This criterion was used for the NT only.By “Apostolic origin” do you mean Apostolic authorship? None of the Old Testament books has Apostolic authorship.
Don’t take my word, but if I am correct,even though no known author is mentioned in Hebrews,most scholars (Catholic,Orthodox,Protestant) agree its material content is of Apostolic origin.This criterion was used for the NT only.
That meets more of the third criteria i.e. content of the book must be in line with the sacred tradition, thus apostolic tradition. My focus is more on the authorship. It seems they were compensating authorship with the third criteria in order to reach certainty…Don’t take my word, but if I am correct,even though no known author is mentioned in Hebrews,most scholars (Catholic,Orthodox,Protestant) agree its material content is of Apostolic origin.
They knew that not all of them were written by Apostles. The Gospel of Luke would be an example of this, and the letter of Jude, who was not the Apostle Judas, but the bishop Jude the brother of James. Hebrews may or may not have been written by an Apostle, but it certainly had Apostolic origin, which does not mean Apostolic authorship, but coming from the Apostolic community.That meets more of the third criteria i.e. content of the book must be in line with the sacred tradition, thus apostolic tradition. My focus is more on the authorship. It seems they were compensating authorship with the third criteria in order to reach certainty…
That’s why I’m asking the question, these so called “Pseudo” books don’t seem to fully meet the first criteria…
I’d be curious as to where you are getting this information.Part of the criterion the college of bishops had used upon deciding which books of the bible were inspired and therefore should be made part of the canon was that the book had to be of apostolic tradition.
I don’t think any serious scholar calls into question St Luke or Mark’s acquaintance with St’s Paul and Peter. The letter to the Hebrews is a different matter. Like I said it meets the third criteria but there seems to be missing an absolute certainty of authorship. The apostolic message is different to authorship.They knew that not all of them were written by Apostles. The Gospel of Luke would be an example of this, and the letter of Jude, who was not the Apostle Judas, but the bishop Jude the brother of James. Hebrews may or may not have been written by an Apostle, but it certainly had Apostolic origin, which does not mean Apostolic authorship, but coming from the Apostolic community.
This is what I mean by “coming from the Apostolic community.” It doesn’t have to be directly by an Apostle, but it has to come from that original community. This is different from any claim about the message – this is about the origin of the text.I don’t think any serious scholar calls into question St Luke or Mark’s acquaintance with St’s Paul and Peter.
Actually there is very good evidence that the author was acquainted with St. Paul. They share very many phrases and the same systematic theology, and the similarity was enough to convince the majority of the Church Fathers for over a thousand years that Hebrews was written by Paul himself. It is pretty clear that the author got his theology and his training directly from the Apostles and presented that in his letter, so it meets the Apostolic origin criteria in the same way that Luke and Jude do.The letter to the Hebrews is a different matter. Like I said it meets the third criteria but there seems to be missing an absolute certainty of authorship.