- May 3, 2016
- 1,767
- 287
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
It may surprise some to find out that John the Apostle did not write the Gospel that bears his name, and Luke the Apostle wrote Hebrews.
It may surprise some to find out that John the Apostle did not write the Gospel that bears his name, and Luke the Apostle wrote Hebrews.
It may surprise some to find out that John the Apostle did not write the Gospel that bears his name, and Luke the Apostle wrote Hebrews.
It may surprise some to find out that John the Apostle did not write the Gospel that bears his name, and Luke the Apostle wrote Hebrews.
It would surprise me if it were true. I think John wrote the Gospel bearing his name because the skepticism regarding John's authorship remains insubstantial. Obviously I hold to a traditional understanding of the authorship of the books of the Bible. As far as Luke authoring Hebrews the authorship seems to be up for grabs, I have had to depart from traditional authorship being Paul because of what I know about Paul's ability to identify himself. Don't get me wrong, I think the book is profoundly Pauline but the style looks Levetical to me. I am of the opinion that Barnabas wrote Hebrews and represents an important oral tradition in written form very close to the Old Testament Levetical books. The writers of various passages like the one in Genesis where it says Moses died indicate Levetical writing was often anonymous.It may surprise some to find out that John the Apostle did not write the Gospel that bears his name, and Luke the Apostle wrote Hebrews.
So who did write John's Gospel?It may surprise some to find out that John the Apostle did not write the Gospel that bears his name, and Luke the Apostle wrote Hebrews.
Have you read the opposing scholarship of Bauckham, Carlson, Trebilco and others who argue that the early church fathers (including Irenaeus) did not identify the Evangelist with John the Apostle?"Surprised" is not the word.
The universal testimony of the early church fathers is that John the Apostle, the beloved disciple, wrote the Gospel of John.
Craig Keener states the position of the early church fathers,
“Consonant with what we find from the internal evidence, church tradition identifies the author of the Fourth Gospel with the Apostle John.”1
D.A. Carson concurs,
http://jesusevidences.com/originntgospels/authorshippublicationgospeljohn.php
There is evidence. You may or may not find it persuasive, but it exists, and it has in some cases convinced notable scholars.It may surprise that there is zero evidence to support these claims.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not read but heard of Bauckham's work about the time D.A. Carson's book on John came out 8-10 years ago. Think he mentioned John the Elder but could be mistaken (elder in the Church at Ephesus). I think that an abductive case can be made either way. And that is my point. Rep the data and the various inferences. Also borrowed Trebilco's work on the early church in Ephesus where he presented John "The seer." Which I took to be the elder but Not the Apostle.Have you read the opposing scholarship of Bauckham, Carlson, Trebilco and others who argue that the early church fathers (including Irenaeus) did not identify the Evangelist with John the Apostle?
I'm trying to get an idea of how these views are filtering down and whether it is being dismissed out of hand or not, so your comments are helpful.Not read but heard of Bauckham's work about the time D.A. Carson's book on John came out 8-10 years ago. Think he mentioned John the Elder but could be mistaken (elder in the Church at Ephesus). I think that an abductive case can be made either way. And that is my point. Rep the data and the various inferences. Also borrowed Trebilco's work on the early church in Ephesus where he presented John "The seer." Which I took to be the elder but Not the Apostle.
These are solid scholars and they present their respective views in dialog with the mainstream views. And good reasons to reject the mainstream. I don't actually hold a view on Johannine authorship. My placeholder is John the son of Zebedee. But I. Could be convinced otherwise.
Thx. I'm trying to focus people's attention on improving the process of textual criticism, exegesis, and hermeneutics. And to reserve judgement for a time until all the data and the various explanations of those data are evaluated in their best light.I'm trying to get an idea of how these views are filtering down and whether it is being dismissed out of hand or not, so your comments are helpful.
Thorough enough. And accurate, however Crossen like Bart Erhman, will makes some outrageous statements (not supported by research) in his popular work that he would never share in peer-reviewed journals (because he count get away with it). Crossen is also an atheist. Which doesn't mean anything for this conversation.Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.
John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).
First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]
1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)
2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)
3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)
4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)
5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)
6. Egerton Gospel (50s)
7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (50s)
8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)
9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)
10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)
11. Miracles Collection (50s)
12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)
13. Cross Gospel (50s)
Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]
14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)
15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)
16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)
17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)
18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)
19. Dialogue Collection (70s)
20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)
21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)
Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]
22. Gospel of Matthew (90)
23. Gospel of Luke (90s)
24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)
25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)
26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)
27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)
28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)
29. Letter of James (100)
30. Gospel of John I (early second century)
31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)
32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)
33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)
34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)
35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)
36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)
37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)
38. First Letter of Peter (112)
39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)
40. First Letter of John (115)
Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]
41. Gospel of John II (after 120)
42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)
43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)
44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)
45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)
46. Letter to Titus (after 120)
47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)
48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)
49. Second Letter of Clement (150)
50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)
51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)
52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)
53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)
If any kind of assurance can ever be had in these matters, then Paul did not write Hebrews. It is absolutely improbable to the highest degree.The following is an excerpt from The Companion Bible, p. 1823, concerning Paul's authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
- The thought and reasonings are Paul’s, whatever the style and language may be. All his other epistles were written to churches mainly composed of Gentiles. In addressing such an epistle to Hebrews, he would naturally write as an instructed scribe, one brought up “at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers” (Acts 22:3). It is therefore futile to argue that if Paul were really the author, the language and style would have been in exact accord with those of the other epistles. Had this been so, it would be an argument against, and not in favor of, Paul’s authorship.
- The testimony of 2 Peter 3:15-16, strictly interpreted, proves that Paul wrote an epistle to the Hebrews, and if this is not the epistle, where is it? No trace or indication of any other has ever been found.
- Its anonymity is eminently in favor of Pauline authorship. The suspicion with which the Jews regarded Paul, and their furious hatred of him (cp. Acts 21:21; 2 Corinthians 11:24; Philippians 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:15, &c.), would be ample reason why, in addressing so important a letter to his own race, he should withhold his name. If it was necessary at the time of it publication to send out such an epistle, equally necessary was it that it should not be handicapped with a name regarded generally by the Jews as that of an infamous renegade. The argument of the value of an unsigned article in any important journal applies with great force in the case of Hebrews.
When looking at a book or document how many people want to know what type of pen was used? Or was a pencil used.
The Author of the Book of Hebrews is stated in the very first verse.
God, He wrote the Book of Hebrews.
Does it really make a difference if Paul or Luke or ______ penned it?