Talk:Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews

Reorganization

Seriously, the first four headers on this page could be merged easily, and even need to be expanded substantially. Why move from Clement to Eusebius to Clement again to Jerome, then back to the abhorrently vague "Doubts in Antiquity? Seriously--there's three separate time periods here: Clement in the 3nd century, Jerome and Augustine in the 4th, and "Antiquity," which is seemingly neither 3rd nor 4th, but fails to mention any sources. Come on. In the "Style Different" section, Clement says the style is different from Paul? How? Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There do seem to be too many subsections... AnonMoos (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of Galatians 1:12 to Hebrews 2:3 proves conclusively that Paul did not write Hebrews. This is a central difference, not merely a stylistic one. Paul's understanding of his direct commissioning by Jesus Christ and apostolic authority was so strong that he never would have written that he was a second-hand convert (Heb. 2:3). --Attridge, p.1

The source of the ancient stylistic doubts of Pauline authorship is Attridge (cited in Bibliography of main article), pp.1-2.)

Would a more experienced editor please incorporate the two Attridge citations above into the main article? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob3 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Priscilla

The section on Priscilla needs to be reworked a little bit. The first argument in the first list is: "Letter to the Hebrews was written to Rome—not to the church, but to the inner circle (Romans 16:5)" The problem is that Romans 16:5 doesn't establish this -- it just establishes that Aquila and Prisca/Priscilla were in Rome and that a church met at their house. This is noted below along with the Rom 16:5 citation.

The citation needed here should match the claim, and I also wonder if it should read "the Letter to the Hebrews was written in Rome." Otherwise, the argument doesn't make sense to me. Could someone with access to Harnack check and fix this? PStrait (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Acts 8:2 is used as biblical support for several claims about her, and this verse has nothing to do with her. Citation error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.137.143 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems with sources

An editor has added text whose sources do not seem to meet our criteria at WP:RS.

The source named 'apologus' is a personal blog[1] by a church pastor and thus fails our criteria.

Bible Book Number 58—Hebrews is to a Watchtower site - perhaps ok if we are stating the view of Jehovah's Witnesses, but not otherwise.

The next source is some course notes for a course at Crandall University. Course notes aren't published, we don't know who wrote them so we can't even say that the author is a reliable source.

"Many scholars, however, now believe" is sourced to a 1910 encyclopedia - the problem with this should be obvious.

"Recent scholarship" is a 42 year old source from the Fundamental Baptist Institute - again, not recent, no reason to think it meets our criteria and in any case is not representative of all Christian scholarship.

The source called "The writer of Hebrews" is an anonymous writer on the Ligonier Ministries website. Fails our criteria - I should note that "Some theologians and scholars," is really not sufficient, we have to know who they are and if their views are significant enough to be included (we can get an idea about this if we find whether or not their views are discussed by clearly reliable sources).

The statement " For example, his letters always contain an introduction stating authorship, yet Hebrews does not" and the citation seem to be original research so fail WP:VERIFY.

Enduringwordmedia is another personal website by someone who has no formal training in religion[2] let alone publications in peer reviewed journals, etc.

Other sources added before the recent edits include Lee Anna Starr used to report someone else's research (does anyone know who she is? Pillar of Fire as a publisher's name doesn't inspire me with confidence, and this is over half a century old so maybe is getting too much emphasis). In the same section we read about "Other commentators" although only one is cited, and Craig Blomberg should be attributed directly.

There's no working link for Jeffrey Bowman and Grace Baptist Church isn't a reliable source.

Early Christian Writings - a website held by Peter Kirby - shows no indication of being a RS.

And finally although Richard Heard may be a reliable source, that website doesn't seem to exist anymore. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. Thank you for taking the time to go over this matter. And explain things. It is a little disappointing since I did put a lot of work into putting a very factual matter that some scholars and theologians do lean towards Pauline writership, as well as the point about adjusting writing style to fit a more unique and Jewish audience, as well as the points of some similarities in wording noted. It seems that there's just a problem with weak sourcing, not the actual factual specific statements per se necessarily. I thought though that in situations like this, modifying or trying to maybe find better sources for certain statements was the recommendation, rather than wholesale reverting and removing. Can at least maybe some of the points be restored, if not all? Because to be honest, this article is a wee bit lopsided. It seems to ignore that there are scholars (the minority true but still out there) that either believe completely that Paul wrote Hebrews, or at the very least think probably so. And also the reasons they have for that view. Can something be done at least? Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement representing the position of RC Sproul is incorrect and the two sources do not support the statement. The 'apologous' blog post merely asserts that this is RC Sproul's view without reference. The Ligonier source is relevant, but states that "he [the author] was probably a second-generation believer who had come to faith through the ministry of the apostles (2:3)" which definitely excludes Paul. I will try to remove that one error. 24.250.62.217 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I see I am not the first person to have noted this point. The Ligonier source clearly does not support the claim being made. To suggest that it does is a personal interpretation, and Original Research.--Rbreen (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

NB saying a source 'points to' something is a personal interpretation. That's original research. It actually has to SHOW that thing.--Rbreen (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah you weren't the first, but that does not necessarily mean he was correct either. The point is that the Ligonier source does lean towards Pauline authorship. Also, it's a known fact (not just supposition) that Sproul DEFINITELY believes Paul wrote Hebrews. And Sproul OWNS AND RUNS "Ligonier". Again, if you bothered reading my comment to you on your talk page, you'd see that I apologized about the Bowman ref mistake. That was very true, and you were very correct on that one. But NOT necessarily totally on the Ligonier ref, because show me exactly where in the Ligonier ref do you see that it says "Paul did not write Hebrews".

It actually says the opposite basically. And that's NOT "original research". It's there. But could be better, I admit. And again, it's an established and pretty well-known fact (for years) that R.C. Sproul believes that Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews. Also, if you have a problem with the Ligonier ref, why also remove the "such as R.S. Sproul" statement? That's not necessary. But instead leave that and put the "citation tag" and find a better source. Sproul (definitely) said he believes Paul wrote Hebrews. He has said this in writing and in audio lectures, clearly and un-ambiguously. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I found a better ref that CLEARLY has Sproul saying "whom I believe was Paul" who wrote Hebrews. I'll put that there instead, and remove the other one. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(It's not personal. You don't need to apologise to me if you got your source wrong, everyone makes mistakes)

That's fine, if the source clearly says that and is reliable, I have no objection.--Rbreen (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

edits and trimmings

hello. I thought it was settled a couple of weeks ago. What happened? I have to be frank. I don't appreciate you undoing all my hard work. Just because you like to suppress certain facts and points from this article, for some reason. Not sure what the big issue is. And, by the way, just because you have a personal bias against the WT, does not mean that it's an unreliable source in matters like this. WT articles and books have been used on numerous Wikipedia articles no problem. I restored everything, and undid all your chop-jobs recently. I told you a couple of weeks ago, bro, to stop this already. You've been edit-warring and disrespecting.

Some of your points were valid, but not all. For some reason you want to hide the facts about the stylistic similarities and the explanation given as to why the style was different, about "different audience" and "pressured to go back to old Judaism"...with NO real valid warrant at all. (Saying "not a helpful point" without explaining just why that supposedly is does NOT make your contention or statement true. Sighs... For some reason, you have certain issues against certain things, and seem a bit over-scrupulous, and wiki-battering, Rbreen, and I'm TIRED of it. Seriously. You can't suppress valid points and explanations given simply because you maybe have hang-ups and uptight problems against them, and "don't like" or don't find the refs to your liking, and just THINKING that they're so "unreliable".) This is a wiki, and you don't own this article, yet you've been acting like you do, and removing valid edits and mods and refs, and dissing my hard work and good edits. Seriously I won't tolerate it...sir. Really, man, please leave this alone already, and stop the needless edit-warring. Restored. If you revert, you'll get reverted again. The edits were valid, good-faith, sourced, and true. No need to remove wholesale like that. And again, personal bias against WT references because you hate Jehovah's witnesses (I guess) does not necessarily mean "unreliable". And there's NO set rule on Wikipedia that all WT books are banned and considered all "unreliable".

I've agreed with some of your trimmings and modifications and re-wordings, no doubt. And of course it's good to be careful. But it's over-done. Anyway, tweaking is one thing. Chopping away hard work and sections because YOU DON'T LIKE...is quite another. And you should know me already, that I would NEVER put up with it. So I'm a little surprised that you even did this, knowing (as you should have) that you'd get QUICKLY REVERTED for doing this... I don't want to disrespect your valid stuff or modifications or trimmings or tweaks either. But you recently went beyond that, sir. For real. Or at the very least most likely would get restored by me anyway.

As I said, I do not want to diss your work either. And I restored some of your trimmings, as arguably it was better wording etc. But big chop-jobs and over-trimmings and whole-sale removals and obvious "I don't like" things are another matter. If you don't want this to turn worse, I'd suggest leaving the main parts alone. Or if you're uptight (as usual) about certain refs, then per WP policy, find refs you like better. But this "pressured to go back to old Judaism" stays, as that IS an explanation given why Paul may have written differently, for a different audience. Etc. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you would identify whom you are talking to. Editor2020, Talk 17:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

hi Editor2020. How are you. Yeah, I'm sorry. lol... I understand. Actually the other contributor is right above in that overall section, and actually I did identify him in one of the paragraphs, "Rbreen"..., I was addressing. Because I put this as a SUB-heading. Sort of a continuation (because of the situation, the edit and source matters, and his constant trimmings and fault-finding with refs etc) from a couple of weeks ago. Some of his edits I agree with, and even restored back. But arguably he has over-done it a bit with wholesale removals. Like the whole point about why Hebrews has a (somewhat) different style than Paul's other letters has been explained by SEVERAL sources (over the years), as the reason being a more special audience, and tailoring it to Jews who were being pressured and persecuted to back to old Judaism, etc. A very valid and interesting (and sourced) point, but apparently for really "I don't like" reasons, the other editor doesn't want it there, though I can't allow that kind of unwarranted and needless suppression. Not in this article. Because that is the point. The whole "why is Hebrews written a bit differently than Paul's other letters" NEEDS to be addressed in this article. And that is the usual explanation given, for that. And the refs were fine for that point. Etc. Again, trimmings and sometimes more brief and less awkward wordings are good, but sometimes it can go too far. Anyway, I appreciate your input. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it in your message after I posted. Editor2020, Talk 22:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources

To Rbreen. WT publications are NOT on Wikipedia's "unreliable list"... Your personal bias is not the criteria... that uptight prejudice and nonsense has no place in Wikipedia. The ref is fine, makes the point, and is very reliable. Stop the edit-warring, I warned you about that, and what would happen. You're being ridiculous and obvious with your anti-JW bias and jerkiness, and I'm tired of it already. Show me someplace in actual Wikipedia policy where WT books and articles are somehow in the "unreliable list". You can't do it, cuz such a thing doesn't exist. So you're just imposing your bias and uptightness on this article. And you're wrong if you think I'll put up with it. Won't happen. Your tag on top will always be removed, as it is unnecessary, and shows obvious bias. Knock it off. Please. That matter is cool. WT books and articles are valid, and are used on WP articles for various contextual points. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a question: seeing as the two contested citations provide validation for things that are already cited, why are they needed? Regardless of what one person thinks about the quality of the sources, whether unreliable or definitive, since those sources are one of three and two of six, respectively, why does it matter? Unless those two sources contribute to part of the article that isn't yet cited, I see no reason to continue an argument. Alternatively, if certain positions for authorship are taken definitively by different denominations, why not move that to a separate section, similarly to other contested parts of articles? I would just love to find a middle path. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, Gabby Merger, why are you talking about WT reliability when arguing over the worth of Keathley? The Bible.org article seems to have no WT connections, nor does Keathley, nor does the NET translation the Bible.org uses, nor do the project leads of the NET, nor do their associations. In short, why are you talking about the relative heat of a fire when we're underwater? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Generic masculine POV

"... others suggest that Priscilla as author used the generic masculine pronoun, an age-old practice that some feminine writers follow improperly even today. "

I just took the liberty of removing the last part of this sentence. It is certainly not the purpose of Wikipedia to tell feminine writers what is proper and what is improper practice. And it is certainly not the purpose of this article to discuss the generic masculine pronoun in general. --93.212.236.194 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that should not have been there. Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)