Gardiner on the Authorship of Hebrews

Gardiner, Frederic. “The Language of the Epistle to the Hebrews as Bearing upon Its Authorship.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 7 (June 1887): 1-27.

This article investigates how word frequency might shed light upon the authorship of Hebrews. Gardiner is perfectly aware of the inadequacy of this method, but undertook the exercise so as “to leave no stone unturned” (1) on the question of Hebrews authorship. It is not my intention in this review to give all of the excruciating details of the numerous statistics given in this essay. The reader is encouraged to peruse the article for oneself if one is so inclined.

According to Gardiner, Hebrews has 147 words “peculiar” to itself in comparison to the other books of the NT (2). Among the NT writers the author of Hebrews and the Lucan corpus “excel . . . in the richness of their vocabulary” (3). Gardiner next examines words that are common only to Hebrews and Luke, and Hebrews and Paul (he does not distinguish between the authentic and disputed Paulines). He notes that 34 words are common to Luke and Hebrews only, and that 46 words are common to Paul and Hebrews alone. He says such numbers explain the intuitive sense of the early church fathers who attributed Hebrews to Paul and/or Luke in some way. After surveying some of the characteristic words held in common, Gardiner concludes that “some sort of relation” exists among the three writers.

Gardiner proceeds to examine the usage of other words, such as ερχομαι and λαμβανω with their various compounds, and the usage of particles, adverbs, and prepositions. After this tedious examination of word usage, Gardiner concludes that the style of Hebrews is unlike that of Paul, nor that of Luke (13). Gardiner then examines common words that are characteristic of “phases of thought” that reveal the habitual thoughts of a given writer. For example, αγαπαω and its cognates are used frequently by Paul and John, but hardly used by Hebrews and Luke. Gardiner enumerates a long list of words that indicates a variance of usage by Hebrews, Luke, and Paul.

Gardiner then examines words that are frequently used by both Paul and Hebrews, such as νομος and πιστις. Although these words are used quite often, their nuances are different for each writer. For example, Paul employs νομος “chiefly of a method of salvation,” while Hebrews refers to it as “a definite collection of statutes.” Similarly, there is a distinction with the word πιστις: For Paul it is “reliance upon Christ as the means of salvation in opposition to the law and the works of the law”; for Hebrews “it is only a general reliance on God’s grace and promises” (17). Finally, Gardiner enumerates words characteristic of Hebrews in distinction from other NT writers, including μαρτυς, τελειος, and ιερευς, and their related words. The last of these group of words is most striking, as Paul never uses ιερευς and its derivative words anywhere in his writings, while it is most prominent in Hebrews.

Gardiner confesses that he embarked on this project “suppos[ing] beforehand that it would result in showing Pauline thoughts and reasoning, but the phraseology of S. Luke, and thus would confirm a very ancient and still somewhat popular hypothesis, that the epistle was actually written by S. Luke to express ideas and arguments received from S. Paul,” but his analysis forced him to change his mind (19). Gardiner notes in passing other differences between Hebrews and Paul, such as the rhetorical flow of the discourse, and the manner of citation from the OT (20).

Gardiner concludes his essay with a consideration of candidates for authorship. It is clear that the author must have been a companion of Paul’s who was thus affected by Paul’s mode of expression. Apollos is a strong candidate because of his eloquence and learning in the scriptures. He was an Alexandrian which could explain the epistle’s “Alexandrian tone of thought” and its use of the LXX, which seems to reflect the Alexandrian recension (21). Nevertheless, a strong objection to Apollos’ authorship is the fact that Apollos was never considered as the author by any of the ancients, including any of the Alexandrian authors. Luke and Clement are rejected out of hand by a comparison with their acknowledged writings. The strongest candidate for authorship is Barnabas: He was a Hellenistic Jew from Cyprus (and thus may have had access to Alexandrian literature); he was an early convert and one of the prominent leaders of the church in Jerusalem, a long-time companion of Paul’s, and a Levite (and thus acquainted with the service of the temple).

Although such a statistical analysis that Gardiner engages in has its weaknesses, I think he has sufficiently shown that the author of Hebrews could not be either Paul or Luke. We must look elsewhere. I am in agreement that Apollos and Barnabas are two of the strongest candidates for authorship, although I would also add Aquila as a strong possibility.

Godet on Hebrews

Godet, Frederic. “The Note of Warning to the Judeo-Christian Churches.” Pages 307-39 in Studies on the Epistles of St. Paul. Translated by Annie Harwood Holmden. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889.

Frederic Godet (1812-1900) was a Swiss Protestant theologian who was professor of theology at Neuchâtel 1850-1887 and also held a pastorate there from 1851 to 1868. In 1873 he was one of the co-founders of the Evangelical Church of Neuchâtel. A nice biography of his life can be found here.

In this essay Godet sets out to answer three questions:
1) To what churches was this church addressed?
2) What was the object which the writer proposed to himself?
3) Who was the writer?

1) Godet believes that the superscription “To the Hebrews” was penned by the author himself! “Hebrews” refers to Judeo-Christians generally. Passages such as 5:11-12; 10:34; and 13:7 indicate that the epistle was addressed to one or more specific congregations. Godet notes that scholars have posited numerous locations for the audience: Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, Spain, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Palestine. Godet favors the last option declaring that there is no indication in the entirety of the letter that Gentiles are being addressed. As the readers had “an obstinate attachment to the worship of the visible sanctuary” (311), a location near Jerusalem is the most reasonable hypothesis. 2:3 suggests that they were converted by those who had personally heard Jesus, and 13:7 references the death of their leaders which accords well with what we know about James’ martyrdom in 62.

Godet then tries to refute alternative solutions. Hebrews 6:10 does not seem to apply to the Jerusalem church which was itself in deep poverty. However, the author may have been writing to a church elsewhere in Judea, or there may have been a few wealthy persons in the Jerusalem church, or it could be that even the poor in Jerusalem were generous in their giving.

Godet lists three things in favor of the hypothesis that the epistle was written to the church in Egypt: the “Alexandrine style” of the writer, the similarity of ideas to Philo, and the author’s penchant for quoting from the Septuagint. These facts, however, favor an Alexandrian origin, not a destination. Godet counters by arguing that the Alexandrian culture was rather widespread among the oriental Jews. Moreover, the church at Alexandria was far from being a purely Judeo-Christian group. Finally, he notes that Alexandrian teachers such as Clement and Origen never hint that Hebrews was written to the church at Alexandria.

Godet says that a Roman destination for the epistle was waning in favor in his day (It is interesting to note, then, that there are still strong advocates for this view to this day, 120 years after he wrote this). The support for a Roman destination is taken from 13:24 which says “they of Italy salute you.” Godet disputes this possibility: “does it seem probable that any Church of Italy . . . should have been so strongly tempted to fall back into Judaism, as those seem to have been for whom this Epistle was intended?” (315) Godet concludes, rather, that the epistle was written from Italy.

2) To answer the second question regarding the purpose of the writing, Godet proceeds to give an overview of the book. He divides the book into parts: the didactic (ch. 1-10) and the practical (ch. 11-13) with a concluding appendix (13:22-25). Of course, it has been demonstrated that the structure of Hebrews is far more complex than this simplistic outline.

Chapters 1-2 show the superiority of Christ to the angels. The comparison between Jesus and the angels was made because, from a Jewish point of view, the law was given through the agency of angels. Chapters 3-4 demonstrate the superiority of Jesus to Moses and Joshua. In the third section (5-10) the author demonstrates the superiority of Jesus and his priesthood to that of Aaron’s. The author also sets forth the substitution of the new covenant for the Sinai covenant.

In the practical part of the letter, Godet says this regarding chapter 11:

If we remember the tenacity with which the Churches addressed appear to have clung to the visible sanctuary at Jerusalem, and the value which they attached to the maintenance of their oneness with the chosen nation settled in the land of Canaan, we shall easily understand the scope of the writer’s observations in chap. xi., in which he held before them the picture of the life of faith and endurance led by the patriarchs and prophets. All these, each in his own manner, let go the seen that they might grasp the unseen. (324)

Chapter 12 deals with the duty of steadfast patience and chapter 13 with that of utter self-renunciation, to which the whole epistle had been leading. Godet believes this is the gist of the whole epistle:

At length (chap. xiii. 13) he speaks out, and demands the supreme act of sacrifice. . . . As Jesus was led forth in ignominy outside the walls of Jerusalem, bearing his cross, so the time is come for those believing Jews, who have cherished till now the bond of oneness with the Jewish nation and religion, to make the great surrender, and break with a bond which threatens to lead them to their ruin. “Break loose from Judaism. Be wholly His who is better to you than the angels, better than Moses or Joshua, better than Aaron and his priesthood. Be all for Jesus, in whom you possess the eternal reality of all the good things of which Judaism offers you only the shadow.” (325)

Thus, for Godet, the epistle was addressing the danger of these Christians of Jewish origin from lapsing back into Judaism. These Judeo-Christians had a great attachment to outward rites and ceremonial worship, which created a great hindrance in advancement in the Christian life. Other circumstances exacerbated their situation: the impending war with Rome, and the preaching of Paul among the Gentiles which downplayed the ceremonial law. Godet surmises that after Paul’s visit, messianic Jews were excluded from worship at the temple which inclined some to revert to Judaism. Other circumstances which contributed to their situation were the recent martyrdom of James and other early leaders, the continued refusal of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and the delay of the parousia. All this leads Godet to conclude that the epistle was written around 65-66 CE. This date is confirmed by the reference to Timothy who was probably imprisoned with Paul in Rome, and was only released after Paul’s execution. Godet disputes the dating of the epistle to 80 or later by such scholars as Zahn, Holtmann, Harnack and Von Soden. Why would the author of Hebrews need to argue about the obsolescence of the old covenant, if the sacrificial rites of the old covenant had already ceased? I find this part of Godet’s argument rather compelling.

3) Godet notes that Pauline authorship was readily accepted in the East, but was not accepted in the West until the Synod of Carthage in 397 under the influence of Augustine. The Eastern Fathers, however, did recognize the difficulty of ascribing the letter to Paul as the letter does not evince his characteristic style, nor does he identify himself in the letter as was his custom. Clement surmises that the epistle was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek by Luke. In a brief history of interpretation, Godet identifies other candidates for authorship that have been proposed: Clement of Rome, Luke, Apollos, Barnabas, and Silas.

Godet rejects Pauline authorship due to the absence of an epistolary heading, its markedly different literary style, the fact that the author copies the Septuagint (whereas Paul corrected the Septuagint by the Hebrew), and by his citation practice. Moreover, there is a dramatic difference with respect to its “religious point of view” (333). Hebrews focuses on the redemptive work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, while Paul centers on the cross. In addition, 2:3 suggests that the author received the gospel secondhand, while Paul would have denied any such dependence on the other apostles (cf. Gal 1:11-17). Godet also rejects the theory that the epistle was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek: “it abounds in compound words which are essentially Greek, and have no analogues in Aramaic or in Hebrew, and it contains plays upon words such as could only occur in a composition originally Greek” (335).

Godet quickly dismisses Luke and Clement of Rome as authors due to literary style. He also dismisses Apollos since he could not claim to have learned the gospel from those who personally heard Jesus, nor is it likely that he would have written to Christians in Judea. Barnabas is a strong candidate for authorship: he was one of the early leaders of the church in Jerusalem; he was a Levite by birth and hence acquainted with the ceremonial law; he was a Hellenistic Jew from Cyprus and so was competent to write in excellent Greek; his description of his work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22) evokes the name the apostles gave him: “son of exhortation” (4:36); and there is at least some early patristic testimony to his authorship: Tertullian. Yet, he asks “how is it possible that a well-known and all but apostolic name, like that of Barnabas, should have been almost completely lost?” (337)

Godet then proposes Silas as a likely candidate for authorship. Silas was also a prominent member of the church of Jerusalem. He succeeded Barnabas as Paul’s traveling partner on his missionary journeys and helped form churches in Greece. He was also associated with the work of Peter (1 Peter 5:12). Thus, it was likely that he knew Timothy (cf. 13:23). Any similarities with Paul’s writings could also be easily accounted for due to his relationship with Paul. All that we can say about Godet’s advocacy for Silas is that it is possible, but his evidence is not decisive. The authorship of Hebrews remains as elusive as ever.

Ruth Hoppin on Hebrews

Since beginning this blog I have had the unexpected benefits of my learned readers contacting me to express their ideas and to point me to additional resources.

This past week Ruth Hoppin, the author of Priscilla's Letter: Finding the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, contacted me in response to some of my previous postings on the authorship of Hebrews. We have had a cordial (but spirited) email conversation over the possibility that Priscilla is the author of Hebrews. Mrs. Hoppin's photo is pictured here (photo by John Swanda).

While I have not been entirely persuaded by Mrs. Hoppin's argument for the authorship of Hebrews, I thought I would allow her to "respond" by way of posting her "Ten-point Summary of the Case for Priscilla's Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews." This is essentially a summary of the case she builds for Priscilla's authorship in her book. This is reproduced by her permission. Let me know what you think:


TEN-POINT SUMMARY OF THE CASE FOR PRISCILLA’S
AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS*

1. Priscilla, as a colleague of Paul, was a colleague of Timothy, with whom the author coordinates travel plans (Heb. 13:23).

2. She was a well-educated Roman aristocrat whose knowledge of literature, philosophy, and rhetoric qualified her for authorship. Her pre-eminence in the church and higher social standing are denoted by the appearance of her name first, four of the six times Priscilla and Aquila are named in the New Testament. Chrysostom (fourth-century Bishop of Constantinople) named her the sole tutor of Apollos.

3. a) Apollos, knowing only the baptism of John (Acts 18:25,26), needed instruction on baptisms- a topic covered by the teacher/catechist author of Hebrews (Heb. 6:1,2).

b) After receiving instruction from Priscilla, Apollos preached on the theme that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in Old Testament scripture- a main theme of Hebrews.

4. The conversion story in Heb. 2:1-3 checks out for Priscilla, but not for Barnabas, Apollos, or Paul.

5. Philo’s influence in Hebrews has been noted; Priscilla knew Philo in Rome and had access to his writings in Roman libraries.

6. The letter was written to Hebrew Christians in Ephesus, the locale of Priscilla’s ministry.

7. Priscilla had strong family and church connections at Rome, the city of origin.

8. The naming of two women as role models of faith in the eleventh chapter- with direct and indirect allusions to many others- was a break with precedent.

9. The early, inexplicable loss of the author’s name, with no consistent pseudonym being provided, is explained if a woman wrote the epistle.

10. No other candidate matches the profile of the author, as outlined.

*Ruth Hoppin, Priscilla’s Letter: Finding the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Fort Bragg, CA: Lost Coast Press), 2000.


And now to point you to some online resources:

A brief biography and photo can be found on God's Word to Women website.

A brief video of Hoppin promoting her book can be found on the Lost Coast Press website.

Two online articles are available:

"Advocates for Priscilla" on the E-Quality website.

"The Book of Hebrews Revisited: Implicationsof the Theology of Hebrews for Gender Equality" on the Womenpriests.org website.