Who Wrote the Epistles?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2021
- Buy the summary chart:
usefulcharts.com/collections/...
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
"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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
Matt thank you so much for actually putting captions on your videos. So many UA-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.
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.
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 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
One of my favorite series on UA-cam (along with Esoterica’s Kabbalah lectures). This is such great content, thank you
Thank you. These are fascinating and extremely well organized and presented. It is a credit to your work that so many people who are clearly knowledgeable about these subjects follow and discuss your work.
Grateful as always for the excellent summary, and especially the mention of notable apocrypha!
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
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 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.
Your presentation is perfect. A real joy to see the result of your work.
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.
I am so grateful to you for mentioning Howard Bloom’s theory about the Book of J. Whether or not his theory is plausible, it’s a testament to your intellectual honesty and academic rigor that you included it.
Thank you, I have been looking for this information for years, and now you bring it to me, with structure and logic. Now, Paul makes sense to me. Thanks a lot.
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?
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'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
Great video as always Matt!
I definitely needed this today - thanks!
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😂
Is this series going to be a book? Including references etc. I would really want that!
a fitting name, i did find these charts helpful for visualizing, thanks for your hard work =)
This video series is excellent and very interesting.
Please make video(s) on "Who wrote the Indian scriptures"
I recently discovered your content and find it quite informative and enjoyable - keep up the amazing work!
You have been a pivotal part of understanding my faith, I grew up in an evangelical Christian community and nothing made any sense. It is only now that I am evaluating the texts through a critical lens that I am able to weed out the bs. I can't thank you enough for the work you do. God bless ❤🙏
Great video, thanks!🖖
As a Roman Catholic, I really appreciate these videos, just absolutely beautifully put together!
Have you checked out Brant Pitre on Catholic Productions channel? He’s my favorite teacher.
As a Catholic, I do too
"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🤓
This is so fascinating and interesting!
Love this series! so sad it's almost done!
I love the idea of Priscilla writing Hebrews, especially pairing with the possible later writing of Ephesians.
The tail end of Ephesians 5 is probably responsible for a lot of the patriarchal traditions in Christianity, and the thought of having Priscilla write one of the books before Ephesians was written/compiled/whatever is an amazing thing to consider
Sadly there isn't a single shred of evidence to support that theory. It's a nice thought experiment but not much more.
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.
@@nathandlogosmusic1106 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.
Hey, really really well done. Very helpful even if you're already somewhat familiar with this whole discussion. Thank you!
I would love to see you do a series on the Mishna and Talmud as well as later writings. That would be awesome, as I am having a hard time envisioning that period in relation to the earlier videos you made. Thanks Matt!!
I am definitely looking forward to Nov 12 now. This series has been very well done. When you finish it, can we get a complete bibliography? I know several of the videos have them, but it would be super helpful if they were combined in one place. I might want to do a lit review on them later.
Is Nov 12 the date in which episode 7 is gonna come up??
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.
These videos are priceless.
very interesting stuff
"by a woman named Priscilla." I think I've heard of her, she was queen of the desert.
that would make it the first book ever written by a bus.
and I always thought busses had enough trouble to read their own numberplates.
He mentions James, “the brother of the Lord.” That’s usually considered a family member of some sort.
I should add that the words for “brother” and “cousin” were the same in the language it was translated from (according to one of his other videos)
A cousin. In some languages this relationship is described something like "brother once removed" or maybe more correctly "second brother".
Love it!
The best series of youtube
Heads-up in case others haven't pointed out -> at 0:56 "1 John" is repeated 3 times (instead of 1, 2, 3 John, I assume)
Oops!
There’s also two 1 Timothies.
Since you refer to "scholars", it would be nice to include exact references to academic literature in the description.
Its generally taken to be christian monks (for better phrasing) from about 400 to 800 AD, with a fair amount of a mix of ( mostly British Educated!) C19th studiers of Greek and Latin contexts and documents. we have of course found (and lost) a number of additional documents from the days of the bible 400BC to 220AD approx , particulary the dead sea scrolls and the septuagint and other translations from Hebrew and so on exist (see other useful charts ). A lot of what was written in late victorian / edwardian england in terms of studies of the Bible and its messages we would probably dismiss now - possibly even some of the 1950s study guides. I would probably get a decent set of IVP (Inter Varsity Press) guides to each of the bible books (which give a volume of writings greater than the bible !) for a decent summary of academic thinking, plus add a few left of field different interpretors of the wording and events (say for taking a form of allegory in the building of the first temple as pointing to jesus in terms of sacrifice acceptable to god). It is also worth looking at some of the slighly later christian writings just after paul's letters, up to the time of Clement, ( early christian writings published by pelican books ) as they give a context of the suffering and oppression of christians under the ceasars of rome which it would be difficult to understand them staying to their faith if they did not have an assurity to the underlying truth of it.
Nobody:
America: Yeah, we gonna get that Muhammad in Black bro😃
@@the2ndcoming135 mentions of Josephus flavius mentions Paul in antiquity of the Jews
@@adamwarsaw4511 yeah, well I’m not related to that guy tho😁
@@the2ndcoming135 never said you did
Hey bro, I think you did a great job.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you
“ Two Corinthians. I love Two Corinthians. It’s my favorite book in the Bible.” - some shmuck, probably
It's not important who wrote the book. What's important is what's written in it.
Can’t wait for the last video on Daniel and Revelation. But I was wondering if you will also include others apocalyptic literature?
I am so excited for the next episode supposedly it's my namesake
Superb job, except for the lack of commentary on internal discontinuities among the "epistles," including the well-established high probability that numerous "Pauline" epistles actually are stitched-together documents from multiple sources.
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?
I am very interested in certain charts. But I hope (!!) you will make one or more of this series as well and I can buy them together, thus limiting shipment cost.
Excellent videos! When are we having chapter 7 (The Apocalypse and the Book of Daniel)???
While the order of Old Testament books can vary considerably in Bibles translated into different languages, the New Testament books almost always come in the same order. The one exception I know of is Bibles for German-speaking Protestants, where Martin Luther proposed doing away with four books whose authenticity and teachings he found suspect. They are placed at the end of them, as a sort of Christian Apocrypha.
These four books, and the reasons I think Luther disliked them, are:
1.) Hebrews - because he doubted the centuries-old claim (and official Catholic teaching of the time) that it was written by Paul.
2.) James - because its famous teaching that "faith, if it has no works, is dead", seemed to poke Luther's own belief in "salvation by faith alone" in the eye.
3.) Jude - because it quotes from two non-scriptural sources, the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses.
4.) Revelation - because Luther didn't want people obsessively "cracking the code" to find out how the world will end, an issue that persists in Christianity to the present day.
To me , there is a part of the Old Testament ( Psalms I think) 'Serve The Lord With Gladness' where the word Serve can be equally translated as Worship. Effectively Faith, And Works, are the same thing. Jesus is our salvation by faith for the sins we have of failing to carry out the good works to humanity. (the sin offering in the old testament)..
I’d agree with most of your assessment. I’d point out that it would be more accurate to say in 3.) Jude- because it quotes from two non Canonical sources, the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. In Judes day, there was quite a bit of material considered scripture that didnt make the Masoretic OT Canon. For various reasons, most of it bogus. It was very enlightening to realize that the Essenes included several books in their “canon” that the Masoretics expunged from the OT “canon” that we are familiar with today.
I'm a simple man... If i see ''Who wrote the bible'' i'll just click it
It is a great video
I know you look at history and religion but would you ever consider doing a chart on the Tolkein legendarium and the history of Middle Earth? A video of that in your style/format would be fantastic!
I've never heard Thessaloniki pronounced "Thessalon-eye-ki" before. Only with all the "i"s short.
That’s because they’re supposed to be pronounced short. This pronunciation was incorrect.
@@jeremias-serus my family literally comes from Thessaloniki, I think I know how it’s pronounced, thanks. As do the millions of native Greek speakers in the world. While the Ancient Greek pronunciation might have changed, you can definitely use the modern pronunciation since it’s still an inhabited and large city.
And my comment isn’t a criticism of how it’s pronounced by international speakers, I’m confirming the OPs comment that in the native Greek language it uses short “I”s. And by using a longer “I” sound, it is in fact incorrect for the modern Greek language.
@@jeremias-serus 🙄 please continue to make assumptions about me, a stranger on the internet. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news (well, not really) but you’re wrong btw.
And honestly mate, give it a rest. You sound like you’re trying to find something to argue where there’s nothing to argue over.
8:16 "virtually no Biblical scholars attribute this book to Paul, even in the most conservative circles"
This is inccurate. Of the faculty at Bob Jones University, a conservative Christian university where nearly the entire seminary staff has doctorates in bible, theology, or textual criticism, over half claim they believe Paul wrote Hebrews. The same can be said for other conservative schools like Pensacola Christian College, and Masters Seminary. Not arguing whether they're correct, just pointing out that there are still A LOT of conservative scholars who believe Paul wrote Hebrews.
" A LOT of conservative scholars" - And ZERO Objective scholars. Next...?
@@XMeK Sorry, you don’t get to deny scholarship based on your own opinion.
@@kekkek2852 Proclaiming A Priori opinions is "scholarship" only in your benighted world.
@@XMeK By that opinion most ideas within that field is ‘benighted.’
@@kekkek2852 And that, unsurprisingly, is filled with fail.
The Epistle to the Galatians is the first New Testament writing ever written. That is what makes it so special.
Very informative👏👏👏🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭
UPDATE: A summary chart is now available: usefulcharts.com/collections/religion/products/timeline-of-the-bible
Complete Series:
1. Torah - ua-cam.com/video/NY-l0X7yGY0/v-deo.html
2. Prophets - ua-cam.com/video/IAIiLSMOg3Q/v-deo.html
3. Writings - ua-cam.com/video/Oto0UvG6aVs/v-deo.html
4. Apocrypha - ua-cam.com/video/HYlZk4Hv-E8/v-deo.html
5. Gospels & Acts - ua-cam.com/video/Z6PrrnhAKFQ/v-deo.html
6. Epistles - ua-cam.com/video/2UMlUmlmMlo/v-deo.html
7. Daniel & Revelation - ua-cam.com/video/fTURdV0c9J0/v-deo.html
8: Summary Chart - ua-cam.com/video/9uIXzUEwrOg/v-deo.html
Any ideas on Thecla?
maybe talk in the next episode briefly about the Mishna and the Talmud? after all Jews do call them the Non-written Torah.
I'm considering it.
@@UsefulCharts oh, good to know... i pretty sure that the tradition that Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi compiled the Mishna and Rav Ashi compiled the Talmud (Babylonian, the Jerusalemite Talmud was compiled by Rabbi Yochanan) are history accurate
@@user-ln9yo9sh5d Ok. The ideea was to deal with the New Testament. Mishna will be the next topic. Step by step.
@@VSP4591 i said it because it's gonna be the last episaode of the series and Daniel is not from the new testement so i was suggesting that
and as you can see he said he was considering it so he liked the idea
@@user-ln9yo9sh5d Ok
Sad to hear only one episode left. I was hoping you'd also do Quaran and Mormon books.
Read through comments and am excited to hear that you're considering Oral Torah episode(s)!
In the description, it says he's doing an bonus episode on the Quran after the final episode.
@@Ellyerre thank you! I missed that.
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.
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.).
Q: Who wrote the bible?
A: People
True that…
Yeah but which people
the Gospels and Acts always were a part of teaching at elementery school and quite understandable, the Epistles part of a boring sermon in church and no idea the man upfront was taking about. it was an ordeal, because when you ate the peppermints you could not put those in the collection box and keep the quarters you got for that purpose. And you needed the peppermints to prevent jawning too loud.
I think boredom played a very big role in becoming an atheist.
Nevertheless it is very good to see the NT books put in their historical context. It is actually by these video's I realised the Gospels came later the Paul's writings and not before as I was told.
Keep on with this.
Can't wait to find out how this book ends!
God: Hi, is this Paul? How’d you like to come work for me?
Paul: How soon can I start? I just crushed my mustang with some bodies in the trunk😅
My favorite book is the book of revelation, I believe John the disciple wrote it, but it doesn't matter to me if it was another John, what matters is that this prophecy is coming to pass
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.
Thank you for this interesting and intelligent material.👏
Psycho girlfriends reflect everyday bro👏🏽
Man there is so much history behind all of these works
You can say that however is it true!
The key fact is that none of the writers of the New Testament ever met Jesus.
John did and so did paul.
@@yakovmatityahu Paul? When Jesus appeared to him during one of his epileptic seizures?
And you think the "John" was the same John who wrote the Gospel of St John and Revelations?
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.
(I suggest adding in a line on the chart for Jesus' crucifixion. Seems relevant)
Great video!
But, that would mean God of The Trinity has 360°😎
@@the2ndcoming135 Why's that?
@@the2ndcoming135 what
1 Clement was another epistle that may have been included in some early New Testament canons but was left out when the canon was standardized.
I have a suggestion for a new useful chart tree. The dates of different early Islamic sources/books (ibn ishaq, ibn hisham ..etc )are always in the debate when it comes to the History and historicity of Islam. I think it would be a very needed project to categorize early Muslim sources starting from the earliest sources showing what survive to the modern times of that books either in full or as quoted in other subsequent works. a chart like this would put a more accurate perspective of different Muslim works and how close they were to the events they describe. also, it would be a very handy tool for researchers of early Islamic history and medieval history in general.
new episodes of this give me as much seratonin as new episodes of rpdr
I'd love to see a timeline of the Dead Sea Scrolls (creation, loss, recovery, etc)
EXCELLENT !!! From U.K. (2023).
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
Be eternally grateful God thought of you.
Can you do an Q&A
I have only recently become aware of the matter of Preterism when reading the scriptures
Maybe worth considering when you write your study of Revelations
Thanks