Busting the Forgery Myth: Paul Wrote Ephesians and Colossians
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2024
- Join me in this video where I explore the controversy surrounding Paul's authorship of the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians. While discussing Bart Ehrman's view, I'll present counterarguments and evidence supporting their authenticity as genuine Pauline writings.
00:00 Intro
00:58 Writing style and vocabulary
03:03 A different Paul?
04:33 Different theology?
08:03 External evidence
09:17 Philemon connection
12:51 Evidence from Acts
16:08 Conclusion
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Ignatius and Polycarp provide a lot of evidence for the genuineness of Ephesians. Both men were in contact with the Ephesians, with Ignatius naming some Ephesians who were with him when he wrote his letter to the Ephesian church. In a few places, Ignatius refers to how the Ephesians had helped him with the letters he was sending. He makes frequent references to his interactions with the Christians in Ephesus (Letter To The Ephesians, 2, 21; Letter To The Magnesians, 15; Letter To The Trallians, 13; Letter To The Romans, 10; Letter To The Philadelphians, 11; Letter To The Smyrnaeans, 12). So, when he structured his letter to the Ephesians on Paul's letter to that church, he surely was expecting the Ephesians (the ones with him when he wrote and the ones he was writing to) to recognize the parallels and appreciate them. That makes more sense if Ignatius expected the Ephesians to accept the genuineness of the Pauline letter rather than reject it. The liberal Jesus Seminar scholar Clayton Jefford wrote:
"His [Ignatius'] letters are replete with Pauline ideas and letter structure. The most obvious example of this may be found in a comparison of the bishop's letter to the Ephesians with the Pauline letter of Ephesians, which I assume to be a product of the Pauline school and not of Paul himself. The elaborate greeting that Ignatius offers to the Ephesians, which is typical of his other letters as well, undoubtedly has been modeled upon similar Pauline forms. Numerous terms and phrases that Ignatius has employed in this greeting bear striking similarity to those that appear in the Pauline salutation (Eph 1:3-14). The themes and movement of ideas that follow throughout the bishop's letter show further parallels....we discover here a certain acknowledgment by the bishop that the church at Ephesus knew and revered Paul as well....The fact that Ignatius had modeled his own letter to the Ephesians so closely upon the pseudo-Pauline letter to Ephesus suggests that this form would have gained a happy reception by the Christians there....To some extent, he [Ignatius] specifically patterned his letter [to Rome] upon Paul's own letter to Rome....Ignatius borrows constantly from Pauline literary style....Ignatius makes special mention of Paul as a faith link between his own journey and that of the apostle (Ign. Eph. 12.2)." (The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], 41-42, 138-39)
Ignatius also refers to how closely the churches of Ephesus and Smyrna had worked in some contexts (Smyrna being Polycarp's church). And Polycarp's letter to the Philippians makes use of material in Ephesians on multiple occasions, even citing it as scripture (12). Given ancient Christian views of pseudonymity and canonicity, it's unlikely that Polycarp would have referred to Ephesians as scripture if he didn't think Paul wrote it.
Early and widespread reports place the apostle John in Ephesus at the close of his life in the late first or early second century (e.g., Irenaeus, citing Polycarp, in Against Heresies, 3:3:4; Polycrates, in Eusebius, Church History, 5:24:3-4; Clement of Alexandria, Who Is The Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, 42). So, the Ephesians would not only have their own experiences to go by, but also the influence of John, who knew Paul (e.g., Galatians 2:9-10). Notice that Paul refers to his ongoing knowledge of what the other apostles were doing (e.g., 1 Corinthians 4:9-13, 9:5, 15:11), which makes more sense if he kept in contact with people like John beyond the timeframe covered in Galatians. And Polycarp, who referred to Ephesians as scripture, was likely a disciple of John.
Top tier comment. 👌
This seems very one sided. It would be nice to present the other side as well especially since it's known some books were doubted by the early church, present that side as well just to be complete and wholly truthful.
@@captainobvious2435Except Ephesians simply wasn’t one of those books, so there’s really no other “side” of which to speak in terms of classical Christian history.
@@captainobvious2435who cares? We’re not making a history presentation, were arguing our case.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 I looked and see what you mean. There are some books in the Bible where authorship is questionable and added to the Bible anyways eventually but Ephesians wasn't one of them. Iraneaus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian accepted Pauline authorship; it seems later scholars were doubtful of Ephesians.
Great points. I also imagine that being in prison affects one's writing style. One would write more intentionally and thoughtfully, as compared to how Paul's style is more emotional in the Corinthian letters and Galatians.
I really cannot believe "the writing style is different" is an argument. Atheists are not sending their best.
But they are!
I thought Christians had their doubts on authorship too. Even the early church fathers had doubts on authorship of some of the books they had allowed to compiled into the Bible.
Bart is not the only one, a lot of believing Bible scholars agree with the claims.
@@iguanapoolservice1461 right. I think Mike Licona had an old video summing up early church fathers on which books they weren't sure about who the author was. Even the Book of John was questioned a little. I think I remember at least Eusebius commenting how there was uncertainty of which John, John the Disciple or John the Presbyter. So, early church fathers were certain of some books but there was a small handful they questioned but gradually allowed into the Bible. This is all documented by the early church fathers some being Iraneaus, Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Eusebius...
I know right? Imagine a scholar reading Dr. Suess other books not directed to children and they go like "this book can't be written by Dr. Seuss, becuse it is doesnt contian any funny rhymes and green eggs and hams".
This dude is a gift to the apologetics scene presenting some of the finest pure logic
If it's good it's grace. If it's bad it's me.
@@Daniel-mw7pu Except those people saw it with their own eyes. They didn't blindly believe anything. We believe it because they witnessed everything first hand.
Bart Ehrman said on History Valley channel that he had a PhD student who was working on proving critical scholars need new standards for Paul’s letters as one can use the stylistic argument to cast doubt on Galatians and therefore if scholars accept Galatians they need a standard that gives a good reason for Galatians vs Colossians that couldn’t just be reversed, and the current standards don’t adequately provide this. This is why I like Bart, because even when I disagree with him, we do seem him conceding from time to time in personal conversations that scholarship doesn’t always have the answers
Paul doesn't think theres a distinction between general good deeds and the works of the Law. He focuses on "the Law" aspect more in Romans because it is written as an argument against the Jewish position, but his position in Romans and in Ephesians (and Galatians and every other epistle) is precisely the same
Testify, you do not know how much good you are doing, Thank you for taking a stand and not be intimidated by these scholars, God bless you
As willing as I am to accept some conclusions of critical scholarship, I can say I am much more convinced of the authenticity of Ephesians contra the critical consensus on the grounds of 1) great patristic testimony to its antiquity and genuineness and 2) lack of good arguments about its contents and theology being discordant with Paul’s other works. Well done video. God bless.
To add to your video points 👀
(1) The letter to the Romans is also made up of longer, more complex sentences. Since Romans and Ephesians are so similar in their style and stray from Paul's usual style of "short pointed sentences," must we also reject Romans as written by Paul?
(2) "Paul includes himself as someone who was carried away by the passions of the flesh..." Paul also refers to his life pre-conversion (quite often) in order to highlight the transformative power of faith so that point falls flat.
"The author of Ephesians does not speak about salvation apart from the 'works of the law,' as Paul does in his other letters." Ephesians 2:8-10. Paul emphasises the role of works, but he doesn't outright deny the role of faith in salvation. Rather, he affirms it.
(3) Ephesians 4:22-24. Paul urges believers to change their ways, which are corrupted by sinful desires, encouraging them to be renewed by salvation. This implies that salvation is indeed a process of slow transformation, as the authentic Pauline letters affirm.
Ephesians 2:5-6 is also strange to quote. In context, Paul is addressing the spiritual state of believers, with his focus being on the transformation that will unify when Christ returns. In other words, Paul is describing the spiritual blessings granted to people when rejoined in Union with Christ using metaphorical and symbolic language, *NOT* a full physical resurrection, nor a present existence in Heaven.
Has Ehrman even read Ephesians. Seriously?
I think he has. But he disagrees with you.
@@truncated7644Erhman ≠ Infallible Authority on the New Testament
@@keatsiannightingale2025 I would think no one is. But asking if he's even read Ephesians really doesn't show a lot of understanding of the nature of scholarly work.
@@truncated7644Except even Erhman and co. Can make ridiculous conclusions about interpretation, like he does for Ephesians and Colossians. The one area that most critical scholar appear deficient in is theology. This often affects their ability to think about these texts theologically and understand how a single author can utilize different metaphors and phrases to communicate the exact same concept. Supposing Paul wrote Ephesians, there is nothing objectionable in a light preterism in which the Christians are vicariously raised with Christ at baptism and seated in heavenly places with Christ. He is no suggesting the story is over and the resurrection was a purely spiritual event that already occurred.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 I'm not going to make Bart's case for him, he's done that. What I am interested in is pointing out when people say things like his position is ridiculous. He provides evidence and arguments for it. You are free to disagree with him. But just so you know what is motivating me, it seems too easy to make statements like that and not engage deeply in the arguments made by the critical scholars that Bart is summarizing. Calling an argument you disagree with ridiculous is not how thoughtful people address well reasoned counter viewpoints.
Writing style falls very weak to me. I'm a musician. I know one artist/composer can write in multiple styles. Or, even an artist/composer who sticks to one style will start to shift styles eventually. I could point to multiple artists who write in multiple styles or who's style has evolved over time. Actually, it is interesting to say most of these are Christian artists/composers.
In fact, if you look at a piece of classical music, you will see at the end of the title "OP" followed by a number. That number is the release order of the composer's work. So OP 27 would be the 27th work they have published. This is significant in studying classical music, because you can use it to better understand the piece. Beethoven's life is broken up into three stages: Early stage, middle stage, and late stage. People who study Beethoven's music will talk about different expressions Beethoven used during different stages of his life. One example would be increased bass in his later works. This is because he was going deaf. I can do this very well with my own music and see what changes my music has had over my lifetime and what has caused these changes.
So finding differences in style does not prove something is by a different author. It can, but it doesn't naturally. Dragonnetti's famous Concerto in A Major for Contrabass is very recognizable as a forgery as the harmonies don't reflect late classical/early romantic style when Dragonnetti lived. The author also didn't fully understand Sonata Form either. But comparing Nanny's Concerto to Dragonnetti would be like comparing Koirne Greek to Coptic Egyptian, not the subtler differences between Beethoven's 9th to his 7th.
But Paul isn't writing modern music or literature, he is writing letters to congregants. Why would a person adopt different styles of writing, different vocabularies, use the same words differently when they are addressing fundamentally similar audiences and issues?
@@truncated7644The argument is better suited to the Pastorals than to Ephesians and Colossians. I’m not as positive they are forged as I am for the Pastorals. If, notwithstanding, they truly are forged (we cannot know for certain) than the forger was truly competent in every way. But then again, any good forger always is.
“FOR TO ME, TO LIVE IS CHRIST and TO DIE IS GAIN” - PAUL (Philippians 1:21)
Ephesians 1:11-14 literally talks about the holy spirit (gift) is a seal showing that we have that future salvation. The book begins with it being future, and the holy spirit is "proof of payment" now
The Holy Spirit is a foretaste of our future inheritance, not future salvation. Those who received God's Spirit is saved already.
@@andrevisser7542 i was referring to the specific wording of Ephesians 1:11-14. It is considered a payment or proof of salvation, and Ephesians frequently uses a tense treating future events as present realities
Nowhere in Ephesians 1 does it explicitly state that the Holy Spirit is the proof of payment for future salvation. The passage simply highlights the Holy Spirit's role as a deposit, serving as a present assurance for salvation to come.
Ephesians 1 mainly focuses on the eternal purpose and plan of God, not a focus on the future. The mention of the Holy Spirit as a seal is there to strengthen the certainty of a future inheritance (salvation).
@@darkwolf7740 I'm not seeing how your second sentence is different from your first, or what I was saying, nor how your last sentence is different from what i was saying.
@@voymasa7980The 2nd part is a semi-expansion of the 1st (hence the repeated conclusion).
Ultimately I trust in the ressurection of Jesus so even if they were forgeries that's fine it doesn't disorive the ressurection. Also because none of it contradicts Jesus teaching and only encourages to walk and live in Christ. Even so thus was good timing because I was wrestling this out in my head the pass two days still coming to the conclusion above.
Tomorrow I won’t be surprised if ehrman will complain why there are no commas and periods in some of the epistles of Paul!
Don't forget the word "onomatopoeia"
9:10 doesn't the oldest surviving writings describe revelation to John the Apostle?
I love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman:
"I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..."
William Lane Craig
Another testify banger
Thank you so much for your fantastic work!!!
Thank you so much for helping me with my biblical studies 🙏🏻
I must disagree with your view of Bart Ehrman as a New Testament "scholar".
He has been shown to be lying, deceiving, obfuscating, or simply cherry picking so many times, you can feel free to ignore anything he says.
Now, to talk about more than I know, I do wonder why someone would do that?
I can see why someone who believes would study Scripture, because they want to know more. Bart doesn't.
I can see why someone who wants truth above all else would try to study Scripture if they wanted to find problems with it. But Bart keeps lying, so obviously truth isn't the goal.
Now, if someone really, *really* wanted Scripture to be untrue, I can see why they'd study that Scripture, to disprove it. Those people might not care if their arguments are true, as long as it gives them an excuse to not believe that Scripture.
I'm not saying that's what Bart is doing, but I can't see another explanation, so...
90% of what Bart relates in his books for non-scholars is believed by a very large number of historians and also biblical scholars outside of evangelical schools. Do they all suffer the same problems you ascribe to Bart? It seems you save all such comments for him, but he is just the messenger.
@@truncated7644 OK, let's assume you are right.
Then 90% of "historians" and "biblical scholars" are apparently fine with him commonly lying, deceiving, obfuscating, or simply cherry picking. So, they're either complicit in it or lazy.
You know what? Given the "Replication Crisis" in psychology, that quickly spread to the other social sciences, I wouldn't be shocked at all! Given the incentives of professionals in these fields, always to be getting names on papers and more funding, this should be no shock to anyone with any concept of how people respond to incentives.
-An Economist, which is to say a social scientist
@@nathanielalderson9111 false?Or you disagree with me? Well some of what you said may be a matter of opinion I'd like to see one shred of evidence that anything you just said in that post is true. Name one thing you believe Bart is intentionally lying about?
@@truncated7644Just a heads up: don’t feel like you have to defend Dr. Erhman on every point. He’s definitely made his mistakes, both in his books and his debates. If anything, I consider his popular books as merely introductory. The really intensive stuff is written by scholars, believing or non-believing, whose names you have never heard of most likely. The best scholarship is sometimes found on the roads less traveled by.
Another point about Ephesian’s writing style is that it’s in a particular style of rhetoric popular in Ephesus at the time, which contains longer sentences and more flowery language. Ephesians is also thought by some scholars (like Ben Witherington) to have been a spoken sermon written down, which explains the rhetorical style, long run-on sentences, wordplay that works better when spoken, alliteration, and the disjointed rabbit trails.
First rule in writing is to modify your message or style depending on who you are writing to.
It's actually quite a slimey tactic that Ehrman uses: Use a few verses to craft a supposed soteriology or theology in one book of the NT and craft another elsewhere and pit the two against each other.
Amen.
Thanks!
Well… that was conclusive.
It could also be that Paul dictated the letters, but that the scribe would collaborate on formulations and style more in some instances, say if it was a fellow traveler rather than some random scribe.
The author of this video seems to believe he has crafted a strong argument, but he fails to inform the audience that forgery is just one aspect of the extensive research conducted by biblical scholars. This oversight is critical, especially considering Bart Ehrman's previous works, such as 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus Interrupted', which I have read. These books lay the groundwork for understanding manuscript issues and contradictions in the Bible before one delves into the topic of forgeries. For instance, the Gospels exhibit notable inconsistencies.
There are thousands of manuscript copies dating from the 3rd to the 12th centuries. This vast temporal range underscores the lack of original New Testament manuscripts and highlights discrepancies among the existing copies. Evidently, scribes altered the texts over time, adding and omitting details as they saw fit.
It's important to recognize that Bart Ehrman's writings reflect a consensus shared by a majority of Bible scholars, including those from conservative evangelical backgrounds. The field of biblical scholarship is vast, with thousands of experts worldwide, most of whom agree on these findings.
The video's author, however, constructs a straw man argument, portraying Ehrman's conclusions about forgeries as flawed while ignoring the broader context of textual criticism. This selective approach aims to discredit Ehrman and misleads the audience about the complexity of biblical scholarship.
Friends, I urge you to explore this topic deeply and fearlessly follow where the truth leads. The video's author seems to approach the subject with a predetermined conclusion, seeking evidence to affirm the Bible's reliability. However, extensive scholarly research reveals the Bible as a product of human authorship rather than divine inspiration.
Please, don't accept the video's claims at face value. I encourage you to read the mentioned books and form your own opinions. Relying on such videos for spiritual reassurance is misguided. The Bible itself, in Acts 17:11 and 2 Timothy 2:15, advocates for diligent study and verification of teachings.
As someone who was a Christian for many years, I regret not pursuing biblical scholarship earlier. Discovering the human influences in the Bible's creation was a revelation for me, and it's frustrating to see continued propagation of misleading information. In-depth study of the manuscripts, free from translation biases, is essential for understanding the true nature of these texts.
If the bulk of your understanding is that Divine authorship and human authorship cannot cooperate, then what is the point of the incarnation?
The importance of these questions largely dissolves when the authority of the text does not rest on verifiability against a skeptical test, but instead on a basic trust in the church that Christ founded. But of course, a basic trust in the church that Christ founded is absolutely antithetical to Protestantism.
The deposit of faith is not solely held in scripture. Instead, we should understand that the deposit of faith is held in common by the church as a whole, United and corrected and led by the leaders of the church. Even if every word of the Bible had been subtly changed, we would still be able to understand the meaning of the Bible correctly, because we start with the correct answers, which are the answers we have always held, held publicly, held in common, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the protection of the successors to apostles.
When I wrote my dissertation for college I sounded different then when I sent emails and texts to my friends so I guess I didn't actually author my dissertation. Seems very logical if you ask me lol. Some of these people make you question the validity of their PhD's lol.
im not sure that even JRR tolkien could come up with such an intertwined collection of forgeries
I want to give you a thumbs up, but I get a pop-up window that says it's disabled.
I think it's OK now. Not sure what that was all about.
6:34 "He thinks the author of Ephesians also wrote Colossians". No, Ehrman doesn't think that.
citation plz. Because I'm specifically reading this from his book Forged.
Has no one considered that he could have had different scribes?! Or perhaps penned some of them himself and others dictated to a scribe? This was a normal practice.
Also, sometimes you're in a hurry, sometimes you're not
I have a feeling it's actually not so easy to tell two authors apart, especially if you are selective about which works, and which parts of those works, you compare.
Thank you 🙏
My question is: does Ehrman say the same thing in his scholarly works? He is well know for exaggerating claims in general audience books that he refuses to use in scholarly works because scholars would call him out on it.
Whether they were forgeries or not, it would not change peoples faith.
Isn't it simpler to say that Paul had someone taking dictation for these letters in question? It answers why the writing style is different.
Potentially. Paul did have scribes for some of his letters.
🙏
Really!? Are these the arguments they use? Are you sure Eric? I find it hard to believe that these are the arguments they use since they are very weak. Are you sure there arent anymore, if so please make a video on that.
Bart doesn't have particularly strong arguments. Every single Gospel mentions that divinity of Jesus in some form or fashion yet Bart claims outright that no such statements exist in Matthew, Mark, or Luke and it isn't until John that we get a divine Jesus. Because of this he makes the outright assertion that Jesus never claimed to be God in his lifetime and it was only later that the church began viewing Christ this way.
Its bart ehrman, he thinks jesus never claim to be God
Do you consider having tiktok, we need more apologists there to combat critical scholars and other critics of our faith?
Tiktok is cursed
Bart does NOT know how to read the Bible. Its so weird that a World Renouned Scholar like him misinterprets scripture so often.
LMAO I change writing styles multiple times per day, depending on context and audience.
"Theological differences" is why you don't let Ehrman do your theology for you.
Such weak arguments. Pathetic really.
Paul: a character that appears in an ancient book of unbelievable adult fairytales
wow edgy
The French Revolution is alluded to in "The Three Musketeers". Therefore, the French Revolution never happened. Checkmate.
@@darkwolf7740 Or it was written after the French Revolution. See Mark, II Peter.
@@truncated7644I honestly don’t think it is conducive to date Mark (or Matthew) much further past 70 AD. The emphasis of rapidity for the second coming of Jesus suggests their compositions were not written too long after the First Jewish War. They may both have been written during its final years.
The 3 muketeers has nothing to do with the fact that the bible is full of unbelievable adult fairytales
🙄 But why there contradictions between the letters if Paul wrote all lf them??
Which contradictions?
@@darkwolf7740 For instance if we read the real letters of Paul we see that his understanding of resurrection is one of that happens after death and also physically. In Ephesians for example which probably was not written by him we find a present understanding of resurrection like we are already resurrected in this life. Thats a contradiction. Paul criticizes such an understanding in his letters so his question is now why those to contradictory understandings?
Bad theology. Erhman is really stretching to make contradictions where there aren't any.
@@Idaho-Cowboy Thats not from Ehrman. And how do you deny the obvious, its in the letters its a contradiction that we dfind different understandings from the resurrection?
@@philippbosnjak4183the simple concept of "already, but not yet" found all throughout the new testament. In other words, there is fulfillment to some degree now but full fulfillment is yet future. In the issue you're referencing, Paul is simply teaching that we are already made spiritually alive but that a future bodily resurrection is yet future.
Haven’t seen anyone else mention this so I guess I’ll be the first….. That tree has a finger!🫨