[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142354#msg142354 date=1312168832] Cephas, do you also believe that the ending of the Gospel of St. Mark was added by someone else?
Thank you for this. However, I fail to see how this proves authorship.
What I have indicated is that P46 had the epistles to the Hebrews right after the Romans and after it Corinthians. The manuscript was a collection of St Paul epistle. So having the epistle in the collection right after the Romans is significant.
Here is also what St Athanasius said about the epistle: " ... there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. ...." (excerpt from his Paschal letter of the year 367.
Here is what the Council of Carthage of the year 397 said: "...13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews"
While I appreciate your input, I have noted earlier that there has been debate about the authorship of Hebrews for the first 4 centuries of the Church. I know that both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius attribute Hebrews to St. Paul. However, there are others who do not agree, and even from an earlier date. The fact that Hebrews is lumped with other letters of St. Paul does not necessarily mean it was composed by him. That is all I'm saying.
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.
2. The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.
3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.
4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.
5. Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.
6. But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.
7. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.
The text as it has been passed down to the present time is internally anonymous, though ancient title headings attribute it to the Apostle Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews was thought by some in antiquity such as Clement of Alexandria (Fragments from Eusebius Ecclesiastical History Book VI)[2] to be by Paul, though it does not identify itself as such.
Style different from Paul
Some traditions attribute the letter to Paul, but the style is notably different from the rest of Paul's epistles. Eusebius reports that the original letter had a Jewish audience and was written in Hebrew, and then later translated into Greek by Luke.
Moreover, the writing style is substantially different from that of Paul's authentic epistles, a characteristic first noticed by Clement (c. 210). In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he forcefully defends his claim that he received his gospel directly from the resurrected Jesus himself.
Acceptance by the Church
Nevertheless, in the fourth century, the Church largely agreed to include Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul. Jerome and Augustine of Hippo were influential in affirming Paul's authorship,[3] and the Church affirmed this authorship until the Reformation.
Doubts in antiquity
However, even in antiquity doubts were raised about Paul's alleged authorship. The reasons for this controversy are fairly plain. For example, his letters always contain an introduction stating authorship, yet Hebrews does not.[4] Also, while much of its theology and teachings may be considered Pauline, it contains many other ideas which seem to have no such root or influence.
Suggested alternative authors
Barnabas Tertullian (On Modesty 20) indicates that Barnabas is the author of the epistle to the Hebrews - "For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas – a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself…". Internal considerations suggest the author was male (Hebrews 11:32), he was an acquaintance of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), and was located in Italy (Hebrews 13:24).
Barnabas, to whom other noncanonical works are attributed (such as Epistle of Barnabas), was close to Paul in his ministry, and exhibited skill with the Midrash; the other works attributed to him bolster the case for his authorship of Hebrews with similar style, voice, and skill.
Luke or Clement In response to the doubts raised about Paul's involvement, other possible authors were suggested as early as the third century CE. Origen of Alexandria (c. 240) suggested that either Luke the Evangelist or Clement of Rome might be the author.[5]
Apollos Martin Luther proposed Apollos, described as an Alexandrian and "a learned man" (Acts 18:24), popular in Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12), and adept at using the scriptures and arguing for Christianity while "refuting the Jews" (Acts 18:27–28).
Priscilla In more recent times, some scholars have advanced a case for the authorship of Hebrews belonging to Priscilla. Perhaps the most thoroughly presented argument that Priscilla authored Hebrews came from Berlin Prof. Adolph Von Harnack in 1900.[6] Starr's book[7] contains Harnack's summary of his research:
Letter to the Hebrews was written to Rome—not to the church, but to the inner circle (Romans 16:5) The fact that the author's name was "blotted out by the earliest tradition" is considered "amazing." The closing verses of chapter 13 say the letter was written by a person of high standing and an apostolic teacher of equal rank with Timothy. The author must have been intimately associated with Paul and Timothy. Therefore, Harnack reasons, there must have been a reason why the author's name is not given. Harnack concludes: "This can only be Priscilla."
Harnack gives four reasons for his conclusion that Priscilla wrote the Letter to the Hebrews:
Priscilla had an inner circle in Rome, "the church that is in their house" (Romans 16:5). She was an Apostolic teacher of high standing, and known throughout Christendom of that day (Romans 16). She was the teacher of the intelligent and highly educated Apollos (Acts 18). She and her husband Aquila labored closely and taught together, explaining why both the pronouns "I" and "we" were used by the author.
Nevertheless, other commentators have observed that the self-reference in Hebrews 11:32 employs the masculine participle διηγούμενον ("describing in full"), implying that Priscilla could not have been the author; or else she was masquerading as a male in order to gain credibility.[8]
Views of modern scholars
In general, the evidence against Pauline authorship is considered too solid for scholarly dispute. Donald Guthrie, in his New Testament Introduction (1976), commented that "most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory."[9] Harold Attridge tells us that "it is certainly not a work of the apostle";[10] Daniel Wallace simply states, "the arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are conclusive."[11] As a result, few supporters of Pauline authorship remain.
As Richard Heard notes, in his Introduction to the New Testament, "modern critics have confirmed that the epistle cannot be attributed to Paul and have for the most part agreed with Origen's judgement, 'But as to who wrote the epistle, only God knows the truth.'"[12]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142358#msg142358 date=1312169525] + Irini nem ehmot,
imikhail,
While I appreciate your input, I have noted earlier that there has been debate about the authorship of Hebrews for the first 4 centuries of the Church. I know that both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius attribute Hebrews to St. Paul. However, there are others who do not agree, and even from an earlier date. The fact that Hebrews is lumped with other letters of St. Paul does not necessarily mean it was composed by him. That is all I'm saying.
There will always be people who disagree.
What is important is what has my Church received and what have my Fathers said. St. Athanasius was the Pope of our Church, we ask his absolution in every liturgy. Thus, I listen to him and abide by his teachings. This is what Tradition and discipleship is all about.
The other thing that you need to consider is that there are councils that already agreed on what the NT canon is. Our Church abides by the Carthage canon and has received it in the Church. So why the confusion?
Where is the confusion? I'm not confused. Are you?
I'm merely saying that I personally do not feel that St. Paul composed Hebrews. I'm not sure why this is necessarily an issue. This is not a matter of dogma. A person will not risk their salvation for not believing Hebrews was composed by Paul. If it makes you lose sleep at night, then go ahead and believe Paul wrote it. I'm not losing any sleep thinking otherwise.
Cephas, at the end of the day you have to keep in mind that in the early church, questioning whether the authorship of a particular text basically meant questioning its truthfulness. So it doesn't matter if some questioned who authored Hebrews, I know they are wrong. Not because I am greater than they are but because the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit is greater than what any individual says.
This whole idea of doubting who the author is yet still believing that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit is a modern invention. That would never happen in the Early Church.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142365#msg142365 date=1312171116] + Irini nem ehmot,
Where is the confusion? I'm not confused. Are you?
I'm merely saying that I personally do not feel that St. Paul composed Hebrews. I'm not sure why this is necessarily an issue. This is not a matter of dogma. A person will not risk their salvation for not believing Hebrews was composed by Paul. If it makes you lose sleep at night, then go ahead and believe Paul wrote it. I'm not losing any sleep thinking otherwise.
This is the attitude I tried to address in my previous note.
It is an issue when you believe something different than that from whom you receive absolution especially if what he said is considered a canon.
If that is what you wish to believe, you are free to. I disagree. For the first 100 years of the church, there were no Gospels and all the Epistles had not been composed. For the next 300 years, no formal canon was set up. Yet the Church still survived and passed on the teachings of the Apostles. The written text merely serves to complement the oral Tradition. Thus, everything that was written had to be measured up to what had been orally passed down. Authorship was just an added bonus.
Where is the confusion? I'm not confused. Are you?
I'm merely saying that I personally do not feel that St. Paul composed Hebrews. I'm not sure why this is necessarily an issue. This is not a matter of dogma. A person will not risk their salvation for not believing Hebrews was composed by Paul. If it makes you lose sleep at night, then go ahead and believe Paul wrote it. I'm not losing any sleep thinking otherwise.
This is the attitude I tried to address in my previous note.
It is an issue when you believe something different than that from whom you receive absolution especially if what he said is considered a canon.
Please keep the sarcastic comments out ...
Origen is one of the earliest Fathers who questioned whether St. Paul wrote Hebrews. He lived at a time closer to the actual composition of Hebrews. Why should we dismiss his thoughts? Once again, this is not a dogmatic issue. One's salvation is not dependent on who wrote what. What matters is what is taught.
Where is the confusion? I'm not confused. Are you?
I'm merely saying that I personally do not feel that St. Paul composed Hebrews. I'm not sure why this is necessarily an issue. This is not a matter of dogma. A person will not risk their salvation for not believing Hebrews was composed by Paul. If it makes you lose sleep at night, then go ahead and believe Paul wrote it. I'm not losing any sleep thinking otherwise.
This is the attitude I tried to address in my previous note.
It is an issue when you believe something different than that from whom you receive absolution especially if what he said is considered a canon.
Please keep the sarcastic comments out ...
Origen is one of the earliest Fathers who questioned whether St. Paul wrote Hebrews. He lived at a time closer to the actual composition of Hebrews. Why should we dismiss his thoughts? Once again, this is not a dogmatic issue. One's salvation is not dependent on who wrote what. What matters is what is taught.
Origen was excommunicated by Pope Demetrius and was not a Pope of our Church neither do we ask his absolution in every liturgy.
Nestorius was also a Patriarch. Not everything a patriarch says is always right. Nor does everything a person who has been excommunicated says incorrect. Look bro, this is an issue of opinion. You think St. Paul composed Hebrews, I don't. You have your reasons, I have mine. Let it go.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142368#msg142368 date=1312171716] + Irini nem ehmot,
If that is what you wish to believe, you are free to. I disagree. For the first 100 years of the church, there were no Gospels and all the Epistles had not been composed. For the next 300 years, no formal canon was set up. Yet the Church still survived and passed on the teachings of the Apostles. The written text merely serves to complement the oral Tradition. Thus, everything that was written had to be measured up to what had been orally passed down. Authorship was just an added bonus.
The church survived without a written canon for the simple reason that people obeyed what the church told them. So when an apostle said this was written by Paul, people believed it. Those who said it wasn't were not given a pat on the back and told that it doesn't matter. . .
If that is what you wish to believe, you are free to. I disagree. For the first 100 years of the church, there were no Gospels and all the Epistles had not been composed. For the next 300 years, no formal canon was set up. Yet the Church still survived and passed on the teachings of the Apostles. The written text merely serves to complement the oral Tradition. Thus, everything that was written had to be measured up to what had been orally passed down. Authorship was just an added bonus.
The church survived without a written canon for the simple reason that people obeyed what the church told them. So when an apostle said this was written by Paul, people believed it. Those who said it wasn't were not given a pat on the back and told that it doesn't matter. . .
Regarding the bolded section: When do you propose this would have taken place?
If that is what you wish to believe, you are free to. I disagree. For the first 100 years of the church, there were no Gospels and all the Epistles had not been composed. For the next 300 years, no formal canon was set up. Yet the Church still survived and passed on the teachings of the Apostles. The written text merely serves to complement the oral Tradition. Thus, everything that was written had to be measured up to what had been orally passed down. Authorship was just an added bonus.
The church survived without a written canon for the simple reason that people obeyed what the church told them. So when an apostle said this was written by Paul, people believed it. Those who said it wasn't were not given a pat on the back and told that it doesn't matter. . .
Regarding the bolded section: When do you propose this would have taken place?
An apostle would not have read them. They would have been read by whoever the head of the congregation was. Keep in mind, there was no proper church building at this early time. Nor was there a 3 hour liturgy the way we have today. People would have gathered at houses or catacombs. And how long was it before these letters were mass produced? How many of the churches would have had access to these letters? What about the missing letters? I'm not sure I see why this is such a heated issue for you?
I am just perplexed by how willing you are to disregard what the Church has taught us. And over what? A structure that isn't typical of Paul; some other people disagreed about it in the Early Church. . .is that really all it takes for us to cast aside what our fathers teach us?
I am perplexed why this is bothering you so much. This is not a matter of dogma. One's salvation is not dependent on this. When it comes to authorship, it is not important. My faith will not suffer if whoever is supposed to have written a particular epistle or gospel didn't write it. You never answered about the ending of Gospel according to St. Mark. Do you think it was added later? If not, then how do you account for the fact that some of the earliest texts do not have it? And what about the Gospel according to St. John? Did you notice that there are 2 endings to that Gospel? Is the last chapter a later interpolation? And what about the Comma Johanneum? The fact that there have been interpolations to texts does not invalidate the texts or the message conveyed in those texts. The same is true with regards to authorship. Once again, that is my own opinion and you don't have to accept it if you don't want to.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142371#msg142371 date=1312172441] + Irini nem ehmot,
Nestorius was also a Patriarch. Not everything a patriarch says is always right. Nor does everything a person who has been excommunicated says incorrect. Look bro, this is an issue of opinion. You think St. Paul composed Hebrews, I don't. You have your reasons, I have mine. Let it go.
You are making at least two mistakes in your comparison:
You comparing an excommunicated patriarch to St. Athanasius who was quoted by his successors in their fight against heretics like Nestorious.
You are also comparing mere opinions to canons received in the Holy Church.
And NO I don't believe that the ending of Mark was an addition. That is nonsense. If you believe all these modern theories, what makes you so confident that Mark wrote the any of the Gospel? But then again, that doesn't matter to you. If the same Church that told us that Mark wrote the ending told us he wrote the beginning, why believe one and not the other? This is exactly what Orthodoxy is. Trusting that what was handed down to us is the truth. Don't let your mind be changed at a whim. Any evidence that even casts doubt on these bogus theories is enough for me. The burden of proof is on people who attack what the Church has believed since the beginning.
*sigh* I am growing weary of this back and forth. And for what: a matter of opinion? There have been a number of things that even the Church Fathers have not been unanimous on. Even within our own Oriental Orthodox church, there is no unanimous/uniform canon. One need only look at the Ethiopian Orthodox's acceptance of the Book of Enoch to see that.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11959.msg142384#msg142384 date=1312176875] Imilkhail, I was querying the date of the manuscript you referenced. You suggestef 85ad but the wiki article says 200 ad. There is a difference.
Kephas, there was a canon long before the date you suggested.
I was under the impression that it wasn't until the Council of Carthage in 419AD that a formal canon was laid out. I understand that there were varying opinions of what was viewed as Scripture prior to that point, particularly when it came to which churches had access to which writings. If there are references that state otherwise, I would really appreciate links to them.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142387#msg142387 date=1312182063] + Irini nem ehmot,
Father bless!
I was under the impression that it wasn't until the Council of Carthage in 419AD that a formal canon was laid out. I understand that there were varying opinions of what was viewed as Scripture prior to that point, particularly when it came to which churches had access to which writings. If there are references that state otherwise, I would really appreciate links to them.
One of the canons that predates Carthage was that of St Athanasius as I explained. The Church of Alexandria was ahead of the curve if you will.
Carthage's canon emphasized what the Church of Alexandria had already canonized.
I know about St. Athanasius' list from his 39th Paschal letter in 367. It is mentioned in the article I linked to you. As the article I linked to states:
The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
[...]
The remaining books
In this formative period the Epistle to the Hebrews did not obtain a firm footing in the Canon of the Universal Church. At Rome it was not yet recognized as canonical, as shown by the Muratorian catalogue of Roman origin; Irenæus probably cites it, but makes no reference to a Pauline origin. Yet it was known at Rome as early as St. Clement, as the latter's epistle attests. The Alexandrian Church admitted it as the work of St. Paul, and canonical. The Montanists favoured it, and the aptness with which vi, 4-8, lent itself to the Montanist and Novatianist rigour was doubtless one reason why it was suspect in the West. Also during this period the excess over the minimal Canon composed of the Gospels and thirteen epistles varied. The seven "Catholic" Epistles (James, Jude, I and II Peter, and the three of John) had not yet been brought into a special group, and, with the possible exception of the three of St. John, remained isolated units, depending for their canonical strength on variable circumstances. But towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and, besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts, I Peter, I John (to which II and III John were probably attached), and Apocalypse. Thus Hebrews, James, Jude, and II Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity, and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Apocalypse form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the New Testament. However, at the beginning of the third century the New Testament was formed in the sense that the content of its main divisions, what may be called its essence, was sharply defined and universally received, while all the secondary books were recognized in some Churches. A singular exception to the universality of the above-described substance of the New Testament was the Canon of the primitive East Syrian Church, which did not contain any of the Catholic Epistles or Apocalypse.
If there was an earlier council that ratified these as Scripture before St. Athanasius that would be interesting. I'm curious if there is one. In his letter, he states the books he listed as being canonical according to the Church. How did he come to that conclusion, or did he lay it out himself? And if he did lay it out himself, that's all well and good for Alexandria, but how can it be binding for the rest of the churches? One patriarch of a see cannot unilaterally decided on what constitutes the canons of the Old and New Testaments. And even St. Athanasius' canon is a good 300 years after the completed writings of the New Testament. So I'm curious where the foundation of it came from, when, as I illustrated above, between 100-220 AD, there was still debate about Hebrews, James, Jude and II Peter.
No, I understand that there was a sense of what was canon and what wasn't early on. However, there didn't seem to be a need to formally spell it out until much later. Anyway, this is a thread about Hebrews, and Hebrews seems to have been incorporated into the canon later on. There was debate about who authored it. And since this thread is about the authorship of Hebrews, my point of view is that whether St. Paul composed it or not, it is still canon and something I can accept. Authorship is not the be all end all. That was the only point I was trying to make. Things aren't as black and white (particularly in matters that have no bearing on one's salvation, such as authorship) as some would like to believe. The fact that there was still some fluidity in what constituted the canon of Scripture, even in the Early Church, proves that Orthodoxy is not dependent on such rigidity. Is my point clear?
Comments
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142354#msg142354 date=1312168832]
Cephas, do you also believe that the ending of the Gospel of St. Mark was added by someone else?
I do. I take it you don't.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[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.
What I have indicated is that P46 had the epistles to the Hebrews right after the Romans and after it Corinthians. The manuscript was a collection of St Paul epistle. So having the epistle in the collection right after the Romans is significant.
Here is also what St Athanasius said about the epistle:
" ... there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. ...." (excerpt from his Paschal letter of the year 367.
Here is what the Council of Carthage of the year 397 said: "...13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews"
Hope this helps.
imikhail,
While I appreciate your input, I have noted earlier that there has been debate about the authorship of Hebrews for the first 4 centuries of the Church. I know that both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius attribute Hebrews to St. Paul. However, there are others who do not agree, and even from an earlier date. The fact that Hebrews is lumped with other letters of St. Paul does not necessarily mean it was composed by him. That is all I'm saying.
Eusebius' Church History (Book III) Source
Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews Source
+ Irini nem ehmot,
imikhail,
While I appreciate your input, I have noted earlier that there has been debate about the authorship of Hebrews for the first 4 centuries of the Church. I know that both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius attribute Hebrews to St. Paul. However, there are others who do not agree, and even from an earlier date. The fact that Hebrews is lumped with other letters of St. Paul does not necessarily mean it was composed by him. That is all I'm saying.
There will always be people who disagree.
What is important is what has my Church received and what have my Fathers said. St. Athanasius was the Pope of our Church, we ask his absolution in every liturgy. Thus, I listen to him and abide by his teachings. This is what Tradition and discipleship is all about.
The other thing that you need to consider is that there are councils that already agreed on what the NT canon is. Our Church abides by the Carthage canon and has received it in the Church. So why the confusion?
Where is the confusion? I'm not confused. Are you?
I'm merely saying that I personally do not feel that St. Paul composed Hebrews. I'm not sure why this is necessarily an issue. This is not a matter of dogma. A person will not risk their salvation for not believing Hebrews was composed by Paul. If it makes you lose sleep at night, then go ahead and believe Paul wrote it. I'm not losing any sleep thinking otherwise.
This whole idea of doubting who the author is yet still believing that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit is a modern invention. That would never happen in the Early Church.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Where is the confusion? I'm not confused. Are you?
I'm merely saying that I personally do not feel that St. Paul composed Hebrews. I'm not sure why this is necessarily an issue. This is not a matter of dogma. A person will not risk their salvation for not believing Hebrews was composed by Paul. If it makes you lose sleep at night, then go ahead and believe Paul wrote it. I'm not losing any sleep thinking otherwise.
This is the attitude I tried to address in my previous note.
It is an issue when you believe something different than that from whom you receive absolution especially if what he said is considered a canon.
Please keep the sarcastic comments out ...
If that is what you wish to believe, you are free to. I disagree. For the first 100 years of the church, there were no Gospels and all the Epistles had not been composed. For the next 300 years, no formal canon was set up. Yet the Church still survived and passed on the teachings of the Apostles. The written text merely serves to complement the oral Tradition. Thus, everything that was written had to be measured up to what had been orally passed down. Authorship was just an added bonus.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142367#msg142367 date=1312171445]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142365#msg142365 date=1312171116]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Where is the confusion? I'm not confused. Are you?
I'm merely saying that I personally do not feel that St. Paul composed Hebrews. I'm not sure why this is necessarily an issue. This is not a matter of dogma. A person will not risk their salvation for not believing Hebrews was composed by Paul. If it makes you lose sleep at night, then go ahead and believe Paul wrote it. I'm not losing any sleep thinking otherwise.
This is the attitude I tried to address in my previous note.
It is an issue when you believe something different than that from whom you receive absolution especially if what he said is considered a canon.
Please keep the sarcastic comments out ...
Origen is one of the earliest Fathers who questioned whether St. Paul wrote Hebrews. He lived at a time closer to the actual composition of Hebrews. Why should we dismiss his thoughts? Once again, this is not a dogmatic issue. One's salvation is not dependent on who wrote what. What matters is what is taught.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11959.msg142367#msg142367 date=1312171445]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142365#msg142365 date=1312171116]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Where is the confusion? I'm not confused. Are you?
I'm merely saying that I personally do not feel that St. Paul composed Hebrews. I'm not sure why this is necessarily an issue. This is not a matter of dogma. A person will not risk their salvation for not believing Hebrews was composed by Paul. If it makes you lose sleep at night, then go ahead and believe Paul wrote it. I'm not losing any sleep thinking otherwise.
This is the attitude I tried to address in my previous note.
It is an issue when you believe something different than that from whom you receive absolution especially if what he said is considered a canon.
Please keep the sarcastic comments out ...
Origen is one of the earliest Fathers who questioned whether St. Paul wrote Hebrews. He lived at a time closer to the actual composition of Hebrews. Why should we dismiss his thoughts? Once again, this is not a dogmatic issue. One's salvation is not dependent on who wrote what. What matters is what is taught.
Origen was excommunicated by Pope Demetrius and was not a Pope of our Church neither do we ask his absolution in every liturgy.
Nestorius was also a Patriarch. Not everything a patriarch says is always right. Nor does everything a person who has been excommunicated says incorrect. Look bro, this is an issue of opinion. You think St. Paul composed Hebrews, I don't. You have your reasons, I have mine. Let it go.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
If that is what you wish to believe, you are free to. I disagree. For the first 100 years of the church, there were no Gospels and all the Epistles had not been composed. For the next 300 years, no formal canon was set up. Yet the Church still survived and passed on the teachings of the Apostles. The written text merely serves to complement the oral Tradition. Thus, everything that was written had to be measured up to what had been orally passed down. Authorship was just an added bonus.
The church survived without a written canon for the simple reason that people obeyed what the church told them. So when an apostle said this was written by Paul, people believed it. Those who said it wasn't were not given a pat on the back and told that it doesn't matter. . .
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142372#msg142372 date=1312172456]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142368#msg142368 date=1312171716]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
If that is what you wish to believe, you are free to. I disagree. For the first 100 years of the church, there were no Gospels and all the Epistles had not been composed. For the next 300 years, no formal canon was set up. Yet the Church still survived and passed on the teachings of the Apostles. The written text merely serves to complement the oral Tradition. Thus, everything that was written had to be measured up to what had been orally passed down. Authorship was just an added bonus.
The church survived without a written canon for the simple reason that people obeyed what the church told them. So when an apostle said this was written by Paul, people believed it. Those who said it wasn't were not given a pat on the back and told that it doesn't matter. . .
Regarding the bolded section: When do you propose this would have taken place?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11959.msg142372#msg142372 date=1312172456]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11959.msg142368#msg142368 date=1312171716]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
If that is what you wish to believe, you are free to. I disagree. For the first 100 years of the church, there were no Gospels and all the Epistles had not been composed. For the next 300 years, no formal canon was set up. Yet the Church still survived and passed on the teachings of the Apostles. The written text merely serves to complement the oral Tradition. Thus, everything that was written had to be measured up to what had been orally passed down. Authorship was just an added bonus.
The church survived without a written canon for the simple reason that people obeyed what the church told them. So when an apostle said this was written by Paul, people believed it. Those who said it wasn't were not given a pat on the back and told that it doesn't matter. . .
Regarding the bolded section: When do you propose this would have taken place?
As they were reading them to the people.
An apostle would not have read them. They would have been read by whoever the head of the congregation was. Keep in mind, there was no proper church building at this early time. Nor was there a 3 hour liturgy the way we have today. People would have gathered at houses or catacombs. And how long was it before these letters were mass produced? How many of the churches would have had access to these letters? What about the missing letters? I'm not sure I see why this is such a heated issue for you?
I am perplexed why this is bothering you so much. This is not a matter of dogma. One's salvation is not dependent on this. When it comes to authorship, it is not important. My faith will not suffer if whoever is supposed to have written a particular epistle or gospel didn't write it. You never answered about the ending of Gospel according to St. Mark. Do you think it was added later? If not, then how do you account for the fact that some of the earliest texts do not have it? And what about the Gospel according to St. John? Did you notice that there are 2 endings to that Gospel? Is the last chapter a later interpolation? And what about the Comma Johanneum? The fact that there have been interpolations to texts does not invalidate the texts or the message conveyed in those texts. The same is true with regards to authorship. Once again, that is my own opinion and you don't have to accept it if you don't want to.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Nestorius was also a Patriarch. Not everything a patriarch says is always right. Nor does everything a person who has been excommunicated says incorrect. Look bro, this is an issue of opinion. You think St. Paul composed Hebrews, I don't. You have your reasons, I have mine. Let it go.
You are making at least two mistakes in your comparison:
You comparing an excommunicated patriarch to St. Athanasius who was quoted by his successors in their fight against heretics like Nestorious.
You are also comparing mere opinions to canons received in the Holy Church.
And NO I don't believe that the ending of Mark was an addition. That is nonsense. If you believe all these modern theories, what makes you so confident that Mark wrote the any of the Gospel? But then again, that doesn't matter to you. If the same Church that told us that Mark wrote the ending told us he wrote the beginning, why believe one and not the other? This is exactly what Orthodoxy is. Trusting that what was handed down to us is the truth. Don't let your mind be changed at a whim. Any evidence that even casts doubt on these bogus theories is enough for me. The burden of proof is on people who attack what the Church has believed since the beginning.
*sigh* I am growing weary of this back and forth. And for what: a matter of opinion? There have been a number of things that even the Church Fathers have not been unanimous on. Even within our own Oriental Orthodox church, there is no unanimous/uniform canon. One need only look at the Ethiopian Orthodox's acceptance of the Book of Enoch to see that.
Anyway, here are a couple more articles to read:
Pauline Epistles
Canon of the New Testament
Kephas, there was a canon long before the date you suggested.
Imilkhail, I was querying the date of the manuscript you referenced. You suggestef 85ad but the wiki article says 200 ad. There is a difference.
Kephas, there was a canon long before the date you suggested.
Read about P46 here:
http://www.friktech.com/rel/p46.htm
Father bless!
I was under the impression that it wasn't until the Council of Carthage in 419AD that a formal canon was laid out. I understand that there were varying opinions of what was viewed as Scripture prior to that point, particularly when it came to which churches had access to which writings. If there are references that state otherwise, I would really appreciate links to them.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Father bless!
I was under the impression that it wasn't until the Council of Carthage in 419AD that a formal canon was laid out. I understand that there were varying opinions of what was viewed as Scripture prior to that point, particularly when it came to which churches had access to which writings. If there are references that state otherwise, I would really appreciate links to them.
One of the canons that predates Carthage was that of St Athanasius as I explained. The Church of Alexandria was ahead of the curve if you will.
Carthage's canon emphasized what the Church of Alexandria had already canonized.
I know about St. Athanasius' list from his 39th Paschal letter in 367. It is mentioned in the article I linked to you. As the article I linked to states: Source
If there was an earlier council that ratified these as Scripture before St. Athanasius that would be interesting. I'm curious if there is one. In his letter, he states the books he listed as being canonical according to the Church. How did he come to that conclusion, or did he lay it out himself? And if he did lay it out himself, that's all well and good for Alexandria, but how can it be binding for the rest of the churches? One patriarch of a see cannot unilaterally decided on what constitutes the canons of the Old and New Testaments. And even St. Athanasius' canon is a good 300 years after the completed writings of the New Testament. So I'm curious where the foundation of it came from, when, as I illustrated above, between 100-220 AD, there was still debate about Hebrews, James, Jude and II Peter.
Father bless!
No, I understand that there was a sense of what was canon and what wasn't early on. However, there didn't seem to be a need to formally spell it out until much later. Anyway, this is a thread about Hebrews, and Hebrews seems to have been incorporated into the canon later on. There was debate about who authored it. And since this thread is about the authorship of Hebrews, my point of view is that whether St. Paul composed it or not, it is still canon and something I can accept. Authorship is not the be all end all. That was the only point I was trying to make. Things aren't as black and white (particularly in matters that have no bearing on one's salvation, such as authorship) as some would like to believe. The fact that there was still some fluidity in what constituted the canon of Scripture, even in the Early Church, proves that Orthodoxy is not dependent on such rigidity. Is my point clear?