# Human Author of Hebrews



## Kinghezy

I came across James White saying he thought Luke wrote (because of language) Hebrews based on a Paul sermon (because of theology). There was a post on the board that posited the same in an external link. 

Does anyone on the board have any insights? I would not have the skill to analyze this, beyond saying "that theory sounds good".

I also added a poll.

P.S. if Luke, then Paul and Luke certainly have even more % of the New Testament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy

@Grant Jones my attempt at a non-depressing non-troubling thread. Unless someone answers Erdman, this one should be safe.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

It is my opinion that Apollos is the author. I am about to sign off so I will leave you with this.

Richard D. Phillips 1st sermon on Hebrews:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=61712101536

This is a fantastic series. I would encourage you to work through it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

All answers should include the HS. So maybe make that vote option to read “mystery” instead.

I vote mystery. However if you held me at gun point I lean towards Paul.


----------



## Smeagol

Kinghezy said:


> @Grant Jones my attempt at a non-depressing non-troubling thread. Unless someone answers Erdman, this one should be safe.


*Doug* your too *Funny*.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Grant Jones said:


> All answers should include the HS. So maybe make that option be forever a mystery
> 
> I vote mystery. However if you held me a gun point I lean towards Paul. However since I consider my self ignorant on this point... I might even take the bullet and still cry mystery.



The Holy Spirit is oviously the author but the OP made a point to say "human author."

If it is Paul, what do we do with this verse:

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" - Hebrews 2:3 - The Holy Bible: King James Version.

Paul was pretty clear that he heard his message directly from our Lord:

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." - Galatians 1:12 The Holy Bible: King James Version.

The Greek of Hebrews is also superior to Paul's. There are also many more solid arguments against Pauline authorship. I suggest listening to Phillip's sermon I posted. You would be hard-pressed to find a modern commentator that agrees with Pauline authorship. At the end of the day, I will also concede that it was the Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed Bookworm said:


> The Holy Spirit is oviously the author but the OP made a point to say "human author."
> 
> If it is Paul, what do we do with this verse:
> 
> "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" - Hebrews 2:3 - The Holy Bible: King James Version.
> 
> Paul was pretty clear that he heard his message directly from the Lord:
> 
> "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." - Galatians 1:12 The Holy Bible: King James Version.
> 
> The Greek of Hebrews is also superior to Paul's.


I thought you were signing off

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Grant Jones said:


> I thought you were signing off


 I was but I am a Hebrews fanatic. It is hard for me to leave such a discussion. 

*Please see my revised response to yours.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I was but I am a Hebrews fanatic. It is hard for me to leave such a discussion.
> 
> *Please see my revised response to yours.


Ha....I see. I lean heavy on it forever being a mystery and it seems that was the authors intent as well. My ultimate vote is “mystery” and i do not have an option in the Poll for that. If pressed I lean towards Paul. It seems Cavin, Luther, and Henry tend to lean towards Paul as well.

Further I have heard some say that the book of Hebrews consist of sermons from Paul that were written down by another. This might help to explain a different level of Greek.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I was but I am a Hebrews fanatic. It is hard for me to leave such a discussion.
> 
> *Please see my revised response to yours.



Those arguments of external evidence (better Greek) and internal evidence (claiming to not be an apostle) seem to point away from Paul. That seems to compelling to me. I would ultimately say Holy Spirit, as my tongue-in-cheek option pointed towards. 

And while I have some mild interest in who was the human author, I wouldn't obsess over it either. If it was not revealed, it must not be important. It's like wanting to know exactly what was said between Barnabas and Paul's when arguing about Mark.

I know... I'll know... I am undercutting the whole premise of this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy

Grant Jones said:


> My ultimate vote is “mystery” and i do not have an option in the Poll for that


Added, misspelling and all.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Grant Jones said:


> Ha....I see. I lean heavy on it forever being a mystery and it seems that was the authors intent as well. My ultimate vote is “mystery” and i do not have an option in the Poll for that. If pressed I lean towards Paul. It seems Cavin, Luther, and Henry tends to lean that way as well.
> 
> Further I have heard some say that Hebrews are sermons from Paul that were written down by another. This might seem to explain a different level of Greek.


I have heard the transcribed sermon theory but it does not answer the issue raised by the verses I quoted above.

I dearly love Calvin, Luther, Henry, Owen, Gill, and Gouge but I don't agree with them here. I am not so stubborn on this opinion that I can't be persuaded of Pauline authorship. It just hasn't been adequately defended to me. 

Whoever the human author was, they were most likely very close to Paul and learned from him. I think that can be gathered from:

"Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you." - Hebrews 13:23 The Holy Bible: King James Version.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Now I am signing off for a while. I will be back later.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol

Kinghezy said:


> Added, misspelling and all.


True Christian hospitality towards a weaker spelling brother. My vote is cast!


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Now I am signing off for a while. I will be back later.


For real this time or are you just trying to sound like the Terminator?


----------



## LilyG

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Richard D. Phillips 1st sermon on Hebrews:
> https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=61712101536
> 
> This is a fantastic series. I would encourage you to work through it.



Ha, I was reading through his Hebrews commentary and discovered this audio series last week! Almost mentioned it here. So glad I found it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Kinghezy said:


> Those arguments of external evidence (better Greek) and internal evidence (claiming to not be an apostle) seem to point away from Paul. That seems to compelling to me. I would ultimately say Holy Spirit, as my tongue-in-cheek option pointed towards.
> 
> And while I have some mild interest in who was the human author, I wouldn't obsess over it either. If it was not revealed, it must not be important. It's like wanting to know exactly what was said between Barnabas and Paul's when arguing about Mark.
> 
> I know... I'll know... I am undercutting the whole premise of this thread.



Yes, it is more polished writing than Paul's usual. If I look back into my own writings, some are much more polished, especially if it is a writing that I polished and re-polished as I used and reused it. Hebrews was likely a frequent sermon for Paul. Furthermore, Paul likely dictated his Epistles and someone else wrote. He may have received feedback and revised with whoever wrote for him.

I hear these arguments, but don't find them compelling when we consider real life writing and editing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Although I believe Paul to be the author, I don't think I would be denying my vows of subscription to the Belgic Confession if I was convicted otherwise.

See https://puritanboard.com/threads/an...-and-the-pauline-authorship-of-hebrews.88052/

(Wes makes a compelling argument to omit Paul as the author, although I'm not persuaded that it's absolutely necessary from a historical standpoint.)


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Grant Jones said:


> For real this time or are you just trying to sound like the Terminator?


I just wanted to sound like the Terminator.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## fredtgreco

http://www.dr-bacon.net/blue_banner_articles/Who-Wrote-Hebrews.htm

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover

James White's guess is as good as anyone else's, I suppose. I do subscribe to the idea that it's the earliest example of a complete Christian sermon.


----------



## Paul1976

Paul's reasoning is very logical and linear. The author of Hebrews thinks very differently than Paul. The reasoning in Hebrews is more circular. To me, fa close study of something like Romans followed by a close study of Hebrews made it abundantly clear that the two are products of minds that think very differently. Along with John and Revelation, Romans and Hebrews are easily in my four favorite books of the Bible. I dearly love both, but I simply can't see Romans and Hebrews being written by the same person. 

I can also say what I was able to read and appreciate from commentaries on the two books seemed to imply a very different use of language. As I do not know Greek, I'm relying on how I understood the use of language from commentaries. What I could see in studying Romans was excellent communication, but am emphasis on clearly establishing theology. The author of Hebrews seems to have an unusual gift for putting things beautifully and a rich manner.

I do also agree with the points above, especially that Paul would never put himself in a group that had not seen the risen Christ.

We know quite little of Apollos, but I personally find it remarkable that every brief phrase used to describe him, his eloquence, his knowledge of the OT, and his hometown (a center apparently of the type of Greek used in Hebrews), is exactly what I would expect the author of Hebrews to be. I personally strongly suspect he wrote it. I also agree that, if God did not leave clear evidence of authorship, there is no point in making a significant issue out of it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

bookslover said:


> James White's guess is as good as anyone else's, I suppose



I apologize but am confused about this remark. I may have missed something. What is James White's opinion or his relevance on the authorship of Hebrews?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I apologize but am confused about this remark. I may have missed something. What is James White's opinion or his relevance on the authorship of Hebrews?



Very first line in the first post of this thread might help you. 

"I came across James White saying he thought Luke wrote (because of language) Hebrews based on a Paul sermon (because of theology)."


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Very first line in the first post of this thread might help you.
> 
> "I came across James White saying he thought Luke wrote (because of language) Hebrews based on a Paul sermon (because of theology)."


Oh, ha. I forgot about that mention after the 22 following posts. Long week.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

If Hebrews is written for theological purposes I would think Luke would be disqualified.


----------



## Kinghezy

earl40 said:


> If Hebrews is written for theological purposes I would think Luke would be disqualified.


How is he disqualified from summarizing a Paul sermon? 

Edited: removed snarky comment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Personally, I think it is very difficult to determine authorship based merely on style. The fact is that people write differently depending on purpose. If Paul wrote Romans as a theological treatise, and Hebrews as a sermon, then it would only make sense for the style to be different. That is not to suggest that I believe Paul to definitely be the author, merely that I find this line of reasoning to be fallacious. It is precisely this kind of analysis that brought us the documentary hypothesis.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

@Kinghezy : aren’t you glad you added “mystery”.


----------



## Kinghezy

Grant Jones said:


> @Kinghezy : aren’t you glad you added “mystery”.



Indeed. I see someone was bold enough to say Holy Spirit. And the definition of cote is "a shelter for mammals or birds, especially pigeons." Seeing that, reminds me that I have seen that in some older commentaries like Matthew Henry from 2 Sam 7 "He had raised him from a very mean and low condition: He took him from the sheep-cote.".

So, what I am obviously (cough cough) trying to say (cough cough) is that this answer is a *shelter* from the speculative answers.

Nailed it.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## earl40

Kinghezy said:


> How is he disqualified from summarizing a Paul sermon?
> 
> Edited: removed snarky comment.



There are commands which are to be followed. Our faith is built on a foundation of the prophets and apostles. Which Luke is not.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> There are commands which are to be followed. Our faith is built on a foundation of the prophets and apostles. Which Luke is not.



In that case it was rather presumptuous of him to take upon himself to write an orderly account of Jesus' life. What was wrong with the other ones?

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first for you, most excellent

EDIT: Didn't copy/paste right.

So strictly speaking, according to your logic, Luke isn't good enough to give commands but he is good enough to write a gospel. So can I say that my faith is built on the Gospel, at least?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

earl40 said:


> There are commands which are to be followed. Our faith is built on a foundation of the prophets and apostles. Which Luke is not.


Should we disregard the theology extracted from Acts? God entrusted Luke, through the Holy Spirit's guidance, to give us the history-altering account of Pentecost. There are some important verses in Acts that build upon our understanding of Baptism, Covenantal familial blessings, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit. I would have to disagree with your line of thinking.


----------



## earl40

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Should we disregard the theology extracted from Acts? God entrusted Luke, through the Holy Spirit's guidance, to give us the history-altering account of Pentecost. There are some important verses in Acts that build upon our understanding of Baptism, Covenantal familial blessings, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit. I would have to disagree with your line of thinking.



A historical account of what happened, and the telling of such, conveys an account of the work of the apostles.


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> In that case it was rather presumptuous of him to take upon himself to write an orderly account of Jesus' life. What was wrong with the other ones?
> 
> 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first for you, most excellent
> 
> EDIT: Didn't copy/paste right.
> 
> So strictly speaking, according to your logic, Luke isn't good enough to give commands but he is good enough to write a gospel. So can I say that my faith is built on the Gospel, at least?



What is your foundation built upon?


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> What is your foundation built upon?



Hopefully the same one as Luke's. No one is disputing that the foundation is built on the prophets and apostles. What we are disputing is the overly strict schema you've constructed, which if followed consistently, would leave Luke out

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Kinghezy

<reinserting snarky comment> Theophilus would disagree.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

And to say that non-apostles/prophets can't give commands ignores the Reformed teaching of Good and Necessary Consequence.

For example, I have every right tell a believer that he is bound to confess God as 3 Persons/1 nature, yet no apostle ever said those words.

And to make matters much, much worse (and this is the ultimate clincher), assuming that "prophets" = NT prophets, and that prophets could give commands, this means Phillip's daughters could give commands.

So now we have the weird situation where Phillip's daughters could give theological commands to the church, whereas Luke couldn't!

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> Hopefully the same one as Luke's. No one is disputing that the foundation is built on the prophets and apostles. What we are disputing is the overly strict schema you've constructed, which if followed consistently, would leave Luke out



The "good and necessary" flows from the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles which is inscripturated.


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> And to say that non-apostles/prophets can't give commands ignores the Reformed teaching of Good and Necessary Consequence.
> 
> For example, I have every right tell a believer that he is bound to confess God as 3 Persons/1 nature, yet no apostle ever said those words.
> 
> And to make matters much, much worse (and this is the ultimate clincher), assuming that "prophets" = NT prophets, and that prophets could give commands, this means Phillip's daughters could give commands.
> 
> So now we have the weird situation where Phillip's daughters could give theological commands to the church, whereas Luke couldn't!



You assume the the daughters were doing the same thing as the prophets and apostles.


----------



## timfost

earl40 said:


> You assume the the daughters were doing the same thing as the prophets and apostles.



Earl,

It may be wise to slow down a little. Were Luke's biblical writings (Luke, Acts) inspired? Paul infers at least that the book of Luke is inspired (1 Tim. 5:18). If inspired, they were also prophetic. You are creating a false dichotomy.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Smeagol

BayouHuguenot said:


> And to say that non-apostles/prophets can't give commands ignores the Reformed teaching of Good and Necessary Consequence.
> 
> For example, I have every right tell a believer that he is bound to confess God as 3 Persons/1 nature, yet no apostle ever said those words.
> 
> And to make matters much, much worse (and this is the ultimate clincher), assuming that "prophets" = NT prophets, and that prophets could give commands, this means Phillip's daughters could give commands.
> 
> So now we have the weird situation where Phillip's daughters could give theological commands to the church, whereas Luke couldn't!


Jacob,

You now have the best avatar you ever have had since my time on PB. I hope this one stays longer.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> You assume the the daughters were doing the same thing as the prophets and apostles.



In that case, you would have to make another subdistinction (which the text never does). This is ad hoc reasoning.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> The "good and necessary" flows from the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles which is inscripturated.



Is Luke Scripture?


----------



## VictorBravo

I went with Paul for the reasons stated by John Owen. Beyond that, I wouldn't fight over it.

Whenever I read Hebrews I think of Luke 24:27. We get something like the Emmaus disciples got; it is a real blessing.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is Luke Scripture?



Of course it is. What we have is Luke telling us what happened and in it he does not instruct like Jesus and the apostles, or James (an early TE) did.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> Of course it is. What we have is Luke telling us what happened and in it he does not instruct like Jesus and the apostles, or James (an early TE) did.



That only punts the problem when we get to Hebrews. We know it wasn't written by an apostle because he "heard the message delivered." Yet this guy presumes to instruct us.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> That only punts the problem when we get to Hebrews. We know it wasn't written by an apostle because he "heard the message delivered." Yet this guy presumes to instruct us.



Which verse are you referring to?


----------



## Timotheos

Kinghezy said:


> I came across James White saying he thought Luke wrote (because of language) Hebrews based on a Paul sermon (because of theology). There was a post on the board that posited the same in an external link.
> 
> Does anyone on the board have any insights? I would not have the skill to analyze this, beyond saying "that theory sounds good".
> 
> I also added a poll.
> 
> P.S. if Luke, then Paul and Luke certainly have even more % of the New Testament.


This is a classic view. That Hebrews is a sermon is partly attested by the fact that it refers to itself as a "word of encouragement" (Heb 13:22) much in the same way that a sermon in Acts was called (Acts 13:15). Often, people cite Origen on the authorship issue of Hebrews essentially saying "who knows?" However, David Alan Black believes he was referring to the guy who penned it but not the speaker. In other words,, Black thinks Origen was saying it was likely Paul who preached it and whether it was Luke or someone else who wrote it down, "In truth, God knows." See here: https://www.daveblackonline.com/origen_on_the_authorship_of_hebr.htm

So White was presenting a popular and classic view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> Which verse are you referring to?



How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" - Hebrews 2:3 - The Holy Bible: King James Version.

This guy is a second-hand source, not an apostle. Apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ. The author of Hebrews isn't.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" - Hebrews 2:3 - The Holy Bible: King James Version.
> 
> This guy is a second-hand source, not an apostle. Apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ. The author of Hebrews isn't.



This could be Paul.


----------



## Smeagol

BayouHuguenot said:


> How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" - Hebrews 2:3 - The Holy Bible: King James Version.
> 
> This guy is a second-hand source, not an apostle. Apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ. The author of Hebrews isn't.


Jacob,

Could not an apostle truthfully make that same claim? Was not the gospel further confirmed by the miracles of the apostolic gifts? Even an apostle could have said that the apostolic ministry was a secondary confirming.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> This could be Paul.



No, it couldn't have. Paul's main argument in Galatians is that he received his message directly from Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Grant Jones said:


> Jacob,
> 
> Could not an apostle truthfully make that same claim? Was not the gospel further confirmed by the miracles of the apostolic gifts? Even an apostle could have said that the apostolic ministry was a secondary confirming.



An apostle *saw* Christ and *got his ministry* directly from Christ. The author of Hebrews certainly did not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

BayouHuguenot said:


> An apostle *saw* Christ and *got his ministry* directly from Christ. The author of Hebrews certainly did not.



I understand your point, but Paul's direct instruction was not exactly equivalent to that of the other Apostles. Even so, the writer to the Hebrews does not say "confirmed unto _me_" but "confirmed unto _us_." It is easy to think he was speaking corporately and for the majority. Similarly, as a teacher, I might begin a summary by saying, "today we learned..." yet if I taught I necessarily exclude myself since I had to already know in order to teach.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I rest my case.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## RamistThomist

timfost said:


> Even so, the writer to the Hebrews does not say "confirmed unto _me_" but "confirmed unto _us_."



Which is also something Paul would never have said. Had he said something like that in Jerusalem and Galatia, he would have been seen as a second-class apostle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which is also something Paul would never have said. Had he said something like that in Jerusalem and Galatia, he would have been seen as a second-class apostle.



 (is this a confused emoji?)

Not following...


----------



## RamistThomist

timfost said:


> (is this a confused emoji?)
> 
> Not following...



Galatians 1-2 is Paul's arguing that he received his gospel straight from Christ himself, which makes him an apostle. The author of hebrews is saying that he didn't get it straight from Christ himself.


----------



## timfost

BayouHuguenot said:


> Galatians 1-2 is Paul's arguing that he received his gospel straight from Christ himself, which makes him an apostle. The author of hebrews is saying that he didn't get it straight from Christ himself.



Not sure if you understand my point in post #55. Where does the writer to the Hebrews specifically state that he did not receive instruction from Christ _individually_? Heb. 2:3 doesn't seem to make clear what you propose.

In my best Inigo Montoya voice (*throat clear*) "I do not think it means what you think it means."


----------



## RamistThomist

timfost said:


> Not sure if you understand my point in post #55. Where does the writer to the Hebrews specifically state that he did not receive instruction from Christ _individually_? Heb. 2:3 doesn't seem to make clear what you propose.
> 
> In my best Inigo Montoya voice (*throat clear*) "I do not think it means what you think it means."



I don't need to prove that. That's special pleading. He includes himself within the category of those who haven't seen Christ. That's the most natural way to read the text and is usually the default position of exegetes. He doesn't speak like an apostle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy

@Grant Jones my goodness, we need a bigger bag of popcorn.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Kinghezy

Timotheos said:


> So White was presenting a popular and classic view.


Thanks. I do not think James White was indicating he had created it. I was not familiar with all theories, so it was new to me.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Kinghezy said:


> Thanks. I do not think James White was indicating he had created it. I was not familiar with all theories, so it was new to me.



I know for a fact that James White does not claim to have come up with this idea on his own, he just shares the idea with others who came before him.


----------



## terry43

I always believed it was Apollos ..but currently reading Pink on Hebrews..He makes an argument for Paul


----------



## Smeagol

@earl40 must have been the one to vote for Luke

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Paul1976

The fact that the letter to the Hebrews is a sermon (there doesn't seem to be much controversy here on that point) seems to support it not being Pauline. The vast majority of Paul's epistles were written to churches to address a problem. I am not aware of anyone who considers any of Paul's writings to be a sermon. The letter to the Hebrews is almost universally regarded as written to a specific church well-known to the author with a specific problem (in their case, members returning to Judaism) and many in the congregation tempted to do so. Why would Paul communicate to this group with a sermon when he has invariably dealt with other problems facing churches with a letter? I don't think the issue of someone transcribing the author is relevant as Paul usually dictated his letters. The similarity of Paul's other writings seems to offer a strong case that Paul made sure that whoever transcribed his writings did so accurately (by which I mean primarily at a word-for-word level). That Paul would have allowed someone to add flair to what he dictated seems quite unlikely.


----------



## Kinghezy

Paul1976 said:


> That Paul would have allowed someone to add flair to what he dictated seems quite unlikely.



Paul1976, That is just what a Paul would say!


----------



## earl40

Grant Jones said:


> @earl40 must have been the one to vote for Luke



Didn't vote.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

BayouHuguenot said:


> And to say that non-apostles/prophets can't give commands ignores the Reformed teaching of Good and Necessary Consequence.
> 
> For example, I have every right tell a believer that he is bound to confess God as 3 Persons/1 nature, yet no apostle ever said those words.
> 
> And to make matters much, much worse (and this is the ultimate clincher), assuming that "prophets" = NT prophets, and that prophets could give commands, this means Phillip's daughters could give commands.
> 
> So now we have the weird situation where Phillip's daughters could give theological commands to the church, whereas Luke couldn't!


Luke isn't identified in Scripture as a leader or teacher; his accounts are certainly inspired and authoritative but they are mostly narrative, and only in the places where Christ or the apostles are quoted are there didactic elements. I think in the case of Hebrews (didactic) we should look to those noted in the Bible as leaders/teachers in the church for authorship.

As for assuming that all those with prophetic gifts could give commands, it's good to note that the NT prophets were subject to the apostles' teaching (1 Corinthian 14:37-38), and their ministry was in the church, for "edification, and exhortation, and comfort." 1 Corinthians 14:3.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jeri Tanner said:


> and only in the places where Christ or the apostles are quoted are there didactic elements. I think in the case of Hebrews (didactic) we should look to those noted in the Bible as leaders/teachers in the church for authorship.



That assumes that narrative can't teach, which is refuted numerous times in Scripture (Paul tells a story in Galatians 5 and 1 Cor 10, yet that narrative teaches).


Jeri Tanner said:


> As for assuming that all those with prophetic gifts could give commands, it's good to note that the NT prophets were subject to the apostles' teaching (1 Corinthian 14:37-38), and their ministry was in the church, for "edification, and exhortation, and comfort." 1 Corinthians 14:3.



That's more of granting Earl's point for the sake of argument. I don't have anything riding on it, either way


----------



## RamistThomist

And in Acts 13:48 Luke teaches predestination, even though he doesn't have a right to. He's only allowed to tell stories


----------



## Jeri Tanner

BayouHuguenot said:


> That assumes that narrative can't teach, which is refuted numerous times in Scripture (Paul tells a story in Galatians 5 and 1 Cor 10, yet that narrative teaches).


Narratives do teach but not in the direct, didactic way of teaching and explaining doctrine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> And in Acts 13:48 Luke teaches predestination, even though he doesn't have a right to. He's only allowed to tell stories



This is a simple matter of stating fact.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> This is a simple matter of stating fact.





earl40 said:


> This is a simple matter of stating fact.



From which one may draw a theological inference that God has ordained people. This arbitrary divide between what is proper (didactic) and what is second place (narrative) is a novel way of reading Scripture.

But we are getting far afield. I don't think Luke wrote HEbrews.


----------



## RamistThomist

To relegate narrative to an inferior place and prize didactic above is a Greek way of thinking. I'm not going to stop people from limiting themselves to Greek thinking. I just think God's word is richer than that.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

BayouHuguenot said:


> This arbitrary divide between what is proper (didactic) and what is second place (narrative) is a novel way of reading Scripture.


Narrative and didactic are equally authoritative and both teach. There is also apocalyptic, which also teaches. One genre of Scripture should never be pitted against the other in terms of authority and being suitable for everything described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jeri Tanner said:


> Narrative and didactic are equally authoritative and both teach. There is also apocalyptic, which also teaches. One genre of Scripture should never be pitted against the other in terms of authority and being suitable for everything described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.



I must have misread you, for I thought you said that narrative *can't* teach (or maybe Earl said that).


----------



## Post Tenebras

Hey, Jude

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/m-selbrede-jude-wrote-hebrews.82166/


----------



## Dachaser

Kinghezy said:


> I came across James White saying he thought Luke wrote (because of language) Hebrews based on a Paul sermon (because of theology). There was a post on the board that posited the same in an external link.
> 
> Does anyone on the board have any insights? I would not have the skill to analyze this, beyond saying "that theory sounds good".
> 
> I also added a poll.
> 
> P.S. if Luke, then Paul and Luke certainly have even more % of the New Testament.


The ones that I have read mentioned are Luke, Barnabas, and Apollos.


----------



## timfost

Post Tenebras said:


> Hey, Jude...



... don't make it bad.

(Couldn't resist)


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Post Tenebras said:


> Hey, Jude
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/m-selbrede-jude-wrote-hebrews.82166/


This is an interesting theory that will probably send me down the rabbit hole. I can't recall this theory being proposed in my plethora of Hebrews commentaries.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> This is an interesting theory that will probably send me down the rabbit hole. I can't recall this theory being proposed in my plethora of Hebrews commentaries.



Pros and Cons

Pro: Jude had a more "proper" Greek than would Paul, so he would have been a more likely candidate.

Cons: I'm not 100% sure, but I think the author of Hebrews used the LXX whereas Jude usually didn't.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

BayouHuguenot said:


> Cons: I'm not 100% sure, but I think the author of Hebrews used the LXX whereas Jude usually didn't.



This would be of significance if accurate. I am going to investigate this when I get home. Thanks for the insight, as always.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Post Tenebras

Here's another examination of the Jude theory. I've bought into it, hence my lone "Not listed" vote in the survey. 

https://sharperiron.org/article/did-jude-write-hebrews


----------



## Kinghezy

Post Tenebras said:


> Here's another examination of the Jude theory. I've bought into it, hence my lone "Not listed" vote in the survey.
> 
> https://sharperiron.org/article/did-jude-write-hebrews




Added Jude as option.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> I must have misread you, for I thought you said that narrative *can't* teach (or maybe Earl said that).



Nope. Of course we can learn from a narrative.


----------



## Smeagol

Do we need an option for Gandalf? I have been reading LOTR lately and Gandalf’s linguistic ability seems to make him a feasible candidate.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Grant Jones said:


> Gandalf’s linguistic ability seems to make him a* feesible* candidate.



Hmm. Sounds expensive.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Tom Hart said:


> Hmm. Sounds expensive.


Quite.


----------



## Kinghezy

Grant Jones said:


> Do we need an option for Gandalf? I have been reading LOTR lately and Gandalf’s linguistic ability seems to make him a feesible candidate.



Sorry, gonna veto that one. Tom Bombadil however.... which reminds me, I think I got a notification from a Mr. Jones post about good olde Tom but said post was never seen. Curiouser an curiouser. I am not sure about this Mr. Jones here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

All found below has been laboriously typed from pages 328-329 of Word Pictures in the New Testament V 5. by A.T. Robertson, a Greek scholar and philologist of great note in the 20th century. 


> The Style
> It is called an epistle and so it is,but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows : "It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun." (Light From the Ancient East, pp. 70f.)
> 
> But Blass (Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of "a studied rhetorical periodicity (Thayer), but with many "parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of "the impetuous eloquence of Paul."
> 
> The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary Koine rather that to the vernacular. Moulton (Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.
> 
> The Author
> 
> Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries.
> 
> It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in 11:32 (_me diegoumenon_) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply _Pros Hebraious_ as the title, but place it before the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon.
> 
> In the light of all the facte one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.



Also by Roberston, his magnum opus, New Testament Greek In the Light of Historical Research, on pages 132 and 133 he goes into technical observations on the syntax and accidence of Hebrews which is over my head, and would be too much to type. If you have the Greek language skills it would be an interesting read I suppose.


----------



## Timotheos

I put not listed b/c the classic view that it was Paul's sermon manuscripted by Luke was not an option.


----------

