author of Hebrews?

I heard that there is controversy over whether it was Paul or not. Why and who else is thought to have authored it?

__________________
"If God leads you to walk a way that you know, it will not benefit you as much as if He would lead you to take the way that you do not know. This forces you to have hundreds and thousands of conversations with Him, resulting in a journey that is an everlasting memorial between you and Him."

Watchman Nee

I do not think it was directly penned by Paul for a couple of reasons... first, it doesn't really sound like Paul as it is extremely rabbinic in style. Secondly, the writer hardly ever mentions himself, unlike Paul's other works were he appears to have the biggest ego imaginable.

that said there is a set of 18 mp3 files as a bible study on the book of Hebrews by the renowned Tom Lancaster, available from this link. (but only attempt it if you have broadband.

other people implicated in its writing have been barnabus, luke (and Paul) and a few others which most discount.


Steve

p.s. its easier to pin down when it was written, to whom and why then to locate its author.

__________________

Some have said that Apollos is the author as well. I think there is some room for debate on the subject but if you opt for anyone but Paul then that would remove it from the canon since its canonicity hinged on whether or not it was actually written by Paul.

__________________
Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese. - G.K. Chesterton

really, i thought its canonicity was based upon its content. I do not think really it matters one way or the other who wrote it, but I am glad they did.


Steve

__________________

Seeing how the early church as a whole accepted it very early on gives good testimony to it being canonical. I know the east accepted it before the west but still it was widely accepted early on.

I agree with cyber, I think the content and the witness of the Spirit shows it is canonical also regardless of who wrote it. Paul was not an eyewitness but someone given special revelation, so may be the case with the author of Hebrews. It seems clear the author knew Paul or at least those who Paul was associated with since it mentions Timothy.

__________________
ἕλπ μι

Ephesians 6:24 ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth he either ceases to be mistaken or begins to be dishonest.

Those churches which accepted it as part of the canon also believed it to be written by Paul and the churches which rejected it, rejected it because they did not believe it to be written by Paul. For a good summary of this check out this.

Just because a document contains things which are true does not make it part of the canon. I find no doctrinal errors in the Epistle of St. Polycarp but that doesn't make it part of the canon.

__________________
Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese. - G.K. Chesterton

They may have accepted it as Paul, but that by no means make them correct. I it obvious the author is associated with Paul but this letter does not conform to Paul's style of writing

__________________
ἕλπ μι

Ephesians 6:24 ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth he either ceases to be mistaken or begins to be dishonest.

Are you only capable of writing in one particular style? Like I said before, I'm not willing to say dogmatically that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews but the question of canonicity hinges on this question. If he is the author then the Epistle should be included as part of the canon, if not then it shouldn't be.

I do think it interesting some of the bizarre things that modern scholarship is so ready to assume. I took a college class on the Epistles of Paul and the professor was asserting that 1 Corinthians was a compilation of 12 other letters based upon stylistic differences. I sometimes wonder what would happen if we subjected modern authors and scholars to the same level of criticism that we subject ancient authors to.

I really don't see the idea of Paul being the author difficult to believe. All of his other letters were written to a Gentile audience, Hebrews was written to a Jewish audience. It would merely demonstrate that Paul knew his audience well and how they thought. Paul demonstrates elsewhere that he is well versed in Greek literature and I'm certain he was well versed in Jewish literature as well. Both groups of people has distinctive ways of thinking.

When I write posts or letters to various audiences I use a different vocabularly and writing style.

__________________
Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese. - G.K. Chesterton

Not necessarily. Even though it may be true that it was only included because it was thought to have been written by Paul that doesn't necessarily exclude it from canon if he wasn't the author. It depends how the canon was defined. If the canon was defined based on the logic and reasoning of the early christians then it would be true that the canonicity of Hebrews is dependent on its authorship. However, if the canon was defined by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit then perhaps he could have used Pauline authorship as a tool to bring about his purposes for the canon. Regardless, I'd agree with others that the standards for canonship rest more on content than they do on authorship.

If we simply define canonicity on the basis of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then why shouldn't the Epistle of St. Polycarp be included?

__________________
Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese. - G.K. Chesterton