Who is the author of HEBREWS?
Did Paul write Hebrews?
It is possible Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. There are a couple reasons why this might be the case.
First, in the earliest manuscript editions of the New Testament books, Hebrews is included after Romans among the books written by the apostle Paul. This was taken as evidence that Paul had written it, and some Eastern churches accepted Hebrews as canonical earlier than in the West.
Second, both Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150 – 215) and Origen (AD 185 – 253) claimed a Pauline association for the book but recognized that Paul himself probably did not put pen to paper for this book, even though they did not know the author’s name.
Clement of Alexandria suggests that Paul wrote the book originally in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek, though the Greek of Hebrews bears no resemblance to translation Greek (e.g., that of the Septuagint).
The King James Version assumes Pauline authorship
The nuanced position on the authorship question by the Alexandrian fathers was obscured by later church tradition that mistook Pauline association for Pauline authorship.
The enormously influential King James Bible took its cue from this tradition. In fact, in the KJV, you’ll find the title translated as it was found in some manuscripts: “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.” The tradition of Pauline authorship continued.
Parallels between Hebrews and Paul’s writings
It’s certainly reasonable to conclude Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Many of the thoughts of Hebrews are similar to those found in Paul’s writings:
| Hebrews | Paul’s writings |
| Hebrews 1:3 “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” |
Colossians 1:15 – 17 “The Son is the image of the invisible God. . . . For in him all things were created . . . and in him all things hold together.” |
| Hebrews 2:4 “God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” |
1 Corinthians 12:11 “All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.” |
| Hebrews 2:14( – 17) “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death. . . .” |
Philippians 2:7 – 8 “Being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death —
even death on a cross!”
|
| Hebrews 8:6 “But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.” |
2 Corinthians 3:6 “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” |
| Hebrews 10:14 “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” |
Romans 5:9; 12:1 “Since we have now been justified by his blood”; “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.” |
The soteriology of Hebrews is quite consistent with Paul’s own teaching. For instance, the statement in Hebrews 10:14 that those who have been “made perfect” are in the process of being “made holy” sounds very much like Paul’s teaching on justification (e.g., Rom. 3:21 – 5:9) and sanctification (e.g., Rom. 8:1 – 17). Moreover, both Paul and the author of Hebrews thought of Abraham as the spiritual father of Christians in similar ways.
Both John Calvin and Martin Luther shared this judgment as far as the sixteenth century.
The Roman Catholic Church does not believe Paul wrote Hebrews, possibly retaining a latent memory of the actual author. However, the internal evidence presented by the book of Hebrews itself indicates Paul as author. The style of Hebrews like in the closing verses (13:18 – 25), is quite like many other writing of Paul’s that has survived.
here we go Philip Williams have @ it All Peter arguments through the years are unreasonable. The epistle contains Paul’s classic closing greeting, “Grace…be with you…” as he stated explicitly in 2 Thessalonians 3:17-18 and as implied in 1 Corinthians 16:21-24 and Colossians 4:18. This closing greeting is included at the end of each of Paul’s letters. Eusebius wrote that Paul omitted his name because he, the Apostle to the Gentiles, was writing to the Jews – this is more than sufficient evidence Authorship by Peter has weak proof
May I first address this comment to the OP and how such a perspective differs from those of us who see the NT as the Apostolic witness of the New Covenant, together with the OT (the Prophets) being the faith once and for all times entrusted to the saints. Hence, we must reject the Catholic and liberal idea assumed in this comment, namely that NT is a product of the church. Thus, this comment lacks a high view of the New Testament as actually being God’s word. For no one after the Apostles had any authority either to establish, modify, or take away from the foundation. Otherwise, the church through the centuries could not have a single foundation.
Implicit in this comment is the skeptical views of the modernist that the Apostles did not work as a single man under the authority and leadership of Jesus. They also wrote letters together as ought to be clear from some of the salutations and greetings. In this case, more than one human author doesn’t suggest that their letters were edited.
Whatever the prophets, apostles, or assistants to the prophets or apostles doing the actual writing, Jesus Christ is the author of all Scripture. Thus, to speak of ‘author’s intention’ as being someone other than the Christ’ is manifestly a liberal or unbelieving perspective.
Naturally, the arguments and explanations of a believer are going to differ in profound ways from the naturalistic arguments assumed in the kind of biblical scholarship reflected in the comment above. Pentecostal scholars however ought to have no trouble accepting the full testimony of the Scriptures concerning the supernatural.
First to address, the traditional Protestant opposition and neglect of Petrine authorship of the book of Hebrews stemming from the Reformers. There has been considerable bias in Protestant circles even against the idea that Peter ever visited Rome. Of course that is contrary to so much evidence both from the New Testament, from the fathers, and others, including archaeological evidence that powerfully witness to Peter’s presence in Rome, particularly at the time of his crucifixion. Some years ago, I picked up Stephen Pfann from the Vatican Library just after he had witnessed the archaeological excavation of what is believed to be Peter’s tomb. Stephen earned his reputation owing to the carefulness of his judgments. He did however tell me that he was most impressed with the excavation and with the possibility that this was in fact Peter’s tomb.
not sure how Peter in Rome relates to your argument from OP but the whole Catholic Peter in Rome thing was popularized in recent history by Henry Senkevich QUO VADIS DOMINE – a polish novel in the original if I am not mistaken with very little historical backing Again, how does this #1 related to the authorship of Hebrews?
Troy Day I am most against historical novels. But irrelevant. This letter was written from Italy.
Could be – could be not Until I see the mentioned letter in its original it will be unreasonable to comment on it either way Until Stephen Pfann from the Vatican Library makes it public for us to read in this group we remain in the dark
I do have a colleague who teaches in Potsdam and his expertise is on the Vatican Library that I could ask to check on any such letter and if we can obtain it in order to read
Troy Day a reference to archaeology! He was invited to visit the site then closed to the public on the occasion of Cardinal Martini inviting him to the Library.
my friend from in Potsdam shot a film with Tony Palmer right before he died He just recently found an unknown MSS from the crusades describing union between the Catholic and Orthodox church IF such letter exists he certainly has enough access to find it and we will read it in Latin together 🙂
So Petrine arguments are ‘unreasonable’? Whose reason is referenced here? According to worldly reason? Or according to truth? Pauline authorship is certainly unreasonable. The idea that he would have written such a letter to the churches in Judea anonymously is not just absurd but cynical, defaming the transparent character and courage of this great Apostle. But it is absurd to suppose that the church in Judea or anyplace else would have received such a letter — any letter, but especially this letter — from some author they did not know. Origen, Augustine, or whoever suggested that are reflecting their own dishonorable practices. But anyone who questions the Apostolic authorship of John’s book of Revelation, including Martin Luther, are clearly not to be trusted concerning the authorship of the book of Hebrews.
Pls give the verse WHERE the Judea is shown in the book of Hebrews This seems to be a false assumption somehow?
Troy Day oh my!
The very place and time when the point in this letter is most crucial, precisely when believers are now excluded from going to the Temple when even James, highly respected among the Jews, was murdered at the Temple.
The Temple was in Judea!
“And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.”
Note the city is still standing.
reaching again? The word Judea is not even in Hebrews
Your argument with Judea works very well for Paul writing the Jewish diasporas he encountered during his missions and before when he was persecuting the church It just fits so nicely with Hebrews – gives it a story line, explains the peculiar language used and firmly establishes the apostle Paul as the only possible author of Hebrews
I just took few min this AM dismantling your Peter arguments Take time to respond when you get a chance but lets not use the argument from silence in his particular discussion b/c it works SO strongly FOR Paul not mentioning his name in Hebrews 🙂
Troy Day Paul writing to specific problems of Hebrews while ignoring Gentiles!
‘Dismantling’? But I didn’t see you do anything but try to protect your scholarly house that was undergoing demolition. ?
There is only one time in which this book could have been written and only one author who would have possessed the unquestioned authority to write this book. As John A.T. Robinson so well points out, the Temple is still standing at the time of the writing. But there is no mention of James, the brother of the Lord who was thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple and clubbed to death around 62-64AD. Now the saints in Judea can no longer worship and the Temple, but are meeting outside Jerusalem bearing his reproach.
Only one person has the implicit authority to be writing to the church in Judea as is the case of the book of Hebrews. The chief author of this book can be done other than Peter.
We also know that Nero blamed the great fire in Rome occurring around 64 AD on the Christians. As a result of this he imprisoned both Peter and Paul together. The tradition in Rome confirms what had to be the case with these two great Apostles being imprsioned together. There was a revival in the prison and everyone in the prison was converted including the warden, who likely was none other than Theophilus to whom Luke addresses his gospel as well as the book of Acts. But before doing this, Luke a freeman, was likely the one who penned the book of Hebrews for Peter, just as Silas had penned Peter’s first letter. Even if the voice is that of Peter, Luke is going to transfer his words using proper Greek.
Likely, Peter’s execution immediately followed this letter. Thus, Luke adds a postscript about Timothy being released from prison. The letter to the Hebrews was written anonymously to protect Theophilus. But if Nero has also died, Timothy’s release from prison, would have shortly followed the execution of the Apostles, and perhaps before Luke had an opportunity to carry the letter to Judea. Luke does not need to tell Theophilus about the deaths of Peter and Paul, which he already knew. But most of the letter of Acts concern these two apostles. When Luke mentions Peter going to “another place” after the angel helped him escape death under Herod, that was due to the political situation under the reign of Nero.
It would have been difficult for any of the church fathers who remained in Rome to write about this history that was challenging the very idea of Caesar being divine. Not even the Second Century fathers wrote about such details, as probably only a few of them even knew. They did however have the collection of the New Testament gospels and letters that were probably first published by Luke and Theophilus.
Lots of ifs, Philip Williams. Troy Day is the polished Greek of Hebrews like Luke’s polished Greek?
Link Hudson please follow the logic of the argument. What points are you in disagreement:
1. That the Temple wasn’t standing when Hebrews was written?
2. That James, the brother of Jesus wasn’t yet martyred.
3. That someone other than Peter possessed the authority implicit in this letter?
4. That Luke didn’t actually pen the letter?
Link Hudson one has to love your misleadingly loaded questions – Hebrews does NOT have polished Greek
Troy Day No intention to mislead. How would you say it compares to Luke and Acts for style?
Philip Williams’ theory seems like guess work. Accepting a feasible theory about history is true just because it is feasible is not necessarily rational. But I’m taking it as a theory, not as a statement of fact. Do you think his argument is feasible from the perspective of Greek style.
Link Hudson
“Philip Williams’ theory seems like guess work. Accepting a feasible theory about history is true just because it is feasible is not necessarily rational.”
I gave substantial reasons and you refer to it as ‘guess work.’ I use of Scripture and historical facts as the basis for Petrine authorship is far more than guess work. But do you know the case for any other author to the book of Hebrews that isn’t mere guess work?
Link Hudson I already addressed Luke’s style and how much id differs from Hebrews – hexampla legomenon for starters This is just the Greek for starters The actual story telling style of Luke is not present in Hebrews at all I dont even buy the Luke translating theory – Paul needed no translator to Greek since he skilfully addressed the greek wisemen @ the Areopagus
Troy Day when all your analysis is based on Paul as the author, how would you know how this epistle might appear if that isn’t the case?
I think it very likely that Peter would have spoken his words in the native language that he shared with those to whom he wrote. Whether those words were first transcribed or immediately translated by someone like Luke are both possible. In this case, Luke’s own style would have little mattered.
Troy Day Hebrews isn’t exactl the type of book that would give itself to story-telling.
I read a Facebook post from a Hebrew scholar who argued that Spieldburg could not have directed Shindler’s list due to the style being so different from past films, and then he applied that to arguments about authorship of some books or books, maybe I & II Timothy or II Peter.
You do accept Paul and Peter’s authorship of these books,right?
The idea that Matthew was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic and Mark writing Peter’s message down in his Gospel have ancient tradition behind them.
But as far as I can tell, this particlar Luke theory is just guesswork, not something there is some sort of tradition or history to back up.
Philip Williams Is there any tradition that says Luke penned it?
Link Hudson,
More interesting is the fact that late second century fathers do not(!) know the author of Hebrews and are guessing.
But it’s not just the matter of the author of Hebrews. I am astonished that biblical scholars haven’t paid attention to the hiatus of information, or even Christian writings in the generation that follows the death of the Apostles just before AD 70.
We do have I believe the writings of John from this period, along with some of his disciples such as Papias and Polycarp, also the Didache. But what about the great churches in Rome, Alexandria, Africa, and Spain? Only Clement?
Interestingly, this is the period of anonymous writing that was exploited by the Gnostics. It is also the time of the rise of the Catholic tradition which we can credit with preserving the Bible against non-Apostolic authors.
Of course, liberals like Troy Day and Catholics who see the church as actually writing the gospels and perhaps during this time aren’t going to very well see that hiatus. And if one doesn’t even see the hiatus, he isn’t going to see the need for explaining it.
The reason of course is the fact that the church became outlawed due to Nero’s edict. Naming anyone the church in published letters would have been extremely dangerous.
As many have pointed out, Luke’s gospel and Acts defend the Christians as loyal Roman citizens, which of course they were. But they were also Jews who worshipped only Christ.
resorting to calling names again Philip Williams? To what avail? Why are you scared to address my 8 proofs?
Troy Day ‘calling names’? Are you referring to ‘liberal’?
I meant that as descriptive and more accurate than you calling me ‘Catholic.’
Sorry formispelling your name.
I saw a movie about Sherlock Homes waking up in modern times. He was tracking footprints and deduced from those and the smell of the cologne that the one who left them was a man of about 5’2″. The rather large hulking womanwho left the prints bertanding there. It is all fiction of course, but Sherlock Holmes is able to kniw specific details of the past with a relatively few clues.
In real life there are many other variables- like millions if other places in the empire or out of it where the book could have been written, other years it could have been written, other scenarios, other Christians involved. Maybe it is a feasible scenario, but would you want that standard or evidence uses against you in a court of law?
Link Hudson just what are you referring to here? I haven’t made any judgments, just sharing facts.
Philip Williams ok. I am just saying the theory is speculative.
Philip Williams you yourself has posted to have preached in Catholic churches, practice Pelagiyanism with some sort of penance justification I havent afforded to call you liberal for that because I dont know you that well but when a man tells me “I am…” I take it as a man’s word at face value Now enough about you again Shall we talk about the 8 evidence Greek passages from Hebrews proving Pauline authorship ?
Troy Day Do you know any opinion on the author of Hebrews from the time of Clement of Alexander that wasn’t speculative.
What isn’t speculative is a view that comes from an historian who is well grounded in the history of NT composition and who who works from the Spirit of truth.
Troy Day Catholic Churches have a lot of things that I reject. So do Protestant Churches. Why would preaching truth in these churches make me a liberal?
Philip Williams most of the arguments you present are well known from liberal arts; None of them is really a subject of Pentecostal / Charismatic theology! How would you like us to address them from a Pentecostal theological point of view?
Troy Day
“Philip Williams most of the arguments you present are well known from liberal arts”
Please source.
Troy Day
“None of them is really a subject of Pentecostal / Charismatic theology! How would you like us to address them from a Pentecostal theological point of view?”
Pentecostal/Charismatic theology no longer based on the Holy Spirit as inspiring the Scriptures? How does Pentecostal/Charismatic scholarships differ from the scholarship of those not born again?
Philip Williams Pls explain this last point of yours – how so?
Troy Day you made a point of the distinctive Pentecostal scholarship. You explain.
Troy Day I do see the same sad clubishness in your remarks as prevail among those whose primary identity is with self-admiring professional Pentecostal ministers or groups of self-admiring academic professionals. Why not despise that and aim for following Jesus?
I’m not sure but he likes coffee.
I personally believe that Paul wrote Hebrews. But I have heard a theory that suggests Barnabas May have written it. I don’t remember what the arguments for that was, but it IS an interesting theory.
Brothers, why clutter this question with opinions? Do any of you believe that opinions are the way to decide questions concerning truth? Please answer the 4 questions that I presented above to Link Hudson.
The author mentions Noah. Peter mentions Noah in both his letters. No one else in the NT except Jesus mentions Noah.
This actually points to Paul
Noah is not a prime example as is in Peter but part of the list with Abraham, Jacob and Isaac – such list that in the NT is used only by Jesus and Paul
It will be hard for Paul to explain to non-Jews in his other writings who Noah is but here Noah is mentioned at ease in a list with no need for further explanation to the reader who Noah was – a typical Hebrew address that in no way points to Peter as author
The focus on suffering as leading to maturity is a theme of Peter.
I understand the Catholic notion in this argument but one SIMPLY CANNOT separate the idea for NT suffering from the writings of Paul
Paul repeatedly describes the churches as undergoing suffering and signifies that he sees such ongoing persecution as a normal feature of Christian existence (Rom 8:16-17; Gal 6:12; Phil 1:29-30; 1 Thess 2:14-16; 3:3-4; 2 Tim 1:8; 2:3; 3:12)
Paul is willing to endure incredible hardship as long as it means more grace leading to more gratitude leading to more glory for God. In 2 Cor. 11:23-28 Paul reluctantly recounts his resume of suffering, which included imprisonments, countless beatings, and near-death experiences:
whipped with 39 lashes (5 different times)
beaten with rods (3 different times)
pummeled with stones (1 time)
shipwrecked (3 times)
adrift at sea (one night, one day)
journeys (frequent)
danger from rivers
danger from robbers
danger from his own people
danger from Gentiles
danger in the city
danger in the wilderness
danger at sea
danger from false brothers
toil and hardship
sleepless nights (many)
hungry and thirsty (often)
cold and exposed
the pressure of anxiety for all the churches (daily)
Given this situation, Paul consistently presents Christians—apostles included—with two options: (1) being ashamed of the gospel, and thus denying the faith (Gal 1:6-9; 6:12), or (2) allowing the gospel to run its dynamic course through their lives and thus suffering for it (2 Tim 1:8; 3:12; cf. Luke 9:23-27). And, although a Christian’s suffering may not entail persecution for the sake of the gospel (e.g., dangers from “rivers” and “bandits” [2 Cor 11:26; cf. 1 Cor 7:28; 2 Cor 12:7; Gal 4:13])
Christian suffering—that Paul frequently refers to his or other believers’ suffering in direct relation to Christ’s suffering (e.g., Rom 8:17; 2 Cor 1:5; 2:14-15; 4:10; Gal 6:12; Phil 3:10; Col 1:24-25). Also, we should note that Paul’s view that suffering is inevitable for all Christians demonstrates the apostle’s expectation that the word of God and presence of Christ would advance to the non-believing world through all Christians (Rom 8:16-17; 2 Tim 3:12)
Finally, The Sufferings of Paul himself .
http://www.biblecharts.org/apostlepaulcharts/15%20-%20The%20Sufferings%20of%20Paul.pdf
Troy Day not a reference to the writer’s own sufferings, but the chief point being encouraging a suffering church! Paul’s personal sufferings was greatest so naturally he would often mention them. Peter’s writings (including Hebrews) doesn’t refer to his own sufferings apart from those of the Lord and the church!
Admonishing to submit to and obey leaders is found here and in Peter’s letters.
if you mean 1 Peter 2:17 Honor all men and the king this argument is just funny in comparison to Romans 13 and its Submission to Governing Authorities and the MANY many places where Paul admonished the church to pray for people in authority
1 Timothy 2:1-4 “I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Troy Day I do not refer to that but to pastoral leadership within the church.
pastoral leadership within the church if you mean as mentioned in Heb 13 is mainly a Pauline idea in the NT – who else established most churches we know of in the NT and appointed proper pastoral administration to each of them but PAUL?
Troy Day as Jesus specifically asked him, shepherding was a focus of Peter’s ministry. The only place where we have him doing the work of evangelism is in Jerusalem at the very beginning of his ministry. But evangelism was the focus of Paul’s work.
Do we take Paul’s words seriously?
“For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.”
Galatians 2:8
we take them very very seriously If this is your argument #4 we seriously do not believe that Paul himself wrote here Peter was author of Hebrews – far far reaching
Do we take Jesus’s words and commissioning seriously?
““When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’ “ ‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’ “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ””
Acts 22:17-21
AGAIN nothing to attribute Hebrews to Peter here
Apostasy worse than one who had never heard the gospel is a theme of Peter’s writings.
and not only Peter or other NT writers but MAINLY Paul
2 Timothy 3:1-5 New International Version
3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
and what about Revelation IF this argument was valid John wrote most about apostasy in the last days in the Book of Revelation Does this make John the author of Hebrews? – NO – neither does Peter
Troy Day where do any of these, aside fro Jude who you don’t mention, but which closely follows Peter, specifically emphasize apostasy as worse than having never heard the gospel?
What do you mean by
apostasy as worse than having never heard the gospel?
Do you mean like John in Revelation ? If I mentioned Jude Link would use the Enoh;s reference to jump on Heisers double YHWH and from there it will be anyones game
Troy Day are you deliberately ignoring this point?
Why would you say that? Paul addresses apostasy MORE than anyone else in the NT – even more than Jesus himself come to think about it
Troy Day please address the point ‘emphasis and description of how apostasy is worse than never having heard the gospel of salvation’ for which Hebrews and Second Peter make so vividly.
Troy Day As I recall, if I’d mentioned Heiser about the nations being divided among the sons of God and the tradition of 70 nations based on the table of nations, you were the one who would want to talk about his view on the two powers theory. I was trying to steer the conversation away from that.
Link Hudson on those two matters, Heiser is profoundly right. But of course Heiser isn’t going to believe that Noah actually preserved the writings of Enoch aboard the Ark.
Yet, there are books on the ship we are investigating. Just what these books are and whether they date from the original voyage or placed there later, I would not even guess. We might soon know.
Philip Williams if they were in Armenian I would guess placed there. Got any photocopies? Is there evidencefor writing at that time. It would seem to be a heavenly thing.
Link Hudson,
That is one possibility. I do have video copies of some of the most ancient books possessed by the Armenians, so remarkable that Michael Stone thinks they are forgeries. But those aren’t what I am referring to.
I used to be able to read classical Amenian buat a little. But I am not sure if I could remember how to pronounce the alphabet now.
Link Hudson why were you studying Armenian? The language does have the oldest copies of the Jewish Apocrapha, why the Jewish Michael Stone became the world’s leading Armenian scholar.
I was getting a degree in linguistics. It was also a ProtoIndoEuropean class but not as much as Sanskrit was. Armenian was much more comprehenible with less complicated grammar.
Blood of Christ a theme in Peter’s writings.
Paul uses the blood of Christ 11 times in 4 of his writings besides Hebrews, Peter uses blood only 2 times in only 1 of his letters
Testing of faith, a Petrine theme.
and NOT only – 1 John also speaks of Test of Faith
Paul as shown above in particular uses the theme of testing faith through suffering in order to grow in Christ and achieve spiritual maturity I need not to copy paste the Bible references by Paul already posted above
Notice how the New Testament Epistles always begin with the authors’s name? Hmmm…
Steve Losee but if this was composed while Peter and Paul were imprisoned on Nero’s orders, and they wished to protect the warden who allowed them to write this, the anonymity is most understandable.
I was referring to “GOD…who at sundry times…” (emphasis mine). But your point is well taken.
Apostle Paul. My grandma said so. ?
Good work Philip Williams You well know all your 5-6 arguments are already addressed by non-Pentecostal theologians. Would you like me to respond to each of them – their still one and the same pro-Petrian hypothesis which the Greek of Hebrews does not support Topics may be similar but the Greek is FAR from Peter’s
Troy Day please do respond to all 6. Also, source your claim of these being addressed by any scholar other than what Is covered in John AT Robinson’s ‘Redating.’ I would be delighted to know that others have shared the same insights.
But do you recognize the logical fallacy in the argument as you are making with that?
Concerning ‘the Greek,’ just what is the writing style of a speaker whose thoughts are being put down in proper Greek by someone like Luke?
This proclamation of what Greek style would be the result of some amanuensis like Luke, who wrote polished Greek by nature, when transcribing or perhaps translating the words of someone like Peter from Aramaic to Greek is sciolistic cliche. Why do you continue to ignore the part in this letter that I attribute to Luke? Is all your reading so careless as this?
I see that you are not addressing my Greek language argument
Paul did NOT need Luke to translate for him Hebrews does not flow as translation from another language It;s complicate form comes from being written in Greek for Helenistic Jews that only Paul would have known It has multiple grammatical forms that would have been used only in Jewish diasporas – a mix of language that migrant people create at ease – part Greek part Hebrew which was very characteristic for the translators of LXX in Alexandria and Paul as Roman citizen from Tarsus grew up with
Luke on the other hand uses 700+ words that no one else in the NT uses and none of them is found in Hebrews It will be very very hard to prove that ANY of the NT books is an actual translation – we call it version – of a text from another original language since even the quotes of Jesus in the NT are mainly from LXX
Pauline authorship obvious in this passage: “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (Hebrews 2:3).
Here the writer claimed that he had learned from others who had heard Jesus directly. In other epistles Paul adamantly claims how he had received the gospel “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11–12; Ephesians 3:3).
PETER could have NOT claimed any of that STYLISTICALLY, there are many similarities between Hebrews and Paul’s writings. For instance:
(1) Only Paul (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14) and the author of Hebrews (Heb. 13:3) use the term “the Body” to describe the Church.
(2) Both are very familiar with Timothy (Heb. 13:23).
(3) Both refer to the milk and meat of the Scripture (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-14).
(4) Both quote Deuteronomy 32:35 in the same form (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30). Leon Morris writes, “It agrees exactly neither with the MT nor the LXX, though it is quoted in the same form in Romans 12:19.”[1]
(5) Both quote Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38).
(6) Both emphasize the rhetorical “we know,” rather than “I know.” Paul uses this many times (Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22; 1 Cor. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Tim. 1:8), as does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 10:30).
(7) Both emphasize the old and new covenant. Paul writes about the old and new covenants (2 Cor. 3:4-11), and so does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 8:6-13; 10:15-18).
(8) Both refer to the old covenant being a “shadow” of Christ (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1).
Now then,
Compare Hebrews 1:1, 3 with 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15, 16
Compare Hebrews 1:4 and 2:9 with Philippians 2:8, 9
Compare Hebrews 2:14 with 1 Corinthians 15:54, 57
Compare Hebrews 7:16, 18, 19 with Romans 2:29 and Galatians 3:3, 24
Compare Hebrews 7:26 with Ephesians 4:10
Compare Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1 with Colossians 2:17
Compare Hebrews 10:12, 13 with 1 Corinthians 15:25
Troy Day disingenuous of you to make quantitative comparisons of Peter’s 2 epistles with the corpus of Paul’s writings. But that might be excused in the case of an academic novice.
Troy Day so you don’t think that Paul’s writings are focused on a church of mostly Gentile converts? Or do you think that this letter the Hebrews primarily addresses issues specific to converts to Judaism?
Troy Day nowhere do I suggest that the Apostles fo not preach the same gospel promised in the Hebrew Scriptures!
Passage could not actually refer to Paul, but only to a disciple who heard him before knowing that he was the Messiah, which so wonderfully suits Peter, as when this was confirmed to him by the voice he heard from on the mountain.
“confirmed to us” reference to the church of all believers, which would include the author.
To this Vernon McGee responds best
Some have claimed that Hebrews 2:3 excludes Paul as the author because he says in Galatians 1:11, 12 that
he received his gospel not from men but from God. However, this is not incongruous with Paul’s statement in
Galatians. Paul is evidently using the editorial “we” that is used so effectually in the New Testament. If Paul
places himself in the same category with the other Christians at Jerusalem, he could not say that we received it
from God on the road to Damascus about midday on a mule. Paul’s conversion was peculiar to himself. Then the
Galatians passage does not exclude the fact that Paul did not have it confirmed unto him by the ones who heard
the Lord. In Galatians he is defending his apostleship and is therefore showing from whence he received his
authority
Troy Day the passage really suits the circumstances and chronology of Peter’s experience with the Lord and not Paul’s.
In what way and why are you the only one seeing it?
Troy Day who first heard the Lord announce the Kingdom of Heaven, then was there to see it confirmed?
Great question – maybe only you know that?
Troy Day well, I don’t see a lot of thinking among academics practiced and proud of following one another.
One who cannot see the stylistic differences between the book of Hebrews and Paul’s letters or the stylistic similarities with Peter’s letters is inflicted with the literary equivalent of tone deafness. ?
Philip Williams I already addressed your apostasy arguments and here it is again It proves Peter wrote Hebrews as much as it proves John wrote it or Paul at that mater. What else is there to say – except if this is your only argument left so be it
I agree with you on the stylistics of Paul and the book of Hebrews equivalent of tone deafness I already posted
– several Pauline themes found in Hebrews
– 8 similarities with the Pauline style of writing – the STYLISTICAL similarities between Hebrews and Paul’s writings are simply overwhelming
– 5-6 dosens of Hapax legomenon used in Hebrews that only Paul uses in the whole NT simply eliminate Peter and Luke all together
The internal evidence for pro Pauline authorship of Hebrews is simply overwhelming that even tone deaf folk should hear it plainly BUT then again some with ears may not hear
Troy Day do you not recognize the logical fallacies in these arguments of yours that assume what is intended to be proved?
Which ones of the 8 I posted you see as false? I checked them all before posting and for most of them there is no doubt being Pauline in both origin and essence. I have many more from my translation of Hebrews that are a bit more technical to relate in the group over the internet. However, I would be more than happy to discuss any of the Greek in them if you have questions. I do ask that you dont just discard them all ala block or go ad hominem on me just because I’ve proven my point well for something I believe
I don’t believe the argument over a Pauline authorship or a Petrian authorship is really worth arguing over. The book is obviously God breathed and verbally inspired. When we reach the eternal throne of God, we aren’t going to care or worry. This is why I don’t debate theology. It is simply not worth my time. I would rather concentrate on delivering the Gospel to the poor and broken hearted.
well brother you are in the wrong group then
Troy Day LoL not really
and there’s you already arguing Pentecostal theology 🙂
Troy Day ?
Philip Williams pls address my 8 points and explain where in the original Greek of Hebrews they contradict or propose fallacy? I will be more than happy to dig the Greek with you or even a Hebrew equivalent if you believe in the false dynamic equivalent theory that Paul in fact did not need to use when addressing Jews
Troy Day do you have Apostolic (Oneness) roots?
At least you argue in the same rigid dogmatic way. I see what Link means about you ignoring what others say.
What’s the point in discussing this with others if your mind is closed? And it’s tiring for us. Do you have nothing to learn? Why your swazbuckling challenges?
Troy Day do you think that your pompous pronouncements about this or that should carry some weight in these discussions?
Are those based ones on the presumed authority of some ecclesiastical culture? Can you enlightened those of us who don’t share that culture?
You are continue to attack me ad hominem without addressing the 8 very solid arguments from the Greek. I obviously have no need to defend myself in your attack because the arguments I have presented are not based on my expertise but on the actual Greek language of the Bible. You can continue to attack my of course but that simply shows you are unable to address the arguments I have presented. Goes to character!
Troy Day
Character or mischaracterizing rebukes as attacks?
I would attribute that to immaturity, the kind of thing one hears from children, but not from men. If you aim to do serious scholarship and leadeship, man up.
The best protection from discipline is the cloak of humility that I see being worn by the truly great scientists and scholars, who are never impressed by their own learning, or by the truly great leaders who are never impressed by their own abilities.
Robert Franzen more true than not – it is harder to relate the original meaning of the Biblical text to people who dont know the original language than to people who do know the original language Link Hudson how do you feel about these 8 proofs of Pauline authorship of Hebrews?
(1) Only Paul (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14) and the author of Hebrews (Heb. 13:3) use the term “the Body” to describe the Church.
(2) Both are very familiar with Timothy (Heb. 13:23).
(3) Both refer to the milk and meat of the Scripture (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-14).
(4) Both quote Deuteronomy 32:35 in the same form (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30). Leon Morris writes, “It agrees exactly neither with the MT nor the LXX, though it is quoted in the same form in Romans 12:19.”[1]
(5) Both quote Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38).
(6) Both emphasize the rhetorical “we know,” rather than “I know.” Paul uses this many times (Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22; 1 Cor. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Tim. 1:8), as does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 10:30).
(7) Both emphasize the old and new covenant. Paul writes about the old and new covenants (2 Cor. 3:4-11), and so does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 8:6-13; 10:15-18).
(8) Both refer to the old covenant being a “shadow” of Christ (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1).
BTW on #6 so does Priscilla or whoever is acclaimed to be the the ancient female apostle writer – uses WE instead of I Paul uses I as well in many places
From a Pauline school of thought?
In Ephesians we see that prophets also got the revelation about Gentiles being fellow heirs. We may know this through Paul but other Christians may have learned it elsewhere. There could have been saints hundreds of mailes from each other recieving the revelation of the body.
well the purpose of Hebrews is different BUT the theme of justified by faith is still the same – very very Pauline
Troy Day Addressing your 8 mostly weak or contrived points.
1. Heb 13:3 is better understood as a reference to physical suffering in the body, a point that is more Petrine than Pauline when referenced to the suffering of those being written to.
2. Think do you, that Peter wasn’t familiar with Timothy, or Paul with Mark, Peter’s son in the Lord? In any case, this is in the postscript to Hebrews that I attribute to Luke.
3. Likewise Peter also refers to milk, 1Peter 2:1
4. Reference to same admonition in 1 Peter 3:9.
6. This one instance is different from most of Paul’s ‘we know,’ in referencing ‘him,’ rather than particular truths.
7. There is an implied reference to the Old Covenant in 1 Peter 1:10-12,
Now, it is remarkable that I can find even more distinctive similarities in the 2 short epistles of Peter than in the 13, mostly much longer letters of Paul!
With regard to the quotations of Scripture, you persist in ignoring that I attribute the actual penning of Hebrews to Luke, who likely did the same for many if not most of Paul’s own letters. Luke’s copy of the Greek OT, probably the same as read by Paul is sufficient to explain the similarities of the Scripture quotations both in Paul’s letters and the book of Hebrews. Or do you not think that Luke and Paul shared the same parchments?
Now, keep in mind, I am no more claiming that Luke is the author of Hebrews than of Paul’s letters. I am simply explaining his parchments (or shared family of parchments used by other Apostles) as responsible for the similarities in quotations between Hebrews and Paul’s letters.
I figured you would miss and fail on
(4) Both quote Deuteronomy 32:35 in the same form (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30). Leon Morris writes, “It agrees exactly neither with the MT nor the LXX, though it is quoted in the same form in Romans 12:19.”
There is NO way around this one you know
Word for word – neither LXX nor masoretic
You would have to to find Luke’s copy first to prove around your theory But even Luke’s own LXX would not help you with the rest of the Greek when we start looking into it – Good luck!
Peter believed we are justified by faith also.
Some similarities of Hebrews with the letters of Peter:
1. Destruction of earth and sky: Heb 1:1, 2Peter 3:10
2. Prophetic word confirmed:
Heb 1:2, 2Peter 2:18-19
3. Reference to church shepherds: Heb 13:20, 1 Peter 5:2
4. Show hospitality:
Heb 13:9, 1Pet 4:5
5. Apostate worse than having never heard the gospel: Heb 6:4-8, 2 Peter 2-21-22
6. Warning about strange teachings: Heb 13:9, 2Pet 2:1-3
7. Distribution of gifts:
1 Pet 4:9
8. Milk for infants: Heb 5:12, 1Pet 2:1
I Corinthians said I have fed you with milk and not with meat. Show hospitality in Romans 12. Paul told Ephesian elders to pastor the church of God…more similar to I Peter 5:2 than Heb. 13:20.
no need to lump things together and rush through this Philip Warstler We have all week ahead of us to look @ my proofs day by day and see them in the actual Greek that Paul used in Hebrews. I believe anyone with sound mind can see the Greek which clearly speaks with same words and expressions – apart from flipping and saying Peter used exact Pauline language of course 🙂 Never know if I dont start believing Luke did it – I’ve been impressed with Luke’s Greek before
The perspective on the law seems a bit different from what Paul presents before… not being under the law. But Pauline terminology doesn’t prove Paul himself wrote it. Paul influenced many people.
We have in Troy Day and Link Hudson two infallible opinions of which things it is impossible that two such witnesses could lie.
How then can they be in disagreement?
I find that last post a bit confusing.
I don’t think we can know without divine revelation. None of us have a time machine.
In fact, I think it is a bit irrational to be absolutely convinced of who wrote it, apart from divine revelation, or perhaps digging up some solid evidence (or presenting some existing dug-up solid evidence we have not heart of before.)
Link Hudson
You have heard my argument from someone other than me?
Philip Williams i do not think so, but there seem to be scholars and lay people too tied to particular theories.
Link Hudson ummm….
That happens when someone has an agenda. Like
1. The old Protestant bias against Peter ever being in Rome.
2. The liberal bias of Paul being the creator of Christianity (the New Covenant replacing the Old Covenant) that still dominates NT scholarship. Troy Day clearly works in that paradigm, as his obvious from some of his Pauline arguments.
3. The Dispensationalist idea that Paul is the author of the gospel. Hence, one tends to favor the liberal Pauline position of Paul having authority above the other Apostles.
4. The position that church planting defines an Apostle. Hence one also favors Pauline authorship.
I confess to having an agenda, one based on God’s fulfillment of Jesus’s prayer that the Apostles be one, as we see in Peter’s first letter concerning his love and respect for Paul. Also, Paul’s words that Peter was the Apostle to the circumcised and he to the uncircumcised, which ought to settle the matter for any believer, especially considering the implicit authority in this letter.
I cannot but believe the Roman tradition about the revival that took place while these two great men of God were imprisoned together just prior to their execution. How could that not have happened when we know that prisons could hold neither of these great men of God. That well explains why Rome soon began as perhaps the early church’s greatest center of faith.
2 infallible opinions? a Catholic Pope reference?
Troy Day not the Pope in Rome but all these Pentecostal Popes at home.
Philip Williams I just think it is irrational to be absolutely convinced such a thing based on such evidence just because it is feasible.
Link Hudson of course something will be “feasible” if consistent with both the Scriptures and the facts of history? So believing truth is irrational but not whatever conflicts with the Scriptures and the facts?
You see the preference of incoherent thesis as rational, but something consistent with the truth as irrational?
Have I somehow wandered into an Alice in the Wonderland forum with you and Troy Day?
Of course, I have. Doesn’t Troy Day just make up his facts about how Luke the doctor could not have assisted Paul, who had poor eyesight, in the writing of any of his letters? Wonder how Luke might have actually assisted Paul! Perhaps Troy will make up some more facts to answer that question.
If judges and juries used the same level if evidence you are using, innocent people would be in jail because if it. There is guesswork in your argument.
Link Hudson astonishing! Can you name a theory about the authorship of Hebrews including your own(!) that depends on more facts and less guesswork?
Philip Williams No, I can’t. But I consider a lot of insistence on acceptance of accepting feasible academic theories about history as to be a bit irrational. It’s what conspiracy theory videos are made of– a long list of these types of theories. It’s the kind of thing that the history channel shows nowadays, since it has become the conspiracy theory channel.
Link Hudson what have conspiracy theories to do with one who works directly with establishment academics and scientists at the highest level?
Philip Williams those individuals being in Rome at the same time, even if it could actually be proven true, does not prove who wrote Hebrews. It is a series of guesses. Is there an early tradition that lines up with this?
Link Hudson yes, I learned this ancient Roman tradition while I was in Rome visiting the very prison where Peter and Paul were held just prior to their execution.
Philip Williams About the authorship of Hebrews? What was the oldest source of the tradition that they know of? The first to write it down?
Link Hudson that was anonymous owing to the Persecution of Nero. It could have been shared until after the death of Theophilus. Nor could many other related things be shared. For example, about who collected the letters of the Apostles and published them. It can hardly have been anyone but Luke who did that, probably with the assistance of Theophilus.
I’m surprised that scholars don’t even think about this. But this had to have been done and also received by those who knew the Apostles.
Link Hudson that was anonymous owing to the Persecution of Nero. It could have been shared until after the death of Theophilus. Nor could many other related things be shared. For example, about who collected the letters of the Apostles and published them. It can hardly have been anyone but Luke who did that, probably with the assistance of Theophilus.
I’m surprised that scholars don’t even think about this. But this had to have been done and also received by those who knew the Apostles.
Philip Williams It can hardly have been anyone but Luke? How many millions of people were alive back then who weren’t mentioned in the Bible? How many thousands of Christians were there in the first century? Why could it not have been one of them?
Link Hudson they would have somehow have had a copy of all those letters. Half of them are from Paul. Who was Paul’s scribe, but the same as wrote two more of them?
Who was in Rome when Peter wrote his two letters? Who talked with Mary about Jesus’s birth and consulted Matthew and Mark’s gospel before writing his own? Who had to personally know the brothers of Jesus? All the NT is in his possession aside from those written by John. This well explains the tradition as remembered by John’s disciple Papias.
Link Hudson they would have somehow have had a copy of all those letters. Half of them are from Paul. Who was Paul’s scribe, but the same as wrote two more of them?
Who was in Rome when Peter wrote his two letters? Who talked with Mary about Jesus’s birth and consulted Matthew and Mark’s gospel before writing his own? Who had to personally know the brothers of Jesus? All the NT is in his possession aside from those written by John. This well explains the tradition as remembered by John’s disciple Papias.
Link Hudson I think that Luke is probably from Galatia and one of the recipients of the very first NT book. After that, he seems constantly with Paul.
The language of Acts changes to “we” as soon as Paul leaves Galatia.
The shameless tradition of modern biblical scholarship doesn’t do any thinking at all from a believing perspective.
On top of that, Jesus is still living to teach us these things and to confirm that which is true but not that which isn’t true.
Notice, also that Luke doesn’t tell Theophilus anything about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, but something that Theophilus obviously knew.
Link Hudson No the perspective on the law does not seem to be different than Pauls at all and Tom Steele may attest to that but I dont think you are too far in your theorie son Hebrews, except searching for additional author which is not needed
You do need to rethink your oral tradition theory though it is true there were Greek circuit scholars who quoted their theories like a theater act almost but we are talking early 5-6 even 8 century BC Alexandria and Rome established the written form quite strongly and we see NT circuit preachers like Paul, John and others recorded writing actual letters to the churches rather than relaying on oral transmission of what they wanted to say. So the difficulty of your theory is where you have to show any record of such oral tradition – did someone remember it 20 c later? Is there any record it was practiced in the early church? Is there a recorded version that states this was from specific oral tradition – all this as approach seems not scholarly and quite impossible to prove You could try though
Troy Day I fully agree on the unacceptability of oral tradition notwithstanding all the oral Torah poppycock.
If one wants to understand how reliable oral tradition, consider how rapidly diverged accounts of the great Flood. The Germans popularized oral tradition to create their own mythical history of a Germany that didn’t haven it’s origins in the too obscure Gomer, grandson of Noah. You might recall they had a lot of influence on biblical scholarship even in English speaking countries.
It’s not without good reason that God intended Christianity to be a religion of a book.
Troy Day but do you really think that Peter rejected Paul’s teaching on how the New Covenant replaces the Law of Moses? Just how did Peter’s theology differ from Paul’s? Do you really believe those who say that Paul invented Christianity?
It’s just a theory. If there were a common written source, I don’t see that as a problem for the faith, btw.
Philip Williams Did the flood stories divulge greatly in two decades.
What I had in mind by an oral gospel wasn’t a multi-generational tradition, btw, but that Mark recorded a story that Peter honed down the something Matthew and the other apostles had in common and they all told, with some variation based on their own experience, and hearing each other record it. Of course with the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit.
Link Hudson the common written source for our faith is the NT, the testimony of the Apostles, once and for all time entrusted to the church. So long as the church had the Apostles preaching Jesus, they didn’t need their writings, which is their testimony. What they wrote wasn’t any different from what they actually said, as is clear from the book of Acts.
Why would those who heard Jesus and who Jesus chose as his witnesses need a written source? They were themselves the living word.
They knew what Jesus taught them. They didn’t need some silly Q.
If the apostles had some written drafts of their oral gospel they wrote down over time that were used as a source for the gospels we have now, that would not be some major theological problem.
If they did learn to quote the Torah as children, they may have been in a very heavy memorization culture. The oral message idea– that the apostles had some portions of their teaching that were word for word the same in some parts, and a little different in others isn’t unreasonable.
drafts have been looked into for a long time now by Biblical criticism Hence the large database of over 6000 MSS developed and many more still coming in – the major problem with drafts is their accuracy and proving they were actually written by the apostle and not someone else To sort through that the early church established the canon SO except if one holds for open revelation we should be done with the draft or other gospels like Peter, Thomas and so on theory http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/17-new-testament-manuscripts-discovered-in-greece/
Link Hudson the Holy Ghost gave the Apostles a rough draft? You’re kidding.
Luke wrote the postscript to the book of Hebrews about Timothy being released. He plans for Timothy to join him as he delivers to the church in Judea the first NT minus the letters of John. Though he may have obtained the letters of James and Jude when he and Timothy arrived in Judea, Jerusalem probably now guarded owing to the coming war of AD 70.
And you got this information from tour guides? Or visions? Or what?
Link Hudson longtime Christian residents of Rome.
Philip Williams all these hanging @ the end of the book traditions, re-writing, post-writing is exactly what got TR Textus Receptus in trouble and lost its credibility Like the long end of Mark in Latin I asked you about and you failed to address on several occasions. What remains for us today from TR is mainly radacated and highly corrupted text. Not to mention TR itself was never part of one long textual tradition or family because Erasmus put it together artificially reaching hanging appending with a very poor base of MSS coming from Lord knows where – no history, no continuity – nothing but an attempt to re-create a Bible on the orders of the Pope.
We are protestants before all – we value return to the SOLA Scripture – not scripture mutilated by papal tradition. Also as Pentecostals we return to the Apostolic – not man made creed and traditions, and certainly not Papal decrees over the actual BIBLE text – Sola Scripture For this reason I addressed the Greek of the actual text of Hebrews and we will continue to argue on the internal evidence of pro Pauline authorship. There could be of course some one in post-Constantine that wanted to change that so to fit the church-state symbioses of Byzantium – well obviously we will disregard them in fave of the actual BIBLE
Philip Williams Link Hudson let’s start with the first of the 8 offered proofs here from the overwhelming internal evidence
(1) Only Paul (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14) and the author of Hebrews (Heb. 13:3) use the term “the Body” to describe the Church.
Paul actually uses the term ἐν σώματι over 2 dozen times in the NT with the proposition IN
Philip Williams responded that
Heb 13:3 is better understood as a reference to physical suffering in the body,
this is not really true since Paul uses ἐν σώματι for the body of Christ But even if we accept that it was used for physical suffering here Peter uses the term only 1 time and in reference to the body of Christ 1 Peter 2:24 ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ which is not how the author uses it in Hebrews; showing the author uses the phrase ἐν σώματι in Heb 13 alike Paul and not aliek Peter
Link Hudson Philip Williams I know that when we bring a theological discussion to the actual language of the BIBLE it is simply hard to argue with It says what it says so I will proceed with my second point on the Hebrew authorship
Troy Day but why don’t you just start with some facts?
I start and end with the BIBLE
The BIBLE is enough fact for me
I recognize the BIBLE – not tradition or papal talk
If you dont recognize the BIBLE what else is there?
Link Hudson Philip Williams #2 of the overwhelming internal evidence proving Pauline authorship of Hebrews is the author’s direct knowledge of Timothy – could have Peter known him? We simply don’t know – claiming either would not be scholarly and mainly an argument from silence.
What we do know is that the author of Hebrews was well familiar with Timothy and mentioned him by name in 13:23. The grammatical way of using the name resembles Pauline writing.
Does the grammatical way resemble Peter – we will never know without actual Scripture in which Peter mentions Timothy.
Since we believe in closed revelation of the Bible such new evidence will probably not ever be produced. So we are safe to conclude that the mention of Timothy in Hebrews 13:23 is another strong internal evidence for Pauline authorship.
Kelly Crites Link Hudson Philip Williams one can only safely presume that with no response to the solid pro Pauline arguments from the Greek text for over 24hrs you are in full agreement with them SO we proceed with the next one
#3 of the overwhelming internal evidence proving Pauline authorship of Hebrews both refer to the milk and meat of the Scripture (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-14).
Paul in 1 Cor uses the exact word γάλακτος
Peter in 1 Peter 2:2 uses γάλα
This is the word from which we get our Milky (way) galaxy
Γάλακτος is of course the Gen. 3rd declension of γάλα
Paul uses both γάλα and γάλακτος
Peter uses only γάλα
The author of Hebrews uses only γάλακτος alike Paul and not alike Peter Furthermore the author of Hebrews combines milk with hard food alike Paul, while Peter uses only the milk – does it get more clear than that?
Sorry but that point in 8solation deems rather weak. Then you ask if it gets more clear.
Not sure what you mean by
point in 8solation
but the Greek is clear – it says what it says
hey Philip Williams since you have no more responses to my first 3 points I was thinking to get to this #4 which is pretty much the BIBLE itself if you recognize the LXX I would love to see you fit Luke’s own OT translation which no one has ever seen into this point
(4) Both quote Deuteronomy 32:35 in the same form (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30). Leon Morris writes, “It agrees exactly neither with the MT nor the LXX, though it is quoted in the same form in Romans 12:19.” The similar admonition in 1 Peter 3:9 is completely different in the original greek and does not quote the same language used by Paul in both Romans and Hebrews. See it for your self here:
Rom. 12:19 Ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω
Heb. 10:30 • Ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω
1 Peter 3: 9 μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ
I mean come on!!! Is it not clear how Peter is NOT Paul or the author of Hebrews and how Paul is the author of Hebrews? Is this exact usage of the quote that is not found even in LXX coincidental? The Greek of the NT is clear the author of Hebrews writes the same way as Paul – exactly and precisely Even when Paul uses unknown to us source – they both write one and the same This is way too much similarity to claim another person in the authorship of Hebrews except PAUL
If the author of Hebrews had Romans and liked the translation that could be an alternative explanation. Just sayin..
hahahah OK 🙂 or it just was Paul
Or there was an alternative Greek translation floating around– seems less likely for the Pentateuch than other books.
Or whoever wrote Hebrews hung around with Paul so much he picked up Paul’s translation of this. Luke travelled with Paul.
Link Hudson That there was an alternative Greek translation floating around- is just absurd This was the Hebrew OT we are talking about They did not just translate it left and right without the Sinhedrin knowing it 🙂 Have you not read the story of LXX?
David Woods what explanation do you offer to this #4 – what is your reasoning and how can you deny it?
Troy Day do you gave any evidence thatthe Soanhedrin had to decide on new translations? Couldn’t they targum it on tbe spot in the synagogue. Whole translations of the Pentateuch seem unlikely due to the belief in the LXX but we don’t know if everyone thought it was inspired.
Paul Burdine I read in one of your posts you wanted more theology discussions This one is plain Greek to me
Troy Day, awesome! Maybe this weekend I will get a chance to read up. Glad to see something like this instead of which way you’re supposed to fall if you get slain in the Spirit.
We are up to #4 Keep up if you can 🙂
Truthfully, no one knows. However, it would not be a new idea to suppose it being a woman. Anonymously of course, less the middle eastern custom pay it completely no attention. Originally proposed by Adolf von Harnack in 1900, Harnack’s reasoning won the support of prominent Bible scholars of the early twentieth century. Harnack believes the letter was written in Rome – not to the Church, but to the inner circle. Was it possibly Priscilla?
What proof do you offer of being a women except that I/WE usage? We’ve offered 8 solid internal proof of definite pro Pauline authorship
Troy Day as much proof as you have offered. There is no real conclusion to be sure of. It’s all a hypothesis. Sorry to disappoint.
How so? The 8 proofs offered are straight from the Greek of the epistle and unmistakably written by Paul. What counter proof do you have to claim Paul did not write them?
Troy Day you have not offered eight proofs you have offered eight reasonings.
What I offered was 8 passages sraight from the Greek text of Hebrews that match the writing of Paul There is no reasoning there – just 100% exact match which in the style of Paul is impossible to mimic by another author. Would you pls comment on each of them how you disagree?
Troy Day I just studied this in a class with Pentecostal School of Theology. I don’t think we can agree or disagree of the authorship of the book of Hebrews no matter who wrote it.
So you should be able to respond to the 8 examples from internal evidence @ ease since you just studied it
Dr. Dennis E. Johnson
The question of who wrote the book of Hebrews has been debated from the very earliest days of the church. In the Eastern empire, especially in Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria and then his student, Origen, were aware of traditions that Paul wrote Hebrews, that Luke may have written Hebrews. But Origen in the early third century probably said the truest thing that anyone can say, and that is, “As to who actually wrote the book, God alone knows the truth.” Other theories were that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, that was held by Tertullian. Much later in the Reformation period, Martin Luther suggested that Apollos wrote Hebrews, but there’s no tradition of that in the early centuries of the church. We really don’t know. Calvin, aware of those early traditions, weighed in on the question of Pauline authorship, saying he just could not imagine that Paul would group himself among those who heard the gospel through the other apostles rather than through direct revelation from Christ, as Paul so clearly claims in his epistles. So, Calvin said 2:1-4, for his mind, were pretty conclusive against Pauline authorship. But we really don’t know.
#5 Link Hudson David Willaim Faupel
Both Paul and the author of Hebrew quote Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38) in connection to justification by faith – a very specific to Paul doctrine. Philip Williams skipped #5 in his response and maybe for some reason it scared away but its not that hard to see Paul’s hand writing here. Do we have anyone else in the NT who points to Abraham’s righteousness by faith but Paul. And also who else so strongly uses Habakkuk 2:4 in the NT? This to me is a strong strong pro-Pauline argument. No wonder opponents to Pauline authorship often decided to skip it
Dr. Simon Vibert
There’s been a lot of speculation about who wrote the book of Hebrews, and one obvious candidate would be the apostle Paul. There’s lots in it that’s very similar in theology to other writings of the apostle Paul, but most scholars agree that it doesn’t exactly read like the apostle Paul’s writing style, a letter that’s written to a very Jewish community, lots of quotations from the Greek version of the Old Testament. And, in a nutshell, the conclusion, I think, is that we actually don’t know who the author the letter to the Hebrews was, but somebody who was clearly associated with the apostolic band.
what most scholars agree ? who exactly
I;ve shown 8 very specific doctrinal and grammatical examples that match Paul 100% and no one else in the NT
#5 Link Hudson David Woods Both Paul and the author of Hebrew quote Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38) in connection to justification by faith – a very specific to Paul doctrine. Philip Williams skipped #5 in his response and maybe for some reason it scared away but its not that hard to see Paul’s hand writing here. Do we have anyone else in the NT who points to Abraham’s righteousness by faith but Paul. And also who else so strongly uses Habakkuk 2:4 in the NT? This to me is a strong strong pro-Pauline argument. No wonder opponents to Pauline authorship often decided to skip it
Dr. Barry Joslin
Well, the question of who wrote Hebrews is probably the question that I get asked most often. Since the earliest days of the church, this has been a mystery. In fact, Origen said in about 215 A.D., a famous quote that’s been circulating now for centuries, he said, as to who wrote Hebrews, “only God knows who wrote Hebrews.” Many suggestions have been made: we’ve got Priscilla; we’ve got Luke; we’ve got Barnabas; we’ve got Apollos; of course, Paul. And down through the centuries of the church, Paul has arguably been the most popular. That was because he was tied to the book in order to get it, one of the things that was used in order to get it into the Canon. And so, based on what we know, particularly as we compare Paul and Hebrews and how they rise, the usage of the Greek, rhetorical style, things like that, we can say with quite a bit of confidence that it’s not Paul. They just say things differently, use words differently, argue differently, speak about the same things quite differently. And so, people say, “Well then who wrote it?” Well, I mean, I agree with Origen; God knows and that’s sufficient for us. But we want to know who, we’d like to know who it was, who wrote it, but we have to be satisfied with knowing that it’s fully inspired, that God wrote it, ultimately, through some pastor in the first century. And yes, that’s been posited for hundreds of years as Apollos or someone like him. Based on what we know about Apollos, he perhaps fits the bill, but we certainly can’t argue that with certainty. We just have to be content that it’s inspired, the Lord has given it to us, and it’s a tremendous gift as one of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.
thank you for the copy paste but could you pls interact with the actual internal evidence We already discussed Origen and so on The Greek text of Hebrews I’ve cited says otherwise
Dr. Craig S. Keener
Who wrote the book of Hebrews? I think it was Origen who said, “Only God knows.” But there have been a number of suggestions through history of Barnabas and others. One of the strongest possible suggestions is Apollos because he was from Alexandria and he was able to do the kind of things that we see in the book of Hebrews. We can be sure it wasn’t Paul because it depends on the Septuagint so much, whereas Paul sometimes nuances things where he knows that the Hebrew is different. There have been other suggestions. One that I think hasn’t been offered as much but would also fit would be Silas who was a Roman citizen and was apparently in Rome part of these times. I look at Hebrews 13 and it appears, you know — “Those from Italy greet you” — it appears that it’s probably being written from Italy. Timothy has just been released from jail. This may be, Timothy had come to visit Paul, as was requested in 2 Timothy 4, and wasn’t able… Well, probably did meet him but then was probably arrested himself. There’s no mention of Paul, so this may be after Paul’s execution. But after Nero died, the prisoners probably would have been released, so, probably in the late 60s. This is probably someone from the Pauline circle, somebody who knew Paul, somebody who would have been in Rome at the time, but that doesn’t tell us exactly who it is. It just tells us some things about them.
Keener is great and makes a great miss-observation here Rest assured we’ve read all your copy pasts and to most of it I already responded above if you care reading my comments
Now can you pls stop with the copy pasts of various opinions and respond to the actual proof from the BIBLE – you believe in the BIBLE rightly divided right? How do you respond to this
(1) Only Paul (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14) and the author of Hebrews (Heb. 13:3) use the term “the Body” to describe the Church.
(2) Both are very familiar with Timothy (Heb. 13:23).
(3) Both refer to the milk and meat of the Scripture (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-14).
(4) Both quote Deuteronomy 32:35 in the same form (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30). Leon Morris writes, “It agrees exactly neither with the MT nor the LXX, though it is quoted in the same form in Romans 12:19.”[1]
(5) Both quote Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38).
(6) Both emphasize the rhetorical “we know,” rather than “I know.” Paul uses this many times (Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22; 1 Cor. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Tim. 1:8), as does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 10:30).
(7) Both emphasize the old and new covenant. Paul writes about the old and new covenants (2 Cor. 3:4-11), and so does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 8:6-13; 10:15-18).
(8) Both refer to the old covenant being a “shadow” of Christ (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1).
Now then,
Compare Hebrews 1:1, 3 with 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15, 16
Compare Hebrews 1:4 and 2:9 with Philippians 2:8, 9
Compare Hebrews 2:14 with 1 Corinthians 15:54, 57
Compare Hebrews 7:16, 18, 19 with Romans 2:29 and Galatians 3:3, 24
Compare Hebrews 7:26 with Ephesians 4:10
Compare Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1 with Colossians 2:17
Compare Hebrews 10:12, 13 with 1 Corinthians 15:25
David Woods very odd, considering the fact that Craig is an excellent Second Temple historian and dates Hebrews to the late sixties that he completely ignores Peter as the primary writer, in truth the only person in the world outside of James who is then dead having the implicit authority over the believing Jews Implicit by the author of this book.
Unless Keener is so much unbeliever to reject the fact that ‘the Pauline circle’ was anything other than the Apostles.
Perhaps I ought to take this subject up directly with Keener.
Craig is great but I find this one odd Philip Williams great to see you back in the discussion
Troy Day from the ICU
yes – what meds did they put you ?
Truth serum
Is the style the same?
The first word of Hebrews is not Paul.
Link Hudson read the letters of Peter. Both to Jews. Same easy authority.
The Pauline style is the same and hardly mistakable Link Hudson you are making a funny assumption. The critics of Pauline authorship of Heb. will try to tell you the start and the end were both appended later to look like Paul 🙂 Not sure what they say about the remaining 13 chapters that are unmistakably Pauline BTW I am noticing a lot of chit chat in this thread but not much addressing the actual Greek arguments presented One is left in wonder as of the reason
Sorry about the chit chat, but are you doing okay Philip Williams?
Troy Day the Chief problem with Pauline authorship is precisely the style, mentioned since the time of Origen. How has Troy Dat discovered a Pauline style when no one else has.
Don’t confuse that with Pauline themes, which are in fact the same as the other Apostles, namely Jesus and the New Covenant replaying the Covenant of Moses.
Troy Day What is the problem with Luke being the scribe for Hebrews as well as Paul’s letters?
Link Hudson my head is still training blood, but I just got moved out of ICR.
@link hudson #6 Both Paul and author of Hebrews emphasize the rhetorical “we know,” rather than “I know.” Paul uses this many times (Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22; 1 Cor. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Tim. 1:8), as does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 10:30).
To this @philip williams responded
This one instance is different from most of Paul’s ‘we know,’ in referencing ‘him,’ rather than particular truths.
I am not clear what the response means and how is it different. We would need actual examples from the Greek NT where Paul does or does not do that.
As far as Heb. 10:30 in the Greek is exactly as in Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22; 1 Cor. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Tim. 1:8 where Paul uses WE
Meanwhile, I’ve seen the WE-sayings used to prove female authorship. I am not aware of any internal evidence examples that can attest to that
Troy Day if Luke penned all of these in his pen Greek style to write in perfect Greek messages spoken by both Paul and Peter, why wouldn’t they be written in exactly the same Lukan style?
Luke did not pen Hebrews The Greek of Luke does not get more different than Paul We can look at some examples when we are done with the pro Pauline 8 but there is no match there and is hardly worth the time I already mentioned why
1. 700 Luke’s hexaplas not found in Hebrews
2. Luke a non-Jew writing to Hebrews
3. hebreisms used in Hebrews Luke never used and possibly never knew about and so on and so on
Troy Day Did Tertius know Hebreisms?
a professional amanuensis would have known a lot of things and wrote only and exactly as he was told by the actual author – that Tertius of Iconium attested himself for being a scribe is a clear proof he was not the actual author. His inability to use Paul’s signature phrase ἐν κυρίῳ in a Pauline fashion highlights his lack of authorial input. Tertius’ self-initiated greeting in Rom 16.22 probably began life as a marginal comment that was moved early into the letter body. https://www.academia.edu/7165938/_I_Tertius_Secretary_or_Co-Author_of_Romans._
Link Hudson Philip Williams I did post this final proof but with people reporting and deleting comments not sure what happened Now then, here is the end of the story
#7 Both emphasize the old and new covenant. Paul writes about the old and new covenants (2 Cor. 3:4-11), and so does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 8:6-13; 10:15-18). + (8) Both refer to the old covenant being a “shadow” of Christ (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1).
response 7. There is an implied reference to the Old Covenant in 1 Peter 1:10-12
Obviously when we compare anything implied to an actual exact match, the later wins every time. With this said, one more very obvious Pauline doctrine influence on Hebrews which eliminates not only Peter but Luke as well. Except if one can produce the same old and new covenants as in 2 Cor. 3:4-11 from Luke or Acts with the same Greek wording and grammar. You are welcome!
Link Hudson Philip Williams I do not see any further refutations to my 8 proofs So now then what was the other thing we needed to look in Greek? one of yall suggested it last week
Don’t answer this until you simultaneously read Peters 2 letters with his letter to the Hebrews. The answer will become obvious. You will also understand that only one person possessed the authority to write like this to the brothers in Judea after James was martyred and the believers could no longer worship at the Temple.
Interesting comment.
William DeArteaga sounds interesting indeed but there NO actual Biblical proof when the evidence is examined
William DeArteaga Luke who actually penned this for Peter while he and Paul are together in prison waiting to be martyred, adds a postscript about Timothy being released from prison. The two of them might be carrying with them to Judea copies of the complete letters of Peter and Paul if not also the first three gospels.
They have the cooperation of the prison warden whose name is Theophilus. The tradition in Rome alive to this day is that a revival broke out while Peter and Paul were together in prison. Not the first prison revival for either of them. The tradition is that everyone in the prison was converted including the warden.
The reason for the anonymity is that Nero has made the faith an illicit religion even as members of Caesar’s own household have joined the faith. This explains the lack of information about the church in the generation immediately following the death of the Apostles.
Philip Williams Plausable, but Iam not expert enough in this field to affirm or deny.
William DeArteaga you can see that Luke would have had access to all the letters of the NT except those of John. We know that he was familiar with other gospels than the one he wrote.
William DeArteaga the NT letters had to have been possessed by those who knew the Apostles. Otherwise, they would not have known them to have been the work of the Apostles. Not 300 years in the making but completed in a few decades beginning prior to the deaths of the Apostles.
Apollos
no proof for that
Paul
If it was good for Paul it is good for me
I don’t feel like arguing with atheists or ungodly ppl tonight. And frankly, I don’t really care how old the earth is. The Bible indicates 6-10 thousand yrs old. Carbon dating is proven to be a fraud. And the earth ain’t flat either, you bone heads! Lol.
God – He is the Author of all Scripture
Peter or James
paul indeed
Paul?
An unknown woman disciple who followed Paul
Jeremi Taitt I hadn’t heard that theory before!
Zoey Granitz I have heard 4 people including Paul as potential authors. The writing of the Hebrews screams Paul but like Isaiah, the writing could have been continued by their respective understudies.
God.
Jeremi Taitt WAITWAITWAIT ISAIAH WAS WRITTEN BY MORE THAN ONE PROPHET?!
Jeremi Taitt how did he know the exact hebreisms Paul used in his Greek writings in other places?
Zoey Granitz Scholars argue there are 2-3 writers and Isaiah is split into 3 “books” or installments (Isaiah, deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah)
Jeremi Taitt yes Isiah wrote Hebrews 10-4
God. ( drops mic )
Samuel Haire ?? Amen!
Busisiwe Lily Lilies that actually makes like 0 sense
Troy Day okay
CAN ANYone in this group tell us ???
lo0ok what we got here Philip Williams a NEW opportunity to rise and shine this OP after all these years once again
Troy Day here write it down on your notebook.
https://www.gotquestions.org/author-Hebrews.html
Nobody knows
even GOD|? or the actual writer ? that makes at least 2
Troy Day try again then…. God knows – spirit, Jesus knows -spirit and flesh, the Holy Spirit … so you tell me which one is a body
I’ve heard a convincing presentation that it was Apollos. But seriously I’m not too worried about who wrote it. I’m worried about living it out.
give us your so called convincing presentation that it was Apollos The question of who wrote the book of Hebrews has been debated from the very earliest days of the church. In the Eastern empire, especially in Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria and then his student, Origen, were aware of traditions that Paul wrote Hebrews, that Luke may have written Hebrews. But Origen in the early third century probably said the truest thing that anyone can say, and that is, “As to who actually wrote the book, God alone knows the truth.” Other theories were that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, that was held by Tertullian. Much later in the Reformation period, Martin Luther suggested that Apollos wrote Hebrews, but there’s no tradition of that in the early centuries of the church. We really don’t know. Calvin, aware of those early traditions, weighed in on the question of Pauline authorship, saying he just could not imagine that Paul would group himself among those who heard the gospel through the other apostles rather than through direct revelation from Christ, as Paul so clearly claims in his epistles. So, Calvin said 2:1-4, for his mind, were pretty conclusive against Pauline authorship. But we really don’t know.
Troy Day I think the first sentence in your comment was mistakenly not removed.
Philip K. Eyrich nope – you misread it strongly
Troy Day So, were you asking/telling Samuel to “give us your so called convincing presentation that it was Apollos”? If it was a question, you didn’t really expect an answer because you provided plenty. Aside from the first sentence, I like the stuff you wrote. perhaps I was supposed to read it as a rhetorical where no response was needed?
Samuel Haire I have also heard Barnabas but not as apparently obvious as Paul who had a formal Jewish education unlike Apollos or Barnabas.
God is the author if entire Bible
I believe Paul is the writter of Hebrews as it is written with the same style as Romans to Philemon
similar not same Very hebreistic too Romans much more simplistic in Greek but YES on Philemon
Troy Day yes i believe it was Paul addressing the Hebrews
Like in the fisrt couple of chapters in Romans, then again chp7
Has any computer analysis been done to determine authorship? I heard that the Torah was analyzed and the results showed that all five books had the same single author.
Most bible scholars think its Paul for many reasons. The obvious writing is similar to his others. Another is that his ministry was with the gentiles but his heart was for everyone including Jews in other ministries. He didn’t leave a signature so nobody would think he was intruding on someone elses assigned ministry, like how some poachers today, drawing people away from one church to grow their church or start churches.
I agree on PAUL – solid internal evidence
Only God knows but a theory I have like is Barnabas. The author has a lot of knowledge about Levitical law and when Barnabas is first introduced it is as “Joseph the Levite”.
Barnabas possibly could not even write
They don’t know exactly. Maybe Apollos.
a very late Martin Luther Reformation argument No one in the early Church actually believed this
He was a Hebrew Priest or disciple who knew the laws of the Temple Sacrifices and got converted and became a true believer.
Paul is not Hebrew he is a gentile, a serpent seed
Jefmor Morante you know a tree by its fruit and Paul’s fruit are good. Maybe your the seed the the serpent.
Jefmor Morante r u serious?
not what he said – morving forward
Jefmor Morante I’m interested to know more. I disagree, but I would like to hear why you say he was a Gentile
Jefmor Morante ironically, your comment qualifies for Paul’s words to Timothy. Tim 2:23. Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights.
Starbucks
Luke and Paul wrote it together.
God
Who are the AUTHORS would be proper.
naah the Greek is clearly by ONE author
Troy Day
In all of Paul’s epistles he was careful to pen them with PAUL, apostle..
In Hebrews there is no such thing but at the end of Hebrews the end greeting is like that of Paul..
The consensus among most modern scholars is that the author is unknown. No one knows who wrote it.
https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-hebrews
“The ancient testimony to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews is incomparably stronger than any other, and other names may thus be dealt with more briefly. A double tradition mentioning Clement and Luke as possible authors was, according to Eusebius, known already to Origen. It was taken up by, among others, Jerome, John of Damascus, and Ephraem and later by a number of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholars.
This tradition is, however, certainly incorrect. While Clement quotes or alludes to Hebrews, attributes OT quotations directly to the Holy Spirit in a way paralleled in the NT only by Hebrews, and derives some of his language from that more creative writing (not quoting Hebrews as scripture or attributing it to Paul), his thought runs fundamentally counter to that of Hebrews. Where Hebrews is concerned to show the supremacy of Christ and the uniqueness of his priesthood, Clement uses Heb. 7:14 as the point of departure for an argument about the many “kings and princes and rulers in line of descent from Judah” (32:2). Clement misunderstands the teaching in Hebrews about Christ’s high priesthood as if it justified the establishment of a Christian hierarchy modeled on the Jewish hierarchy and including a high priest, priests, levites, and laymen (40:5). Such a reversal is unthinkable in the mind of a single writer.”
Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1993, p.13; emphasis mine
It was The Apostle Paul
Yadah Yasharael no. Different writing style.
Don’t know
It’s not known with a high degree of certainty
Probably Paul.
A popular theory is that it was a sermon of Paul written down by Luke
Most theologen say that the author is Paul because of the pattern of writing.
Luther Paye most theologians say exactly the opposite.
Pauline
God.
I doubt it was Paul. The writing style is very different.
‘Ghost written by “someone” Jewish with the Apostle Paul’?
Some of you are going to get that.?
Only God knows.
I believe that it may have been the Apostle John writer of the Gospel. The reason being is that in the Gospel of John the Apostle rights of people being given to Christ and there is a singular mention of that in the letter to the Hebrews as well otherwise it is not distinctive of John but I do believe that it is.
It might be Paul
Paul or Luke
Moody Allen I believe the key to the knowledge of who wrote The Letter to the Hebrews is in Chapter 12. No one in the early church experienced the scourge and understood suffering as much as The Apostle Paul. It is said that the Greek is very high quality so we do not know if it was edited? I believe Paul was likely the author but not necessarily by his pen???
God!
God… through a man… who believed the Gospel of Yeshua Messiah. Question: should we not be the same?
Bob wrote it.
When we say Paul, we’re guessing
Id like to think it was Paul, but Apollos might be a great second choice. See Acts 18:24-28 “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”
It is not actually known who the Holy Spirit used but there is a front runner which most say is none other than the apostle Paul.
you cant prove no one else but PAUL using the internal evidence
Troy Day I accept your summation and it is the best educated guess but not absolutely confirmed. In the end the author is the Holy Spirit and Paul will rightfully get his name on one of the twelve foundations of New Jerusalem (Rev.21:14)
Patrick Boren I believe PAUL wrote HEBREWS
Troy Day That is speculation also.
Troy Day Can we conclude Hebrews is Paul’s writing using only the book of Hebrews by itself (internal evidence), not referencing other of his writings nor other sources (external evidence)?
Brent Roberts who told you that? Do you even read Greek ?
Troy Day not sure if it’s the culture you grew up with or if you think that everyone who disagrees with you are stupid. We’re getting reports in regards to how you interact with others. Please remain cordial in your interactions
Troy Day Yes I do.
God
Why is that important to you? Dies it matter?
God
Paul. Only someone trained in the Law of Moses and anointed to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ could have written with such understanding of the types and shadows of the Old Covenant and how they are fulfilled in the New. It’s just not possible for another person of the caliber required to have written such a work to have been unheard of and unknown. Definitely Paul.
I am strongly leaning toward Paul being the author of Hebrews. The scholars say was likely not Paul because the vocabulary is different than that used in Paul’s epistles. But… his epistles were written to Gentile recipients with little to no past familiarity with Judaism. The masterfully written Epistle to the Hebrews, is the doctrinal equivalent to the Epistle to the Romans, but written to those familiar with Judaism. His matter-of-fact reference to his bonds (Hebrews 10:34), without being more specific or descriptive, is a virtual rubber stamp of how Paul also referred to his bonds in Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy and Philemon. Yes, other Christians were in bonds, but how many others could have written a Treatise of this magnitude on Judeo-Christianity?
Exactly!
I believe the best candidate is Apollos, the best Hellenistic Jewish-Christian to write such an eloquent book, rich in OT history and theology, as Hebrews. We’ll ultimately find out in Heaven.
Don’t have enough information.
John Mark. Look up the you tube instruction “meet John Mark the author of Hebrews” by grace life Bible church. Bryan Ross is pastor. It is the most thorough and convincing study I’ve ever heard.
I would say it was Luke.
Most think paul. Doesn’t matter, it’s a great book
I always thought that it was written by a friend of Paul’s directly based on sermons that Paul had given. This would explain the difference in style but the ideas were Paul’s. This would meet the first requirement of the canon “written by an apostle or at the direction of one.” Obviously I have no proof for this belief but neither does anybody else.
Biblical Scholars can’t even agree on who wrote Hebrews except that it’s unknown. There is just not enough conclusive evidence.
Book of Hebrews in the bible? Kindly tell us ?.
I believe it is not know, but Paul is the number one suspect.
The Holy Spirit
It’s Paul
God ? Apostle Paul
Holy Spirit is the original auther but for the argument Appollos.
It is unknown who wrote Hebrews.
But if we knew, would it make any difference to our Spiritual Lives? Will there be any drastic changes in your Spiritual Life if you find out the author?
Hebrews is an amazing book in the Bible… it carries a really rich source of Spiritual Nourishment… should focus on living life according to those words as much as possible rather than debating what is not known.
I think Luke
Could be Paul, Luke, Barnabas or Apollos
It is not Paul or Barnabas or Luke or Apollos….Then who is the author? To give you a hint we will try to study well in Chapter 2:1-3 of the book Hebrew itself…particular verse 3..”.how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation (the gospel of Christ), which at first (the time of the gospel story when Christ was still here on earth) began to be spoken by the Lord (so the preaching of the message of salvation began with Christ in the narrative story of Matthew Luke Mark & John), and was confirmed to US (who are these US?-the present generation of believers during the period of the book of Hebrews) by THOSE (who are these THOSE? the generation of the people “who heard Him-referring to Christ..So these people who directly heard Christ talking to them…they were the disciples who were alive during the time of the gospel narrative story and those people in the books of Acts who heard Him talking before he ascended to heaven…well at least they heard His preaching for the last forty days of His life after His resurrection…SO WITH THESE LINE OF THINKING WHO DO YOU THINK IS THE AUTHOR?…..FOR ME I THINK HE OR SHE BELONGS TO THE GENERATION OF THE…US….who ever that person be…we do not know his/her name who belongs to the generation of “US” we could say is the one who authored the book of Hebrews….WHAT DO YOU THINK..
F. F. Bruce. The question should be ohrased: Who preached the oral sermon that was reduced to writing?
Did Paul preach the sermon, or did he also reduce it to writing in manuscript form first, then preach it. See F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Hebrews his discussion in Chapter Thirteen
The Holy Spirit
No one really knows
James Clist Justin Morrison Ryan Matus Steve M. Pace. ^^ Scott King
Paul
“Behind text” question, authorship, date, time. Text as a finished product is with me, inspired by the Spirit of God and authoritative as the word of God- “Text centred”. How to read and understand and live today is “in front of text” concern. An integrated approach, balanced, is to the text always welcomed, can contribute a lot to the study of the books, therefore all 3 are needed. If I prioritise, let the Text be guide and joy in the first place. If personally hold my view, Paul as the author having some convincing reasons of argument, I can hold my view. But, at the same time, there are number of reason to say Paul not the author. Considering all may help to have an over all understanding. I think we can have personal view, after considering all, with regard to all such matters. “tolle lege”- take up and read.
It’s Apostle Paul no doubt about it.
PaI Believe 100%Apostle Paul
Paul because he was the master of the Law , the persecutor before converted to the Christian faith
I have NOT YET SEEN ANY apologetic proof presented here SO far against PAULs authorship IF ANYone has any proof please speak NOW Philip Williams Patrick Boren Philip K. Eyrich
What was the purpose/intent of your initial post? I’ve seen no statement of purpose to help us with your specific need. People have written many ideas for you, but you seem to reject them all. Please define why you are asking so a proper apologetic can be given. I’m beginning to get the impression you are not sincere. Even you had written:
Troy Day Philip Williams, Patrick Boren Philip K. Eyrich Troy, as I mentioned on another of your posts, while not yours, just you posting someone else’s material,it would be nice to see you think for yourself and put forth your own ideas. As for who wrote Hebrews, while we don’t know the human author, the internal evidence in the second chapter makes it clear it wasn’t Paul. The author of Hebrews says the message was passed on to him by those who heard Jesus and Paul is very clear he received his gospel directly from Jesus. 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, Hebrews 2:3 (NKJV)
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 (NKJV)
Randy Baker the Apostles, Paul excepted, had a tendency to refer to themselves in the third person. Paul’s ‘I knew a man…called up to third Heaven…’ also follows this tendency. ‘Attested to us by those who heard…’ does not by any means exclude the author(s) as being apostle(s). He is also a member of one of those he desires to be ‘reunited’ to.
In my view, this letter was penned by Luke for the primary author Peter. Only Peter had the implicit authority over the Jewish believers as seen in this letter. The style is also that of Peter’s letters. The anonymity is owing to the letter being written from the prison in Rome to the church in Judea after the execution of James, as the church in Jerusalem was then having to meet outside the city bearing his reproach. The postscript ‘our brother Timothy has been released.’ was probably added by Luke after the martyrdom of the primary author Peter, but before the letter was actually sent to Jerusalem as the opportunity arose.
Philip Williams We are each free to draw our own conclusions as no essential doctrine is in question.
Randy Baker I like your argument but there is one flaw. The gospel Paul did receive directly from Jesus as he states in Galatians however this does not mean he could learn nothing from the other disciples. He could still pass on somethings he learned from other disciples.
God.
Nobody knows for certain but probably Paul
Unknown. Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Luke, Philip, Priscilla, Aquila, and Clement of Rome have been suggested by different scholars, but the epistle’s vocabulary, style, and various literary characteristics do not clearly support any particular claim. By John MacArthur in an introduction to Hebrews, Author and Date. First section.
oh WOW – no one can argue against Paul still ?
Troy Day what makes you say that Paul wrote it? The issue I find with that claim is that Hebrews doesn’t open up with Paul addressing his audience. Paul introduces every one of his letters in a way that points towards him being the author (or at least the claim that he is). Hebrews if written by Paul, would be the only Pauline text to not do that. This wouldn’t be consistent with how every other Pauline letter is written, therefore making it a little odd.
For the record, I have no objection to Hebrews being written by Paul, but I don’t think we can make a convincing argument for Hebrews having a Pauline authorship from the text itself.
thanks for the metion Mark Jones what are you saying It is not clear Pls clarify what are you asking me? I have gone per the textual markers in Hebrews as shown in the OP article
Troy Day sure. The question I am asking is why do you think Paul wrote Hebrews?
I say it was Priscilla. Sh! Don’t tell anyone.
We can’t say for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. The most commonly claimed authors are Paul, Apollos or Barnabas.
The issue I see with the Pauline claim is that this would be the only text that Paul doesn’t introduce in a way that claims that he is the author of the text in question. He does it with literally every letter that we would confidently ascribe a Pauline authorship to.
??? ??? ???? ??????!!! ❤
Priscilla is a very likely runner up. Some scholars give this legit credence. And it would explain why the author’s memory was removed by the hierarchical patriarchy.
JSUT for starters a FEW pro-Pauline authorship points from the internal evidence of the EPISTLE itself
The nuanced position on the authorship question by the Alexandrian fathers was obscured by later church tradition that mistook Pauline association for Pauline authorship. The enormously influential King James Bible took its cue from this tradition. In fact, in the KJV, you’ll find the title translated as it was found in some manuscripts: “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.” The tradition of Pauline authorship continued.
Hebrews 1:3 “The Son is the radiance of God’s
Colossians 1:15 – 17 “The Son is the image of the invisible God.
Hebrews 2:4 and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”
1 Corinthians 12:11 Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.”
Hebrews 2:14( – 17) “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity
Philippians 2:7 – 8 “Being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human being,
Hebrews 8:6 “But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator
2 Corinthians 3:6 “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
Hebrews 10:14 made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”
Romans 5:9; 12:1 as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.”
Don’t know
Paul
God
I’ll answer it without guessing as others have done.
Noboby alive knows who wrote Hebrews.
Jo Kothenbeutel we’ve discussed this with Philip Williams before He may NOT agree but the internal evidence is overwhelming in defense of Paulline authorship …
It does not effect how we live if Paul or Apollo or Peter or Priscilla’s husband wrote it.
Its still a book in the Bible.