Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by rsr, Jun 15, 2004.
Luke was Jewish, speaker tells Messianic fellowship
I actually held this position for many years. I now believe it was Mark.
It couldn't be Paul based on the second chapter of Hebrews.
What are you referring to in the second chapter that precludes Paul?
After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to "us" by "those who heard".
Paul heard directly from the Lord. He uses this fact often to support his apostleship.
Doesn't sound much like Paul either.
I didn't think it was Paul either. I was just wondering what DD was referring to.
But "us" and "those who heard" are not mutually exclusive categories.
If not Paul, then who would have been the close companion of Timothy who also sent greetings from those in Italy (Heb. 13)?
Evidence points to Barnabas, not Luke or Mark.
For goodness sake, we have strong evidence of Luke's writing style from Luke/Acts and even a cursory study of Hebrews would indicate he must have had a lobotomy to change writing style, grammar, vocabulary so dramatically.
Tickling ears with speculation. I would have hoped for better from Criswell College.
My reasons for Mark are actually more than when I believed it was Luke.
1. It must have been a companion of Paul.
2. He was graphically aware of the priesthood and sacrifices. He could have even been a priest (or one in training). Mark was a levite.
3. He warns about those who fail to endure (this point is actually what got me).
4. He wasn't directly under the Lord's teaching and ministry.
5. Paul always signed his name (he even says as much in 1 or 2 Thess).
6. I can't remember any more off the top of my head.
hmmm, this is really interesting. I am involved in a really great program called bible quizzing. This year I memorized the entire materials of Hebrews and first and second Peter. All the hours were totally worth it.
Anyways, this is one of the things that we talked about in practice. We generally decided that it was most likely Barnabbas Apollos, or ??? I forget who the last person we thought it was was. There is a lot we know about this person.
He was very knowledgeable in the Old testament, frequently quoting it. Like was said above about Hebrews 2:3 the author wasn't around Jesus. Probably knew Paul pretty well "I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released if he arrives soon I will come with him to see you." Was involved in the early church. Although the author doesn't need to be a Jew it seems very likely to me that he was.
That said I don't think it really matters who wrote it. We will never know for sure until heaven. What really matters is that it was inspired by God. So we might as well spend our time reading and memorizing it and meditating on it than looking for little clues of authorship.
I've never understood why it matters who wrote it. I believe it's God's Word. God wrote it. Maybe that seems too simplistic but hey, I have a simple mind.
I think that it was written by a Jewish priest who became a Christian. We don't know the name of the author, and any guess is speculative.
That is was written by an "unknown" is a plus. The book of Hebrews, one of best books in the New Testament, and one of the least preached on, is an incredible piece of writing giving an interpretational view of why Jesus is better than Moses, the tabernacle, the law, etc.
I think that the writer of Hebrews knew the Apostle Paul, and had sat under the teaching of the Apostle Paul. But the writer of Hebrews had full command of his own belief system, even though he had incorporated some of Paul's teachings into his writings.
I favor Apollos but I agree we'll never know for sure this side of glory . . .
But not MARK! The writing is NOTHING LIKE the writing of Mark! (stylewise that is, not truthwise)
The book of Hebrews is my favorite NT book outside the Gospels. Have no idea who wrote it, just wanted to say how much I like it!
Actually, this point is moot. The gospel of Mark is actually taken from Peter. Mark was a companion of Peter as well. It is even believed by many (myself included), that the gospel of Mark is really a collection of Peter's sermons.
Mark fits every category.
The difficulty of the Greek and the OT references and knowledge cause a problem for the Markan theory, IMO.
Unless this is his own book Larry. If the gospel with his name is really Peter's sermons, then it really doesn't take in Mark's writing style.
Further, since he was a Levite, he would have been quite knowledgable.
I don't think there is any evidence worthy of serious consideration that Mark is Peter's sermons. There is no doubt that Mark was taught by Peter ... But his sermons?? I think that is really reaching without much evidence ...
I have been studying Mark in preparation for a Sunday School series that I plan to begin shortly. Consequently, I have been doing some reading recently on the origin of that gospel. We do have this testimony from Eusebius:
Now, whether the Book of Mark contains Peter's words or Mark's rewording of Peter's words, that's another issue. I don't know.
I have not seen anything in print indicating Mark as a possible author of Hebrews. Ellingworth lists and discusses the following as possibilities:
Paul, Clement of Rome, Luke, Barnabas, Peter, Jude, Stephen, Phillip the deacon, Aristion, Priscilla, Mary, Epaphras, and Apollos.
I would think if Mark was a serious possibility that he would have been mentioned in Ellingworth's discussion.
Personally, I still think the author was most likely Paul. But, who knows. I just hate always having to say "the writer of Hebrews" over and over again when dealing with a passage from that book.
Tertullian named Barnabas as the author of Hebrews.* If Mark wrote the gospel named for him, he did not write Hebrews. I find a whole lot of Peter's personality in Mark's Gospel, and suspect that Peter had much to do with it.
*"The discipline, therefore, of the apostles properly (so called), indeed, instructs and determinately directs, as a principal point, the overseer of all sanctity as regards the temple of God to the universal eradication of every sacrilegious outrage upon modesty, without any mention of restoration. I wish, however, redundantly to superadd the testimony likewise of one particular comrade of the apostles, — (a testimony) aptly suited for confirming, by most proximate right, the discipline of his masters. 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 in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: "Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?" And, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the Churches than that apocryphal "Shepherd" of adulterers. Warning, accordingly, the disciples to omit all first principles, and strive rather after perfection, and not lay again the foundations of repentance from the works of the dead, he says: "For impossible it is that they who have once been illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have participated in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the word of God and found it sweet, when they shall — their age already setting — have fallen away, should be again recalled unto repentance, crucifying again for themselves the Son of God, and dishonouring Him." "For the earth which hath drunk the rain often descending upon it, and hath borne grass apt for them on whose account it is tilled withal, attaineth God's blessing; but if it bring forth thorns, it is reprobate, and nighest to cursing, whose end is (doomed) unto utter burning." He who learnt this from apostles, and taught it with apostles, never knew of any "second repentance" promised by apostles to the adulterer and fornicator.” Tertullian “On Modesty,” chapter 20.