Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews

Removed paragraph...
This paragraph made no sense to me. If it makes sense to someone else, please insert it again.

-Removed Paragraph- This is one of the few Epistles in the Bible that have no distinct author. Yet there is good reason for this. If Paul had written it was not becoming that he should write, "Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ.." in the introduction because Jesus Christ is seen as the Apostle in this Epistle. Hebrews 3:1, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of [the] heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus."

&mdash; Matthew Hambrick 21:45, April 14, 2006.

Another Removal, clean up
I thought this paragraph was biased and therefore I removed it, but left a few aspects of it. If I was wrong please replace it.

Some, such as John A. T. Robinson, place the entire New Testament at a much earlier date. Robinson argues, for example, that there is no textual evidence that the New Testament authors had knowledge of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in AD 70. Especially in light of Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple, the New Testament would be expected to reflect this. Other scholars, such as Hank Hanegraaff, have argued for an early date for the New Testament on similar lines of evidence. The exact date of authorship rarely makes a significant difference in the interpretation of a book, with the exception of the Book of Revelation.

&mdash; Matthew Hambrick 22:19, May 25, 2006.

how " present " is something from 1993?
in the wiki it states, At present, neither modern scholarship nor church teaching ascribes Hebrews to Paul.

but the source is from 1993. i argue that this sentence is removed or reworked. thoughts? 104.175.178.167 (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Show us that things have changed since then. But we only accept relatively recent sources written by full professors who are mainstream Bible scholars. Otherwise, don't try, don't waste our time.
 * In the mainstream academia Paul wrote Hebrews is seen as a childish and fanciful idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

chapter 7 v 202.9.74.6 (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Authorship claim: "he refers to himself using a masculine participle in 11:32"
In May 2013 with this revision the following text was added, without citation:

"However, the author's use of the masculine gender participle when referring to himself in cf 11:32 makes it unlikely it could be Priscilla or any other woman."

In May 2017, the claim having been there with "citation required" for years, was removed with this revision.

In August 2021 the claim reappeared with this revision, attributed to a printed source.

In the article on Priscilla and Aquila: Hoppin and others suggest that Priscilla was the author, but that her name was omitted either to suppress its female authorship, or to protect the letter itself from suppression.

So I think that it is too much to say "a majority of scholars hold that the author was presumably male" (the citations do not support "a majority of"), and we should also allow for the masculine form being used (originally, or as altered by a copyist) to hide its female authorship, which at the time could have been used to detract from its authority and/or acceptance. Jinlye (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You're right. I have removed that sentence as unsupported by its citation; if you're going to claim that a majority of scholars say something, your source needs to support that. Someone can re-add it as a point against Priscilla's authorship if it really is a significant point in the discussion (i.e., not WP:UNDUE), and as long as they don't push the claim too far. Smdjcl (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What does this mean?
What does this phrase mean? "written in deliberate imitation of the style of Paul,[8][9] "

I ask since the Greek style of Hebrews (as noted below) is considerably different and higher than Paul's Greek, and we don't have a sermon by Paul. So, this doesn't seem to make sense to me.

ABS (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

§ on Audience
The section on Audience is weak at best. Would it be better to remove it now, until substantial improvement can be made?

ABS (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)