The Epistle to the Hebrews - as an example.... Who wrote it?
The Epistle to the Hebrews - as an example
Who wrote it?
In response to the Theological Defense Team - and in response to who says who changed it and when?
Some quotes - with some pictures .
From the book The New Testament Canon by Bruce Metzger
Introduction:
During the Middle Ages questions were rarely raised regarding the number and identity of the books that constituted the New Testament canon. Even during the Renaissance and Reformation, despite occasional discussions (such as those of Erasmus and Cajetan) regarding the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, several official letters, and the Book of Revelation, no one dared to seriously dispute their authority. Although Luther considered four of the New Testament books (Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation) to be inferior to the others, neither he nor his followers dared to omit them from his translation.
Pantaenus 180 AD
Although none of his writings have survived, we know Pantaenus's opinion on a New Testament issue that was a matter of great dispute in the early church: the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. According to Eusebius, who relates the opinion of the "blessed presbyter," i.e. Pantaenus, this was the work of the Apostle Paul, but in his authorship he preferred to remain anonymous:
this opinion of Pantaenus, later adopted by both Clement of Alexandria and Origen, seems to have been an attempt at reconciliation, which was necessary for the existence of two kinds of collection (Paul's letters), one with and one without the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clement of Alexandria,
for
the Epistle to the Hebrews, adopts Pantaenus' theory, (that Paul wrote it and concealed his identity) while explaining it by the idea that its translator into Greek was Luke.
Origen was born about 185 AD.
Speaking as a scholar, Origen freely admits that the tradition of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not entirely certain. He gives his considered opinion that, in view of the literary and stylistic problems involved, it is best to conclude that, although the Epistle contains ideas of Paul, it was written by someone else, perhaps Luke or Clement of Rome.
"Who wrote it, God alone knows," said he. Bart Ehrman - New Testament
Hippolytus of Rome, early third century.
He accepted the four Gospels as Scripture, and recognized thirteen Pauline epistles, but not the Epistle to the Hebrews.
He also accepted the Acts of the Apostles and three Catholic Epistles - 1 Peter, 1 John and 2 John.
The total is twenty-two books. Although he does not classify the Epistle to the Hebrews as Scripture, he quotes it frequently, especially in his commentary on Daniel.
Cyprian, mid-third century.
He probably knew of the existence of the Epistle to the Hebrews, since Tertullian (who studied his writings) speaks of it, attributing it to Barnabas. But Cyprian evidently did not consider it canonical.
Muratorian Canon Law. Late second century.
Summarizing the evidence given by the Muratorian passage, one notices that the list classifies the books under four categories.
First, there are those books that are universally accepted, namely the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen letters of Paul, Jude, two (perhaps three) letters of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Revelation of John.
Secondly, there is one disputed book, the Apocalypse of Peter, which some refuse to read in church.
Thirdly, there is one book, the Shepherd of Hermas, which, though rejected, is still to be read in private.
Fourthly, several heretical books are mentioned as being completely rejected.
Books not listed include 1 and 2 Peter, James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Biblical Canon in the East. Syria
It is noteworthy that the Book of Revelation is not included as a New Testament book. This was the state of affairs in Jerusalem by the middle of the fourth century.
In his list of New Testament books, Amphilius mentions some of the earlier controversy over Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation. In fact, he not only relates the doubts of others regarding these books, but also seems to reject 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and almost certainly rejects Revelation.
Athanasius identifies the New Testament books in the fourth century.
The thirty-ninth Epistle of the year 367 is of particular value, because it contains a list of the canonical (canonical) books of the Old and New Testaments. In the case of the Old Testament, Athanasius excluded the canonical books, allowing them only as devotional reading.
The twenty-seven books of the present New Testament are the only canonical books (see Appendix IV.;
they stand in the sequence of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the seven Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles (with Hebrews included between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy), and end with the Apocalypse of John.
Syria in the fifth and sixth centuries
By the beginning of the fifth century, if not actually a little earlier, the Syrian Church version of the Bible, the so-called Peshitta, had been formed. This represented for the New Testament an adaptation of the Syrian canon to that of the Greeks. The third Epistle to the Corinthians was rejected, and in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews, after Philemon), the three longer Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) were included.
The four shorter Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and Revelation were absent from the Syriac version of the Peshitta, and thus the Syrian canon of the New Testament contained twenty-two books. For a large part of the Syriac Church, this served as a closure of the canon.
Philaster, Bishop of Brescia (died 397 A.D.),
as a specimen of his confusing and perplexing compilation, in chapter 88 he names in his list of the 'sacred books' of the New Testament, authenticated by the blessed apostles and their followers, the Gospels, thirteen Pauline epistles, and seven Catholic epistles, passing over the Epistle to the Hebrews and even the Apocalypse of John in silence. —But elsewhere he regards Hebrews as Pauline and Apocalypse as apostolic.
Jerome
In the case of 2 and 3 John Jerome tells us that they are 'said to be the work of John the priest,' because John the apostle was the author of the epistle which begins, 'that which was from the beginning.' As for 2 Peter, he has a special suggestion: the difference in style between the two epistles attributed to Peter arises from the apostle employing different secretaries for writing.
The two remaining disputed books, Hebrews and Revelation, are dealt with by Jerome in a letter written in 414 to the aristocrat Claudianus Postumus Dardanus:
"The Epistle to the Hebrews has not only been received by the churches of the East, but also by all the writers of the Church who wrote in Greek before our days, as being from Paul the Apostle, so that many believe it to be from Barnabas or Clement. It makes no difference which it is, for it is from a man of the Church, and is celebrated in the daily readings of the Churches. And if the Latins do not accept it as Scripture, the Churches of the Greeks do not indeed have the same freedom with regard to the Revelation of John. "
Councils of 393 and 397
The only difference to be noted in the repetition of the canon in the councils is that in the councils of 393 and 397 the phrase is used, 'thirteen epistles of Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, with the same,' while the canon of 419 reads, 'fourteen epistles of Paul.'
In the Renaissance and Reformation
there was Awakening earlier doubts as to the authenticity of several New Testament books, Jacob Thomas de Vio (1469-1534), called Gaetano ("Cajetan"), produced a series of biblical commentaries containing much of the unexpectedly enlightened criticism of a "modern critical" type. In his treatment of the heterogeneous antilegomena in the New Testament, he denied the authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul. He also expressed doubts as to the apostolic authorship of the Epistles of James and Jude and of 2 and 3 John. In the case of 2 Peter, he refused to be influenced by earlier doubts, and defended the authenticity of the Epistle. We do not know what his opinion of the Apocalypse was, for he refused to deal with this book, acknowledging that he was unable to penetrate its secrets.
Similar to the views of Cardinal Cajetan were the reservations expressed by the great humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam (d. 1536). In the comments he placed at the beginning of each of the New Testament writers in his edition of the Greek Testament (Basel, 1516), he boldly denies that Paul wrote Hebrews and doubts that the Epistle of James was written by the Apostle James. The traditional authorship of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude is questioned. The style of Revelation prevents one from ascribing it to the author of the Fourth Gospel.
Among the Reformers we find some openness in discussing the canon and re-evaluating the qualifications of the disputed, heterogeneous books (antilegomena). Andreas Bodenstein of Karlstadt (1480-1541),
rejecting the conciliar declarations, asserted the independent authority of Scripture. He divided the New Testament documents into three orders of varying rank, but all of these orders being higher than any others. The first class contains the Gospels and Acts; the second, the undoubted Pauline Epistles, with 1 Peter and 1 John; Third, the seven disputed books: James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.
In his discussion of the disputed books, Karlstadt declares that the authorship of James is not absolutely certain, that 2 and 3 John are not by the Evangelist, but by another John, the presbyter; that Hebrews is not by Paul; and that there is really very little reason why Revelation should be included in the canon. In his German biography he adds to the category of apocryphal writings to the New Testament, namely the end of the Gospel according to Mark and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
Martin Luther's German translation of the New Testament was published in September 1522.
Luther's introductions to the entire New Testament and to the individual books provided historical and theological information that would help the reader in understanding the Bible. In a discussion entitled "Which Books Are the True and Noblest in the New Testament", Luther distinguishes between three types of New Testament books. The first group includes those books “…which show you Christ and teach you all things necessary and saving to know, even though you have not heard or seen any other book or doctrine.” These books are the Gospel of John, the First Epistle of Paul, the Epistles of Paul, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and 1 Peter.
The second group includes the Synoptic Gospels, the other Epistles of Paul, Acts, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
The third group consists of the four writings that Luther placed at the end of his translation: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
In the introductions to these four writings he gave reasons for doubting their apostolic and canonical character. Thus, Hebrews, which comes from the second generation, teaches (unlike Paul) that there can be no repentance of sinners after baptism. James, “a letter of inferiority compared with the others,” contradicts Paul by teaching justification by works. Jude relies on 2 Peter and quotes apocryphal texts; The Apocalypse is full of visions that do not belong to the mission of an apostolic writer - moreover, this writer highly recommends his book and does not clearly show Christ. But somewhat inconsistently, in this context, Luther also emphasizes that he does not wish to impose his opinion on others, nor does he want these four writings to be deleted from the New Testament. A
striking variation among Lutheran editions of the Bible occurred in 1596 when Jacob Lucius published a Bible in Hamburg in which the four disputed books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) were given the title "Apocrypha", followed by the explanation "that is, books that are not equal to other Scriptures".
In the same year, David Wolder, pastor of St. Peter's Church in Hamburg, published the Trinitarian Bible in Greek, Latin (two versions), and German, in whose table of contents the four books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) are referred to as "non-canonical". In 1614, Lucius's title and explanatory note appeared in the Bible published in Goslar by J. Vogt.
In Sweden, the Bible of Gustavus Adolphus (Stockholm, 1618) not only continues to separate the four questionable books at the end of the table of contents, but also calls them the Apocrypha (Yphal) New Testament. Thus we have a threefold division of the New Testament: “The Gospels and Acts,” “The Epistles and Holy Apostles,” and “The Apocryphal New Testament”—an arrangement that continued for nearly a century in a dozen or more editions.
From Bart Ehrman’s New Testament
Contrary to what one might expect, it was not until AD 367, nearly two and a half centuries after the last book of the New Testament was written, that any Christian could be acquainted with the list of the names of the twenty-seven books we have that are considered the authoritative canon of Scripture. The author of this list was Athanasius, the powerful bishop of Alexandria in Egypt.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
The Great Treasure in the Interpretation of the Gospel
by Dr. William Eddy
We say that we do not know the author, and our not knowing him has no bearing on the interpretation of the Epistle or on our considering it as the Word of God.
Explanation of the Holy Bible - Father Antonious Fikry
Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Introduction
Author Paul (!!!!). And this is what they will believe because they want to believe without evidence.
Interpretation of the Holy Bible - New Testament - Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty
Series "From the Interpretation and Reflections of the Early Fathers"
Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Introduction
Author of the Epistle
We can summarize the view of scholars of the Epistle as follows:
1. That the writer is the Apostle Paul: This thought prevailed in the Eastern Church since its inception and later settled in the Western Church. Among those who mentioned this opinion are Saint Panteinus, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Augustine, and it is still considered the prevailing opinion among the vast majority of modern scholars.
(Comment: Inaccurate speech)
1. Barnabas: The scholar Tertullian and Weisler, Ulmann
2. Luke the Evangelist: The scholar Origen mentioned this opinion, and before him Ebrabd, Calvin.
3. Clement of Rome: An early Western trend that disappeared completely except for a few who accepted it such as Reithmuier, Erasmus.
4. Silas: Rohme, Mynster.
5. Apollos: Luthea, semler.
Wikipedia
Opinions have differed over the ages about the identity of the author of this book. In the Western churches, the belief prevailed in the period before the fourth century that the author was Clement of Rome, then the balance tipped to Paul the Apostle, while Tertullian, the ecclesiastical scholar who lived in the second century, attributed this letter to Barnabas. On the other hand, the belief prevailed in the Eastern churches from an early time that Paul was the actual author of this book, and the most prominent figures who supported this opinion were John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Pontius, while Origen believed that the author might be Luke the Evangelist.
Because the identity of the author could not be determined, the letter faced some difficulties in entering the Christian Bible. In the end, it was accepted as part of the Bible due to its theology, eloquent presentation, and other internal factors. In ancient times, some circles began to attribute it to Paul in an attempt to provide the unknown work with an explicit apostolic connection.
The original King James Version of the Bible calls the letter "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." However, the King James Version's attribution of the letter to Paul was merely conjecture, and is now disputed by modern scholarship. Its very different style, different theological focus, different spiritual experience, and different Greek vocabulary are thought to make Paul's authorship of Hebrews increasingly untenable. At present, neither modern scholars nor the Church attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul.
See the introductions to the Bible in any non-Orthodox sources that are far removed from scholarship and scholarship and whose only reliance on the indoctrination of their subjects and their preoccupation with the miracles and intercessions of the saints is their doctrine.
See the introduction to the Catholic Bible - Western-translated Bible Commentaries.
The author is unknown... like many of the New Testament writers.
Then they say who changed it, when did he change it, and where did he change it?
The one who changed it is the one who added unknown writings and said they were divinely inspired.
In response to the Theological Defense Team - and in response to who says who changed it and when?
Some quotes - with some pictures .
From the book The New Testament Canon by Bruce Metzger
Introduction:
During the Middle Ages questions were rarely raised regarding the number and identity of the books that constituted the New Testament canon. Even during the Renaissance and Reformation, despite occasional discussions (such as those of Erasmus and Cajetan) regarding the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, several official letters, and the Book of Revelation, no one dared to seriously dispute their authority. Although Luther considered four of the New Testament books (Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation) to be inferior to the others, neither he nor his followers dared to omit them from his translation.
Pantaenus 180 AD
Although none of his writings have survived, we know Pantaenus's opinion on a New Testament issue that was a matter of great dispute in the early church: the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. According to Eusebius, who relates the opinion of the "blessed presbyter," i.e. Pantaenus, this was the work of the Apostle Paul, but in his authorship he preferred to remain anonymous:
this opinion of Pantaenus, later adopted by both Clement of Alexandria and Origen, seems to have been an attempt at reconciliation, which was necessary for the existence of two kinds of collection (Paul's letters), one with and one without the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clement of Alexandria,
for
the Epistle to the Hebrews, adopts Pantaenus' theory, (that Paul wrote it and concealed his identity) while explaining it by the idea that its translator into Greek was Luke.
Origen was born about 185 AD.
Speaking as a scholar, Origen freely admits that the tradition of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not entirely certain. He gives his considered opinion that, in view of the literary and stylistic problems involved, it is best to conclude that, although the Epistle contains ideas of Paul, it was written by someone else, perhaps Luke or Clement of Rome.
"Who wrote it, God alone knows," said he. Bart Ehrman - New Testament
Hippolytus of Rome, early third century.
He accepted the four Gospels as Scripture, and recognized thirteen Pauline epistles, but not the Epistle to the Hebrews.
He also accepted the Acts of the Apostles and three Catholic Epistles - 1 Peter, 1 John and 2 John.
The total is twenty-two books. Although he does not classify the Epistle to the Hebrews as Scripture, he quotes it frequently, especially in his commentary on Daniel.
Cyprian, mid-third century.
He probably knew of the existence of the Epistle to the Hebrews, since Tertullian (who studied his writings) speaks of it, attributing it to Barnabas. But Cyprian evidently did not consider it canonical.
Muratorian Canon Law. Late second century.
Summarizing the evidence given by the Muratorian passage, one notices that the list classifies the books under four categories.
First, there are those books that are universally accepted, namely the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen letters of Paul, Jude, two (perhaps three) letters of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Revelation of John.
Secondly, there is one disputed book, the Apocalypse of Peter, which some refuse to read in church.
Thirdly, there is one book, the Shepherd of Hermas, which, though rejected, is still to be read in private.
Fourthly, several heretical books are mentioned as being completely rejected.
Books not listed include 1 and 2 Peter, James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Biblical Canon in the East. Syria
It is noteworthy that the Book of Revelation is not included as a New Testament book. This was the state of affairs in Jerusalem by the middle of the fourth century.
In his list of New Testament books, Amphilius mentions some of the earlier controversy over Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation. In fact, he not only relates the doubts of others regarding these books, but also seems to reject 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and almost certainly rejects Revelation.
Athanasius identifies the New Testament books in the fourth century.
The thirty-ninth Epistle of the year 367 is of particular value, because it contains a list of the canonical (canonical) books of the Old and New Testaments. In the case of the Old Testament, Athanasius excluded the canonical books, allowing them only as devotional reading.
The twenty-seven books of the present New Testament are the only canonical books (see Appendix IV.;
they stand in the sequence of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the seven Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles (with Hebrews included between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy), and end with the Apocalypse of John.Syria in the fifth and sixth centuries
By the beginning of the fifth century, if not actually a little earlier, the Syrian Church version of the Bible, the so-called Peshitta, had been formed. This represented for the New Testament an adaptation of the Syrian canon to that of the Greeks. The third Epistle to the Corinthians was rejected, and in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews, after Philemon), the three longer Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) were included.
The four shorter Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and Revelation were absent from the Syriac version of the Peshitta, and thus the Syrian canon of the New Testament contained twenty-two books. For a large part of the Syriac Church, this served as a closure of the canon.
Philaster, Bishop of Brescia (died 397 A.D.),
as a specimen of his confusing and perplexing compilation, in chapter 88 he names in his list of the 'sacred books' of the New Testament, authenticated by the blessed apostles and their followers, the Gospels, thirteen Pauline epistles, and seven Catholic epistles, passing over the Epistle to the Hebrews and even the Apocalypse of John in silence. —But elsewhere he regards Hebrews as Pauline and Apocalypse as apostolic.
Jerome
In the case of 2 and 3 John Jerome tells us that they are 'said to be the work of John the priest,' because John the apostle was the author of the epistle which begins, 'that which was from the beginning.' As for 2 Peter, he has a special suggestion: the difference in style between the two epistles attributed to Peter arises from the apostle employing different secretaries for writing.
The two remaining disputed books, Hebrews and Revelation, are dealt with by Jerome in a letter written in 414 to the aristocrat Claudianus Postumus Dardanus:
"The Epistle to the Hebrews has not only been received by the churches of the East, but also by all the writers of the Church who wrote in Greek before our days, as being from Paul the Apostle, so that many believe it to be from Barnabas or Clement. It makes no difference which it is, for it is from a man of the Church, and is celebrated in the daily readings of the Churches. And if the Latins do not accept it as Scripture, the Churches of the Greeks do not indeed have the same freedom with regard to the Revelation of John. "
Councils of 393 and 397
The only difference to be noted in the repetition of the canon in the councils is that in the councils of 393 and 397 the phrase is used, 'thirteen epistles of Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, with the same,' while the canon of 419 reads, 'fourteen epistles of Paul.'
In the Renaissance and Reformation
there was Awakening earlier doubts as to the authenticity of several New Testament books, Jacob Thomas de Vio (1469-1534), called Gaetano ("Cajetan"), produced a series of biblical commentaries containing much of the unexpectedly enlightened criticism of a "modern critical" type. In his treatment of the heterogeneous antilegomena in the New Testament, he denied the authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul. He also expressed doubts as to the apostolic authorship of the Epistles of James and Jude and of 2 and 3 John. In the case of 2 Peter, he refused to be influenced by earlier doubts, and defended the authenticity of the Epistle. We do not know what his opinion of the Apocalypse was, for he refused to deal with this book, acknowledging that he was unable to penetrate its secrets.
Similar to the views of Cardinal Cajetan were the reservations expressed by the great humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam (d. 1536). In the comments he placed at the beginning of each of the New Testament writers in his edition of the Greek Testament (Basel, 1516), he boldly denies that Paul wrote Hebrews and doubts that the Epistle of James was written by the Apostle James. The traditional authorship of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude is questioned. The style of Revelation prevents one from ascribing it to the author of the Fourth Gospel.
Among the Reformers we find some openness in discussing the canon and re-evaluating the qualifications of the disputed, heterogeneous books (antilegomena). Andreas Bodenstein of Karlstadt (1480-1541),
rejecting the conciliar declarations, asserted the independent authority of Scripture. He divided the New Testament documents into three orders of varying rank, but all of these orders being higher than any others. The first class contains the Gospels and Acts; the second, the undoubted Pauline Epistles, with 1 Peter and 1 John; Third, the seven disputed books: James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.
In his discussion of the disputed books, Karlstadt declares that the authorship of James is not absolutely certain, that 2 and 3 John are not by the Evangelist, but by another John, the presbyter; that Hebrews is not by Paul; and that there is really very little reason why Revelation should be included in the canon. In his German biography he adds to the category of apocryphal writings to the New Testament, namely the end of the Gospel according to Mark and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
Martin Luther's German translation of the New Testament was published in September 1522.
Luther's introductions to the entire New Testament and to the individual books provided historical and theological information that would help the reader in understanding the Bible. In a discussion entitled "Which Books Are the True and Noblest in the New Testament", Luther distinguishes between three types of New Testament books. The first group includes those books “…which show you Christ and teach you all things necessary and saving to know, even though you have not heard or seen any other book or doctrine.” These books are the Gospel of John, the First Epistle of Paul, the Epistles of Paul, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and 1 Peter.
The second group includes the Synoptic Gospels, the other Epistles of Paul, Acts, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
The third group consists of the four writings that Luther placed at the end of his translation: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
In the introductions to these four writings he gave reasons for doubting their apostolic and canonical character. Thus, Hebrews, which comes from the second generation, teaches (unlike Paul) that there can be no repentance of sinners after baptism. James, “a letter of inferiority compared with the others,” contradicts Paul by teaching justification by works. Jude relies on 2 Peter and quotes apocryphal texts; The Apocalypse is full of visions that do not belong to the mission of an apostolic writer - moreover, this writer highly recommends his book and does not clearly show Christ. But somewhat inconsistently, in this context, Luther also emphasizes that he does not wish to impose his opinion on others, nor does he want these four writings to be deleted from the New Testament. A
striking variation among Lutheran editions of the Bible occurred in 1596 when Jacob Lucius published a Bible in Hamburg in which the four disputed books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) were given the title "Apocrypha", followed by the explanation "that is, books that are not equal to other Scriptures".
In the same year, David Wolder, pastor of St. Peter's Church in Hamburg, published the Trinitarian Bible in Greek, Latin (two versions), and German, in whose table of contents the four books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) are referred to as "non-canonical". In 1614, Lucius's title and explanatory note appeared in the Bible published in Goslar by J. Vogt.
In Sweden, the Bible of Gustavus Adolphus (Stockholm, 1618) not only continues to separate the four questionable books at the end of the table of contents, but also calls them the Apocrypha (Yphal) New Testament. Thus we have a threefold division of the New Testament: “The Gospels and Acts,” “The Epistles and Holy Apostles,” and “The Apocryphal New Testament”—an arrangement that continued for nearly a century in a dozen or more editions.
From Bart Ehrman’s New Testament
Contrary to what one might expect, it was not until AD 367, nearly two and a half centuries after the last book of the New Testament was written, that any Christian could be acquainted with the list of the names of the twenty-seven books we have that are considered the authoritative canon of Scripture. The author of this list was Athanasius, the powerful bishop of Alexandria in Egypt.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
The Great Treasure in the Interpretation of the Gospel
by Dr. William Eddy
We say that we do not know the author, and our not knowing him has no bearing on the interpretation of the Epistle or on our considering it as the Word of God.
Explanation of the Holy Bible - Father Antonious Fikry
Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Introduction
Author Paul (!!!!). And this is what they will believe because they want to believe without evidence.
Interpretation of the Holy Bible - New Testament - Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty
Series "From the Interpretation and Reflections of the Early Fathers"
Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Introduction
Author of the Epistle
We can summarize the view of scholars of the Epistle as follows:
1. That the writer is the Apostle Paul: This thought prevailed in the Eastern Church since its inception and later settled in the Western Church. Among those who mentioned this opinion are Saint Panteinus, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Augustine, and it is still considered the prevailing opinion among the vast majority of modern scholars.
(Comment: Inaccurate speech)
1. Barnabas: The scholar Tertullian and Weisler, Ulmann
2. Luke the Evangelist: The scholar Origen mentioned this opinion, and before him Ebrabd, Calvin.
3. Clement of Rome: An early Western trend that disappeared completely except for a few who accepted it such as Reithmuier, Erasmus.
4. Silas: Rohme, Mynster.
5. Apollos: Luthea, semler.
Wikipedia
Opinions have differed over the ages about the identity of the author of this book. In the Western churches, the belief prevailed in the period before the fourth century that the author was Clement of Rome, then the balance tipped to Paul the Apostle, while Tertullian, the ecclesiastical scholar who lived in the second century, attributed this letter to Barnabas. On the other hand, the belief prevailed in the Eastern churches from an early time that Paul was the actual author of this book, and the most prominent figures who supported this opinion were John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Pontius, while Origen believed that the author might be Luke the Evangelist.
Because the identity of the author could not be determined, the letter faced some difficulties in entering the Christian Bible. In the end, it was accepted as part of the Bible due to its theology, eloquent presentation, and other internal factors. In ancient times, some circles began to attribute it to Paul in an attempt to provide the unknown work with an explicit apostolic connection.
The original King James Version of the Bible calls the letter "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." However, the King James Version's attribution of the letter to Paul was merely conjecture, and is now disputed by modern scholarship. Its very different style, different theological focus, different spiritual experience, and different Greek vocabulary are thought to make Paul's authorship of Hebrews increasingly untenable. At present, neither modern scholars nor the Church attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul.
See the introductions to the Bible in any non-Orthodox sources that are far removed from scholarship and scholarship and whose only reliance on the indoctrination of their subjects and their preoccupation with the miracles and intercessions of the saints is their doctrine.
See the introduction to the Catholic Bible - Western-translated Bible Commentaries.
The author is unknown... like many of the New Testament writers.
Then they say who changed it, when did he change it, and where did he change it?
The one who changed it is the one who added unknown writings and said they were divinely inspired.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment