• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who wrote the book of Hebrews

firedragon

Veteran Member
As you probably know, as a consensus, most New Testament scholars, be it Christian or Atheistic, progressive or conservative, believe that there is no way to know who wrote this book that is canonised in the New Testament of the Bible.

The book of Hebrews. Who wrote it. What are your thoughts and what are your literature backing your thoughts?
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The writer makes that clear when he says in Hebrew 2:1, “[The message] was declared first by the Master, and it was attested to us by those who heard.” This means that the writer is a second-generation believer, yet he writes like an apostle, like someone in authority, and he transmits apostolic tradition. For example, he says, “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears” (Hebrews 5:7). That’s an eyewitness report, something our author could have obtained from one of the Master’s original disciples, such as Simon Peter. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks with an apostolic voice that we would not expect from a second-generation disciple unless he was of distinguished rank and well-recognized as an authority, one who comes from the Pauline circle, and one who knows believers from Italy (see Hebrews 13:24.)

The early church had many opinions about the authorship. The absence of a superscription leaves it anonymous. The early church wanted it to be an epistle of Paul. Some codices bundled it with Paul’s letters, but this document is not Paul’s style or language. The epistle is written in excellent Greek, unlike Paul’s. The theological concepts of Hebrews are not particularly Pauline. Moreover, Paul considered himself the apostle to the Gentiles, but the epistle to the Hebrews appears to be written to Jewish disciples of Yeshua.

Nevertheless, it seems that the epistle was written by someone within the Pauline entourage. One bit of evidence for this hypothesis is that the author makes reference to Timothy having been released from imprisonment and waiting for his arrival. Timothy was Paul’s chief disciple. The Hebrews author’s close relationship with Timothy puts him into Paul’s company. The second century church writer Origen addresses the authorship of Hebrews this way:

But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s [i.e. Paul’s], but that the style and composition belong 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 time handed it down as Paul’s. But who really wrote the epistle, in truth, only God knows. (Origen, Homilies on Hebrews, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.1–4)

Some early church writers had the tradition that Paul’s colleagues, Luke the doctor or Clement of Rome, might have been involved in the composition. Modern speculations include Barnabas, Apollos, and even Priscilla (see Acts 18:2, 3) but there is no evidence or ancient tradition to support these theories.

Clement of Alexandria had a tradition that Paul’s travelling companion Luke wrote the epistle, translating it from an Aramaic document originally composed by Paul: “For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.38:2)

One of many problems with Lukan authorship is that the Greek does not sound like Luke’s, nor does it betray any hint of having been translated from a Semitic original. The fourth-century bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius, cites the Lukan-Pauline theory, but he also notes an alternative tradition which suggests that Clement of Rome might have been involved in the composition.

The bishop Eusebius cites a tradition that Clement was the author of the epistle:

Others claim that it was Clement himself. This seems more probable because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not very different. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.38:2–3)

Modern scholars disagree with that assessment. They do agree that the style sounds similar, and at points, identical, but they explain the similarities by arguing that Clement was imitating the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Scholars also object to the theory that Clement wrote the epistle on the basis that the theology of the epistle is completely different than Clement’s. Whereas the book of Hebrews teaches the cancellation of the Temple and the sacrificial system, the First Clement seems to regard that system as a worthy model for churches to emulate with respect to Ecclesiastical authority. On this basis, most scholars say that the same writer could not have written both First Clement and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

This opinion is based on presuppositions arising from an incorrect theological perspective on the Temple and priesthood. Hebrews does not need to be read as teaching the cancellation of the Temple and the Levitical system. Once this perspective on the book is adopted, then Clement of Rome is a possible and even likely candidate. His authorship is backed up by a strong historical tradition and by similarity of thought and style between Hebrews and other Clementine epistles.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I know next to nothing about NT authorship, so this may just be me voicing my ignorance, but I think the name "Hebrews" implies it was written by a non-Jew, because the Jews at the point had long not referred to themselves as "Hebrews".
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I know next to nothing about NT authorship, so this may just be me voicing my ignorance, but I think the name "Hebrews" implies it was written by a non-Jew, because the Jews at the point had long not referred to themselves as "Hebrews".

Clement would fit the bill. Most likely to the first Jewish Christians.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
As you probably know, as a consensus, most New Testament scholars, be it Christian or Atheistic, progressive or conservative, believe that there is no way to know who wrote this book that is canonised in the New Testament of the Bible.

The book of Hebrews. Who wrote it. What are your thoughts and what are your literature backing your thoughts?
It seems as though it was almost certainly not St Paul.

I'm attracted to the theory that it was Priscilla, as female authorship might have been sufficiently embarrassing for the authorship to have been suppressed. But I see Origen thought it was St Luke.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I know next to nothing about NT authorship, so this may just be me voicing my ignorance, but I think the name "Hebrews" implies it was written by a non-Jew, because the Jews at the point had long not referred to themselves as "Hebrews".
Actually the title "pros tous 'Evraious" was given by Christians. In the epistle the author calls the recipients "ἀδελφοί" which means "brothers".
:)
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I know next to nothing about NT authorship, so this may just be me voicing my ignorance, but I think the name "Hebrews" implies it was written by a non-Jew, because the Jews at the point had long not referred to themselves as "Hebrews".
I would agree. The theology seems very well developed and various quotes from other Christian sources are used, thus implying a later date than other letters. This would make it much more likely to have come from a Pagan or other convert, especially given the mastery of Greek. I mean, I'm pretty sure there were some Hellenised Jews out there who could out-Greek the Greeks, but on the whole it does seem as though this is the work of an educated Hellenic mind who trawls through the Tanakh without any knowledge of its background or exposition at all, given how ill the quotes therefrom are used. I consider it likely that he was maybe a student of Paul or the like and penned this letter in imitation.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
It seems as though it was almost certainly not St Paul.

I'm attracted to the theory that it was Priscilla, as female authorship might have been sufficiently embarrassing for the authorship to have been suppressed. But I see Origen thought it was St Luke.
I totally agree. It is written in clear, readable Greek. Very different than the two Corinthians.:p
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The writer makes that clear when he says in Hebrew 2:1, “[The message] was declared first by the Master, and it was attested to us by those who heard.” This means that the writer is a second-generation believer, yet he writes like an apostle, like someone in authority, and he transmits apostolic tradition. For example, he says, “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears” (Hebrews 5:7). That’s an eyewitness report, something our author could have obtained from one of the Master’s original disciples, such as Simon Peter. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks with an apostolic voice that we would not expect from a second-generation disciple unless he was of distinguished rank and well-recognized as an authority, one who comes from the Pauline circle, and one who knows believers from Italy (see Hebrews 13:24.)

The early church had many opinions about the authorship. The absence of a superscription leaves it anonymous. The early church wanted it to be an epistle of Paul. Some codices bundled it with Paul’s letters, but this document is not Paul’s style or language. The epistle is written in excellent Greek, unlike Paul’s. The theological concepts of Hebrews are not particularly Pauline. Moreover, Paul considered himself the apostle to the Gentiles, but the epistle to the Hebrews appears to be written to Jewish disciples of Yeshua.

Nevertheless, it seems that the epistle was written by someone within the Pauline entourage. One bit of evidence for this hypothesis is that the author makes reference to Timothy having been released from imprisonment and waiting for his arrival. Timothy was Paul’s chief disciple. The Hebrews author’s close relationship with Timothy puts him into Paul’s company. The second century church writer Origen addresses the authorship of Hebrews this way:

But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s [i.e. Paul’s], but that the style and composition belong 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 time handed it down as Paul’s. But who really wrote the epistle, in truth, only God knows. (Origen, Homilies on Hebrews, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.1–4)

Some early church writers had the tradition that Paul’s colleagues, Luke the doctor or Clement of Rome, might have been involved in the composition. Modern speculations include Barnabas, Apollos, and even Priscilla (see Acts 18:2, 3) but there is no evidence or ancient tradition to support these theories.

Clement of Alexandria had a tradition that Paul’s travelling companion Luke wrote the epistle, translating it from an Aramaic document originally composed by Paul: “For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.38:2)

One of many problems with Lukan authorship is that the Greek does not sound like Luke’s, nor does it betray any hint of having been translated from a Semitic original. The fourth-century bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius, cites the Lukan-Pauline theory, but he also notes an alternative tradition which suggests that Clement of Rome might have been involved in the composition.

The bishop Eusebius cites a tradition that Clement was the author of the epistle:

Others claim that it was Clement himself. This seems more probable because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not very different. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.38:2–3)

Modern scholars disagree with that assessment. They do agree that the style sounds similar, and at points, identical, but they explain the similarities by arguing that Clement was imitating the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Scholars also object to the theory that Clement wrote the epistle on the basis that the theology of the epistle is completely different than Clement’s. Whereas the book of Hebrews teaches the cancellation of the Temple and the sacrificial system, the First Clement seems to regard that system as a worthy model for churches to emulate with respect to Ecclesiastical authority. On this basis, most scholars say that the same writer could not have written both First Clement and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

This opinion is based on presuppositions arising from an incorrect theological perspective on the Temple and priesthood. Hebrews does not need to be read as teaching the cancellation of the Temple and the Levitical system. Once this perspective on the book is adopted, then Clement of Rome is a possible and even likely candidate. His authorship is backed up by a strong historical tradition and by similarity of thought and style between Hebrews and other Clementine epistles.

I appreciate your post a lot.

There were many many writings that spoke of Jesus and some things that happened during the time. Just because one person narrates a story, that does not mean we could assume that its an eye witness testimony, and make another assumption that this person inherited that knowledge from someone like "Simon Peter". These are too farfetched as assumption.

*Which codex jumbled it up with Pauls writings BTW?

Now think about something else. Though this may be off topic, you were quoting church fathers and that they spoke of "Luke the Doctor". Gospel of Luke does not call itself Luke either. So who makes this association that Luke the Doctor who along with Demas mentioned by Paul in another epistle be the same person? Do you understand? Thats a very farfetched assumption with no association whatsoever.

Tha author of Hebrews is not Clement, and not anyone we know. He is a preacher, and sounds like a church leader who is preaching to get his followers to practice the Christian belief. He was more of a hellenised Jew with knowledge of the Greek OT. He is versed in Greco roman culture. He was also a pioneer in naming Jesus a King and Priest, citing Mechezedek.

All said and done, we still have no clue who this author is. Do we?
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I appreciate your post a lot.

There were many many writings that spoke of Jesus and some things that happened during the time. Just because one person narrates a story, that does not mean we could assume that its an eye witness testimony, and make another assumption that this person inherited that knowledge from someone like "Simon Peter". These are too farfetched as assumption.

*Which codex jumbled it up with Pauls writings BTW?

Papyrus 46 - Wikipedia

All said and done, we still have no clue who this author is. Do we?

True, but the fact that the book of Hebrews was accepted early seems to suggest someone who was well regarded in the early days of Pauline Christianity.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Papyrus 46 - Wikipedia



True, but the fact that the book of Hebrews was accepted early seems to suggest someone who was well regarded in the early days of Pauline Christianity.

The irony. I was just speaking about P46 in another thread about a Pastoral letter.

Anyway, P46 contains Hebrews but not some of the other letters like there Pastoral letters. Well, even Marcion probably thought Hebrews was Pauline. See, this does not necessarily mean the author is someone important. I mean, not simply because it was in an early canon. But the content of course as I said definitely shows that Hebrews was written by maybe a church leader writing to his "flock" if I may say so.

It just means that it was early tradition.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Okay. You say that Paul was in Italy.
But how do you know that the author Hebrews was in Italy? Just asking.
For one, likely because Paul was in Rome, and wrote letters for two years from there.
- Acts of the Apostles 28:16-17; Acts of the Apostles 25:11-12; Acts of the Apostles 28:19; Acts of the Apostles 28:30-31

To me what matters is that God is the Author and all credit goes to God as the Author - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
So, there is No need for a Bible writer to be named because they just served as God's secretaries.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
For one, likely because Paul was in Rome, and wrote letters for two years from there.
- Acts of the Apostles 28:16-17; Acts of the Apostles 25:11-12; Acts of the Apostles 28:19; Acts of the Apostles 28:30-31

To me what matters is that God is the Author and all credit goes to God as the Author - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
So, there is No need for a Bible writer to be named because they just served as God's secretaries.

Please note that you did not respond to the question. The question I asked was how do you know the author lived in Italy, and you spoke of Paul. But Paul is not the author so the answer is not relevant.

Also please note that the topic of the thread is not about God or your theology at all. If it looks like that I am sorry.

Cheers.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
..... The question I asked was how do you know the author lived in Italy, and you spoke of Paul. But Paul is not the author so the answer is not relevant.......

Well, seems as if you have more knowledge than anyone else to prove Paul did Not write Hebrews.
Isn't it the point that God is the AUTHOR of the Bible according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ________________
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Okay. You say that Paul was in Italy.

But how do you know that the author Hebrews was in Italy? Just asking.
Actually the author tells the recipients that the community in Italy is fine.
Which implies that the author either has seen them recently or lives there with them.;)
 
Top