I'm probably late to the train on this, but I've began exploring how I can best utilize AI as a research assistant within the Logos ecosystem. I much appreciate AI search within Logos, and it's nearly perfect for what it aims to be. However, my preferred way of utilizing AI is to organize information in a (sometimes) concise way and having the model tell me where to look to dig in more. My queries are usually based around "where can I find information on ______". I've had good luck with ChatGPT in terms of helping me find websites, but never much luck "integrating" it to the Logos ecosystem. I also despise the overuse of emojis and have never got around to telling GPT to knock it off.
I took advantage of a promotion going on for Perplexity Pro (1 year free), and have started to use Perplexity over Grok, GPT, and Gemini for many uses. Perplexity has proven very useful in my work in sales, because in Perplexity you can use many of the common models (Grok, OpenAI, Gemini, Claude) and it actually selects the best model for the job depending on your query. I take advantage of the Labs feature within Perplexity more than is probably healthy. At the risk of this sounding like a Perplexity ad, I just wanted to share something that I discovered and has helped me utilize Logos to the fullest. I've given Logos AI Book search and Perplexity the same query and want to highlight how each answered:
My Query:
Help me find resources in my Logos library that interact with possible authorship of Hebrews. I would like to find resources that include contributors that contend for their position. Avoid resources that only say that "God knows". Popular level and academic resources are both fine. Give me a brief synopsis on the authors position and where I can find it within their work.
Logos Synopsis:
The authorship of Hebrews has been a subject of significant scholarly debate, with numerous potential authors proposed. Scholars have suggested various individuals, including:
- Priscilla
- Aquila
- Clement of Rome
- Paul and Luke
- Barnabas
- Apollos[1]
In fact, the authorship of Hebrews remains “the greatest single problem for the student of this book.” The epistle itself does not name an author or provide any direct hints about its origin.[2]
Two main perspectives have emerged in scholarly discussions:
1. Pauline Authorship: This view includes the possibility of an unknown writer influenced by Paul’s teachings.
2. Alexandrian Tradition: Based on the typological use of the Old Testament, this perspective draws connections to Philo of Alexandria. However, most scholars currently discount Philo’s direct influence on the text.[2]
Importantly, scholars acknowledge that while cogent arguments exist for various theories, all proposed explanations are “beset with significant difficulties.” The internal evidence of the letter contributes little to resolving the authorship debate, and arguments for different theories have “ingredients of possibility and impossibility in almost equal measure.”[2][2]
For those interested in deeper exploration, several scholarly works offer extensive discussions, including works by Farrar, Davidson, Archer, Manson, and Leonard. Some scholars, like Manson, have proposed specific theories, such as the letter originating from the correspondence files of a Roman congregation.[2]
[1] C. Gary Staats, The Person and Work of Christ in Hebrews: A Christological Commentary, ed. David L. Carpenter and Linda Davison (n.p.: Gary Staats, 2012), 4.
[2] Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett Falconer Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962).
Perplexity (Pro Search Model)
Here are resources from your Logos library that address the possible authorship of Hebrews, with contributors who **contend for particular positions** and avoid a simple "God knows" answer. For each, you’ll find a concise summary of the author’s stance and directions for deeper study within Logos.
## Primary Resources and Contributor Positions
### John Owen, *An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews* (Volumes 1-7)
- **Position:** Owen strongly argues for **Pauline authorship**. He analyzes internal evidence, ancient testimonies, and the style/language closely, presenting an exhaustive, Reformed, scholarly defense for Paul as the author.
- **How to dig deeper:** In Logos, search "Owen Hebrews authorship Vol. 1" for the extended historical and theological argument (especially in the introduction and opening chapters of Vol. 1). Owen interacts critically with alternate theories and cites patristic evidence and Greek stylistics throughout Vol. 1–2.[1]
### R. C. H. Lenski, *The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James*
- **Position:** Lenski contends that **Paul is not the author**; he systematically addresses arguments for Pauline authorship and prefers the theory of an unnamed early Christian leader but does not definitively decide. His analysis focuses largely on lexical and stylistic evidence.
- **How to dig deeper:** In Logos, open the introduction to Lenski’s Hebrews commentary and locate the "Authorship" section for his critical discussion and comparison of candidates (e.g., Barnabas, Apollos).[1]
### Donald Guthrie, *Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary* (Tyndale/New Testament Commentary Series)
- **Position:** Guthrie presents **Apollos** as the most probable author, evaluating literary, theological, and historical arguments. He engages with both ancient and modern scholarship, summarizing the positions and giving reasoned preferences.
- **How to dig deeper:** In Logos, consult the introduction of Guthrie’s Hebrews volume, especially sub-sections "Authorship" and "Evidence for Apollos" for his most focused argument.[1]
### Arthur W. Pink, *An Exposition of Hebrews*
- **Position:** Pink aligns with the **Pauline authorship**, though he interacts with other views (Barnabas, Apollos), critically summarizes them, and argues for Paul based on similarities of theology and writing style.
- **How to dig deeper:** Access Pink’s "Introduction" in Logos or search "Pink Hebrews Introduction" for the authorship discussion and his rationales.[1]
### N. T. Wright, *Hebrews for Everyone*
- **Position:** Wright is skeptical of Pauline authorship, favoring the possibility of **Apollos** or another close associate of Paul. He provides pastoral-level reasoning rather than academic detail, but does not shrink from offering a reasoned position.
- **How to dig deeper:** In Logos, open Wright’s "Introduction" or "Background" sections for his brief but thoughtful comments on authorship and candidates.[1]
### Grant R. Osborne & George Guthrie, *Hebrews: Verse by Verse*
- **Position:** This resource summarizes scholarly opinion but leans toward **Apollos** as most likely, offering evaluation of how early church history and modern research support or challenge each major candidate.
- **How to dig deeper:** Use Logos to consult the "Introduction"—especially the "Authorship" discussion—for a handy summary and critical comparison.[1]
### I. Howard Marshall et al., *Exploring the New Testament, Volume 2: The Letters and Revelation*
- **Position:** Marshall surveys **multiple positions** (Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, anonymous), carefully outlining the evidence for and against each. He leans academic, summarizing scholarly consensus and divergences, and critically weighing the strengths of each theory.
- **How to dig deeper:** In Logos, go to the Hebrews section in "Exploring the New Testament" and find the "Authorship" discussion for side-by-side argument analysis.[1]
### David Guzik, *Hebrews (Guzik Commentary)*
- **Position:** Guzik presents leading views, clearly preferring **Paul** based on theology and tradition, but gives a fair hearing to alternative candidates and reasons for doubt.
- **How to dig deeper:** Access the "Introduction" material in the Guzik commentary or search "Guzik Hebrews authorship" for summaries and key arguments from both sides.[1]
## Directions for Further Study in Logos
- **Search Tips:** Use keywords like "Hebrews authorship", "Introduction", "Paul author Hebrews", "Authorship discussion", and filter by resource title or author for targeted results.[1]
- **Recommended Sections:** Focus on resource introductions, prefaces, or special authorship chapters for detailed discussions, as main commentary often deals more with text interpretation rather than provenance.[1]
- **Compare Arguments:** Create a clippings document in Logos by selecting relevant sections on authorship from each resource. This enables side-by-side comparison of scholarly positions for classroom, pulpit, or personal use.[1]
### If You Want More Academic Interaction
- Your current library is well-stocked with historical, exegetical, and Reformed perspectives, including Owen and Guthrie. If seeking more in-depth contemporary interaction (e.g., in the Anchor Yale series, or works by Harold Attridge or Luke Timothy Johnson), use the Logos website’s search for "Hebrews academic commentary"—but your library already covers major contributors and viewpoints.[1]
***
**Summary:** Your Logos library provides substantial resources that interact with the question of Hebrews’ authorship through scholarly, pastoral, and historical lenses; each contributor gives reasoned arguments for their preferred hypothesis and critically interacts with others. Use introductions and authorship chapters for the most focused discussion, and rely on search and clippings features for efficient study.[1]
(I've redacted the File URL)
Logos offered two resources within the synopsis (obviously it recommended a lot more in the actual search), and I would say one of them would prove to be valuable in the context I was looking for. Perplexity offered 8 resources with an aerial view of how those resources may tackle the query. Perplexity was accurate in that I do own all those resources (granted, I had to upload my Library CSV file, which would have to be updated every time I purchase a Logos resource). Logos gave me 6 authorship views, which I did not ask for, but would be valuable if the query were something that I wanted to dig into. In a way, Logos AI knew what I wanted more than I knew myself. I like how Perplexity gave me direction on where to dig deeper with Search Tips, Recommended Sections, etc. I typically wouldn't expect that from other models unless I specifically prompted it. My usual interaction with AI doesn't include the models being so context-aware.
I should add, I created a specific Space within Perplexity named "Logos Research Assistant" and gave it a custom prompt that included my theological leanings (I'm sure you can deduce based on the results), how I want questions to be answered, and uploaded my Library as a CSV file. These things aren't possible in Logos AI yet so I'm not necessarily trying to create a comparison. I can only imagine that these custom prompts are somewhere on the roadmap within Logos and when that day comes I would think it would be a game changer. I don't want an AI sermon outline… I want AI to help me create a sermon outline.
All that to say, these both serve a valuable purpose. Used in conjunction with each other, they can help me find what I want to find.
Has anyone else discovered any useful AI prompts? Do you have any ways that you utilize AI that was an "AHA!" moment?
P.S. If anyone is unfamiliar, a must-try feature is the Labs within Perplexity. The searches typically take 5-10 minutes to yield results, but they are so helpful in organizing information and discovering new information. I haven't used them for Bible Study yet, but use them often for work research and for that one feature alone I will become a lifelong Perplexity subscriber.
