Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Direct Answer Bercot weighs internal evidence heavily and treats motive/agenda as a key test for forgery: if a document doesn’t serve a later program, faking it would be pointless. He is urging readers to let concrete details inside the text—ministry structure, baptism practice, worship form—correct modern assumptions rather than assuming later church patterns existed from the start.

Support from Transcript:

• He admits the possibility of deception: “someone could have faked all of these things… to make it look earlier.”
• Then he presses motive: “but what would have been the point of doing that?” and says forgeries usually have “some agenda they were trying to push.”
• He argues the Didache “doesn’t contain anything that fits a later agenda,” implying authenticity.
• He notes typical forgeries are “very easy to catch” because they claim apostolic authorship while “internal evidence almost always points to a later date.”
• His dating method is built on internal clues: prophets/teachers still active, only bishops/deacons, “living water,” brief communion prayers, and prophets presiding.