yeah

Putting full trust in Christ always generates good works

@@ryanrevland4333 Can you live forever on your own?

@@logicianbones Sure if you're a vampire. Or if you drink from the fountain of youth. But these stories are probably fictional. Eventually, we have to grow up and realize that living forever is a fantasy.

Wow I guess that settles it. How will I recover from this devastating strongly worded assertion?