Who Wrote Book of Hebrews

[JonC]

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

I'm not sure the specific dates. If Hebrews was written to the Jews after Paul wrote his epistles to the Gentiles churches, then all of Paul's epistles would have been written before Hebrews.

The date of Hebrews was most likely 64-70 AD (the sacrificial system was still in place, the Jewish congregations solidified to the point done were returning to the Jewish faith, and no mention of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD).

This would place Hebrews as written after the Pauline epistles, perhaps after Paul had been executed.

So it would appear that at least the writer of Hebrews had the opportunity to learn from Paul (or Paul's letters) as well as other Apostles.

Most who assume Paul is the writer assume Luke to have written Hebrews down (Luke was the only one with Paul during the period).

The Irony is that we can reasonably be sure Peter was not a key figure in Rome because of Paul's comment about building on another's foundation BUT many toss all of this out the window when it comes to the book of Hebrews.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Where do you get this? Do you have Scripture? Textual critical evidence? I know of no evidence, for example, that the five books of Moses started out as oral tradition.

 

[37818]

Where do you get this? Do you have Scripture? Textual critical evidence? I know of no evidence, for example, that the five books of Moses started out as oral tradition.

All the books of the Bible began as being known as the word of God to believers who received them.

 

[John of Japan]

@37818
So you are quoting yourself as proof of your own assertion? Sorry, I don't get your point.

 

[37818]

@37818
So you are quoting yourself as proof of your own assertion? Sorry, I don't get your point.

So you are saying what I believe about tbe written word of God is false? So all 66 books cannot all be the word of God then, if any of them actually are?

2 Timothy 3:16, ". . . All Scripture [is] God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, . . ."

Every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21, ". . . For prophecy was not borne at any time by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spoke being borne along by the Holy Spirit. . . ."

The word of God was the word of God. It did not become God's word.

 

[JonC]

So you are saying what I believe about tbe written word of God is false? So all 66 books cannot all be the word of God then, if any of them actually are?

2 Timothy 3:16, ". . . All Scripture [is] God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, . . ."

Every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21, ". . . For prophecy was not borne at any time by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spoke being borne along by the Holy Spirit. . . ."

The word of God was the word of God. It did not become God's word.

I'm trying to follow this discussion between you and @John of Japan .

What do you mean by "oral tradition" (I get the idea you don't mean what I think it means).

 

[37818]

What do you mean by "oral tradition" (I get the idea you don't mean what I think it means).

There are things we believe in accepting our 66 books in our printed Bibles which constitute both printed and an oral tradition about our 66 books in our Bible, besides matters of history.

 

[JonC]

There are things we believe in accepting our 66 books in our printed Bibles which constitute both printed and an oral tradition about our 66 books in our Bible, besides matters of history.

Im trying....work with me (remember aim not the sharpest tool in the shed).

Can you give me an example of this oral tradition?

If it helps, I'll give you my definition as an example.

Dealing with Scripture "oral tradition" refers to the theory that the written Scripture began as stories that were passed down by word of mouth until composed in written form.

An example would be that various stories about Jesus were told and at some point an individual write these stories down into one narrative and we had the Gospel of Mark.

We see this a lot with Genesis - that there were centuries of stories about God being told and passed down until somebody (presumably Moses) wrote them as Scripture for the people.


The alternate theory is that God inspired, through His Spirit, men to write Scripture (that Scripture is a "God breathed" revelation of Himself to man, given to men to record).

 

[John of Japan]

So you are saying what I believe about tbe written word of God is false? So all 66 books cannot all be the word of God then, if any of them actually are?

2 Timothy 3:16, ". . . All Scripture [is] God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, . . ."

Every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21, ". . . For prophecy was not borne at any time by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spoke being borne along by the Holy Spirit. . . ."

The word of God was the word of God. It did not become God's word.

I've never had someone misconstrue my posts this badly in all of my many years on the BB. My questions were not at all about the inspiration of the Scriptures. I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the 66 books, breathed out, θεόπνευστος, by God.

I give up. It matters not at all to me if you want to believe all the 66 verbal plenary inspired books of the Word of God started out as oral tradition. Carry on.

 

[37818]

In the mean time, based on Hebrews 13:23, ". . . I will see you. . . ," the recipients of this letter would have known the author. The tradition that came down to the English Christians in the 17th century has for the most part currently been rejected for an agnostic view as to who it is.

 

[taisto]

In the mean time, based on Hebrews 13:23, ". . . I will see you. . . ," the recipients of this letter would have known the author. The tradition that came down to the English Christians in the 17th century has for the most part currently been rejected for an agnostic view as to who it is.

Does that bother you?

 

[JonC]

In the mean time, based on Hebrews 13:23, ". . . I will see you. . . ," the recipients of this letter would have known the author. The tradition that came down to the English Christians in the 17th century has for the most part currently been rejected for an agnostic view as to who it is.

I think we have to consider exactly why the tradition came down to English Christians in the 17th Century.

It was because they received that tradition from the Catholic Church who adopted Augustine's view.

The Early Church attributed Hebrews Luke, Apollos, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Timothy, Epaphras, Silas, and Philip. Clement of Rome was a very popular choice for the Early Church. Augustine strongly held it was Paul.

The Catholic Church decided Augustine was correct (I believe partly because the Catholic Church thought it would carry more weight if written by Paul). From there it became the tradition handed down.

 

[37818]

I give up. It matters not at all to me if you want to believe all the 66 verbal plenary inspired books of the Word of God started out as oral tradition. Carry on.

I have never believed the inerrant word of God originated as any kind of oral tradition.

How something believed might or did become an oral tradition is an other matter.

 

[37818]

Does that bother you?

Why did what I posted bother you to ask?
We accept allot of things for different reasons.

 

[taisto]

Why did what I posted bother you to ask?
We accept allot of things for different reasons.

You are fixated on Timothy as the writer. Does it bother you if anyone thinks differently?

 

[John of Japan]

I have never believed the inerrant word of God originated as any kind of oral tradition.

How something believed might or did become an oral tradition is an other matter.

Then I have completely misunderstood your posts. I apologize, but I'm not going to try to figure them out.

 

[37818]

You are fixa ted on Timothy as the writer. Does it bother you if anyone thinks differently?

Not really. It makes sense to me to suppose Luke. But based on 2 Timothy 3:15 that written tradition that it was Timothy seems possible as it is.

 

[JonC]

Not really. It makes sense to me to suppose Luke. But based on 2 Timothy 3:15 that written tradition that it was Timothy seems possible as it is.

The only problem with Timothy (if those were Paul's words) is that Timothy wasn't there with Paul when Hebrews would have been written.

Those who support a Pauline authorship use Luke to explain why Hebrews does not "sound" like Paul or use the language Paul would have because Luke was with Paul during that timeframe. The language points to the writer being more fluent in Greek rather than Hebrew (it was not translated from Hebrew given the precise nature of the Greek used). Luke fits the Pauline authorship theory the best.

 

[37818]

The only problem with Timothy (if those were Paul's words) is that Timothy wasn't there with Paul when Hebrews would have been written.

Those who support a Pauline authorship use Luke to explain why Hebrews does not "sound" like Paul or use the language Paul would have because Luke was with Paul during that timeframe. The language points to the writer being more fluent in Greek rather than Hebrew (it was not translated from Hebrew given the precise nature of the Greek used). Luke fits the Pauline authorship theory the best.

Our difficultly is our lack of knowing the reason for the words "brother Timothy is set at liberty." Suggesting Timothy could not have written that part. Verse 22, Paul may have wrote, ". . . the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words. . . " to it's end.

 

[JonC]

Our difficultly is our lack of knowing the reason for the words "brother Timothy is set at liberty." Suggesting Timothy could not have written that part. Verse 22, Paul may have wrote, ". . . the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words. . . " to it's end.

To be fair, our difficulty is that Hebrews does not identify it's writer at all so all we can do - if we find it important - is create an educated guess.

I can't see any reason to attribute it to Paul at all. The Early Church didn't believe it was Pauline and they were closer to the time it was written.

BUT if we assume that Augustine was right and Paul wrote it then I think the most logical one to have written down his words would have been Luke because he was with Paul. The second most logical would be that Timothy wrote it down when he visited Paul (we don't know he did, but Paul asked for some parchments) and was somehow detained.

But all of that is just guesses.

I don't know why the most popular view in the Early Church was that Clement wrote Hebrews. I don't know why some of the Early Church thought Philip, Barnabas or Apollos.

It very well could have been one of those men, but we can't tell (we don't have writings to compare them to.....I'd love to read Apollos, BTW).

But we just don't know.


You know ... Timothy could have written Hebrews after speaking with Paul, perhaps asking how to address issues, and Paul wrote that conclusion (like an endorsement).

There are a bunch of theories, but we can't really know. So I simply don't suggest a writer (except to say I'm pretty sure it wasn't Paul....unless the writer was paraphrasing and applying what he heard from Paul).