News

Why waste time with such ridiculous questions!

No question asked by a congregant is "ridiculous" unless it is not sincere. It sounds like the questioner had enough knowledge of Greek to see the possibility of a middle voice but needed enough of an answer to direct him to understand the justification for taking the verb as passive. I would say that looking at context might have been sufficient, but the writer may have known this person well enough to realize that the questioner would benefit from fuller treatment.

The more acquainted we become with original language syntaxes, the more we find questions like this being pertinent. Much debate goes into language-based issues in the Bible. A fully literate laity would go a long way to producing an army of loving apologists who can at least answer more fully issues based on the biblical text. LOGOS resident scholar for years, Dr. Michael Heiser, has helped me discover the importance of such issues and opened the Scriptures to me in wondrous ways

Buy a Stream Deck and then you can hotkey your entire workflow

That the apostle to the Gentiles did not sign his letter to the Hebrews is hardly surprising. It would have suffered a Jehudi fate with his signature.

Who cares who wrote it! It is its words that matter! Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. ... But avoid foolish controversies and ... The most important point Christians should be discussing is: Are Christians really the Ten Lost Tribes?

Aquinas makes more sense than this article, this is from his commentary on Hebrews on why authorship was disputed: This was for two reasons: first, because it does not follow the pattern of the other epistles. For there is no salutation and no name of the author. Second, it does not have the style of the others; indeed, it is more elegant. Furthermore, no other work of Scripture proceeds in such an orderly manner in the sequence of words and sentences as this one. Hence, they said that it was the work of Luke the evangelist, or of Barnabas, or of Pope Clement. For he wrote to the Athenians according to this style. Nevertheless, the old doctors, especially Dionysius and certain others, accept the words of this epistle as being Paul’s testimony. Jerome, too, acknowledges it as Paul’s epistle. To the first argument, therefore, one may respond that there are three reasons why Paul did not write his name: first, because he was not the apostle of the Jews but of the gentiles: he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the gentiles (Gal 2:8); consequently, he made no mention of his apostleship at the beginning of this epistle, because he was unwilling to speak of it except to the gentiles. Second, because his name was odious to the Jews, since he taught that the observances of the law were no longer to be kept, as is clear from Acts (Acts 15:2). Consequently, he concealed his name, lest the salutary doctrine of this epistle go for naught. Third, because he was a Jew: they are Hebrews: so am I (2 Cor 11:22); and fellow countrymen find it hard to endure greatness in their own: a prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and in his own house (Matt 13:57). To the second argument the answer might be given that the style is more elegant because even though he knew many languages: I speak with all your tongues (1 Cor 14:18), he knew the Hebrew language better than the others, for it was his native tongue, the one in which he wrote this epistle. As a result, he could write more ornately in his own idiom than in some other language; hence, he says: for though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge (2 Cor 11:6). But Luke, who was a skillful writer, translated this ornate Hebrew into Greek.  Saint Thomas Aquinas. (2018). Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Hebrews (F. R. Larcher, Trans.; Vol. 41, pp. 2–3). Aquinas Institute; Emmaus Academic.