Intertestamental Period

[Eli G]

Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews.

 

[Rival]

Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews.

The Letter to the Hebrews is not anywhere in the manuscripts ascribed to Paul.

 

[Eli G]

Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E.

That is part of an information you can consult here https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001954 under the subtitle Writership and Time, Place Written. Did you know that information? You can learn more in the same article.

 

[Rival]

Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E.

That is part of an information you can consult here https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001954 under the subtitle Writership and Time, Place Written. Did you know that information? You can learn more in the same article.

"Eusebius does not list Epistle to the Hebrews among the antilegomena or disputed books (though he included the unrelated Gospel of the Hebrews).[5] He does record, however, that "some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul."[6] In response, he endorses the view of Clement of Alexandria: that the epistle was written by Paul in Hebrew (unsigned through modesty), and "translated carefully" into Greek by Luke,[7] a thing demonstrated by its stylistic similarity with Luke's Acts.

Doubts about Pauline authorship were raised around the end of the second century, predominantly in the West. Tertullian attributed the epistle to Barnabas.[8] Both Gaius of Rome[9] and Hippolytus[10] excluded Hebrews from the works of Paul, the latter attributing it to Clement of Rome.[11] Origen noted that others had claimed Clement or Luke as the writer, but he tentatively accepted Pauline origin of the thought in the text and the explanation of Clement of Alexandria, saying that "the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher", as quoted by Eusebius.[12]

Jerome, aware of such lingering doubts,[13] included the epistle in his Vulgate but moved it to the end of Paul's writings. Augustine affirmed Paul's authorship and vigorously defended the epistle. By then its acceptance in the New Testament canon was well settled."

And,

"In general, the evidence against Pauline authorship is considered too solid for scholarly dispute. Donald Guthrie, in his New Testament Introduction (1976), commented that "most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory."[14] Harold Attridge tells us that "it is certainly not a work of the apostle".[15] Daniel B. Wallace, who holds to the traditional authorship of the other epistles, states that "the arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are conclusive."[16] As a result, although a few people today believe Paul wrote Hebrews, such as theologian R.C. Sproul,[17] contemporary scholars generally reject Pauline authorship.[18] As Richard Heard notes, in his Introduction to the New Testament, "modern critics have confirmed that the epistle cannot be attributed to Paul and have for the most part agreed with Origen's judgement, 'But as to who wrote the epistle, only God knows the truth.'"[19]

Attridge argues that similarities with Paul's work are simply a product of a shared usage of traditional concepts and language. Others, however, have suggested that they are not accidental, and that the work is a deliberate forgery attempting to pass itself off as a work of Paul.[20][21]"

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

 

[Eli G]

I see you are ignoring the information I just gave you. It's Ok.

That is one of the reasons why people jump to the wrong conclusions: they do not even consider the information that others give them.

 

[Rival]

I see you are ignoring the information I just gave you. It's Ok.

That is one of the reasons why people jump to the wrong conclusions: they do not even consider the information that others give them.

Yes, because a boatload of other Church Fathers do not class it as Pauline. It was disputed from the early days.

 

[Eli G]

I just showed you something diferent and you didn't mind.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Excuse my honesty, but "he's using it as an apologetic against non-Jews" is not an argument to believe than he "is here being hyperbolic"; it is a somewhat childish pretext to justify that what Josephus says seems irrelevant to you...

In the Greek Scriptures it is repeated over and over again that what Jews call at that time "The Scriptures" were divided into the Law of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms ( or the Hagiographa or Holy Writings), and so it is known even to this very day.

Did you do any research on it, or not yet?

Both Jesus and Paul limit the canon to "Moses (the Law) and the Prophets" with the possible addition of the psalms. The section of the Tanakh known as the Writings wasn't yet created.