Who Wrote the Epistles?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Buy the summary chart:
usefulcharts.c...
Complete series in one video:
• Introduction to the Bi...
Individual episodes:
1. Torah - • Who Wrote the Torah? (...
2. Prophets - • Who Wrote the Nevi'im?...
3. Writings - • Who Wrote the Ketuvim?...
4. Apocrypha - • Who Wrote the Apocryph...
5. Gospels & Acts - • Who Wrote the Gospels?
6. Epistles - • Who Wrote the Epistles?
7. Daniel & Revelation - • Who Wrote the Book of ...
8: Summary Chart - • When Was the Bible Wri...
Recommended Reading:
* Alter, Robert (2011). The Art of Biblical Narrative. Basic Books.
* Baden, Joel (2012). The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Yale University Press.
* Coogan, Michael (2001) The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press
* Finkelstein, Israel & Neil Asher Silberman (2001). The Bible Unearthed. Free Press.
* Kugel, James (2007). How to Read the Bible. Free Press.
* Stein, Robert H. (2001). Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation. Baker Academic.
Credits:
Charts & Narration by Matt Baker, PhD
Animation by Syawish Rehman
Audio by Jack Rackam
Intro music "Lord of the Land" by Kevin MacLeod and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0. Available from incompetech.com
I took a creative writing class at my (very religious) college, and one of the assignments was to write a Pauline-style epistle. It was so easy, because of the similar writing style between them: of a four-page paper, after the greetings and salutations were essentially copy-and-pasted from the existing ones, I needed only to write one page from my own imagination. (I got an A+!)
If you had founded 5 businesses and you wanted to wish them all happy holidays with some added notes of encouragement I would wager your letters would also all have the same style if not directly copied from each other. The controversy is when you write a different memo to one of those companies later and it no longer shares the style of the holiday greeting does that prove someone else wrote it.
@@gorkyd7912 For that you can always claim that a holiday letter obviously would be different than a formal memo.
Can you do a historical chart of the early church fathers and their relationship to the apostles and ultimately Jesus? This would be so helpful.
Oh I would love this!
Second this!!!!
Great idea. You cannot underestimate the influence of St. Augustine etc.
Third this to
What insight would this be helpful
There's a small mistake in your video...There IS a mention of a member of Jesus's family in Pauline epistles...James, the brother of Jesus(the Lord's brother) is mentioned in Galatians (1:19)...Paul claims to know Jesus's brother James- in fact, this is one of the strongest arguments given by secular critical scholars for the existence of historical Jesus. Apart from this, fantastic video...I love this series and always wait for your videos...❤
Yes, this is so.
Oh, excellent. I did not know that.
I was about to say that!
Except, "brother of the lord" is a term still used to describe fellow members of the cult. And Saul/Paul considered all christians "brothers and sisters" as read in his letters.
@@XarXXon In the Pauline epistles, the phrase "The Lord's brother" has not been used to describe anyone else other than James, as far as I know...If you know any other reference, you can tell me...🙂
I really appreciate how you go through the methodology of how we figure out who wrote (or may have written) these books. Helps make more sense of how these conclusions are drawn.
Indeed he has a very good methodology to explain facts.
Textual criticism is not an easy subject to summarize as it took about 300 years of scholarship to work out.
Textural analysis is based on the vocabulary used. Did the author use certain words more frequently in any text than another author. The analysis is based on the usage of words in close proximity to other words, say in a phrase. The analysis continues to look at the subjects addressed in the text, what words are used to describe the themes say. The words that modern readers read are affected by the various translators and transcribers of the past. The best text are the earliest text in Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew.
For the Pauline epistles, the theology of various letters center on main theological themes that Paul is expressing.
Textural analysis has been used to look at plays of Shakespeare, or to compare the Iliad to the Odyssey.
I LOVE this series. I could watch material like this all day every day.
I'm on my way to buy your charts to hang on my wall.
Love the video, I stumbled across this as I was studying for my exam, I’m a history major , thank you so much for your videos they help a lot, I’ll show them to my students when I become a teacher
I bought your book and would love to see this series made into another book. I can’t hang charts and a book lets me unfold them when I want to look at them. Great series.
If Paul started listing facts about Jesus in his letters, it would be like messaging somebody and talking about their country, then sending them the wiki page about it.
*Looks at all the debates with Americans about their Country*
Not necessarily so. If Paul is trying to convince members of a given church to do, not do, or believe Thing X, then it would have been rhetorically expected for him to mention any applicable teaching or action of Jesus, if he was aware of one.
What is known is that Paul didn't write about any of those things and that that gospels display an evolutionary development of ideas which most modern Christians have never thought about and have no desire to learn.
@@e_dharmalog Paul didn't have much interest in teachings of Jesus...he was not a follower of Jesus in his lifetime, so he couldn't have a first hand knowledge about Jesus's teachings...Paul was more interested in the theology of crucifixion, resurrection and apocalypse...But there may have been other Christians who were interested in Jesus's teachings and may have preserved at least some of it via oral traditions...
@@ronakbhadra6400 I am not challenging you, but earnestly trying to learn. What is your basis to state that Paul was not a follower of Jesus? I guess I’m trying to understand why Paul would expend so much effort writing letters to others and mentioning Jesus, if he really wasn’t a follower. Thanks for any insight.
EXCELLENT !!! From U.K. (2023).
I always assumed that Galatians were the people living in Galata, the town across the Bosporus from Byzantium, today's Istanbul and former Constantinople.
Today Istanbul it hasn't been called Constantinople since 1930 its just Istanbul
@@thebandit0256 As I wrote: "former Constantinople".
Galatia was an area in Anatolia that apparently spoke a Celtic language or one of its descendants.
@@thhseeking Not only apparently. Galatai is the Greek word for the Celts. In the year 279 BC, three tribes of Celts, the Tolistobogii, the Tectosages and the Trocmi, advanced into Greek territory and plundered Delphi. The king of Bithynia, Nicomedes I., hired them as soldiers to fight against his Zipoetes II., leader of an uprising against his reign. After the battles, they started plundering Anatolia, until they were beaten somewhen around 268 BC in the Battle of the Elephants by Antiochios I. of the Seleukid Empire. Finally, they settled around the antique Ankyra, today's Ankara.
I do enjoy these. They make good reminders for those of us who did this many years ago. Helps bring some of it up to date.
The best series of youtube
These are so helpful! So we’re assuming here that Paul was a real person, but how much of the road to Damascus story do you believe should be interpreted literally? As someone who was raised to believe every single word of the Bible was to be taken literally, these videos have been an excellent aid in broadening my world view. Thank you so much!
21st century Christianity is essentially based upon the Paul's personal visions. Compared to his assertions, all the others amount to little. About Jesus, none of the Biblical writers ever met the man, saw him, witnessed anything he did or heard anything he said. Paul certainly didn't. It's a very flakey/shakey narrative.
When Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, literally, that all Scripture is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), or “God-breathed,” it does not mean that the human authors were “inspired” but that the Scripture itself, the product was, as we have been taught to say, “inspired.”
But how did the divine Word come to us from the inner being of God, as he breathed it out? If 2 Timothy 3:16 speaks to the product, then 2 Peter 1:21 speaks to the process.
@@philipfarnam6013 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” A more exact rendering of the Greek form of the second clause would be, “… but by the Holy Spirit being carried/led, men spoke from God.” In other words, the Holy Spirit was the divine Agent who carried or led or conducted the authors of Scripture so that what they were writing was God-breathed Scripture.
@@vince3685 So you say...with zero evidence. I am skeptical of "divine" anything. I don't see super-naturalism in it. I don't see inspiration beyond an agenda.
Again, this is such interesting and well-made content. I find it really interesting that so many of the Pauline Epistles are so confidently attributed to Paul; it makes me wonder how those made it through history while most contemporary Christian documents didn't.
There weren't any contemporary documents when Paul was writing as the church at that time was certain that Jesus could return any day, as Paul himself believed. Paul's letters weren't written for inclusion in the Bible as they leave out nearly all the context of subject matter and therefore indicate that Paul was communicating exclusively with people who already knew what he believed.
@@sentientflower7891 I get the part about Paul's writings being written in the context of what their recipients already knew about Jesus, but that's just it--how in the heck would people in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, etc. be able to maintain any kind of organized religious practice without written records of some kind? I guarantee that there were at least some Christian documents in existence at the same time as Paul's writings, records of Jesus' teachings and acts or messages from early church leaders. I just wonder why more of them weren't preserved.
@@generalkenobi5533 well, taken at face value Paul's letters indicate that there was no such thing as "organized religious practices" in existence at that time and that Paul's letters were an attempt to solve the most egregious violations of Paul's values among his followers.
Paul's letters also indicate that his own particular form of Christianity wasn't the only form of Christianity in existence at that time, and that these various factions were competing with each other and sometimes at war with each other.
The New Testament as a unified document was written to gloss over these major differences as they sought to unify Paul's Christianity with Peter & James' Christianity, and link it with Old Testament as a means of rendering a new religion into an ancient religion.
@@generalkenobi5533 There wasn't a unified religion in Paul's time. That came much later.
@@generalkenobi5533 That's the point of the Pauline Epistles, to establish a foundation of practices and beliefs for all Christians. We know he was considered like an authoritative figure, so it makes sense that the different communities would preserve his letters, but apart from that it seems that they didn't have much communication between each other and writing things on paper was an expensive endeavor so it's not something that everyone did just to record unimportant everyday things.
I recently discovered your content and find it quite informative and enjoyable - keep up the amazing work!
Did anybody else notice at 1:10 that the books of Timothy(s) and John(s) are all 1s rather than 1, 2, 3
Good catch
Also at :44
Are you a Mason?
First I love your videos and they are a fantastic resource. My question , you mentioned that Paul didn’t mention any of Jesus’s siblings but Paul specifically mentioned James on multiple occasions as the brother of Jesus. How do you explain that ?
Love this series! so sad it's almost done!
Hey, really really well done. Very helpful even if you're already somewhat familiar with this whole discussion. Thank you!
Do a video comparing the genre's of the canonical gospels and the gnostic gospels
No need
Jude was written by someone very familiar with Enoch; it was most likely Thomas as he went by Thomas Judas Didymous. Compare the following:
Jude 1 with Enoch 48:6-7
Jude 4 with Enoch 15:10, 90:6, 105:16, 48:11
Jude 5 with Enoch 88:54-59
Jude 6 with Enoch 12:5, 15:2, 15:6, 16:2-3, 63, 10:6-9, 10:15, 10:17, 16:1, 18:16, 19:2, 53:3-5, 54:6, 61:14, 62:8, 62:15, 66:4, 67:2, 68:39, 89:33, 89:26, 91:3, 93:8, 103:5, 104:3
Jude 7 with Enoch 26:3, 61:14, 10:16-17, 48:9, 53:6, 61:14, 62:14, 66:4, 66:6, 66:10, 66:15, 89-33-35, 89:37, 90:11, 96:11, 99:5, 99:7, 102:1, 103:5, 103:7-8
Jude 8 with Enoch 6:4, 26:2, 104:8
Jude 9 with Enoch 88:60-64
Jude 12 with Enoch 90:6, 105:16, 90:10, 90:13
Jude 13 with Enoch 18:16, 89:32, 100:4-5
Jude 14-15 with Enoch 2, 40:1, 26:2, 100:3
Jude 16 with Enoch 93:5
Jude 21 and 24 with Enoch 93:10
...
I am sure you will agree with me that Jude is a tiny paraphrase of Enoch. But this introduces an issue about early consciousness. Today we are taught that memory only occures from birth to death. Early religious writings group spans of consciousness under a common stream name. Meaning generation would have the memories of their lineage.
I was just wondering why Philemon was left out of the epistles
Galatians 1:18-19
[18] Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, [19] but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.
Paul mentions seeing the brother of Jesus
Also note the traditional dates/ages of death of the Authors/and possible Authors:
Matthew: (Somewhere in the First century)
Mark: 25 April 68 AD (Age: 62-63)
Luke: Unknown (Age: 84)
John: 100 AD (Age: 84-85)
Paul: 64/67 AD (Age: 61-62/64-65)
Priscilla: After 41-49 AD (Possibly after the 60s AD)
Apollos: After 66/67 AD
Timothy: 97 AD (aged 79/80)
Barnabas: After 56-57 AD (Possibly during the 60s AD)
Clement I: 99 AD
In Galatians 1:19, Paul actually mentions “James the Lord’s brother,” so not quite true that he didn’t reference any of Jesus’ family, especially given that Jesus’ brother, James, was a prominent leader of the early church’s Jewish community in and around the province of Judea, particularly Jerusalem. (He is likely the James also related to Jude, author of the epistle, assuming that claim is authentic.)
EDIT: In one of his letters to the Corinthians, he also mentions the Lord’s brothers (plural) when defending his apostleship and seems to rank them on par with the Twelve and seeks to affirm his and Barnabas’ equality as apostles in their own right.
Got Eem🤣
Wasn’t a some gotcha or counterpoint. I love his vids and genuinely agree with his overall viewpoint on these things, even if not in all particulars. Just wanted to point out that Jesus’ literal brothers (and one by name: James) are mentioned in the authentic letters of Paul.
where is the original Aramaic Version?
Great video, thanks!🖖
St. Paul certainly mentioned the command of Jesus in the Last Supper.
In the first Letter to the Corinthians, he writes: “23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”…
Be eternally grateful God thought of you.
If they all start with the exact same phase, how did the later ones know to copy it?
Where are Closed Captions (instead of automatically generated) because it's useful for foreigners that teaching English language?
12:42 Oh you mean like Mark? You know, Peters scribe who wrote the Gospel for him…
When you say the book of James almost did not make it into the New Testament, are you speaking of controversy in the very early church when the cannon was created by the Catholic Church, or later when Luther wanted to remove it because it did not fit his theology (like he did with the deuterocanonical books)?
Both.
Catholic would more closely mean “universal” I thought…
Already know🙂
It was St. Ignatius of Antioch, an apostle of the apostles of Jesus, who first used the term Catholic to refer to the Church which by that time already had spread across the Mediterranean from Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch whose Christian communities would soon develop similar but distinct liturgies (Melkite/ Syriac Orthodox-Catholic, Latin/Roman Catholic, Coptic, Syriac Orthodox-Catholic/ Maronite/ Chaldean/ Syro-Malabar/ Syro-Malankar, Byzantine, etc.).
1 John, 1 John, and 1 John
Love it!
Could you do a map of the Moorish Empire before it fell by the papal bull Dum Diversas please
Hey bro, I think you did a great job.
It really seems like you take the view of the more critical secular scholars, but present it as "standard," "majority opinion," or "generally accepted." For example:
- You state that there's disagreement on the authorship of those three letters, but you assign them the later date anyway.
- You spend a good amount of time talking about Priscilla as a possible author of Hebrews, even though literally zero evidence exists for that idea. Seemingly to make a point about female leadership in the church without actually presenting any evidence for that argument?
- You say Hebrews' "Standard" dating is 70 - 100, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It's the view of a couple scholars, as far as I can tell. It is, at most, the standard view among the more critical scholars. The more standard dating is somewhere in the 60s.
- You expound on the critical scholars who doubt the existence of a historical Jesus based on the contents of Paul's letters, but fail to mention that the majority of scholars don't make that argument.
- The Epistle of Barnabas was also very regularly considered a "disputed" book in the early church (Eusebius, Codex Claromontanus, etc.). It was not just passed around as scripture generally as you seem to suggest.
You don't cite your sources on what's "standard" or "generally accepted." So I can't really verify your claims.
Yes. I am definitely biased towards the consensus of critical scholarship. I tried to make that clear from the beginning of the series.
@@UsefulCharts You don't make that clear, at all, though. You often claim that things are "standard" or "the majority of scholars" when what you really mean is "the majority of extremely critical scholars." Those are very different claims.
To be clear, you seem to be biased towards the most critical scholars, not just "critical scholars."
For example, there are an incredibly small number of scholars who think the historical person of Jesus didn't exist, yet you brought it up as a totally legitimate possibility that comes directly from the evidence presented. The same goes for the presentation about Priscilla. It's a far out hypothesis with zero evidence, but you spent more time on it than much of the actual scholarship.
Those are both extreme views in every sense of the word.
Have you watched my other videos? I've made it clear several times that I believe in a historical Jesus and that the Jesus myth hypothesis is not the mainstream view. I also said in this very video that the Priscilla theory is not the mainstream view.
So, while I agree with you that I present the critical view, I disagree that I present the MOST critical view.
@@UsefulCharts The presentation in this video definitely presented the theory of Jesus as a non-historical, or legendary, figure as totally legitimate. What you believe isn't really relevant when you're making an academic video that presents what is claimed as scholarly opinion. Why even include that line unless your bias pushes the Overton Window to include "the most critical" scholars as totally legitimate?
The Priscilla theory isn't just not mainstream... it's at best fringe, only pushed by people like Ruth Hobbin. Is there any other scholarly work by a living author that makes the claim?
You seem to automatically dismiss all scholars outside of the critical school, and are very open to even the most critical scholars. You are willing to present the most fringe theories, as long as they fall on the far side of critical theory.
Like I said, I made it clear at the beginning of the series that I'd be approaching the topic from a critical view, not a religious one. And that is what I have done.
@UsefulCharts at 0:47 You have put 1 John three times instead of putting 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John.
Literally every school should teach the Bible in this way, people who assume the Bible to be a history document miss out on so much of what it truly says.
Wow this series is a lot more thorough than I originally anticipated. however I imagine it is somewhat simplified due to what I see as your research in the description of each video. The idea of sender and recipient is a new idea I haven't explored yet on other channels that are not expressed by scholars and theologians.
I thought with modern research that in the four gospels the only one was John to be more or less contemporary whereas the other three later. Thanks for the time lines on the epistles. Please confirm on the Gospels
♦♦♦♦You made a mistake. Revelation to John is a epistle (Mail) . It is a letter addressed to others if you read the beginning.
very interesting stuff
Who else still writes letters like in biblical times?
The Pope. They are called encyclicals.
There has been substantive scholarly pushback against the pseudepigraphical conclusion regarding the Pastorals. Some of the so-called bases for that conclusion have been reasonably questioned by some scholars.
What difference does it make? These are letters which were not written to anyone else except their immediate audience.
@@sentientflower7891 Christians through the centuries have chosen to recognize these writings as having authoritative and relevant instruction from God even beyond the original recipients, even while attempting to understand them in that original context. Each person will have to decide whether to submit to that authority or not. This treatment of the literature deemed to be Scripture is a regular feature of the Christian religion. Every person is free to recognize the divine and human nature of these writings or not.
Is “Paul Never Mentions” an argument from silence?
Doo, doo, doodlie doo
*BUM BUMM*
oodlie doodlie doodlie doo
*bum bum Bum BUMMM*
Doo, doo, doodlie doo,
Doodlie.....
"Hi, Matt Baker here. Today...."
Paul does mention Jesus' brother James leader of the church in Jerusalem
Are we going to get a full poster to buy from all of these videos?
Philippi is Philippopolis a different city a major city in Balkan area Philippi is not a city its a sad little village witch has no river running through it. And we know from letters of Paul that Philippi had a big river running trough the city just like Philippopolis. King Philip named Philippopolis after his name upon conquest. Philippopolis was a major regional city and it makes sense to name it after yourself for the glory. There is no glory naming Philippi after yourself when this village has never had more than a few hundred people inhabitants and never had a taller building than 2 story village house.
The NT is a late 3rd party addon. It's not part of the original Bible. It was written by a different group of people, in a different language, in a different time period, for a different target audience, for a different purpose, with a different message.
It seems likely that James was written by the James who was Jesus's brother and he was head of the Jerusalem Church.
Galatians 2 et seq is half of an argument with James about the importance of Jews keeping Jewish law. The position that James advances in the epistle is the counter position to that advanced by Paul.
It is possible that James was written by a person in the Jewish church in Jerusalem who was opposed to Paul and adopted James's position.
But I can certainly see how a church which was by that time entirely in line with the position on faith v works might later seek to exclude James. The fact that it was not must have been that it was widely believed to have been written by Jesus's brother and therefore could not be excluded even though it was saying "the wrong thing", so to speak.
Remember also that Luther wanted to throw that epistle onto the fire!
Can u plz do for Tamil kings . There were 3 kingdoms. Ruled the world once upon a time
Whose copy of these letters would have been saved, thus making it into book form? The sender's or the recipient's? And why? Wouldn't most correspondence have been read and discarded in short order?
Anybody else wonder why Paul didn’t write his own conversion story?🤔
but isnt philemon a st.paul written latter and titus in the psedonymous authorship
Paul wrote the Books highlighted on your map!
Can you do the senussi royal family of Libya please
Matthew was a follower of Jesus, one of the twelve and a (former) tax collector. He was at least bilingual and because of his profession, was educated, no necessarily In theological matters but in for sure in general stuff and of course was aware about cultural stuff between the different tribes and people living in Judea at that time. To say that he wouldn’t write an account of Jesus ministry is idiotic.
UsefulCharts I made a timeline of the Old Testament I wonder if you could review it?
Why no video on apocrypha? Please 🙏🙏🙏🙏
There is one
@@smpark12 that's about the old testament
8 to Ancient Greeks cities. 1 in Rome
Doesn't Paul mention James in 1Cor 15? James is the brother of Jesus, so Paul does mention at least one member of Jesus' family.
I think he said that because James is considered pseudepigrapha, and therefore not considered to be written by Paul
why don't they just call the New Testament "The Book of Paul the Apostle"
As i know, for many christians, they believe that new Testament is made/written by Jesus.
Can you turn on the subtitles ?
Thank you
Not doing the Gnostics, Matt?
Paul only wrote the other six are nothing to do with him.
How did Paul not mention any of Jesus’s family members when he clearly stated that when he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, he only saw Peter and James (Jesus’s brother)?
Astounding that Paul was able to write those letters without even having the gospels.
People forget that paul was a living adult at the time of jesus ministry (even though he thought it was bs)
Wasn't dude s murderer? (Before)
@@us3rG
According to himself, he stood by and watched at the murder of the first Christian martyr, Stephen, who was stoned to death while Paul minded the clothes of those who stoned him.
Of course ordinary people today aren't uniform in style and vocabulary in everything they write, so scholars have to do more than say "it's a different style" to have a point. And they never do. We never get a real detailed explanation of their position.
(The other common argument of "Paul didn't write about what he didn't want to write about" is also ridiculous)
When you come to 1st and 2nd Peter in the video, you insult his intelligence and learning capability quite openly. In other videos, I've seen you talk about your credits and accolades in academia. If you were with someone who is well educated and you studied under them everyday for 3 years straight, would you not be concerned an expert in that area?
If for example, I studied carpentry under an expert Carpenter for 3 years straight every day with no vacation, would I not be considered an expert in carpentry?
Since Peter studied under a Jewish rabbi for 3 years straight and then continued his education and training after that, would we not expect him to be well educated and learned? Or would we continue to treat him as a incompetent and literate imbecile and fishermen?
13:52 Jude aka Kevin Jonas
A little less thorough than the previous lessons. I was left wanting more information on the pseudo. letters; and perhaps some examples of the style similarities and differences that lead scholars to their conclusions.
Its dî-dû-kae?
I thought it was dai dæ kē?
As a Christian I have to say I Don't care who wrote what lol. The basic message is, we are sinners, we are damned unless we call on Christ for mercy. The rest are just words.
"everyone agrees there's no way Paul actually wrote Hebrews."
"Hebrews is the most eloquent and polished book in the new testament"
Brutal.
I don't necessarily think this a critique of Paul's prose quality. Another common reason for rejecting Pauline authorship for the Hebrews is due to the style of intertextuality that Hebrews employs in contrast to Paul. Hebrews is suffuse with quotes and allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures, with varying degrees of clarity and obscurity to the point where the actual number of 'quotes' is still debated, which is different from how Paul quotes from the OT.
Author and Writer aren’t always the same guy, also. Kinda like biography and autobiography. The point being Paul’s POV is presumed autobiographical due to his job in the scheme of things being an orator. Meaning, he spoke and someone listened and recorded while God/Jesus spoke to him.
Paul, by his own attestation was a very messy writer. His own works were theologically complex and eloquent, but did not have a polished Greek style. I don't think any insult was intended.
@@ngyuhng8324 Quotes and allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures though could easily be explained by the intended recipients (hint in the title). Paul may quote the OT less in the other epistles, but it's clearly not due to any lack of knowledge of the OT. This would also explain why the epistle is anonymous - Paul starts all his epistles with "Paul, an apostle", however he clearly states in his speech in Acts that he was an apostle *to the gentiles*. Which would explain why he'd refrain from using the title when addressing Jews.
There is no way to prove that Paul wrote Hebrews. The author does not state his name. The Bible is a can of worms when you attempt to study its origin.
An interesting note about Pricilla: when she and her husband are referred to in Paul’s letters, it’s always “Pricilla and Aquilla,” which was super uncommon for the time. Men were always mentioned first, so the fact that Paul reverses that order is honestly fascinating.
Pricilla was most likely a early Elder . Archeological evidence has noted in stone Female names as Presbyter(elder) in the ruins of the early churches in Greece. Letters to Timothy are much later and most likely discontinued that practice because of Rome.
6:00 - Ephesians is alluded to by Ignatius (AD 107) and other apostolic fathers, so they cannot reasonably be placed around that time, even if you don't accept their genuine authorship.
7:00 - What you say is absolutely correct, these are letters, not biographies, but Paul actually does refer to several of those: Jesus' brothers are talked about (1 Cor 9:15, Gal 1:19), and some of Jesus' sermons (on divorce see 1 Cor 7:10-11). People should give Paul his credit lol
The epistles were all written in response to particular problems and issues as well. Its not unreasonable to assume they would only mention relevant things.
Its also highly possible for believers that some letters may have been longer and later trimmed down, God only preserving theological necessities. God doesn't care about literal details.
Paul also reminds the Corinthians of the last supper and communion as a general practice. He uses almost identical language as what we find in the Gospels.
Hey there UsefulCharts, this is a good summary - but I feel that it lacks some context. It would have been nice in the case of the pseudepigrapha to know a little bit about why the documents were written, and from which early Christian communities - according to bible scholars. Knowing that a document was NOT written by James is not the same thing as knowing who scholars think MIGHT have written it, and why. Providing these details would help spark interest and some kind of basis from which interested viewers could move forward in their own study of the topic.
@@mingledingle1556 Anytime a book is rejected, you know its worth reading over the Pauline writings. James, Jude, the Didache all represent the purest form of the teachings. They didn't leave any room for a "Vicor of Christ" type of organization, which Paul turned the Gospel into despite not being a chosen disciple
@@BlackDocP James and Jude are the purest form of teaching the beliefs of their faction, as the John epistles and gospel represent Johannine Christianity, and the Pauline epistles represent Paul's beliefs in their purest form. But there's still nothing to say that any of these represent the core beliefs of the first generation of Christians more truly than any other. The Gnostic texts were also rejected; and while they're also worth reading, they're probably the furthest from the original teachings. From the viewpoint of the scholar, each thread of beliefs arising from the original mission of Jesus represents a separate attempt to make sense out the teachings, and adapt them to a new worldview - and each of those attempts are so utterly different at times to be incompatible, even side-by-side within the accepted texts of the New Testament.
Some believe that the Psudepigrapha was written to help cement early christian beliefs against certain heresies.
It is a huge mistake to think that the Christians of the second and third centuries followed the same dogma as the Catholic or Orthodox churches do today; there were many different sects believing in many different interpretations of Jesus' life, such as Adoptionism (Jesus was not born as the son of god, but rather was adopted at some point in his life). Docetism (Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion) or even Marcionism (that the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the old testament). The argument is that these extra books were added to counter these once dominant ideas. Of course, that is just one theory...
Early Christian Heresy is a very interesting topic! Alas I don't think it could be fitted in a Chart so no videos on it here.
@@the_clawing_chaos I don't think those ideas were ever dominant. The ancient world wasn't as connected as we are today, they didn't have internet or any means of instant communication, so of course some weird ideas would develop between certain communities, and it's true there was an effort to correct these weird ideas, precisely because they were weird and had nothing to do with what most Christians believed.
Totally agree Thomas. I was thinking the same thing!
Christianity.. such a fascinating religion. I went to a Catholic skl and learnt abt Jesus and got interested in wanting to known more. I read the bible from the skl and watched movies abt Jesus with my dad. Jesus was truly a great person in how Christianity presented Him and it was sad how He got crucified. To every Christians in the world get closer to God and stay happy do not convert if u r forced 💪 God bless all of you. Love from a Hindu
Have you ever though about becoming Christian brother
@@Deto4508 Back then yes. But then I started learning more abt my religion and become to love Shri Krishna so much.
Thanks, brother! 😎👍🏻
Back atcha. Much love to my Indo-Aryan kin.
@@Deto4508 Do these videos annoy you at all?
@@shani2926 I just think when we look at the evidence, Christ made claims only God can make and he ended up proving it, so many of his apostles were willing to die on that truth. Maybe you can look into the historicity of Christianity because Jesus made heavy claims and proved it and said that to see eternal life in heaven that we would have to follow him.
I don't know if you're already planning to do this, but I would love a final wrap-up video for this series that summarizes everything.
The catechism of UsefulCharts?
It doesn’t matter who wrote it. Paul was on the phone with God during the live recording of the conversation/discourse/narrative, basically. It’s just a fancy way of showing how the mechanics manifested from where Jesus left off. We’re basically looking at what’s written in text message format🤦🏽♂️
THIS
There are references to two events from Jesus' life in the writings of Paul: the Last supper, and Jesus' teachings against divorce. But the basic reason Paul doesn't talk about Jesus' life is because it was irrelevant to why he wrote his letters. He wrote to resolve disputes in the communities he was writing to, and the events of Jesus' life are irrelevant to that.
well, my counter points :
1. the last supper in paul's letter is devoid of details, no mention of the supposed disciples, unlike the gospel accounts, but from the gospels we are supposedly to be informed that it was during that event that judas made his betrayal move, such an important detail, which bring me to the next point...
2. you may say that such details are irrelevant, but then supposedly the letters predate the gospels, so it's actually unknowable as to whether or not the receivers of said letters are aware of the entire jesus stories like the ones depicted in the gospels, you can only assume that the receivers were aware of those specific jesus stories after you yourself were made aware of the gospel stories in the first place. while on the other hand, paul's letters were in fact told us about a different kind of jesus (a fully divine, celestial one ish).
3. therefore it's not impossible, from historical scientific point of view that the jesus that the earliest christians believed in was different than what most christian later believed, after the gospels became popular and canonized.... heck, even from these letters and other nt books, we can see that there were different kind of christians even back then, if not, why then the bible say things like: "beware of people who preached different gospels to you" ? those who "orthodox" christians deemed as "heretics" were and still are today, nothing more than evolved christians cults from scientific point of view.
@@Napoleonic_S letters are supposed to be brief and to the point.paul never expected that his letters would one day be held in high esteem .he also makes it very clear why he is writing the letter.The account of the life and teachings of christ were transmitted orally infact the gospel and its main teachings were spread through word of mouth not by books and definitely not through a letter.(For the majority of the people back then were illiterates )the teaching of christ were written down later to ensure their survival in the time of intense persecution.
@@Abk367
I know that, and that doesn't challenge the points I raised before. We can only assume that the earliest christians believed the same Christianity that later became dominant, after we ourselves get exposed with the gospels themselves.
But Paul wrote a not so similar kind of Jesus, and also why then do you think that Paul did not get involved with or even converted from the orally transmitted teachings that were similar to the ones in those letters that he later wrote about?
Also we all know how inconsistent oral tradition can be, which support the notion that Christianity could have evolved from mythical Jesus first.
@@Napoleonic_S a fully divine christ? Have you even read the letters?Paul's writings emphasized the crucifixion, Christ's resurrection and the second coming of Christ. Paul saw Jesus as Lord (kyrios), the true messiah and the Son of God, who was promised by God beforehand, through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. While being a biological descendant from David ("according to the flesh" from romans 1:3).Jesus has to be fully human and fully man to serve as an attonment or to be the second Adam .This is at the core of Paul's teachings. None of these things contradict anything present in the gospels .like I said the letters he wrote were to the point .Paul also believed that's his teachings are consistent with that of the teachings of his fellow apostles like Peter(1st Corinthians ).
@@Abk367
Paul's crucifiction narrative is also different than the multiple accounts depicted in the gospels. Again you can only assume that Paul's narrative is the same with the gospels after you yourself were aware of the gospels in the first place.
If the book of Hebrews is a letter written to the Jews of Jerusalem how could it be written after 70 AD
Good point. I should have said, "to the Jews in Judea/Palestine". Not everyone died during the destruction of Jerusalem but obviously many did move to other places around that time.
The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE and made things very difficult for Jews but did not *expel* the Jews from Jerusalem until the Romans put down the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 CE.
@@alaskaroy Correct. Jerusalem was returned to the Jews after the first revolt and there was even an attempt by Trajan to fund a rebuilding of the Temple. According to the Talmud this effort was sabotaged by the Samaritans who provided Trajan with "wrong" dimensions for the Temple, prompting the Pharisees who were then in control of the religious leadership to reject it. However, we now know that multiple sects of Jews had different views about the dimensions of the Temple. In fact, the Qumranic community left behind a layout of their "correct" Temple complete with their scathing commentary on how Herod and the Sadducees screwed up when they renovated it. In any case, if there had been a dispute over the dimensions of the Temple in Trajan's time, enough Jews must have moved back into Jerusalem to bicker amongst themselves about those dimensions. That said, according to the Talmud at this time the Jerusalem Church was long gone as the Christians actually left the city BEFORE the first revolt. If James the Just in Josephus is the same James, brother of the Lord, then the Christians probably left after their leader was killed.
I would place Hebrews before the Second Temple's destruction. The author establishing Jesus as an eternal high priest and priests of the order of Melchizedek seemed to me as the author giving Jewish Christians alternatives to the Jewish Aronide/Levite priesthood which was based on descent from Aaron and was based in the temple with the author clarifying that Jesus was the ultimate, final sacrifice so these Christians would not need to interact with the Temple or Sadducees at all.
@@UsefulCharts But the author writes as if there was still the Temple;hence, it was written before AD 70 for sure!! Have u studied theology or learn it from comics?
Thank you yet again for yet another excellent video.
On the subject of "Paul never mentioned anything Jesus did in his letters" I look on the many educational letters I've written to junior colleagues as a doctor. Never once have I written anything along the lines of "...as you know..." One starts from shared understanding and concentrates on the subject at hand, so why repeat what is already well understood? Especially where one is trying to communicate important issues of nuance or indeed correction.
I like the content of your videos. However, content aside, your voice alone is great to listen to. Ever consider doing book readings? Like Lord of the Rings. Or even just ancient texts or genealogy documents of interests? Would you consider doing a video where you just read an english translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh? Just a straight read with some commentary at the end?
Lord of the Ring is one thing Gilgamesh is something very different.
I second this. You've got an outstanding audiobook voice.
It would be very cool if he read the entire bible and also the apocrypha
Matt thank you so much for actually putting captions on your videos. So many TH-camrs can't be bothered to do this, even those who could easily afford it. I and probably a lot of deaf people really appreciate it.
There are two main reasons why the Pastoral Epistles are thought to be Pseudopigrapha. One is that they presume a much more complex church organization and hierarchy than was present in Paul's time. There are frequent mentions of bishops, elders, and practices and traditions that took place at church meetings. The second reason is because they present a view of women that is much more patriarchal than that which is present in Paul's genuine epistles. Paul wasn't a big fan of marriage but tolerated it as a necessity. He viewed women as more-or-less equal to men and praised a number of female church leaders. The Pastorals, in contrast, present a patriarchal hierarchy in which the church is structured to resemble the family unit with the husband being the head of the house and the wife expected to be silent, compliant, and modest. The date I have frequently seen for the probable writing of the Pastorals is around 120-140 AD. I don't remember when those books were first mentioned by later church writers. Does anyone know?
1 Corinthians 11 would seem to disagree. Paul, in this letter, specifically puts men in the position of authority over women.
"3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and [a]the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."
There's also this in Ephesians 5:
22 Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
@@natchitoches6702 The authorship of Ephesians is still debated. There really is no standard or accepted view.
With that said, a very similar concept is present in 1 Corinthians as well.
@@Sgman1991 Sometime you wish that Paul had stayed silent or wrote a better situation as to how to deal with the problem of gossiping women (who can be quite spiteful and I can see how church issues that loose the friendship element can be thrown back on them) and giggling girls. (not that fellas are really much better).
@@Sgman1991 That part of 1 Corinthians may be a later interpolation. It doesn't seem to flow naturally with the rest of the text.
Is this series going to be a book? Including references etc. I would really want that!
Time moves so fast. I never expect these to come out as soon as they do. Being surprised definitely makes these more satisfying of course.
Hi, here is another quote to fix the claims in this video, where Paul actually mentions Jesus teaching and facts about His life:
"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes". 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
It is story, which we know from Gospels with quoting of Jesus. Paul is familiar with it
“For I received from the lord that which I passed onto you” literally means Jesus himself told Paul the stuff that Paul is now telling his audience. Paul is telling us that he learned about “the LORD’s supper” (note LORD and not LAST) because Jesus told him about it in a vision. Paul had a vision of Jesus doing this and used his vision as a basis for a ritual Christian meal.
I don't know much about the epistles but I'm always happy to learn especially through your videos! Would a vid on religious relics be possible in future?
Brilliant idea 👍
When yours actually does stuff considering where it should be currently on the store shelf, because sometimes people forget about the tags before it’s put on😂
Please make video(s) on "Who wrote the Indian scriptures"
I'm pretty sure Paul and John shared writing credits on most of the most know ones.
And I know Ringo got a couple too :D
…..poor George, no mention of him. No wonder why he wrote “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”
He wrote about octopuses
@@enmunate octopie
I'm a simple man... If i see ''Who wrote the bible'' i'll just click it
One of my favorite series on TH-cam (along with Esoterica’s Kabbalah lectures). This is such great content, thank you
WONDERFUL WORKS!
I IMAGINE YOU'D BE A GREAT TEACHER, AND YOUR STUDENTS ARRIVE EARLY, ENJOY SOME KNOWLEDGE, AND HANG AROUND AFTER CLASS AND ASK QUESTIONS.
"I've been in church school...we're discussing the letters of Paul...but I feel like I'm reading someone else's mail!" --PEANUTS
When your uncle asked you to fill in for your dad, and still ended up needing you full time at his shop also, anyway🤓
“ Two Corinthians. I love Two Corinthians. It’s my favorite book in the Bible.” - some shmuck, probably