Hebrews and authorship

Mormon Insights posted "Was Paul the Author of Book of Hebrews?," taking issue with scholarly higher criticism. Scholars of the Bible generally conclude that, as one scholar is quoted in the post as saying, the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews "was not an epistle; it was not written by Paul; Paul was not an Apostle; and it was not addressed to the Hebrews.” The post argues at some length for the traditional view.

I take a different tangent — assuming the scholars are right and some other bright, articulate believer other than Paul wrote Hebrews, it shows that the canonical status and utility of a book is not dependent on the traditional account of authorship and origin. No one, after all, rips Hebrews out of their New Testment or reads it out of the canon, even if they accept the scholarly view. This suggests orthodox worries over attacks on traditional authorship attributions are exaggerated.

Comments

[kodos]

I doubt Paul wrote Hebrews because of "lower criticism."

When I read Hebrews, even in the KJV, it just doesn't read like all the other books apparently written by Paul. Also, it doesn't claim to be written by Paul. Why would I even think it was written by Paul?

[S.Faux]

Dave:

Thanks for commenting and linking "Mormon Insights." I want to clarify my claim: Paul may not have been the author of Hebrews, but he certainly could have been. That is my claim. Actually, I am rejecting the overly dogmatic view that Paul was not the author. Instead, I am saying there are good reasons for thinking he was. My essay simply lists those "good" reasons.

Yes, one way or another, Hebrews should stay in the canon. It is especially important to the Latter-day Saints.

[Stephen M (Ethesis)]

Hebrews is an elaborate midrash -- a classic example of the sort of thing that a person given a traditional scholarly education would be expected to write.

In many ways, if Paul's history is taken at face value, it is the book most likely to fit what you would expect him to have written.

It is also what one might right to the saints at Jerusalem to prepare them for the trials that would follow the destruction of the city.

All of which gives an interesting twist to the debate. If Paul is thought of as a neo-Greek Jewish citizen of the world, the book doesn't fit him at all.

But if he is seen as a traditionalist, trained by traditionalist, who was a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks, then the book fits.

I don't know the answer, but the story is by no means as cut and dried as it appears.

[Jettboy]

Frankly when I heard that Hebrews might not have been written by Paul, I thought "so what?" To paraphrase Joseph Smith, it tasted like authentic gospel no matter who wrote the book. Mormons, in theory, are much more open to Biblical criticism as long as the miracles, history, and doctrine are not completely rejected or mythologized.