Well we can narrow it down. It cant be Peter, Aquilla, Barnabas, Silas, Etc. It had to be written by someone who had been a pharisee under Gamaliel (who was the leading Pharisee Teacher at that time.
It is the perfect letter to take an interested Jew through because it speaks at their level and in their language.
He probably did not sign it BECAUSE he had a bad reputation with the very people it seems intended for. Hebrew 6 implies that it was for non-believers who had actually heard and Seen Jesus.
The same problem exists today. I can witness from the Old Testament to a Jew just like my namesake and yet, as soon as I mention Jesus.... they Hang up or walk away.
Paul would have likely had that happen with his name!
And part of why God would have changed it. But that only would last so long.
Hebrews seems to match up with two other of Paul's Letters; namely, Romans and Galaitans. they are similar in that they All appraoch the Gospel in relation to the Law and Promises of the OT.
they All also quote:
Habakkuk 2:4 * Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Hi Folks,
A bit of a FYI on the Codex Barococcio history.
The original source of this error was almost surely Norman Geisler and William Nix in the early editions of "The General Introduction to the Bible", the 1968 edition and apparently as late as the 1986 edition, removed in the 1996. Also likely the 1974 From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible.
The detective work on the textualcriticism list shows that they misread an entry from Westcott on canon lists. The error was pretty bad, even if understandable in terms of some ambiguity in the Westcott numbers (date or codex). Apparently, to their uncredit, Geisler and Nix never put in a correction in the later editions, they just dropped the misinformation.
As the great communicator said .. "trust, but verify" .. especially when it sounds too good to be true.
========
From an integrity standpoint it would be interesting to check the details of how Geisler handled or mishandled this, the 1986 edition is still for sale on Amazon. Their error can give a Christian apologist a lot of egg on the face in discussions with skeptics and others, as well as simply leading to false concepts and theories.
The proper way to handle such a situation (putting aside better original checking) is to place a clear correction in future editions. And, though more cumbersome, also seek to place an errata sheet if the old edition is being sold.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Steven,
What is the textualcriticism list? it's purpose, etc. for or against the revised Greek etc? I am not familiar with that.
