Who wrote Hebrews?

etexas · #1 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 10:12 AM

I do not know if this has been a PB thread before so forgive me if it has. In general the early church held that this was an Epistle of St. Paul. Many still held to this up to the textual criticism movement (both higher and lower.) Since we do not know I take the traditional view that is of Paul (by the Holy Ghost). But I thout it would be intersting to get a feel from the board on this topic. Grace and Peace.

North Jersey Baptist · #2 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 10:29 AM

Max - I also subscribe to Pauline authorship, although I believe the actual author is not a major issue. Hebrews lacks some of the personal nature of the other New Testament epistles, whether they be Pauline, Petrine or Johannian.

I view Hebrews as a thesis of sorts. It is a high and grand treatise of the supremacy of Christ over the Law. Given Paul's formal education and the fact that he was a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5), the knowledge of Law that is contained in Hebrews makes an argument for Pauline authorship more than plausible.

satz · #3 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Max - I also subscribe to Pauline authorship, although I believe the actual author is not a major issue. Hebrews lacks some of the personal nature of the other New Testament epistles, whether they be Pauline, Petrine or Johannian.

I view Hebrews as a thesis of sorts. It is a high and grand treatise of the supremacy of Christ over the Law. Given Paul's formal education and the fact that he was a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5), the knowledge of Law that is contained in Hebrews makes an argument for Pauline authorship more than plausible.

etexas · #4 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Max - I also subscribe to Pauline authorship, although I believe the actual author is not a major issue. Hebrews lacks some of the personal nature of the other New Testament epistles, whether they be Pauline, Petrine or Johannian.

I view Hebrews as a thesis of sorts. It is a high and grand treatise of the supremacy of Christ over the Law. Given Paul's formal education and the fact that he was a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5), the knowledge of Law that is contained in Hebrews makes an argument for Pauline authorship more than plausible.

That my freind has been a very traditional defense of Pauline authorship. In my mind it is a solid one. I agree with you that whether Paul wrote it or not is not a major issue. I do feel it remains an interesting topic to discuss it is actually one of my favorie Epistles. It is very well written and many consider it one of the more elegant Epistles in tearms of literary quality. Grace and Peace.

Answerman · #5 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 11:51 AM

I have heard good arguments that it might be the Apollos that was mentioned in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians. Most of this speculation is based on what is said about Apollos in the book of Acts. In Hebrews 2:3 the author states that the message of salvation was confirmed to us (including the author) by those who heard Him (which if Paul was the author, it would seem strange that he say this) and Paul claimed that he recieved his revelation directly from Christ (Gal 1:1,11,12).

I believe that this was Luther's position also, although I haven't actually read his arguments on this point.

NaphtaliPress · #6 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 11:51 AM

There is an article by W. Gary Crampton defending Pauline authorship at The Blue Banner archive. See Volume 12 Issue 1. January-March 2003.

etexas · #7 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

There is an article by W. Gary Crampton defending Pauline authorship at The Blue Banner archive. See Volume 12 Issue 1. January-March 2003.

Thank you for the link Chris. Curious though, do you lean towards Pauline authorship?

MrMerlin777 · #8 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 12:24 PM

I lean toward Paul. But simply put, we don't know for sure. In some places it reads like Paul. In other places it doesn't. At least the Paul we are familiar with in his other epistles. Of course it has been mentioned that Hebrews is a bit "academic" compared to some of the other letters so that could account for the difference in tone.

larryjf · #9 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 12:28 PM

I think that Barnabas could have written it. He would have been familiar with Paul's theology. And the difference in style from Paul's other writings could be accounted for in this way as well. Also, it seems to be written by a second generation believer (Heb 2:3-4).

etexas · #10 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

I think that Barnabas could have written it. He would have been familiar with Paul's theology. And the difference in style from Paul's other writings could be accounted for in this way as well. Also, it seems to be written by a second generation believer (Heb 2:3-4).

Some do take the 2nd Generation Christian theory. However....that is a fairly new concept(in terms of the history of the church), many of the Early Fathers, held to Pauline authorship.......not saying they could not be wrong, but sometimes the farther back we go the closer we can get to the truth(key word...sometimes)!

larryjf · #11 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 12:48 PM

Good point Max.

Tertullian did suggest that Hebrews was written by Barnabas.
See De pudicitia chapter 20

Also, other works attributed to Barnabus show similar style and skill as the book of Hebrews.

NaphtaliPress · #12 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

Thank you for the link Chris. Curious though, do you lean towards Pauline authorship?

If we "have to" say an author that's who I would say, but neither is it something I have seen the need to spend a lot of time thinking about.

etexas · #13 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

If we "have to" say an author that's who I would say, but neither is it something I have seen the need to spend a lot of time thinking about.

LOL. Good enough, as I said Hebrews is my favorite Epistle so I guess I think about it and wanted to hear what my PB friends think.

KMK · #14 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 03:19 PM

I have also heard conjecture that the reason we do not know is because the original introduction has been lost. If you think about it, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets..." is a rather abrupt beginning to a letter. Usually, you say, "Dear friends", or at least, "To Whom It May Concern." But the way that it appears in our Bibles seems a little curt and impolite.

bookslover · #15 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

I view Hebrews as a thesis of sorts.

Some scholars consider Hebrews to be a sermon - the first complete Christian sermon that has been preserved for us, right there in the New Testament. I think this is right. It reads like a sermon, complete with its formal beginning (unlike a letter).

As to authorship, remember Origen's famous remark that only God knows who wrote Hebrews? Well, one of my old New Testament professors says that what Origen meant was "who wrote Hebrews down" - that is, who was the author's amanuensis. He says that Origen believed that Paul wrote Hebrews, but was wondering who his secretary was.

He once produced a list of quotations from Origen to demonstrate both these points (that Origen believed that Paul was the author/preacher and that someone else wrote it out for him). But I haven't seen that list in awhile.

turmeric · #16 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 10:09 PM

Wouldn't Paul have signed it?

etexas · #17 (**permalink**) 05-30-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

Wouldn't Paul have signed it?

Well, that is one thing that makes the Pauline authorship difficult....it reads like a well done thesis rather than a "personal" letter. If yhis was the in intent of Paul, it woul explain why it lackd the salutations and benedictions found in Romans.

satz · #18 (**permalink**) 05-30-2007, 08:58 AM

Another idea I read was that the false teachers had been smearing Paul's reputation amongst the Jews, so being wise as a serpent, he chose to let them have an excuse to discredit this letter.

VirginiaHuguenot · #19 (**permalink**) 05-30-2007, 09:22 AM

William Gouge:

Quote:

Sec. 4. Of the author of this epistle.

The proofs before produced for the divine authority of this epistle give evidence that an apostle, or some other extraordinary minister, immediately inspired and infallibly insisted1 by the divine Spirit, was the author of it.

Some have supposed it to be written by Luke the evangelist, or by Clemens ;2 some by Apollos, whose learning and eloquence, joined with great piety, is much commended,3 who also, in special, is said to have mightily convinced the Jews, Acts xviii. 24, 25, 28.

But the evidences following do more than probably evince that Paul the apostle was the author of this epistle.

1. The ancient Greek churches accounted it to be St Paul's, and thereupon prefixed this title before it, The Epistle of Paul, &c.4 And in the catalogue of St Paul's epistles this is reckoned up ; whereupon there are said to be fourteen epistles of St Paul.

2. Both matter and manner of penning this epistle is agreeable to St Paul's other epistles.5

3. That which St Paul styleth his ' token in every epistle,' 2 Thes. iii. 17, is also in the close of this epistle thus set down : ' Grace be with you all, Amen.' Indeed, in most of his epistles he styles it ' the grace of Jesus Christ;' yet in both his epistles to Timothy and to Titus, it is as here.

4. The mention which is made of Timothy, who was St Paul's associate, of whom he oft makes men¬tion in his other epistles, and gives the same epithet to him that is here, our brother Timothy. Compare with Heb. xiii. 23 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Phileni. 1.

To shew that that very Paul is here meant who was immediately called by Jesus Christ, and infallibly assisted by his Spirit, he is described by his extraor¬dinary function, the apostle. Hereof see chap. iii. 1. Thus much of the author.

Objections made against this penman of this e.pistle are answered in their due places. See Chap. II. Sec. 27.

1 Qn. 'assisted'?—Er>.
2 Origines, ut refert Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. vi. c. xxv.
3 Beza in Annot. major.
4 Παύλ(υ του Άνοα-^όλου, &c. Ita scriptum invenimus in omnibus Mostriscodicibusexceptouno.—Beza ioc citat.; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. iii. c. iii. Plurima patrum testimonia, citan-tur a Whitakero.—Controv. i. de S. Script, q. i. c. xvi.
5 Vide Piscat. Prolegom de autliore hujus Epist. β Vide August, de Civ. Dei. 1. xvi. c. iii.; et Flor. Josep. Antiq. Jud. 1. i. c. xiv.

Quote:

Sec. 27. Of confirming the gospel to them that then lived.

About confirming the gospel, this clause is added, ίίς ημ&ζ, ' to us.' Hereby the penman of this epistle includes himself in the number of those to whom the gospel is here said to be confirmed, as he did before in the number of those whom he exhorted to give diligent heed to the gospel, and to beware that they let not slip what they had heard; and whom he told, that they should not escape if they neglected so great salvation.

From this expression, 'confirmed to us by them that heard him,' we may well infer that this epistle was written in the apostle's days; yea, and by one of the apostles.

Of the author of this epistle, see the title, Sec. 4.

But, on the contrary, it is by many1 hence inferred that neither Paul nor any other of the apostles was the author thereof, because he saith that it was confirmed to them by the apostles. Whence they gather, that the penman hereof received not the gospel from Christ, which Paul did, Gal. i. 12 ; and all the other apostles, Mat. xxviii. 20, Acts i. 8.

Many answers may be given to this objection.

1. The two Greek pronouns of the first and second persons plural, ημείς, νμεΐς, have so small a difference, and that in one only letter, as one may soon be put for the other. Judicious Beza2 saith that he hath oft noted this mistake. If, therefore, the second person plural were here put, thus, ' was confirmed to you,' si ς υμάς, that scruple is clean taken away.

2. This phrase, unto us, may be referred to the time as well as to the persons; as if it had been thus translated, until us, or to our days, έως εις ημοίς; implying that the gospel, from Christ's own preaching thereof, was confirmed by the apostles to their very days.

3. The apostle may use the first person, as he was a member of that mystical body, whereof they, to whom he wrote, were also members, and by virtue of that communion, included himself; though it did not in particular concern himself, Thus he puts himself in the number of those who shall be living at Christ's last coming, where he saith, ' we shall not all sleep,' 1 Cor. xv. 51, yet he himself slept many hundred years ago. So 1 These, iv. 17.

4. The gospel might be confirmed to Paul by other apostles, though it was immediately revealed unto him by Jesus Christ. Not that that confirmation wrought in him any greater assurance of the truth thereof, but that it established the church more therein, by the mutual consent of other apostles with him; to this purpose, saith the apostle, ' I communicated unto them the gospel, &c., lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain,' Gal. ii. 2.

5. The confirmation here intended may have re¬ference to the miracles which were wrought by the apostles. Thus might the gospel be confirmed, not only to other believers, but also to the apostles them¬selves ; even by the miracles which they themselves and others also did. To this purpose tends the prayer of the apostles, Acts iv. 29, 80,

6. The words do not necessarily imply that the pen¬man of this epistle, or any other person, was confirmed, but rather that the gospel itself was confirmed. Here¬of see Sec. 25.

Daniel Ritchie · #20 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 11:21 AM

In my humble opinion it was probably Barnabas; while we can't be 100% certain, I think that the Pauline authorship must be rejected. Although the style is, in many places, Pauline - which may indicate that a person close to Paul wrote it - I find it incredible that Paul did not identify himself as the author, as he did in his other epistles. However, that is just my opinion.

christiana · #21 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 11:52 AM

From the Exposition of Hebrews by Arthur W. Pink:
" This, we are fully assured, was the apostle Paul. Though he ws distinctly and essentially the "apostle of the Gentiles; (Rom 11:13), yet his ministry was by no means confined to them, as the book of Acts clearly shows. At the time of his apprehension the Lord said, "He is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My Name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15) It is significant that Israel is there mentioned last, in harmony with the fact that his Epistle to the Hebrews was written after most of his others to Gentile saints. That this Epistle was written by Paul is clear from 2 Peter 3:15. Peter was writing to saved Jews as the opening verses of his first Epistle intimates; the first verse of chapter 3 in his second Epistle informs us that this letter was addressed to the same people as his former one had been. Then, in vv15 he declares that his beloved brother Paul "also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you". If the Epistle to the Hebrews be not that writing, where is it?"