Tag Info

Arguments for a late (2nd century BC) dating: Anti-Prophetic Argument One of the first people to dispute the traditional dating of Daniel was Porphyry, a pagan philosopher whose arguments have been preseved by Jerome. He argues that some of the prophecies in Daniel are so congruent to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the book must have been written ...

More on the linguistics for an early date. It is more proper to say that Hebrew had changed drastically by the 2nd century BC. Lingual shifts had happened but it was still a living language. The most obvious being the word order changed from verb-subject-object to subject-verb-object. It is called Mishnaic Hebrew and the rabbinic writings are full of it. ...

Scholars have been raising doubts about Moses' authorship since the mid-1600s, when Thomas Hobbes noted that certain passages in the five books of the Torah seemed to indicate they had been added by a later writer. Genesis 12:6, "At that time the Canaanites were in the land." And they still were in Moses' time. Numbers 21:14, referring to "the Book of the ...

The other attributed prophetic books include one or more of lineage geonymic prophetic or priestly title in the attribution. Some of the attributions also have an indication of date of the prophecy. Malachi is the only attributed OT text without any of these. The LXX apparently assumes that the text read "Malachiyah", a proper name that can also be a ...

Authorship of Hebrews Expansion of Pauline Authorship The only overt clue as to the authorship is the reference to Timothy in Hebrews 13:23. This, in addition to the Eastern/Alexandrian tradition of Pauline authorship, led many to believe that Paul was the author. This is supported by significant uncial evidence that places Hebrews with other Pauline works ...

Though I wouldn't argue for these being un-pauline, the scenario is quite plausible even if I don't find the arguments convincing. As you mention, language is often brought up as an argument. I've seen a few decent refutations of this arguments both from a statistically and methodologically, so I find it unconvincing. But people still repeat it as a reason. ...

(I wrote this in an essay on Hebrews a few years back, and this was also asked here) Origen (185-254 CE) in the East has been quoted as saying that God only knows who wrote the Epistle although he also suggested that Paul was the author (Robertson, 1932). Hippolytus (170-236 CE) from Rome denied it was written by Paul. Tertullian (160-220 CE) in North ...

I like Origen's comment on the authorship of Hebrews: But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle [Paul], but that the diction and phraseology are those of someone who wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this epistle is ...

They are named that way by tradition and we cannot be 100% sure that the tradition is accurate. While the early Christians say that Matthew was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, more recent scholarship suggests otherwise. Our only sources, though, are from at least a half generation later. The only evidence we have of Mark's authorship are writings ...

P.J. Wiseman posits the theory that the 'toledoth' indicates authors who were eyewitnesses to the events mentioned in Genesis. This is based on the pattern of writing found on ancient Babylonian tablets predating Abraham where the word translated 'generations of' is used to indicate the ownership or authorship of the clay tablet. He suggests that the ...

I'm going to address your direct question of how a text could be accepted as Pauline if Paul didn't write it. I won't go into the specifics of the arguments for or against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. Types of Authorship In ancient times the concept of authorship was different from what it is today. There were at least five different types of ...

In John Owen's introduction on his commentary on Hebrews, who argues against every known argument against Paul's authorship, concluding it was Paul, list a few of the other candidates. I very briefly summarized Owen's argument for Paul's authorship here. Why Paul probably wrote Hebrews. These are the early candidates raised under this controversy: ...

For context, the Gileadites were the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh who chose to occupy the land on the opposite side of the Jordan from the rest of Israel. This region was called Gilead. The Ephraimites had crossed the Jordan in order to confront the Gileadites, but were defeated by their fellow Israelites. The passage in question ...

Mark 13 is not critical to dating this gospel, but can help corroborate external evidence, and perhaps help improve our precision in dating it. External Evidence The earliest external evidence we have, from a second century bishop named Papias, says Mark was based on Peter's preaching: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately ...

This is a great question, in order to answer the question there is a lot to consider with regard to the order of the books. There seems to be a lot of agreement that the letters were sent in the order that we read them in the scriptures, so I won't deal with that, but when I try to see how it could be the other way around (ie. 2 Thes and then 1 Thes) What ...

The best evidence against John the beloved disciple as the sole author is found in John 21:20-24, particularly verse 24: This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. [emphasis mine] A straightforward reading of this suggests that the beloved disciple had ...

Hebrews has long been associated with Paul, though, as you say, the Greek style and the focus are different. The combination of literary Greek and knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures indicates the author was probably a Greek-speaking Jew. A few apostles and teachers mentioned in the book of Acts fit this profile: Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36) ...

Internal Evidence is really hard to use to establish a claim for such a thing. It is too subjective and, as such, is most helpful for corroborating External Evidence. The Greek in Hebrews is good - so Luke is a candidate. However, the content is decidedly Jewish, which Luke never really demonstrates as something about which he has tremendous grasp ...

Sorry to just reproduce a source here, but it does a great job answering part of this question. See the image below from page 13 in The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews by David L. Allen & E. Ray Clendenen (2010). Concerning how our interpretation of the text might change if the author was determined, I can only speculate, but I don't believe it would make ...

One thing to keep in mind when drawing up a list of candidates is that we don't know the names of the vast majority of 1st century Christians. There's a very good chance that the author of Hebrews is not anyone we've ever heard of otherwise. No one thinks we know the name of the author of the Didache or 1 Clement (I'm picking non-canonical examples to avoid ...