if that were true, then no one on this forum today or any day is strong enough to post on this forum or eat with any of the posters or any other gentiles anywhere !
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.
if that were true, then no one on this forum today or any day is strong enough to post on this forum or eat with any of the posters or any other gentiles anywhere !
I was saying that it is a very big step for a Israelite to sit down and eat with a Gentile; it is like if you sit down and eat with someone that is accustom to eating dogs and cats and which to a Jew, a pig fits in that same category. You'll not be able to eat in someone house that cooks with utensils that has been used to prepare a dog or a cat, and or anything that is offensive for you to eat. But someone had to do the Job and God has given everyone the free-will to choose to do what pleases them as long that it isn't offensive to another.
It's not simply style, but the actual calibre of the Greek used. For instance, the style of, say, 2 Timothy compared to Romans is very different, but I think they are both Pauline in general character, and in general use of Greek (though I suspect 2 Tim didn't come from Paul's hand - he dictated or otherwise directed the writing of an amanuensis).
The question of Hebrews though is very different. The character and sophistication of language in Hebrews is beyond either Rom or 2 tim, and the whole style of thinking in the book seems very different to what Paul normally writes. The kinds of things we might expect to have a bearing on style between Romans and 2 Tim (theological treatise vs personal letter) aren't at play in Hebrews, which is yet another theological treatise, but one that is quite different to, say Romans.
And, of course, the complete absence of any self-reference or salutation, which otherwise occurs throughout the Pauline canon, is a red flag on its own. I've always found the issue of Timothy's imprisonment in Hebrews 13 perplexing as well - Timothy is never mentioned as imprisoned in Paul's letters, and seemingly is always free until Paul's death sometime after 2 Tim. That being the case, Hebrews postdates the life of Paul.
Having said that, there are certainly Pauline echoes in the text, even if it is almost certain Paul himself didn't write the letter. Two of the more plausible candidates for authorship are Barnabas and Apollos, both of whom knew Paul and had contact with him, and whose theologies were no doubt influenced by him. This would account for the Pauline contours, while also (and most particularly in the case of Apollos) accounting the for the vastly different syntax and Greek style. Problem is, it doesn't entirely explain why Apollos would be writing to Hebrews.
The sole main argument for Pauline authorship is not textual, but contextual. There is an early tradition that Paul wrote it, and it was collected with Pauline letters by the third century, but that tradition itself was contested early (none other than Origen explicitly denies Pauline authorship, though he is not the only one to do so).
Who wrote it will almost certainly never be known this side of heaven. However, IMO, it is relatively certain that Paul did not write this letter, either by hand or by dictation.
The question of Hebrews though is very different. The character and sophistication of language in Hebrews is beyond either Rom or 2 tim, and the whole style of thinking in the book seems very different to what Paul normally writes. The kinds of things we might expect to have a bearing on style between Romans and 2 Tim (theological treatise vs personal letter) aren't at play in Hebrews, which is yet another theological treatise, but one that is quite different to, say Romans.
And, of course, the complete absence of any self-reference or salutation, which otherwise occurs throughout the Pauline canon, is a red flag on its own. I've always found the issue of Timothy's imprisonment in Hebrews 13 perplexing as well - Timothy is never mentioned as imprisoned in Paul's letters, and seemingly is always free until Paul's death sometime after 2 Tim. That being the case, Hebrews postdates the life of Paul.
Having said that, there are certainly Pauline echoes in the text, even if it is almost certain Paul himself didn't write the letter. Two of the more plausible candidates for authorship are Barnabas and Apollos, both of whom knew Paul and had contact with him, and whose theologies were no doubt influenced by him. This would account for the Pauline contours, while also (and most particularly in the case of Apollos) accounting the for the vastly different syntax and Greek style. Problem is, it doesn't entirely explain why Apollos would be writing to Hebrews.
The sole main argument for Pauline authorship is not textual, but contextual. There is an early tradition that Paul wrote it, and it was collected with Pauline letters by the third century, but that tradition itself was contested early (none other than Origen explicitly denies Pauline authorship, though he is not the only one to do so).
Who wrote it will almost certainly never be known this side of heaven. However, IMO, it is relatively certain that Paul did not write this letter, either by hand or by dictation.
the apostle peter referred to the apostle paul writing an epistle that was probably hebrews, and if it wasn't hebrews, then what?
it looks like there's much more evidence/support by the revelation of yahshua for the apostle paul writing hebrews than anyone else writing it, btw.
it looks like there's much more evidence/support by the revelation of yahshua for the apostle paul writing hebrews than anyone else writing it, btw.
Well Luke was a scribe that had followed Paul; and Paul stated that each one of them has a purpose, even Luke as well. Luke was the one that had taken dictations for Paul, because they had kept records and which the letters are recordings of what they had said.
Joshua 24:26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the Lord.
1 Chronicles 5:7 Their relatives by clans, listed according to their genealogical records: Jeiel the chief, Zechariah,
Esther 9:32 Esther’s decree confirmed these regulations about Purim, and it was written down in the records.
Ezekiel 13:9 My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign Lord.
1 Kings 8:5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
2 Kings 18:18 They called for the king; and Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph the recorder went out to them.
John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
Ezra 2:62 These searched for their family records, but they could not find them and so were excluded from the priesthood as unclean.
Revelation 3:5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.
There's practically no textual evidence for Paul writing it. To what evidence do you refer, Jeff?
I don't think the letter mentioned in 2 Peter 3 written by Paul is Hebrews. At the first point of call, it could just as easily be referring to something like Romans as Hebrews in that context, or indeed another letter unknown to us. It's similarly not clear that 2 Peter is addressed solely and exclusively to 'all Hebrews', or whether it is addressed to Christians more broadly (the latter would make sense if Paul had also written to them).
It certainly cannot be definitely cited as a reference to Hebrews (nor as probable), while we can with certainty say Hebrews, alone in the claimed works of Paul, does not bear a Pauline salutation or conclusion, nor does it reference the writer's own life and circumstances in a way that can be correlated to the life of Paul.
I don't think the letter mentioned in 2 Peter 3 written by Paul is Hebrews. At the first point of call, it could just as easily be referring to something like Romans as Hebrews in that context, or indeed another letter unknown to us. It's similarly not clear that 2 Peter is addressed solely and exclusively to 'all Hebrews', or whether it is addressed to Christians more broadly (the latter would make sense if Paul had also written to them).
It certainly cannot be definitely cited as a reference to Hebrews (nor as probable), while we can with certainty say Hebrews, alone in the claimed works of Paul, does not bear a Pauline salutation or conclusion, nor does it reference the writer's own life and circumstances in a way that can be correlated to the life of Paul.
Last edited:
How about you give me the cliff note's version. You seem to be familiar with the text - what are the basic textual points made?
T
The_highwayman
Guest
Actually I believe the write of Hebrews could have been Apollos....and it leans more towards Apollos than Paul.
it's found in "number in scripture", very thorough and very well for a long time accepted by believers as accurate with scripture.
it's far to lengthy to try to even cut and paste here, but it's readily available as a pdf online for free.
he proves beyond most any doubt that paul is the author, without any contradiction or even any conflict with scripture.
he also provides substantial evidence, scriptural, that if someone else is thought to be the author, then it causes contradictions and conflicts.
Clearly to me Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Paul was the only one educated enough to present this audition to the Hebrews. I say educated, By that I'm saying that he was educated as a Pharisee, in fact the cream of the crop and in line to become high Priest. Taught at the feet of Gamaliel after his education at the university of Tarsus. Peter could not have wrote this perhaps John. But the most educated in the ways and traditions of Judea was Paul. To Paul was given the meaning of the cross and how it pertains to salvation and sanctification and how to live for God. No one else could have written this to the hebrew nation. Understanding the tradition and laws of the Jewish people.
I'm still of the POV that Hebrews was written by Clement of Rome. Similar writing styles, similar openings and closings, and similar love of quoting Scripture constantly.
Nope, He could not have known the intricate details of being a jew in 30 A.D.
The title "Hebrews' was not part of the original Epistle. It was attached as were many other titles by the Nicine Council when they determined what would be included in the Cannon.
The writer of Hebrews, whether Jewish or not, was intimately familiar with Jewish belief and practice. That is why the book is such an effective tool in evangelizing Jewish people who are familiar with Scripture.
correct, apparently. here's an excerpt and information that may be pertinent>
a link to where the info comes from >
(
Hebrews
)
(3) - You cannot understand the book of Hebrews unless you understand the book of Leviticus, because the book of Hebrews is based upon the principles of the Levitical priesthood. By the time we finish the book of Hebrews, you should have a pretty good grasp of the book of Leviticus as well.
(4) - The author of the book of Hebrews is the Holy Spirit. He is the author of all the books of the Bible. Who the human writer of the book of Hebrews was has been debated throughout the centuries. We do know that he had a Greek background, and was an expert in the use of the Greek language. He also had an excellent Jewish background, and was an expert in Jewish history and traditions.
(5) - There are at least five different views as to who wrote the book of Hebrews.
(A) - The first view is that Luke wrote Hebrews. This view was held by many in the first century. It was also held by John Calvin. The reason for this is because the Greek of the book of Hebrews is very polished. In some cases it is almost pure classical Greek. It is very interesting that the epistle that has the most information by way of the Jewish background should also be the purist type of Greek. However, there's too much Jewish history in this epistle for it to be written by a Gentile, and Luke was a Gentile.
(B) -The second view is that Clement of Rome wrote Hebrews. Eusebius (Church historian: 260-340 AD) and Erasmus (Dutch scholar: 1466-1536 AD) held this view. At one point Origen (Greek scholar and teacher in the early church: 185-254 AD) said that "The book of Hebrews had Paul's thoughts, but that Clement of Rome wrote it." Again there is too much Jewish background for Clement of Rome.
(C) - The third view is that Barnabas was the human writer of Hebrews. Barnabas was a Levite with a good Jewish background. He was also the mediator between Paul and the Jewish Christians. And even today there are some scholars who believe that Barnabas is the writer of the book of Hebrews.
(D) - The fourth view is that Apollos wrote Hebrews. This view was held by Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD). As a Jew from Alexandria, Egypt and well - versed in the Old Testament, Apollos is an obvious possibility. However, no ancient tradition or testimony exists in that direction.
(E) - The fifth view is that Paul wrote Hebrews. But it's not like Paul to omit his name. Plus, the style of Hebrews is smooth and literary, two characteristics not applied to Paul's writings. Paul wrote in an iliptical and rough style. Paul would also quote the Old Testament from the Hebrew text. The writer of Hebrews quoted from the Old Testament Greek (the Septuagint), not the Hebrew. There are many Pauline ideas in the book of Hebrews, and there are many Bible scholars who hold the position that Paul is the writer of Hebrews.
In conclusion, any one of these five men could have written the book of Hebrews. But when I read the statements by E.W. Bullinger in his book "Number in Scripture," he brings forth a very good argument for Pauline authorship.
a link to where the info comes from >
(
Hebrews
)
(3) - You cannot understand the book of Hebrews unless you understand the book of Leviticus, because the book of Hebrews is based upon the principles of the Levitical priesthood. By the time we finish the book of Hebrews, you should have a pretty good grasp of the book of Leviticus as well.
(4) - The author of the book of Hebrews is the Holy Spirit. He is the author of all the books of the Bible. Who the human writer of the book of Hebrews was has been debated throughout the centuries. We do know that he had a Greek background, and was an expert in the use of the Greek language. He also had an excellent Jewish background, and was an expert in Jewish history and traditions.
(5) - There are at least five different views as to who wrote the book of Hebrews.
(A) - The first view is that Luke wrote Hebrews. This view was held by many in the first century. It was also held by John Calvin. The reason for this is because the Greek of the book of Hebrews is very polished. In some cases it is almost pure classical Greek. It is very interesting that the epistle that has the most information by way of the Jewish background should also be the purist type of Greek. However, there's too much Jewish history in this epistle for it to be written by a Gentile, and Luke was a Gentile.
(B) -The second view is that Clement of Rome wrote Hebrews. Eusebius (Church historian: 260-340 AD) and Erasmus (Dutch scholar: 1466-1536 AD) held this view. At one point Origen (Greek scholar and teacher in the early church: 185-254 AD) said that "The book of Hebrews had Paul's thoughts, but that Clement of Rome wrote it." Again there is too much Jewish background for Clement of Rome.
(C) - The third view is that Barnabas was the human writer of Hebrews. Barnabas was a Levite with a good Jewish background. He was also the mediator between Paul and the Jewish Christians. And even today there are some scholars who believe that Barnabas is the writer of the book of Hebrews.
(D) - The fourth view is that Apollos wrote Hebrews. This view was held by Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD). As a Jew from Alexandria, Egypt and well - versed in the Old Testament, Apollos is an obvious possibility. However, no ancient tradition or testimony exists in that direction.
(E) - The fifth view is that Paul wrote Hebrews. But it's not like Paul to omit his name. Plus, the style of Hebrews is smooth and literary, two characteristics not applied to Paul's writings. Paul wrote in an iliptical and rough style. Paul would also quote the Old Testament from the Hebrew text. The writer of Hebrews quoted from the Old Testament Greek (the Septuagint), not the Hebrew. There are many Pauline ideas in the book of Hebrews, and there are many Bible scholars who hold the position that Paul is the writer of Hebrews.
In conclusion, any one of these five men could have written the book of Hebrews. But when I read the statements by E.W. Bullinger in his book "Number in Scripture," he brings forth a very good argument for Pauline authorship.
True...however, Hebrews has an amalgamous timeline...distorted due to Pseudo-Dionysius.
Its why I said I'm of the POV and not that it is Clement who wrote it. The evidence is enough to be convincing, but not enough for me to say that it is Clement.
T
The_highwayman
Guest
Hey Brother....I hear ya on this and agree with what you wrote. I am only offering my defense for the writer being Apollos
Acts 18.24-28
[SUP]24 [/SUP]And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
[SUP]28 [/SUP]For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
