Matters Around "Hebrews"

Aaron asks about the authorship of Hebrews . . .

This question has a number of issues involved. Actually, the three areas of 1) authorship, 2) date and 3) recipients, in many ways, intersect with each other, so we'll need to treat each area. Additionally, there are “pieces” of both 1) external and 2) internal “evidences” that need to be noted. Let's document some of the evidence and then try to tidy it all up a bit . . .

First, there is the question of authorship . . .

Let's get the real boring discussion out of the way first . . .

Pertaining to the “external evidences,” from the eastern/oriental church, Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen*, Dionysius and Eusebius all suggested that Paul did write the text of “Hebrews.” In the West, it was accepted later; Jerome and Augustine both pushed the view in association with their push for its canonicity. On the other hand, the early western church did not accept Pauline authorship of Hebrews; Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Muratorian Canon, Hippolytus and Cyprian all rejected the notion.

Tertullian suggested that Barnabas wrote it. Luther argued that Apollos did. Calvin suggested either Luke or Clement of Rome as the author.

None has grabbed serious Bible students with conviction in the way that Pauline authorship has. But, it is to be noted that most modern biblical scholarship has practically rejected the notion. (But, that's an observation and not an argument, since there is quite a bit that modern biblical scholarship is flatly incorrect about.) Most of the scholars simply rehash these same old pieces of evidence and then draw their conclusions. There's nothing definitive, here; it's the same ol' material since years ago.

Pertaining to “internal evidences,” it might be best to give the “counter-arguments” to a Pauline authorship, make notes about them and then give the arguments why Paul might be the author of the “Hebrews” text.

First, it has been argued that the absence of Paul's name in the introduction to the book proves that he didn't write it. (Hugo McCord said that he knew that Paul didn't write it because of 2 Thessalonians 3:17, which stated that Paul's “greeting with his own hand” was a “distinguishing mark in every letter.”) But, this isn't quite clear . . . Several older writers argued that Paul could have left his name out of the text because of Jewish bias or antagonism, because Paul was Christ's “apostle to the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:7,8) and/or because Paul was not an “original apostle” of “the 12” and such a claim wouldn't have “come off” to the Jews well (cf. 1 Cor. 15:8-10). On 2 Thessalonians 3:17, it is at least worth noting that Paul's claim about his signature was approximately 15 years before “Hebrews” was written; perhaps, he changed his approach/style with his leaving a “signature” in his letters by the time that he wrote “Hebrews”? Or, perhaps, the difference in audience pushed Paul – for whatever reason – not to “sign” the text to the “Hebrews”? It's certainly not established that Paul didn't write “Hebrews” for this reason.

Second, Hebrews 2:3 leaves the impression that the author, like the recipients, only received “salvation” (or “gospel”) through a second-hand relay, at best; in fact, it says that it was “confirmed to us by those who heard.” Paul, elsewhere, claims to have received direct revelation from Christ (cf. Gal. 1:1,12). Simply, the author of “Hebrews” was given relayed information, second-hand, and thus not Paul, who received the information by revelation, first-hand. That's the argument, anyway. But, again, this may not quite be the thrust of 2:3 . . . First, it is possible that the “us” is “editorial,” meaning that the writer of “Hebrews” simply takes the liberty of identifying with the group to whom he is writing. (See 6:1; did the author think that he, himself, too, needed to press on to maturity and stop laying again the foundation of . . .?) Second, 2:3 may very well have the “personal ministry of Jesus” in view, which may be something that Paul did not “witness” personally. It is true that Paul was given “revelation” from God (Gal. 1:1,12), but that doesn't mean that he “witnessed” the personal ministry of Christ; that, on the other hand, was “confirmed” to Him by first-hand witnesses (such as in Acts 1 and 1 Corinthians 15:8-ff.).

Third, Paul Ellingworth extensively documents several linguistic and stylistic illustrations, which he interprets to mean that the apostle Paul could not have written the text; however, there might be one major dynamic (that the audience [“Hebrews”] is quite different from apostle Paul's usual addressees) to some of the illustrations that Ellingworth hasn't considered . . .

He argues that Hebrews is “impersonal,” whereas Paul is usually “personal,” but see 13:18-ff., where the text is “personal,” speaking of those of Italy, Timothy and plans to see each other. (Oddly, Ellingworth thinks 13:18-ff. to be authentic from the author of “Hebrews,” rather than an interpolation from a redactor.) And, even if “Hebrews” were “impersonal” and Paul normally “personal,” the change in audience might explain the difference. This wasn't one of Paul's letters to a church that he had started and spent time with; this letter is different.

He argues that “justification by grace/faith” – one of Paul's prominent themes – isn't a discussion in “Hebrews.” He's right. But, who says that it needs to be? Different audiences call for different needs. The consistent call back to the Old Testament would tell Jews about rebellion (Heb. 3) and how they had read the law inappropriately as a mechanical ritual in many cases; Hebrews 11 tells that it was “faith” that did save and does save. And, what if Paul is relying on his other texts (e.g. Romans [A.D. 56]), which might have easily circulated by this time (“Hebrews,” around A.D. 63-68?), to teach that element? The emphasis on “faith” in the book might explain much; a Gentile audience might have needed a different slant on “gospel,” but the Jews didn't need to leave “works” behind – they needed to make their “dead works” into “living ones” (Heb. 6:1; 9:14).

He argues that sexual morality is a usual discussion of Paul's and that it doesn't surface in “Hebrews.” Again, he's right. But, that's understandably a Gentile problem, one for those that had left “paganism” in the dust (see 1 Cor. 6,7; 1 Thes. 4). That's not to say that the Jews didn't have that problem – they did (1 Cor. 10:1-13) – but its assumed for a writer to the Jews/Hebrews that those things were wrong. Jews didn't need to be educated on sexual purity as newly-converted, former pagans did. The Old Testament had taught about this “moral” issue for long enough; the fact that the writer explicitly (and lengthily) quotes from the Old Testament 35 times demonstrates that the “morality” was insisted upon the modern recipients. No need for a discussion on sexual purity, perhaps.

He argues that the Old Testament content differs from Paul's use. Again, the usual audience for Paul is Gentile churches! Look, all of Paul's other epistles center around Gentile churches that He had started; even the letters of Paul to individuals deal with Gentile churches (so, for Timothy, it is Ephesus; for Titus, Crete). But, it's not even clearly true that the Old Testament content differs from Paul's normal use; Allen points out a number of stylistic intersections between Paul's letters and “Hebrews.” Habakkuk 2:4 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 are used in Paul's epistles as well as in “Hebrews” (cf. Rom. 1:17; 2 Cor. 3:3,6); if the exegetical purpose differs – well, it's no shock! – Paul's audience would be different.

He argues that Paul makes no apostolic claim. But, why would he? He was an apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7,8). He worked with Gentile churches, not Jewish ones, which, it appears he might've been “ousted” from (see the development between Paul and Barnabas, which went from friendship to severe disagreement; Galatians 2 [= Acts 15] would have us see that there was more to the dispute between them than merely taking John Mark on the second journey; Paul was “disruptive” at both Jerusalem and then also Antioch, so he was without a Jewish base; you'll have noticed that he increasingly went beyond the Jewish headquarters in his later journeys; Paul wore this on his person [2 Cor. 11:28]; Jewish churches left him without a base, so he went and evangelized and started Gentile ones all-the-more . . . and then Jewish interlopers tried to discredit him in his own sphere [2 Cor. 10:12-18], asking where his credentials were [2 Cor. 3:1-ff.].)

It is true that the linguistic evidence isn't a usual for Paul – one counted 152 New Testament “hapaxes” (words that are unique and unused elsewhere) – but again, the audience might explain this. Further, it is possible – a point I'll raise in a minute – that Luke assisted Paul in the production of “Hebrews.” If so, a skilled Greek writer like Luke, whose Greek is “top notch,” could explain the vocabulary and stylistic differences, if he aided Paul in writing.

All-in-all, I think that it hasn't been “proven” that Paul did not write “Hebrews.”

Let's hit the “recipients” and “date” and then circle back . . .

Second, who were the recipients of “Hebrews”?

The “manuscript” evidence is too late to be concrete; it is from the latter end of the 2nd century A.D. that the title “To the Hebrews” comes to us, presently. So, was the “title” an original line, or was it a later insertion? In addition to that question, was the “title” about the recipients or was it an inference drawn from the content of the book itself? It is impossible to answer these questions certainly.

Whomever the recipients might be, they were certainly a specific group with specific problems that the author knew (cf. 2:3; 5:11-6:6; 10:32-34; 12:4); he knew about their specific pull to leave the faith, knew their status and where they should've been, knew about their reception of the gospel, etc., etc. Also, it is clear that they weren't personal witnesses to Christ's work but rather received it from others (cf. 2:3), so they might've been second generation Christians – nearly 30-35 years had passed since the death of the Lord. But, they were Christians; they called Christ “the Son” (1:2), accepted salvation (2:3,4), should have been teachers by that time (5:11-ff.), were dwindling in attendance of assemblies (10:25), etc., etc.

It's nearly laughable to think that anybody could actually read “Hebrews” and think (with a straight-face) that the text was written to address Gentiles. It simply wasn't. The whole book suggests that it was Jews/Hebrews that were addressed. The (or “a”?) problem is a reverting back to the Old Law/Covenant of Moses – that'd be a Jewish problem. The very notion of an “old covenant” is only from a Jewish angle; the Gentiles weren't “in covenant,” so they didn't have a “first” or “old covenant.” The idea of a “new covenant” is specifically in relation to the Jewish people (cf. 8-10). Then, there's no mention of circumcision or Jew-Gentile disputes; they didn't have a problem with circumcision, so naturally, the text leaves the matter alone. Then, “Hebrews” simply assumes the Old Testament as authoritative; if Gentiles were addressed, that'd be a lousy premise to base argumentation (like 7:11's “if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, then . . .”) upon; the Jew would understand and wrangle with the argument, but the Gentile would scoff and say, “Hmm . . . it wasn't! That's what we're saying, so we reject the whole thing, New Testament and Old Testament alike.” Clearly, the text is to Jews.

So far, it's clear that the text is written to Jewish Christians. (There shouldn't be a problem with recognizing that a text is written to a religious group with a certain ethnicity; we don't need to explain every text as being to Christians, leaving it there; a writer can – yes, he can! – write to Gentile Christians or Jewish Christians and still expect the literature to be lifted from its context and transposed/applied appropriately into new settings. This is exegetical work!)

The question about where the letter was sent has three primary suggestions. Some think that “Hebrews” went to Alexandria, others think Rome and others think Jerusalem/Palestine. Rome is a possibility because in the “external evidence,” that is the first place that “Hebrews” surfaced as a text. And, 13:24 might be read as being to Rome. Alexandria is a suggestion because of similarities in the text to that region. But, perhaps, most possibly is the idea that Jerusalem/Palestine received the text. I think that's probably the case because the content would really make sense and because I think that there's more in the text about the upcoming fall of Jerusalem (in A.D. 70) than some see within “Hebrews.” (More later.) What if 13:24 should be read as “from Italy”? What if the text is from Rome, from Paul? What if it is to Jewish Christian living in Palestine/Jerusalem?

Third, the question of “date” needs to be noted. 2:3's claim that they were “second-hand” or “second generation” saints doesn't help with the date; since Christ's death (nearly 30-35 years), there had been ample time for this group of recipients to have been “second generation” while still being addressed before A.D. 70. Further, Timothy is still mentioned as being alive, which admittedly doesn't help us with precision much (cf. 13:23). But, more helpful is the fact that the temple is unmentioned explicitly; if it had fallen already, that would have only solidified the author's argument in “Hebrews” about the transient nature of the old covenant (cf. 8:4; 10:11). It's true that “present tenses” are used throughout of the “ordinances” (9:6-9), but Attridge establishes an effective linguistic negative by showing how “present tenses” are often used (especially by Josephus) to refer to the procedures of the temple even long after it had vanished. But, 8:13's argument really receives its force by the fact that the temple must've still been standing; it was – as he said – “growing old and ready to disappear.” 10:1's entire argument assumes that the temple is still standing. And, then there's a notion of “persecution” that the addressees were undergoing (cf. 10:32-34), which raises a question about the location of persecution; those thinking that the book was sent to Rome insist that it was from Nero (which wouldn't affect the date, perhaps), but it's more plausible, I think, that the whole Jewish war and the events leading up to A.D. 70 fit much better (see Matthew 24 esp.). The content of the book seems to suggest that it was written in advance of A.D. 70 and the judgment upon Jerusalem; the idea of the imminent passing of the ordinances of the law (8:13; 9:1-ff.), a “day approaching” (10:25), the “quick coming” (10:37-39) and the shaking of heavens and earth (12:26-28) – and a number of other things – suggest that the book surrounded that event and thus was written some time earlier than A.D. 70.

Now, we've examined 1) the negative aspect of Pauline authorship, 2) the recipients and 3) the date. Let's circle back to Pauline authorship once more . . .

I think that Paul did write “Hebrews” for the following reasons . . .

First, the ending of the book is too much for me to dismiss. The mention of “Italy” (13:24) and Timothy (13:23) both are strikingly Pauline. Admittedly, scholarly views would suggest something like redaction, or others would point out that it is still possible for another author to mention both things and not be Paul. However, the whole closing to the text is the style of Paul. If we can explain why the core of the epistle is not “Pauline” in its style (largely because of a different audience), then it at least bears a second look about whether the “Pauline” style in 13:18-ff. supports him as being its author.

Second, Peter's epistles are texts that were sent to those of the “diaspora,” scattering abroad (1 Pet. 1:1,2; 2 Pet. 3:1); that's a term for the scattered Jews (cf. John 7:35). Obviously, Peter's second epistle is intended for the same recipients; in the first, he writes to the “scattered Jews” (1 Pet. 1:1,2), and in the second epistle, he “stirs them up to remember” (2 Pet. 3:1); he's addressing the same crew. But, what is helpful for us, here, is that he notes that Paul “wrote to you,” the same crew (2 Pet. 3:15,16) . . . Here's a question: when did Paul write to the scattered Jews? Weren't all of his epistles to Gentile churches? Oh, sure, he wrote to hybrid churches (of Jews and Gentiles), but the cities/churches were Gentile . . . When did Paul write to scattered Jews? Is it possible that “Hebrews” is that text?! And, wouldn't this explain all of the similarities between the two texts? (See Ellingworth or Attridge on the similarities between “Hebrews” and “1 Peter;” they are numerous; “James” – written to the “twelve tribes that are scattered abroad” [same word, “diaspora”] is also strikingly similar, not accidentally.) Also, F.F. Bruce rejects this argument on the basis that 2 Peter was not written to Hebrew Christians; he is wrong (see McGuiggan's article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110205031754/http://jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=1+Peter&id=287).

Third, the “circumstancial evidence” supports Paul as the author. By accepting 1) Paul as author, with 2) Luke's aid in writing and 3) the audience as being different from Paul's usual and 4) a time just prior to A.D. 70, the circumstances “fit.” This is not as much an argument as it is an observation – that is, this assessment doesn't force the conclusion that Paul was the author, but it might still be persuasive. When accepting this, the “style” of the work is explained – the content is to Jews, whereas Paul normally wrote to Gentile churches; the vocabulary and rhetoric is explained – Luke assisted and had an aiding hand/mind in the writing, and Gamaliel had been Paul's skilled educator, so, perhaps, he had the genius/skill without Luke's aid; the similarity to 1 Peter is explained – both approach A.D. 70; the Old Testament use is explained – Paul is writing to Jewish group, not his usual Gentile addressees; the genre is explained – perhaps, Luke transcribes what was a Pauline sermon/homily (cf. 13:22; Acts 13:15); the content is explained – A.D. 70 is the upcoming judgment and Paul wants to prepare the wavering saints to be more faithful (as he does elsewhere in the face of physical persecutions, like Nero's [cf. Rom. 13:11-14]).

Fourth, there hasn't been another view that has gained real traction. This isn't an argument; it is an observation. Not having another view on authorship doesn't prove that Paul did write it, I'm aware; that being said, it's worth noting that nothing is actually conclusive enough to say that Paul didn't write it (contra some).

Finally, I confess that I remain unsure – well, I'm still unsure on much of all of this; much is still unclear and little is conclusive – as to why Paul would not place his name in the start of the text. (Perhaps, he had his own reasons; perhaps, there was something about the audience that pushed him to abstain from placing it.) But, presently, a Pauline authorship to Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem area, just prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 seems to be the most plausible view for “Hebrews” and its backdrop.