Paul didn't write Hebrews

[Heart2Soul]

And from me, a man of no account, I just went back and read a little, and I heard The Holy Spirit flowing like a river, through Paul the tent maker. Paul was one who saw the race before us.

Lol...yes the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.
It makes me question bible scholars input concerning scripture.
Hey I am going to PM you on a book the Holy Spirit led me to.

 

[Nancy]

Could it be that in Hebrews 2:3-4 Paul was identifying himself with those Hebrew Christians? The problem being addressed in the book of Hebrews was many converted Hebrews, in time, backslide into Judaism again. And the Hebrew epistle is giving warnings about backsliding and encouragement not to do so therefore Paul identified himself with the Hebrews in their struggle. For in Hebrews 5:12-14 one problem with these Hebrew converts is that they had not spiritually grown as they should have. And then in Hebrews 6:1 Paul writes "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God," Again, Paul identifies himself with those Hebrews ("us") in encouraging them to leave the basics of the gospel and move on to a mature understanding. Of course Paul was not one who was immature and infantile in his understanding of the principles of Christ but was possibly identifying himself with those Hebrews to help encourage them to move on. I am not saying this is the case, but it is possible.

Hi Earnest,
This is exactly what I had thought. As the letter was written to "Hebrews", and backslidden ones at that:

19 "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone,to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." 1 Corinthians 9:19,20.

I think what you said is VERY possible, if not just plain probable!

 

[GodsGrace]

Divine inspiration goes to the very heart of the Bible as the Word of God. No doubt written by men, but the words were received directly from God the Holy Spirit. Please read and study The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by B.B. Warfield: “This book is the classic trenchant exegetical defense of inerrancy and inspiration. No one who is interested in this topic should leave this book unread.” Professor G. K. Beale.

Table of Contents
I. The Biblical Idea of Revelation
II. The Church Doctrine of Inspiration
III. The Biblical Idea of Inspiration
IV. The Real Problem of Inspiration
V. The Terms "Scripture" and "The Scriptures," As Employed in The New Testament
VI. "God-Inspired Scripture"
VII. "It Says:" "Scripture Says:" "God Says"
VIII. "The Oracles of God"
Appendix I. The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament
Appendix II. Inspiration and Criticism

2 PETER 1
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [interpretation = origin]
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Not from other men, not from other documents, not from other legends or anything. Not even from their own imaginations.

Peter was spot on.
What's the problem?

As to your book...I'm not reading it unless you send it to me.
It would be pretty expensive.
And do you really think I'd learn something new?
Like what, for instance?

 

[Stan B]

I agree that Pauline authorship is problematic (and, while possible, doubtful).

I would be interested in why you reject confirmation recorded by the Early Church Fathers like Eusebius and Athanasius during the first 300 years of church history. I wonder why it took so many hundreds of years for someone to come up with the idea that the author of Paul's Eplistle

The author of Hebrews isn't revealed.

Hi Earnest,
This is exactly what I had thought. As the letter was written to "Hebrews", and backslidden ones at that:

19 "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone,to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." 1 Corinthians 9:19,20.

I think what you said is VERY possible, if not just plain probable!

Peter was spot on.
What's the problem?

As to your book...I'm not reading it unless you send it to me.
It would be pretty expensive.
And do you really think I'd learn something new?
Like what, for instance?

 

[Stan B]

I agree that Pauline authorship is problematic (and, while possible, doubtful).

I would be interested in why you reject confirmation recorded by the Early Church Fathers like Eusebius and Athanasius during the first 300 years of church history. I wonder why it took so many hundreds of years for someone to come up with the idea that the author of Paul's Eplistle

The author of Hebrews isn't revealed.

Hi Earnest,
This is exactly what I had thought. As the letter was written to "Hebrews", and backslidden ones at that:

19 "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone,to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." 1 Corinthians 9:19,20.

I think what you said is VERY possible, if not just plain probable!

Peter was spot on.
What's the problem?

As to your book...I'm not reading it unless you send it to me.
It would be pretty expensive.
And do you really think I'd learn something new?
Like what, for instance?

 

[John Caldwell]

I would be interested in why you reject confirmation recorded by the Early Church Fathers like Eusebius and Athanasius during the first 300 years of church history. I wonder why it took so many hundreds of years for someone to come up with the idea that the author of Paul's Eplistle

Hi Stan,

Good question with a simple answer - the Early Church Fathers (as a whole) did not confirm Paul as the author of Hebrews (some did, some didn't).

The Early Church Fathers was a mixed bag. Eusebius did note that some (contemporary to Eusebius) rejected Pauline arthurship and that the church of Rome disputed Hebrews because they rejected it was authored by Paul. Tertullian viewed Barnabas as the author, Hippoltyus attributed it to Clement of Rome. Origen noted that some believed Clement or Luke to be the authors. Giaus of Rome did not believe it was authored by Paul.

So to answer your question, long before 300 AD the authorship of Hebrews was questioned. What settled it for most is tradition, and that most likely a result of Augustine, not the Early Church Fathers (obviously).

But the reason I reject Pauline authorship is simple. The book does not read like it was written by Paul. For one, I think it reasonable to expect Paul to have written to a Jewish audience turning back towards the Jewish religion in Hebrew. Even the Greek used is not the styling we would expect of Paul. BUT many have suggested (to include Eusebius) that this can be accounted for by Paul dictating to Luke. And that is a fair suggestion.

There are other problems. The author of Hebrews does not seem to be an apostle (just by the writing). The author speaks of salvation being confirmed to him (and others) through one or more of the Disciples (Heb. 2). But this was not the case with Paul. The pattern of speech does not even come close to Pauline. The theology is similar, as would be expected of any of the suggested authors, but not exactly what we would expect from Paul either.

So my answer is that I do not know who wrote the letter. The Early Church Father's did not know (they had many ideas). So how can we say that we know?

More importantly, why do you believe that Paul wrote Hebrews?

 

[Stan B]

Peter was spot on.
What's the problem?

As to your book...I'm not reading it unless you send it to me.
It would be pretty expensive.
And do you really think I'd learn something new?
Like what, for instance?

Are you saying Hebrews was given the stamp of approval BECAUSE the ECFs thought it was written by Paul?

They approved the books to be included into the canon of the N.T. by the degree to which they held to known doctrine.

Also, back at that time, there really was not much scholarly work done as regards the N.T.
They church was busy just trying to stay united and with doctrine that was to be accepted by Christianity.

I believe we have much more information, in that sense, at our disposal today.
I mean in the sense of knowing about the different books and studying them exhaustively.

Hi Stan,

Good question with a simple answer - the Early Church Fathers (as a whole) did not confirm Paul as the author of Hebrews (some did, some didn't).

The Early Church Fathers was a mixed bag. Eusebius did note that some (contemporary to Eusebius) rejected Pauline arthurship and that the church of Rome disputed Hebrews because they rejected it was authored by Paul. Tertullian viewed Barnabas as the author, Hippoltyus attributed it to Clement of Rome. Origen noted that some believed Clement or Luke to be the authors. Giaus of Rome did not believe it was authored by Paul.

So to answer your question, long before 300 AD the authorship of Hebrews was questioned. What settled it for most is tradition, and that most likely a result of Augustine, not the Early Church Fathers (obviously).

But the reason I reject Pauline authorship is simple. The book does not read like it was written by Paul. For one, I think it reasonable to expect Paul to have written to a Jewish audience turning back towards the Jewish religion in Hebrew. Even the Greek used is not the styling we would expect of Paul. BUT many have suggested (to include Eusebius) that this can be accounted for by Paul dictating to Luke. And that is a fair suggestion.

There are other problems. The author of Hebrews does not seem to be an apostle (just by the writing). The author speaks of salvation being confirmed to him (and others) through one or more of the Disciples (Heb. 2). But this was not the case with Paul. The pattern of speech does not even come close to Pauline. The theology is similar, as would be expected of any of the suggested authors, but not exactly what we would expect from Paul either.

So my answer is that I do not know who wrote the letter. The Early Church Father's did not know (they had many ideas). So how can we say that we know?

More importantly would be why do you believe that Paul wrote Hebrews?

 

[Helen]

Hi Stan,

Good question with a simple answer - the Early Church Fathers (as a whole) did not confirm Paul as the author of Hebrews (some did, some didn't).

The Early Church Fathers was a mixed bag. Eusebius did note that some (contemporary to Eusebius) rejected Pauline arthurship and that the church of Rome disputed Hebrews because they rejected it was authored by Paul. Tertullian viewed Barnabas as the author, Hippoltyus attributed it to Clement of Rome. Origen noted that some believed Clement or Luke to be the authors. Giaus of Rome did not believe it was authored by Paul.

So to answer your question, long before 300 AD the authorship of Hebrews was questioned. What settled it for most is tradition, and that most likely a result of Augustine, not the Early Church Fathers (obviously).

But the reason I reject Pauline authorship is simple. The book does not read like it was written by Paul. For one, I think it reasonable to expect Paul to have written to a Jewish audience turning back towards the Jewish religion in Hebrew. Even the Greek used is not the styling we would expect of Paul. BUT many have suggested (to include Eusebius) that this can be accounted for by Paul dictating to Luke. And that is a fair suggestion.

There are other problems. The author of Hebrews does not seem to be an apostle (just by the writing). The author speaks of salvation being confirmed to him (and others) through one or more of the Disciples (Heb. 2). But this was not the case with Paul. The pattern of speech does not even come close to Pauline. The theology is similar, as would be expected of any of the suggested authors, but not exactly what we would expect from Paul either.

So my answer is that I do not know who wrote the letter. The Early Church Father's did not know (they had many ideas). So how can we say that we know?

More importantly, why do you believe that Paul wrote Hebrews?

Amen. Good word, I agree.

 

[Stan B]

Hi Stan,

Good question with a simple answer - the Early Church Fathers (as a whole) did not confirm Paul as the author of Hebrews (some did, some didn't).

The Early Church Fathers was a mixed bag. Eusebius did note that some (contemporary to Eusebius) rejected Pauline arthurship and that the church of Rome disputed Hebrews because they rejected it was authored by Paul. Tertullian viewed Barnabas as the author, Hippoltyus attributed it to Clement of Rome. Origen noted that some believed Clement or Luke to be the authors. Giaus of Rome did not believe it was authored by Paul.

So to answer your question, long before 300 AD the authorship of Hebrews was questioned. What settled it for most is tradition, and that most likely a result of Augustine, not the Early Church Fathers (obviously).

But the reason I reject Pauline authorship is simple. The book does not read like it was written by Paul. For one, I think it reasonable to expect Paul to have written to a Jewish audience turning back towards the Jewish religion in Hebrew. Even the Greek used is not the styling we would expect of Paul. BUT many have suggested (to include Eusebius) that this can be accounted for by Paul dictating to Luke. And that is a fair suggestion.

There are other problems. The author of Hebrews does not seem to be an apostle (just by the writing). The author speaks of salvation being confirmed to him (and others) through one or more of the Disciples (Heb. 2). But this was not the case with Paul. The pattern of speech does not even come close to Pauline. The theology is similar, as would be expected of any of the suggested authors, but not exactly what we would expect from Paul either.

So my answer is that I do not know who wrote the letter. The Early Church Father's did not know (they had many ideas). So how can we say that we know?

More importantly, why do you believe that Paul wrote Hebrews?

Caldwell, I am under no illusion that the Church Fathers were Divinely inspired. And you are the first person I have encountered, who is aware that the attack against the "The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews", was the Church at Rome!! They not only denied the authorship, but the 'Canonicity' of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. No big deal. Nothing good comes out of Rome. Rome was already the seat of political corruption and apostasy.

Caldwell >> "Tertullian viewed Barnabas as the author, Hippoltyus attributed it to Clement of Rome. Origen noted that some believed Clement or Luke to be the authors. Giaus of Rome did not believe it was authored by Paul."

I am most disappointed to hear that Tertullian viewed Barnabas as the author. :-( I have revered Tertullian as perhaps one of the most orthodox of the Church Fathers, corresponding in most ways to the beliefs of the church of today.

Familiar with the works of Barnabas, it is clear to me why his Epistle was not included within in the Canon of Scripture. He added a whole bunch of law to the Bible that were never included in Scripture. He added a whole bunch of repressive laws to Scripture I suppose we could designate him at the unscriptural current unScriptural anti-abortion movement: "Thou shalt not destroy the conception of thy womb, nor kill it after it has been born. (9:15?)

I have no problem in accepting the authorship of Paul's "The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews", the way it was presented in the Hebrew, but deleted by those who translated it into the Greek. A title still retained in the KJV.

What I believe, although soundly supported by Atanasius, Eusibius, ‎Irenaeus, et al, is the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

 

[John Caldwell]

Caldwell, I am under no illusion that the Church Fathers were Divinely inspired. And you are the first person I have encountered, who is aware that the attack against the "The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews", was the Church at Rome!! They not only denied the authorship, but the 'Canonicity' of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. No big deal. Nothing good comes out of Rome. Rome was already the seat of political corruption and apostasy.

Caldwell >> "Tertullian viewed Barnabas as the author, Hippoltyus attributed it to Clement of Rome. Origen noted that some believed Clement or Luke to be the authors. Giaus of Rome did not believe it was authored by Paul."

I am most disappointed to hear that Tertullian viewed Barnabas as the author. :-( I have revered Tertullian as perhaps one of the most orthodox of the Church Fathers, corresponding in most ways to the beliefs of the church of today.

Familiar with the works of Barnabas, it is clear to me why his Epistle was not included within in the Canon of Scripture. He added a whole bunch of law to the Bible that were never included in Scripture. He added a whole bunch of repressive laws to Scripture I suppose we could designate him at the unscriptural current unScriptural anti-abortion movement: "Thou shalt not destroy the conception of thy womb, nor kill it after it has been born. (9:15?)

I have no problem in accepting the authorship of Paul's "The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews", the way it was presented in the Hebrew, but deleted by those who translated it into the Greek. A title still retained in the KJV.

What I believe, although soundly supported by Atanasius, Eusibius, ‎Irenaeus, et al, is the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

I also like Tertullian. The earliest view of authorship (De Pudicitia) is Barnabas, but historically the most popular is Paul. Martin Luther thought it was written by Apolos, which is an interesting option.

That said, Hebrews was not translated into Greek. It was written in Greek - as evidenced by the word choices). Also, the Hebrew Scriptures are not quoted - the references are from the Septuagint. The title is simply to the Hebrew Scholars (Paul is not in the title of the letter).

 

[Stan B]

I also like Tertullian. The earliest view of authorship (De Pudicitia) is Barnabas, but historically the most popular is Paul. Martin Luther thought it was written by Apolos, which is an interesting option.

That said, Hebrews was not translated into Greek. It was written in Greek - as evidenced by the word choices). Also, the Hebrew Scriptures are not quoted - the references are from the Septuagint. The title is simply to the Hebrew Scholars (Paul is not in the title of the letter).

Caldwell said >>"That said, Hebrews was not translated into Greek. It was written in Greek - as evidenced by the word choices). Also, the Hebrew Scriptures are not quoted - the references are from the Septuagint. The title is simply to the Hebrew Scholars (Paul is not in the title of the letter)."

Okay Caldwell, you have given me enough to munch on for now. You have turned 'some' my beliefs upside down. It would take a rather awesomely credible source to convince this 77 year old guy, who is pretty much set in his ways, that 'The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews' was written in Greek, or that a Hebrew of the Hebrews, or his addressees would have any need to resort to the Septuagint; or why Paul, like Matthew, would address the church at Jerusalem with anything other than Hebrew. That just makes no sense to me.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks to @Stan B ....
I had the oppty to reread my post no. 63.

Boy, does it sound wrong!
I didn't mean that I can't learn anything new...
I meant this ONLY about Hebrews....
In the sense that nothing can convince me to change my mind that
we do not know who the author is.

THERE'S MUCH FOR ME TO LEARN!!!

 

[marks]

Wouldn’t Paul agree that learning something directly from God and through others can be reconciled? I’ve certainly learned directly from God, through the mouthpiece of others. Jesus did as well

Matt 16:15-17

I would say yes of course, but then I'd ask, is that what is being said here?

That's what Paul explains in Galatians, that the Gospel that was given to him directly from Jesus, and he confirmed it with the Apostles in Jerusalem.

Galatians 2
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

They found Paul's gospel complete.

The writer of Hebrews makes no mention of learning the Gospel from Jesus, only referring to others who had actually heard Him.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I read it that Paul is speaking humbly about himself ...he is as he did in Roman , make a difference between who he was as a man, and who he was in the inner man. It is shown here:-

"Of such an one will I glory:( the spiritual man) yet of myself I will not glory, ( the natural man) ........but in mine infirmities. ( see, he references himself)
For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me."
Right here proves to me, that it was his own experience which happen "fourteen years ago"

my two cents....H

In this I think about the Plenary Inspiration of Scripture. Some will disagree with me, I know, but I do believe that each letter of the original Scripture is inspired by, to the point of being written by God the Holy Spirit.

So then the idea that Paul was being humble, this is another of the same sort to me.

Some have pointed to Paul's stoning, there is the mention in Ephesians I think about that when you read something else he wrote you'll understand his knowledge of mysteries, something like that.

But just the same, if I tell you I won't brag about myself, do I then turn around and brag anyway but in disguise? Isn't that dishonest? That's my "black and white" showing.

Much love!

 

[marks]

@marks

Explain your post #(17) better. It makes no sense.

Stranger

Is there a particular part?

 

[marks]

>>"So, why didn't Paul identify himself. Because as soon as he identified himself, he would have lost most of the Jewish readers."

I don't accept your hypothesis. First, Paul never had a reputation for backing down. Second, it is not as if you could buy his book on Amazon. The only place these books/scrolls could be accessed was within the temple, churches or synagogues. So the ones who would be reading it, were Christians, and Paul was merely explaining the New Covenant contrasted against the Old with which they were well acquainted. He was the only apostle other than Matthew to write in Hebrew, and the Gospel of Mathew was also directed to the Jews.

I think Hebrews was written for the purpose of both instructing Christians, but also evangelizing Jews.

Curious, what is your basis in saying that Matthew and Hebrews were written in Hebrew?

Follow up question, does this mean than they were then translated by someone other than the original writer? Or re-written in Greek by the original writer?

One more . . . which is inspired, if written in Hebrew, the original Hebrew, or the Greek translation?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Paul never learned anything from "them that heard Him"? Well, I don't see how Peter could fail to tell Paul about the time Jesus made him walk on water...how could he?

Interesting, though, that I'm told Peter gave Mark the info for Mark's Gospel, and Mark omits Peter walking on water, and omits Jesus telling Peter, "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you . . .", but Does include, "Get thee behind me Satan!" Curious, is it not?

Much love!

 

[farouk]

I'm not sure what you mean by *ducted* them since there was no duct tape at that time to duct them. Did you mean "dictated" them? If so a writer can dictate his words to a secretary or stenographer, but the words are those of the writer.

And for you to deny that Paul wrote any epistles is to deny the veracity of the New Testament. Where do Christians come up with such crazy ideas? Paul definitely wrote Hebrews and again I do not understand why people wish to deny this.

The main body of the text of Hebrews does not actually mention Paul as having wrote it.

 

[marks]

That is called making an unjustified assumption.

Hi Enoch,

Is that so?

They are participating on a thread in the prophecy section, and I am participating on this thread.

Now. Where am I posting? Is it unjustified to assume, based on my above statement, that I'm posting here, and not posting in the prophecy section?

(I don't actually post in the prophecy section)

Much love!

 

[marks]

"Isn't stated" is not the same as "isn't revealed". He is revealed to those with eyes to see.

Oh.