Hebrews is not one of the 7 authentic Pauline letters.
As mentioned above:
The really important thing is that the author of Hebrews 8 actually quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34 at length.
And this is where we get a much stronger textual clue.
The author of Hebrews follows the Septuagint form of Jeremiah. The Catholic NAB’s textual note explicitly says:
“In citing Jer the author follows the Septuagint.”
So:
Hebrews gives us very strong evidence of someone using the Greek/shorter textual tradition of Jeremiah.
= = =
Hebrews was not written by Paul.
- The Source of the Gospel: In ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Writing Style: Hebrews is written in some of the most elegant, polished, and rhetorically advanced Greek in the entire New Testament. Paul’s undisputed letters use a much more urgent, direct, and conversational style. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Missing Salutation: Paul signed all 13 of his traditional letters with his name and an initial greeting. Hebrews completely skips a standard introduction and reads more like a recorded sermon than a traditional letter. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy:
My improvement of the draft concludes this:
Neither Jesus nor Paul can be said, on the evidence we have, to have used specifically the short or long edition of Jeremiah. However, Hebrews definitely uses the Septuagint’s shorter edition of Jeremiah
in its extended quotation of Jeremiah 31:31–34 (Hebrews 8:8–12).
That is the more accurate formulation.
And I think this distinction is important for your larger argument: Hebrews gives us clear evidence that at least one early Christian author was working with the shorter/Septuagintal form of Jeremiah, whereas the evidence from Jesus and Paul is insufficient to identify which edition they used.
= = = =
Steefen:
Now THAT is constructive criticism that is useful other than Robert’s categorical simplistic put-down.
Robert said
It is constructive to encourage the posting of good YouTube videos here and to discourage the posting of misleading YouTube videos.
I agree. That’s off-topic because the video discusses the following information.
So there are really two generations of DNA research:
| Period | Research | What it accomplished |
|---|---|---|
| 1990s | Woodward et al. / Hebrew University | Early PCR-based ancient-DNA experiments on Judean Desert parchment |
| 2015 | Teasdale et al. | Major advances in parchment DNA sequencing methodology |
| 2020 | Anava et al., Cell | Large-scale high-throughput sequencing of Dead Sea Scroll parchment; identified sheep, goat, ibex and cow |
| 2024 | Further methodological work | Improved non-destructive DNA recovery, including confirmation of the DSS species identifications |
The 2020 paper is the definitive citation for the sheep/cow Dead Sea Scroll finding you’re asking about.
Robert said
Nope, obviously not a typo. Why can’t you just admit it when some of your videos are shown to be misleading or when you get something wrong? Until you can do that I’m not inclined to answer too many of your questions.
I know when I make a typo.
Second, I have admitted when a video got something wrong AND I leave a YouTube comment on that video as well as here.
Since you have taken the attitudes “I’m wrong, sue me,” and “you disagree when I say something is a typo” I encourage myself not to ask you any more questions.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)