Who wrote Hebrews???

[StrictBaptist]

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]

Paul

 

[KMK]

The Holy Spirit

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Phoebe

 

[R Harris]

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]

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]

Peter. Romans 11:13 and Galatians 2:8

 

[nwink]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The Holy Spirit

"Mystery" solved!

 

[MW]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Makes sense. Good thoughts.

 

[N. Eshelman]

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]

There is an explicit Continental confessional statement on this?

 

[Unoriginalname]

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]

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]

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.