A Sunday School teacher of mine pointed out that the author of Hebrews was most certainly a lawyer since the entire book takes the form of a legal brief. Ascribing the work to Paul was primarily to get it accepted, but it seems unlikely to have been writtten by him. Since Luke was a Physician, he wouuldn't qualify either. We probably will never know who wrote the book.
Who Wrote the Book of Hebrews
by snowbird 16 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Leolaia
There are some similarities in language between Hebrews and Luke-Acts but these are rather slight. Just 6 words are peculiar to only Hebrews and the Third Gospel, as opposed to 4 words shared only by Hebrews and Matthew and Hebrews and Mark, respectively. The words in general are not very distinctive, especially since the characteristic Lukanisms found in Luke-Acts (such as apo tou nun, omomati, ge, de kai, ekhó + infinitive, parakhréma, an/tis + optative, etc.) are nowhere to be found in Hebrews. Other similarities are due to the use of the same OT exegetical traditions, such as asteios in Acts 7:20 and Hebrews 11:23 being due to Exodus 2:2. The hortatory style in Hebrews 3:12-4:13 or 6:4-12 is also nothing like what is found in Acts. On the other hand, since Acts belongs to a very different literary genre than a homily like Hebrews, the difference in syle may not alone be decisive.
As for the theory of Pauline authorship, many of the same problems abound. The author does not use distinctive Paulinisms (like "Christ Jesus") and has a rather smooth rhetorical style that Origen (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25) noticed was very different from Paul's more rugged form of expression. The author's concept of the Law, faith, and especially the concept of Jesus as a high priest have no direct parallel in Paul. For instance, Jesus' death is viewed as facilitating "sanctification" rather than "justification" (Hebrews 2:11, 9:13, 10:14), which is quite conspicuous in light of Pauline theology but which conforms to Hebrews' priestly perspective. The most decisive fact however is the way the author construes himself as not an apostle: "This promise was first announced by the Lord himself, and is guaranteed to us by those who heard him" (Hebrews 2:3). Compare with Galatians 1:1-12 or Romans 1:1 or 1 Corinthians 15:8 in which Paul regularly emphasizes his apostolic status and his direct link to Jesus via personal revelation. The author of Hebrews instead aligns himself with his readers who have not had any direct connection with Jesus, but whose reception of the promise has been mediated by apostolic witnesses.
The only certain clue of the origin of Hebrews is the reference to the "those from Italy" (hoi apo tés Italias) in 13:24, which would suggest either a Roman provenance or a Roman destination. The latter interpretation is probable since the use of apo "from" may more naturally refer to those are from a particular place but not living there at the time, and because the former interpretation is more natural by using en instead of apo, i.e. "those in Italy". Ignatius uses a similar expression with the same sense: "The Ephesians greet you from Smyrna (Ephesioi apo Smurnés), where I am writing you" (Magnesians 15:1). In this case, the author was writing from Smyrna to those in Magnesia while accompanied with Christians from Ephesus. But he does not write "from Ephesus" but "from Smyrna," so the expression is used only to refer to those accompanying him at the place he was writing. And in the case of Hebrews, that could either be Romans with the author at Rome or Romans with him wherever else he was writing from. But since he used apo instead of en, I would suspect that Rome was porbably the destination of the letter, not where it originated from.
But concerning a connection with Rome, there is intriguingly a literary relationship between Hebrews and 1 Clement, written in Rome towards the end of the first century (cf. Hebrews 1:3-13 = 1 Clement 36:2-5; 2:17, 3:1 = 1 Clement 36:1; 3:2, 5 = 1 Clement 43:1; 3:7, 10:15 = 1 Clement 13:1, 16:2; 4:12 = 1 Clement 21:9; 4:15 = 1 Clement 36:1; 6:18 = 1 Clement 27:2; 11:37 = 1 Clement 17:1; 12:9 = 1 Clement 64:1, etc.). The long historical survey on faith in Hebrews 11 is even imitated in 1 Clement 9-12. This suggests that Clement of Rome was either the author of Hebrews (cf. Jerome, Eusebius on this) or was familiar with it, and the latter possibility is much more likely since Clement is more of an imitator of Hebrews than evidencing the same mind behind the epistle. It is thus quite curious that knowledge of Hebrews first turns up in the late first century in the same place that the homily itself seems to have as its destination or provenance. And there is one other curious fact. According to Eusebius, the theory of Pauline authorship was explicitly rejected by the church at Rome:
"Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. 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. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.5).
This raises the possibility that knowledge of the real authorship of Hebrews was still known to those in Rome, who recognized that it was not written by Paul. This threefold connection between Hebrews and Rome is quite tantalizing, tho it is unclear what significance it has.
-
drew sagan
Of course, the WTS just has to be one of the few who hold out on this, tying to make it look that if they do so they are 'staying true to the Bible'.
*** si pp. 243-244 Bible Book Number 58—Hebrews ***
Bible Book Number 58—Hebrews
Writer: Paul
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed: c. 61 C.E.
PAUL is best known as the apostle “to the nations.” But was his ministry confined to the non-Jews? Not at all! Just before Paul was baptized and commissioned for his work, the Lord Jesus said to Ananias: “This man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel.” (Acts 9:15; Gal. 2:8, 9) The writing of the book of Hebrews was truly in line with Paul’s commission to bear the name of Jesus to the sons of Israel.
2 However, some critics doubt Paul’s writership of Hebrews. One objection is that Paul’s name does not appear in the letter. But this is really no obstacle, as many other canonical books fail to name the writer, who is often identified by internal evidence. Moreover, some feel that Paul may have deliberately omitted his name in writing to the Hebrew Christians in Judea, since his name had been made an object of hatred by the Jews there. (Acts 21:28) Neither is the change of style from his other epistles any real objection to Paul’s writership. Whether addressing pagans, Jews, or Christians, Paul always showed his ability to “become all things to people of all sorts.” Here his reasoning is presented to Jews as from a Jew, arguments that they could fully understand and appreciate.—1 Cor. 9:22.
3 The internal evidence of the book is all in support of Paul’s writership. The writer was in Italy and was associated with Timothy. These facts fit Paul. (Heb. 13:23, 24) Furthermore, the doctrine is typical of Paul, though the arguments are presented from a Jewish viewpoint, designed to appeal to the strictly Hebrew congregation to which the letter was addressed. On this point Clarke’s Commentary, Volume 6, page 681, says concerning Hebrews: “That it was written to Jews, naturally such, the whole structure of the epistle proves. Had it been written to the Gentiles, not one in ten thousand of them could have comprehended the argument, because unacquainted with the Jewish system; the knowledge of which the writer of this epistle everywhere supposes.” This helps to account for the difference of style when compared with Paul’s other letters.
4 The discovery in about 1930 of the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) has provided further evidence of Paul’s writership. Commenting on this papyrus codex, which was written only about a century and a half after Paul’s death, the eminent British textual critic Sir Frederic Kenyon said: “It is noticeable that Hebrews is placed immediately after Romans (an almost unprecedented position), which shows that at the early date when this manuscript was written no doubt was felt as to its Pauline authorship.” On this same question, McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states pointedly: “There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.”
5 Apart from the book’s acceptance by the early Christians, the contents of Hebrews prove that it is “inspired of God.” It continually points the reader toward the Hebrew Scripture prophecies, making numerous references to the early writings, and shows how these were all fulfilled in Christ Jesus. In the first chapter alone, no less than seven quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures are used as the point is developed that the Son is now superior to the angels. It constantly magnifies Jehovah’s Word and his name, pointing to Jesus as the Chief Agent of life and to God’s Kingdom by Christ as mankind’s only hope.
6 As to the time of writing, it has already been shown that Paul wrote the letter while in Italy. In concluding the letter, he says: “Take note that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes quite soon, I shall see you.” (13:23) This seems to indicate that Paul was expecting an early release from prison and hoped to accompany Timothy, who had also been imprisoned but who had already been released. Thus, the final year of Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome is suggested as the date of writing, namely, 61 C.E.
7 During the time of the end of the Jewish system of things, a period of crucial testing came upon the Hebrew Christians in Judea and especially on those in Jerusalem. With the growth and spread of the good news, the Jews were becoming bitter and fanatic in the extreme in their opposition to the Christians. Only a few years earlier, the mere appearance of Paul in Jerusalem had stirred up a riot, with the religious Jews screaming at the top of their voices: “Take such a man away from the earth, for he was not fit to live!” More than 40 Jews had bound themselves with a curse neither to eat nor to drink until they had done away with him, and it required a strong escort of heavily armed troops to bring him down by night to Caesarea. (Acts 22:22; 23:12-15, 23, 24) In this atmosphere of religious fanaticism and hatred of Christians, the congregation had to live, preach, and keep themselves firm in the faith. They had to have sound knowledge and understanding of how Christ fulfilled the Law that they might keep from falling back to Judaism and its observing of the Mosaic Law with the offering of animal sacrifices, all of it now nothing more than empty ritual.
8 No one was better able to understand the pressure and persecution to which the Jewish Christians were exposed than the apostle Paul. No one was better equipped to supply them with powerful arguments and refutations of Jewish tradition than Paul, the former Pharisee. Drawing on his vast knowledge of the Mosaic Law, learned at the feet of Gamaliel, he presented incontestable proof that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, its ordinances, and its sacrifices. He showed how these had now been replaced by far more glorious realities, bringing inestimably greater benefits under a new and better covenant. His keen mind lined up proof after proof in clear and convincing array. The end of the Law covenant and the coming in of the new covenant, the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the Aaronic priesthood, the real value of Christ’s sacrifice compared with the offerings of bulls and goats, the entry of Christ into the very presence of Jehovah in the heavens rather than into a mere earthly tent—all these strikingly new teachings, hateful in the extreme to the unbelieving Jews, were here presented to the Hebrew Christians with such abundant evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures that no reasonable Jew could fail to be convinced.
9 Armed with this letter, the Hebrew Christians had a new and powerful weapon to stop the mouths of the persecuting Jews, as well as a persuasive argument with which to convince and convert honest Jews seeking God’s truth. The letter shows Paul’s deep love for the Hebrew Christians and his burning desire to help them in a practical way in their time of great need. -
Narkissos
The only certain clue of the provenance of Hebrews is the reference to the "those from Italy" (hoi apo tés Italias) in 13:24, which would suggest either a Roman provenance or a Roman destination.
Yes, but 13:24 is precisely part of what I called the "simili-Pauline" addition (along with the reference to Timothy in v. 23) most likely meant to "dress" the whole work as a Pauline epistle (dia brakheôn ! epesteila humin, v. 22, which hardly suits the actual contents of the book). The reference to Italy and captivity (v. 19) may similarly allude to the commonly accepted Pauline biography (cf. Acts), and perhaps, particularly target a Roman audience. However the Roman rejection of the book (Muratori, Hyppolitus, Caius, Ambrosiaster) is overwhelming down to the 4th centuries when the Latin doubts are still mentioned but rejected (Philaster, Augustine, Jerome).
The latter interpretation is probable since the use of apo "from" may more naturally refer to those are from a particular place but not living there at the time. Ignatius however uses a similar expression in the former sense: "The Ephesians greet you from Smyrna (Ephesioi apo Smurnés), where I am writing you" (Magnesians 15:1).
A detail, but an explicit mention of the greeters' origin (Ephesioi) along with the different place where there happen to be (apo Smurnès, actually qualifying the verb) is not quite the same as the only substantive locution hoi apo tès Italias, which is better understood as defining the greeters' origin imo.
-
greendawn
I wonder why traditionally it was always believed that Paul was the author when there is nothing to validate this belief. Why did their mind go to Paul?
-
Narkissos
I wonder why traditionally it was always believed that Paul was the author when there is nothing to validate this belief. Why did their mind go to Paul?
The point I am trying to suggest is that hints to Pauline authorship have deliberately been included in the final chapter at the latest stage of writing/edition, while nothing in the body of the book suits Paul.
-
Leolaia
Thanks for posting that drew. The All Scripture Is Inspired book is embarassingly superficial by selecting a few arguments against traditional authorship and then countering it often with sweeping statements or arguments that they don't let acknowledge are weak if not fallacious. Even as a Witness, I recognized that in almost every case, they already knew that conclusion they wanted beforehand and selected the evidence pro and con on that basis. In regards to this article on Hebrews:
1) They do not acknowledge that the book does not claim Pauline authorship, that many early Christians doubted that it was written by Paul, that the author in 2:3 even implies that he is not an apostle, and that the book is un-Pauline in terms of language, style, and thought.
2) They ascribe doubts of Pauline authorship to "critics", which the average JW would read as "attackers of the Bible". In reality, Pauline authorship was widely doubted, by Tertullian, early Christians at Rome, Origen, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, etc.
3) The idea that Paul omitted his name from the letter so as to not offend Jews angry with him in Judea is pure speculation. Notice that the only argument against Pauline authorship that they consider is an argument from silence, that Paul's name is absent from the letter. They do not mention any of the other many arguments against the Pauline theory.
4) They state without demonstrating that "the internal evidence of the book is all in support of Paul's writership". Since they failed to address any of the arguments based on internal evidence against Pauline authorship, this similarly don't need to acknowledge them here in making this sweeping claim. The one piece of evidence claimed to prove that the author was Paul is that "the writer was in Italy and was associated with Timothy. These facts fit Paul". Was Paul the only person ever in Italy, was he the only one associated with Timothy? Was Timothy not associated with other Christians than Paul? The facts probably fit Paul no more than many other Christians from the time. And the "fact" that Hebrews puts the writer in Italy is also questionable, as I explained in my earlier post. They do not show how weak this argument actually is. They also state that "the doctrine is typical of Paul" which is a very questionable claim, in light of the fact that Hebrews does have a rather different theological perspective and would be very atypical of Paul. The affinities and discontinuities with Paul would be naturally explained by a theory of authorship that claims that the writer was not Paul but someone influenced by him (with original ideas of his own that depart significantly from Paul's own conceptual system). Rather than point to evidence that establishes that the letter was written by Paul, the article maintains Pauline authorship a priori and is mainly interested in mitigating evidence against this position.
5) The only external evidence mentioned is the placement of Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 which, in the opinion of the Society, contitutes "further evidence of Paul's writership". But by their own admission, this manuscript dates from 150 years after Paul's death, or within the third century AD. They mention this one third century AD witness of popular opinion about the authorship of Hebrews, but do not let on that around the same time Tertullian claimed that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, Origen expressed his doubts of Pauline authorship and asserted that only God knows who really wrote it, and the Christians of Rome also believed that Paul did not write it. Why does the Society mention one external fact that supports their conclusion but omit all the reasons for doubting Pauline authorship? In fact, they later refer generally to "the book's acceptance by early Christians" as if such acceptance was universal, when in fact Eusebius noted that the canonicity of Hebrews was rejected in the Western Church, at least until the fourth century.