Who Wrote Book of Hebrews

[JonC]

Is it important to you that Paul did not address the Hebrews?

Peter (to his Jewish audience) affirmed that Paul had indeed written to them:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; 2 Pe 3

No, it is not important to me.

We can't assume Peter was speaking of Hebrews (remember your words that Paul concluded Scripture.....which would place Hebrews after Peter's words ).

 

[JonC]

Hebrews authorship to Paul and the attributing it's transcription to Timothy is a written tradition which would have come from an oral tradition. Our 66 books of our Bible is an oral tradition which became written as the books of our Bible.

Those books being God's word handed down copies and translated, would have been known by the original recipients to be God's word.

And those of us believing them know now ourselves. Romans 8:16.

Kinda. Pauline authorship is not oral tradition in the sense it was believed by the early church and passed down. It became oral tradition with the Catholic Church (relying on Augustine).

The more common believe in the early church is it was written by Clement. Why? Dunno.

 

[JonC]

My guess would be, if we understand ". . . Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; . . ." to mean from prison. It could suggest Paul had authored Hebrews from prison and Timothy was with him to transcribe it for him.

I believe that is what Timothy being set at liberty means. The last part is too much to of a guess.

 

[JonC]

I believe Timothy could have wrote down Paul's letter to the Hebrews.

I wonder, wonder who, who-oo-ooh, who
Who wrote the book of .... Hebrews.

 

[37818]

Hebrews does not fit into what we know of Paul.

Hmm. Acts of the Apostles 13:33 with Hebrews 1:5. Citing Psalms 2:7. And Romans 1:4, ". . . And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . ." As taught, unique to Paul. Was the first to use "firstborn" to refer to Christ's bodily resurrection. Romans 8:29, used in Hebrews 1:6, ". . . again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, . . ."

 

[37818]

Kinda. Pauline authorship is not oral tradition in the sense it was believed by the early church and passed down. It became oral tradition with the Catholic Church (relying on Augustine).

The more common believe in the early church is it was written by Clement. Why? Dunno.

Well, the written tradition that came down in our English Bibles was Paul to the Hebrews.

 

[John of Japan]

Hebrews authorship to Paul and the attributing it's transcription to Timothy is a written tradition which would have come from an oral tradition. Our 66 books of our Bible is an oral tradition which became written as the books of our Bible.

Those books being God's word handed down copies and translated, would have been known by the original recipients to be God's word.

And those of us believing them know now ourselves. Romans 8:16.

I disagree that the 66 books of the Bible all started as oral tradition. There is no proof for such an assertion. Indeed, there is proof for the opposite. For example, remember the scroll of Jeremiah that was written, destroyed by the king, then rewritten.

 

[John of Japan]

I wonder, wonder who, who-oo-ooh, who
Who wrote the book of .... Hebrews.

Wow, that takes me back to the teen years!

 

[JonC]

Hmm. Acts of the Apostles 13:33 with Hebrews 1:5. Citing Psalms 2:7. And Romans 1:4, ". . . And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . ." As taught, unique to Paul. Was the first to use "firstborn" to refer to Christ's bodily resurrection. Romans 8:29, used in Hebrews 1:6, ". . . again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, . . ."

I'm talking about Pauline theology as a whole (Hebrews does not fit well with his epistles, not only the language).

I do believe that whoever wrote Hebrews learned from Paul and the other disciples.


For example, you have made posts that could go along with what Paul said. But you are not Paul.

We get into the error of somebody said such and such, and it says such and such here, so that somebody must have written it.

Paul instructed Christians. It would be so much more to God's glory that another wrote Hebrews, that the Apostles teachings took root in the church, than to suppose Paul wrote everything not directly attributed to another.

I suspect this may be a reason God chose not to reveal the writer of Hebrews.

 

[kyredneck]

First, Paul describing himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles is a good reason to question a Pauline authorship,

Not really:

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: Acts 9

Second, in his epistles Paul never conceded to prejudice. In fact, Paul often relied on his former "of man" to strengthen his testimony. Also, Paul in his epistles Paul writes specifically under his authority as an apostle (pointing to his version). All of this is packing in Hebrews.

The desired effect was for the epistle to be more widely accepted among the Jews if it were anonymous as opposed to announcing Pauline authorship. Paul's 'apostolic authority' was not important to him when dealing with his "kinsmen according to the flesh". Romans 9:3

Third, the supreme purpose of ALL Scripture is to exalt Christ. Pink is saying things that sound good to the ear, but are not really relevant to the topic (he is not trying to persuade but to hold those who believe a specific thing in check).

Not sure I follow you here. Paul is persuading Jewish Christians to hold fast to Christ and not return back to the apostate Judaism they come out of.

 

[37818]

I disagree that the 66 books of the Bible all started as oral tradition.

All the books of the Bible began as being known as the word of God to believers who received them. The oral tradition did come into existance. We have the handed down written tradition of all those 66 books being accepted by believers as the written word of God to this day. We have the texts from the autographs.

 

[JonC]

Well, the written tradition that came down in our English Bibles was Paul to the Hebrews.

Yes, it did. But that was because of the Roman Catholic Church (the KJV being a Church of England translation).

I am not opposed to tradition. I'm only saying that we should not insist on tradition. When we speak of "oral tradition" we are typically talking about how Scripture was initially communicated or passed down rather than tradition.

 

[kyredneck]

(remember your words that Paul concluded Scripture.....

...not my words at all; Paul COMPLETED the word of God in the same sense that a husband would say of his wife, "She completes me", i.e., God used him to show behind the veil of Moses.

I'm done.

 

[JonC]

...not my words at all; Paul COMPLETED the word of God in the same sense that a husband would say of his wife, "She completes me", i.e., God used him to show behind the veil of Moses.

I'm done.

I agree....insofar as communicating God's Word (evangelism) to that audience.


My main point is we do not know who wrote Hebrews because Scripture does not tell us who wrote Hebrews.

It is fun to talk about our opinions, but it is not actually edifying. In the end it is just opinion.

What matters is that God wrote Hebrews.

 

[37818]

I'm talking about Pauline theology as a whole (Hebrews does not fit well with his epistles, not only the language).

I do believe that whoever wrote Hebrews learned from Paul and the other disciples.


For example, you have made posts that could go along with what Paul said. But you are not Paul.

We get into the error of somebody said such and such, and it says such and such here, so that somebody must have written it.

Paul instructed Christians. It would be so much more to God's glory that another wrote Hebrews, that the Apostles teachings took root in the church, than to suppose Paul wrote everything not directly attributed to another.

I suspect this may be a reason God chose not to reveal the writer of Hebrews.

The use of Psalms 2:7 and the term "firstborn" to refer to Christ's resurrection is first to be unique to Paul's teachings.

 

[37818]

From: Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia,
"Ancient views
The Epistle to the Hebrews was included in the collected writings of Paul from a very early date. For example, the late second-century or early third-century codex 46, a volume of Paul's general epistles, includes Hebrews immediately after Romans.[3]

While the assumption of Pauline authorship readily allowed its acceptance in the Eastern Church, doubts persisted in the West.[4]

Eusebius does not list Epistle to the Hebrews among the antilegomena or disputed books (though he included the unrelated Gospel of the Hebrews).[5] He does record, however, that "some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul."[6] In response, he endorses the view of Clement of Alexandria: that the epistle was written by Paul in Hebrew (unsigned through modesty), and "translated carefully" into Greek by Luke,[7] a thing demonstrated by its stylistic similarity with Luke's Acts.

Doubts about Pauline authorship were raised around the end of the second century, predominantly in the West. Tertullian attributed the epistle to Barnabas.[8] Both Gaius of Rome[9] and Hippolytus[10] excluded Hebrews from the works of Paul, the latter attributing it to Clement of Rome.[11] Origen noted that others had claimed Clement or Luke as the writer, but he tentatively accepted Pauline origin of the thought in the text and the explanation of Clement of Alexandria, saying that "the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher", as quoted by Eusebius.[12]

Jerome, aware of such lingering doubts,[13] included the epistle in his Vulgate but moved it to the end of Paul's writings. Augustine affirmed Paul's authorship and vigorously defended the epistle. By then its acceptance in the New Testament canon was well settled."

 

[JonC]

The use of Psalms 2:7 and the term "firstborn" to refer to Christ's resurrection is first to be unique to Paul's teachings.

If it is Christian teaching then it is probably not unique to Paul.

The writer of Hebrews was discussing the superiority of Christ, which includes that Christ is the "Firstborn".

I have taught of Christ as the Firstborn and how this relates to the Resurrection. I am not Paul.


What you are proving is not that Paul wrote Hebrews but that God is it's ultimate writer and that the writer of Hebrews may have been influenced by Paul. I agree with what your statement actually proves.


But I disagree with your argument.

By your argument Matthew must have been written by Mark because they have so much in common.

Others view Matthew as based on Mark because they have so much in common.

BUT suppose that God is ultimately the Author of all Scripture. Then Matthew and Mark could be very similar with the connection being God rather than a common source or writer.


Same with Hebrews. The writer could have been easily a Christian who listened to Paul or read Paul's letters, applying part of that to the Jews.

We simply cannot know. If we depend on history and tradition then we pick somebody other than Paul. If we depend on Augustine and Catholic tradition we pick Paul.

BUT if we depend on the Bible, we have to be content with not knowing because Scripture simply does not name the writer.

 

[37818]

There are teachings found in Hebrews unique to Hebrews.

The use of Psalms 2:7 and the term "firstborn" to refer to Christ's resurrection is first to be unique to Paul's teachings.

If it is Christian teaching then it is probably not unique to Paul.

In what Scripture?

 

[JonC]

There are teachings found in Hebrews unique to Hebrews.


In what Scripture?

In Hebrews.

(My point is that Luke said what he learned, just because Hebrews uses some words that Paul used does not mean Paul wrote Hebrews).

 

[37818]

[ A side issue. A part from each book of the Bible being in the Bible. Do all 66 books get cited in another Bible book? ]
All 66 books being in the Bible is, in of itself, a written tradition. And in so being a written tradition, is effectively an oral tradition. The 66 books are not so specified in the holy scripture book by book to be holy scripture. We believe all 66 books to be holy scripture.

 

[37818]

In Hebrews.

(My point is that Luke said what he learned, just because Hebrews uses some words that Paul used does not mean Paul wrote Hebrews).

If Paul did not author Hebrews, what books of Paul was not written before Hebrews?