Who is the author of Hebrews?

[oldsage]

Well, the letter certainly isn't Paul, it isn't in the same style as Paul, for one the author never talks about himself, and we know Paul always referred to himself. It was written some time after Timothy was released from prison in Rome. Which would put it after the death of Paul. It was written before AD 67, because the author doesn't mention the Jewish revolt, which would have been relevant to his topic. It was written by a Hellenistic Jew, one who knew Greek well. It was also someone from the Paul's circle of friends because the theology is close to Paul's.

It wouldn't be a Jew from Palestine because he addresses a group of people called The Hebrews. If you are part of a group you wouldn't address the people in such a way.

So, I would say the possible writers of this letter would be: Luke, Apollos, Barnabas or some who were in that circle.

Chris

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Who is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews?

God.

 

[Macrina]

God.

Well, I suppose that cuts straight to the point!

Essentially it's the same as what I meant when I said its presence in the Canon is sufficient for me. I trust that it is inspired, regardless of human authorship.

It would be nice to know more about the human author, though -- it's an extraordinary book.

 

[Knowledge3]

God.

No.

God wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger.

Hebrews was written by an unknown and anointed author who was a Jew of the priestly tribe of Levi.

 

[Knowledge3]

Well, I suppose that cuts straight to the point!

Essentially it's the same as what I meant when I said its presence in the Canon is sufficient for me. I trust that it is inspired, regardless of human authorship.

It would be nice to know more about the human author, though -- it's an extraordinary book.

It's not quite that simple.

The most detailed information about Hebrews is lost in the cryptic-puzzle of Patristic scholarship:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelhebrews.html

<excerpt>In The Other Gospels, Ron Cameron provides the following information: "The Gospel of the Hebrews may have been known to Papias (a church writer who died ca. 130 C.E., whose five-volume 'Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord' is now lost, preserved only in a few quotations in the writings of Eusebius),<excerpt>

<excerpt>Cameron makes these observations on dating and provenance: "The earliest possible date of the composition of the Gospel of the Hebrews would be in the middle of the first century, when Jesus traditions were first being produced and collected as part of the wisdom tradition. The latest possible date would be in the middle of the second century, shortly before the first reference to this gospel by Hegesippus and the quotations of it by Clement and Origen. Based on the parallels in the morphology of the tradition, an earlier date of composition is more likely than a later one. Internal evidence and external attestation indicate that Egypt was its place of origin."<excerpt>

 

[Macrina]

It's not quite that simple.

The most detailed information about Hebrews is lost in the cryptic-puzzle of Patristic scholarship:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelhebrews.html

<excerpt>In The Other Gospels, Ron Cameron provides the following information: "The Gospel of the Hebrews may have been known to Papias (a church writer who died ca. 130 C.E., whose five-volume 'Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord' is now lost, preserved only in a few quotations in the writings of Eusebius),<excerpt>

<excerpt>Cameron makes these observations on dating and provenance: "The earliest possible date of the composition of the Gospel of the Hebrews would be in the middle of the first century, when Jesus traditions were first being produced and collected as part of the wisdom tradition. The latest possible date would be in the middle of the second century, shortly before the first reference to this gospel by Hegesippus and the quotations of it by Clement and Origen. Based on the parallels in the morphology of the tradition, an earlier date of composition is more likely than a later one. Internal evidence and external attestation indicate that Egypt was its place of origin."<excerpt>

I don't see how what you posted related to my comments. Could you please explain? Thanks.

 

[Knowledge3]

I don't see how what you posted related to my comments. Could you please explain? Thanks.

You agreed with CJ that God wrote Hebrews, which is not true or accurate.

And my post is also interrelated to the topic of the thread.

 

[Macrina]

You agreed with CJ that God wrote Hebrews, which is not true or accurate.

1) You may believe otherwise, but my belief is that God the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of all scripture ("all scripture is God-breathed") through the human authors, and as such God may be considered the ultimate "author" of scripture. The individual human writers leave an impression of their personalities and theology, but that which is preserved in scripture is recognized as divinely inspired as well. Thus, all canonical books are of both divine and human authorship.

2) I still don't see how what you posted contradicted #1.

 

[Knowledge3]

1) You may believe otherwise, but my belief is that God the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of all scripture ("all scripture is God-breathed") through the human authors, and as such God may be considered the ultimate "author" of scripture. The individual human writers leave an impression of their personalities and theology, but that which is preserved in scripture is recognized as divinely inspired as well. Thus, all canonical books are of both divine and human authorship.

That is what I believe as well.

But it is not quite so simple as CJ made it out to be.

 

[a_ntv]

You agreed with CJ that God wrote Hebrews, which is not true or accurate.

I agree
To say that God is the author of the letter of the Hebrew, is true but not accurate.

From the Cathechism:

"To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more (CCC 106)

To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words (CCC 109)

and very important:
In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. (CCC 110)

I suggest all to read the few pages of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church about the Bible: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PO.HTM

 

[Macrina]

That is what I believe as well.

But it is not quite so simple as CJ made it out to be.

Oh, I doubt he was denying human authorship -- justing giving the final credit where credit is due. Or at least, that's how I figured it.


Since there is so much doubt about the human author, I am comforted by the knowledge that the divine Author is sure.

 

[Macrina]

I agree
To say that God is the author of the letter of the Hebrew, is true but not accurate.

From the Cathechism:

"To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more (CCC 106)

To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words (CCC 109)

and very important:
In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. (CCC 110)

I suggest all to read the few pages of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church about the Bible: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PO.HTM

This doesn't contradict what I was saying -- I was merely making the point that God gets the ultimate credit for the inspiration of scripture. This does not negate the importance of studying the original context, including the human author.


Oh, and the confessions of my denomination say much the same thing about scripture as yours.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Oh, I doubt he was denying human authorship -- justing giving the final credit where credit is due. Or at least, that's how I figured it.


Since there is so much doubt about the human author, I am comforted by the knowledge that the divine Author is sure.

Again, here's what I was taught in the Catholic Church. I believe it's correct. "The Bible is inspired by God. What does this mean? It means that GOD is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to white as He wished and guided them to do so without error."

Now, if you want to make a HUGE deal that God didn't actually hold the pen - I agree. He certainly employed those penmen. I embrace the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture as a mystery - the dynamics I do not claim to know (or, as far as I understand it, does the CC). Only that while there were penmen employed, that results is God's written Word. The dynamics of that (like so many things) I leave to mystery.

IMHO, WHO was the penmen of these books is not of primary importants. There has always been some question about all of John's traditional ones, 2 Peter, James, Jude, etc. IMHO, whoever the penmen might have been is not the cause of my trust. God is. For 2,000 years, we have considered the holy inerrant written Word of God to be authoritative and normative because it's the Word of God - not because it's the words of Luke or Jude or whatever.


My $0.01


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Knowledge3]

Oh, I doubt he was denying human authorship -- justing giving the final credit where credit is due. Or at least, that's how I figured it.


Since there is so much doubt about the human author, I am comforted by the knowledge that the divine Author is sure.

For me, patristic accuracy and historic authenticity is important.

That's the primary difference.

 

[Macrina]

IMHO, WHO was the penmen of these books is not of primary importants. ... For 2,000 years, we have considered the holy inerrant written Word of God to be authoritative and normative because it's the Word of God - not because it's the words of Luke or Jude or whatever.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say with my point about them being canonical even if the human author (or "penman" if you wish) is unknown.

 

[Macrina]

For me, patristic accuracy and historic authenticity is important.

That's the primary difference.

That is the point I was making about canonicity.

 

[DreamerOfDreams]

Some consider Hebrews to be an addenda to Galatians.