Introduction
The authorship of Hebrews is debatable, it’s
only God knows who is writer. From early suggestions to recently assumption,
the author can be Paul, Luke, Barnabas, Clement of Roman, Priscilla, Jude,
Apollos, Philip and Silvanus. Overview of the debate, there is no doubt that
the author “was a dynamic preacher, well-educated, and knowledgeable of the Old
Testament, deeply committed minister of Jesus Christ and concerned the
spiritual state of the group of believers.”[1] This
research paper intends to explore the Historical argument of authorship of Hebrews, and Linguistic arguments
which includes Lexical and stylistic similarity, Literary and
Rhetorical skill. And outlook recipients of Hebrews, date and purpose, analyze the
relationship between Luke –Acts, Paul and Hebrews, and compare and contrast historical
scholars’ perspective to discover whether the Pauline epistles can be identified? Finally,
concludes in Origin’s thoughts, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows”
(H.E.6.25.14).
Historical argument of authorship of Hebrews
The Book of Hebrews doesn’t
disclose the name of the author, however, through the content, it reveals the author
is well-educated of elegant Greek, and understood the principles of rhetoric,
well-equipped the knowledge of O.T. and deeply committed to Jesus Christ and ran
the race zealously for Gospel. Historical argument of authorship of Hebrews
among of candidates in the early church, eastern Christendom unanimously
regarded Paul as the author. Pantaenus, the head of the famous catechetical
school in Alexandria, accepted Pauline authorship, as did his successor, Clement
of Alexandria (C.D.200). Clement affirmed the tradition of Pauline authorship. He
assumes that “the omission of Paul’s name to Paul’s desire not to offend the
Jews to whom he had addressed this epistle. He believers, “Paul wrote in Hebrew
and that Luke
translated Hebrews into Greek. ” [2] Cockerill
provides more details of the authorship and canonicity in the textbook, he
says,
“The earliest know use of Hebrews
was in the Western Roman Empire, where it was quoted by and echoed in 1 Clement,
written from Rome around the end of the first century. There are echoes of
Hebrews in Polycarp (C.A.D.69-155), and it is quoted by Irenaeus(C.A.D.180),
Tertullian (C.A.D.155-220), and Gaius of Rome (C.A.D200). None of these
writers, however, cites Hebrews as canonical or attributes it to Paul. Nor is
Hebrews included in the Muratorian Canon (C.A.D.175). The only suggestion from
these sources for the authorship of Hebrews comes from Tertullian, who
attributes it to Barnabas. In East,
however, at the end of the second century Pantaenus (C.A.D.180), the do under
of the great catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt, claimed that Hebrews was
both Pauline and canonical. This affirmation is supported by the way in which
locates Hebrews, between Romans and 1 Corinthians. Pantaenus, recognized the
lack of a normal Pauline introduction as an impediment in need of explanation:
Paul had not affixed his name because he was only the apostle to the Gentiles,
while “the Lord” was the apostle (cf.Heb.3:1) to the Jews (Hist.eccl.6.14.4).
Pantaenus’s successor, Clement of Alexandria (C.A.D.200), continued to affirm
the tradition of Pauline authorship and canonical status. He attributed the
omission of Paul’s name to Paul’s desire not to offend the Jews to whom he had
addressed this epistle.” [3]
According to D.A Carson & Douglas J. Moo’s
articles, they also provide width and depth content to glimpse the historical
argument and debate the authorship. It leads readers to ponder, Origin’s
thoughts “but who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows” (H.E.6.25.14). It
expresses as follows,
In the early third century; “the epistle is placed in the
Pauline corpus, right after Romans. This reflects the conviction of the Eastern
Church, itself dependent on the more cautious assessment of several notable
Alexandrian scholars, whose opinions are largely preserved by Eusebius. In
Particular, both Clement of Alexandria (C.A.D.150-215) and Origen (185-253)
preserve the tradition that Paul is the author of Hebrews, even though they
recognize the difficulties attached to the view. The Greek of Hebrews is more
polished than that of Paul, and the consistent quality of the rhetoric is quite
remarkable. Doubtless because of similarities between the Geek of Hebrews and
the Greek of Luke –Acts, Clement supposes that Paul wrote to the Hebrews in
Hebrew and suggests that our Greek text is Luke’s translation…although Origen
insists that the content of Hebrews is not inferior to what is found in Paul’s
acknowledge letters (H.E.6:25.12) he suggests that one of Paul’s disciples took
notes of what the apostle said and wrote the material up for him (H.E.6.14.13).
He is aware that some think this unnamed party is Luke. And other Clement of
Rome, but Origen himself refuses to speculate: “But who wrote the epistle, in
truth God knows” (H.E.6.25.14).[4]
D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo’s
perspective also appear to argue and disapprove the Pauline authorship such as
Pauline themes are missing, the high priesthood of Christ, so central of
Hebrews doesn’t figure largely in the acknowledge Pauline epistles. It challenges those who defense of the
Pauline authorship and the traditional thoughts. The article says,
“The last major defense of the Pauline authorship of
Hebrews was written more than half a
century ago. Today virtually no one would repeat the effort…the differences in
vocabulary, Greek style, and rhetoric, which cannot of themselves disprove Pauline
authorship but make it a less plausible alternative, the absence of a
self-identifying salutation at the beginning of the document-Paul’s normal
practice-makes it hard to believe that Paul wrote it. Moreover, the Pauline
themes are missing, and conversely, the high priesthood of Christ, so central
to Hebrews, does not figure largely in the acknowledged Pauline epistles. Above
all, it is almost impossible to believe that Paul would identify himself as one
of those who heard the gospel, not from the Lord, but from “those
who heard him”. (2:3; cf.Gal.1:11-12).”[5]
The argument of Pauline
authorship is that “the author displays outstanding literary and rhetorical
skill. The style is a model of Hellenistic prose.”[6]
“Hebrews begins like a sermon rather than a letter”[7] and “Paul’s
writing frequently appeals to with his own apostolic authority in the letters.
The content of Hebrew appeals to others who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’
ministry (2:3)”[8].
“Hebrew differs from Paul in its stress on Christ’ work as
cleansing/sanctifying the people of God so that they can enter God’s presence,
and Hebrews differs from the Pauline letters in style, vocabulary, and content
all but rule out Pauline authorship.”[9]
The (Roman
Catholic) Council of Trent responded by insisting there are fourteen Pauline
epistles. However, Calvin argued for Clement of Rome or Luke as the author; Martin
Luther assumed that Apollos’s skill in demonstrating Christ’s messiahship from
the OT is in accord with the pastor’s Christological exposition. The superior
education of the writer of Hebrews is evident from his rhetorical skill. “In
Acts 18:24-28 Luke describes Apollos as a Jew from Alexandria, who was eloquent
and he was as pastor who had received the gospel from eyewitnesses of Jesus’
ministry(Heb.2:3).”[10]
However, “the LXX was produced in Alexandria. Weakening the argument for
authorship by Apollos is the complete lack of early tradition favoring him. The
church in Alexandrian never credited him with authorship, even though he was an
Alexandrian Jew.”[11]
The argument for Paul
According to the Alexandrian tradition, Pantaenus, mentor of Clement, affirms
the tradition of Pauline authorship. He assumes that Paul intended to omit his
name in order to avoid suspicion and not to offend the Jews as the apostle to
the Gentiles. “Western Christendom later leaders in the West such as Jerome and
Augustine accepted Pauline authorship. Their influence eventually led the West
to accept Hebrews into the canon. By the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D.419),
fourteen epistles of Paul were accepted into the canon of the New Testament.”[12]
According to
Voulgaris, Christos’s article, he provides the evidence based the
Heb.13:23 as a fundamental importance scripture to approve Paul as author of
Hebrews and his reference to Timothy, which is same with Phil.2:19-14,
Philm.22, also Eph6:19-22; Col.4:3-4; 7-9. In
Heb.13:23, where, writing to the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, and informs
them that “Timothy has been set free; and if he comes in time, he will be with
me when I see you.” “Γινώσκϵτϵ (knowing that) τον (the) αδϵλϕόν (brother) ημων
(of us) Τιμόθϵον (Timothy) απολϵλυμϵνον (having been released,) μϵθ
(with) ου (whom) ϵαν (if) ταχιον (he comes) ϵρχηται (quickly) οψομαι (I will
see) ύμας (you).” Christos Voularis emphasis on the key word is the perfect
tense passive participle “απολϵλυμϵνον” (having been released) which almost all
interpreters, past and present, translate in the sense of having been released
from prison. Christos Voularis reminds readers to bear in mind, that “Hebrews
was sent to the church of Jerusalem and that it always ran the risk of falling
into the hands of the Jewish authorities. Who were constantly after Paul, as
Acts repeatedly reports. And the reason why the Paul mentioned about Timothy’s
departure, is to stress that he is eager to go and see the Hebrews’ believers
as soon as his companion returns to the place from which he had left.” [13] He
states,
If we take it as meaning to
release from prison, there comes the question as to the place and time of
Timothy’s imprisonment and subsequent release. About which we know nothing from the New Testament. This
question forced some scholars even to suggest that
Timothy’s supposed imprisonment and release took place after Paul’s two-year house –confinement in Rome(A.D.60-62), or even
after the Christians several of Paul’s companions,
including Timothy, were arrested and put in prison after the apostle’s martyrdom. In the other hand, we
take the participle in the sense of having been sent, as in Acts 13:3 and 15:30-33,
the in Heb.13:23 we have Paul informing the Christians of Jerusalem about Timothy’s recent
departure to a mission which he himself had entrusted him. In this case, the translation of the text goes as
follows: “ be informed that our
brother Timothy as already departed or has been dispatched with whom if he
returns soon enough, I will come
to see you.” The apostle does not mention here either the kind of Timothy’s mission or his
destination, for security reason.
The argument for Barnabas
Tertullian
suggested that Barnabas wrote the Book of Hebrews. For Barnabas was from
Cyprus, where the Greek was of good quality, and Hebrews appears the Greek of
the educated and cultural classes more than any other New Testament Book.
Barnabas was also a Levite (Acts4:36) and he may be “a member of the Hellenist
party in the Jerusalem church, and have shared the anti-temple perspectives of
Stephen (Acs7:48-50). He was a close collaborator of Paul (Acts9:27; 11:30;
13:1-14:28), and he was called υιος παρακλησεως “Son of Encouragement,”
Acts.4:36), or τόν λόγον της παρακλσεως “word of exhortation”(Heb.13:22.).
Barnabas was a Hellenistic Jew makes him at least potentially qualified to
write a Christian book so deeply interacting with the LXX.”[14]
But Carson & Moo say that it’s hardly identifies him as the author. David
Lewis Allen provides some viewpoints and evidences of Barnabas’s cultural
background, it leads us to ponder that whether Barnabas wrote the Book of
Hebrews? He says,
“Barnabas is found in the fourth century Tractatus
Origenis by Gregory of Elvira who
writes “the most holy Barnabas says, through him we offer to God the sacrifice
of lips that acknowledge his name (Hughes 1977:25). This is an allusion to
Hebrews13:15 and thus Gregory is
attributing Hebrews to Barnabas. Other evidence to support Barnabas adduced by
scholars includes Barnabas interest in the Old Testament ritual and sacrificial
system (as is found in Hebrews) would be natural. Barnabas was a member of the
Pauline circle and would probably have contact with Timothy since Timothy came
from the area evangelized by both Barnabas and Paul (Acts.16:1 3) the
Hellenistic outlook reflected in Hebrews is considered by some to suggest
Barabbas as the author. When the Antiochene Hellenists
are evangelized, it is Barnabas who is sent by the church at Jerusalem to coordinate
this new thrust of the Gospel (Act.11:19-26).”[15]
The argument for Apollos
During
the Reformation, Calvin argued that Clement of Rome or Luke wrote Hebrews.
However, Martin Luther and many contemporary scholars have speculated that
Apollos wrote Hebrews. Apollos was a Jew, an Alexandrian and a knowledgeable,
eloquent man (Acts18:24). “He is described as ανήρ λόγιος (a learned man) or
(an eloquent man) “with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures” (Act18:24). He
was a native of Alexandria, and many writers have found numerous connections
between the epistle to the Hebrews and the writings of Philo of Alexandria.
Judging by the Corinthian correspondence (esp.1 Cor.1-4), he had some sort of
connection with the Pauline mission.” [16]
“His reputation for eloquence would explain how he could have written in the
polished literary style of Hebrew. As a native of Alexandria he also may have
used the LXX in Old Testament quotations. The LXX was produced in Alexandria.
Weakening the argument for authorship by Apollos is the complete lack of early
tradition favoring him. The Church in Alexandria never credited him with
authorship, even though he was an Alexandrian Jew.”[17]
Meanwhile, none of the church fathers named him and if Apollos did write
Hebrews, the Alexandrian church would probably have known it because Apollos
was an Alexandrian.
Outlook the Linguistic
arguments- Lexical and stylistic similarity, literary and rhetorical skill
Based on Linguistic and stylistic
similarities Pauline authorship can be affirmed and identified. In the Greek English
Bible Heb12:1 indicates δι (with) υπομονης (endurance) τρϵχωμϵν
(let us run) νον (the) προκϵιμϵνον (lying before) ημιν (us)
αγωνα (race). NIV interprets as “Run with endurance the race
which is set before us”, it explicit clearly the desires of Paul to run
the race, such tones and expression are same as verses 1Cor.9:24-27, Phil3:14,
2 Tim3:14 and Gal2:2. The linguistic and stylistic similarities comparison as
follows,
ü 1 Cor.9:24-27, Ούκ(do you)οιδατϵ(not
know ) οτι (that )οί (the ones) ϵν (in) σταδω (a race course)τρϵχοντϵς
(running) …ϵγω (I) τοινυν (therefore)
ουτως (so) τρϵχω(run) ως (as) ουκ (not) αδηως (with
uncertainty) ουτως(so) πυκτϵυω (I box) ως (as) ουκ (not) αϵρων (beating the air). “Do you not know that in a race
all the runners run… so I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating
the air.”
ü Phil.3:14 κατα (according to) σκοπον (the goal) διωκω (I pursue) ϵις (for) το (the) βραβϵϵον (prize) της (of the) ανω (high) κλησϵωςτου (calling) θϵου (of God) ϵν (in) Χριστ (Christ) Ιησου (Jesus). “I press on toward the goal for the prize
of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus.”
ü 2 Tim.4:7 ηγωνισμαι, ( I have fought) τον( the) δρομον (race/course)τϵτϵλϵκα( I have finished) την (the) πιστιν (faith)ϵτηρηκα(have kept). “I have finished the race. I have kept
the faith.”
ü Gal 2: 2 δϵ(but) τις (to the
ones) δοκουσιν (seeming) μη (lest) πως(somehow) ϵις (in) κϵνον (vain) τρϵχω
(I should run )η (or) ϵδραμον (did run) “…that I was running
or had run my race in vain...”
The
Lexical Similarities -The Lexical Similarities appears to be common in Paul’s writings and
affirm Pauline authorship, such like “Αγών, άγωνος, ό and “graceΧάρις, ιτος ή”. Greek Lexicon interprets Αγών,
άγωνος, ό literally (athletic) contest; metaphorically race (i.e.course)
of life (Heb.12:1); of exertion and self-denial in the face of opposition
conflict, struggle, fight: figuratively, of intense nonphysical struggle, conflict
(1Th2.2).” [18]
and “graceΧάρις, ιτος ή” Greek
Lexical interprets as “a quality that adds delight or pleasure graciousness, as
a favorable attitude, concretely of exceptional effect produced by God’s favor
ability, power, enabling (Rom.12.6; 1 Cor.15:10); Of practical proofs of
goodwill from one person to another kind deed, benefit, favor (Acts 24:27; 2
Cor.1:15); Collection for the poor, generous gifts (1 Cor.16:3); as an
experience or state resulting from God’s favor state of grace, favored position
(Rom.5:2); as a verbal thank offering to God gratitude, thanks (1 Cor.15:57;
2Cor.9:15); As contained in formulas that express greetings or farewell in
letters goodwill, favor, blessing (Rom.1:7;16:20).”[19]
In
addition, Allen, David Lewis provides “the lexical group αγαπαω ‘to
love’ αγαπη and αγαπητος which are also very common in
Paul’s writings.”[20]
Allen, David Lewis acknowledges that based on the balanced lexical comparison, “there are 46
words which are unique to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews (Hawkings
1909:192).”[21]
And this lexical similarity is evidence to support Pauline authorship.
Based on the Lexical similarity David Lewis
Allen also debates the Luken’s authorship. “The most forceful argument against
the Pauline authorship theory is the stylistic dissimilarity between Hebrews and
the Pauline corpus.”[22] He says,
“Luke –Acts and Hebrews are both writings of
considerable length, in which there would be plenty of scope for casual
overlapping, as may well be the case with many words… which are used in
different senses and contexts in the two writings; some words only occur in
quotations from the Septuagint, and many of the words are compound verbs whose
coining seems to be a common feature among later New Testament writers.
Moreover, one can compile lists of words peculiar to Hebrews and the pastoral
epistles, to Hebrews and I Peter and James, even to Hebrews and St. Paul, as
well as those peculiar to Luke-Acts and the later non-Pauline epistles in
general, which should be taken into account.” [23]
“Frederick Gardiner suggested in 1887 that there were 34 words unique to the
writings of Luke and Hebrews (1887:1-37). Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae cited
38 words unique to Luke-Acts and Hebrews (1909:192). Plummer charted 40 words
peculiar to Luke –Acts and Hebrews (1922: lix)”[24]
He lists other lexical similarities to argue the Luken’s
authorship. Such as αστρον or αστηρ ‘star’, ϵρχομαι‘to come’, and “αρχιϵρϵυς
‘high priest’ are occurs 17 times in Hebrews, 37 times in Luke, and not once in
Paul. Hebrews uses the term σκηνη
‘tabernacle,’ 10 times; it occurs 5 times in Luke, never in Paul and only 5
times in the rest of the New Testament. Another very interesting lexical
similarity is found in Luke2:26 and Hebrews11:5 where we find the exact phrase
‘shall not see death’. The only other place in the New Testament where this
phrase occurs is in John8:51, where John employs a different Greek word for ‘see’
and a stronger form of the negative.”[25] He also discovered an interest fact that Acts 7 speaks of the
120 years of Moses’ life in three spans of 40 years each. That this was also of
interest to the writer of Hebrews may be deduced from his quotation of Psalm 95
in Hebrews 3:7-4:13. Both Acts 7 and Hebrews 11 speak of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and Joseph in succession. Both speak of Moses’ being hidden three months by his
parents and describe his life in similar detail. Bothe avoid the word ‘temple’,
making the rare substitution of the term ‘ house.’ both share the same concept
of the ‘tabernacle.’ Allen, David, provides the “Linguistic comparison between
Acts 7 and Hebrews 11”[26],
the semantic equivalents as follow,
|
Acts 7
Παροικον (6)
ϵν γη αλλοτρια (6)
ϵξϵλθϵ (3)
|
Hebrews
11
παρωκησϵν (9)
ϵις γην της ϵπαγγϵλιας ως αλλοτριαν (9)
ϵξϵλθϵιν, ϵξηλθϵν (8)
|
|
ϵϕυγϵν (29)
Ερυθρα βαλασση (36)
Πρωϕητων(37,42)
προσκυνϵτν(43)
|
ϵϕυγον(24)
Ερυθραν βαλασσαν(29)
Πρωϕητων(32)
προσϵκυνησϵν (21)
|
Outlook Recipients of Hebrews, Date and Purpose
The date of Hebrews was written, according to Cockerill’s aspects, he
assumes, “the time of Hebrews’ composition with certainty beyond a range of
A.D. 50-90.”[27] But
Carson &Moo suggested “the date between A.D. 60 and 100, the preponderance
of evidence favors a date before A.D.70.”[28] Lea and Black think, “The date between A.D.
60 and 95 is possible. Most of the evidence, however, points to a time of
writing prior to A.D.70.” [29]
There is an issue for a pre A.D.70 date: “the author use of the present tense
when describing the sacrificial ritual, his failure to mention the destruction
of Jerusalem, and his insistence on the demise of the old order. And the
arguments in Heb.8:4 and 10:2 may have been more forceful if the sacrificial
ritual were still being conducted in Jerusalem. Yet, Josephus, Clement of Rome,
and others use the present tense to describe the sacrificial ritual long after
the destruction of the Temple.”[30].
The reason author writes this letter is
to point out the “superiority of Christ”. “Christ is superior to the Old
Testament prophets (1:1-4), Angels (1:5-2:18), Moses and Joshua (3:1-4:13).”[31]
For the theme of Hebrew is the “Superior Priesthood of Christ”. The author intended
to recall the recipients (Jew and Gentiles believers) “commitment of Faith
(12:4-5) and confirmation of Faith (12:6-7).”[32]And
urged them not to “drift away” from God, or back to the Judaism belief. “Christ
is true tent; it is the eternal dwelling place of God.”[33]
“Outside the camp cannot be the heavenly world because it is the place where
Christ suffered and the place of bearing his reproach.”[34]
Outlook the relationship between Luke
–Acts, Paul and Hebrews
Some scholars provide their new perspective of
the relationship between Luke-Acts, Paul and Hebrews. And “believe the author
of the Gospel of Luke also wrote Acts and he intended to produce a single work
in two parts: Luke-Acts. Originally these two volumes even circulated among the
churches as a single work, but in the second century the Gospel of Luke joined
the other three Gospels and Acts began to circulate on its own. There are some
strong indications that Luke intended to link these two books closely together
in telling the story.”[35]
For example, Luke said, “I myself have carefully investigated everything from
the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you,
most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of
the things you have been taught. (Luke1:1-4). Compare the opening verse of the
book Acts 1:1-2, “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about
all that Jesus began to do and to teach…”, “Luke’s reference in Acts: 1:1 to
his “former book” obviously refers to the Gospel of Luke, where he “wrote about
all that Jesus began to do and to teach.” In the sequel (Acts), Luke continues
the story by showing how Jesus acted by his Spirit through his church. In
addition, Luke dedicates both volumes to Theophilus.”[36]
Luke-Acts both books appear to be parallels in thematic and structural. As
Duvall and Hays offer their aspects as follows,
“Some
of the prominent themes of Luke’s Gospel reoccur in Acts (e.g. prayer, the work of the Spirit, the gospel for all
people). There are miracles in Acts that closely resemble miracles in Luke (compare the healing of Aeneas
in Acts9:32-35 with the healing of
the paralytic in Luke5:17-26; the
raising of Tabitha from the dead in Acts9:36-43
with the raising of Jairus’s
daughter in Luke8:40-42, 49-56). Both Luke and
Acts feature a journey motif. In the Gospel Jesus journeys to Jerusalem and the
cross (Luke9:51; 13:22, 33;
17:11; 18:31:19:41). In Acts Paul makes a number of journeys, the climactic one being his journey from Judea
to Rome for trial before Caesar (Acts.27- 28).”[37]
Moreover, “there is a definite overlap between the
ending of Luke and the beginning of Acts.”[38]
Duvall and Hays provides examples such as “Luke24:49 “I am going to send you
what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed
with power from on high” are fulfilled in Acts 1-2.”[39]
And “when Jesus speaks about repentance and forgiveness of sins being preached
in his name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem (Luke24:47), we
automatically think of Acts 1:8 Perhaps the most noticeable overlap is the
record of the ascension of Jesus in both Luke (24:51) and Acts (1:9-11), the
only two places in the New Testament where this event is described.[40]
Those evidence seems approve that “Luke links his Gospel and Acts closely
together as two parts of a single story.”[41]
Allen, David’s aspects of the textlinguistic similarity, he makes the
connection between the Luke-Acts and Hebrews. These factors could be considered
to be interpreted as evidence for common authorship. He says,
“The prologues of Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-5 and
Hebrews1:1-4 “share a relatively similar length… All three prologues are retrospective and
prospective. In Luke1:1-4, Luke informs us that many have written and that he
now intends to write an account as well. In Acts1:1-5, reference is made to the
former treaties and the things which Jesus began to do and to teach. This is
followed by a reference to future things to happen as the disciples are told to
wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem. Acts is a rehearsal of
events from the coming of the Spirit in Jerusalem at Pentecost to the arrest of
Paul in Rome, a period of approximately thirty years. The prologue in Hebrew
looks back to the fact that God “has spoken” in times past to the fact that God
now continues to speak in his Son… There seems to be a propensity to alliterate
with the Greek letter ‘pi’ in all three prologues. Five times in both Luke and
Hebrews words beginning with the letter
‘pi’ occur, and in both cases all are proposed to the main verb in the
sentence. This alliteration would seem to be used for stylistic effect. And
there is an absence of deor kai in the opening prologue of Luke and Hebrews
which illustrates the high classical Greek style characteristic of these
flowing sentences. The use of polys in both prologues to add to the rhetorical
effect is an evidence of stylistic design.” [42]
These factors could be considered to be interpreted as
evidence for common authorship. And he believes that “the prologue names
Theophilus as the recipient or intended reader of Luke’s work. The language of
the prologue makes it likely that Theophilus is more than just the one to whom
Luke is dedicating his two-volume work. Theophilus is an historical individual
to whom Luke addressed the work in the same way that Ephphroditus was the
intended reader of Josephus’ against Apion.”[43]
Outlook historical scholars perspective- the Pauline epistles can be
identified
“Pantaenus (C.A.D.180) claimed that Hebrews was both Pauline and
canonical. This affirmation is supported by the way in which locates Hebrews,
between Romans and 1 Corinthians. Pantaenus explained that “Paul had not
affixed his name because he was only the apostle to the Gentiles, while “the
Lord” was the apostle (cf.Heb.3:1) to the Jews (Hist.eccl.6.14.4). Pantaenus’s
successor, Clement of Alexandria (C.A.D.200), continued to affirm the tradition
of Pauline authorship and canonical status. He attributed the omission of
Paul’s name to Paul’s desire not to offend the Jews to whom he had addressed
this epistle.” [44] “Western Christendom later leaders in the
West such as Jerome and Augustine accepted Pauline authorship. Their influence
eventually led the West to accept Hebrews into the canon. By the fifth Council
of Carthage (A.D.419), fourteen epistles of Paul were accepted into the canon
of the New Testament.”[45]
Lea and Black’s emphasis, based on the doctrinal and stylistic similarities
between Hebrews and the Pauline epistles can be identified. There
are five factors to approve the Pauline epistles. “First, the work of Christ
in creation (Heb.1:2; Col.1:16). Second, the humiliation of Christ in
the incarnation and crucifixion (Heb.2:14-17; Phil.2:5-8). Third, the
place of the new covenant (Heb.8:6; 2Cor.3:4-11). Fourth, the work of
the Holy Spirit in distributing gifts (Heb.2:4; 1Cor.12:11). Fifth, the
negative example of Israel’s conduct during the wilderness wanderings (Heb.3:7-11;
4:6-11; 1 Cor.10:1-11).”[46] The doctrinal similarities in the
conclusion of the letter contain several elements strongly suggesting Pauline
authorship. For example, “the reference to a clear conscience and request for
personal prayer (13:18) are similar to statements of Paul in Roman 15:30 and
Acts 23:1. The reference to God as the God of peace (Heb.13:20) is similar to
the statement in 1 thessalonians5:23. And the reference to Timothy in 13:23
sounds more likes a statement from Paul than from any other writer. ”[47]
Conclusion
The authorship of Hebrews is debatable, it’s
only God knows who is writer, as Origen stated, “But who wrote the epistle, in
truth God knows” (H.E.6.25.14). From early suggestions to
recently assumption, the author can be Paul, Luke, Barnabas, and Apollos. The
argument for Pauline authorship turns primarily upon few factors: the
historical Testimony from the church fathers, Linguistic similarity, Lexicon/vocabulary
similarity, and theological similarly. Pantaenus’s
successor, Clement of Alexandria (C.A.D.200), continued to affirm the tradition
of Pauline authorship and canonical status. He attributed the omission of
Paul’s name to Paul’s desire not to offend the Jews to whom he had addressed
this epistle.” [48]
Based on Linguistic and stylistic similarities Pauline authorship can be
affirmed and identified. In Heb12:1 indicates τρϵχωμϵν (let us run) νον (the) προκϵιμϵνον
(lying before) ημιν (us) αγωνα (race). It explicit clearly the desires of Paul
to run the race, such tones and expression are same as verses 1Cor.9:24-27,
Phil3:14, 2 Tim3:14 and Gal2:2. The Lexical Similarities appears to be common in Paul’s writings and
affirm Pauline authorship, such like “Αγών, άγωνος, ό” ‘race’ and “Χάρις, ιτος ή” ‘grace’ and αγαπαω ‘to love’ αγαπη and αγαπητος
. Allen, David Lewis affirmed Luken’s authorship yet, he cannot deny that the balanced lexical comparison
that “there are 46 words which are unique to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews
(Hawkings 1909:192),”[49] this
lexical similarity is evidence for supported Pauline authorship. Christos Sp.
Voulgaris lays out the new evidence in Hebr.13:23=Phil.2:19-24=Philm.22
(cf.also Eph.6:19-22; Col.4:3-4;7-9) that Paul’s reference to Timothy. Lea and
Black’s emphasis on the doctrinal and stylistic similarities between Hebrews
and the Pauline epistles can be identified. The work of Christ in creation
(Heb.1:2; Col.1:16). And the humiliation of Christ in the incarnation and
crucifixion (Heb.2:14-17; Phil.2:5-8). During the Reformation, Calvin argued that Clement of
Rome or Luke wrote Hebrews. However, Martin Luther and many contemporary
scholars have speculated that Apollos wrote Hebrews. But the LXX was produced
in Alexandria, weakening the argument for authorship by Apollos is the complete
lack of early tradition favoring him and none of the church fathers named him
and if Apollos did write Hebrews. Barnabas was a Hellenistic Jew makes him at
least potentially qualified to write a Christian book so deeply interacting
with the LXX”[50],
but “it’s hardly identifies him as the author” says the Carson and Moo.
Overview of the controversy, there is no doubt
that the author was a dynamic preacher, well-educated of elegant Greek, and
understood the principles of rhetoric and stylistic, well-equipped the knowledge of O.T., deeply committed to
Jesus Christ and ran the race zealously for Gospel. He intended to recall recipients “commitment of Faith (12:4-5) and
confirmation of Faith (12:6-7).”[51]And
urged them not to “drift away” from God, or back to the Judaism belief. “Christ
is true tent; it is the eternal dwelling place of God.”[52]
“Outside the camp cannot be the heavenly world because it is the place where
Christ suffered and the place of bearing his reproach.”[53]
.
Bibliography
Allen, David Lewis. An Argument for the
Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. Order No. 8812823, the University of Texas at
Arlington, 1987. In PROQUESTMS ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, http://search.proquest.com/docview/303663020?accountid=12085. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/303663020/fulltextPDF?accountid=12085 (Accessed September 17, 2013).
Cockerill,
Gareth. L. The Epistle to the Hebrews:
New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.
Guthrie,
George. H. Hebrews. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Carson,
D.A. and Douglas J. Moo. An
Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zendervan, 1992.
Duvall, J. Scott and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping
God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading Interpreting, and Applying the
Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Guthrie, George H.
"Lukan Authorship of Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 54, no. 4 (12, 2011): 858-60, http://search.proquest.com/docview /1001337010?accountid=12085.
Goodrick, Edward W. and John R.
Kohlenberger III. The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Lea, Thomas D. and David A. Black. “The New
Testament: Its background and message” 2ed. Nashville: B&H Publishing
Group, 2003.
Ryrie,
Charles C. Ryrie Study Bible (NIV) Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1986.
Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg and Neva F.
Miller. Analytical Lexicon Greek New Testament .Canada: Timothy Friberg
and Barbara Friberg.2005.
Voulgaris,
Christos SP. Hebrews: Paul's Fifth Epistle From Prison. Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 44, no. 1-4 (March 1999): 199-206. Academic
Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 19,
2013).
[3] Gareth. L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews: New International Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012),
4-5.
[4] D.A. Carson& Douglas J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zendervan,
1992),601.
[11] Thomas D. Lea and David A. Black, “The
New Testament: Its background and message” 2ed.( Nashville: B&H
Publishing Group.2003),498.
[13]
Christos
SP. Voulgaris, Hebrews: Paul's Fifth Epistle From Prison. Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 44, no. 1-4 (March 1999): 199-206. Academic
Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 19, 2013).
[15] David Lewis
Allen, An Argument for the Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. Order No.
8812823,The University of Texas at Arlington, 1987: 18-34. In PROQUESTMS ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Full Text, http://search.proquest.com/docview/303663020?accountid=12085. (Accessed September 17,2013).
[18] Timothy
Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon Greek New
Testament (Canada: Timothy Friberg and Barbara Friberg.2005),34.
[23] Ibid.,35.
[25] Ibid., 46.
[26] Allen, 77-79.
[27] Cockerill, 41.
[28] Carson& Moo, 608.
[29] Lea and Black, 501.
[30] Cockerill, 39.
[35] J. Scott
Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word 2nd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001),266.
[36] Duvall & Hays,266.
[37] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid., 267.
[41] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.,72.
[44] Cockerill, 4-5.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.,497.
No comments:
Post a Comment