# Who wrote Hebrews???



## StrictBaptist (Nov 3, 2011)

Do you think Paul wrote Hebrews? If so why? If someone else, who and why?

Just wanting to get a good discussion going..

I am doing a small study on who wrote the Letter. Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, etc...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 4, 2011)

Paul


----------



## KMK (Nov 4, 2011)

The Holy Spirit


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 4, 2011)

I believe it might have been from Paul even though the style might be a little different. Whether or not he actually penned it or not I am not sure. He did have others write for him as he spoke.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 4, 2011)

Hi:

John Owen, in his commentary on Hebrews, gives the strongest case, and I think unassailable, that Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It has the traditional Pauline ending, Heb 13:25.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 4, 2011)

I don't think Paul wrote it. It just sounds too different from his other writings to me. In the middle of verse 2 of chapter 3 he says "It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,..." That phrase "attested to us by those who heard" for me, points away from Paul. Paul did hear directly from Jesus and didn't depend on second hand attestation. Yes, I understand that Paul wasn't present for the 3 year matriculation of the Twelve.

Whoever wrote it was deeply in the circle of the Apostles, he refers to them as 'brothers'. He also sends a greeting to Timothy. He was very close to Paul. (Silas and Barnabas come to mind.) He certainly sounds like Paul in places. He was very well educated, in fact his Greek is far more sophisticated than Paul. He's more of a preacher than Paul and Hebrews is in the style of a sermon, the work of a great orator. It's the most doctrinally rich book after Romans and I think the logic is more intense than Romans. My gut tells me that it was Apollos. I want it to be Apollos because I want so badly to hear from the man. Apollos was certainly part of the inner circle and so well known that he wouldn't have to sign his name. Apollos was so well known that there were great factions that viewed him as the prime minister of the church ("I am of Apollos"). It seems to me that a man of Apollos' gifts and abilities should have a writing to go with his name.

We most likely won't find out til we get there but I'm holding to the romantic notion that it was Apollos. I love the book, LOVE IT!


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 4, 2011)

Could have been Paul, but the fact that the letter does not begin with his typical greeting style makes it highly unlikely.

Some have speculated Apollos or Barnabas.


----------



## baron (Nov 4, 2011)

Origen simply said "No one Knows". Some one else said only God knows.

John Calvin said I, indeed can adduce no reason to shew that Paul was its author; for they who say he designedly suppressed his name because it was hateful to the Jews, bring nothing to the purpose; for why, then did he mention the name of Timothy? as by this he betrayed himself. But the manner of teaching, and the style, suffciently shew that Paul was not the author; and the writerhimself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the Apostles, which is wholly diffrent from the way in which Paul spoke of himself. Besides, what is said of the practice of catechising in the sixth chapter, does not well suit the time or age of Paul. Hebrews page xxvii.

I think the author was Apollos. Acts 18:24 A Jew name Apollos, a native Alexandrian, an eloquent man who was powerful in the use of scripture, arrived in Ephesus. ( HCSB ). Another writer said: It exhibits the Alexandrian fondness for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture.


----------



## bug (Nov 4, 2011)

baron said:


> Origen simply said "No one Knows". Some one else said only God knows.



If we need to know we would be told, as we are not told it is neither important or relevant to our study of the book. However Eusebius claims that Clement (155-215AD) attributed the authorship to Paul (eccle. hist. 6.14.2f). R Laird Harris tells us 'hebrews was always received in nthe east and received as Pauline' (Inspirtaion and canonicity of the bible) 



> John Calvin said I, indeed can adduce no reason to shew that Paul was its author; for they who say he designedly suppressed his name because it was hateful to the Jews, bring nothing to the purpose; for why, then did he mention the name of Timothy? as by this he betrayed himself. But the manner of teaching, and the style, suffciently shew that Paul was not the author; and the writerhimself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the Apostles, which is wholly diffrent from the way in which Paul spoke of himself. Besides, what is said of the practice of catechising in the sixth chapter, does not well suit the time or age of Paul. Hebrews page xxvii.



I am not convinced that any of these are reasons Paul could not have written hebrews, in his book, 'Paul: missionairy theolgian' Raymond traces everything the book of hebrews teaches showing how it all might have come though Paul, p257-273 (in my 2002 reprint by Mentor)



> I think the author was Apollos. Acts 18:24 A Jew name Apollos, a native Alexandrian, an eloquent man who was powerful in the use of scripture, arrived in Ephesus. ( HCSB ). Another writer said: It exhibits the Alexandrian fondness for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture.



That's a pretty thin connection , but then as i stated before if it was worth knowing we would know and not be left to guess


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 4, 2011)

Phoebe


----------



## R Harris (Nov 4, 2011)

W. Gary Crampton wrote an article for the _Blue Banner_ several years ago defending the Pauline authorship. I thought it was very convincing. It could be online somewhere, but I don't have the inclination to look for it now.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 4, 2011)

BobVigneault said:


> I don't think Paul wrote it. It just sounds too different from his other writings to me. In the middle of verse 2 of chapter 3 he says "It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,..." That phrase "attested to us by those who heard" for me, points away from Paul. Paul did hear directly from Jesus and didn't depend on second hand attestation. Yes, I understand that Paul wasn't present for the 3 year matriculation of the Twelve.
> 
> Whoever wrote it was deeply in the circle of the Apostles, he refers to them as 'brothers'. He also sends a greeting to Timothy. He was very close to Paul. (Silas and Barnabas come to mind.) He certainly sounds like Paul in places. He was very well educated, in fact his Greek is far more sophisticated than Paul. He's more of a preacher than Paul and Hebrews is in the style of a sermon, the work of a great orator. It's the most doctrinally rich book after Romans and I think the logic is more intense than Romans. My gut tells me that it was Apollos. I want it to be Apollos because I want so badly to hear from the man. Apollos was certainly part of the inner circle and so well known that he wouldn't have to sign his name. Apollos was so well known that there were great factions that viewed him as the prime minister of the church ("I am of Apollos"). It seems to me that a man of Apollos' gifts and abilities should have a writing to go with his name.
> 
> We most likely won't find out til we get there but I'm holding to the romantic notion that it was Apollos. I love the book, LOVE IT!


\\

I agree with you on all points.


----------



## sastark (Nov 4, 2011)

Peter. Romans 11:13 and Galatians 2:8


----------



## nwink (Nov 4, 2011)

R Harris said:


> W. Gary Crampton wrote an article for the Blue Banner several years ago defending the Pauline authorship. I thought it was very convincing. It could be online somewhere, but I don't have the inclination to look for it now.



Here's the link: Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 4, 2011)

I have always thought Barnabas or Apollos, also. I have seen several attempts to ascribe it to Luke, which I thought were really thin.

See here: http://johnbotkin.net/2011/02/11/did-luke-write-hebrews/


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 4, 2011)

baron said:


> Origen simply said "No one Knows"



No, what Origin said was: 



> But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s [Paul], but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows.



So he concedes that only God knows AFTER making his own case for Pauline authorship.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 4, 2011)

There's a recent book that argues for Lukan authorship. That's not one I've seen often. But I've never really delved into this question either.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 4, 2011)

When Origen made his famous remark, "God only knows who wrote Hebrews!" he was referring to who physically wrote the letter down on paper. Origen himself was convinced that Paul was the author of the work.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 4, 2011)

KMK said:


> The Holy Spirit



"Mystery" solved!


----------



## MW (Nov 4, 2011)

The variation in style, omission of authorship, and the apparent distance from the apostles can be explained by the letter's own identifying characteristic as a "word of exhortation."


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 4, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The variation in style, omission of authorship, and the apparent distance from the apostles can be explained by the letter's own identifying characteristic as a "word of exhortation."



That's my thinking too. The more I dive into Hebrews, (which has been a lot the past few months), the more I hear the voice of Paul exhorting the Hebrews (his 'kinsmen according to the flesh') from afar.

I think the reason he never invokes apostolic authority in that letter is because of who they are. Instead, he always points them to Scripture. It seems a very effective way of building them up.


----------



## MW (Nov 4, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> I think the reason he never invokes apostolic authority in that letter is because of who they are. Instead, he always points them to Scripture. It seems a very effective way of building them up.



Good observation! This is also brought out in the opening of the word of exhortation recorded in Acts 13:15-16.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 4, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The variation in style, omission of authorship, and the apparent distance from the apostles can be explained by the letter's own identifying characteristic as a "word of exhortation."



Do you mean to say that if it is not so much a letter but rather a something more like a transcript of a sermon, the arguments comparing its style to the letters of Paul lose much of their force? If so, I was thinking the same. Hebrews isn't necessarily a letter and doesn't have many characteristics of a letter. If it's a sermon transcript, it could sound quite different and still be Paul.

Of course, it could still be someone else, too. Who knows?


----------



## MW (Nov 4, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Do you mean to say that if it is not so much a letter but rather a something more like a transcript of a sermon, the arguments comparing its style to the letters of Paul lose much of their force? If so, I was thinking the same. Hebrews isn't necessarily a letter and doesn't have many characteristics of a letter. If it's a sermon transcript, it could sound quite different and still be Paul.



I wouldn't go so far as to call it a transcript of a sermon. The word of exhortation served a specific function within the synagogue. We would also need to clarify that the word of exhortation is delivered by means of letter, as is apparent from 13:22; but the form of the letter is certainly dictated by the fact that it contains "the word of exhortation," and this can account for all the usual objections against Pauline authorship.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 4, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean to say that if it is not so much a letter but rather a something more like a transcript of a sermon, the arguments comparing its style to the letters of Paul lose much of their force? If so, I was thinking the same. Hebrews isn't necessarily a letter and doesn't have many characteristics of a letter. If it's a sermon transcript, it could sound quite different and still be Paul.
> ...



Makes sense. Good thoughts.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 4, 2011)

Our brothers in the Continental Reformed tradition are bound to Pauline authorship (if they are full subscriptionists). Despite the Westminster not claiming that it's Paul- I say Paul. Yep. Paul. Read Owen.


----------



## Tim (Nov 4, 2011)

There is an explicit Continental confessional statement on this?


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 4, 2011)

Tim said:


> There is an explicit Continental confessional statement on this?


Belgic Article 4
_In the New Testament, the four gospels-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen letters of Paul-- to the Romans; the two letters to the Corinthians; to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians; the two letters to the Thessalonians; the two letters to Timothy; to Titus, Philemon, and to the Hebrews; the seven letters of the other apostles-- one of James; two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John._


----------



## dudley (Nov 4, 2011)

*I do tend to believe Paul is the author of Hebrews.*

I do tend to believe Paul is the author of Hebrews. First, historical church tradition, then, internal evidence from the book of Hebrews, and finally, apostolic authority. 

I do want to define what I mean by tradition because having been a Roman catholic; the word conjures up thoughts of Roman Catholic doctrine. Sadly, I believe Catholicism has horrendously skewed the word. The reason being is the elevation of tradition to the level of authority with the scriptures. In Roman Catholicism, tradition is to be obeyed as equally as the Bible, and sometimes rather than the Bible. A perfect example is the celibacy of the priesthood. The scriptures nowhere forbid church clergy from marrying, but Catholic tradition has always maintained a celibate priesthood as being obedient to God. This is not what I mean by tradition. The tradition of which I speak of is the tradition established by church history. Historically, the church believed Paul wrote the book. These are some compelling arguments against Pauline authorship, but I am still convinced Paul wrote Hebrews.

There have been other names given as authors. Some of the candidates include: Silas, Luke, James, Clement of Rome, and strangely, Pricilla, the wife of Aquila, who both discipled Apollos, (Acts 18:26-27). 

However at this time I still think Paul wrote Hebrews by the content of the letter , the style of writing and by what I have read regarding apostolic authority.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Nov 4, 2011)

N. Eshelman said:


> Our brothers in the Continental Reformed tradition are bound to Pauline authorship (if they are full subscriptionists). Despite the Westminster not claiming that it's Paul- I say Paul. Yep. Paul. Read Owen.


To my knowledge, the HNRC, the Protestant Reformed, and the FRCNA all retain the clause in question. The CanRC and RCUS have modified the Belgic at this point. Without an officially adopted version of the confession, it would appear to be an open question in the URCNA.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 4, 2011)

Dearly Bought said:


> N. Eshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Our brothers in the Continental Reformed tradition are bound to Pauline authorship (if they are full subscriptionists). Despite the Westminster not claiming that it's Paul- I say Paul. Yep. Paul. Read Owen.
> ...



Love your bowtie, by the way. 

As a PRTS graduate, I know that the HRC and the FRC men are bound to this as strict subscriptionists. I did not know about the RCUS or the CanRef (the CanRef are not on my radar, since I have no contact with them at all). Maybe a URC brother will let us know what the position is there. 

Anyhow, we all know that Paul wrote Hebrews.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 4, 2011)

I was under the impression that exceptions to the Belgic on this point were pretty widely allowed. But I suppose that might depend on the denomination or classis.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 4, 2011)

I know this is  but would a candidate not be ordained in a continental denomination if they took exception to a Pauline authorship of Hebrews?


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 5, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The variation in style, omission of authorship, and the apparent distance from the apostles can be explained by the letter's own identifying characteristic as a "word of exhortation."


A pastor shared this with me.....what do you think;


> AUTHORSHIP AND CANONICITY
> The author of this epistle does not mention himself by name, but remains anonymous. The essential issues surrounding the authorship and canonicity of Hebrews are the following:
> WHAT IS KNOWN FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE
> The author was not only thoroughly acquainted with the fullness of the Gospel as expressed through the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, but was also intimately acquainted with the Jewish mind, their religious system and their approach to the Old Testament Scriptures. He and his readers were evidently well–acquainted (5:10–12; 10:34; 13:18–19, 22–23). He had been or was now imprisoned (10:34; 13:19). He was a close associate with Timothy (13:23).
> ...




---------- Post added at 12:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 AM ----------

]


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 5, 2011)

> As a PRTS graduate, I know that the HRC and the FRC men are bound to this as strict subscriptionists. I did not know about the RCUS or the CanRef (the CanRef are not on my radar, since I have no contact with them at all). Maybe a URC brother will let us know what the position is there.
> 
> 
> 
> > Gootjes also believes that the Confession had been adopted by the Reformed churches in the area we know as Belgium even before it was printed. This is why the Confession uses the first person plural throughout, “We believe…” At subsequent synods, the authority of the Confession was confirmed and the text of the Confession was fine-tuned. This process continued up to the Synod of Dort and beyond. Today the Confession continues to be a living document and so is periodically fine-tuned in some of its details by churches that hold it. One of the classic examples is the original Confession’s assertion that Paul was the author of Hebrews. That assertion has been removed from the Canadian Reformed edition.



Thanks to Rev Bredenhof for this quote from his blog.


----------



## Eoghan (Nov 6, 2011)

I believe it to be Paul. Given that it is a defence of Christianity and a comparison of Cross v Temple - it requires tact. In Jewish hands it would be a direct attack on the Temple and as such defamatory and inflamatory. Imagine a book published today making a direct comparison of Christianity and Islam. This I think explains the anonymity which I think is deliberate. 

There are several features that show similarities with Paul. 
1. the development of a category we today would call the ceremonial Law
2. the emphasis on faith is very prominent
3. the Timothy connection
4. the connection with Rome


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 6, 2011)

Not to be a killjoy, but as interesting as these discussions on the authorship of Hebrews can be, in the end they are distracting. Hebrews is one of the most important books in the Scriptures and is likely the most over looked of all New Testament books. In some part this is due to the continuing debate about authorship. If the authorship of Hebrews was necessary or even useful in understanding the letter then it would be obvious. It is not obvious, and there are really not even good clues. In short, if God wanted us to know who wrote it he would have told us. It is as simple as that. 

A great deal of the debate around authorship is not to shore up faith in the revelation of God, but to see just where Hebrews fits in Pauline, Petrine, Jamesian, Apollian, or some other 'theology'. That type of thinking is destructive to faith and a proper view of God's Scriptures. There is one theology revealed in Scripture. I'm no luddite. There can be a place for such discussions among academics, but they don't belong in the pulpit; and they end up there all too often.

A proper and thorough understanding of Hebrews goes a very long way in properly understanding the Covenants and does away with much of the silly theologies that have distracted the Church; especially in the last 150 years or so.


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> Not to be a killjoy, but as interesting as these discussions on the authorship of Hebrews can be, in the end they are distracting. Hebrews is one of the most important books in the Scriptures and is likely the most over looked of all New Testament books.



On what basis is Hebrews to be received as one of the books of Scripture? Usually "apostolicity" in one form or another is regarded as an identifying mark of New Testament canonicity. If that is the case, the question of authorship should not be regarded as distracting.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 6, 2011)

> but as interesting as these discussions on the authorship of Hebrews can be, in the end they are distracting. Hebrews is one of the most important books in the Scriptures and is likely the most over looked of all New Testament books.


For lack of a better term, I appreciate the spirit of this post. I view Hebrews as a wonderful commentary on the OT and have turned to it over and over. (And quite frankly, did not know that Paul's authorship was still an accepted view.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 6, 2011)

One of the things I often see lacking in some of these discussions is the lack of appreciation as to whether or not a book is Apostolic. Books were received as Canonical only if they could be determined to be written under Apostolic authority. We cannot neglect this dimension and simply treat the topic as if authorship is simply an academic exercise in textual criticism.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Nov 6, 2011)

I am sure that I don't know.


----------



## SolaGratia (Nov 6, 2011)

Here is proof that Paul wrote Hebrews:


Papyrus 46 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 6, 2011)

Harnack always used to say . . . it was Priscilla [Adolf Harnack. “The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Lutheran Church Review 19 (1900): 448-471. (Translated by Luther D. Lazarus from Harnack's ZNW article from 1900].

But, not only was Harnack the arch liberal, he evidently ignored the masculine ending to diegeomai found in Hebrews 11:32. This alone might make it impossible for it to be written by a woman.

In seminary we were taught that it was certainly NOT Paul which may be one of the reasons why I suspect that Paul was the author of Hebrews.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Nov 8, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> On what basis is Hebrews to be received as one of the books of Scripture? Usually "apostolicity" in one form or another is regarded as an identifying mark of New Testament canonicity. If that is the case, the question of authorship should not be regarded as distracting.





Semper Fidelis said:


> Books were received as Canonical only if they could be determined to be written under Apostolic authority. We cannot neglect this dimension and simply treat the topic as if authorship is simply an academic exercise in textual criticism.



I have to thank both of you for the reminder here of the importance of Apostolic authority in regards to the Cononicity of the NT writings. This issue is no light matter. I believe slippery slope may be created by denial of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, in favor of a non-apostolic figure. I think a warning would be justified here. The logical conclusions of Non-Apostolic Authorship are dire.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 9, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> One of the things I often see lacking in some of these discussions is the lack of appreciation as to whether or not a book is Apostolic. Books were received as Canonical only if they could be determined to be written under Apostolic authority. We cannot neglect this dimension and simply treat the topic as if authorship is simply an academic exercise in textual criticism.



As I see it from Church History, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation was debated over as not being authentic. We have them in our Bibles because of Augustine. Now are there any modern agruments against these epistles?


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 9, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Not to be a killjoy, but as interesting as these discussions on the authorship of Hebrews can be, in the end they are distracting. Hebrews is one of the most important books in the Scriptures and is likely the most over looked of all New Testament books.
> ...



I believe that you misunderstood my point. I'm not debating the 'apostolicity' (I like that descriptor.) of the book. What I am saying is that there is no clear cut way to determine which apostle did write the book. To try and absolutely prove one or the other ultimately rests on speculation. If it were essential to the proper interpretation of the book then the Lord would have clearly revealed its author. He has, in Providence, not done so. It is one thing to debate such issues in the academic halls; it is quite another to debate them in the pulpit, or to introduce topics the degrade the book in front of the congregation.


----------



## MW (Nov 9, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> I believe that you misunderstood my point. I'm not debating the 'apostolicity' (I like that descriptor.) of the book. What I am saying is that there is no clear cut way to determine which apostle did write the book. To try and absolutely prove one or the other ultimately rests on speculation. If it were essential to the proper interpretation of the book then the Lord would have clearly revealed its author. He has, in Providence, not done so. It is one thing to debate such issues in the academic halls; it is quite another to debate them in the pulpit, or to introduce topics the degrade the book in front of the congregation.



Your original point assumed canonicity of the book and undermined the importance of authorship. "Interpretation" has nothing to do with it. I maintain discussion of authorship is essential in recognising canonicity. Your response seeks to shift the problem off of canonicity onto apostolicity, but you are still forced to deal with "authorship" in order to establish the apostolicity of the Letter.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 9, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> I maintain discussion of authorship is essential in recognising canonicity.



How does that play out with regard to Jude?


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 9, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> "Interpretation" has nothing to do with it.



This is where we are crossing one another. I have seen and read many who think that determining the author is critical to proper interpretation of the text and how the book fits within the corpus of Scripture. Those are the types of discussions that are meaningless and unfruitful

Ruben beat to the question I wanted to ask.


----------



## MW (Nov 9, 2011)

py3ak said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > I maintain discussion of authorship is essential in recognising canonicity.
> ...



In general, "Jude" will be discussed in the same way any other book is discussed. Whatever conclusion one arrives at, the discussion cannot be by-passed.

In particular, you probably know my dislike of inventing new Bible characters, which means the authorship of Jude is fairly straightforward for me.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Nov 9, 2011)

py3ak said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > I maintain discussion of authorship is essential in recognising canonicity.
> ...



I suppose that would come down to your definition of "brother," right?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 9, 2011)

Well, there's Matthew 13:55 or there's Luke 6:16 - I feel pretty safe in discounting Acts 15:22. Neither text would require postulating a person not otherwise known to exist.


----------



## MW (Nov 9, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Well, there's Matthew 13:55 or there's Luke 6:16 - I feel pretty safe in discounting Acts 15:22. Neither text would require postulating a person not otherwise known to exist.



The use of the alternative, "or," has already determined that there are two different persons. If in fact these refer to the same person, the alternative requires the invention of a new character.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 10, 2011)

Very intriguing, if not self-evidently compelling.


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Very intriguing, if not self-evidently compelling.



In these kinds of areas it is often the obvious which is overlooked. E.g., (1) James and the brethren of the Lord are identified as apostles, so it is natural to identify James and Jude with those who are listed with the apostles. (2) The fact that relations are referred to for the purpose of identification when there is more than one person of the same name; if there are two Marys with children of the same name the description would fail to identify which is which. (3) The large group of "kinfolk" closely associated with the family of Joseph, Luke 2. (4) If Mary has other children how can she legitimately be given into the care of John?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 10, 2011)

But if the Jude who wrote the epistle is the Judas mentioned in Matthew 13:55 AND Luke 6:16, what about the statement that Christ's brethren did not believe on him?


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2011)

py3ak said:


> But if the Jude who wrote the epistle is the Judas mentioned in Matthew 13:55 AND Luke 6:16, what about the statement that Christ's brethren did not believe on him?



Luke 2:44; 3:23ff, the family of Joseph must have been fairly extensive.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 10, 2011)

But doesn't the statement that even his brethren did not believe on him lose some of its force if it's only SOME of the brethren who don't believe?


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2011)

py3ak said:


> But doesn't the statement that even his brethren did not believe on him lose some of its force if it's only SOME of the brethren who don't believe?



It depends what force one is seeking to give the expression. Going up to the feast from Galilee is in view. We know from Luke 2 that a rather large company of family members and acquaintances travelled together. If this larger company is in view the force of the statement is retained when it is not restricted to biological brothers. It seems to me that making it to refer to just a few imagined biological brothers would serve better to minimise the impact of the statement.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 11, 2011)

Very interesting.


----------

