Re: Pauline Authorship of Hebrews

From: Vincent Broman (
Date: Mon Sep 28 1998 - 12:19:29 EDT

> ...there appears to be no basis at all in the NT
> Greek text for the proposition being argued here--and although it is
> proposed that "the almost universal testimony of the MS evidence is
> that Hebrews is Pauline," I do wonder exactly what MS evidence is being
> referred to here...

My guess as to what evidence GeorgiabobBeckman was referring to is
the fact that where copies of the NT include more books than one,
the selection of books generally cleaves into the categories of:
Gospels, Paul, Apostles, and Apocalypse. The Pauline Epistles
were grouped very early (1st century?) into a group of books that were
copied together as a unit, a corpus. Copies of the NT including Hebrews
locate it in the Paulos, never in the Apostolos.

The earliest NT MSS are fragmentary, so it's hard to tell if Hebrews
is missing in a copy because of damage or because it was excluded. I
cannot remember (maybe I never heard :-) how old the oldest MS
definitely excluding Hebrews from the canon is. There are citations of
some fathers that include or exclude Hebrews from the canon, but the
controversy may be due to the theological question of allowing a
Second Repentance, instead of questions of authorship.

Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA
Email: broman at (home) or or (work)
Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W
=== PGPv2 protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at ===

Version: 2.6.2


B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:03 EDT