Author of Hebrews

[visionary]

I have heard that it could have been James, the brother of Yeshua because his continued ministry daily at the temple in Jerusalem. There is many speculations as to who is really the author.

One thing is for sure, there is enough differences to feel that this is not from Paul, although I have heard a few who think so.

I have had one suggest that it could be Barnabas, but I do not think so as there was nothing indicating that Barnabas was all that familiar with the inside temple services.

I truly do believe it could have been a Levite believer who was trained in the inner workings of the priest hood at the the temple in Jerusalem though. As to who I don't know.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Others have suggested Priscilla (a woman!).

It certainly wasn't written by Paul.

 

[Heber]

Some scholars now posit the idea that it is a second half of Matthew...

 

[visionary]

Some of the reasons why I do not think that it is Paul. I understand that the author's grasp of the Greek language is superior to Paul's. The more eloquent and poetic in style of writting along with the knowledge just doesn't sound like something Paul would write. Paul's thoughts tend to run off on tangents while the book of Hebrews follows a systematic line of reason from start to finish. Paul's style is to continually refer to himself with the use of personal pronouns like "I", "me", "my", and "mine". The author of the book of Hebrews refers to himself only 7 times in the entire book.

 

[visionary]

Other people have suggested that it was Apollos... because ..

Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord... Acts 18:24

I have read where it would also explain why the author never put his name to the book. If Apollos was the author of Hebrews, it would also make perfect sense why he didn't identify himself as the author. Since the letter was written to the Hebrew people, it would be counterproductive to identify himself by name, because the Jews made so much of a person's name. A name was expected to indicate something about a person. Apollos was born in Alexandria Egypt and named after the pagan god Apollo... the son of Zeus! A book written by someone named "Apollos" would have three strikes against it right from the start in the eyes of most Hebrew people.

 

[Heber]

Some of the reasons why I do not think that it is Paul. I understand that the author's grasp of the Greek language is superior to Paul's. The more eloquent and poetic in style of writting along with the knowledge just doesn't sound like something Paul would write. Paul's thoughts tend to run off on tangents while the book of Hebrews follows a systematic line of reason from start to finish. Paul's style is to continually refer to himself with the use of personal pronouns like "I", "me", "my", and "mine". The author of the book of Hebrews refers to himself only 7 times in the entire book.

Don't know what's happening here - what I typed out is not what is below! (now it is how I typed it)

Provided, of course Paul wrote his own books in Greek - of which there is little, if any, proof! It may have been written in Hebrew originally, by Paul, and translated later or Paul may have dictated the book to a scribe whose translation from Hebrew to Greek was quite 'rough'. A different scribe could then have been used by Paul to translate a book - possibly Hebrews - which would give different slants to the ability to translate and would make his books read very differently as far as language is concerned. It is interesting to ponder why it was necessary to write a book in Greek, all about the Temple and its various activities etc etc., when its obvious natural audience would be Hebrew speaking peoples.

The argument is not really a provable point and is best buried, in my opinion, for the reasons I have stated.

 

[visionary]

Other things might be uncovered while trying to solve this mystery...

 

[Heber]

Other things might be uncovered while trying to solve this mystery...

I had trouble with my post 'losing' what I had typed - it is now correct, if you wish to re-read it.

 

[visionary]

Interesting thought regarding the need for it to be written in Greek in the first place.. The only thing I can think of is that it was written for those in Diaspora.. who were more familiar with the Greek language. Just a thought.

 

[yedida]

Interesting thought regarding the need for it to be written in Greek in the first place.. The only thing I can think of is that it was written for those in Diaspora.. who were more familiar with the Greek language. Just a thought.

Now I had just the total opposite thought. To me, it sounds like the author is trying to reassure the local Hebrews that just because the Temple is no more, for all these past years they have actually had something much better and the lack of a Temple is nothing. The Temple was a good thing but Yeshua is better.

 

[anisavta]

Whoever it was had a grasp on Torah.

 

[visionary]

Now I had just the total opposite thought. To me, it sounds like the author is trying to reassure the local Hebrews that just because the Temple is no more, for all these past years they have actually had something much better and the lack of a Temple is nothing. The Temple was a good thing but Yeshua is better.

Good point... there is a wonderful re-assurance that nothing the Lord institutes goes to waste.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Don't know what's happening here - what I typed out is not what is below! (now it is how I typed it)

Provided, of course Paul wrote his own books in Greek - of which there is little, if any, proof! It may have been written in Hebrew originally, by Paul, and translated later or Paul may have dictated the book to a scribe whose translation from Hebrew to Greek was quite 'rough'. A different scribe could then have been used by Paul to translate a book - possibly Hebrews - which would give different slants to the ability to translate and would make his books read very differently as far as language is concerned. It is interesting to ponder why it was necessary to write a book in Greek, all about the Temple and its various activities etc etc., when its obvious natural audience would be Hebrew speaking peoples.

The argument is not really a provable point and is best buried, in my opinion, for the reasons I have stated.

Doesn't really make much sense that Paul would write to Gentiles in Hebrew. Even non-Palestinian Jews did not speak Hebrew; hence, the need for the Septuagint in the first place. That's a strange proposition.

Paul's Greek is good and creative, and I don't think there's any reason to assume that it's translated.

 

[visionary]

Wasn't "hebrew" used to keep some out of the understanding loop .. so to speak.. After all this letter is for those who are more than babes still on milk..

 

[yonah_mishael]

Interesting thought regarding the need for it to be written in Greek in the first place.. The only thing I can think of is that it was written for those in Diaspora.. who were more familiar with the Greek language. Just a thought.

Not just a thought. It's correct. It would be absurd for someone to write a letter (intended for public reading) to the American Jewish community in Hebrew, since a letter read in public in Hebrew would not be understood. It would be even MORE absurd to write a letter in Hebrew to American Gentiles who had learned about Judaism second-hand and did not have any formal training in Hebrew at all (even enough to read the siddur without understanding).

That's what is being proposed: that Paul wrote letters to Gentile churches (was he not the apostle to the uncircumcision, or was he just blowing smoke when he said that?) in a language that they wouldn't even understand! Paul was a Diaspora Jew himself, and Greek was clearly his first language (that is, mother tongue, what he spoke fluently and without thinking). This comes out in the letters, which are in flowing and creative Greek - meaning, he could easily coin phrases and flow from one thought to another using correct Greek constructions that are not interrupted.

Hebrews is in better polished Greek, for sure. It approaches literary style, using uncommon Koine expresses and strong grammatical connection. Paul's Greek is exactly what you would expect from a good writer at the time. It makes no sense at all to assume that it was translated -- either from the cultural side (as you've pointed out) or from the language as it appears in the letters. Translated Greek was very different from what we see there.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Now I had just the total opposite thought. To me, it sounds like the author is trying to reassure the local Hebrews that just because the Temple is no more, for all these past years they have actually had something much better and the lack of a Temple is nothing. The Temple was a good thing but Yeshua is better.

The Temple is referred to as a present reality in the book of Hebrews. The idea of its destruction is never presented. It was written before its destruction.

 

[anisavta]

My take is that the early believers were being forced to make a choice - temple without Yeshua or Yeshua without temple. They were not welcomed among their People. The author is showing them that it's not worth it for them to give up salvation and following Messiah just so they could continue to worship in the temple. He's comparing the finite temple (which we on this side of history know of its destruction) with the infinite Messiah and showing them that they need to endure and run the race knowing their reward is better - thus Chapter 11 - the "hall of faith".

 

[yedida]

The Temple is referred to as a present reality in the book of Hebrews. The idea of its destruction is never presented. It was written before its destruction.

Ani's post #17 is basically what I had in mind. Whether the temple was physically there or not, the believers were not welcome there. So where Temple worship was a good thing, what they had had for years in Yeshua was far greater. (I just used poor wording.)

 

[Heber]

As I said, the argument is not provable one way or the other and should be buried. There are so many variations and possibilities, some of which I outlined.

 

[visionary]

The book of Hebrews plays even a larger role, because it expands on the reality of the heavenly sanctuary upon which Moses got his blue print for the earthly tabernacle and the services contained within on how would be constructed and operate. If it wasn't for the Book of Hebrews, then Revelation would not make semse.. connect one... makes the others connect...

Moses makes what he saw in heaven with his "illustration in the sand" the rehearsals, etc.. Then comes the transition when Yeshua goes to the heavenly sanctuary to perform the real life changing sacrificial services and atonement applications to the lives of the believers... and finally comes John with his trip to see Yeshua in action in the heavenly sanctuary..

and we find not only is Yeshua performing priestly services but also King and Judge roles in God's court room and throne room... If it were not for these two books we would have not even have a glimmer of a view of what is happening ...

If we do not understand how the temple services operate, how are we going to understand what it truly means to be a "Temple of God"