Categories
- Apostolic Fathers (21)
- Baptists (1)
- Books (46)
- Christology (3)
- Church Fathers (13)
- Digitization (5)
- Early Christianity (20)
- Eastern Orthodox (1)
- Ecclesiology (7)
- Education (22)
- General (81)
- Gnosticism (2)
- Gospels Studies (10)
- Greece (16)
- Greek (97)
- Greek Handwriting (22)
- History (8)
- Mark (1)
- New Testament (9)
- NT Apocrypha (10)
- Pauline Studies (2)
- Software (3)
- Technology (8)
- Textual Criticism (51)
- The Reformation (1)
Archives
- November 2007 (4)
- December 2007 (7)
- January 2008 (17)
- February 2008 (32)
- March 2008 (30)
- April 2008 (39)
- May 2008 (13)
- June 2008 (20)
- July 2008 (29)
- August 2008 (10)
- September 2008 (14)
- October 2008 (7)
- November 2008 (12)
- December 2008 (9)
- January 2009 (14)
- March 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (17)
- May 2009 (2)
- July 2009 (3)
- October 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (2)
- August 2010 (1)
Blogroll
The quixotic infidel had a very good visualization for describing the canonical status of various books by various entities in early Christianity.
Michael from Pisteuomen is in a discussion with the author of the blog on the authorship of Hebrews. I happen to agree with Quixie; Paul did not write Hebrews.
I did my thesis on the pneumatology of Hebrews at DTS. My goal wasn't to deal with the authorship question, but the issue came up anyway. After looking at the rather (comparatively) weak pneumatology in Hebrews, I was (and still am) convinced that the epistle/sermon did not come from Paul. The Spirit as sanctifying influence is a major category for Paul but one that does not show up at all in Hebrews. That would not be odd except for the fact that sanctification is a major theme in Hebrews; ergo, thematically, I don't see any way that Paul could have written that thing.
Granted, that's probably not enough of an evidence by itself to reject Pauline authorship, but I do think it merits strong consideration. That plus the many typical reasons basically has me convinced.
