Hebrews Highlights January 2014

The Hebrews Highlights for the month of January 2014:

Christian Brady proposes a comparison between 1 Maccabees 2 and Hebrews 11. He summarizes his argument when he argues that Hebrews 11 is a Midrash of 1 Macc. 2.

Phillip Long informs us about Frederic W. Farrar and his commentary on Hebrews. Logos is giving away free copies of this commentary in the month of January. He queries What Can We Know about the author of Hebrews? He also asks Why Not Paul? It appears that he is beginning a series on Hebrews:
Hebrews 1 - Jesus and the Angels
Hebrews 1 - Worship Jesus, the Firstborn
Hebrews 3 - Jesus is Superior to Moses
Hebrews 4:14 - A Great High Priest
Hebrews 4:16 - Boldly, Before the Throne of Grace

Mitch Chase comments On the Possible Inclusios in Hebrews 11and the Central Figure in the List of Names. He highlights commonalities of sacrifice in the Three Stories of Sacrifice in the Name-List of Hebrews 11. He also discusses The Strategy of Christology for Your Endurance.

Jared Compton also queries Did Paul Write Hebrews?
Some older posts by Jared:
     Galatians and Hebrews: A Key Similarity
     Hebrews: The Big Picture
     Hebrews: The Big Picture (imaginative)
     What Hebrews Tells Us about Preaching

Hebrews Highlights - November 2013

The Hebrews Highlights (formerly Carnival) for the month of November 2013:

Shawn Wilhite queries, Did Early Communities Have a Pauline Reading of Hebrews?

Abram K-J contends that Hebrews ventures an answer to the question, Who Is Isaiah's Shepherd of the Sheep?

Ken Schenck summarizes his SBL paper indicating How Hebrews and Philo connected Scriptures. He concludes by venturing a proposal for the authorship of Hebrews . . .

Gabriella Gelardini announced at the final Hebrews session at SBL that she and Harold Attridge will be editing a volume consisting of twenty of the best papers given at the Hebrews group over the past eight years.  The volume will be published with Brill.

Also, a reminder: you can access many of the papers that were delivered in the SBL Hebrews Group sessions on Gelardini's webpage.  See sidebar for the link.  This year's papers are not available yet.

Gurney on the Canonical Authority of Hebrews

Gurney, Joseph John. “On the Canonical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 1-39 in Biblical Notes and Dissertations, Chiefly Intended to Confirm and Illustrate the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ; with Some Remarks on the Practical Importance of That Doctrine. London: Rivington, 1833.

Joseph John Gurney (1788-1847) was a banker in Norwich, England and an evangelical minister of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

Many believe that the canonical authority of Hebrews rests on the question of whether Paul was the author of this epistle.  Gurney thus proceeds to argue for Pauline authorship of Hebrews. 

1) He states that 2 Peter 3:14-16 alludes to Paul’s letter to the Hebrews.  First Peter was written to the diaspora Jews (1:1), as was 2 Peter (3:1).  Gurney reasons that the epistle that Peter referred to was also written to Hebrews.  He claims that the whole argument of Hebrews corresponds to what Peter is writing in 2 Peter 3.  The “things hard to understand” (3:16) correlate to what Hebrews says in 5:11.

2) In the ecclesiastical tradition the Greek and eastern fathers are unanimous in affirming Pauline authorship.  Beginning from the Alexandrian fathers (Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) Gurney lists numerous eastern fathers who affirmed Pauline authorship.  Some of the Latin fathers (Caius, Tertullian, Irenaeus), however, did not affirm Pauline authorship.  However, from the fourth century on, the western fathers (e.g., Jerome, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine) appear to be unanimous on Pauline authorship.

3) Gurney next considers the internal evidence: a) the few personal circumstances mentioned in Hebrews corresponds well with the history of Paul: the author displays intimate knowledge of the OT; he appears to be writing from Rome to Christians in Judaea (13:24); the mention of Timothy, who was a close associate of Paul’s (13:23); b) the author of Hebrews displays a similar disposition to that of Paul; c) the arrangement of the epistle into doctrinal and practical sections is similar to Paul’s writings [It should be noted that scholars today do not adhere to this simplistic structure of Hebrews anymore]; d) much of the theological language in Hebrews finds correlations with the Pauline writings.

Gurney next addresses the objection that Hebrews evinces a superior Greek style to that of Paul’s letters.  Some early fathers tried to account for the differences: Hebrews was translated from Hebrew into Greek by Luke or Clement, or that someone else recorded the sentiments of Paul in his own language.  Gurney rejects both of these explanations.  Hebrews is not a translation: a) there is no ancient evidence of any Hebrew original; b) the author makes frequent use of paronomasia, or play on words; c) the author quotes and bases his arguments on the Greek translation of the OT; d) the writing evinces a fluid Greek style.

Nevertheless, Gurney argues that Hebrews stylistically shows similarities to Paul’s writings: a) the use of Hebraisms and Jewish idioms; b) the frequent separation of premises from conclusions with parenthetic discourse; c) similarities in certain peculiarities of grammatical construction; d) modes of expression peculiar to Paul are also found in Hebrews; e) the use of words which are common to Paul and Hebrews but found nowhere else in the NT.  He argues that Paul was much more careful in the construction of this letter than in his other letters.  He concludes that if Paul was the author then one cannot hesitate to ascribe the character of divine inspiration and canonical authority to the work.

Gurney argues, however, that independent of the question of authorship, Hebrews can be considered inspired and canonical.  First, it was written during the apostolic age.  Evidence for this includes: a) Clement of Rome appears to have made use of Hebrews; b) The early date can also be ascribed to the fact that the author appears to say that the sacrificial cult was still functioning at the time of the writing of Hebrews [this argument can no longer be sustained as scholars have found instances in which writers referred to sacrificial cultus in the present tense even after the destruction of the Temple]; c) The mention of Timothy; d) Its appearance in the earliest existing versions of the NT; e) the audience received their instructions from the immediate followers of Christ (2:3).

Second, the epistle was addressed to the Christian church in Palestine: a) The title “To the Hebrews” is found in all ancient versions, manuscripts, and editions.  This is confirmed by the testimony of the early church fathers; b) The whole tenor and argument of the work evinces intimate knowledge of the Jewish law.  The Jerusalem church was held in particular respect and authority by the rest of the Christian world, so it could only take a person endowed with divine inspiration to address such a church with such a doctrinal treatise.

Third, Hebrews’ inspiration and authority is grounded upon “its own internal excellence and scriptural weight” (36).  Hebrews reveals truths not found in any other NT writing.

Francois Vidal on the Authenticity of Hebrews

Vidal, Francois. De l’authenticité de l’épitre aux Hébreux. 1829.

In this work Vidal argues for the Pauline authorship of Hebrews.  He believes that Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine.  Hebrews was written to prevent these Christians from lapsing back into Judaism.  Vidal sees two parts in the argument of Hebrews.  The first part demonstrates the grandeur of Jesus Christ and the superiority of the new covenant over the old (1:1-10:18).  The second part exhorts the audience to persevere in the profession of the Gospel (10:19-13:25).

Vidal examines the internal characteristics of Hebrews in the first part before turning to the historical witnesses in the second part.  In the final section he examines the hypotheses which posit authors other than Paul.

In the first chapter Vidal highlights the characteristics which militate in favor of Pauline authorship:

1) In Hebrews there is a great knowledge of the religion of the Jews, which fits Paul perfectly.

2) The doctrine contained in Hebrews is the same that Paul constantly professes.  Both use typology and the same terminology.

3) Hebrews uses the same train of thought and the same mode of reasoning as Paul; one also finds figures, expressions, and words which are distinctive of Paul.  Both show similarities in argumentation and literary style.

4) The circumstances in Hebrews fit Paul perfectly.  The epistle was written from Rome (13:24), where Paul was a prisoner.  Timothy was with Paul in Rome.

In the second chapter Vidal addresses objections to Pauline authorship:

1) The omission of the name of the author.  One possible explanation is that Paul left off his name because he was writing to Jews; since Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was despised by the Jews, Paul did not want his message rejected by the attachment of his name.  Vidal also believes that Hebrews is not a simple letter, but a dissertation or treatise, and hence it is not surprising that he left off his name.

2) Heb 2:3 does not sound like Paul who claims he received his ministry from no man, but from Jesus Christ himself.  Vidal, however, claims that Paul does not include himself among the “we” in this verse; this is a literary device.

3) The superiority of the style of Hebrews in comparison to Paul’s letters.  Vidal responds that arguments based on style alone are difficult since an author’s style is at the mercy of the subjectivity of the reader.  Nevertheless, Vidal contends that the style of Hebrews is not all that different from Paul’s.  The superiority of style can be attributed to the fact that Paul is writing a treatise and not a simple letter; Paul was more cautious in laying out his thesis.

4) In Heb 13:23 the author expresses a desire to see the Hebrews, but why would he return to Jerusalem where he was arrested and imprisoned in the first place?  Vidal believes that by this time Paul had already been acquitted and had nothing more to fear.  In addition, Paul never let the threat of persecution or death hinder him from preaching the gospel.

In part 2 he considers the external criteria for authorship:

1) Peter, in his second epistle (3:15), cites the epistle to the Hebrews.

2) The Greek fathers and the Eastern Church universally advocated for Pauline authorship.

3) The Latin fathers were not so unanimous on Pauline authorship.  But by the fourth century Pauline authorship was universally affirmed in the West as well.

In part 3 Vidal deals with the hypotheses of those who believe that the epistle was written by someone other than Paul.  The alternative theories of authorship fall under three headings: 1) Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew by Paul but translated into Greek by someone else; 2) Hebrews was written at the direction of Paul, but was edited by someone else; 3) Hebrews was written by someone other than Paul.  Vidal rejects that Hebrews was a translation from the Hebrew.  The author bases his arguments upon the Greek text of the OT.  Moreover, Greek was the dominant language at that time, even in Palestine.  If the author had written in the name of Paul, this does not destroy Vidal’s thesis.  It is known that Paul had made use of secretaries; Paul would have furnished him with the arguments and ideas but left the wording up to him.  If the author wrote in his own name, then one must suppose an individual whose circumstances were similar to Paul’s (that he was at Rome, in prison, had Timothy as a companion etc.).  Vidal rejects other conjectures for authorship.  He rejects Luke and Clement based on stylistic differences, Barnabas because his circumstances do not fit those of the epistle, and Apollos because there is no ancient witness who posited him.

Vidal concludes with an affirmation of the authenticity, inspiration, and authority of Hebrews.

Henry Louis Laharpe on the Authenticity of Hebrews

Laharpe, Henry Louis. Essai critique sur l’authenticité de l’épitre aux Hébreux. 1832.

Laharpe sets out to demonstrate the authenticity of the epistle to the Hebrews by arguing for the probability of Pauline authorship.  Part 1 examines the internal evidence. 

First, he examines the doctrine which Hebrews and Paul contain: 1) Christianity possesses a superiority over Judaism: a) The Gospel gives to humanity more light and religious knowledge than the Law; b) The Gospel is superior to the Law in that it offers more powerful motives and greater encouragement for the practice of piety and virtue; c) The Gospel has a superior efficacy to advance and assure the real and constant happiness of the human race; d) The Jewish dispensation is only a type or shadow of the Christian dispensation; e) The Mosaic dispensation is abolished because of its imperfection, but the Christian dispensation exists perpetually.  2) The doctrine of the person and expiatory mediation of Jesus: a) The doctrine of the mediator is presented in the same manner by Paul and Hebrews; b) the death of Christ is an expiatory sacrifice for sins by which sinners are reconciled to God.

Second, he argues that the didactic and hortatory method Hebrews uses is analogous to that of Paul’s: 1) The general disposition of Hebrews is similar to that ordinarily employed by Paul; 2) There is a similarity in the citation and application of the OT; 3) There is an analogy between Hebrews and Paul with respect to the manner in which certain reasons are in turn suspended and reprised.

Third, he compares the style and diction of Hebrews and Paul under the following headings: 1) Concordance of style and ideas: a) Concordance of ideas presented in the same manner, although with a slightly different style; b) Concordance of ideas with a more striking relation in diction; c) Concordance of passages in which there is only a slight difference in expression; d) Concordance of passages which present the same expressions; 2) Words which are found only in Paul and Hebrews, or which are employed by other authors of the NT in an entirely different sense; 3) Remarkable particularities in grammatical construction.

Fourth, he examines several statements in Hebrews which seems to throw proper light on the question of authorship: 1) The particular way Timothy is mentioned in 13:23; 2) The author was a prisoner for a short time (13:18-19); 3) The statement regarding bonds in 10:34 is naturally applied to Paul; 4) The salutation in 13:24 forms another probability in favor of Pauline authorship; 5) There is no reason to doubt that Paul could have written the statements in 2:3.

In part 2 Laharpe examines the external evidence on the question of authorship.  In section 1 he examines the Alexandrian evidence of Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others.  Section two examines the witnesses of the Eastern Church, such as Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, and others.  Section three looks at witnesses of the Western Church: Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Caius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine, and the Council of Carthage.  Pauline authorship found opposition only in the Western Church, but eventually the tide of opinion turned in favor of Pauline authorship.

In part 3 Laharpe examines two particular questions regarding Hebrews: 1) What was the original language of the epistle?  2) Who were the addressees?  He concludes that Hebrews was originally written in Greek (not Hebrew).  It is likely that Paul would have used Greek even when writing to Hebrew Christians in Palestine, the OT quotations appear to have been drawn primarily from the LXX, and the Greek style all point to this conclusion.  Laharpe then argues that Hebrews was written to the Church in Caesarea.

In part 4 the author draws together his conclusions.  Hebrews’ doctrine is apostolic and shows remarkable similarities to the writings of Paul.  The internal and external evidence points favorably towards Pauline authorship. The authenticity of Hebrews leads to the conclusion that this epistle possesses a full and complete canonical authority and that it is decisive in all matters that it treats: the divinity of Christ, the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, the necessity of expiation for sins by the blood of Christ, and the necessity of a more perfect sacrifice than that offered in the Law.

Hebrews Carnival March 2010

William Varner presents A New Perspective on Hebrews. He provides this new perspective in a PDF file.

Clifford Kvidahl offers Some Random Notes on Hebrews.

Kvidahl also remarks on Hebrews 8:13 and the obsolescence of the Old Covenant.

Dan Cruver had a meditation on Hebrews 10:19-25 that we can have Confidence to Approach God - Together.

Bob MacDonald gives an overview of The Psalms used in Hebrews.

Michael Bird interviews Andrew W. Pitts about his theory on the Authorship of Hebrews. Pitts, and his colleague Joshua F. Walker propose that the evidence best points to a collaboration between Paul and Luke. He argues that the speech is Pauline, which Luke documented in some manner as a stenographer and then later published it. Myself? Although I believe the author of Hebrews is likely an associate of Paul's and may in part be influenced by Paul, I do not think that the writing is Pauline. For example, the theology of the book differs too much from any of Paul's letters and the use of the OT is much different than Paul's.

Tony Siew reflects on Hebrews and Its Influence on his life.

Joel Watts has a reflection on Ben Witherington's discussion on Hebrews in The Indelible Image.

Doug Chaplin notes two places where the language of Eucharist and Sacrifice merge in the NT, which includes Hebrews 13:10.

Matthew Larsen gives the abstract to his paper that he will deliver at the upcoming SBL Conference in Atlanta: The First Century Two Ways Catechesis as the Background of Hebrews 6:1-6.

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.

Thayer on the Authorship and Canonicity of Hebrews

Thayer, J. Henry. “Authorship and Canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Bibliotheca sacra 24 (1867): 681-722.

Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901) taught at Andover Theological Seminary from 1864 to 1882 and was Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Harvard Divinity School 1884-1901. His most noted work was his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

This article is derived from a series of lectures delivered at Andover. The article deals primarily with the internal and external arguments pro and con for Pauline authorship and concludes with a consideration on how the issue of authorship affected Hebrews’ acceptance into the canon.

He outlines five basic characteristics of the author: 1) He does not try to conceal his identity; he is known by his audience; 2) He was among the distinguished teachers of apostolic times; 3) He was Jewish; 4) He was not an eyewitness to Jesus, but received the gospel second-hand; and 5) He was a close associate of Timothy.

Thayer first deals with internal arguments in favor of Pauline authorship. Some have suggested that the reference to “bonds” in Heb 10:34 and the author’s request for prayer in 13:19 indicate that the author was imprisoned, thus favoring Paul as the author. But these references are inconclusive. Neither does 13:23 imply that Timothy was imprisoned. The salutation of “those from Italy” (οι απο της Ιταλιας) has two possible interpretations: local separation “those away from Italy” or origin “those of Italy”, i.e., “the Italians.” Thayer concludes that the phrase is indecisive for determining locality.

Thayer notes a number of doctrinal resemblances to Paul with regard to theology, Christology and the Mosaic Law. He also notes a number of similarities in form: the epistle is divided into two parts (didactic/doctrinal and hortatory/practical – later interpreters have overturned this simplistic division of Hebrews); the author utilizes similar imagery as Paul; and similarity in singular expressions. However, these similarities are inconclusive since such similarities may be due to what was common to them and their time. Coincidences in language and thought can be found between any two bodies of writings.

Internal evidence that speaks against Pauline authorship include: 1) the absence of an opening salutation, so characteristic of Paul’s letters; 2) the usage of the OT differs from Pauline usage; 3) the author’s characteristic expressions; and 4) the general differences of style and diction.

Moreover, the doctrinal content of Hebrews differs markedly from that of Paul: 1) the epistle lacks any language of justification by faith. Instead “the fundamental view taken of Christianity in our Epistle is consummated Judaism” (700); 2) the high priesthood of Christ is the consummation of Jesus’ career rather than the resurrection; 3) the author makes no mention of Gentiles being co-heirs with Jews in the gospel; 4) the spiritualizing, symbolic interpretation of the OT exceeds that of Paul. The facts and allusions of a personal nature also speak against Pauline authorship. For example, the epistle is addressed to Jewish Christians, which is a departure from his usual practice; he alludes to the persecution and martyrs of his audience “in cool historic style” (703); and Heb 2:3 is uncharacteristic of Paul who often claimed that he received the gospel by direct revelation from Christ.

Turning to external evidence, the Eastern church, particularly in Alexandria, generally regarded Paul as the author, but the testimony is not unanimous. However, the Western church universally regarded it as non-Pauline until the time of Jerome and Augustine. Thayer concludes that Paul cannot be regarded as the author of the book, but he does not venture to posit anyone else as the author.

The issue of Pauline authorship directly affected the book of Hebrews’ reception in the early church. Since the Eastern church widely believed that Paul was the author, the book of Hebrews was received as authoritative. Hebrews was much slower in gaining acceptance in the West due to doubts about Pauline authorship. Nevertheless, by the fourth century, the Western church also began to regard Hebrews as authoritative.

Thayer’s article is a balanced essay considering both sides of the argument for Pauline authorship. In the end, though, he rejects Pauline authorship. I must concur with Thayer. The book of Hebrews was not written by Paul. The doctrinal content and literary style differs dramatically from Paul’s letters. Moreover, it lacks the opening salutation so characteristic of Paul’s letters, and personal references (e.g., his Jewish background, his apostleship, his sufferings and imprisonment, his personal revelations from Christ, the collection for the saints in Rome etc.) which are so prevalent in his other letters.

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.

Computer Analyses of the Authorship of Hebrews

Apparently a group at the Centre for Biomedical Engineering and School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia has attempted to use a variety of methods of computer analysis for detecting authorship of literary writings. At least three of these studies have used Hebrews as a test case. The essays are available as PDF files:

Statistical Techniques for Text Classification Based on Word Recurrence Intervals

Who Wrote the Letter to the Hebrews? - Date Mining for Detection of Text Authorship

Advanced Text Authorship Detection Methods and Their Application to Biblical Texts

The first two essays conclude that Hebrews shows great similarity to Paul's writings. The last essay concludes that it is extremely unlikely that Paul wrote Hebrews. Hebrews, instead shows greater similarity to the Epistle of Barnabas, which they believe was written by Barnabas. The widely divergent results of these methods makes me question the effectiveness of such analyses.

Is Paul the Author of Hebrews?

There is some interesting discussion on Nick Norelli's blog regarding the authorship of Hebrews. If there is one thing I am convinced of, it's that Paul did not write the Book of Hebrews. The style and content of the book is too radically different from Paul's writings.