Dr. Luke

[cts racing]

I'm currently leading a study in my SS class on the book written by Dr. Luke, which is named after him .

One of the things we have learned is the Dr. Luke is the ONLY gentile writer of the Bible. The rest are Jewish orign - after all, Paul wrote in Romans 3:1,2 that they are the 'keepers of the Word'.

(We are currently at Luke 4:31)
Now for the reason for this thread: Did you ever notice how many people were sick, needed healing, and such? Was there any 'healthy' ppl at this day & age? lol. How many ppl said to Jesus, "Dr. Luke couldn't do anything for me. Can you"? -(abstract comment on how inept Dr.'s must have been during this time)
In Luke 4: 23 - "Physician, heal yourself" was apparently an insulting phrase for Dr.'s at this age (this phrase is not found in Proverbs); sort of like "ambulance chaser' ie for lawyers.

[Yekcid]

I'm currently leading a study in my SS class on the book written by Dr. Luke, which is named after him .

One of the things we have learned is the Dr. Luke is the ONLY gentile writer of the Bible. The rest are Jewish orign - after all, Paul wrote in Romans 3:1,2 that they are the 'keepers of the Word'.

There is an opinion floating around that has gained a little ground in a few circles. Dr. David Allen is coming out with a commentary on Hebrews where he is going to argue that Luke was a Hellenistic Jew and the author of Hebrews. He is going to argue in it that Hebrews was written by Luke to a group of converted priests (see Acts 6) who had probably fled Jerusalem to Antioch during the late 60's due to either persecution or the outbreak of the Jewish War. He will also argue that Luke wrote his gospel and Acts to a converted Jewish High Priest named "Theophilus". The fascinating things about all of this is it has a history back into the early church fathers (Pantinus, Origen, and a curious comment by Clement) and Josephus records an actual Jewish High Priest from AD 37-41 AD named "Theophilus".

If you are doing a study on this I highly, highly reccomend seeing this. Here is an EXCELLENT talk he gave at a chapel session at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary where he explains some of this:

ht tp://ww w.swbts.e du/dashboard.cfm?dateString=20080828&dateToLoad=Augus t 28, 2008

(if you have trouble with the link go to SWBTS (southwest baptist theo. seminary) and on their main page is a link at the bottom to chapel messages. Look in the archives and its August 28, 08)


There is another scholar, Rick Strelan, who did a work recently where he argues that Luke was not only Jewish, but was himself a priest. Unfortunately his book is $99 and so I haven't read it yet.

[cts racing]

WOW! Thanks Yekcid. I will do just that.
All the commentaries that we have say that Dr. Luke was a Gentile - interesting if he is indeed a Jew. The people of Israel are 100% 'the Keepers of the Word'.

[DJHere]

The only problem with this mans conclusion that Luke was a Jew is it does not agree with what is written in Colossians 4. There Paul states who the Jews are who are with him and Luke is not noted as being one of them:

10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me. 12Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. 13I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. 14Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. 15Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary explains:

Luke must have been a Gentile for Paul differentiates him from the Jews (Col. 4:10-14). Paul wrote that, of his fellow-workers, Aristarchus, Mark, and John were the only ones who were Jews. The others (Epaphras, Luke, and Demas) were therefore probably Gentiles. Paul referred to Luke as a physican (Col. 4:14), a fact which many try to corroborate from passages in Luke and Acts. Until modern times church tradition uniformly has held Luke to be the author of Luke and Acts. According to tradition Luke was from Antioch, but it is impossible to verify this claim.

As for Luke having written Hebrews I think what is recorded in Hebrews 13 would argue against that for there the author states:

22Brothers, I urge you to bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written you only a short letter.

23I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you.

[Yekcid]

The only problem with this mans conclusion that Luke was a Jew is it does not agree with what is written in Colossians 4. There Paul states who the Jews are who are with him and Luke is not noted as being one of them:

10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me. 12Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. 13I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. 14Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. 15Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary explains:

Luke must have been a Gentile for Paul differentiates him from the Jews (Col. 4:10-14). Paul wrote that, of his fellow-workers, Aristarchus, Mark, and John were the only ones who were Jews. The others (Epaphras, Luke, and Demas) were therefore probably Gentiles. Paul referred to Luke as a physican (Col. 4:14), a fact which many try to corroborate from passages in Luke and Acts. Until modern times church tradition uniformly has held Luke to be the author of Luke and Acts. According to tradition Luke was from Antioch, but it is impossible to verify this claim.

I would also be interested to see how he deals with that passage. I'm sure he will address it in his commentary when it comes out. My suspicion is that he will say that in Colossians 4, Paul is listing out and saying that all of these are the only Jews are working with him at the moment, which would mean that everyone in that list is a Jew. And this is certainly possible. Though it's also possible that Paul is saying that Luke, Epaphras, and Demas were Gentile. I don't think it can be decided on Col 4 alone due to some ambiguity there. I will be interested to see what David Allen says in his commentary.

Strelan makes an interesting argument on this verse. He says that the comment is refering to Jews who were strict in their ritual obedience vs. Jews who were not as strict. For example, Paul will never say he is "of the circumcision", but clearly he was circumcized. So it may be that Paul is saying the first ones in the list in Col 4 are strict in their ritual observance while the others in the list are not so strict, which would go to say that Luke may be a hellenized Jew, or it may be that everyone Paul is listing is strict in their ritual observance while Paul is not as strict, which would say that Luke is not only a Jew, but more strict than Paul in ritual observance. This sort of division between ritually strict Jews and those who were not as ritually strict can be seen, in Acts 6:1 - in Luke of all places.

Strelan has a more difficult hill to climb though since he is arguing that Luke was a priest, and so Strelan must address references to Luke being a physician. Allen however is only saying Luke is a Hellenized Jew.

As for Luke having written Hebrews I think what is recorded in Hebrews 13 would argue against that for there the author states:

22Brothers, I urge you to bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written you only a short letter.

23I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you.

I don't know how that is supposed to argue against Luke being the author. It really doesn't give any information other than the author knows Timothy and considers him a brother and that whoever the author is plans on visiting whoever it is he is writing to. It might indicate a location of where the letter is coming from since it will be in a place where Timmothy is prisoner.

[DJHere]

I
I don't know how that is supposed to argue against Luke being the author. It really doesn't give any information other than the author knows Timothy and considers him a brother and that whoever the author is plans on visiting whoever it is he is writing to. It might indicate a location of where the letter is coming from since it will be in a place where Timmothy is prisoner.

Who is Timothy most closely associated with in the NT? Paul. That is why I believe this passage may point to Paul as the author rather than Luke.

Who do many people believe wrote Hebrews? Paul.

In answering a post yesterday I noted that in Gal. 3 Paul wrote:

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

And what did the Hebrew writer write in Hebrews 12:

2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

At the time the thought that came to my mind is that this could be one thing that indicates Paul wrote Hebrews. Just a thought mind you.

Who comes in a close second to Paul as being the author of Hebrews? According to the Bible Knowledge commentary Barnabas.

Many names have been conjectured for the authorship of Hebrews, but the question remains unsolved. The tradition of Pauline authorship is very old and has never been decisively disproved. From the time of Pantaenus (died ca. A.D. 190) it was held in Alexandria that the epistle was in some sense Pauline. Clement of Alexandria thought Paul had written it originally in the Hebrew language and that Luke had translated it into Greek.

On the basis of style, Origen doubted the Pauline authorship but was not willing to set the tradition aside. In a famous statement he admitted that only God knew who had written the book.

The belief in the Pauline authorship of Hebrews belonged chiefly to the East until a later time. Jerome and Augustine seem to have been responsible for popularizing it in the West. In modern times it has usually been felt that the style and internal characteristics of Hebrews rule out Paul as the author. But arguments built on such considerations are notoriously subjective and have also been used to prove highly untenable propostions. Still it must be admitted that when Hebrews is read in Greek and compared with the known letters of Paul, the total impression is that here one meets a spiritual mind clearly attuned to Paul but in subtle ways quite different. This subjective impression, however, would not have prevailed if the early church's tradition had only mentioned Paul.

In fact the other name with early support is that of Paul's former missionary partner, Barnabas. This tradition appeared first in the West in Tertulllian (ca. 160/170 - 215/220). In a polemical passage he quoted from Hebrews and assigned the quotation to an Epistle by Barnabas. Moreover, he did not talk as if this were his own opinion but simply a fact which his readers would know. The view that Barnabas wrote Hebrews was referred to at a later time by Jerome and reappeared in Gregory of Elvira and Filaster, both writers of the fourth century. There is reason to think that in the ancient catalog of canonical books found in the Western manuscript called Codex Claremontanus, the Book of Hebrews went under the name of the Epistle of Barnabas.

The evidence is not extensive, but the fact that it came from the West is perhaps significant. The only geographical reference in Hebrews is to Italy (13:24), and if the tradition about Barnabas is true it is not surprising that it comes from that part of the world. In other respects, Barnabas fits the requirements for authorship of this epistle. Since he was a Levite (Acts 4:36), an interest in the Levitical system, such as the author of Hebrews displayed, would be natural for him. Since he had close ties with Paul, resemblances in Hebrews to Paul's thought would be naturally explained. Moreover, Timothy had been converted in the area of Paul's first missonary journey (Acts 16:1-3) and was therefore most probably known to Barnabas. If Paul were dead at the time of the writing of Hebrews, it would not be surprising if Timothy were to join Paul's former companion (Heb. 13:23). The rift between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:37-39) had long since healed and Paul had later spoken warmly of Barnabas' cousin Mark (cf. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11).

Of course authorship by Barnabas cannot be proved, any more than authorship by Paul can be disproved. But it has more to commend it than the other alternative suggestions. Among these it may be mentioned that at one time or another the names of Clement of Rome, Luke, Silvanus, Philip the Evangelist, Priscilla, and Apollos have been offered as possible authors. In particular the name of Apollos has found favor with some modern writers. The suggestion is often traced to Martin Luther. But the evicence is tenuous and does not include the early traditional support that the proposal Hebrews was written by Barnabas does. On balance this seems like the best conjecture. If Hebrews were actually authored by Barnabas, then it can claim apostolic origin since Barnabas was called an apostle (Acts 14:4, 14). In any case its divine authority is manifest.

[Yekcid]

Who is Timothy most closely associated with in the NT? Paul. That is why I believe this passage may point to Paul as the author rather than Luke.

Hebrews 13 calls Timothy "brother" whereas Paul usually likes to call him his "son" (1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2, 2:1; 1 Cor 4:17; Phi 2:19-22) . Though in Col 1:1 (cf: 4:18) and Phm 1:1 Paul does call him brother. Chances are though, that all the christians refered to each other as brother, since they considered themselves to all have the same Father. So the reference to Timothy as "brother" would only really indicate that whoever is writing Hebrews is also a christian. It doesn't indicate Paul over anyone else or anyone else over Paul. It really doesn't indicate much.

The conclusion of Hebrews might as easily indicate that Paul is still in prison in Rome. It would be that Luke has traveled there with him and Timothy. Timothy had been released and Paul either had been released and was living in Rome or Paul was still in prison. Paul's plans from Rome were to go toward Spain (Rom 15:24-28), but the author of Hebrews, writing from Rome (Heb 13:24), is getting ready to go back to wherever this "Hebrews" congregation is, and that certainly isn't Spain (I would say it's probably Antioch or Jerusalem).

Who do many people believe wrote Hebrews? Paul.

Many people believe otherwise too. Many are content to say "we don't know" (such is the case of the Bible Knowledge Commentary you quoted). What many people believe doesn't indicate what the truth of the matter is.

In answering a post yesterday I noted that in Gal. 3 Paul wrote:

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

And what did the Hebrew writer write in Hebrews 12:

2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

At the time the thought that came to my mind is that this could be one thing that indicates Paul wrote Hebrews. Just a thought mind you.

Those who reject Paul as the author of Hebrews usually do so precisely because the letter doesn't look like a Paul letter and on other linguistic grounds. So where you make one parallel, there could be 2 or 3 made that indicate it's not Paul's style. For example, ALL of Paul's letter's start with a salutation, but Hebrews does not.

Who comes in a close second to Paul as being the author of Hebrews? According to the Bible Knowledge commentary Barnabas.

Based on what? Patristic evidence? Patristic evidence is very divided on the issue. Has the Bible Knowledge commentary come across some Barnabas letters by which they could compare with Hebrews and say that Barnabas would likely be the author if not Paul? Why do they choose Barnabas over Silas? Silas traveled just as much with him. Luke is often seen with him too. Since there are no letters of Barnabas aroundn right now, I might think that the B.K.C. is just making a guess, but their conclusion is that they don't know who the author is. They don't conclude that Paul was likely the author.

Also, the BKC you quoted seems to be combatting the idea that Barnabas is the author and it doesn't address Lukan authorship arguments.

[DJHere]

Hebrews 13 calls Timothy "brother" whereas Paul usually likes to call him his "son" (1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2, 2:1; 1 Cor 4:17; Phi 2:19-22) . Though in Col 1:1 (cf: 4:18) and Phm 1:1 Paul does call him brother.

He addressed him as a brother several other places as well (2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2)

What does God's word teach us about Timothy? He traveled extensively with Paul:

1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. 5So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers. (Acts 16)

13When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up. 14The brothers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea. 15The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible. (Acts 17)

21After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. "After I have been there," he said, "I must visit Rome also." 22He sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he stayed in the province of Asia a little longer. (Acts 19)

1When the uproar had ended, Paul sent for the disciples and, after encouraging them, said good-by and set out for Macedonia. 2He traveled through that area, speaking many words of encouragement to the people, and finally arrived in Greece, 3where he stayed three months. Because the Jews made a plot against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided to go back through Macedonia. 4He was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy also, and Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia (Acts 20)

The Bible Knowledge Commentary notes:

Timothy's promise for the ministry was recognized early (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:5). Thus Paul took him on as a companion and he became one of the apostle's most trustworthy fellow-laborers (cf. Romans 16:21; 1 Cor. 16:10; Phil. 2:19-22; 1 Thess. 3:2). He also became Paul's faithful representative and messenger (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Cor. 1:19; Phil. 2:19; 1 Thess. 3:2, 6). Six of Paul's epistles include Timothy in the salutations (2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philemon 1). Timothy had become so dear to Paul that in the apostle's last message was a touching appeal for Timothy to join him in his final days of imprisonment (2 Tim. 1:4; 4:9, 21).
After being released from his first Roman imprisonment Paul, with Timothy by his side, evidently revisited some of the churches in Asia, including Ephesus. On his departure from Ephesus, Paul left Timothy behind to provide leadership to the congregation. Then after an interval Paul wrote Timothy a letter, 1 Timothy, urging him on in that ministry.

You stated:

So the reference to Timothy as "brother" would only really indicate that whoever is writing Hebrews is also a christian. It doesn't indicate Paul over anyone else or anyone else over Paul. It really doesn't indicate much.

What else does Hebrews 13 teach us? The author who wrote this was in Italy:

24Greet all your leaders and all God's people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.

Was Paul imprisoned in Italy? Yes!

Another commentary explains why they believe the author was Paul:

The limits of this work will not allow details concerning this discussion, and I will content myself with briefly stating reasons why I think it is to be ascribed to Paul. (1) There is no proof whatever, of any kind, that any one else was the author. There is only conjecture. (2) Paul is named as the author in the second century by Christian Fathers who were the disciples of men who had sat at the feet of the apostles. (3) The greatest of the Ante-Nicene Fathers who make mention of its authorship affirm that it was written by Paul. (4) It was written in Paul's lifetime, for the temple was evidently still standing; it was written by a friend of Timothy, written from Italy, and evidently by one who was a prisoner. (5) The salutation, or benediction with which it closes is found in the other thirteen epistles of Paul, and is found in the New Testament epistles of no other writer. Paul alone invokes grace upon those whom he addresses as his farewell words. (6) The second Epistle of Peter, an Epistle evidently written to Hebrews, declares that Paul had written an Epistle to them. "As our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him hath written unto you; as also in all his Epistles." This refers to some particular letter, sent to the same persons whom Peter was addressing, and hence there seems to be little doubt that there existed, before Peter died, an Epistle to the Hebrews written by Paul. (7) The argument is thoroughly Pauline. There can be no doubt, even if the language is not Paul's, that he inspired the thoughts. Hence, we are justified in concluding that the Epistle is really one of Paul's, even if his thoughts are in part clothed in the language of another writer.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Comme...eb&chapter=000

We know Tetius wrote down Pauls letter to the Romans:

21Timothy, my fellow worker, sends his greetings to you, as do Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, my relatives.

22I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord. (Romans 16)


Secondly, what is the evidence that Luke wrote Hebrews? Luke leaves no doubt as to the fact he is the one who wrote the books of Luke and Acts for he wrote:

1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. (Acts 1)

So why not make note of the fact he wrote Hebrews if he is the one who wrote it?

You state:

The conclusion of Hebrews might as easily indicate that Paul is still in prison in Rome. It would be that Luke has traveled there with him and Timothy. Timothy had been released and Paul either had been released and was living in Rome or Paul was still in prison. Paul's plans from Rome were to go toward Spain (Rom 15:24-28),

Paul at the time Romans was written was on his way to Jerusalem:

23But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. (Romans 15)

He had not yet been to Rome and was planning on going there on his way to Spain:

28So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. 29I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ. (Romans 15)

So your conclusion:

but the author of Hebrews, writing from Rome (Heb 13:24), is getting ready to go back to wherever this "Hebrews" congregation is, and that certainly isn't Spain (I would say it's probably Antioch or Jerusalem).

does not hold water.

What many people believe doesn't indicate what the truth of the matter is.

The commentary was clear to point out no one can say for sure who wrote Hebrews so what can we say for sure? One thing it was God inspired.

Those who reject Paul as the author of Hebrews usually do so precisely because the letter doesn't look like a Paul letter and on other linguistic grounds. So where you make one parallel, there could be 2 or 3 made that indicate it's not Paul's style. For example, ALL of Paul's letter's start with a salutation, but Hebrews does not.

I could argue that it ends like other Pauline Epistles.

Since there are no letters of Barnabas around right now, I might think that the B.K.C. is just making a guess, but their conclusion is that they don't know who the author is. They don't conclude that Paul was likely the author.

No what did they say:

Many names have been conjectured for the authorship of Hebrews, but the question remains unsolved.

Then what do they state:

The tradition of Pauline authorship is very old and has never been decisively disproved.

They note the second most noted one mentioned as one who might have been the author of Hebrews is Barnabas:

In fact the other name with early support is that of Paul's former missionary partner, Barnabas.

And go on to give an explanation why.

You stated:

Also, the BKC you quoted seems to be combatting the idea that Barnabas is the author and it doesn't address Lukan authorship arguments.

Maybe that is because they believed that the two most likely contenders were Paul and Barnabas.

[Yekcid]

He addressed him as a brother several other places as well (2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2)

OK. Thanks for the references. But, like I said, "brother" is most likely a term that Christians used for each other, so one calling another "brother" doesn't indicate one author over another.

What does God's word teach us about Timothy? He traveled extensively with Paul:

Ok....I never said he didn't.

You stated:

What else does Hebrews 13 teach us? The author who wrote this was in Italy:

24Greet all your leaders and all God's people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.

Was Paul imprisoned in Italy? Yes!

I believe I clearly acknowledged that Paul was imprisoned in Rome. But Paul wasn't in Rome alone. Guess who traveled with Paul to Rome?

Acts 27:1 When it was decided we would sail to Italy...
Acts 28:16 When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him.


Luke was there too. So just saying, "Paul was in Rome, Hebrews was written from Rome, therefore Paul wrote Hebrews" is simply illogical.

Another commentary explains why they believe the author was Paul:

I see I am being asked to believe something simple because a commentary says it. I'm intereseted in reasons why I should buy into something, not the names and numbers of people who adhere to a position. So I will look at the arguments:

(1) There is no proof whatever, of any kind, that any one else was the author. There is only conjecture.

An argument from silence is no argument for Paul. And (1) is simple wrong. This ignores Patristic evidence that thinks otherwise. And besides, Strelan and Allen would beg to differ that there is no evidence.

(2) Paul is named as the author in the second century by Christian Fathers who were the disciples of men who had sat at the feet of the apostles.
(3) The greatest of the Ante-Nicene Fathers who make mention of its authorship affirm that it was written by Paul.

Patristic evidence is far from a consensus that it was Paul. And your author doesn't cite which church fathers he's talking about. That's aggrevating.

(4) It was written in Paul's lifetime, for the temple was evidently still standing; it was written by a friend of Timothy, written from Italy, and evidently by one who was a prisoner.

We've gone over this one on this post. Simply that the letter was from Rome doesn't mean it was from Paul. That's a terribly fallacious argument. Paul was not in Rome alone. Luke talks in Acts about going there too. And Hebrews seems to indicate that it's author is not imprisoned as Timothy was (Heb 13:3, 13:33, 10:34 [variants lurking]). And simply being a "brother" of Timothy doesn't mean it was Paul writing. It could be any christian based on that.

(5) The salutation, or benediction with which it closes is found in the other thirteen epistles of Paul, and is found in the New Testament epistles of no other writer. Paul alone invokes grace upon those whom he addresses as his farewell words.

This ignores the fact that there is no salutation to head the letter. If there is to be a comparison made between Hebrews and Pauline letters based on the structure of the letter, then this obviously isn't Pauline. And nobody is maintaining that James, Jude, John, or Peter (the other NT epistles) wrote this so saying it doesn't look like the structure of their letters is a no brainer.

(6) The second Epistle of Peter, an Epistle evidently written to Hebrews, declares that Paul had written an Epistle to them. "As our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him hath written unto you; as also in all his Epistles." This refers to some particular letter, sent to the same persons whom Peter was addressing, and hence there seems to be little doubt that there existed, before Peter died, an Epistle to the Hebrews written by Paul.

I don't think that's a good reason at all. Peter simply refers to all of Paul's letters and that some things in them are hard to understand. Considering this is Peter's 2nd letter (2 Pet 3:1) and he is writing to the same audience as his first letter (Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia), I would bet the hard things to understand are the theology of books like Galatians, Thessalonians, and Colossians. There is nothing at all to indicate Peter thinks Paul wrote Hebrews.

3:15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, 3:16 speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.

(7) The argument is thoroughly Pauline. There can be no doubt, even if the language is not Paul's, that he inspired the thoughts. Hence, we are justified in concluding that the Epistle is really one of Paul's, even if his thoughts are in part clothed in the language of another writer.

Now, I wouldn't doubt that the letter might exhibit some Pauline influence. Whoever is writing seems to be writing from Rome while Timothy is there. The author appears to be at least a traveling companion of Paul so Paul's influence should be able to be seen if they really are traveling and working together.

We know Tetius wrote down Pauls letter to the Romans:

21Timothy, my fellow worker, sends his greetings to you, as do Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, my relatives.

22I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord. (Romans 16)

OK. That has nothing to do with anything.

Secondly, what is the evidence that Luke wrote Hebrews? Luke leaves no doubt as to the fact he is the one who wrote the books of Luke and Acts for he wrote:

1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. (Acts 1)

So why not make note of the fact he wrote Hebrews if he is the one who wrote it?

Luke does not mention his name in Luke OR Acts. Luke just indicates that he is writing to Theophilus. His gospel and Acts are technically anonymous. In fact, it's Paul who usually names himself in his letters (Col 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1, 16:21; Eph 3:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:1; Phm 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1). The fact that Hebrew's doesn't name it's author would give more credence to Luke's style than Paul's

You state:

Paul at the time Romans was written was on his way to Jerusalem:

Yes, his plans were to go to eventually go to Spain by way of Rome.

He had not yet been to Rome and was planning on going there on his way to Spain:

Yes.

So your conclusion:

does not hold water.

Yes, it does hold water. Paul wishes to go to Spain after Rome. The writer of Hebrews is in Rome. The next logical step for Paul after Rome, if he were allowed, would be to go to Spain, but the author of Hebrews wants to head back East. This would indicate that it's not Paul writing.

The commentary was clear to point out no one can say for sure who wrote Hebrews so what can we say for sure? One thing it was God inspired.

I don't doubt it's inspired. It's a great letter.

Maybe that is because they believed that the two most likely contenders were Paul and Barnabas.

Unfortunately the only way to say that Barnabas might be the author is to look at Patristic evidence. But Patristic evidence is divided on authorship. I think the 2 most likely candidates are Luke and Paul.

[DJHere]

I believe I clearly acknowledged that Paul was imprisoned in Rome. But Paul wasn't in Rome alone.

I never implied he was.


You stated:

The conclusion of Hebrews might as easily indicate that Paul is still in prison in Rome. It would be that Luke has traveled there with him and Timothy. Timothy had been released and Paul either had been released and was living in Rome or Paul was still in prison. Paul's plans from Rome were to go toward Spain (Rom 15:24-28), but the author of Hebrews, writing from Rome (Heb 13:24), is getting ready to go back to wherever this "Hebrews" congregation is, and that certainly isn't Spain (I would say it's probably Antioch or Jerusalem).

I replied:
Paul at the time Romans was written was on his way to Jerusalem:

23But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. (Romans 15)

He had not yet been to Rome and was planning on going there on his way to Spain:

28So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. 29I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ. (Romans 15)

So your conclusion:

but the author of Hebrews, writing from Rome (Heb 13:24), is getting ready to go back to wherever this "Hebrews" congregation is, and that certainly isn't Spain (I would say it's probably Antioch or Jerusalem).

does not hold water.

You replied:

Yes, it does hold water. Paul wishes to go to Spain after Rome. The writer of Hebrews is in Rome. The next logical step for Paul after Rome, if he were allowed, would be to go to Spain, but the author of Hebrews wants to head back East. This would indicate that it's not Paul writing.

That was Paul's original plan, however, his Roman imprisonment may have changed that. Paul's plans, noted in Romans 15, which you noted, were based on his traveling to Jerusalem and then going on to Rome of his own accord, not as as a prisoner of the Roman government. So how his plans may have changed after his arrest and imprisonment we cannot know as God's word does not tell us. What does it tell us? That Paul was imprisoned in Rome for two years where he was allowed to preach freely:

30For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 28)

Exactly what happens after that two years is greatly debated. We know that when Paul wrote his second epistle to Timothy he was in a Roman prison about to die for he wrote:

6For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing. (2 Tim. 4)

We know Timothy was not with him for he wrote and told him:

9Do your best to come to me quickly, 10for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.

Therefore we know Hebrews 13 is not referring to Paul's final imprisonment in Rome because Timothy is not in Italy with Paul but is being sent for by Paul.

A second thing we know is that the destruction of the temple is not mentioned in the book of Hebrews. In fact it appears that temple worship was still going on when this book was written for Hebrews 8 records:

4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.

So it appears Hebrews was written before the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.

We know it was not written by one of the twleve because of what is stated in chapter 2:

1We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

This passage clearly testifies to the person not being one of the twelve. Who was Hebrews written to? It is believed a group of Jewish believers. If that is true it seems likely the author was of Jewish descent because the author includes himself in the group being addressed with his use of the word us in verse three.

That would leave Luke out because according to what is recorded in Colossians 4 Luke was a Gentile:

10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me. 12Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. 13I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. 14Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. 15Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house

Your belief:

Paul is listing out and saying that all of these are the only Jews are working with him at the moment, which would mean that everyone in that list is a Jew.

Does not make sense in light of Pauls statement: These are the only Jews among my fellow workers

He does not say these are my only workers but these are the only Jews among my fellow workers.

As to you statement:

I see I am being asked to believe something simple because a commentary says it.

No one asked you to believe something because of what was stated in a commentary. What did I say about that second commentary?

Another commentary explains why they believe the author was Paul

What does presenting what they believe do? Shows that no one can say for certain who wrote the book of Hebrews. What did I note they could say for sure? That the book of Hebrews is a God inspired book.

[Yekcid]

That was Paul's original plan, however, his Roman imprisonment may have changed that.

All I have to go by is what Paul said his intentions were. If you want to speculate as to some possible changes in Paul's intent, then go ahead. Is it impossible that Pauls plans changed? No, of course not. But is there any reason to believe they did? No, of course not. All we have to go by is what Paul said already. If you want to guess beyond that then go ahead, but just realize that I'm the one sticking to the evidence/text in that case.

Exactly what happens after that two years is greatly debated. We know that when Paul wrote his second epistle to Timothy he was in a Roman prison about to die for he wrote:

OK....and this show what?

This passage clearly testifies to the person not being one of the twelve.

Never said it was one of the 12. I lean toward it being Luke.

That would leave Luke out because according to what is recorded in Colossians 4 Luke was a Gentile:

I addressed that previously on this thread.

Another commentary explains why they believe the author was Paul

And I explained why those reasons were flawed.

That the book of Hebrews is a God inspired book.

I think you and I both believe that much.