Tradition vs Scholarship

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hebrews 2:3 clearly reads that "it was confirmed to us by those who heard", εβεβαιωθη. The word is in connection to v. 2, which says that the things revealed by angels were made firm, βέβαιος. The idea of confirmation is that something was once given and then confirmed or reaffirmed, which is what we see in v. 3, where it says Christ spoke these things and the apostles (those who heard) confirmed them. I see the idea of the verse as being akin to a document given by a witness and confirmed by a notary, where the authority of the apostles serves as public confirmation of the truth of the gospel. The idea of two or more witnesses testifying is present throughout Scripture, including quite prominently in the gospel of John. But if the second half of the verse, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, implies that those included in "to us" were not present for the initial delivery of the message, it is unclear to me why the first half of the verse, stating that the revelation was begun by Christ (and thus in need of confirmation) would not imply the contrary, that they did hear from Christ. Nothing is confirmed which was not first given. Ultimately I think the verse is more about the manner of delivery of the message of Scripture and its public authority than whether the speaker participated in that process (which he evidently did if Hebrews is contained in the bible).
 
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?
Yes I think that is possible, but much less likely than that Peter is referring to Hebrews. Particularly since Peter says Paul wrote to the same people.
 
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.

I am a medievalist, so I certainly appreciate defaulting to the fathers if all other things are equal. Nonetheless, many here have suggested that the evidence does not support Owen's conclusion. (And yes, I think Owen is the far better theologian than Calvin; it's not even close).

I also appreciate guys like John Gill. I use him as a hammer to smite the ESS heretic.
 
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.
I agree. The fact that this been discussed by the likes of Calvin, Owen, and earlier and later believers throughout history itself demonstrates that such discussion is not harmful to faith.
 
I agree. The fact that this been discussed by the likes of Calvin, Owen, and earlier and later believers throughout history itself demonstrates that such discussion is not harmful to faith.
Even the KJV Bible seems to take two positions on the matter. It has the title of the book as "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews" and has a translator's note saying at the end "Written to the Hebrewes, from Italy, by Timothie."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top