Most modern-day historians are uncertain of who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, but they also seem to be in agreement that the author isn't St. Paul.
Looking at the letter, I can see why. All of the letters of St. Paul are introduced with some variation of "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ" followed by St. Paul stating who he is writing to. Hebrews, however, cuts straight to the point"
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds...
It almost seems like there was an introduction that was cut out of the text. Also, the entire letter seems to be much more dry than something that would be written by St. Paul. It just seems...different.
The Coptic church, however, still holds St. Paul to be the author. What evidence do we have to suggest that this was the case?
Comments
Many of the early Fathers attributed authorship to St. Paul. That is why the Church refers to it as, 'The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews'. While the content is certainly Pauline, the style, as scholars argue, is not. That is why many think the author may have been Barnabas or Apollos, both disciples of St. Paul. Further, it would seem that the 'epistle' to the Hebrews isn't really an epistle at all. It reads more like a sermon. Those are just my thoughts.
My point is "modern day historians" or/and "scholars" say a lot of things. If they go against what the church tells you, don't even dabble with their theory - throw it off completely.
If the church says Paul wrote them, then Paul wrote them.
This has been questioned since the 3rd century.
I would like to read that. . .provide some examples, please.
I'm doing more research now and I'm finding more evidence to suggest St. Paul's authorship.
[quote author=Origen]
That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.
That being said, there is a reason Origen was addressing it in the first place. But on another site I also read that the stylistic differences are due to St. Paul's writing in Greek instead of Hebrew, having it translated later by St. Luke. It also said that he kept it anonymous because it may have been disregarded if the Hebrews found out that it was he who wrote it.
If the phrase "modern-day" is the only thing keeping you guys from looking more into this, then chuck it. This has been questioned since the 3rd century. The basis of the doubts seems legitimate, so I think there should be a little more reinforcement to say that it was St. Paul than just the fact that that's what church tradition holds it to be.
We have manuscripts that date to the year 85 AD that are collections of St Paul epistles. In these manuscripts the epistle to the Hebrews came right after the epistle to the Romans and the rest of the the epistles of St Paul had the same order like we have it today. This proves that the epistle to the Hebrews were known to be authored by St Paul since the first century.
Our tradition in the Alexandrian Church is that Hebrews is an epistle written by St. Paul.
But in the end, whether Saint Paul wrote it or not...WHO CARES? Does the result make our religion fake? It doesn't matter like half the things that are argued in this world. If the church says it is Saint Paul, then Amen Eseshopi.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142307#msg142307 date=1312145782]
We have manuscripts that date to the year 85 AD that are collections of St Paul epistles. In these manuscripts the epistle to the Hebrews came right after the epistle to the Romans and the rest of the the epistles of St Paul had the same order like we have it today. This proves that the epistle to the Hebrews were known to be authored by St Paul since the first century.
Do you have a reference for this?
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=11959.msg142309#msg142309 date=1312146380]
But in the end, whether Saint Paul wrote it or not...WHO CARES? Does the result make our religion fake? It doesn't matter like half the things that are argued in this world. If the church says it is Saint Paul, then Amen Eseshopi.
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142311#msg142311 date=1312146897]
Look at manuscript p46 and p30
What manuscript?
I was just skimming through Hebrews now and noticed something that could potentially add an even larger question mark as to St. Paul's authorship of this 'epistle' (sermon). At the end of the 'epistle' (sermon) we read the following: 'But I beseech you, brethren, keep on bearing with the word of exhortation, for I also wrote to you in few words. Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set free, with whom, if I should come quickly, I will see you.' (Hebrews 13:22-23). Note the bolded section. St. Paul refers to Timothy as 'my child' or 'my son', but not as 'my brother'.
'Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to a command of God our Saviour, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, to Timothy, my genuine child in the faith:' (1 Timothy 1:1)
'Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to a promise of live which is in Christ Jesus, to Timothy, my beloved child:' (2 Timothy 1:1)
Thoughts?
Cephas, why the enthusiasm to call this a sermon and discredit Paul of authorship?
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=11959.msg142309#msg142309 date=1312146380]
But in the end, whether Saint Paul wrote it or not...WHO CARES? Does the result make our religion fake? It doesn't matter like half the things that are argued in this world. If the church says it is Saint Paul, then Amen Eseshopi.
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
I don't know if I agree with this. Although our faith does not depend on whether a certain author wrote 'X' epistle, are you telling me if you found out that all of the authors our church has attached to the books of the Bible are incorrect that you wouldn't care? What about just 5 of them?
I most certainly would. It calls into doubt many other things. Like how do we know the person who wrote it was a true apostle? How do we know that what they wrote was true? Although the truth of the Scriptures comes from the Holy Spirit, and not man. We know that certain men were filled with the Holy Spirit and were followers of the true Way.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142325#msg142325 date=1312153641]
There's a difference when addressing someone directly and when referring to them. I mean it would have been awkward or inappropriate for him to write, "Know ye that my son Timothy. . ."
Perhaps.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142325#msg142325 date=1312153641]
Cephas, why the enthusiasm to call this a sermon and discredit Paul of authorship?
My, aren't we being presumptuous. How am I trying to discredit anything? I'm just presenting something I noted and thought was interesting. The Church has stated that St. Paul wrote Hebrews. That's cool. I personally don't think St. Paul wrote it. I do think the material in Hebrews is Pauline in content, and as such was probably composed by one of St. Paul's disciples (Barnabas or Apollos as mentioned earlier). I refer to it as a sermon because it reads as such. It does not read as an epistle, nor is it formatted as one. Look at every other epistles written. It follows the same structure: Introduction and Greeting followed by the main text of the epistle and ending with a blessing and 'signature' (if you will). Hebrews does not follow that at all. Rather, it jumps right into the text and ends with a general blessing (much like you find in the sermons our own priests give). Once again, that is just my opinion on the matter. If you don't like it, it's not skin off my back. I don't care. I'm just presenting my own point of view. You have yours. Good on you.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142327#msg142327 date=1312154227]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142310#msg142310 date=1312146751]
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=11959.msg142309#msg142309 date=1312146380]
But in the end, whether Saint Paul wrote it or not...WHO CARES? Does the result make our religion fake? It doesn't matter like half the things that are argued in this world. If the church says it is Saint Paul, then Amen Eseshopi.
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
I don't know if I agree with this. Although our faith does not depend on whether a certain author wrote 'X' epistle, are you telling me if you found out that all of the authors our church has attached to the books of the Bible are incorrect that you wouldn't care? What about just 5 of them?
I most certainly would. It calls into doubt many other things. Like how do we know the person who wrote it was a true apostle? How do we know that what they wrote was true? Although the truth of the Scriptures comes from the Holy Spirit, and not man. We know that certain men were filled with the Holy Spirit and were followers of the true Way.
If that causes you doubt, then you can think that the authors the Church attributes to each gospel, epistle or what have you is written by that particular individual. To me, it makes no difference. The writers (whoever they may be) were certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit and were almost certainly disciples of the Apostles themselves (if not the Apostles themselves). Therefore the writings are certainly Apostolic and date to the Apostolic age. What matters most to me is the message taught by these writings. That's all I care about. Authorship is nice, but is not vital to me.
The Church has stated that St. Paul wrote Hebrews. That's cool. I personally don't think St. Paul wrote it.
And you see nothing wrong with this attitude?
What matters most to me is the message taught by these writings. That's all I care about. Authorship is nice, but is not vital to me.
Sure in the 21st century, when we know the Bible is the truth, it is easy to make that statement. For most people living in the early centuries they did not have a clear understanding of what the correct message was, so they associated correct teachings with the apostles and disciples (the authors).
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142341#msg142341 date=1312164069]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142339#msg142339 date=1312162689]
The Church has stated that St. Paul wrote Hebrews. That's cool. I personally don't think St. Paul wrote it.
And you see nothing wrong with this attitude?
No I don't. I'm in good company. The authorship of this sermon/epistle has been in question for the first 4 centuries by a number of Fathers. It wasn't until the 4th century where it became the popular opinion. Does it really matter?
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142342#msg142342 date=1312164432]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142340#msg142340 date=1312163838]
What matters most to me is the message taught by these writings. That's all I care about. Authorship is nice, but is not vital to me.
Sure in the 21st century, when we know the Bible is the truth, it is easy to make that statement. For most people living in the early centuries they did not have a clear understanding of what the correct message was, so they associated correct teachings with the apostles and disciples (the authors).
Is this a joke? Do you have any idea how many letters, gospels and epistles were circulating around the first 4 centuries? It took 4 centuries until a canon was suggested. That is pretty telling, if you ask me. Oral Tradition made up the bulk of teaching. When things began to be written down, it was compared to the oral Tradition. It was common to write under pseudonyms, particularly pseudonyms of Apostles. So 'being written by an Apostle' was not the sole criterion, nor was it the be all end all.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142311#msg142311 date=1312146897]
Look at manuscript p46 and p30
What manuscript?
New Testament manuscripts P46 is in Dublin, P30 is in Michigan and Washington.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142345#msg142345 date=1312165641]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142320#msg142320 date=1312147977]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142311#msg142311 date=1312146897]
Look at manuscript p46 and p30
What manuscript?
New Testament manuscripts P46 is in Dublin, P30 is in Michigan and Washington.
How exactly am I supposed to confirm this?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142342#msg142342 date=1312164432]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142340#msg142340 date=1312163838]
What matters most to me is the message taught by these writings. That's all I care about. Authorship is nice, but is not vital to me.
Sure in the 21st century, when we know the Bible is the truth, it is easy to make that statement. For most people living in the early centuries they did not have a clear understanding of what the correct message was, so they associated correct teachings with the apostles and disciples (the authors).
Is this a joke?
Did it sound like a joke? If something sounds stupid to you, say it sounds stupid. But don't ask me if I was joking. Exactly my point. How did they know the letters they had were true teachings? Because they came from trusted sources. One reason Paul frequently opened his letters with the title of an apostle. Are you telling me people just passed on oral tradition without saying where it came from? Where it came from is what gave it its legitimacy. It doesn't matter if it was written that 'X' wrote 'Y' people said that 'X' wrote 'Y'
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142342#msg142342 date=1312164432]
Did it sound like a joke? If something sounds stupid to you, say it sounds stupid. But don't ask me if I was joking.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142342#msg142342 date=1312164432]
Exactly my point. How did they know the letters they had were true teachings? Because they came from trusted sources. One reason Paul frequently opened his letters with the title of an apostle.
They knew because it fell in line with the oral Tradition that had been passed down to them. The fact that St. Paul opened his letters by stating that this letter was in fact from Paul is not sufficient proof. Once again, there were plenty of epistles going around written by others claiming to be Apostles. The only way to gauge the legitimacy was if it was in line with the oral Tradition.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142342#msg142342 date=1312164432]
Are you telling me people just passed on oral tradition without saying where it came from? Where it came from is what gave it its legitimacy. It doesn't matter if it was written that 'X' wrote 'Y' people said that 'X' wrote 'Y'
We're not talking about oral Tradition. We're talking about written text being written by individuals who may or may not have been Apostles. If it was clear that Hebrews was written by St. Paul, why was there much debate about it in the first 4 centuries? You would have thought it would have been clearly established from the get go. The fact that it was not unanimous, even at that early time, is rather telling as well.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142345#msg142345 date=1312165641]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142320#msg142320 date=1312147977]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142311#msg142311 date=1312146897]
Look at manuscript p46 and p30
What manuscript?
New Testament manuscripts P46 is in Dublin, P30 is in Michigan and Washington.
How exactly am I supposed to confirm this?
You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
Let me know if this will help.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142352#msg142352 date=1312168015]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142346#msg142346 date=1312165743]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142345#msg142345 date=1312165641]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142320#msg142320 date=1312147977]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142311#msg142311 date=1312146897]
Look at manuscript p46 and p30
What manuscript?
New Testament manuscripts P46 is in Dublin, P30 is in Michigan and Washington.
How exactly am I supposed to confirm this?
You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
Let me know if this will help.
Thank you for this. However, I fail to see how this proves authorship.