Cameron Bertuzzi recently posted a video asking Protestants a few questions about Hebrews. I've addressed the questions before, but I'll summarize my answers here and provide links to some of my older material on the issues involved and more recent updates.
I think Barnabas is the most likely candidate for authorship of the book, for reasons discussed here. But that's a lesser issue than canonicity. You could be agnostic or wrong about the book's authorship, but still have sufficient reason to accept the book as canonical.
We have good evidence that the apostles were given the ability to produce scripture. See my response to Trent Horn here for an outline of the case for that conclusion. I've written more about the relevant evidence elsewhere, like this post on 1 Timothy 5:18. More significantly, see my recent work here on John 14-17 and John's likely belief that his gospel was a fulfillment of what Jesus anticipated in those chapters.
The New Testament gives us reason to think the apostles could produce scripture and identifies some of the books of scripture they produced, but it doesn't identify all of them. That's similar to the Roman Catholic situation with papal infallibility. The First Vatican Council tells us about it and gives us some principles to go by, but doesn't tell us what every infallible papal teaching is, a subject Catholics continue to disagree with each other about.
A post I linked earlier, here, discusses some of the internal and external evidence that Hebrews was one of the books of scripture produced by the apostles (through apostolic authorship or apostolic approval). Another post, here, discusses the insignificance of later disputes about Hebrews' canonicity. One of the lines of evidence most often cited is what Eusebius tells us about how widely the New Testament books were accepted up to his day. He includes Hebrews among the "undisputed" books at one point, but then goes on to say, "It is not indeed right to overlook the fact 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." (Church History 3:3:5) As my posts above explain, there's evidence for Hebrews' widespread use and acceptance as scripture early on, including in Rome. The objections to Hebrews that we know of were late, probably just coming from a minority of Christians, likely a somewhat small minority, and the reasoning behind the rejection mentioned by Eusebius ("not written by Paul") is inadequate grounds for rejecting the book's canonicity. The best explanation for the book's early and widespread use and acceptance as scripture, despite the disputes over its authorship, is that it's one of the books written or approved as scripture by the apostles.
That judgment is based on a combination of internal and external evidence and requires no belief in something like papal or conciliar infallibility. It does involve the acceptance of various claims made by ancient Christian sources, but there's no reason to think those sources as a whole should be affiliated with a group like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Copticism or all of those groups combined, as I've argued elsewhere. And even if somebody thought a particular church father was Roman Catholic, for example, you could trust that church father on an issue for whatever reasons without being obligated to become Roman Catholic. Similarly, we trust Josephus on some issues without having to convert to Judaism, Catholics trust the patristic work of Protestant scholars like Philip Schaff without being obligated to become a Protestant, etc.
And there are other reasons for accepting Hebrews' canonicity. Jesus and the apostles seem to have accepted the Old Testament canonical consensus of the Jewish people of their day (e.g., Luke 11:51, Romans 3:2). That gives us some precedent for accepting a New Testament canonical consensus if there were to be one, which there is. The Old Testament situation doesn't require that a New Testament canonical consensus be accurate, but the Old Testament precedent does have some evidential significance. Part of the reason why is that Jesus, the apostles, and other relevant Biblical figures referred to how the people of God can recognize the word of God without the sort of methods advocated by groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (John 10:4, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, etc.). The church fathers and other extrabiblical Christians before the Reformation often appealed to that sort of ability to recognize the Divine inspiration of scripture without anything like a papal decree or council ruling. Some of the means of recognizing scripture are of a more objective nature, and some are of a less objective nature. It would be absurd to deny that God can use a variety of means to lead people to a recognition of his communication with us, including means that are of a less objective and less verifiable nature. That sort of less objective, less verifiable means of recognizing scripture doesn't require that the people involved are infallible. It also doesn't involve a denial that there are more objective, more verifiable means of recognizing scripture, like what I discussed earlier in this post. The two coexist.
Accepting Hebrews' canonicity on the basis of Roman Catholicism's authority claims is a bad alternative. See the evidence here that the early church wasn't Roman Catholic. The foundation of Roman Catholicism is the papacy, and that office doesn't follow from anything Jesus and the apostles taught and is absent and contradicted early on. See here for an overview, here regarding the anti-papal view of the church held by Ignatius of Antioch, and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment