Much has been written about the authorship of the Book of Hebrews. One of criteria of a work being included in the canon was apostolic authorship. So it seems that the Council at Carthage generally believed in a Pauline authorship for Hebrews.
However there are severe problems with this view. Paul indroduced himself in every other epistle or letter. Hebrews is not consistent with this. The writing style is also quite different from his other letters. There is no internal reference to the author. There are other things that point to a non Pauline authorship, but these are beyond the scope of this post.
Today there is little dispute against non-Pauline authorship. However, there are many theories as to who the author or authors may be. Posibilities include Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Luke, Apollos, and Pricilla. There may be others that I am not aware of.
I have read quite a bit on this and I have not seen any arguments strong enough for any of the candidates that would lead me to actually "believe" that any one was the author. All the evidence is either circumstantial, supposition or educated guesses. Personally I lean toward Priscllia, but all it is is a slight lean, and certainly nothing I would declare to believe.
What is most interesting to me is not necessarily who actualy wrote it (we will probably never know for sure) but rather that if Hebrews is not of Apostolic authorship then it fails the test used by the men at Carthage who decided what was canonical and what was not. If they were wrong about the apostlolic authorship of Hebrews( I think they were) then by their own standards, Hebrews should not have been included in the Canon of Scripture and should not therefore be included in our modern Bibles . Yet it remains with little debate, which seems inconsistent to me. (Questioning the canon is like slapping a sacred cow)
Who is to say that Hebrews actually belongs in Bible then? Who is to say that it does not? Who is to say that these men, several centuries after Paul, who took upon themsleves to decide what is "God-breathed" and what was not, were infallible and got it all 100 percent correct?
When we look at Hebrews or any other book of the Bible and declare it to be the God-breathed Word of God, we are making the great presumption that the Council at Carthage did a perfect job in working out the canon. Did they ? Are we as Christians bound to their decision and if so by what authority?
I stop a long time ago worring about who wrote what or whether any one book should of not been in the bible or should of been added
I believe the Council at Carthage only pict the books that seem to line up with their beliefs other wise Hebrews agree with one of their doctrines
but I still enjoied reading this tread thank you for giving us this tread to share as we grow for me past who wrote it
but to you I hope you get the answer you need at this second you neeed it and our friend Goey is very wise and I enjoy reading his heart as he searches for truth like I enjoy reading your heart as you search for truth
I don't presume to speak for Jeff, but I didn't pick up that he was actually worrying about who the writer of Hebrews was. As for me, find this kind of study to be rather intersting.
In the the theological study of a scriptural writing, one of the first steps is to try to determine or verify authorship. You will see at least a paragraph on that in just about any well done theological outline or exposition of scripture. I wouldn't call that worrying. It's a part of hermeneutics and theological study.
As far as the Council at Carthage goes, I think they did a pretty good job of selecting writings that lined up with each other theologically and rejecting those that were of unknown authority, spurious, or in disagreement with the larger body of generally accepted writings. Of course there were some disputes. The disputed books that were eventually included were Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James & Revelation. But all in all I think they did a pretty good job in compiling the most authoritive writings to be used by the Church for faith and practice. However, I do not beleive that they were infallible in their decision any more than I think that God actually dictated the NT word by word to the writers as VPW and many others teach.
This is not to say that the other writings like the Apocrapha or even the Pseudepigapha(many of which are fakes or forgeries)are no value or that they contain no truth at all. I think that we can actually get quite a bit from them if we approach them wisely.
Year 2027, I'm not looking for an answer as much as good fellowship. I'm content with Apollos as my first pick as the writer of Hebrews, but the topic isn't worth arguing about. I think that a lot the wrangling done on the topic over the centuries has been mean spirited and quite frankly unworthy of any of God's children. Similar events in my life on this topic has proven that leadership can be petty, overbearing, and frankly destructive if they don't allow God's people the freedom to consider any matter as a matter of conscience.
You're right Goey, I'm not worried in the least about who the writer of Hebrews was.
But all this stuff about the council of Carthage is beyond my scope of history. It is interesting to me that the topic brought up the canon of the scriptures though, I'll just take it in.
As far as the how I refer to the book of Hebrews, it is scripture. I don't hesitate in the least to refer to it on any topic in God's Word. As a matter of fact it brings up some things that aren't covered anywhere else in the same detail and it fits with the rest of the scripture faultlessly.
Goey - I did not take you as speaking for Jeff I was just trying to tell Jeff your words have wisdom they would be valuable to read and add to his words
Goey - its all ways good to see you and I know we do not agree on everything
JeffSjo - good fellowship is great my friend - - yes nothing worth arguing about - yes we need freedom to consider any matter as a matter of conscience. - if you want to read some of the books here a site even that is a Mormon site it got many books to think about like The Book of Jasher
used in Joshua 10:13 but take it with a gain of salt if you read
There's another little tidbit that fits with Apollos being the writer.
Acts 18: 24 & 28
These say that Apollos was "mighty in the scriptures" and "mightily convinced the Jews and that publically, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ"
In my observation, this fits the writer of Hebrews exactly, Many of the topics in Hebrews fits both these descriptions. And while I'd be willing to consider Priscilla as my first choice, she doesn't seem to have as many qualities plainly stated about her in God's word that seem to fit.
I think it means he was very well versed in the OT and was good at expounding them. No more, no less.
When it comes to questions like the authorship of Hebrews, where there is insufficient external or internal evidence to draw a solid conclusion, it seem to me that the best answer is that "we can only make an educated guess".
There are several plausible possibilities, none of which include Paul as the author IMO. As far as I will stick my neck out is to say that I am pretty sure that Paul didn't write it.
Apollos is certainly plausible, so is Barbabas, Clement, Aquilla/Priscilla or even a dual authorship of Barnabas/Apollos. Here is a nicely written outline by Daniel Wallace.
That brings to mind an old saying " If it doesn't say, you just don't know."
I'm not saying Apollos's qualifications means he's the writer of Hebrews. But I'm willing to say that they fit, better than anyone else that's written about. I know that is only my opinion, but in all honesty it is my opinion.
Frankly it catches my attention about Apollos that he "helped the brethren much." Acts 18: 27
If that was just a man's opinion I would view it with a grain of salt, but when God's word credits anyone with doing something helpful it's a big deal.
I think it means he was very well versed in the OT and was good at expounding them. No more, no less.
When it comes to questions like the authorship of Hebrews, where there is insufficient external or internal evidence to draw a solid conclusion, it seem to me that the best answer is that "we can only make an educated guess".
There are several plausible possibilities, none of which include Paul as the author IMO. As far as I will stick my neck out is to say that I am pretty sure that Paul didn't write it.
Apollos is certainly plausible, so is Barbabas, Clement, Aquilla/Priscilla or even a dual authorship of Barnabas/Apollos. Here is a nicely written outline by Daniel Wallace.
Hi brideofjc, I think this is a wonderful topic where a person is entitled to an opinion without having to argue about it. I'd just like to hear other's well considered opinions. There's gotta be others besides my first choice.
Hi brideofjc, I think this is a wonderful topic where a person is entitled to an opinion without having to argue about it. I'd just like to hear other's well considered opinions. There's gotta be others besides my first choice.
I know that there are many diehards, especially older fundamentalists that would sooner grab their shotgun if you tried to tell them that the Apostle Paul didn't write Hebrews. After all, he was of the tribe of Benjamin and whether or not he was in the Sanhedrin, even as a junion member, he was certainly associating with them. Although not a Levite, he was a trained Pharisee and knew the laws of Moses well and all that was required for temple service. Albeit, we do know that the writer is writing to the tribes dispersed in the diaspora and indeed they are very familiar with temple rituals. Paul's family was part of the diaspora and so he was born in Tarsus outside of the homeland. Do I think he wrote it? I used to, but the evidence is pretty clear that he didn't unless he changed his writing style significantly or he indeed had an emanuensis who penned Paul's words in his own writing style. Unless they did up other papyrii that will change the scholar's minds, I wouldn't lay any bets on Paul being the auther. However, if it causes arguments in the body of Christ to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews, either be quiet or try to gently teach them that most likely he didn't.
Do I think that Priscilla wrote it? She was highly thought of in the church obviously, because they put her name first in almost every mention of her and her husband Aquila, which just wasn't done in those days. This tells us that she must have been educated, most likely wealthy and probably a leader or host of a home church in her city. It just might turn up one day in the archealogical finds, God loves to throw curve balls to those who view themselves as debunkers. As I posted before, God always has the last laugh.
Do I think having the author remain unknow invalidates what s/he had to say? NO! There is much to be learned in the book.
Your last posting has me thinking that a good personal long term goal would be to endeavor to live in a place that when God does have his last laugh, I'd think it was funny too.
I'd just like to hear other's well considered opinions. There's gotta be others besides my first choice.
Hi All,
I haven't been around in a while, so long I forgot my log in and had to join up again. This topic caught my eye, though. I understand the reasoning of why many think it couldn't be Paul that wrote this, mainly because it doesn't say "Paul" anywhere in the book, and the writing style is different than the epistles of Paul to the Gentiles.
I think the audience is the source of the confusion for most people. We know that Paul was sent to the Gentiles to do what Peter refused to do. Everyone assumes because Paul was officially sent to the Gentiles that he didn't witness or communicate with Israel any longer. I think that Paul had a very tender relaitionship with the believing Israelites. We know from scripture that he went to Jerusalem often, keeping the Feast Days, the Sabbath and he also took money to them from the Gentile churches.
Given all that, if you stop to think about it, would it be a stretch to believe that he also wrote to the Israelites? As you read Hebrews, you clearly see the writer is writing about things that pertain to Isreal. A great portion of Hebrews is teaching the transition from the Law of Animal Sactifice, which Jesus ended, to Jesus being the complete and final offering. Animal sacrifice was the foundation to and of redemption up until Jesus' death, and it was a great stumbling block to Israel, so much so that I believe the Israelites that still did it after the Ressurection taught the Galatians to do it. (I believe this is waht Paul was referring to when He asked them who had bewitched them).
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Paul taught that the Body of Christ was not divided - Even if his office was to teach the Gentiles, that did not exclude him from teaching Israel, did it? As to the writing style of Hebrews - Of course it would be different than Romans - Thessalonians. Paul said he fed the Gentiles with milk and not with meat. This tells me that those first seven books are the ABC's of believing. The Gentiles had NO KNOWLEDGE of the God of Israel.
When you read Hebrews, James, Peter and the Epistles of John, you see WORK. Which I believe is the meat of the walk with Jesus. God is merciful, but eventually you have to take what you have learned and do it. Which is what those epistles teach. They exhort the reader to do something - If you love God, keep His Commandments. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ
(which Israel already knew through the Royal Law) not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctines of baptisms ect. These are what the 7 epistles of Paul teach - and Hebrews teaches how to walk. Not even how, but just do it.
I believe Paul wrote Hebrews, to his physical brothers in Christ. He wrote to them the meat of the Word, which they understood. But since Paul's writings are hard to be understood, many fight with it, because they haven't moved on to perfection, by DOING IT.
I am absolutely positive someone is going to kick against my pricks, but somebody here wanted another point of view.
Hebrews 2:3 - How shall we escape a just recompence of reward for disobediance if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first - When the LORD gave the 10 cammandments. It was confirmed by the people when they said all that Moses has told us we will do. God bare witness after that with great signs and wonders, so much so that the people were afraid and told Moses to tell God please don't speak to us anymore. And yes, there were gifts of the Holy Spirit given on that day - read the record in Exodus. There is nothing written in the New Testament that is not in the Old.
I blessed to read your point of view or understanding
while I do not want you to think I am kicking against your understanding
while I enjoy reading what people think about this subject I would have to disagree with you on works being meat but I am just a man so only give me the value of a men
Here what I believe the milk is -- all the written word of God whether in the bible or not that is to spoon feed us until we can live love big enough to receive the meat
Here what I believe with all my heart is the meat of God's love the one on one fellowship with God and Christ either by pray or the many gifts of the spirit
like a baby milk is feed until they have teeth and are ready for whole food
but when after a bady can have meat the child still needs milk to wash it down
so we need a balance of both
I see works has just the work it takes to take in the food in nothing more nothing less
sucking the milk in or chewing up the meat
works to me work hand and hand with the milk and the meat
but this is just me
but I can see Paul having a differ closeness to one group over another
Of all the people that I can think of in the book of acts Paul obviously heads the list of people who could have written Hebrews. If for no other reason than he wrote so many epistles.
Timothy would be next most obvious for me if he wasn't mentioned in ch 13, vs 23
It wouldn't bother me at all if Paul wrote to the Hebrews too, after all in Rom 11 he makes it very clear they were on his heart in a big way.
In spite of all that, Paul's still not my first choice, but let me think some more about what you said.
P.s. Do you have any feedback on any of the other perspectives here?
If Paul wrote Hebrews, he was in an entirely different mind. Not once does Paul's distinctive phraseology come through in the lines of Hebrews. (i.e. "in Christ")
Yes, Apollos was mighty in the (OT) Scriptures, and eloquently convinced others from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, which pretty much describes the anonymous author of Hebrews, but that's not enough to be definitive about it. Other guesses (Timothy, Priscilla ... hey, why not Aquila?) likewise, are just that: speculation.
The canon is composed of writings that by their nature are clearly superior to imitations. Yes, there was respect for apostolic authority (though Luke, who wrote two books, was "merely" a traveling companion of Paul) which is why forgers and imposters named books after earlier authorities.
Is the canon perfect? It is if God watched over "His Word." But then we could use that argument that the KJV is perfect; something I do not believe. I do believe that the canon is a treasure chest, and I agree with an earlier poster who said that there is much to be gleaned from extra-canonical writings. Is the canon closed? If a demonstrably authentic copy of Paul's letter to the Laodacians was to surface, should it be added to the canon? Uh huh! And stranger things have happened.
`He combines the sureness of touch and the courtesy for which he is renowned with an awesome breadth of learning deeply assimilated. Master of his evidence, he leaves no loose ends and never needs to overstate his case, but allows the true situation to speak for itself ... In Dr Metzger's hands it becomes not only the catalyst for a fascinating tapestry of church history, but also the occasion of important theological reflection.' The Tablet
`distinguished by its author's sober judgement and legendary commmand of secondary literature ... The book will be valuable ... as an updating of earlier historical treatments of the New Testament Canon.' The Expository Times
`Metzger's opinions throughout are judicious and moderate. ... The richly detailed factual information carefully organized here, and the bibliographical footnotes will make this a volume of continuing benefit and lasting value.' J.K. Elliott, Journal of Theological Studies, Vol 39, 2, 1988
`Concerning each topic, the author gives us a clear formulation of the question and a sober and balanced treatment, avoiding extremes which are being defended even in recent publications. As a conclusion of the trilogy ... M.'s book on the canon is a valuable contribution to a ever-open discussion.' Joel Delobel, Louvain Studies
`as a history of canon formation, this gracefully written and thoroughly documented book will surely become our classic reference work.' Pheme Perkins, Boston College. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
`This is unquestionably the best book on the subject available today and one of the best of all times. The debt of both the scholarly world and the church to Bruce M. Metzger is exceedingly great. The reviewer will always be grateful for the privilege of studying under him.' James A. Brooks, Southwestern Journal of Theology
`Throughout the book a balanced, restrained judgment is exercised.' B.T. Viviano, O.P., Revue Biblique
`splendid book ... The author is so well-read, both in ancient and in modern literature, that he constantly adds to the reader's knowledge.' Roger Beckwith, Churchman
`Metzger's discussions are thorough and fair, keeping basically to what seems to be a legitimate reading of the historical evidence.' Interpretation, A Journal of Bible and Theology
`An unusual aspect of Metzger's book is that ... Metzger has two chapters of literature on canon, the most complete bibliography on the canon I know.' Albert C. Sundberg, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Journal of American Academy of Religion
Book Description
This book provides information from Church history concerning the recognition of the canonical status of the several books of the New Testament. Canonization was a long and gradual process of sifting among scores of gospels, epistles, and other books that enjoyed local and temporary authority - some of which have only recently come to light among the discoveries of Nag Hammadi. After discussing the external pressures that led to the fixing of the limits of the canon, the author gives sustained attention to Patristic evidence that bears on the development of the canon not only in the West but also among the Eastern Churches, including the Syrian, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, and Ethiopian. Besides considering differences as to the sequence of the books in the New Testament, Dr Metzger takes up such questions as which form of text is to be regarded as canonical; whether the canon is open or closed; to what extent a canon should be sought within the canon; and whether the canon is a collection of authoritative books or an authoritative collection of books.
If Paul wrote Hebrews, he was in an entirely different mind. Not once does Paul's distinctive phraseology come through in the lines of Hebrews. (i.e. "in Christ")
Yes, Apollos was mighty in the (OT) Scriptures, and eloquently convinced others from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, which pretty much describes the anonymous author of Hebrews, but that's not enough to be definitive about it. Other guesses (Timothy, Priscilla ... hey, why not Aquila?) likewise, are just that: speculation.
The canon is composed of writings that by their nature are clearly superior to imitations. Yes, there was respect for apostolic authority (though Luke, who wrote two books, was "merely" a traveling companion of Paul) which is why forgers and imposters named books after earlier authorities.
Is the canon perfect? It is if God watched over "His Word." But then we could use that argument that the KJV is perfect; something I do not believe. I do believe that the canon is a treasure chest, and I agree with an earlier poster who said that there is much to be gleaned from extra-canonical writings. Is the canon closed? If a demonstrably authentic copy of Paul's letter to the Laodacians was to surface, should it be added to the canon? Uh huh! And stranger things have happened.
The people that sat over the process of establishing the canon, I believe did their best with what they had at the time. I believe that our God did watch over the choices that were made. But is God through? No, look at the other findings of papyrii that keep coming up over time. If the same
board or even another canonical board were to be established after all of the more modern finds, I wonder what today would be included in our Bible??
The KJV is not perfect, although if you told this to a fundamentalist, you'd better have a 50 foot running head start I once said that there were
better versions than KJV and there was just such a fundamentalist in the group....well, let me tell you...he got red faced, blew up and said that the KJV
was the veritable writ of God....you could almost see the pages in his Bible smoking from the finger of God having touched them. I tried to inform him
that the translators had done their best for 1611 and everything that they had at the time...but alas....no use. Needless to say, we didn't get off to a really
good start.
The extra-canonical writings are an excellent source of knowledge, but again, it should be approached with caution and realize that they were rejected
from being in the canon for a reason. It would be best to find info about them on the internet about the books you wish to read and to see why they were
rejected and then read them. You won't go to hell if you read them as some people believe.
Bruce Metzger is also the editor of the 4th rev. ed of the "The Greek New Testament" which I keep on hand at all times.
It's interesting to me that you seem to have figured out a way to be cautious and reasonable about the extra-canonical writings while others totally reject anything but the King James bible and it's sometimes imperfect translation.
Try telling a fundamentalist that the King James stole about half of what William Tyndale translated and the other half they managed to make worse. I shared that opinion of mine and got quite a reaction too.
It's interesting to me that you seem to have figured out a way to be cautious and reasonable about the extra-canonical writings while others totally reject anything but the King James bible and it's sometimes imperfect translation.
Try telling a fundamentalist that the King James stole about half of what William Tyndale translated and the other half they managed to make worse. I shared that opinion of mine and got quite a reaction too.
(edited for spelling)
Many laughs, Jeff....I seem to remember...but don't quote me....that while we think that the KJV seems to have Shakespearean
type language is because it was the common folk who spoke that way. The well educated did not, at least I think I remember hearing one of my
professors give this anecdote. Today, we read it and imagine that the kings and queens spoke this way and they did not.
Some of the apocryphal books are strange, but they are written in apocalyptical fashion even as the genre of Revelation, so one has to be careful
to not take it literally. Probably one of my favorites, is probably the Book of Enoch. This gives some rather neat insights into the creation of the
world and the Watchers that were put here by God. It was probably these Watchers (angels) who were probably the ones written about in Jude
who left their first estate and cohabited with the daughters of men and thus the Nephalim came into being. When the world became so wicked
that God sent the flood, the Nephalim were spiritual B astards and so when they drowned they could neither go to heaven, their fathers' dwelling place, nor could they go to hell or Hades, the abode of the dead because of their physical parentage, i.e. their mothers. Therefore, it is thought that these
then became what today we call demons. They are stuck in a quasi-state probably until the final judgment when God will make the final call.
Recommended Posts
Goey
Hi Jeff,
Much has been written about the authorship of the Book of Hebrews. One of criteria of a work being included in the canon was apostolic authorship. So it seems that the Council at Carthage generally believed in a Pauline authorship for Hebrews.
However there are severe problems with this view. Paul indroduced himself in every other epistle or letter. Hebrews is not consistent with this. The writing style is also quite different from his other letters. There is no internal reference to the author. There are other things that point to a non Pauline authorship, but these are beyond the scope of this post.
Today there is little dispute against non-Pauline authorship. However, there are many theories as to who the author or authors may be. Posibilities include Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Luke, Apollos, and Pricilla. There may be others that I am not aware of.
I have read quite a bit on this and I have not seen any arguments strong enough for any of the candidates that would lead me to actually "believe" that any one was the author. All the evidence is either circumstantial, supposition or educated guesses. Personally I lean toward Priscllia, but all it is is a slight lean, and certainly nothing I would declare to believe.
What is most interesting to me is not necessarily who actualy wrote it (we will probably never know for sure) but rather that if Hebrews is not of Apostolic authorship then it fails the test used by the men at Carthage who decided what was canonical and what was not. If they were wrong about the apostlolic authorship of Hebrews( I think they were) then by their own standards, Hebrews should not have been included in the Canon of Scripture and should not therefore be included in our modern Bibles . Yet it remains with little debate, which seems inconsistent to me. (Questioning the canon is like slapping a sacred cow)
Who is to say that Hebrews actually belongs in Bible then? Who is to say that it does not? Who is to say that these men, several centuries after Paul, who took upon themsleves to decide what is "God-breathed" and what was not, were infallible and got it all 100 percent correct?
When we look at Hebrews or any other book of the Bible and declare it to be the God-breathed Word of God, we are making the great presumption that the Council at Carthage did a perfect job in working out the canon. Did they ? Are we as Christians bound to their decision and if so by what authority?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Jeff or JeffSjo its me Roy or year2027
God loves you my dear friend
I stop a long time ago worring about who wrote what or whether any one book should of not been in the bible or should of been added
I believe the Council at Carthage only pict the books that seem to line up with their beliefs other wise Hebrews agree with one of their doctrines
but I still enjoied reading this tread thank you for giving us this tread to share as we grow for me past who wrote it
but to you I hope you get the answer you need at this second you neeed it and our friend Goey is very wise and I enjoy reading his heart as he searches for truth like I enjoy reading your heart as you search for truth
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Hi Roy,
I don't presume to speak for Jeff, but I didn't pick up that he was actually worrying about who the writer of Hebrews was. As for me, find this kind of study to be rather intersting.
In the the theological study of a scriptural writing, one of the first steps is to try to determine or verify authorship. You will see at least a paragraph on that in just about any well done theological outline or exposition of scripture. I wouldn't call that worrying. It's a part of hermeneutics and theological study.
As far as the Council at Carthage goes, I think they did a pretty good job of selecting writings that lined up with each other theologically and rejecting those that were of unknown authority, spurious, or in disagreement with the larger body of generally accepted writings. Of course there were some disputes. The disputed books that were eventually included were Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James & Revelation. But all in all I think they did a pretty good job in compiling the most authoritive writings to be used by the Church for faith and practice. However, I do not beleive that they were infallible in their decision any more than I think that God actually dictated the NT word by word to the writers as VPW and many others teach.
This is not to say that the other writings like the Apocrapha or even the Pseudepigapha(many of which are fakes or forgeries)are no value or that they contain no truth at all. I think that we can actually get quite a bit from them if we approach them wisely.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi guys, thanks for the feedback.
Year 2027, I'm not looking for an answer as much as good fellowship. I'm content with Apollos as my first pick as the writer of Hebrews, but the topic isn't worth arguing about. I think that a lot the wrangling done on the topic over the centuries has been mean spirited and quite frankly unworthy of any of God's children. Similar events in my life on this topic has proven that leadership can be petty, overbearing, and frankly destructive if they don't allow God's people the freedom to consider any matter as a matter of conscience.
You're right Goey, I'm not worried in the least about who the writer of Hebrews was.
But all this stuff about the council of Carthage is beyond my scope of history. It is interesting to me that the topic brought up the canon of the scriptures though, I'll just take it in.
As far as the how I refer to the book of Hebrews, it is scripture. I don't hesitate in the least to refer to it on any topic in God's Word. As a matter of fact it brings up some things that aren't covered anywhere else in the same detail and it fits with the rest of the scripture faultlessly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Goey and Jeff or JeffSjo
God loves you my dear friends
Goey - I did not take you as speaking for Jeff I was just trying to tell Jeff your words have wisdom they would be valuable to read and add to his words
Goey - its all ways good to see you and I know we do not agree on everything
JeffSjo - good fellowship is great my friend - - yes nothing worth arguing about - yes we need freedom to consider any matter as a matter of conscience. - if you want to read some of the books here a site even that is a Mormon site it got many books to think about like The Book of Jasher
used in Joshua 10:13 but take it with a gain of salt if you read
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
There's another little tidbit that fits with Apollos being the writer.
Acts 18: 24 & 28
These say that Apollos was "mighty in the scriptures" and "mightily convinced the Jews and that publically, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ"
In my observation, this fits the writer of Hebrews exactly, Many of the topics in Hebrews fits both these descriptions. And while I'd be willing to consider Priscilla as my first choice, she doesn't seem to have as many qualities plainly stated about her in God's word that seem to fit.
What do you guys think of that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I think it means he was very well versed in the OT and was good at expounding them. No more, no less.
When it comes to questions like the authorship of Hebrews, where there is insufficient external or internal evidence to draw a solid conclusion, it seem to me that the best answer is that "we can only make an educated guess".
There are several plausible possibilities, none of which include Paul as the author IMO. As far as I will stick my neck out is to say that I am pretty sure that Paul didn't write it.
Apollos is certainly plausible, so is Barbabas, Clement, Aquilla/Priscilla or even a dual authorship of Barnabas/Apollos. Here is a nicely written outline by Daniel Wallace.
Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, Outline
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
That brings to mind an old saying " If it doesn't say, you just don't know."
I'm not saying Apollos's qualifications means he's the writer of Hebrews. But I'm willing to say that they fit, better than anyone else that's written about. I know that is only my opinion, but in all honesty it is my opinion.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Frankly it catches my attention about Apollos that he "helped the brethren much." Acts 18: 27
If that was just a man's opinion I would view it with a grain of salt, but when God's word credits anyone with doing something helpful it's a big deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Thanks for the link, Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi brideofjc, I think this is a wonderful topic where a person is entitled to an opinion without having to argue about it. I'd just like to hear other's well considered opinions. There's gotta be others besides my first choice.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I know that there are many diehards, especially older fundamentalists that would sooner grab their shotgun if you tried to tell them that the Apostle Paul didn't write Hebrews. After all, he was of the tribe of Benjamin and whether or not he was in the Sanhedrin, even as a junion member, he was certainly associating with them. Although not a Levite, he was a trained Pharisee and knew the laws of Moses well and all that was required for temple service. Albeit, we do know that the writer is writing to the tribes dispersed in the diaspora and indeed they are very familiar with temple rituals. Paul's family was part of the diaspora and so he was born in Tarsus outside of the homeland. Do I think he wrote it? I used to, but the evidence is pretty clear that he didn't unless he changed his writing style significantly or he indeed had an emanuensis who penned Paul's words in his own writing style. Unless they did up other papyrii that will change the scholar's minds, I wouldn't lay any bets on Paul being the auther. However, if it causes arguments in the body of Christ to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews, either be quiet or try to gently teach them that most likely he didn't.
Do I think that Priscilla wrote it? She was highly thought of in the church obviously, because they put her name first in almost every mention of her and her husband Aquila, which just wasn't done in those days. This tells us that she must have been educated, most likely wealthy and probably a leader or host of a home church in her city. It just might turn up one day in the archealogical finds, God loves to throw curve balls to those who view themselves as debunkers. As I posted before, God always has the last laugh.
Do I think having the author remain unknow invalidates what s/he had to say? NO! There is much to be learned in the book.
Bless you much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi brideofjc,
Thanks for the reponse. That was more well thought out information on Priscilla than I've had up to now.
VERY INTERESTING!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Brideofjc,
Your last posting has me thinking that a good personal long term goal would be to endeavor to live in a place that when God does have his last laugh, I'd think it was funny too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
I'd just like to hear other's well considered opinions. There's gotta be others besides my first choice.
Hi All,
I haven't been around in a while, so long I forgot my log in and had to join up again. This topic caught my eye, though. I understand the reasoning of why many think it couldn't be Paul that wrote this, mainly because it doesn't say "Paul" anywhere in the book, and the writing style is different than the epistles of Paul to the Gentiles.
I think the audience is the source of the confusion for most people. We know that Paul was sent to the Gentiles to do what Peter refused to do. Everyone assumes because Paul was officially sent to the Gentiles that he didn't witness or communicate with Israel any longer. I think that Paul had a very tender relaitionship with the believing Israelites. We know from scripture that he went to Jerusalem often, keeping the Feast Days, the Sabbath and he also took money to them from the Gentile churches.
Given all that, if you stop to think about it, would it be a stretch to believe that he also wrote to the Israelites? As you read Hebrews, you clearly see the writer is writing about things that pertain to Isreal. A great portion of Hebrews is teaching the transition from the Law of Animal Sactifice, which Jesus ended, to Jesus being the complete and final offering. Animal sacrifice was the foundation to and of redemption up until Jesus' death, and it was a great stumbling block to Israel, so much so that I believe the Israelites that still did it after the Ressurection taught the Galatians to do it. (I believe this is waht Paul was referring to when He asked them who had bewitched them).
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Paul taught that the Body of Christ was not divided - Even if his office was to teach the Gentiles, that did not exclude him from teaching Israel, did it? As to the writing style of Hebrews - Of course it would be different than Romans - Thessalonians. Paul said he fed the Gentiles with milk and not with meat. This tells me that those first seven books are the ABC's of believing. The Gentiles had NO KNOWLEDGE of the God of Israel.
When you read Hebrews, James, Peter and the Epistles of John, you see WORK. Which I believe is the meat of the walk with Jesus. God is merciful, but eventually you have to take what you have learned and do it. Which is what those epistles teach. They exhort the reader to do something - If you love God, keep His Commandments. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ
(which Israel already knew through the Royal Law) not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctines of baptisms ect. These are what the 7 epistles of Paul teach - and Hebrews teaches how to walk. Not even how, but just do it.
I believe Paul wrote Hebrews, to his physical brothers in Christ. He wrote to them the meat of the Word, which they understood. But since Paul's writings are hard to be understood, many fight with it, because they haven't moved on to perfection, by DOING IT.
I am absolutely positive someone is going to kick against my pricks, but somebody here wanted another point of view.
Hebrews 2:3 - How shall we escape a just recompence of reward for disobediance if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first - When the LORD gave the 10 cammandments. It was confirmed by the people when they said all that Moses has told us we will do. God bare witness after that with great signs and wonders, so much so that the people were afraid and told Moses to tell God please don't speak to us anymore. And yes, there were gifts of the Holy Spirit given on that day - read the record in Exodus. There is nothing written in the New Testament that is not in the Old.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Rachel
God loves you my dear friend
welcome back and how long as it been?
I blessed to read your point of view or understanding
while I do not want you to think I am kicking against your understanding
while I enjoy reading what people think about this subject I would have to disagree with you on works being meat but I am just a man so only give me the value of a men
Here what I believe the milk is -- all the written word of God whether in the bible or not that is to spoon feed us until we can live love big enough to receive the meat
Here what I believe with all my heart is the meat of God's love the one on one fellowship with God and Christ either by pray or the many gifts of the spirit
like a baby milk is feed until they have teeth and are ready for whole food
but when after a bady can have meat the child still needs milk to wash it down
so we need a balance of both
I see works has just the work it takes to take in the food in nothing more nothing less
sucking the milk in or chewing up the meat
works to me work hand and hand with the milk and the meat
but this is just me
but I can see Paul having a differ closeness to one group over another
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Rachel,
Of all the people that I can think of in the book of acts Paul obviously heads the list of people who could have written Hebrews. If for no other reason than he wrote so many epistles.
Timothy would be next most obvious for me if he wasn't mentioned in ch 13, vs 23
It wouldn't bother me at all if Paul wrote to the Hebrews too, after all in Rom 11 he makes it very clear they were on his heart in a big way.
In spite of all that, Paul's still not my first choice, but let me think some more about what you said.
P.s. Do you have any feedback on any of the other perspectives here?
P.p.s. No kicking allowed here.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
The beauty of a piece of music is not in its technique but in the Soul of its creator; nor is it in the
sound vibrations of the piece but in the silence of the Light from which the sound springs.
-Walter Russell
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi CMAN,
That poetry's quite pretty.
I'll take it to mean that the God behind the book of Hebrews is more important than pinpointing the author.
All the more reason to be able to discuss the possible authors without rancor if we choose to discuss it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I'm just bringing this to the front in case anyone has anything to share on this topic. I hope none of you mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
If Paul wrote Hebrews, he was in an entirely different mind. Not once does Paul's distinctive phraseology come through in the lines of Hebrews. (i.e. "in Christ")
Yes, Apollos was mighty in the (OT) Scriptures, and eloquently convinced others from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, which pretty much describes the anonymous author of Hebrews, but that's not enough to be definitive about it. Other guesses (Timothy, Priscilla ... hey, why not Aquila?) likewise, are just that: speculation.
The canon is composed of writings that by their nature are clearly superior to imitations. Yes, there was respect for apostolic authority (though Luke, who wrote two books, was "merely" a traveling companion of Paul) which is why forgers and imposters named books after earlier authorities.
Is the canon perfect? It is if God watched over "His Word." But then we could use that argument that the KJV is perfect; something I do not believe. I do believe that the canon is a treasure chest, and I agree with an earlier poster who said that there is much to be gleaned from extra-canonical writings. Is the canon closed? If a demonstrably authentic copy of Paul's letter to the Laodacians was to surface, should it be added to the canon? Uh huh! And stranger things have happened.
I recommend this book by Bruce M. Metzger:
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
The people that sat over the process of establishing the canon, I believe did their best with what they had at the time. I believe that our God did watch over the choices that were made. But is God through? No, look at the other findings of papyrii that keep coming up over time. If the same
board or even another canonical board were to be established after all of the more modern finds, I wonder what today would be included in our Bible??
The KJV is not perfect, although if you told this to a fundamentalist, you'd better have a 50 foot running head start
I once said that there were
better versions than KJV and there was just such a fundamentalist in the group....well, let me tell you...he got red faced, blew up and said that the KJV
was the veritable writ of God....you could almost see the pages in his Bible smoking from the finger of God having touched them. I tried to inform him
that the translators had done their best for 1611 and everything that they had at the time...but alas....no use. Needless to say, we didn't get off to a really
good start.
The extra-canonical writings are an excellent source of knowledge, but again, it should be approached with caution and realize that they were rejected
from being in the canon for a reason. It would be best to find info about them on the internet about the books you wish to read and to see why they were
rejected and then read them. You won't go to hell if you read them as some people believe.
Bruce Metzger is also the editor of the 4th rev. ed of the "The Greek New Testament" which I keep on hand at all times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Thank you very much for the reference anotherDan.
Thanks for the response Brideofjc,
It's interesting to me that you seem to have figured out a way to be cautious and reasonable about the extra-canonical writings while others totally reject anything but the King James bible and it's sometimes imperfect translation.
Try telling a fundamentalist that the King James stole about half of what William Tyndale translated and the other half they managed to make worse. I shared that opinion of mine and got quite a reaction too.
(edited for spelling)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Many laughs, Jeff....I seem to remember...but don't quote me....that while we think that the KJV seems to have Shakespearean
type language is because it was the common folk who spoke that way. The well educated did not, at least I think I remember hearing one of my
professors give this anecdote. Today, we read it and imagine that the kings and queens spoke this way and they did not.
Some of the apocryphal books are strange, but they are written in apocalyptical fashion even as the genre of Revelation, so one has to be careful
to not take it literally. Probably one of my favorites, is probably the Book of Enoch. This gives some rather neat insights into the creation of the
world and the Watchers that were put here by God. It was probably these Watchers (angels) who were probably the ones written about in Jude
who left their first estate and cohabited with the daughters of men and thus the Nephalim came into being. When the world became so wicked
that God sent the flood, the Nephalim were spiritual B astards and so when they drowned they could neither go to heaven, their fathers' dwelling place, nor could they go to hell or Hades, the abode of the dead because of their physical parentage, i.e. their mothers. Therefore, it is thought that these
then became what today we call demons. They are stuck in a quasi-state probably until the final judgment when God will make the final call.
Blessings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.