Hebrews Authorship Draft

Introduction:

The anonymously written epistle to the Hebrews has been a text that has been critically engaged by a countless number of scholars over the past two millennium. The issue regarding its authorship is an area of New Testament study that has received much attention. The extra-biblical literature suggesting an array of theories from scholars of all backgrounds is exhaustive. It is for this reason that I embarked upon writing my first critical analysis on this topic. I knew that very applicable and easily accessible sources would not be in short supply. In this essay I will critically engage eight aspects of the book in its entirety in an effort to determine who the likely author of this incredible epistle is. The eight areas of engagement particular to my study are: genre, integrity, canonicity, recipient, destination, date, theology and linguistics. It is through engaging with these eight topics of textual introduction specific to the book of Hebrews that warrants positively the claim that no assertion can be made regarding authorship of this epistle. I will address these topics one at a time beginning with genre in order to argue my case.

Genre:

Upon embracing a critical approach to any formal study of literature, specifically that of the Bible, the genre of the text must first be determined. As it sits in the Protestant canon, the book is known and understood as an epistle. Understood historically, epistles were nothing more than letters that permitted important information to be transferred from a specific author to a recipient despite long distances and authorial absence.1 Upon initial reading the epistolary characteristics of the book are evident. The superscription “To Hebrews” is indicative of the epistolary nature of the text and coincides with the nature of the rest of the understood epistolary compositions found in the New Testament with similar superscriptions addressed to places, groups of people (as is the case with Hebrews) or individuals. The postscript, which some have identified as all of chapter 13 but specifically vv 13:20-25, attests to the epistolary genre. Typologically, the postscript clearly includes a benediction, personal remarks, and a closing farewell.

Besides these two aspects of epistolary literature, the book lacks many conventions specific to this genre that are frequently found elsewhere in the New Testament. One of the vital, arguably most important, characteristics indicative to biblical epistles, a prescript or an introductory greeting (Ephesians 1:1-2; Romans 1:1-7; James 1:1; I Peter 1:1-2; etc.), is absent in Hebrews. The book begins without any introduction or salutation, with no mention of author or addressee, which categorize prescripts and instead immediately accelerates into the discourse that comprises the entirety of the book through twelve chapters until the very end. Another convention of epistolary writings that is not included in Hebrews is the frequent change of discourse between exhortation and exposition/explanation as is common to the New Testament, specifically exemplified in the Pauline corpus. Unlike the Pauline letters, Hebrews begins in hortatory fashion and this

1 Watson, D. F. “Letter, Letter Form.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 649-655. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Pp 649

1

exhortative content continues throughout the entirety of the first twelve chapters without any exposition.

With regard to structural similarities assisting our quest for understanding the authorship of the book, Hebrews coincides best with the first epistle of the apostle John in that I John lacks many of the conventional characteristics of epistles such as a proper introduction and a proper conclusion. But Johanine authorship of Hebrews has never been seriously considered based on the fact that the content, style and lexical characteristic of each respected ‘epistle’ cannot be more contrastive.

The majority of scholars find unmistakable sermonic qualities within the discourse of Hebrews, meaning that the discourse is hortatory in nature but appears to have been composed initially from a spoken source with homiletic purposes.2 This type of genre shares many conventions with modern day ecclesial sermons. W. L. Lane compares Hebrews with the exemplary biblical hortatory homily found in Acts 13:16-41 and identifies key similarities between these two texts, namely their authoritative examples, conclusions and final exhortations.3 The conclusion and final exhortation of Hebrews coincide nicely with that of the Acts example, but in my opinion the authoritative examples found in either text, namely the distinct content of each text, differ tremendously. This being said, Hebrews may still be understood as homiletic regardless of this difference.

Philippians 2:6-11 is another biblical text often mentioned when making stylistic identifications regarding the genre of Hebrews.4 The Philippian text is most often categorized as a hymn and it draws upon strong Christological imagery very much like that which one finds in Hebrews, especially chapters one and two. James Thompson observes a contentual connection between these two texts, but in denying Pauline authorship argues that the Philippian text employs much too common first century Christian terminology to regard Hebrews as Pauline.5

Integral to understanding Hebrews as a homily one finds no mention within the text itself to reading or writing as is found in Paul’s epistles (Philemon 19; I Timothy 3:15). Instead, the author employs powerfully persuasive epideictic language strengthening the

2 A few include Lane, W. L. “Hebrews.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 443-458. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997, Attridge; Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Fortress Press, 1989; Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. translated by Howard Clark Kee. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1975; Morris, Leon. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1981; and Torrey, Charles C. 1911. “The Authorship and Character of the So-Called ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’.” Journal of Biblical Literature 30, no. 2: 137-156

3 Lane, W. L. “Hebrews.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 443-458. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997.4 Voulgaris, Christos. 1999. “Hebrews: Paul’s Fifth Epistle from Prison.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44, no. 1-4: 199-206; Voulgaris uses this stylistic connection in his case for Pauline authorship for Hebrews while imprisoned in Rome.5 Thompson, James W. 2005. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Legacy.” Restoration Quaterly 47, no. 4: 197-206. Pp 198

2

case for an oratorical understanding of the genre. The author refers to his or her’ method of distributing his or her’ teaching as “speaking” or “saying” (Hebrews 2:5; 5:11; 6:9; 8:1; 9:5 and 11:32). Most notably is the reference in Hebrews 11:32, “what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell…” Besides the use of “say” availed by the author, he or she is constrained by time. Time constraints are uncharacteristic realities for literary composers when in the process of composition. In most instances time is their friend. This is not true of orators who must concern themselves with the attention of their listeners. The phrase “for time will fail me if I tell” is sermonic by nature and orators, even today, often loose track of time during lengthy expositions, and must address the clock as a hindrance by employing a phrase much like this. This coupled with the fact that when read aloud, depending on the speed of delivery, Hebrews needs approximately 45 minutes to an hour to be read from start to finish.

The most convincing data regarding the genre of the text is its self-identification found in Hebrews 13:22 as a “word of exhortation.” Lane identifies this phrase as “an idiomatic expression for a sermon in Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian circles, where the public reading of Scripture was followed by preaching.”6 This phrase coupled with the exhaustive amount of Old Testament references which are extremely characteristic to first century sermonic compositions makes the homiletic nature of this text undeniable.

Speaking against the epistolary nature of Hebrews Charles Torrey challenges the integrity of the book by affirming that the superscription and definitive parts of chapter 13 were not characteristic of the original composition.7 Like many other scholars he believes the Hebrews composition to originally have been a sermon that was literarily recorded and then sent to other churches. Torrey takes his claim a step beyond what is common in scholarship and challenges the conventional understanding of the genre of the book in its finished, redacted form by arguing that it is not an epistle. Despite the redactor’s intention to ‘epistlize’ the oration, adding a superscription and suffix does not create an epistle. One cannot take a homily, write it out and adjust its beginning and ending in order to make it a letter. Torrey notes,

It is not true that a composition belonging to a definite literary class of its own, and obviously fashioned according to the rules governing the structure of writings belonging to that class, can legitimately be turned into a letter or and ‘epistle,’ by simply prefixing an address, and appending conventional formulae.8

That which identifies an epistle is characteristic of the discourse in its entirety. An epistle is not solely identified by a superscription, introduction and conclusion. Torrey’s case is very convincing and I do not find the empirical data necessary to contradict it.

With all this being said it is best to understand Hebrews as a sermon presented to a body of believers that was then composed in literary fashion with encyclical purposes, whilst maintaining its homiletic elements, and then distributed throughout the Diaspora. Although it was a common first century ecclesial practice to read epistles aloud once they

6 Ibid.7 Torrey, Charles C. 1911. “The Authorship and Character of the So-Called ‘Epistle to the

Hebrews’.” Journal of Biblical Literature 30, no. 2: 137-1568 Ibid. pp 146

3

were in circulation the distinction between initially composed sermons that were then recorded literarily and written epistles that were then read aloud should be made. Exegetically, this distinction does not carry a large amount of sway, but reading Hebrews from a sermonic as opposed to epistolary lens slightly alters interpretation, as all genre distinctions are intended to do.

With regard to authorship not much can be said from this understanding. With the countless number of preachers throughout the Biblical stage during this time to make any definite claim regarding the authorship of the book based on genre recognition would be nothing more than simple speculation. Of all the well-attested candidates for Hebrews authorship i.e., Paul, Luke, Apollos, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Aquila and Priscilla, all except Luke and possibly Aquilla and Priscilla are know to be effective orators. But Luke by all means could very well have been trained in the epideictic arts. Surely, this orator was a dynamic individual. Both captivating in oratorical delivery and grounded in deep theological truth.

Integrity:

Although discussions of the integrity of Hebrews have drawn few conclusions regarding authorship, key observations must be made regarding plausible compositional theories of the book as it sits in its completed form before venturing any further. Understanding these theories and possible redactional activity permit better understanding of the book and its development and therefore allow one’s speculations regarding authorship to be more accurate.

Few have questioned the integrity of chapters 1-12. The discourse it employs is structured in a way that speaks highly of its identity as one completely unified diatribe, specifically a sermon. It has been suggested that the original composition included an introductory prescript and that this prescript has been lost.9 This is highly unlikely after drawing upon the previous conclusions made regarding the genre of the text because it would be uncharacteristic for sermonic compositions to contain prescripts that characterize epistolary literature. The highly identifiable homiletic elements of chapters 1-12 from start to finish all speak highly of its unity.

The superscription “to Hebrews” first appears in the oldest known and surviving corpus Paulinium10 dating to the early third century.11 The importance of finding this reference within this Pauline corpus and its implications towards authorship will be addressed in the following section, but the significance of noting the canonization of “to Hebrews” in the Chester Beatty Papyri (p46) at this time is that by the third century the superscription was attached to this book, and any theories involving this superscription being a much later addition than the second century must be reevaluated. If indeed this superscription was an editorial addition, as is often suggested, it was added within 150

9 Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Fortress Press, 1989.

10 Bruce, F. F. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. Pp 3

11 Anderson, Charles P. 1966. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter Collection.” The Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 4: 429-438. Pp 432

4

years after the original composition, but issues of dating will be addressed in greater detail later.12

Although the true nature of the superscription and theories involving a lost prescript are included in discussions regarding the integrity of Hebrews, most of the conversation pivots around the highly controversial chapter 13. Whether or not all, some or none of chapter 13 is an editorial addition is highly debated. Kümmel, Attridge and Lane all recognize stylistic differences between chapter 13 and the preceding 12 chapters but they attribute this difference to a change of thought in the author’s development and not to the hands of a redactor.13 Kümmel in specific notices the peculiar nature of chapter 13 in that it appears to have two benedictions in which he labels: a “solemn benediction” (13:20-21) and a “final benediction” (13:25).14 This does not stop him from affirming, “nothing suggests the addition of a conclusion by another hand.”15 Lane, in similar fashion notes the abrupt beginning, change in tone and theme and Pauline and Petrine catechetical nature of chapter 13 that differs from the rest of the discourse.16 He affirms that although there appears to be stylistic differences between the two sections the language of the final chapter is very characteristic to that of Hebrews 1-12.17 Attridge likely concludes, “the chapter is indeed an appropriate conclusion to the work that replicates and builds upon the fundamental rhetorical moves made in the central expository section of the text.”18

In contrast, Charles Torrey very convincingly affirms the editorial activity of chapter 13 by noting empirical difficulties within each individual pericope of the chapter. First, he notes that 12:18-29 could not have formed the conclusion of the discourse.19 Further noting that vv 1-7 surely do not belong to the unified composition in its original form.20 He concludes that vv 8-15 continue the train of thought of chapter 12 and that the original

12 That “to Hebrews was an editorial addition has been suggested most notably by: Bruce, F. F. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990; Anderson, Charles P. 1966. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter Collection.” The Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 4: 429-438; Torrey, Charles C. 1911. “The Authorship and Character of the So-Called ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’.” Journal of Biblical Literature 30, no. 2: 137-156

13 Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. translated by Howard Clark Kee. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1975; Lane, W. L. “Hebrews.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 443-458. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997; Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Fortress Press, 1989

14 Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. translated by Howard Clark Kee. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1975. Pp 397

15 Ibid.16 Lane, W. L. “Hebrews.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development,

edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 443-458. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Pp 449

17 Ibid.18 Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Fortress

Press, 1989. Pp 1319 Torrey, Charles C. 1911. “The Authorship and Character of the So-Called ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’.” Journal of Biblical Literature 30, no. 2: 137-156. Pp 14

5

diatribe, as he would understand its genre, ends with vv 20-21.21 Therefore, Torrey understands vv. 1-7; 16-19 and 22-25 to be later interpolations inserted at the end of the last three paragraphs of the original composition and inserted at the same time as the superscription.22 Torrey notices unmistakable Pauline characteristics of the interpolations.23 This testifies to the redactor’s intentions of ‘Paulinizing’ the written sermon in order to send it under the pseudepigraphal authority of Paul without overstepping his or her bounds by flat out saying, ‘Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus’ with an added prescript. Refer to Torrey’s reconstruction at the end of this essay at this time.24 (A side-by-side demonstration of Torrey’s reconstruction with that of the modern day text in English is provided in this essay in between the final page and the bibliography). Notice how much more naturally the development of the author’s composition flows through Torrey’s understanding, especially ending the diatribe with vv 21-22. Note especially how peculiar the end of the letter seems to be with the ‘discontinuity’ of having two benedictions. I find Torrey’s presentation very convincing.

With regard to authorship and the plausible theory of redactional activity, especially chapter 13, no affirmations can be made, but if the Pauline characteristics of chapter 13 are later additions as Torrey suggests then the case for Pauline authorship is greatly muzzled. On the contrary this editorial data might provide beneficial to the proponents of Paul if he himself acted as the editor, but then the book must be dated well before his death in 65 CE to allow for the sermon to circulate into his hands and give him enough time to insert redactions. Overall, Paul is most likely not involved in the authorial or editorial activity of the book as much of the data presented in this essay will attest.

Canonicity:

Because of its anonymity many early canonical developments were reluctant in recognizing its authority. The Muratorian canon dating from Rome as early as 170 CE refrained from canonizing Hebrews. 25 Marcion failed to include Hebrews in his Apostolicon due to the exhaustive amount of Old Testament references.26

20 Ibid. Torrey refers to vv 1-7 as “formless jumble” in comparison to the preceding pericope

21 Ibid. Pp 15022 Ibid. Pp 15623 Ibid. Pp 15124 Ibid. Pp 151-5225 McDonald, L . M. “Canon.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its

Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 134-144. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997. The dating of the Muratorian canon is highly debated and anywhere from the middle of the second century to the late fourth century has been suggested. Most scholars date it to late second century as do McDonald, Lane and Kümmel.


6

Its first extra-biblical appearance occurs in I Clement dating to 96 CE.27 Clement of Rome, the likely author of I Clement, does not include the superscription and does not allude to any discussion of authorship.28

The West, specifically Rome, was much more hesitant than the Eastern tradition in affirming the authoritative nature of this text. This was due to the fact that the author of the text was unknown. Both Gaius and Hermas, second century Christians, canonize the book but refrain from attributing it to Paul.29 Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, is arguably the first Roman to attribute authorship to Paul.30

In the East the story is much different. In an effort to affirm canonization of the epistle, Paul’s name was frequently attached to the letter. The Syrian church believed the book to be authoritative and Pauline.31 In most eastern canons Hebrews is located immediately after the Pauline letters addressed to places and before the letters addressed to individuals (between Thessalonians and Timothy).32 This contrasts the Western placement of the text where one finds the text today, immediately following Philemon.33 The prominent first and second century Egyptian theologians assumed Pauline authorship.34 This fact is also attested by the location of Hebrews within the corpus Paulinum between Romans and I Corinthians. This corpus is found in the earliest known Egyptian codex, the Chester Beatty Papyri (p46) dating to the early third century, that makes any attempt to formulate a canon of authoritative New Testament texts. The confident placement of Hebrews within the Pauline corpus attests greatly to a tradition of Pauline authorship, but the need to attribute the author of this powerfully effective epistle to an apostle as notable as Paul must have influenced the Egyptians to make a more rash decision. This coupled with the fact that the Romans, the likely recipients of the original discourse as will be proven later, do not entertain seriously the theory of Pauline authorship until the fourth century; this attests to the unlikelihood of this Pauline theory.

The existence of Hebrews within the corpus Paulinum is even more significant when considering the nature of Apollos, “a Jew… an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24). W. Manson rightly mentions,

27 Bruce, F. F. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

28 Anderson, Charles P. 1966. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter Collection.” The Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 4: 429-438.

29 Lane, W. L. “Hebrews.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 443-458. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Pp 456

30 McDonald, L . M. “Canon.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 134-144. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Pp 142

31 Ibid. 32 Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. translated by Howard Clark

Kee. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1975. Pp 39233 Ibid.34 Anderson, Charles P. 1966. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter

Collection.” The Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 4: 429-438. Pp 430-32; most notably among the Egyptians were Alexandrians Clement, Pantaenus and Origen.

7

If Apollos had been the author, it is difficult to think that the Alexandrian Church would not have preserved some knowledge of the fact, in view of the distinguished role of this son of Alexandria, and that Clement would not have mentioned him in writing to the Corinthians in whose history Apollos had played a notable role.35

Acts 18:24 has often been employed to attest to the likelihood of Apollonian authorship of Hebrews because of the “eloquent” Greek used by the author and the frequent Old Testament Scripture references used by someone who must be “mighty in the Scriptures.” Under the homiletic understanding of the genre this description of Apollos fits the bill perfectly. But the fact that the Alexandrian church does not retain the knowledge that one of their own created this rhetorical masterpiece speaks greatly against the Apollonian theory. The Apollonian theory will be considered in greater length later when the linguistical nature of the text is discussed.

Audience:

Rudimentary to understanding any text is knowing to whom it was intended. Although, understanding the recipient of the letter is an integral aspect of the critical nature of the text no definite conclusions can be made regarding an extremely specified audience. The text clearly indicates that the author has a specific audience in mind, but a plethora of plausible candidates have been suggested for whom this might be (vv 3:6; 10:41; 13:14, 17, 24).

That the author is well acquainted with the people to whom he is writing is undeniable, and it appears that the author is very well aware of their present situations (vv. 2:2-4; 5:11-14; 6:9-11; 10:32-34; 12:4, 14-29; 13:7). Initially, one can understand this group of people to be Christian. Kümmel and Bruce both confront the theory employed by a few modern scholars, most notably H. Kosmala and F. M. Braun, that Hebrews was originally written to a sect of Essene Priests of the Qumran community.36 Kosmala believes that the recipients were Jews of the Essene tradition who were very far along in Christianity but not fully there.37 The very high Christological nature of the discourse coupled with the many textual references within the book to the recipients being Christian attest to the audience being members of a church and believers in the Lord Jesus Christ (vv 3:1; 6:4-6; 10:23; 12:22-24).

In much debate is the nature of these believers. Are they of a Jewish background or are they Gentile Christians? Are they Hellenists or do they reside in Palestine? The latter of these two questions will be addressed more thoroughly in the following chapter.

35 Bue, Lo Francesco. 1956. “The Historical Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75, no. 1: 52-57. Pp 52-53

36 Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. translated by Howard Clark Kee. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1975. Pp 399; Bruce, F. F. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. Pp 737 Ibid. Bruce, pp 7

8

The superscription “to Hebrews” provides the initial understanding that the intended audience was Jewish. Surely, this was the thought of the redactor and the early collections i.e., the corpus Paulinum, that couple this title with the text. But upon understanding this title to be an editorial addition there is then no way to know for certain whether or not the initial composer had “Hebrews” in mind. Of the superscription Bruce says, “we should not be greatly influenced by it in endeavoring to establish the identity of the addressees. This must be established, as far as possible, on the basis of internal evidence.”38 To the internal evidence we march.

The textual evidence suggests a Jewish audience. An exhaustive listing of Old Testament citations employed by the author and a theology deeply rooted in Jewish piety immediately tip the scale to the side of the Jew. Not to say that Gentiles would not have had deep understandings of Moses, the New Covenant or the Priesthood of Christ (the Gentilic Galatians seemed to understand Jewish concepts just fine), but the way in which the author employs these topics in order to further his argument would prove more effective to Jewish ears. Regarding the New Covenant Bruce notes,

[The author’s] insistence that the Old covenant has been antiquated is expressed with a moral earnestness and driven home repeatedly in a manner which would be pointless if his readers were not especially disposed to live under that covenant, but which would be very much to the point if they were still trying to live under it, or imagined that, having passed beyond it, they could revert to it.39

Gentiles, not formerly limited by the restraints of the Old Covenant, would not need the continual pounding of New Covenant superiority as employed by the author of Hebrews in order to retain their newfound faith unless they were being threatened by dogmatic Judaizing doctrine, but the text does not seem to indicate the presence of Judaizing doctrine being inappropriately imposed upon Gentiles. The Language used by the author in 13:13, “outside the camp” also suggests a Jewish audience, as does the use of “High Priest” in 3:1.

George Howard examines the Old Testament quotations within Hebrews in order to determine the likely source, either Hebrew or Greek, of the quotations. After an exhaustive study Howard concludes,

It is incorrect to characterize the quotations in Hebrews as always Septuagintal. A great many of them do not correspond exactly to any Septuagint, and some agree with a known Hebrew text, either whole or in part, against the Septuagint.40

If the Hebrew text, either Masoretic or a more ancient text, acts as the source of many of the Old Testament references found in Hebrews then this provides substantial evidence for theories favoring an educated Jewish author as well as a Jewish recipient.

In support of the Gentile theory three texts in specific are worth noting. First, “Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity,

38 Ibid. Pp 4-539 Ibid. Pp 6

40 Howard, George. 1968. “Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations.” Novum Testamentum 101 issue 2/3: 208-2. Pp 215

9

not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment” (vv 6:1-2). These “elementary teachings” appear to be more characteristic of a recent Gentile convert than that of a convert from Judaism. Second, the exhortation found in chapter 3 against falling away “from the living God” suggests a Gentilic falling away because if indeed a Jew were to fall or renounce Christianity he or she would fall into his or her former Yahwistic practices and the YHWH of Jewish practices still identifies Himself as the “living God” (vv 3:12). Third, the authors urging, “Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited” possibly implies a Gentile audience (vv 13:9). The phrase “which those who were so occupied were not benefitted” does not compliment the author’s use of first and second person pronouns used throughout the entirety of his or her discourse when referring to the audience. Being that the people were not benefitting from these apparent “strange teachings” regarding “food” i.e., former Jews, do not appear to be the people the author is directly addressing in this instance.

These three texts favor the Gentile theory, but the exhaustive evidence in favor of the Jewish perspective is overwhelming and identifying the original recipient of the epistle or homily as a Hellenized Jewish-Christian community living in the Diaspora is more critically coherent with what the text says.

Regarding authorship, a powerful speculation can be made about the identity of the author. If the text was intended for Jewish eyes/ears the author therefore must be a Jew. Most of the candidates for authorship of Hebrews suggested by scholars are Jewish, with the possible exception of Clement of Rome and Luke.41 Whoever he is, this Jew must be a powerful rhetorician who is well versed in the Old Testament and very knowledgeable of the old sacrificial system under the mediation of Moses. What of “Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement)” (Acts 4:36)? Who better to encourage/exhort a group of Hebrews of the Diaspora than a Levite, who would assimilate well with the priestly language found throughout Hebrews, from Cyprus nicknamed ‘Son of Encouragement’? Of course, this data should be included in the discussion, but drastic decisions regarding authorship should not be made from Luke’s identity statement for Barnabas found here in Acts.

Destination:

Although the social location of this particular group of recipients is one of the least significant critical aspect for understanding the text and specifically its authorship, knowing where this group of Christian Jews resided in the world carries strong implications in favor of a few of the authorial candidates.

41 It should be noted that David Allen provides convincing evidence in support of Luke the physician being a Jew. He highlights the Jewish elements within Luke/Acts and asserts that Luke’s knowledge of the Judaism was too exhaustive for him to be a Gentile. Allen goes on to confidently assert Lukan authorship of Hebrews based on this fact and the strong lexical similarities between Hebrews and Luke/Acts. Allen, David L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2010.

10

A countless number of locations have been suggested throughout the church’s history: Samaria, Antioch, Corinth, Cyprus, Ephesus, Bithynia, Pontus, Colossae (the Lycus Valley), Jerusalem and Rome.42 The most notable of these locations are Corinth, Jerusalem and Rome.

Although Harold Attridge claims the Jerusalem theory represents the majority view of church historians and scholars since the first century, it is clear to me that a vast majority of people commenting on this issue believe Rome to be the likely location.43 The data speaking on behalf of the Roman theory greatly outweighs the data in support of other locations.

Firstly, Clement of Rome, references the book before any other person. Also the references found in I Clement, most likely written by Clement of Rome, mentioning a specific group of “leaders” is used in a very similar fashion three times in Hebrews chapter 13 suggesting that Clement and the author of Hebrews had the same church in mind (vv 13:7, 14, 24 & I Clement 1:3; 21:6).44 This also may be used in support of Clementine authorship of Hebrews.

Secondly, Paul’s epistle to the Romans may offer insight into better understanding the nature of Hebrew’s recipients. It is plausible that Paul’s mentioning of Priscilla and Aquila in 16:3-15 alongside an array of Roman saints coincides well with the reference at the end of Hebrews, “those from Italy greet you” (vv 13:24). In my opinion this verse is best understood as one writing to Rome who is in the presence of other Italians who are giving their blessing to members of a specific church in Rome. This also coincides well with what is known of Priscilla and Aquila’s traveling habits possibly being absent from their Roman church at this time and representing the “those” of chapter 13 (Acts 18:2).45

Thirdly, that the Roman church was the most hesitant in affirming Pauline authorship and keeping authorship anonymous might attest to the fact that the earliest forms of the manuscript were housed here and that their knowledge of the nature book was greater being that they were the initial recipients.

Christos Voulgaris, in contrast, believes Jerusalem to be the final destination of the letter, and that Rome represents the sender’s location.46 He accounts for two important facts in making his claim. First, it is known that Timothy was in Rome at the time of the books composition (vv 13:23).47 Second, the author was writing from a Roman prison and the context coincides well with Paul’s prison epistles (Philippians 1:1; 2:19-24; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1).48 Both of the facts follow the preconceived assumption that Paul is author

42 Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Fortress Press, 1989. Pp 9

43 Ibid. 44 Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. translated by Howard Clark

Kee. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1975. 45 Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Fortress

Press, 1989. Pp 10

46 Voulgaris, Christos. 1999. “Hebrews: Paul’s Fifth Epistle from Prison.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44, no. 1-4: 199-206.

47 Ibid. Pp 20148 Ibid. Pp 199

11

of Hebrews and that Hebrews represents Paul’s fifth epistle from jail. It is evident that Voulgaris employed an unwarranted amount of textual jumps in order to accomplish his tasks.

If the mention in Hebrews 12:4 “you have not resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin” is to be taken literally then that which is known of the Jerusalem church and their quick entrance into bloody martyrdom shortly after their conversion does not coincide with the description of the Hebrews recipients. In other words, starting with Stephen being stoned in very close proximity to Pentecost the members of the Jerusalem church received much persecution. The text to the Hebrews appears to indicate that that the members of the church it is addressing have not yet experienced the kind of persecution that the Jerusalem church is known to have been experiencing since the stoning of Stephen. In light of this verse and the author’s use of “former days” and “sufferings” in 10:32 Kümmel affirms, “the one persecution to which the readers were subjected soon after their conversion does not coincide with what is known from Acts concerning the periods of suffering of the Christians in Jerusalem.”49

It is also important not to overlook the fact the author of Hebrews, in concerning himself with the nature of the New Covenant in contrast to the Old, uses predominantly Tabernacle imagery instead of that of the Temple suggesting a non-Jerusalem location. This point could easily be countered by arguing that the priestly legislation of the Sinai narrative is explicitly tabernacle oriented and the author of Hebrews could be drawing upon this imagery regardless of the location of his addressees to accomplish his ‘priestly’ purposes. Bruce also notes, “The ‘noncomformist’ Jewish elements in the Christian community of Rome would chime well with a Roman destination.”50

Francesco Lo Bue provides convincing but overall inadequate information in favor of Apollos as the author and the Corinthian church representing the destination.51 He draws upon Apollo’s strong connection to the Corinthian church in assisting this claim (Acts 26; I Corinthians 1). His data representing Apollonian authorship is much more convincing than that in support of a Corinthian destination. Lo Bue admits that the data in support of a Roman destination is much more thorough and convincing, so rightly he concludes,

Indeed the ascription to Apollos and the alleged Roman destination cannot be easily maintained at one and the same time, unless we assume that the letter was written during the very dim interval stretching from the close of the period described in Acts to the Neronian persecution or, at the furthest, to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.52



51 Bue, Lo Francesco. 1956. “The Historical Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75, no. 1: 52-57

52 Ibid. Pp 54

12

Concluding this section of the essay I find the data favoring a Roman destination more convincing than that which supports any other view. This coincides nicely with the conclusions we have already drawn regarding ‘recipient’ and ‘canonicity’. All of the data regarding destination that benefits authorship is only speculative and no conclusions should be drawn about authorship from any of the information established in this section.

Date:

Many chief concerns regarding the authorship of Hebrews circumvent the dating of the book. No definite date can be given like that of most of the other New Testament books, but a range of dates can be provided by analyzing the internal and external characteristics of the text.

Externally the book must have been written before 95-97 CE because of the use of Hebrews found in I Clement which dated to this time.53 Very few scholars disagree about dating Clement’s work to 96 CE. Integral to dating Clement’s work to 96 CE is Clement’s mention of the persecution under Roman rule, i.e. the period of Domitian. Harold Attridge claims that the dating of Clement’s work cannot be definitive and suggests that an accurate dating range for this document is 70-140 CE.54 This would allot for Hebrew authorship to be as late as 120 CE as far as external evidence is concerned. Attridge’s suggestion seems valid, but 96 CE appears to me to be a valid dating of Domitian’s reign and Clement’s work.

Internally, many verses provide data to narrow the range of possible dates. The author’s mention of ‘Timothy’ is significant if indeed this is the same Timothy found throughout the Pauline corpus. 13:32 says, “Take notice that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you.” Though the biblical evidence suggests that that Timothy is much younger than Paul the book could not have been written much after 100 CE because Timothy must be able to participate in rugged travel regardless of destination and Timothy’s orientation during the text’s composition.

12:4 can again be included in this portion of the critical process by noting that if this verse is to be understood literally then the writing of this book precedes the three greatest known persecutions of Christians by the Roman government in the latter half of the first century, but the reference in 10:32 supposes that the recipients had already received minor sufferings and one of the following could also be in mind here: the edict of Claudius expelling all of the Christians from Rome in 49 CE (Acts 18:1-2), the persecution under Nero in 64 CE and the persecution under Domitian in 81 CE.55 It is impossible to affirm with certainty which persecution experienced by the church the author of Hebrews is here referring, but most likely the persecutions under either Domitian or Nero are in view.

53 Holmes, M. W. “Clement of Rome.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 233-238. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

54 Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Fortress Press, 1989.

55 Lane, W. L. “Hebrews.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 443-458. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Pp 448-49

13

The fact that the recipients “ought to be teachers” but are instead having to resort back to the elementary teachings of Christianity suggest that the believers have been so for a substantial amount of time (vv 5:12). This coincides well with the confirmation of the gospel provided by those that were first hand witnesses to the Lord’s wonders (vv 2:3-4). The deduction can be made that these first century believers probably received this epistle a few decades after the resurrection, arguably no earlier than 60 CE.

Also worth noting is the argument from silence that because the author of Hebrews does not make mention to the destruction of the temple which occurred in 70 CE from Titus that the book must have been written before this date. Arguments from silence can only be taken so far. In combating this argument Attridge says,

Quite as many scholars opt for a post-70 date, largely on the basis of theological typology and literary affinities. Thus the high Christology, especially evident in the exordium, and the parallels with the Lukan corpus, the Pastorals, and I Peter are taken to be warrants for a dating in the 70s and 80s. These arguments certainly have as much weight as the argument from silence adduced in favor of an early dating, but again they are not decisive.56

In favor of Attridge’s critique of this argument from silence is the author’s employment of language involving the tabernacle as opposed to the Temple when discussing the Old Testament sacrificial system, but as was stated earlier the author could have employed tabernacle imagery instead of Temple imagery for an array of purposes. Kümmel is in agreement with Attridge’s conclusion and he himself dates the book to 80-90 CE.57

The most appropriate dating range allotted to the formulating of Hebrews would be 60-95 CE. A more narrow range simply cannot be provided due to the inadequacy of internal and external data and the vast amount of theories falling all over the spectrum. Knowing that Paul was executed in 65 CE makes the Pauline case for authorship less probable.58 With regard to the other candidates the likelihood of any one of them writing Hebrews in between this allotted range is possible.

Theology:

Regarding authorship of the book the theological developments presented by the author are only worth noting as far as they express noticeable similarities with other known texts written by the list of plausible candidates. Dedicating a section of this paper to the critical analyses of the theology would prove useless for our endeavor of determining who the likely author of Hebrews is unless a theological understanding of the text assists us in this process. Of the proposed candidates no texts of antiquity are attributed to the hands

56 Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia: Fortress Press, 1989. Pp 9

57 Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. translated by Howard Clark Kee. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1975.

58 Voulgaris, Christos. 1999. “Hebrews: Paul’s Fifth Epistle from Prison.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44, no. 1-4: 199-206. Pp 206

14

of Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla or Aquila.59 This leaves the analysis to the big hitters of the New Testament: the apostle Paul and the physician Luke.

On many occasions the theology of Hebrews and the Pauline corpus align nicely. The Christological similarities are evident. The first two chapters coincide well with Romans 8, I Corinthians 15 and especially the Philippian hymn found in chapter 2. Both authors employ the same Old Testament references when affirming the superiority of Christ (Psalm 110:1).

Both authors firmly advocate the superiority of the New Covenant. Their methods of developing their New Covenant theologies in relation to the Old are similar, both mentioning the Law (vv 7:19-28; Romans 8:3). Both authors employ Jeremaic undertones when addressing the renewed nature of this New Covenant (vv 10:22; 13:9; II Corinthians 3:3; 4:6; 5:12).

It is evident that faith is a prominent component of the theologies of Paul and the author of Hebrews. Both cite Habakkuk 2:4 when highlighting the appropriate response to God’s grace (vv 3:12, 19; 4:2; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:13).60 Abraham is a popular example of someone who exemplifies a proper biblical faith for both authors (vv 2:16; 6:11-12; 9:15; Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:13).

James Thompson comments, “

A study of these points [namely theological similarities] of convergence between Paul and the author of Hebrews indicates that we have no compelling reason to consider the author of Hebrews a student of Paul or to place the homily within the reception of Pauline theology.61

The theological connections mentioned above represent a very broad and unspecified selection of words and concepts to be ultimately insignificant. Topics such as faith, covenant and Christ are referred to frequently throughout the entire New Testament. The most notable connections between the author of Hebrews and Paul are the use of Abraham and the same Old Testament texts cited.

The theological connections between the author of Hebrews and Luke are much more noteworthy. David Allen spends an entire chapter of his book entitled Lukan Authorship of Hebrews comparing the theologies of Luke/Acts with that of Hebrews.62 Allen begins by comparing the Christologies of Luke’s works with that of Hebrews. He makes special note of the similarities regarding Christ’s humanity, Christ as high Priest, Christ’s completed work and His present glorified state. Allen finds convincing similarities in a broad range of theological topics specifically eschatology, prophecy, priestly terminology

59 With the exception of Barnabas who has been suspected to be the author of the epistle known in his name but this has been proven pseudopigraphical time and again, Holmes, M. W. “Barnabas, Epistle of.” In Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Development, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 125-127. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

60 Thompson, James W. 2005. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Legacy.” Restoration Quaterly 47, no. 4: 197-206. Pp 202

61 Ibid. Pp 205 62 Allen, David L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing

Group, 2010.

15

and New Covenant theology. On many occasions, in defending his case for Lukan authorship, Allen goes too far in assigning unwarranted similarities. As was the case for the Pauline corpus many terms are destined to overlap just by nature that the larger New Testament books are written to first century believers of a relatively new revelatory theological idea.

The theological contribution to the issue of authorship is probably the least influential of all the areas of critical analyses. In my opinion Hebrews is unique from any other New Testament composition in its theology. It hosts an angelology that is unparalleled anywhere in the New Testament (vv 1-3). It employs Old Testament priestly language that is nowhere used in any of Paul or Luke’s writings. The beginning of chapter 6 regarding the nature of turning back to repentance finds no parallel, its employment of certain Old Testament characters, specifically females is unique to Hebrews and most notably the author avails a Christology that is arguably the most thorough and most respected in all of the New Testament.63

With this understanding authorship is best understood to be characteristic of someone whom we do not have any written texts.

Linguistics:

The linguistical evidence of the book should be addressed at this point of the discussion so long as it assists one’s understanding of authorship. Many linguistical elements of the book have been drawn upon in understanding authorship thus far, specifically under the ‘genre’ and ‘integrity’ headings, but a few more elements need to be mentioned because of the data they provide for this particular discussion.

The first and most notable literary element regarding the nature of the author that needs to be addressed is the use of the masculine singular self-reference found in 11:32. This reference removes Priscilla from the list. The most convincing presentation in favor of Priscilla remains to be the argument from silence, namely that because the author remained anonymous the book was written by a woman in order to muddle gender and social confusions. This argument is and remains an argument from silence, but the author identifying himself as a man nicely affirms his masculinity.

Second, the Old Testament texts employed a combination of Masoretic Hebrew texts and Septuagint variants.64 We have already noted the significance of the Masoretic text employed by the author affirming him being a Jew, but the variant Septuagint versions used also provide data as to the possible identity of the author. The two versions of the Septuagint are represented in Codices A (Alexandricus) and B (Vaticanus).65 Bruce notes that “about twice as many of the quotations in Hebrews agree with the A-text as with the B-

63 In my opinion the Christology of Hebrews is the most elaborate and original in all of the New Testament followed closely by the Johanine Christologies found in the first chapter of John’s Gospel and his Christology employed in Revelation.

64 Howard, George. 1968. “Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations.” Novum Testamentum 101 issue 2/3: 208-2


16

text.”66 What do we know of the candidates? Being that Apollos is from Alexandria surely he would have favored Codice A. It is hard to believe a character under Roman influence, such as Barnabas and Paul, would use the Codice A as much as the author of Hebrews does.

Of course Gardiner and Allen’s conclusion regarding the language similarities between Hebrews and the other New Testament books should be here discussed. Gardiner, in his exhaustive word study of the language of Hebrews observes 34 words common to Luke and Hebrews alone, 46 words common to Paul and Hebrews alone and 28 words common to other New Testament texts and Hebrews alone.67 Allen, after performing a similar word study himself, claims,

Gardiner’s greatest error, however, was in his count of the number of words unique to the Lukan writings and Hebrews. He placed this number at 34. There are actually 53 such words unique to Luke/Acts and Hebrews.68

Although according to Allen the number of words unique to Luke and Hebrews are 53 in number he acknowledges that the words unique to Paul and Hebrews are 56.69

All this to say that neither Paul nor Luke are the likely authors of Hebrews because the data in favor of each appears just as strong to suggest the other. Hebrews might have been certainly influenced by the Pauline corpus or the Lukan writings but the author clearly employs his own distinct style and vocabulary.

Much like the conclusions drawn from the other areas of critical examination the data presented from a linguistic analyses is not nearly indicative enough to make any claims of certainty regarding authorship.

Conclusion:

In conclusion let me start by saying there is no possible way of definitively asserting any one person as the likely author of Hebrews. Simple statements can be made regarding his identity but that is all the warrant one receives. After critically engaging the text I understand the author of Hebrews to be a Jewish man, who is extremely gifted in the oratorical arts and well versed in the Old Testament canon. If indeed the text in its original composition is an epistle it was written most likely to a house church in Rome shortly after the Nero persecution around 65 CE, but if it was originally a sermon, as I am an advocate for, then it was literality recorder during this time and sent in Rome’s direction to be read in epistolary fashion. This is as assertive as I am willing to be regarding the nature of the book, specifically its authorship. The assumptions I have made may lack certain warrant themselves, but hopefully honest engagement with the data has led me to my conclusions. I

66 Ibid.67 Gardiner, Frederic. 1887. “The Language of the Epistle to the Hebrews as Bearing upon

its Authorship.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 7, no. 1: 1-25. Pp 368 Allen, David L. 2011. “The Authorship of Hebrews: Historical Survey of the Lukan

Theory.” Criswell Theological Review 8, no. 2: 3-18. Pp 1269 Allen, David L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing

Group, 2010.

17

will end this essay, as almost every biblical scholar writing on this topic has done, with a quote from Origen who beautifully says,

“But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows.”70

70 Kümmel, Werner Georg. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. translated by S. McLean Gilmore and Howard Clark Kee. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1972.

18

Documents

Hebrews Authorship Draft