Who Wrote Book of Hebrews

[John of Japan]

Yes. And they put all the important words in italics .

Sometimes I think that the authors may have written anonymously intentionally. Luke, however, was written assuming the recipient knew his identity. So maybe not.

Who put what important words in italics? Is that tongue in cheek??

 

[Godisgracious1031]

Italics in the King James Bible are not for "emphasize" or "important words", they were used to express things that were implied by the original languages.

 

[John of Japan]

Don't all of the manuscripts have "according to Matthew " or "according to Mark" and so forth? I doubt there is one manuscript that does not have "according to....".

There are at least a couple of ways the title is written: "According to Matthew" (UBS, Byz., etc), "The Gospel According to Matthew" (TR), etc. But I'm sure you are right, they all have some title about Matthew. I have a bunch of various Greek NTs, and they all include a title with attribution to Matthew, so I'm extremely doubtful that one can prove a different author than Matthew from the mss.

 

[John of Japan]

Some say its not Ephesus. How do we know its Moses?

Please don't spread doubt that Moses wrote his books. That's old hat. Brilliant conservative scholar O. T. Allis completely proved that Moses wrote the "Five Books of Moses" with his landmark 1943 treatise The Five Books of Moses. Only liberals doubt it nowadays.

Again, the idea that Paul did not write the Epistle to the Ephesians is essentially a liberal idea (no offense--unless you're a liberal ). Conservative scholars do not hold to the idea. "The letter to the Ephesians was generally regarded as the work of the apostle Paul until the rise of rationalistic criticism at the turn of the eighteenth century" ("Ephesians," by A. Skevington Wood in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, p. 3).

I have a liberal translation of the NT in Japanese which divides the epistles of Paul into "Epistles of Paul" and "Ostensibly Epistles of Paul." I find that to be ridiculous.

As for the words "in Ephesus" in 1:1 of that book, any proof that the phrase was not there is ephemeral. The mss that don't have it are few and untrustworthy. Even UBS 4 includes it, though in brackets.

 

[Godisgracious1031]

Please don't spread doubt that Moses wrote his books. That's old hat. Brilliant conservative scholar O. T. Allis completely proved that Moses wrote the "Five Books of Moses" with his landmark 1943 treatise The Five Books of Moses. Only liberals doubt it nowadays.

Again, the idea that Paul did not write the Epistle to the Ephesians is essentially a liberal idea (no offense--unless you're a liberal ). Conservative scholars do not hold to the idea. "The letter to the Ephesians was generally regarded as the work of the apostle Paul until the rise of rationalistic criticism at the turn of the eighteenth century" ("Ephesians," by A. Skevington Wood in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, p. 3).

I have a liberal translation of the NT in Japanese which divides the epistles of Paul into "Epistles of Paul" and "Ostensibly Epistles of Paul." I find that to be ridiculous.

As for the words "in Ephesus" in 1:1 of that book, any proof that the phrase was not there is ephemeral. The mss that don't have it are few and untrustworthy. Even UBS 4 includes it, though in brackets.

I do believe Moses wrote those books, Aland and liberal scholars do not. So, would any version that doubts those things, be considered a liberal scholar?

Also, what think about Paul wrote Hebrews?

 

[Conan]

The thought was that the Letter to Ephesians was also meant for other neighboring areas, that Paul's secretary could write the cities name in. I am convinced the original was to Ephesians and the very few blanks maybe a scribe saw one of those. I have forgotten which manuscripts lack "to the Ephesians". Perhaps Codex Sinaiticus was one, or the only one.

 

[Godisgracious1031]

I wonder if they will rename the book one day, yes, its quite a very small manuscript (likely corrupted ones lik ethe Sini.) They even do this to the precious words of our only Lord God and Great Saviour Jesus Christ which he said on the cross: Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.

They even doubt the ending of Mark and Matthew 6:13.

Its a unforgivable sin to take or add to the Holy Bible as St. John write by the Holy Ghost in Revelation that whosoever shall remove shall be taken out of the book of life and those who add, will be added the plagues written therein.

 

[John of Japan]

I do believe Moses wrote those books, Aland and liberal scholars do not. So, would any version that doubts those things, be considered a liberal scholar?

Not necessarily. Could just be an evangelical who pays too much attention to liberal thinking.

Also, what think about Paul wrote Hebrews?

As for Paul writing Hebrews. I have no real opinion about that. As far as I know there is no historical or mss evidence either way on that. I've never taught the book (yet), so until I do I'll reserve judgment. It's not an important issue, IMO.

 

[John of Japan]

I do believe Moses wrote those books, Aland and liberal scholars do not. So, would any version that doubts those things, be considered a liberal scholar?

Not necessarily. Could just be an evangelical who pays too much attention to liberal thinking.

Also, what think about Paul wrote Hebrews?

As for Paul writing Hebrews. I have no real opinion about that. As far as I know there is no historical or mss evidence either way on that. I've never taught the book (yet), so until I do I'll reserve judgment. It's not an important issue, IMO.

 

[Godisgracious1031]

Okay, do believe the Critical text is corrupted?

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, do believe the Critical text is corrupted?

I dislike the term "corrupted" as used by textual criticism scholars. While I know it's a technical term, not meant to insult the Word of God, it still rubs me the wrong way. But I do believe the Alexandrian mss are not completely accurate.

At any rate, my position is Byzantine Priority, meaning I believe the Byzantine text type is closest to the autographs. So my goto Greek text is Robinson & Pierpont's Byzantine textform.

 

[John of Japan]

The thought was that the Letter to Ephesians was also meant for other neighboring areas, that Paul's secretary could write the cities name in. I am convinced the original was to Ephesians and the very few blanks maybe a scribe saw one of those. I have forgotten which manuscripts lack "to the Ephesians". Perhaps Codex Sinaiticus was one, or the only one.

The main mss having "to the Ephesians" is p46, which I admit is an important one, but as mentioned I'm Byzantine priority.

 

[Conan]

Okay, do believe the Critical text is corrupted?

Corrupted is a scholars way of saying it has a mistake. All manuscripts and Bibles have at least a few mistakes in them. Some more than others. But even the 1611 KJV had a few printing errors.

As far as Kurt Aland goes he was a New Testament scholar not an Old Testament scholar. He had "at Ephesus " in his Greek New Testament but had single brackets or in the margin lacking "at Ephesus ". He is considered a liberal scholar. He was wrong about which Greek Manuscripts were the most accurate.

 

[RCT]

One of the theories is that Paul gave this sermon to the Church at Jerusalem when he brought financial support. Luke, who accompanied Paul, wrote down the sermon.

That is the most realistic theory. The book of Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are written in a very precise form of Greek and Luke being a physician that would make sense.

 

[JesusFan]

Don't all of the manuscripts have "according to Matthew " or "according to Mark" and so forth? I doubt there is one manuscript that does not have "according to....".

There has been found NO writers even given by early church Fathers to support any other authors for the gopel, except one person though there were 2 Johns, the Apostle and the Elder. But even he saw John writer of gospel, the elder of other books ascribe to John, but majority think there were the same person.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. And they put all the important words in italics .

Sometimes I think that the authors may have written anonymously intentionally. Luke, however, was written assuming the recipient knew his identity. So maybe not.

There never was any other authors mentioned as possible writers, as all accepted them as being written by those apostles being Holy Spirit inspired

 

[JesusFan]

Corrupted is a scholars way of saying it has a mistake. All manuscripts and Bibles have at least a few mistakes in them. Some more than others. But even the 1611 KJV had a few printing errors.

As far as Kurt Aland goes he was a New Testament scholar not an Old Testament scholar. He had "at Ephesus " in his Greek New Testament but had single brackets or in the margin lacking "at Ephesus ". He is considered a liberal scholar. He was wrong about which Greek Manuscripts were the most accurate.

ALl Greek texts and translations have mistakes, so are "corrupted", but the truth is that in the various Greek texts in use today, they agree vast majority of the time among themselves, and would say 95+ percent agreement, and rest minor variants, and none affect doctrines

 

[JonC]

There never was any other authors mentioned as possible writers, as all accepted them as being written by those apostles being Holy Spirit inspired

Yes, a century after they were written they were attributed to human authors and prior they were not questioned. That should tell us something (the focus of the accounts).

But one correction - Luke was not an Apostle.

Why do you believe the only possible Apostles were Matthew, Mark and John?

 

[JonC]

Who put what important words in italics? Is that tongue in cheek??

Yes.....tongue in cheek ;-)

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

There are clear shewing in some epistles, it was written and sent by others. Its clearly Paul's words but he didn't write all of itn