The Pastoral Epistles Aren't Forgeries

13 letters in the New Testament claim to be written by the Apostle Paul. But some New Testament scholars like Bart Ehrman say that 6 of them are blatant forgeries, notably 1st and 2nd Timothy. This puts the Christians in an awkward spot, as forgery is…well… just another way to lie, which goes against the 9th Commandment. And that’s allegedly what we have in our New Testament: one big fat lie about who wrote the Pastoral epistles.
But if the critics’ arguments turn out to be weak sauce, then it’s not the New Testament that loses credibility but its detractors.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
More in-depth blog post: isjesusalive.com/is-bart-ehrm...
See also Chris Date, By Command of God Our Savior: A Defense of the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cg...
Kenneth Berding, Polycarp of Smyrna Tells Us Who He Thinks Wrote 1 & 2 Timothy: Apostolic Fathers #4, www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book...
William Paley, Horae Paulinae, archive.org/details/horaepaul...
Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts, amzn.to/3ecUFDi
Help support me: buymeacoffee.com/testify or / isjesusalive
Ehrman photo credit: Dan Sears, CC BY 4.0
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommons.org/licenses/...

[@thegodofalldragons]

"The letters to Titus and Timothy are forgeries?" "What makes you say that?" "Paul uses different words!" "...and?" "That's it, that's all I got." "..."

[@christian11111]

I think an interesting detail usually not discussed is that a fair number of letters from Paul, in his undisputed or the Pastorals letters, are clear responses to specific details or letters provided to Paul. This would result in changes in language and writing style as not only would Paul be responding to specific people or people groups, but he may also be using their language when responding to their specific questions. I think of it similar to when in school we had to respond to questions, and a simple method to respond was to restate the question and then respond. This results in the writer incorporating language that is not their own, and in turn using words or sentence structure that is not their own, in an attempt to restate the question posed.

[@AnglicanSE]

I was surprised by the quality and presentation of the video! There are plenty of people to talk; not to many know how to do it with style. I was very impressed with the video! Keep it up!

[@yonatangenene2037]

What a content dude, any recommendations on books about new testament reliability?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Here's a mix of beginner to intermediate level books: Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? Köstenberger and Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy Charles Hill, Who Chose the Gospels?

[@yonatangenene2037]

@@TestifyApologetics you're the brother I never had🌝

[@user-ym5is9zy4b]

@@yonatangenene2037 I should also add “more than a carpenter” and “evidence that demands a verdict” by Josh and Sean McDowell.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Lol

[@REDRAGON12345]

@@TestifyApologetics 'Reinventing Jesus' is another good one

[@Inari1987]

I use the word "faith" to refer to trust in Christ, and also to refer to my religious beliefs. (Note: I almost put "the faith" instead of "religious beliefs.") I used the term in both ways. I guess according to Bart Ehrman, someone else is forging some of my statements.

[@way2tehdawn]

He’s just desperate to justify his desire to do butt stuff.

[@indianasmith8152]

Great points all! I have never bought the idea that Paul was not the author of the Pastoral letters.

[@matthewnichol4619]

I'm just curious, is there any evidence for the reliability of Peter's Epistles? They share a level of dismissal among skeptics and I was wondering if you have any answer for their objections and/or positive evidence for their authorship and reliability. Either way this was a great video, thanks again my friend you're doing great work.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'd like to eventually do a video on the Petrine letters. I don't think the objections against 1 Peter are very good. 2 Peter is one of the tougher ones as even some of the early fathers didn't seem so sure about it. Might be a little while but stay tuned.

[@matthewnichol4619]

@@TestifyApologetics looking forward to it!

[@markhorton3994]

"Skeptics " by definition want the Bible to be false. Some of their objections need to be addressed, some are weak and some are lies like Bart Erhman's claim that the Gospels are anonymous.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@markhorton3994, they were anonymous and many modern scholars dismiss them as such but there is great evidence from the early church fathers. Testify has a good video, J. Warner Wallace has a great video but when you argue with hard headed atheists.....plant seeds and walk away...

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@markhorton3994, I get what you’re saying but we know there is evidence and we have faith to back it up. Dr. Paul Maier did a great lecture at the Veritas Forum and he admits that we can prove to about 80- 85% and the rest, faith...speaking of which, keep faithing and remember, it is an action word. Shalom

[@ryanhoward8694]

Yup. I’ve been saying for years that the case against Pauline authorship of all of the Pauline letters is extremely weak and uncompelling.

[@azophi]

I think 2 Timothy is probably a forgery…. It’s just the culture at that time . 1 Timothy maybe not idk

[@ryanhoward8694]

@@azophi Based on what evidence?

[@azophi]

@@ryanhoward8694 pretty much what Erik said. Different themes and reflect a different church culture . Also pseudonymous letters were common. To me the non-attribution to other sources is… argument from silence. Same as how Erik argues for the d arkness etc

[@JohnTorres1987]

@@ryanhoward8694are you a New Testament scholar? Have you studied the books in the original languages and read the from the older manuscripts? Or were you a Christian who accepted the Bible as inerrant and without contradiction first, and now no matter what anyone says or shows you or tells you to the contrary, you’ll never agree with it because of your belief in your religion and the Bible?

[@noahfletcher3019]

@@JohnTorres1987 Stupid line of questioning which can be turned back on you. Lets stop these braindead arguments in 2024

[@lesterchua2677]

Bart Erhman can only persuade people who don’t read their bibles. And there a whole multitude of them, some even go to church!

[@sonoftheking1977]

Thats the crazy part most people who don't read are the ones who lift their hands and praise at every Sunday service

[@sonoftheking1977]

@@user-hm4zx4tj5s thats not true. I didnt grow up Christian not was my family Christian but here I am serving the Lord Jesus Christ as a Christian.

[@sonoftheking1977]

@@user-hm4zx4tj5s So I believe the universe with all its complex details was created by an intelligent being. Just like anything else in the world right. A building has a builder and painter has a painter right? You don't have to prove to me that they do because common sense tells me that, I see things get created i never seen anything create itself. Thats my point of view. You on the other hand while never seeing anything create itself even the most simple thing believe that all of existence happened by random chance which scientifically and mathematically and logically is IMPOSSIBLE, and that life came from non life which of course goes against the law of biogenesis which is real science because it can best tested and proven using the scientific method. So my friend im using i didnt have to use the bible to make ur evolution theory and big bang theory look foolish i just used logic and science. So now my friend my question is if I'm brain washed what in the heck are you? A genius? If this is what a genius is then let me be a brainwashed fool.

[@theotokosappreciator7467]

@@user-hm4zx4tj5s no because atheism doesn't make sense lol

[@sonoftheking1977]

@@paulfell4962 Well actually even Bart Ehrman himself stated that the different styles of writing of pauls letters is probably not the best argument to use because people change their styles of writing all the time depending on WHO they are writing too. Some of his letters were personal to his spiritual sons like timothy amd Titus. And most were too churches so of course the style of writing would be different, thats just common sense its a weak argument, Bart used this argument in his book and in the very same book admitted it was the best argument. I suggest you watch testify he actually makes a video refuting that claim. Yeah I see your point maybe the arguments are simple but its also just common sense nothing comes into existence on its own, if we use that logic for everything in this world why don't we use it for the universe itself. I mean mathematically the universe could not be a universe of order that happened by random chance the odds are soooooooo improbable. So it goes back to what the guy who started this comment thread said Bart only convinces people who do not read their bibles. If I was writing a mother's day card to my mother and then I write a college essay and people read it they will see that the styles are quite different. By the way sorry for this whole paragraph, be safe and you're family.

[@garrettsanders4832]

Really good analysis. A couple things; 1. Don't assume Bart gives the best arguments for something in a short popular level book like Forgeries. He very often just gives his most simple arguments in his popular level books, not his best. You would have to interact with his larger book on Forgery and Counterforgery, or perhaps a non-Bart Ehrman commentary on Timothy. 2. I can't help but wonder if your information about Polycarp being the first church father to mention Timothy works both ways. That is fairly late. 110 AD? Supposedly Paul died around 64 CE? So that's 50-60 years later? Why aren't there earlier sources? Surely Clement or somebody? 3. The undesigned coincidences thing: Again, these example seem to work both ways. I mean, if somebody was going to the incredible trouble of trying to fake a letter into the accepted canon then don't you think they would have stooped to looking at the book of Acts (which both your coincidences come from) to find seemingly innocent references to make? Perhaps they even picked Timothy as the supposed author specifically because they thought he would be a good candidate for this. I mean, if they cared enough to fake a letter from Paul, they were probably SUPER into Paul's other letters and would have known them really well. Comment: I always think that apologists don't think criminally enough. They seem to suppose the best intentions and mentality for the 1st century Christians instead of looking at them as they truly were if indeed Christianity was just another human movement: a cult. They seem to imagine those 1st century people as similar to their fellow church-goers. But if they were indeed just another human cult, then you need to read up on human cults to truly understand how absolutely weird, dumb, and crazy, they would have been.

[@Pseudo-Jonathan]

" I can't help but wonder if your information about Polycarp being the first church father to mention Timothy works both ways. That is fairly late. 110 AD? Supposedly Paul died around 64 CE? So that's 50-60 years later? Why aren't there earlier sources? Surely Clement or somebody?" Felt I should respond this point. First of all, the vast majority of Christian literature from the early centuries is gone. So there may have been many Christians writing on the Pastorals, we just don't have them. Too Late? Polycarp was actually born in the 1st century and personally knew apostles and knew people that knew apostles. He has a very close connection to first century christianity and thus is actually in a great position to know whether Paul wrote the pastorals. " Why aren't there earlier sources? Surely Clement or somebody?" I already answered why there aren't earlier sources. 1 Clement is actually the earliest christian writing we have outside the new testament, typically dated to 95 AD, although a few scholars have dated in Pre 70. 1 Clement according to some scholars does allude to the pastoral epistles.

[@garrettsanders4832]

@@Pseudo-Jonathan Yeah, I've heard that later - that 1 Clement possibly does allude to the pastorals. Seems like that's a fairly obscure point at the moment - hope we see some clarity brought to that within the coming years. I do think it's fair to call Polycarp a late reference. Also, you have to get into the mindset of cult members and leaders if you truly want to be skeptical. You can't take everything Polycarp says just for granted. If the Early Church was not from God or even at least followed the trend of most human group, then everything they do is highly suspect. Also, just because Polycarp lumps 1 Timothy together with Pauline authorship doesn't show that he "knows" Paul was the other. Polycarp was born in 69 AD, and Paul died in 64. Also, would have been less than 12 when most of the apostles died. We really don't know with strong certainty when most of them died. FYI, I am a Christian - just one who believes in the most critical thinking possible for our most important beliefs.

[@leedza]

@@garrettsanders4832 PolyCarp's 69CE birthday is actually convient, it puts his life in the timeline of people who knew Paul personally, especially the current leaders who knew who were students of Paul and not a generation down the line. So you could argue that the genuineness of the authorship from Paul would still be widely recognised since these letters where likely being used for ministry as we would today. That's just another way to look at it. You have to understand that both Christians and skeptics have ulterior motives in proving or disproving genuineness of authorship. On one hand the Christians hinge their faith on the accounts being true on the other the skeptics have probably made their mind up on the faith and want to disprove as many claims as possible (else they are left with a moral dilemma if the claims hold). A good example is skeptics dating the Gospels from the destruction of the second temple in the 70s, this ignores internal evidence from Acts thats the Gospels could have competed by the 50s.

[@ianhumphreys658]

@@Pseudo-Jonathan " First of all, the vast majority of Christian literature from the early centuries is gone." And why is that? It used to be assumed that they were simply lost, but in a day and age where we are learning more and more about non-orthodox sects of Christianity and the wealth of variety in their beliefs, its clear that proto-orthodoxy had anything but an easy time of becoming the orthodox view in Christianity. It seems that the more we find from the truly early period,( because most of our 20,000 sources that apologists like to tote out come from the medieval period) the more variety we find. NOT a strict adherence to a non-existent orthodoxy. Once the orthodoxy was established, everything else was deemed heresy. For all we know, there was a myriad of letters decrying the credibility of Paul that were destroyed or simply not recorded, because once the orthodoxy was established everything outside was a heresy, and certainty not something that scribes would waste their time maintaining for centuries. Thats why scholars who have spent their life dedicated to consuming every bit of information that they can fid on a historical subject like this tend to use vague terms like "most likely" or "probably", because we have so so little to work with. What we do have to work is inherently orthodox-biased because of scribal traditions. The nag hammadi and the dead sea scrolls for instance put this on clear display.

[@harmonray2401]

One could get all caught & hung up in all the so called scholarly opinions. The only thing I understand from my relationship with the FATHER is HE can do all things. My faith knows that HE has the power to reveal HIS absolute truth & not for one second do I believe HE would put such a mystery as to "maybe it is or maybe it isn't". HE has the power to reveal the truth or an untruth. As a weak human compared to my Savior & FATHER I can trust that my BIBLE is the Word of GOD that is totally inspired by the Holy Spirit. We also know that Satan fully believes the Word but hates GOD, stepping outside the Word to determine whether it is right or wrong is exactly what Satan desires. I personally do not need or trust a scholar let alone a professor. If you need to go to school to learn of our GOD I think you have a problem and not a personal relationship. I know I know I'm as ignorant as all get out

[@JoshSketchShow]

Hello Testify! Been binging your work ever since I've entered a faith crisis. I need your help more than ever. Have you done a video like this on the authorship of something like James or 1 and 2 Peter? Love to know if you did, or plan to. Thank you and God Bless.

[@MultiMobCast]

Another great video, thank you my brother for helping strengthen my faith with your good teachings.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

For those of you who struggle with the Epistles of the Bible, Bart Ehrman says this: “Virtually all of the problems with what I've been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the composition of the early Christian writings.” I remember watching a Simpsons episode where Homer becomes a food critic and he is asked to write reviews for the food he eats, but he tries twice to write a review by himself but both attempts fail. Lisa volunteers to write and proof read for him (because most of the stuff that comes out of Homer’s mouth is nonsense) and he dictates his opinion to her, which she notes down. Hope that helps!

[@petarvasiljevic8764]

You're a Christian, right?

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

Yes.

[@SusRing]

Your point?

[@aperson4057]

The issue with this argument is that its ultimately ad hoc. We can only make the assumption that Paul uses secretaries but have no positive evidence he did. We can present it as a possible answer but not an ultimate answer to objections.

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

Actually Paul does use secretaries and his letters actual say this. See Romans 16:22

[@kamiljan1131]

Here from deflate, thank you sir!

[@LightKnight_Age_Of]

To write a letter in Paul's name doesn't mean it's a "forgery". That's looking to the past with our contemporary eyes. Ancient litterature allowed this a lot more and easier than us; the concept of authorship was much looser and less important.

[@ortegafilms4575]

Someone from Tiktok recommended this channel, and I have to say, your content is great 👍

[@TestifyApologetics]

Really? Who? I'm not on Tik tok. I'm too much of an oldhead, I guess.

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

ME!!!! 😃😃😃

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks!

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

No problem

[@ortegafilms4575]

@@TestifyApologetics idk who it was lol, i dont remember if it was that dude tbh.

[@stevej71393]

It honestly makes me wonder why Ehrman is taken so seriously when his arguments seem to fly in the face of common sense. I'd love to see someone apply the same textual criticism Ehrman uses on his own books and recordings. The conclusion would probably be that 75% of his books are blatant forgeries.

[@gerryquinn5578]

Confirmation bias affects many NT scholars.

[@leedza]

The same is true for skeptics. The occupy the opposing end of the spectrum. This understandable in NT scholars have invested faith in the claims of authenticity being true, while skeptics have made their minds up on the faith however probably will be left a moral dilemma if the claims hold.

[@edwardkennedy9618]

Bro do you have any idea of writing a book about these topics ? I've already read Pitre book "the case for Jesus" If you too write a book in future I'll definitely buy a book.. I'm sure it would be helpful for many Christians to refute Bart Ehrman's objection..

[@TestifyApologetics]

The link in the description points to a paper for more details on the authorship of the pastoral letters. Also Lydia McGrew's book Hidden in Plain View or William Paley's Horae Paulinae.

[@servantoftheadonaithelord8255]

Hello bro.I am currently studying the New Testament and the trinity but I am doubting the Pauline and patrol epistles except Romans,Galatians,Philemons,Corinthians and etc..I am doubting most of the pastoral epistles especially the book of Hebrews.I am currently reading cold case Christianity and unseen realm.I know the gospels and acts are inspired and authentic but I have doubts and problems on other books like book of Hebrews,Timothy,Titus,Jude,John,Peter,James and revelations. I want a quick case and evidence not to doubt the Pauline and patrol epistles. Can we trust our New Testament cannon while there are many cannons. Can you help me with the nt letters authenticity and inspiration. Can you help me with the nt letters authenticity and inspiration. Are they written by apostles and are they inspired.Are they seen as scriptures.God bless you.

[@alsariares3910]

I agree with this statement. Because just a single mistake or jot it's a lie. Just as Jesus mentioned in the bible. Logical contradictions doesn't exist in realm. But in the Bible even to what you are presenting verses doesn't even jive to one another. How is that be? They don't even agree to one another (synoptic gospels: Matthew Mark Luke) its clearly a contradictions bro. I believe you will agree too. Because i believe this new testament has been manufactured, modified, crafted, manipulated or forged by one person. No doubt it's Paul.

[@whoislikegod3812]

Hey bro, if you're still struggling with this I wanted to offer a framework I believe God gave me to understand these things and not trip over them like I used to. Based on the abundance of internal and external evidence I think all the writings are authentic. But even if they weren't written by Paul or Peter it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit's inspiration. We can get to the Lord and his Resurrection without any of the disputed letters and so in the very real and very alive Messiah we can trust his promise of preservation of the church and that the messianic/apostolic writings written were intended for the church in the operation of the New Covenant. Here's another interesting layer is when looking Hebraically we see the question of authorship does not determine inspiration. The Book of Enoch is a great example. It most probably wasn't written by the ancient one but has ideas and concepts vindicated as objectively true by the Resurrection because we see them in the New Testament. There's plenty more Second Temple stuff in the NT where the same logic can be applied. It seems clear writing in the name or narrative of someone was honorific to the Israelites. So to say the disputed epistles were written by someone other than an apostle (which again I DO NOT think) is not a problem against the standard of the Hebraic culture/backdrop Christ and the apostles came from. Some church fathers like Origen even seem to have a reckoning of this nuance - authorship and inspiration - at least with the Book of Hebrews. May YHWH bless

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

Hi, pardon the intrusion. 1st Timothy, Titus, (pseudepigrapha), Hebrews (anonymous),2nd Peter, Jude (pseudepigragha) James (practically anonymous, no evidence as the son of Joseph and Mary) Revelations (John of Patmos is not the Apostle John) 2nd John and 3rd John (the Elder) Many canons existed before the Nicean Council.

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

1st Timothy and Titus 2nd Peter and Jude, (pseudepigrapha), Hebrews, James, 2nd John, 3rd John (falsely assigned) Revelations (John of Patmos is not The Apostle John)

[@hadmiar8]

One of the issues I have with the so-called idiosyncratic vocabulary is that many New Testament scholars allow the "hapax legomena" (words used only once in a body of work) to appear in more than one of the "disputed" letters as long as they don't occur in the "undisputed" letters. That's blatant question begging, especially when whether or not we should be treating the Pastorals as "disputed" is precisely what is in question.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Luke Timothy Johnson and Bruce Metzger give a strong case, for Pauline authorship.

[@DesGardius-me7gf]

Bart Ehrman has become an apologetic punching bag.

[@CJFCarlsson]

This work was going on in a number of places with apostles having to tend to congregations they had set up in the south and east and I find it strange that we have only western trace. Was there an eat this message after reading that Paul failed to add?

[@alsariares3910]

Everything you've shared verses were from Paul scriptures not from your master Jesus. Between Paul at the apostles, I'll must believe Jesus apostles or followers not Pauls sayings

[@walterclaycooke]

Would make a much more interesting video if you invited Erhman to appeared on your show, discussed these matters with him and provided him an opportunity to respond to your analysis.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Ehrman charges $1000 for an hour of his time unless he's promoting a new course, so unless you're gonna start a GoFundMe, it's probably not going to happen. (No I'm not making this up, I have the receipts)

[@minizimi3790]

There’s a solid debate between James White and Bart Erhman on the historical reliability of the scriptures. Definitely give it a listen.

[@Mike00513]

Wait if you say these three are what Bart thinks is the strongest, how come you said he admitted the first objection isn’t very strong? Great video btw!

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm just guessing he is sharing these because he feels that, taken together, they make his case even if one of the links in the chain isn't great.

[@Mike00513]

@@TestifyApologetics, Oh ok

[@TestifyApologetics]

There are other arguments he is aware of but for space includes these, I'd imagine

[@Mike00513]

@@TestifyApologetics, Ok. Yea I was just asking because I though you “contradicted” yourself.

[@TestifyApologetics]

No, good feedback I could've phrased it better

[@SlavicUA]

I like your videos, brother! May the Lord continue to bless you with knowledge, wisdom, and discernment as you grow in Him, through the Holy Spirit!

[@NormBaker.]

There is a palm size piece of the gospel of Mark that is part of the dead sea scroll collection. Considered to be from 50 AD. Why they have never released it is beyond me. I know of two people that have seen it.

[@petarvasiljevic8764]

What?

[@fluffysheap]

There's no New Testament material in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The purported scraps of Mark are fakes.

[@hamsarris8341]

Do you think 2nd peter is a forgery? I've read a lot on it, and I don't think it is, but if you don't either, have you made a video on it?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I don't think it is. I'd like to do a video on the Petrine letters someday.

[@hamsarris8341]

@@TestifyApologetics 👍

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@mrtruth5952 where did I say anything about inspiration in the video?

[@Player5v]

In the Titus claim, the verse before it is specifically referring to a body of work that has been taught and should be used as a doctrine to convince others. Yet in the other three examples are in a completely different context and the author is specifically referring to the death of Jesus Christus.

[@BanazirGalpsi1968]

How do we know that the books ascribed to bart erhnan aren't forgeries or Ghost written?

[@jansongunn4214]

Erik this is superb👍

[@JohnTorres1987]

There are WAY more forgeries in the name of Paul, Peter, and other disciples/apostles than there are undisputed works of them. There are at least two dozen gospels that are considered forgeries. All of these were written in antiquity. So people were definitely making forgeries using Paul’s name. And Peter’s. Thomas’s. Etc. Do you REALLY think that a bunch of guys in the 4th century got every one of the books of the New Testament right with limited knowledge of writing style and other hallmarks that help indicate who probably wrote it? Do you think there were other works written by apostles or that should’ve been canon that were lost? Paul mentions a few letters that are lost to time. Would they have been canon? Is there a reason why the shepherd of hermas, the apocalypse of moses, book of Enoch 1-3, etc. aren’t canon? Would the previous works that most likely existed that the author of Mark used to write his gospel be canon? Last question: how do you know that the people they said were the authors of the 4 gospels are the authors when they are all anonymous?

[@huntclanhunt9697]

There is a reason those are not canon: we have less evidence for who wrote them, and we don't have any other references to them or mention of them until centuries after they were allegedly written.

[@Bad_Llama]

This comment shows you need to read the works of the church fathers. The canon existed before the 4th century; the canonical lists merely recognized what everyone already agreed on.

[@JohnTorres1987]

@@Bad_Llama then why is the canon different in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches? Not all of the books were considered canon by all groups of Christians in the 2nd or even the 3rd century. The canon was still fluid.

[@eddardgreybeard]

Forgeries suggests 1 of 2 things: 1) it is a work attributed to someone of whom the work doesn't actually belong - The kicker here is the handwriting is forged, so someone has to be very skilled in the penmenship of the author in question. 2) the entire work in of itself is a forgery, as in not an original copy. Most of the time I feel people use forgery incorrectly. For this work to not be of Paul, someone would have to know Paul's original handwriting. And if it is known that Paul has a habit of dictating letters that someone else writes for him, well... That answers a lot of questions in of itself.

[@__.Sara.__]

Among Us reference vat the end! My daughter and I love to play that 🤩 This comment has nothing to do with the excellent content of this video, got too excited about the impostor reference 😂

[@noobitronius]

Just discovered your channel. Awesome stuff, We need more people to stand up to the misinformation spread by the likes of Ehrman and Paulogia.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks. Paulogia makes me audibly shout "no!" at my computer screen a lot. Lol.

[@Vinnymanvinny1]

I didn't like them either at first. Well I have found Paulogia to actually be pretty accurate in his information unfortunately 😢

[@lostfan5054]

Has Dr. Ehrman acknowledged this material at all? I'm curious how he'd react.

[@MrSorbias]

That's really good video. I recently encountered this argument and I know it's not true, but this video gives more light to the evidenced why.

[@Menzobarrenza]

This is some high-quality stuff! :D

[@chrisazure1624]

Do ya think Paul's vocabulary influenced the 2nd century writers as his letters were circulated?

[@westleybenson1188]

That's a great question!

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

1st Timothy and Titus are forgeries. It is called 'pseudepigrapha'. 2nd Peter and Jude is pseudepigrapha. Several insertions in 1st Corinthians and two small insertions in Ephesians. 2nd Thessalonians and possibly 1st Thessalonians, too. John of Patmos is not the Apostle John. Martin Luther did not accept James. No one knows who wrote Hebrews. Josh McDowell found the verification of the midday darkness when Jesus was crucified. An ancient astronomer said that it was not a total solar eclipse. We Christians should insist upon the detection of the pseudepigraphal writings.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Did you have anything to address the argument I made?

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

I arrived at my opinion independently over a decade ago. I am new to the Internet. I did not know that others had reached the same opinion long before I did. I don't know how Google matched us so that your video popped up. If Christians would address pseudepigrapha, then there will be fewer atheists such as Bart Erhman. Because there is something BIGGER AND BADDER than pseudepigrapha. It is the BUDDHA-fication of Jesus by the Messianic Essenes and Messianic Therapeutae that we read in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

[@jabodetabek1337]

@@JohnRoach-jn4dg what is your evidence of pseudepigrapha

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

@@jabodetabek1337 1st Timothy 2:11-15 is a complete message. Verses 13-15 is NOT SUPPORTED ELSEWHERE in Pauline writings nor anywhere else EXCEPT in ancient Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. 1st Timothy 5:21 ". . . and the elect angels. . ." is NOT SUPPORTED ELSEWHERE except maybe the Book of Enoch. Therefore, the church offices are suspect, and then Titus is suspect also, being a shortened version of 1st Timothy with the same church offices. If the Apostle Paul NEVER SUPPORTED organized religion, but instead preach the message of the 2nd chapter of Romans, then the Apostle Paul did not travel to 'plant churches' as is popularly believed and taught. 1st Corinthians 11: 3-16 is inserted by as a forgery. 1st Corinthians 7: 14 is inserted as an forgery and the accompanying verses also. Ephesians 5: 22-24 especially v.23 is inserted as a forgery. These forgers seem to support organized religion, too. (Clement of Rome supported organized religion) These forgeries are from prevalent culture of the dysfunctional Greek society which the philosopher Aristotle championed. The suspected forgery of the Thessalonian letters deal with concepts such as the Rapture and the Second Advent of the Christ. The Apostle Paul never addressed these concepts elsewhere. For a good reason. The Rapture, the Last Days, and the Second Advent were never ENDORSED by the Apostle Paul. Let me repeat that the midday darkness is validated as a TRUE EVENT. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah. The vacant tomb can be accepted because the enemies of The Cross never contested it. Instead, wild stories of Jesus surviving the crucifixion or that a substitute died on the cross, Personally, I can accept that the High Priest posted armed men to guard the tomb 24/7 to prevent 'grave robbers' from stealing the corpse of Jesus and claiming that Jesus was resurrected. And the enemies of The Cross present a similar narrative that the armed guard were bribed. Having said that, 90% of the gospels were fabricated. The Christmas story is fabricated. Jesus of Nazareth emerged as an anonymous historical person. He emerged as a protege of John the Baptist. The teachings of the Second Advent is fabricated, hence the forgery of the letters to the Thessalonians

[@jabodetabek1337]

@@JohnRoach-jn4dg I would ask, what is your background in religion, are you apart of a religion or an anti-theist, and it seems your point to put it simply. is the concept of organized religion is not found in any of the scripture?

[@darkknightsds]

Are you seriously trying to break down the language of the New Testament using an English translation? Lol. That's some weak apologetics.

[@Bad_Llama]

By Ehrman’s own argument, the books in his name to the popular audience could not have been written by him because he speaks differently in his scholarly work, not just because they are technical in content but because scholars won’t let him misrepresent the data the way popular audiences would.

[@BurnBird1]

"scholars won’t let him misrepresent the data" You do realize that the majority of scholars agree with Ehrman, right? You and Testify are the odds one out here, rejecting the scholarly consensus.

[@j.victor]

Can you make a video defending the resurrection? It will be AMAZING!

[@TestifyApologetics]

The next two videos most likely will be, since Easter is coming. I don't want to cover the same arguments you can find in a lot of places, I'd like to contribute something different.

[@j.victor]

@@TestifyApologetics It's good to address the objections that only two people see the risen Jesus.

[@TestifyApologetics]

If the Gospels are reliable, and I've been arguing that they are, then that is patently false. Paulogia's argument is just bad but it does highlight a pitfall of the minimal facts approach.

[@j.victor]

@@TestifyApologetics Oh, my... I like the minimal facts argument. My "defense" of the gospels is only those of William Paley. I like the minimal facts argument because it is a very practical way to show the evidences.

[@j.victor]

@@TestifyApologetics As Mike Licona, I think that the gospels are "possible" as sources containing material about the resurrection. One thing that a lot of people don't think about: If the resurrection is so important for early christians, why the gospels don't talk more about it (I mean, only one or two chapters about it)?

[@nicholaswheeler507]

You earned a patron. Keep up the scholarship.

[@hadmiar8]

I also noticed that most of the disputed Pauline Epistles are ones Paul probably wrote from prison. Perhaps he gave his secretaries more editorial freedom before sending these out?

[@solomonpierrejohnson1046]

🤣👀🤣

[@solomonpierrejohnson1046]

@@bryanthomas4907 that's disrespectful

[@douglasgorden3843]

From what I can see, the consensus of scholars agree that the letters were forged. The reasons for not believing that Paul is the author are based partly on the letters' style and vocabulary, which are quite different from what we find in the older letters that Paul wrote. The theological conceptions that Paul used so frequently are absent, but the major reason why some scholars believe that Paul did not write these letters is that the ecclesiastical order that these letters presuppose did not exist in Paul's day.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I thought those points in the video, and they are further elaborated on in the paper in the description.

[@BrotherInChristDK]

@Aaron Ausmus no lol

[@absofjelly]

And If 2nd Timothy was based on Acts? What then?

[@blacktuesdayfilms8636]

Have you ever read any of randolph e richards stuff on letter writing? It's pretty interesting and could address several issues.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I have not, I'll have to look that up. How specifically does he address it?

[@blacktuesdayfilms8636]

@@TestifyApologetics If you have ever watched IP's video on this it's quite similar. he talks about the use of secretaries in the new testament world, and how writing occurred in ancient cultures.

Excellent video

[@Cre8tvMG]

So what are the odds that the rich vocabulary of the epistles of highly educated Paul, becoming known as inspired by God, would affect the vocabulary of Christians a century later, after they had been reading those epistles for years? Um, about 100%...

[@143MyPearl]

The best thing you said in the whole video was at the very end and I totally agree. We all need to think for ourselves.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

What about 2 Peter 😖? Thanks for the video God bless!

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'd like to eventually get to all the disputed letters, stay tuned. 2 Peter is probably one of the toughest.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@TestifyApologetics thanks, ur channel is great!

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

2nd Peter is pseudepigrapha and is linked to Jude which is pseudepigrapha also

[@nevermind824]

Erman has most likely dug himself a hole. Writing as a believing professor he didnt sell too many books. Writing a skeptical book he got a lot of attention from the new atheists. Its hard to turn away from that. If he writes more and more skeptical books and "renounces" his faith he gets even more attention Hes trapped

[@skulled_philosophy5835]

🔥🔥🔥🔥 Bart Ehrman is a better skeptical scholar than most, but he grasps at straws just to keep Christianity from getting to him.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I don't pretend to know his motives but his writings strengthen my faith because if his arguments are the best his side has to offer, then well..

[@JaxBespoked]

He's more an advocate than a scholar these days.

[@eogh]

@@TestifyApologetics Well you are reading his popular work not his scholarly work so you are not tackling his best arguments and by "his" I mean the entire academic historic school. A common trope is for apologists to say "ignore scholarship because they don't account for prophecy" in popular works, maybe? In academic works they do, it just doesn't hold much water. For example was it prophecy that Jospeh Smith predicted the civil war? No it was obvious it was going to happen. So too with the fall of Jerusalem. Anyway good video.

[@JohnTorres1987]

Peter most probably didn’t write Second Peter. It was probably written way after he was dead and the same person didn’t write the first and second one. Almost every scholar says this except people that think if there is a mistake, error, contradiction, lie, etc. in the Bible then it can’t be from god and since they already believe it is from god, they think that the book had to be written by Peter regardless what the scholarship says. This is as bad as young earth creationists saying that all life was created and lived at the same time since the world was created in 6 days and the universe is only 6000 years old. No matter all of the evidence to the contrary, they won’t accept any of it because it would make the Bible wrong to them. Since they already believe the Bible can’t be wrong, they just decide anything science says has to be wrong and won’t accept any evidence that disagrees with their beliefs.

[@TestifyApologetics]

you just shotgunned out like 7 different arguments, most of which are merely assertions without support. Feel free to comment here, but not like that.

[@sjappiyah4071]

Brilliant work

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

This is helpful especially regarding the use of “faith”.

[@karcharias811]

Ehrman is just smart enough to realize that becoming a critic and abandoning his faith would net him a far higher income in book sales and appearances then remaining orthodox. These theories are old, like 19th century old, he was fully aware of this before he apostosized and decided to use them for his own benefit. That is all Ehrman is, an opportunist.

[@oldoddjobs]

So he secretly believes in God but pretends not to for money. Of course!

[@Vinnymanvinny1]

Yeah that's just stupid. If he really believes in God and is making a career out of disproving God that would make zero sense. Even for money

[@andrewnachamkin7071]

Good stuff!

[@productamadeus8745]

I think whether Paul himself pinned those letters. Dictated them. Or had somebody write down what he was thinking. Regardless of who wrote it, the real issue is do they contain truth that will get you to eternal life. Those books contain truth.

[@nerdykidnick]

Im a big fan of Ehrman, Goodacre, Metzger etc. Your videos are well formatted but lack any sort of evidence - where are your citations? I am all for good arguments on either side, but this is all just kinda opinionated observations. Even Metzger, Erhman's teacher and mentor, and believer, knows first timothy uses language that didn't exist anywhere near the time of jesus. see: Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Society, New York, 1975), p. 641

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm referencing DA Carson Douglass Moo, William Paley, Kenneth Berding. If Metzger thought it was a forgery, then Metzger is wrong.

[@zachwalters5709]

You say that these are opinionated observations, but what do you think Biblical scholarship is? Of course Testify's videos are much simpler than that which would be published academically, but read any paper on this subject and you will quickly see that it is ALL just opinionated observations (though obviously more exhaustively discussed than a short video like this). There is scholarship that Testify can cite, but none of his arguments here are wrong. If he came up with this on his own, I see no need for him to provide citations.

[@ri3m4nn]

Let's set a proper baseline, it is absolutely reasonable that an assistant or a collection of co-writers are used and then an attributed author is given to an official letter or declaration. This is an absolutely normal process that still occurs today with those that hold official capacities of organizations.

[@briggy4359]

Paul doesn't appeal to church hierarchy but to people possessing gifts of the spirit, whether it is in Corinthians or Titus.

[@luca1251]

Great thumbnail 😂😁

[@shinigamimiroku3723]

Yet another example of why I can't take secular "Biblical scholars" seriously, especially of the Demas type.

[@chriswilcocks8485]

Good video but I'm still going with ehrman

[@colepriceguitar1153]

Why?

[@nathanjosephalard]

We should also not uncrittically put our faith in the knowledge or consensus of other experts like physicians, Electricians, etc, we need to do our own homework and think for ourselves...

[@rigby3620]

The Pastorals are forgeries. Margaret M. Mitchell, page 1725 of Oxford Annotated Bible: The conclusion that these three epistles were not written by Paul is based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria. First and Second Timothy and Titus share a common Greek vocabulary and style that diverges in many ways from the other Pauline epistles. Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century ce when Paul was no longer alive. It is possible to see how some passages may have been written to explain or definitively interpret passages in the authentic letters already in circulation (such as 1 Tim 2.9-19; cf. 1 Cor 14.33-36). Theologically these letters minimize or lack characteristic Pauline themes (such as justification by faith, and the church as the body of Christ) in favor of a new emphasis on adherence to tradition and regulation as signs of the Christian piety they seek to inculcate in their readers. Although Timothy and Titus had been Paul’s trusted co-workers for decades, the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Titus present the recipients as needing basic instructions for community leadership. They represent a bridge between the apostle and later generations. Second Timothy is less concerned with regulating the life of the Christian communities than Titus and 1 Timothy. It has been described as a “testament,” the last words of the apostle to a close associate. It looks forward to the difficulties facing Timothy and others after Paul’s death with foreboding, and bears some similarity to the Paul’s genuine letter to the Philippians in this regard. The prevailing view of scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul but are later compositions seeking to “fix” his legacy (in both senses of the term). Even if not composed by Paul, they have historically had a very influential role in Christian thought and practice, and the controversies they sought to “fix” -such as the roles of women in the church-remain alive to the present day. Luke is naturally indefinitely dated after 70 A.D, or at least after Paul's death, yet, 1 Timothy, a letter that is traditionally attributed by Paul, is using the gospel of Luke. This is decisive evidence that 1 Timothy is a forgery. Raymond Brown gives 11 reasons on why they're forgeries: (1) First, the language of the Pastorals is distinct when compared with Paul’s undisputed usage. Vocabulary and syntax (use of particles, conjunctions, and adverbs) differs notably from Paul’s other letters. The style of the Pastorals is less Hebraic and more colorless and monotonous (longer sentences, less variety of words and style). Statistics about language can be misused in such arguments, but here the statistics do create a doubt about Pauline writing. (2) Second, comparison of theology and ethics between undisputed Pauline writings and the Pastorals produces a similar report to that about language. Familiar Pauline terms (law, faith, righteousness) appear but with a slightly different nuance. (3) Third, the data about Paul’s ministry and whereabouts cannot be fi tted into what we know of Paul’s life before the Roman imprisonment of 61-63. If historical, the information in the Pastorals demands the positing of a “second career” in the mid-60s. Terminus a quo: Titus and I Tim could not have been written before 64-66. (4) Fourth, some who placed the Pastorals late in the second century observe that they are missing from Marcion’s canon (ca. 150). Tertullian (Adversus Marcion 5.21) contends that Marcion knew and rejected them. Furthermore, Polycarp, Philippians 4:1, is close to I Tim (5:3-6; 6:7, 10); most judge that Polycarp’s letter (AD 120-130) has been influenced by the Pastorals. Terminus ante quem: the external evidence slightly favors the Pastorals having been written before AD 125. (5) Fifth, the false teaching being criticized is often judged to be a Judaizing gnosticism that developed later than in Paul’s lifetime. But there is insufficient evidence in the Pastorals to suggest that any one of the great gnostic systems of the second century was the target of criticism. (6) Sixth, it is argued that the church structure envisioned in the Pastorals goes beyond Paul’s lifetime. Granted, no undisputed letter mentions presbyters, but church structure is not the subject of those letters. Moreover, Phil 1:1 mentions bishops (or “overseers”) and deacons. There is insufficient information given about these figures to form a completely clear picture of the situation(s). (7) Seventh, Titus mentions the appointment of presbyter/bishops, and I Tim supposes the existence in Ephesus of presbyter/bishops and deacons. This bipartite structure is not far from that of Didache 15:1 (ca. AD 100?), which speaks of bishops and deacons, and that of I Clement 42:4,5; 44:4-5; 54:2 (AD 96), which refers to presbyter/bishops and deacons. It is distinct from the tripartite structure urged by Ignatius in most letters (ca. 110), namely, one bishop, presbyters, and deacons. While a linear progression is surely too simple a picture, in such development the Pastorals would be placed in time before Ignatius’s writings. (8) Eighth, in atmosphere and vocabulary the Pastorals are very close to Luke-Acts. Some have even proposed that the same person wrote them. Several items in Acts are paralleled in the Pastorals: Paul’s sufferings and travels in Acts 13-14 are similar to II Tim 3:11, and Paul gives a farewell address in II Tim 3:10-4:8 through Timothy to the church at Ephesus, and in Acts 20:18-35 the farewell is directed to the presbyter/bishops of Ephesus. The most plausible dating of Luke-Acts is the 80s. (9) Ninth, I Tim implies the existence of a certain type of false teaching at Ephesus. Neither the letter to the angel of the church in Ephesus in Rev 2:1-7 (probably written in the 90s) nor Ignatius’s Ephesians (ca. 110) describes a similar heresy. Was it stamped out by I Tim, which at face value was written to Ephesus before those two letters? Or did the heresy develop after those two letters, so that I Tim was written after them? (10) Tenth, more than the undisputed letters of Paul, the Pastorals contain a large amount of biographical material. Drawing on pseudepigraphal writings attributed to other personalities in antiquity, some scholars have concluded that such personal details are meant to impress readers and to give an appearance of genuineness to the writings. The details given in the Pastorals would require some knowledge of other Pauline letters and Acts; but would these works have been easily available before AD 100? (11) Eleventh, for those of a literalist perspective, pseudepigraphical authorship of the Pastorals is unacceptable; even more, it is impossible. For some others not of a literalist persuasion, pseudepigraphy in itself is not an obstacle to an affirmation of inspiration or to an understanding of divine communication through such writings.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Assertion + appeal to an authority does not equal a good argument.

[@rigby3620]

@@TestifyApologetics I didn’t appeal to any authority (even though majority of scholars by far have it as forgeries)

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

This is a good summery of the argument for fraud. But at the end of the day, in a court of law, the ancient documents rule apply in determining forgery. If the documents contain no indication of tampering and they are sourced from the proper custody than they should be accepted as authentic. So, which of the above arguments are the strongest for proving tampering? R.C.H. Lenski has a sufficient explanation for accounting for its Pauline chronology. The other arguments are also capable of being answered in an intellectually satisfying manner.

[@zachwalters5709]

@rigby3620 It is just a cheap rhetorical trick to claim you aren't appealing to authority and then to say in parenthesis: "(but authorities do agree with me)." You get to claim you aren't appealing to authority but still communicate to the reader that you are. Underhanded and cheap, I would not use that in the future. Plus, you did appeal to authority. You asserted that the pastorals are forgeries and then copy pasted a passage full of arguments that: 1. ARE from an authority, not you. 2. Were mostly addressed by the video. You just reasserted the arguments that were addressed by the video. You didn't interact with any of Testify's responses whatsoever. The ONLY thing your comment added was the fact that what you posted came from an academic publication. That is a textbook appeal to authority. Do better next time. God bless.

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

Thank you. I intend to read your post.

[@michaelg4919]

thank you so much for this video and the work you are doing!! I thank God for you and your work

[@redandblue323]

Do you even read Greek?

[@petarvasiljevic8764]

I think he does not.

[@briseisjay7898]

Love your videos, but one thing. I know your white background is meant to be like a white board, but sometimes I listen to your videos while going to sleep, but the white is too bright. If, in the future, you can darken it, cool, if not, then oh well.

[@Occhiodiargento]

Why then they defend the non-pauline authorship of the pastoral letters? Mere tradition? I just don't get it. I guess the embarrasment factor is huge in academia, and the plausability structures are agains pauline authorship. Amazing video btw, excelent presentation.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

0:16 8th*

[@timdavis832]

I have vocabulary issues.

[@bamremix8235]

Why don't you write a book?!! It would actually be really nice!

[@TestifyApologetics]

Maybe someday. I've thought about it.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

Does Greek have a definite article? The argument about the usage of the word faith is really week if so. Recently, I was watching Rabbi Tovia Singer argue against Daniel 9 in regards to it being about THE Messiah, where he argues that the Hebrew word used their is just Moshiach and not HaMoshiach (Messiah instead of THE Messiah). From here, Rabbi Tovia Singer argued that the word Messiah can often refer to individuals who are appointed by God for different tasks, -in which sense, Moses was a messiah, David was a messiah, and Ezra was a messiah. The difference is the definite article: they were a messiah, but they were not THE Messiah. From this, Singer argues that the "messiah" who is "cut off" before the destruction of the Temple in 70 is not "THE Messiah", but "a messiah", -which he interprets as the priesthood. All this to say, the definite article can make a huge difference. There is a difference between talking about our faith as Christians and talking about THE faith as Christians. If a person says, "I'm losing faith", it means they are struggling to trust that God is taking care of them, but if they say "I'm losing the faith" then it means they are bordering apostasy. Faith is the things we hope for, but THE faith is the collection of beliefs we hold together as Christians. We use these terms still today as well.

[@JoshuaHults]

Bart Ehrman Has to oppose Christianity to sell books

[@TestifyApologetics]

I don't pretend to know Ehrman's motives, that's up to God. I just try and keep the focus on the arguments. And in this case, I don't think the arguments are very good.

[@jaketheapologist]

Great video !

[@morefiction3264]

Calling Ehrman a New Testament scholar is generous.

[@oldoddjobs]

Yeah what would HE know, right?

[@absofjelly]

Are you saying 2nd Timothy says nothing about doctrine or the church?

[@alsariares3910]

You think is not clever enough to play things around? Because I've seen Paul modifying everything in the bible Contrary to what jesus preaching. Proved from clementine homilies.

[@TestifyApologetics]

then why did the disciples approve of his gospel? Was Paul lying? Was Luke lying? I'm getting kind of tired of the anti-Paul cult.

[@alsariares3910]

@@TestifyApologetics no, apostles didn't approved pauls doctrine. peter, john and james in book of clementine homilies chapter lecsion. Here you can actually read their conversations between peter and john even james against Paul. Because Paul animosity against all followers of jesus is what Paul strategies to convinced apostles to change everything about Law. that according to jesus spoke to him (paul) on the way to Damascus. "Paul, Paul, Paul why have you forsaken me?" This passage is similarly to what jesus long before when jesus was on the cross askin god, "Lord, lord, lord why have you forsaken me?" This was Paul's brilliant idea of convincing everyone up today. Barnabas vouched Paul's proclamation as new apostle to the other thas why apostles has approved but this hasn't happened. Its different story. They kept the true letter of peter to john and james

[@skebo5371]

Wow, impressive af, Dr. Bias sets a straw man and says unimpressive and weak sauce. Your rebuttal is weaker sauce than water; at least cite some other scholarly work or something. All you say is, "Nuh-uh."

[@ora_et_labora1095]

I love this channel

[@jenniferhunter4074]

I don't find this argumentation compelling. I prefer biblical scholars. Dan McClellan is far more convincing than a blog writer with an agenda. Vocabulary and writing style is very much like a fingerprint. One will always show their personal style. This is how your teachers figured out how you lied about writing that paper. People who are well-educated and good at writing.. they tend to show off their style. For example, you will see in any of my comments, a certain styling. It will seem as if I'm writing off the cuff. I'll break the grammar rules by starting off sentences with an And or something like that (because when you become a better writer, you know when and why you can break the rules). Oh, I often use parenthetical brackets to make side notes to better structure my statements. There's a reason we can attribute certain works of art to specific artists. A mozart piece will never be attributed to say.. Gershwin. The stamp of the artist is there. In fact, you'll be able to pick out Mozart from his contemporaries. He's got his little quirks that make his work "Mozart". Same for artists in other fields. Van Gogh and Picasso have the technical skill to mimic each other. But it's not going to be a perfect copy. They're going to slip up. It will be in choice of colors, materials, perspective.. but you will see it. (It's a hypothetical. Picasso and Van Gogh were not contemporaries.) Be honored. I'm placing Paul as an artist with words. He's right up there with the greats such as my lovely Shakespeare or Jane Austen or T. S. Elliot (personal favorite.). That's why many people will try to mimic Paul's writing style or attempt to modify the original text and then.. later scholarship will notice that deviation and say "that's not Pauline". i would suggest that people really look at the Dan McClellan videos on this subject. He states that the overwhelming consensus among biblical scholars (aka people who have subject matter expertise in this topic) is that well.. it's not Paul's authorship. If people are curious, they can just find the listing on wikipedia and do their research via accredited academic sources. Not some guy named Erik Manning who doesn't appear to have any academic background that I'm aware of. Publish this in a reputable scholarly journal. have it pass peer review by other experts. if you can do that, I'll be willing to change my mind. Ehrman is not disputing something like Romans which has a 100 % academic consensus attributing it to Paul. You really don't need much of a writing sample to catch forgeries. Paul gave us a substantial amount of his writing and that's why a consensus of experts doubts the authenticity of Timothy. Think of it in a real world example personal to you. Imagine if somebody says they know a mutual friend. You'll take it on faith. but then, that person says something that seems wrong. for example, if your mutual friend is allergic to seafood, why would he be in a seafood restaurant? if your friend is an atheist, why is he going to church? It's the little things that will spark doubt. That's when you'll start paying attention and those little things, like vocabulary, ideas, inconsistencies will be highlighted. You know.. the same things the academic biblical scholars are noticing when they critically look at the pastoral epistles.

[@zachwalters5709]

I understand what you are saying and appreciate your respect for academic study, but you really should engage with the arguments. I see too many people in the comment section who just leave a comment that is condescending to the creator of this video. I see no need for that. There is no need to get offended. If he really is wrong and ignorant, then he can't hurt you or your position.

[@jenniferhunter4074]

@@zachwalters5709 I did address at least one of the points. Vocabulary and language style. That's why the experts in this field have reached the consensus that some of these pastoral epistles are forgeries. I would ask why the experts in this field share the consensus view that certain Pauline epistles are forgeries is problematic. One cannot pick and choose which set of facts to enjoy. I do not find this youtuber's reliance on the English translated works to be sufficiently credible. Do you know what I find compelling? when Dr. McClellan shows images of the original manuscript and he shows how the edits were inserted into the translations that were then codified. I find that fascinating. Also, I have trouble with Origen or Tertulian or the others as reliable sources. Did you look up their birthdates? At least two of them are not contemporaneous. So now, we're playing with second hand word of mouth? Why didn't this youtuber stress this in order to not give the impression of lying to people like me? If he could type those names, he could have typed in the birthdates as well. And notice that this youtuber has a heavy reliance on a few individuals? If it were more accepted, he would have no problem finding numerous scholars. Dr. Lydia McGrew has published work and it has not shifted that consensus. Please, let's not play conspiracy theory. These are trained academics, not motivated laypeople who want it to be true. Why didn't they find this argumentation compelling?

[@csmoviles]

💖🙏💖🙏💖🙏💖

[@SHIBBYiPANDA]

Kind of strange that you think the personal anecdotes are positive evidence for Pauline authorship. Do you seriously think that someone who is an imposter wouldn’t have put these in there to make it appear more genuine? That’s lying 101. You must have had a really nice family life growing up.

[@garrettsanders4832]

Example, "Hey mom, I'm going over to Jimmy's house to return his PS4 controllers. See I've got the PS4 controllers in my hands because I'm taking them. Also I'm bringing Jimmy's jacket back and here it is, also in my hands!" (Really going to girlfriend's house because her parents aren't home). The fact that you don't seem to notice this and mention it makes me think you either are to naïve to notice or either don't care enough to have thought about it.

[@viktorlampinen1785]

If you reject Paul. Don't you have to reject Luke, Peter, and all the apostles too? And why would God lie to Ananias in Acts 9 when He said: Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel."

[@SHIBBYiPANDA]

@@viktorlampinen1785 no one is rejecting Paul here; just a few of the forged letters in Paul’s name.

[@viktorlampinen1785]

@@SHIBBYiPANDA How do you know that they are forged?

[@sageseraph5035]

Sus

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

Sus

[@thiccmcchicken550]

Sus

[@therottingstench]

Amogus

[@porpoisepork]

Psst... you can't use your English translation of the Bible to critique arguments based on the original Greek version.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Maybe leave a timestamp and show me exactly how I got it wrong rather than vague appeals to English versions misunderstanding the Greek?

[@petarvasiljevic8764]

@@TestifyApologetics Silence, of course.

[@ttff-bd2yf]

This video isn't good. Ehrman literally addresses all of these arguments. Paul uses the word faith. But uses it differently. I don't think the creator of "testify" understands what semantic domains are.

[@zachwalters5709]

Have you read Ehrman's work? He does speak about these arguments but either dismisses them out of hand, strawmans them, or asserts his opinion of them as fact. Of course Testify's video could have gone into more depth, but Ehrman's arguments regarding the semantic domain of "faith" in particular are far from airtight, incredibly speculative, and based on a number presuppositions about the early church. Also, please be kinder. That kind of condescension towards the creator of this video doesn't help anybody.

[@JAlanne]

After going through this video, forgery and counter forgery and a university class on the new testament. I don't think this is a very good video.

[@ttff-bd2yf]

The first sentence is why this video is nonsense. The canon isn't divinely inspired. The New Testament isnt a single text.

[@wlyang7563]

doesn't matter if Ehrman is wrong, he's raking it in, and laughing all the way to the bank.

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

I would really like if You could respond to spanish famous athiest like "Dallas" or "Dama G" athiesm is really growing over here at argentina and the apologist over here are terrible 🤮🤮🤮 I really need You guys help

[@TestifyApologetics]

I've been contacted about having my videos translated into porteguese and I OK'd it. Not sure where the process is at with it, but some of my blog posts have already been translated.

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

@Daniel N. Inoa yeah there good but when they are talking about genesis and creation they seem very terrible considering the fact that Santi got a response from atheist KZbinrs debunking him on the evolution video he did

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

@Daniel N. Inoa he’s problably takes the YEC’s theory but Acknowledges that a Christian can believe in evolution but you might want to check out he’s video on that when you finish watching that video I will give you the atheist that responded to him on that

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

@Daniel N. Inoa Well I mean he got corrected by those atheist if you want to see it I can give you the name of the channel but that’s up for you to see and evaluate

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

@Daniel N. Inoa no problem

[@lighthousenetwork.tv-media]

dang. that was wild. honestly beats the opinion of one scholar! but even if all other modern scholars thought otherwise, if the early Christian scholars didn't think they were fake id go with them! They were almost "there" and had a mind to exclude fake documents.