AUTHORSHIP AND CANONICITY
The author of this epistle does not mention himself by name, but remains anonymous. The essential issues surrounding the authorship and canonicity of Hebrews are the following:
WHAT IS KNOWN FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE
The author was not only thoroughly acquainted with the fullness of the Gospel as expressed through the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, but was also intimately acquainted with the Jewish mind, their religious system and their approach to the Old Testament Scriptures. He and his readers were evidently well–acquainted (5:10–12; 10:34; 13:18–19, 22–23). He had been or was now imprisoned (10:34; 13:19). He was a close associate with Timothy (13:23).
There are other internal matters which will be considered under following headings:
THE QUESTION OF PAULINE AUTHORSHIP AND CANONICITY.
The Epistle to the Hebrews has traditionally been assigned to the Apostle Paul. The superscription: “The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews” dates from the fourth century.
The Eastern (Greek) Church never questioned the Pauline authorship of Hebrews; the Western (Latin) Church questioned and debated the issue until the fourth century when it was ascribed to the Apostle Paul in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the traditional Pauline authorship was championed by Augustine. Thus, the canonicity of Hebrews was only an issue in the Western or Latin Church. Although the Pauline authorship was questioned, the epistle was still considered as inspired Scripture because of its internal and intrinsic character.
OBJECTIONS TO THE PAULINE AUTHORSHIP OF HEBREWS
The major objections may be stated as follows:
• The author is not mentioned, which is quite unlike the Apostle Paul, who mentions himself in every epistle, and characteristically introduces his own spiritual experiences into his writings.
• There is no characteristic salutation or introduction, as in the other epistles.
• The style, development of thought, language and vocabulary are diverse from the usual Pauline method and mentality. This epistle is very orderly; whereas Paul’s usual method is characterized by various departures and returns to the main subject (anacloutha). The pathos and abruptness that reveal themselves in the Pauline style are allegedly lacking. It has been alleged that the Pauline authorship of Hebrews would be a psychological impossibility.
Dr. W. R. Downing • Pacific Institute for Religious Studies
Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley 4
• The author quotes solely from the Septuagint (LXX), and allegedly knew only this version; The Apostle Paul quotes from both the Hebrew and LXX text. The author of Hebrews simply quotes; whereas Paul characteristically introduces OT references with formulas, e.g., “What saith the Scripture...?” “As it is written...” or he introduces a quotation or reference with the name of the individual human author.
• The epistle to the Hebrews is written in a much more polished Greek than any of the Pauline epistles. It is a higher, smoother quality of language, close the Greek of Luke in His Gospel record and the Book of Acts.
• It is alleged that the author was not an Apostle, but had received his instruction from others who had personally heard the Lord (2:3). Paul, to the contrary, asserted that his doctrine was derived directly from the Lord by personal revelation (Gal. 1:11–12; 1 Cor. 11:23).
ARGUMENTS FOR THE PAULINE AUTHORSHIP OF HEBREWS
Arguments in favor of Pauline authorship:
• It has been argued that the objections to Paul’s authorship are all based on internal evidence, and there exists no external evidence to the contrary, i.e., there is no one else to whom the authorship can be successfully attributed.
• Some of the early Church Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries ventured to allege that (because of linguistic similarities) Luke translated what Paul had either spoken or written, and was thus the author. But this work does not possess the character of a translation. Other Early Church Fathers put forth the idea that Barnabas was the author, but no writing of Barnabas exists for comparison. Further, Timothy was never a known associate of Barnabas, as was Paul.
• After the 4th century, the traditional Pauline authorship was accepted until the Protestant Reformation, when Luther suggested Apollos as the author. Modern critics have rehashed all the old arguments repeatedly and added to the list of possible authors, including Silas, Philip the Deacon, Silvanus, and even Priscilla!
• Differences of style and the suppression of personality could well fit into the context of Jewish prejudice against Paul, and if the author, he kept himself forcibly in the background. It may be answered that the author was evidently well–known to his readers and they to him.
• The difference in linguistic style may be accounted for by a forced leisure either in prison or shortly after his release, giving him time to compose a more carefully written treatise—a treatise more suited to the Jewish mind and approach.
• The statement of 2:3 may be editorial, i.e., the original apostles gave the Gospel to the Jews, and the author simply identifies and includes himself as a fellow Jew.
• If the readers were assemblies in Asia Minor, where Timothy had been left by Paul to minister during his first imprisonment, then the Pauline authorship has great credence, as Peter also wrote to the same believers in both epistles about persevering in the face of persecution, and may well have referred to Hebrews in 2 Pet. 3:15–16.
As one Church Father expressed it, “Only God knows who wrote Hebrews!”
but would a candidate not be ordained in a continental denomination if they took exception to a Pauline authorship of Hebrews?
