Human Author of Hebrews

[RamistThomist]

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.

 

[Kinghezy]

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

 

[Kinghezy]

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]

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

 

[Grant]

@earl40 must have been the one to vote for Luke

 

[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]

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]

@earl40 must have been the one to vote for Luke

Didn't vote.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

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).

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]

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.

 

[earl40]

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]

This is a simple matter of stating fact.

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]

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

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]

Hey, Jude...

... don't make it bad.

(Couldn't resist)

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

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]

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.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

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.

 

[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]

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.

 

[earl40]

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.

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Tom Hart]

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

Hmm. Sounds expensive.

 

[Grant]

Hmm. Sounds expensive.

Quite.