Hebrews
- Thread starter Garfield20
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It had to have been someone that isn't Jewish because they wouldn't referred to them as Hebrews.
There were a young boy whom had ran away naked from only wearing a toga that someone had grabbed off from him, and Romans and Greeks had wore them. Maybe there is a connection.
Mark 14:52
he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
There were a young boy whom had ran away naked from only wearing a toga that someone had grabbed off from him, and Romans and Greeks had wore them. Maybe there is a connection.
Mark 14:52
he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
I have a whole new appreciation for Luke—doctor, historian, and linguistic master. “Both Luke and the author of Hebrews are described by most New Testament scholars as the most literary writers of the New Testament” (139). A writer would do well just studying the prologues of Luke, Acts, and Hebrews. Luke is doing so much more than telling a story in his Luke-Acts narratives. Both Luke and the writer of Hebrews reveal a masterful use of the Septuagint. And although the genres are different, Luke seems to have a sermon peppered through his narrative. Luke’s purpose to writing to Theophilus in his two-volume work seems to be the same as the sermon to the Hebrews: to motivate him to persevere in the faith by explaining how “Christianity is the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope of Israel” (176).http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/did-luke-write-hebrews/#.VE2bw_nF9XY
Personally, I believe it to be Clement of Rome. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, while not Scripture, but is a letter of the bishop of Rome to instruct the Church in Corinth (which did not have its own bishop in the beginning), is extremely similar in style and vocabulary as the Epistle to the Hebrews.
By oldhermit
- [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A. Proposed possibilities include such candidates as Aristian, Jude, Barnabas, Silas, Silvanus, Aquilla, Philip, Stephen, Mark, Apollos, Luke, Philo, or Timothy. It has even been suggested by some that perhaps Clement of Rome may have been the author of the letter but, for the most part, he is not given very serious consideration among most scholars. This would account for the later dating of the book. The three most likely considerations in this list seem to be Paul, Luke, and, Apollos.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. The most popular of the three yet, the candidate least likely is the apostle Paul.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a. Arguments for Paul are internal only.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* The mention of Timothy in 13:23. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problem:Assumption by association. Timothy had very close working relationships with a great many teachers such as Sylvanus, Titus, Epaphraditus, Tertius, Gaius, and possibly even Apollos, 1Cor. 16:10.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* The extensive knowledge of the Law and the Levitical System demonstrated by the author.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problem: Paul is certainly not the only person possessing such depth of knowledge in this area.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]b. Arguments against Paul.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Historically his was not seriously considered as the author until the 4 century A.D. The suggestion that Paul may have been the author originated in Alexandria. Neither the Muratorium Canon, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Gaius of Rome, nor Eusebius (all from the 4 cent.) believed that Paul was the author of the letter. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Pauline authorship was not given official acceptance until the Sixth Synod of Carthage in A.D. 419. This was the first time that the book of Hebrews was [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]listed among the Pauline letters.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Among those pushing for Pauline authorship included Jerome and Augustine, yet neither of them actually believe Paul to be the author. So, why the push? Canonicity dispute. The inspiration of the book was called into question. Jerome and Augustine believed the book to be inspired, and in order for them to convince the Synod they had to first convince them that the book was the work of the apostle Paul.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* No MSS copies exist bearing his name. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Paul was not an eloquent speaker. The Hebrew letter is written in the most eloquent Greek. No other letter in scripture can compare with this letter in its level of eloquence. Could this then have been a one-time author? This is hardly conclusive since there are a good many people who demonstrate poor verbal communication skills but prove to be most eloquent when putting their thoughts on paper. The truth is that Paul did not say that he was not eloquent, 1 Cor. 2:1; only that he did not come to them with eloquence of speech or of wisdom. In other words he did use eloquence or human wisdom (4) as a drawing card for the preaching of the gospel. There is certainly no lack of eloquence in any of the letters that we know are from Paul. Yet nothing to compare with the eloquence of Hebrews.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* The author’s disassociation with the apostles, 2:3-4. Milligan attempts to sidestep the argument (Introduction p. 14) “To win the hearts of his readers and soften his own ambitions” he identifies with them. He compares 2:3-4 with 6:1. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problem: In 6:1 the writer is addressing his readers from a student/teacher relationship. He cannot proceed with more mature instruction since his readers are unable to follow. In 2:3-4 he places himself in an historical setting in relationship to a communication continuum. He does not take his place among those were appointed to confirm the Word of God, but accepts the position as a recipient of the confirmed word just like his readers. Thus, whoever this author is, it is unlikely that he is an apostle.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. The second most likely candidate is Luke.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a. Arguments in favor of Luke.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Not an apostle[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Well educated – but not formally educated in the Law of Moses – he is a gentile.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Close companion of Paul [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problem – assumption by reason of association.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]b. Argument against Luke - the literary style is very different from Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problems:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* John’s gospel and his epistles are vastly different from that of the book of Revelation. Yet, the same author wrote both books. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy - both written by Moses yet are vastly different in style.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]c. No real evidence either internally or externally in support of Luke. There is only speculation connected to his association with Paul.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. The best supporting textual evidence seems to favor Apollos of 1Cor. 3:4; Acts 18:14-19:1. It is possible that the book of Hebrews is Apollos’ letter to the church at Corinth between A.D. 52-54 from Ephesus. Arguments in favor of Apollos.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a. Eloquence[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]b. Mighty in the scriptures – O.T. scriptures. Accurate in his teaching.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]c. Apollos lived and worked in Corinth. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]d. He had strong ties to the Church at Corinth[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]e. He was a powerful debater against the Jews in the synagogue.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]f. He was well educated. In his commentary on the book of Hebrews, Montefiore gives an excellent analysis of the internal evidence that seems to tie the Hebrew letter to 1Corinthians. [/FONT]
I couldn't prove the author of the book of Hebrews would not call fellow Jews Hebrews, but in Genesis alone Abram was called one, so was Joseph by the Egyptians. It was not an offensive word to Jews.
Genesis 14:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
[HR][/HR] Genesis 39:14 (KJV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:
The Bible uses "Hebrew" 26 times, and the native language of the Jews is "the Hebrew tongue". Whehter a Jew of Judah, or a Hebrew of one of the other tribes of Israel, all were Hebrews to each other.
BTW, the author could be none other than Paul, who mastered Judaism enough to explain it in Christian terms, and explain Christianity in Judaism terms, not that Christianity is based on the other. Ours is a NEW covenant in Christ.
Genesis 14:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
[HR][/HR] Genesis 39:14 (KJV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:
The Bible uses "Hebrew" 26 times, and the native language of the Jews is "the Hebrew tongue". Whehter a Jew of Judah, or a Hebrew of one of the other tribes of Israel, all were Hebrews to each other.
BTW, the author could be none other than Paul, who mastered Judaism enough to explain it in Christian terms, and explain Christianity in Judaism terms, not that Christianity is based on the other. Ours is a NEW covenant in Christ.
I have a problem with that familiar line * No MSS copies exist bearing his name.
* Paul was not an eloquent speaker. The Hebrew letter is written in the most eloquent Greek. too.
There are no original manuscripts that we know of. What is known are copies of the originals, some very old and within a century or so of the authorship, ight? It stands to reason for me copyists would master eloquent Greek enough to transcribe the oldest then known manuscript written to the Hebrew leadership in Judah, very possibly Paul using the Hebrew language quite eloquently, suitable for use in synagogues there. I've seen no proof the original was written in Greek, but due to the nature of copying by hand by many copyists some would result in Greek masterpieces. Have you run across that idea?
* Paul was not an eloquent speaker. The Hebrew letter is written in the most eloquent Greek. too.
There are no original manuscripts that we know of. What is known are copies of the originals, some very old and within a century or so of the authorship, ight? It stands to reason for me copyists would master eloquent Greek enough to transcribe the oldest then known manuscript written to the Hebrew leadership in Judah, very possibly Paul using the Hebrew language quite eloquently, suitable for use in synagogues there. I've seen no proof the original was written in Greek, but due to the nature of copying by hand by many copyists some would result in Greek masterpieces. Have you run across that idea?
Yes, they were called Hebrew, it is because they were a people without a nation, and which means that they were nomads, like Gypsy. The word Hebrews means wanderers, and which the word is mistranslated, its suppose to be Habiru and which its sound somewhat like Hebrew. Moses wrote Genesis and he was raised as an Egyptian, and which the word Habiru is an Egyptian's word. But later on they were established as a nation and they were called from then on, Israelites because of God had promise to make them into a nation. But other nations still had called them Hebrews.
Acts 7:22 Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action. ( This verse says that Moses was strong at speech)
Exodus 4:10 Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”( But this verse is saying that he isn't a very good speaker.)It is known that Moses used Loan words from Egyptian's vocabulary, and which that says that when he speaks, he sometimes uses Egyptian's word in replace of Hebrew words and which it make him clumsy at speech, and that is why he had his brother to speak to the Hebrews for him as a translator.
Acts 7:22 Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action. ( This verse says that Moses was strong at speech)
Exodus 4:10 Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”( But this verse is saying that he isn't a very good speaker.)It is known that Moses used Loan words from Egyptian's vocabulary, and which that says that when he speaks, he sometimes uses Egyptian's word in replace of Hebrew words and which it make him clumsy at speech, and that is why he had his brother to speak to the Hebrews for him as a translator.
P
I believe that the Word of God does not say, no verse.
But personally, I believe it either Paul or Peter.
[SUP]Gal. 2:7 [/SUP]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 both died in Italy about the same time. They both know Timothy.
[SUP]Heb. 13:23 [/SUP]Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]Grace be with you all. Amen.
Your friend in Christ
pugg32
But personally, I believe it either Paul or Peter.
[SUP]Gal. 2:7 [/SUP]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 both died in Italy about the same time. They both know Timothy.
[SUP]Heb. 13:23 [/SUP]Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]Grace be with you all. Amen.
Your friend in Christ
pugg32
I'll just make one point this time. Paul wrote in Philippians 3:5 (KJV) [SUP]5 [/SUP] Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
His credentials were highly valuable to Jews. All Jews were Hebrews in Moses' day like their father Abraham, their nation later that of "Israel", making them also Israelites. Paul was a chief expert that Jews listened to. He was without a doubt to me the only man alive that could have ministered to the Jerusalem Christians, which were all Jews. It was tough for those Jews who practiced Judaism alongside Christianity. The ones Pau wrote to insisted on remaining 100% Jew of Judaism, working out how Christ fit in. He didn't fit in. He replaced, as explained by Paul in most of his epistles. It took Emperor Constantine to break the habit of attending synagogue on Saturday, church meeting on Sunday. Taking two days off a week for worship was absurdity to the emperor. It would be one or the other. The book of Hebrews contained what the Jewish leadership needed to minister to fellow Jews who secretly embraced Christ. HBut they didn't make the break. Come AD 70 their world was destroyed, the Jews and Jew/Christians run out of Judah of Israel. That ended Israel, scattering Christians too to take the gospel to the gentile world.
Abraham was one of many Hebrews. Paul was one, specifically of the Israelite tribe of Benjamin.
His credentials were highly valuable to Jews. All Jews were Hebrews in Moses' day like their father Abraham, their nation later that of "Israel", making them also Israelites. Paul was a chief expert that Jews listened to. He was without a doubt to me the only man alive that could have ministered to the Jerusalem Christians, which were all Jews. It was tough for those Jews who practiced Judaism alongside Christianity. The ones Pau wrote to insisted on remaining 100% Jew of Judaism, working out how Christ fit in. He didn't fit in. He replaced, as explained by Paul in most of his epistles. It took Emperor Constantine to break the habit of attending synagogue on Saturday, church meeting on Sunday. Taking two days off a week for worship was absurdity to the emperor. It would be one or the other. The book of Hebrews contained what the Jewish leadership needed to minister to fellow Jews who secretly embraced Christ. HBut they didn't make the break. Come AD 70 their world was destroyed, the Jews and Jew/Christians run out of Judah of Israel. That ended Israel, scattering Christians too to take the gospel to the gentile world.
Abraham was one of many Hebrews. Paul was one, specifically of the Israelite tribe of Benjamin.
We do have one scripture indicating Paul wrote at least one letter that we don't have access to. Colossians 4:16 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Hebrews could have been another one not well known outside the central core of the Jerusalem church, but is known to us today. Maybe. Mortal men don't know for sure who penned the original.
[SUP]16 [/SUP] And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Hebrews could have been another one not well known outside the central core of the Jerusalem church, but is known to us today. Maybe. Mortal men don't know for sure who penned the original.
It really doesn't change things by knowing who authored it. The fact that it is doctrinally perfectly aligned with the rest of the Bible attests to why it was included as an inspired letter for the Bible. The context is matched to the other books without error. Such flawless letters were extremely uncommon, the reason there are only 66 books left for mankind. Many other letters were offered through the early Church centuries, none other making the cut, not competitive with the ones we have.
Hebrews is a fabuolous book that answers all important questions between Jews and Christians. Readit like a novel right away, and you will be blessed.
Hebrews is a fabuolous book that answers all important questions between Jews and Christians. Readit like a novel right away, and you will be blessed.
Remember, Paul was addressing it to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles at the time were basically the Romans and Greeks. Does it make any sense to tell someone that belong to a nation, to make a nation out of them? Abraham's Parents had settle in the land of Ur of the Chaldeans, and so Abraham should of been called an Chaldeans, not Hebrew. But the word Hebrew is describing a social class of people, like Gypsy and which they are a people that didn't established a nation as well. God only accept those that the world reject and make them becomes the corner stone to His kingdom.
Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
The fact that no early MSS copies have been found that bear Paul's name is a simple fact but this in itself is not sufficient evidence against Pauline authorship. For the scribes who copied the MSS, their eloquence or the lack thereof simply was not an issue. They simply copied what was before them one letter at a time. Paul's supposed lack of eloquence is simply an argument used by many who argue against Pauline authorship. This argument does not present Paul's statement in 1Cor 2:1 honestly. Paul never claimed to lack eloquence. He only told the Corinthian Church that he did not use eloquence as a drawing card for the gospel. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind either internal or external to suggest that the Hebrew letter was ever originally written in Hebrew. This is a popular speculation among some but is completely without historical or MSS evidence. The earliest extant MSS of Hebrews comes from the p46 MSS which possibly dates prior to the third century, certainly not later than 200 AD (third century) which is considered very early indeed although a fragment of Hebrews 11 was found that is said to date to the second century. I do not remember when the first copy of the letter appeared in the Hebrew language. I am sure you can probably find out with a little web searching. There would have been no logical reason for writing this particular letter in Hebrew since everyone spoke Greek as a common language. Personally, I do not believe Paul to be the author of the letter because of 2:3-4. Who ever wrote this letter was not an apostle.