tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post114193744923373154..comments2024-01-05T13:36:55.379-06:00Comments on Two-Edged Sword: The Author of HebrewsLeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-50070335035638760312014-07-30T11:57:10.154-05:002014-07-30T11:57:10.154-05:00Re. Author of the Book of Hebrews.
The Author of ...Re. Author of the Book of Hebrews.<br /><br />The Author of all scripture is the Holy Spirit; Who used some 40 divinely chosen men to write as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet. 1; 21). <br /><br />We are not enlightened (purposely) by the Holy Spirit as to who wrote the epistle. Our primary attention should be directed to understanding the message of the epistle, not knowing the writer.<br /><br />The epistle is not addressed to a man or a church or a city, but to persons called 'Hebrews'.<br />A study of the origin and meaning of the word Hebrew reveals it was first used of Abram. It means, 'one who has crossed over' (Gen. 14; 13).<br /><br />Abram was called by God and in faith went out from UR of the Chaldees and eventually crossed the River Jordan into Canaan; He came to Shechem and on to Bethel; (House of God) and there he built (a second) altar (of worship) unto the Lord. (Gen. 12).<br /><br />The epistle of Hebrews and First Peter deal intently with the subject of Worshipping God in spirit and in truth; not in any earthly sanctuary, but in heaven itself; (inside the Veil) the city of the Living God. (John 4; 20-23) & Heb. 10; 19-23. 1 Peter. 2; 4, 5, 9).<br /><br />God has rent the Veil of the earthly temple to teach us that the Way into the Holiest (in heaven) is now made manifest. by faith and in the power of the Holy Spirit. (Phil 3; 3). <br /><br />If we (as believers) have not (like Abram, responded to God's spiritual call and by faith (like Abram) 'crossed over' and responded to God's calls call into His spiritual Kingdom, and to His heavenly calling (1 Thes. 2; 12. Heb. 3;1). we cannot understand or engage in the worship of God the Father (in spirit and in truth) inside the Veil.<br />This service is given (in the heavenly Sanctuary) by the holy priesthood, who offer their spiritual sacrifices to God the Father through Christ the Great High Priest. (Heb. 8; 1-6. Heb. 10; 19-23 & Heb. 12; 18-24, 28, 29). 1 Pet 2; 4, 5, 9)..<br /><br />We are exhorted by Paul to set our minds on the things that are above, where Christ is. Crowned with Glory and Honour. (Col. 3; 1, 2 & Heb.2; 9).<br /><br />Spiritual sacrifices are 'sweet savour offerings' e.g.; the Burnt, Peace and Meal offerings. (Lev. chs. 1, 2, 3); all of which express the glories and virtues of Christ Who came to do the will of the Father. (Heb. 10; 5-9). <br /><br />The subject of spiritual sacrifices offered inside the Veil are the Excellencies of God the Father and the glories and virtues of our Lord Jesus Christ.<br /><br />God has crowned Him with glory and with honour; and seeks spiritual worshippers to rejoice with Him in the exaltation of His beloved Son. (John 4; 23. Phil. 2; 9-11. 1 Pet. 2; 5, 9. Rev. 5; 13, 14).<br /><br />NB: Christ was raised, ascended and crowned with glory and honour by God His Father. The heavenly hosts joined in worship and praise for the triumphant Christ BEFORE the first sinners were saved on the Day of Pentecost. <br /><br />Let us ascend by faith and join the heavenly hosts to extol God the Father and His exalted Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. as directed by the Holy Spirit in Heb. 12; 22- 24, 28, 29, 30). AMEN<br /> <br />Carl Mc AuleyCarl Mc Auleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1144905291983401652006-04-13T00:14:00.000-05:002006-04-13T00:14:00.000-05:00You make good points, yet I am still unconvinced. ...You make good points, yet I am still unconvinced. Allow me first to start with you last point because I believe you misunderstand the weight of the historical evidence. It is true, I cannot prove the tradition for Barnabas is older than Paul, only relatively the same. There may even be a great attestation of Hebrews for Paul, but those are not the only considerations. As textual critics like to point out when choosing between variant readings of the NT, one tradition must be able to explain the existence of another tradition. If Paul is the author of Hebrew, no explanation can be found to attribute it to Barnabas. Yet, we know a motive for attributing the letter to the Hebrews to Paul, and it is a faulty motive; thus, one can question Paul’s authorship and favor Barnabas. Many in the west by the second century were rejecting Hebrews as a canonical book on account of its misuse by heretical sects teaching salvation can be lost. This provoked a response by Eastern writers to attribute the book to Paul. The great lights of later centuries in the West, like Augustine and Jerome, accept Hebrews as from Paul simply and only because the people in the East say it is from Paul. Thus the great magnitude of witness for Hebrews as from Paul comes from the faulty desire to lend credibility to its acceptance. Owen does not hold this motive, but the vast majority of his historical support does. Therefore the more convincing historical support comes from those supporting Barnabas. <BR/><BR/>Your second point means little. It is possible the word means sermon, but not many believe it does in this case. ‘Exhortation’ is hardly confined to a sermon, and all throughout church history people referred to this as a letter. I feel this bears little weight. <BR/><BR/>As for the lack of a signature, Owen’s reasoning follows that of Thomas Aquinas, who did not hold it to be a sermon, that his name was suppressed to allow the Jews to accept the teaching since if they knew it was from Paul they might have rejected it out of hand. Yet, as you mentioned Paul never shows this sort of fear with Jews in any city he enters. He boldly preached at synagogues first, and often got stoned for it. Yet, now he is too afraid to put his name on his letter? It does not make sense. Your two points seem to contradict each other. <BR/><BR/>Style is likewise more important than you state, though in general I agree it is overused. If a person, such as Paul, writes lots of letters and seldom to never uses the optative case, and if he does it is only in colloquialisms never in sentences, and another letter turns up with optative cases used well and regularly, we can safely assume that there are by different authors. One would not mistake William Faulkner for Ernest Hemmingway simply because the title page had been removed. Their styles help you know the difference. You spoke of the difference in writing to a Hebrew audience and a Gentile one. You rightly point out that one could expect a more Hebrew style in the letter to the Hebrews and a more Hellenistic style in the letters to the Gentiles. Yet, that is not what we find if Paul is the author. We find the author of the Hebrews with a higher classical Greek style than any of Paul’s epistles. By your own logic, should not Paul’s other letters have the higher Greek style, and the letter to the Hebrews be more Hebraic in nature and construction? Would it not be even more so if it was a spoken sermon? Style is important.<BR/><BR/>As for the lack of an introduction, that does not pose a problem to it being a letter. May I also point out that many letters did not have introductions like Paul has in his letters. <B>The Epistle of Barnabas</B> has no name and the only thing that can be construed as an introduction is “All hail, ye sons and daughters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us in peace.” Hardly a Pauline introduction, but no one denies it is a letter. <B>The Epistle to Diognetus</B> similarly has no name and no greeting of peace, and launches straight into his topic. <B>The Didache</B> was a work sent to many congregations and begins right away just like Hebrews. Perhaps the wide intended audience takes away from the need of a specific greeting. <B>The Second Epistle Concerning Virginity</B> falsely ascribed to Clement begins without any introduction/greeting and ends with a conclusion similar to Hebrews with personal greetings and a conclusion. It is at least not unheard of for a letter to take the form of that Hebrews has taken.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1142578401559996952006-03-17T00:53:00.000-06:002006-03-17T00:53:00.000-06:00Mr. Baggins,I do believe that the tradition of Bar...Mr. Baggins,<BR/>I do believe that the tradition of Barnabas pre-dates the tradition of Paul as the author or is at least contemporary. We have Tertullian’s attestation of Barnabas as the author at the very beginning of the 3rd century. He is not arguing for Barnabas, he seems to be stating an unquestioned fact in North Africa. Thus, we have a 2nd century tradition of Barnabas as the author. Clement of Alexandria seems to be the first arguing for a Pauline authorship of Hebrews, and he is only a contemporary of Tertullian. Clement was not ordained, but was simply a lay teacher for what that is worth. It should be noted that Clement’s successor in Alexandria, Origen, rejected Clement’s arguments for Pauline authorship. To me this gives the earliest tradition to Barnabas, but it is too difficult to prove one way or another. I do think that most believe Paul was the early church’s choice as author, and I do not think this is so. The tradition of Barnabas is at least equally ancient to Paul, if not more so. As for Jerome, he wavered in his own view of Pauline authorship. So while he is generally considered a supporter of Pauline authorship, he does have quotes that seem to lean toward non-Pauline authorship. He also has many quotes showing that in the West strong resistance to Pauline authorship existed. <BR/><BR/>I think the audience presents a problem for Pauline authorship since Paul is the apostle to Gentiles, and as you admit, Jews often had some problems with Paul. The intended audience would seem to militate against a Pauline authorship since most of his ministry was unrelated to the Hebrew people. Also the stylistic difference cannot be white-washed away by a different audience. Even the ancients came up with the idea that Luke translated it from Hebrew to Greek to solve the stylistic problem. <BR/><BR/>As for Owen’s argument about the book being a sermon, I left it out because I felt the blog was getting to big, and I think it his worst argument. The phrase “word of encouragement” or “exhortation” in 13:22 no more proves it a sermon than it proves the authorship of Barnabas, who was the “son of encouragement.” Plus you yourself admit that he modified it slightly to make it a letter. If he modifies it to make it a letter why not include his name? No plausible explanation can be offered for such a thing. Why not do all the normal things he does in a letter since he modified it? Is there any tradition at all of ancient people copying down sermons and mailing them out as letters? That would be an interesting question to have answered. If there is not, then this modified sermon idea takes a serious hit. The lack of normal greetings at the beginning does not mean it is not a letter. There is a familiar salutation at the end of the epistle. The evidence of it being an epistle is great enough to require the sermon-format to indicate Paul altered it a little to make it a letter. The book also says it is a letter. That is enough proof for me. Owen puts too much on the idea that this is a sermon. <BR/><BR/>Owen makes some good and even great points, but the stylistic differences between Hebrews and all of Paul’s other works cannot be dismissed by making Hebrews a sermon. Then the historical evidence in my opinion is a major factor. You pointed out that the list of pro-Pauline authorship is a who’s who of church fathers, but their reasons are almost non-existent. Jerome wavered and when he did accept it, it stood solely on the basis of the Eastern church’s belief in Pauline authorship. The same can be said of Augustine, Ambrose, and several others. Eusebius and everyone after Augustine and Jerome simply excepted it on the authority of those two men. These father often also held that the original was in Hebrew and translated into Greek usually by Luke. In the end this means that almost the entire history of Pauline authorship is based on Eastern Church belief in it. The East seemed to desire it in order to keep Hebrews in the canon. The Eastern Fathers were usually the least reliable of the early fathers. The West always saw things differently. Clement of Rome obviously accepts Hebrews as canon, but does not treat it as if it was Paul, nor does Hermas. These men point to the need for another tradition. Tertullian and others give us a grounded tradition. One of Barnabas. Origen the linguistic scholar, who made the first critical edition by compiling differing Hebrew versions of the OT, outright rejects Paul. Owen makes a valiant attempt to advocate the Pauline authorship by giving it a basis in the text, style, and other factors, but he cannot do it. The tradition of Paul seems to have always rested on some inflated need for Paul to be the author to make it canonical. Owen opens a few doors to allow for a Pauline authorship, but the dearth of positive evidence for him is fatal to his cause.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1142285207471862002006-03-13T15:26:00.000-06:002006-03-13T15:26:00.000-06:00Justin,It is good to hear from you. I pray all is...Justin,<BR/>It is good to hear from you. I pray all is well with you and yours. I too have fond memories of our discussions, play station tournaments, and runs for food. Lord willing we will be able to see each other one day and do these things again.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1141947534419488612006-03-09T17:38:00.000-06:002006-03-09T17:38:00.000-06:00Lee,Justin from Wofford here. Grady sent an e-mail...Lee,<BR/>Justin from Wofford here. Grady sent an e-mail with a link to your blog. I see that you have not lost your touch for providing a thorough and penetrating analysis of various peoples'/denominations' interpretations of the scriptures. I have fond memories of discussing theology with you at college. I hope all is well. My love to your wife.Pi Sigma Eta Alumnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15387654103425408535noreply@blogger.com