The Narrow Path Ministries

On a radio broadcast I believe I heard Steve mention (and please correct me if I misunderstood) that the books that were allowed in the NT Cannon were so chosen not necessarily based on their contents but more so on being able to verify the author of the writing with the person it was attributed to and that person’s relationship to Jesus (Matthew, John etc.) or the apostles (Mark, Luke, Paul etc.) If this is the case how can the book of Hebrews be considered canonical if no one can say for sure who wrote it?

Erich <><

Apostolic authority was, perhaps, the key element, but it wasn't the only element.

FF Bruce in 'The Canon of Scripture' lists the following criteria

1. Apostolic authority (it seems about half the church believed it was Pauline)
2. Antiquity (must be from the Apostolic age (Hebrews qualified)
3. Orthodoxy (the doctrine in Hebrews was respected overwhelmingly)
4. Catholicity (Hebrews was almost universally read and admired by Christians)
5. Traditional use (Hebrews had been used for centuries by churches prior to its canonization)

If these 5 criterie were valued on a descending scale (1 worth 30pts, 2 worth 25, 3 worth 20, 4 worth 15, 5 worth 10) and Hebrews only received half credit for #1, it still met 85% of the criteria.

Eventually, most, at the time the canon was discovered, came to believe it was Pauline. But even if it wasn't it can certainly be argued that it was from Luke and approved, then, on the basis of his time spent with Paul.

Thanks mattrose for the info on that. I'm curious though if there aren't other writings that may fulfill similar criteria and yet is not considered canonical? I myself can’t say for sure because I haven’t yet (although I plan to) done the research into the different extra biblical writings of the time. I do not doubt Hebrews but it was just a thought I had and wanted to throw it out there.

Erich <><

Erich:

You may want to check out this url:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

Blind Beggar,

Thanks for the resource!

Erich <><

My acceptance of Hebrews as canonical rests largely upon the evidence that it was written by a close companion of Paul's—someone like Luke.

The book uses some distinctly pauline expressions—e.g., the milk/solid food dichotomy (Heb.5:12-14 w/ 1 Cor.3:1-2); the priestly intercession of Christ in heaven (Heb.7:25 w/ Rom.8:34); and the church called the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb.12:22-23 w/ Gal.4:26). The author also quotes some of the Old Testament passages that Paul quoted (e.g., Psalm 2:7; 110:1; Hab.2:4). These things seem suggestive of Paul's influence upon the thinking of the author.

Greek scholars have noted that the Greek in the book of Hebrews, along with that in Luke in Acts, is more cultured than that of the other New Testament writings. It is not written in Paul's Greek style.

Clement of Alexandria believed that Paul wrote the book in Hebrew and it was translated by Luke into Greek. However, there are word-plays in the book that only work in Greek, so that an original written in Hebrew could not have used them—e.g., the use of diatheke to mean both "covenant" and "testament" or "will" (Heb.9:16-18).

I think Hebrews may quite possibly have been written completely by Luke himself, because the writer seems to have traveled with Timothy (Heb.13:23). Timothy and Luke were Paul's most inseparable companions. But Luke, being a Greek, might seem less qualified to have written to Jewish believers (on the other hand, his being a Greek may have been a reason for his writing to Jews anonymously).

Hebrews could have been written by Luke but i don't think a gentile would have written so forcefully to jews. It certainly is heavily influenced by Paul but i think it's written too eloquently for him to have written it himself yet by someone with his theology. It's powerful and confident so the writer must have been mighty in the scriptures and eloquent of speech and a traveling companion of Paul . How about Apollos?

I have often considered Apollos as the possible author. Luther was the first to suggest this option, and many today think it probable. I could not rule this out, though I don't know if Paul and Apollos ever travelled together, and I only know of one occasion where they communicated with each other (1 Cor.16:12). It is hard to say how much Apollos knew of Paul's theology or vocabulary. The scriptures are silent on this, but they may have linked up at some unrecorded time.

Just a thought that might not be worth much. Couldn't Paul have written in a different style because he was writing a polemic rather than a letter? I had at one time listened to Dr. Macgee (unsure of spelling) only on the program where he answered listeners questions, and then I heard him preach a wonderful Christmas sermon and could not believe it was him because he spoke so differently.

Steve it seems Paul is quite familiar with Apollos's teachings.
1 Cor 1.12 "Now i mean this ,that each one of you is saying , I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I Cephas and I Christ." It seems like Apollos is in good company here.
1 Cor 3.5 "What then is Apollos? and what is Paul?" To mention himself with Apollos has got to mean Paul is very familiar with the man and his teachings.
1 Cor 3.6 " I planted, Apollos watered but God was causing the growth."
1 Cor 3.22 " whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas."
And i'm sure you know Luke said that Apollos was "an eloquent man and he was mighty in the scriptures" Acts 18.24
Sounds like a description of the author of Hebrews.
Homer, Besides the writing style being more eloquent then Paul's and the fact that Paul identified himself in his other epistles there is one more thing. In Hebrews 2.3 " After it was at the first spoken through the Lord ,it was confirmed to us by those who heard." Paul said he received special revelation directly from the Lord, Gal 1.11-12 so when he says "by those who heard" IMO would make it unlikely Paul would say this.