Who Wrote HEBREWS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChasKeeysSFO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChasKeeysSFO

Guest
At mass this morning Father said that almost no one believes that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. Is this the church’s stance on the authorship of Hebrews? The notes in the New American Bible disparage Paul’s authorship, but I don’t trust the scholars who wrote those notes to adhere to church teaching.

Chas Keeys SFO
Or Doubting Thomas 😉
 
As far as I know the Church has made no definitive statement on this. I have read that St Jerome doubted the Pauline authorship.

I have seen two arguments against it being by Saint Paul:
  1. It differs considerably from the style of his other letters. However, that does not impress me. I have known authors to alter their style to fit their audience. I think Hebrews is written in the style of a rabbi addressing a Jewish audience. I think the other letters are addressed to Gentiles and use a more Grecian style. On the other hand, I have no expertise in the field of literature.
  2. It isn’t signed by Saint Paul. He makes his authorship clear in the other letters. This I find significant.
Again just my :twocents: as an amateur, whose worst subject throughout school was English.
 
Some of the Early Fathers attributed it to St. Barnabas, but there is nothing in the text itself to corroborate that theory.

Others of the Early Fathers attributed it to St. Paul, probably because he had written so many others.

So, the answer is, “We don’t really know.” 🙂
 
At mass this morning Father said that almost no one believes that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. Is this the church’s stance on the authorship of Hebrews? The notes in the New American Bible disparage Paul’s authorship, but I don’t trust the scholars who wrote those notes to adhere to church teaching.

Chas Keeys SFO
Or Doubting Thomas 😉
It is not definate whether Paul wrote Hewbrews. The people who put the canon together couldn’t figure out either. That is why Hebrews is put in the back of the Pauline letters. The Pauline letters are aranged (for the most part) base on how extensive the writings were. That is why Romans is first (the most writings) and Philemon (least writings). In addition, the letters written to the communities were put first (Romans, Corinthians, etc.), and the letters written to individual (Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) were put last. If the early Christians knew for a fact Paul wrote Hebrews, it would have been placed after 2 Corinthians.
 
Most Christian scholars and theologians agree that St. Paul is not the true author of “HEBREWS”. There is much conjecture and argument as to its authorship. Reading about it in the book “The Saint Jerome Biblical Commentary” will give you a good insight into the problem and may answer some of your questions.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
It’s generally accepted St. Paul, or someone with the intent of posing as him, didn’t write it. I don’t know the Church’s exact position, but a large position is that Barnabas did. Other candidates are Luke and Apollos. I don’t take a position myself, but there are a lot of writings on the topic online.
 
Here is what all the faithful must believe:

Council of Trent:
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
God bless.
 
The authorship is a mystery. What is significant is that the letter was accepted and it may have been accepted at least partially because it was known who the author was, a long time ago, some information that has been lost.

What irritates me is a priest bringing up that subject in Mass. What’s the point? Why is he bringing up controversy, skepticism, and doubt at Mass?

Let’s go back to the original post and find out what the significance of that is? Is there any significance of bringing up this academic subject at that time?

If there is such doubt,then is there any homiletic significance of that? Is the priest trying to drive more people away from Mass? Is he trying to show off his pseudo-knowledge of scripture to upstage everybody?

The latest I’ve heard is that the Church has declined to take any position on the authorship of any book of the Bible. Some priests (as reported here in this website) even don’t attribute the gospels to Matthew, Mark, etc. but say “the gospel attributed to Matthew” or the such. What is the point of saying that?

What ethical or intellectual landmine would a priest be stepping on to say “the letter of Paul to the Hebrews”?

Is it even thought that Paul did not agree with the letter to the Hebrews?

It hasn’t happened in a long time, but if a priest started talking like that, I think I’d walk right out of church. The Pope has better things to talk about, they talk about better things in homilies at the Shrine in Wash DC. Why do priests have to beat up on simple people, at Sunday Mass?
 
Actually the fact that it’s not signed by St. Paul is pretty clear evidence that it WAS written by him. He was writing to the Jewish converts in Rome–and the Jews were Peter’s gig. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and as such was not authorized to teach Jews. So he wrote the letter anonymously. The theological depth of the letter and some of the stylistic content is also very much indicative of Pauline authorship. Check this out:

web.mac.com/jameshswetnam/Site/Hebrews-An_Interpretation.html

-ACEGC
 
Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., author of Inside the Bible, states that Paul was believed to be the author for almost 1,500 years, but that differences in thought, language and style cause most contemporary scholars to believe that he did not write it. Many scholars believe that it was an unnamed disciple of Paul who was a Hellenistic Jew and a master of the Old Testament.

Excellent practical reference book, BTW.
 
I love the all caps mode in communication.
It really helps the reader understand your question better.

Or, your anger upon realizing that there is not a good answer here to be had.
 
Actually the fact that it’s not signed by St. Paul is pretty clear evidence that it WAS written by him. He was writing to the Jewish converts in Rome–and the Jews were Peter’s gig. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and as such was not authorized to teach Jews. So he wrote the letter anonymously. The theological depth of the letter and some of the stylistic content is also very much indicative of Pauline authorship. Check this out:

web.mac.com/jameshswetnam/Site/Hebrews-An_Interpretation.html

-ACEGC
Maybe the fact that it wasn’t signed by Paul was because many of the Jews would have trashed it if it was. I mean, many Jews hated Paul!!! Several of them even took a vow never to eat again until Paul was murdered. That must have been a long fast!!!

But yes, I do believe that Paul is the author of Hebrews.
 
For what it’s worth, Eusebius records two traditions in the Church: That either Clement or Luke himself wrote Hebrews (dictated by Paul), which accounts for the differing Greek. They also give the same reason noted by Notworthy for it’s lack of stated authorship; i.e, the Hebrews were none too fond of Paul at the time, and his mission was primarily to the Gentiles.
 
I lean towards the tradition that says that Paul wrote it in the Hebrew language but it was then translated into Greek by either St. Luke or St. Clement of Rome, which would be why the style of Hebrews would be different than the typical letter from Paul.
 
I have searched into both Catholic and Protestant Biblical commentaries and compendiums as to the authorship of Hebrews. There is much conjecture and theories but no agreement among theologians and scholars. So I guess that for now we will never know.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top