Tradition vs Scholarship

[Santiago DO]

Hi family, maybe my question will sound a little silly. But I think it is really important.

There are and there have been people who work hard in an honest and a reverent way in order to teach the Church. But some of their "findings" cast doubt on things like:
Did Jeremiah write lamentation?
Did Paul write Hebrews?
Did the apostle John write 2 and 3 John?

Certainly, most conservative Christians won't say there are two Isaiahs because of some "difficulties" in his book. But, don't you think that the doubts mentioned above could evolve, somehow, in errors like the last one?

 

[RamistThomist]

Hi family, maybe my question will sound a little silly. But I think it is really important.

There are and there have been people who work hard in an honest and a reverent way in order to teach the Church. But some of their "findings" cast doubt on things like:
Did Jeremiah write lamentation?
Did Paul write Hebrews?
Did the apostle John write 2 and 3 John?

Certainly, most conservative Christians won't say there are two Isaiahs because of some "difficulties" in his book. But, don't you think that the doubts mentioned above could evolve, somehow, in errors like the last one?

Paul almost certainly didn't write Hebrews.

John wrote 2 and 3 John, but which John? I usually default to the traditional reading since I have nothing riding on it.

 

[Romans922]

Paul wrote Hebrews, most certainly. https://purelypresbyterian.com/2018/03/08/proof-that-the-apostle-Paul-wrote-hebrews/

The apostle John who laid upon the bosom of Jesus wrote 1-3 John.

 

[iainduguid]

Hi family, maybe my question will sound a little silly. But I think it is really important.

There are and there have been people who work hard in an honest and a reverent way in order to teach the Church. But some of their "findings" cast doubt on things like:
Did Jeremiah write lamentation?
Did Paul write Hebrews?
Did the apostle John write 2 and 3 John?

Certainly, most conservative Christians won't say there are two Isaiahs because of some "difficulties" in his book. But, don't you think that the doubts mentioned above could evolve, somehow, in errors like the last one?

We should be careful to distinguish between what Scripture actually clearly teaches and what we may come to believe based on a careful reading of Scripture. Scripture directly teaches that the Book of Isaiah is a record of the Lord's words that came to that prophet; it does not tell us directly whether Jeremiah wrote Lamentations, or who wrote Hebrews (about which there have been questions at least back to the time of Origen), or which John wrote the Johannine letters. The canonicity and authority of these books does not rest on knowing their authors, but their self-authenticating nature as Scripture. We may ourselves be convinced of one view or another for good reasons, but other faithful Christians may disagree with us. These are legitimate topics of discussion and debate.

 

[ZackF]

I remember listening to RYM where Sproul, though I don't remember the exact words, said that he believed Paul wrote Hebrews. He qualified that by saying something like that view is the minority of the minority report.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hebrews was almost certainly written by Constantine. Didn't he give us the Bible?

 

[Taylor]

Paul almost certainly didn't write Hebrews.

I’m not convicted either way here, but I wonder what you think of the possibility that Hebrews is a Pauline sermon transcribed by someone with higher Greek. That’s kind of where I lean, anyway.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I’m not convicted either way here, but I wonder what you think of the possibility that Hebrews is a Pauline sermon transcribed by someone with higher Greek. That’s kind of where I lean, anyway.

Pauline in thought, written by Luke?

 

[RamistThomist]

I’m not convicted either way here, but I wonder what you think of the possibility that Hebrews is a Pauline sermon transcribed by someone with higher Greek. That’s kind of where I lean, anyway.

That is a better position than simply saying Paul wrote it. The problem, though, is the author says the gospel was "attested to us by those who heard" (2:3). That's probably the death-knell to Pauline authorship. Paul saw the risen Lord. In fact, one of his main arguments in Galatians is that he saw Jesus and did not get his message from others. The author of Hebrews specifically says he got his message from others.

 

[Polanus1561]

Belgic Confession mentions Paul as the author. Whatever you believe, this view has Reformed pedigree

 

[Taylor]

Pauline in thought, written by Luke?

Yeah, maybe Pauline in delivery, transcribed in Lucan vocabulary. Jacob answered my question very well above.

 

[SolaScriptura]

That is a better position than simply saying Paul wrote it. The problem, though, is the author says the gospel was "attested to us by those who heard" (2:3). That's probably the death-knell to Pauline authorship. Paul saw the risen Lord. In fact, one of his main arguments in Galatians is that he saw Jesus and did not get his message from others. The author of Hebrews specifically says he got his message from others.

Exactly. There is so much internal evidence against it that it appears to be a mere desperate grasp at traditionalism to assert Pauline authorship.

 

[RamistThomist]

Belgic Confession mentions Paul as the author. Whatever you believe, this view has Reformed pedigree

I understand that. It does not make the internal evidence go away, though.

 

[chuckd]

That is a better position than simply saying Paul wrote it. The problem, though, is the author says the gospel was "attested to us by those who heard" (2:3). That's probably the death-knell to Pauline authorship. Paul saw the risen Lord. In fact, one of his main arguments in Galatians is that he saw Jesus and did not get his message from others. The author of Hebrews specifically says he got his message from others.

Paul says in Gal. 2:2 that he did this very thing. "I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain."

So he can say in Heb. 2:3 that the message was confirmed to him by those who heard.

 

[chuckd]

Paul wrote Hebrews, most certainly. https://purelypresbyterian.com/2018/03/08/proof-that-the-apostle-Paul-wrote-hebrews/

The apostle John who laid upon the bosom of Jesus wrote 1-3 John.

Owen's 14th point is what convinced me. My pastor was teaching Sunday school and read a section out of Colossians. When he read Col. 2:17 I thought - where have I heard that phrase before? That ceremonial laws are "shadows". Because that's a very unique word to use to describe them.

Then I remembered. That's the argument in Hebrews. And the author uses that same unique word to describe ceremonial laws (Heb. 10:1).

 

[RamistThomist]

Paul says in Gal. 2:2 that he did this very thing. "I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain."

So he can say in Heb. 2:3 that the message was confirmed to him by those who heard.

That does not follow. Hebrews 2 says the author had it "attested" to him "by those who heard." Paul skipped the middleman, so to speak.

 

[chuckd]

That does not follow. Hebrews 2 says the author had it "attested" to him "by those who heard." Paul skipped the middleman, so to speak.

Yes, attested, confirmed, assured. Which they did in Gal. 2:2. Those in Jerusalem attested that the gospel he was proclaiming was sound and that he was not running in vain.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Paul almost certainly didn't write Hebrews.

John wrote 2 and 3 John, but which John? I usually default to the traditional reading since I have nothing riding on it.

So what is Peter referring to in 2 Peter 3:15?

 

[RamistThomist]

So what is Peter referring to in 2 Peter 3:15?

The Pauline epistles

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

The Pauline epistles

Which?

Edit to clarify: I think the most plausible candidate for this reference is the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[RamistThomist]

Which?

Edit to clarify: I think the most plausible candidate for this reference is the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The most plausible candidates are the ones which Paul said he wrote

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Again, which? Peter seems to be writing to Jews in Asia Minor. The letters Paul wrote (bearing his name) to churches in Asia Minor are predominantly to Gentiles. The letters he wrote which treat of the subject Peter is treating of (patience under persecution) are to churches in Greece. Thus, none of the Pauline epistles which are "signed" (as it were) by Paul are very likely candidates for what Peter is referencing.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Again, which? Peter seems to be writing to Jews in Asia Minor. The letters Paul wrote (bearing his name) to churches in Asia Minor are predominantly to Gentiles. The letters he wrote which treat of the subject Peter is treating of (patience under persecution) are to churches in Greece. Thus, none of the Pauline epistles which are "signed" (as it were) by Paul are very likely candidates for what Peter is referencing.

Is it possible that it was those same letters, albeit in circulation? In other words, not the same primary audience, but Peter was aware that Paul’s letters to other churches had been circulated among them?

 

[RamistThomist]

It might be theoretically possible that Paul fits that frame, but it doesn't evade the evidence that the author of Hebrews received word of the gospel from men, unlike Paul.

 

[py3ak]

If 1 & 2 Peter were sent to roughly the same recipients, 1 Peter 1:1 might provide a clue.
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

 

[iainduguid]

I can't help feeling we're missing the question in the original post, which was not "Who wrote Hebrews?" but "Is it okay for scholars to discuss who wrote Hebrews, or does that inevitably lead to casting doubt on people's faith?" Perhaps the thread adequately demonstrates that there is a variety of belief on this Board, which does not seem obviously to be leading to undermining people's faith. But others may feel differently.

 

[Eyedoc84]

To the OP: I don’t think raising doubts on things the scriptures don’t teach undermine our faith.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I think I understand the OP's concern that refuting Paul's authoring Hebrews could at least be troubling. To do so is to go against the grain of the testimony of early church history and so many reformers and puritans, like John Owen and Matthew Henry, who told us that the book of Hebrews agrees very well with Pauline writing. (Were men of such magnitude really just rubes who had missed something? )

 

[Eyedoc84]

I think I understand the OP's concern that refuting Paul's authoring Hebrews could at least be troubling. To do so is to go against the grain of the testimony of early church history and so many reformers and puritans, like John Owen and Matthew Henry, who told us that the book of Hebrews agrees very well with Pauline writing. (Were men of such magnitude really just rubes who had missed something? )

Then again, neither was Calvin a rube, and he rejected Pauline authorship. The testimony of early church history is quite varied.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

It is varied, but the majority of the faithful church has taken Paul to be the author. Calvin was brilliant and godly, but others who came after him and were also brilliant and godly (like John Owen) did scholarly work on Hebrews and on doctrinal matters that Calvin didn't undertake.