Talk:Heb 6:16-20
Hi Steven, First, thanks for the interesting lexical notes. On this one, I think I get it but am not entirely sure. I think part of the problem is that I am not sure where the word "oath" would normally fall in Greek syntax. I am going to try rewriting it a little to make it say what I think you are saying. Obviously this is a bit dangerous since, as I say, I'm not sure I understand the point here. \Could you please check my revision and re-revise if needed? thanks, --Matthew Faulconer 08:12, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC) PS also by using Paul as the subject of the sentence I'm not trying to make any claims about intentionality nor am I trying to stake out any position relative to authorship. I simply find this an easy way to discuss what actually happens in the text without always being forced into the passive voice.
Matthew, I think it's conventional to say "the writer" in commentaries for the reasons you cited. Perhaps this implicitly gives too strong a weight to the "Paul probably isn't the author" side of the argument, but I think it's more appropriate b/c there seems to be large enough scholarly consituency that doesn't believe Paul was the author to warrant it. However, I just looked this up in the the Bible Dictionary where, although it mentions that the authorship is disputed, discusses the letter as though Paul wrote it. I guess following the Bible Dictionary convention would seem a logical policy on matters like this, in which case saying Paul here would be more appropriate. --RobertC 23:37, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to say "the writer." It can make a potentially huge difference if you assume, for example, that that author of Romans and the author of Hebrews are the same person.--Nathan Oman 00:56, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)
I feel like "the writer" is a bit stilted as if we are trying to be too careful about a point that doesn't really matter that much. Maybe this is just another way of saying that I don't understand the significance of the difference Nathan points to in whether we assume that Roman and Hebrews were written by the same person or different people. Maybe this isn't a parallel example, but here's how I think about it: I don't know if The Odyssey was written by Homer, and I don't know if the Iliad was written by Homer, I don't know if both were written by the same person, and I don't know if maybe there wasn't any single writer at all but this is a compilation of oral tradition that many people contributed to in some way. But regardless, I don't really see why it matters that much to understanding either of these two book. To me it seems convenient to talk about Homer rather than say the writer or "either the writer, if there is a single writer, or the set of people who orally participated in composing this work" when we talk about these books.
That said, a) it looks like I am outnumbered, and b) I don't mind using the writer if other people think that is better but I thought I would throw out my reasoning first. If others think the writer is better, I'm happy to go along with that so we can spend our time instead discussing what the text means. --Matthew Faulconer 01:19, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nate and Robert, and believe that saying "the writer" or "the author", at least in Hebrews, will avoid a perceived lack of scholastic credibility. But this is probably only the tip of the iceberg of critical issues that might arise on this wiki. From what I have observed, "Feast upon the Word" appears to be primarily devotional in nature (indeed, the site name so positions it). For this reason I believe it would be distracting to devote space to disputes regarding textual authorship, especially concerning the Documentary Hypothesis and Deutero/Trito Isaiah. These issues are best addressed in other forums. --Steven Barton 08:24, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)
