Hebrews 9:2-5

[Lulav]

Many believe that it wasn't Paul or Barnabas but instead, Apollos who was an Alexandrian Jew and would be most familiar with the Septuagint version of the Tenakh.

I've even heard it said that it was 'named' Hebrews because of the conflict of naming a book in the Bible after a false god.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Many believe that it wasn't Paul or Barnabas but instead, Apollos who was an Alexandrian Jew and would be most familiar with the Septuagint version of the Tenakh.

I've even heard it said that it was 'named' Hebrews because of the conflict of naming a book in the Bible after a false god.

I think it was Priscilla for many of the same reasons. I don't know that being a Levite would make a difference when it's twice stated that Moses and Levitical were of a lesser priesthood than melchezedec , given the emphasis on boldly pressing on.

 

[mark kennedy]

Many believe that it wasn't Paul or Barnabas but instead, Apollos who was an Alexandrian Jew and would be most familiar with the Septuagint version of the Tenakh.

I've even heard it said that it was 'named' Hebrews because of the conflict of naming a book in the Bible after a false god.

Well Barnabas would have been well acquainted with the LXX but not quite as Hellenized as Alexandrian Jews. The name for Hebrews would have been taken for the identity of the recipients, by the time it was written Rome would have already expelled the Jews. We know that Aquila and Priscilla eventually settled in Ephesus, as far as the Jews converted at Pentecost, it's hard to say.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[food4thought]

Now, the focus is on the inner chambers, the Holy Place and the day of atonement

Not at all, that passage is discussing the Day of Atonement, all the was really relevant was the censor.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... I respect and understand your position but it just doesn't satisfy me.

I always thought it was Barnabas, he was a Levite. His close associating with Paul could account for the book being profoundly Hebrew and at the same time, distinctly Pauline. It could also account for why the church went to such pains to preserve it. I also think it could account for why he didn't include his name, a Levite wouldn't do that. It's also a lesson on the Law, a role prescribed for the Levitical priesthood.

That's very possible... I honestly don't have a theory of who authored Hebrews as of right now. I used to lean strongly towards Paul, but not anymore.

 

[food4thought]

I think it was Priscilla for many of the same reasons. I don't know that being a Levite would make a difference when it's twice stated that Moses and Levitical were of a lesser priesthood than melchezedec , given the emphasis on boldly pressing on.

That's quite possible as well, Cassia.

 

[Lulav]

Well Barnabas would have been well acquainted with the LXX but not quite as Hellenized as Alexandrian Jews. The name for Hebrews would have been taken for the identity of the recipients, by the time it was written Rome would have already expelled the Jews. We know that Aquila and Priscilla eventually settled in Ephesus, as far as the Jews converted at Pentecost, it's hard to say.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Maybe but that doesn't always hold true.

In the book titled James we read

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

That could very well be titled Hebrews as it does have an address to those it was written to. However 'Hebrews' doesn't have that kind of opening as in all the other letters.

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe but that doesn't always hold true.

In the book titled James we read

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

That could very well be titled Hebrews as it does have an address to those it was written to. However 'Hebrews' doesn't have that kind of opening as in all the other letters.

James wasn't a Levite, he was a descendant of David just like Jesus. He overseen the Council of Jerusalem and was no doubt seen as from the royal line. Levites didn't sign their work, while subtle, I think the letter to the Hebrews is a Levitical work. Obviously that's just my opinion but it fits into what I understand about Levitical teaching. The Levites are strangely silent during the Gospels when the OT makes it clear their duty was to teach the Law. Instead we seen Scribes, Pharisees and teachers of the Law. I've always wondered, where were the priests in all of this, the High Priest not withstanding. Barnabas and John Mark were both Levites and I think they brought some of the Levitical traditions with regards to teaching and how to preserve the sacred scrolls to the NT church.