The Popular Scholarly Thoughts On Authorship Of Hebrews
The epistle of Hebrews is credited to Paul according to bible sources but emerging thoughts have argued against this assertion. In this discourse the writer is going to explore the popular scholarly thoughts on authorship which includes absence of name in introduction, the elaborate use of Greek language and adoption of a different theme from genuine Pauline letters. The writer is also going to explore the purpose of writing the epistle dwelling much on exhortation to either the Jews or the Gentiles.
 |
| The Popular Scholarly Thoughts On Authorship |
According to Guthrie (1988:19-20), Paul in all his
epistles accredited to his name, he clearly claimed authority in the
introduction. In Hebrews he does not introduce himself but all what we see is a
superscription that Paul is the author. Origen cites the style of language as
not Paul’s because of its lack of rudeness and it is more idiomatically Greek
in expression lacking the problem of syntax which Paul had. Paul does not
normally maintain continuity in his writing as does this author and he has a
tendency sometimes to go off tangent. However the thoughts in the letter appear
to be Paul’s. Hebrews 2:3 does not clearly reveal the direct revelation that
Paul received from God on the road to Damascus because its portrayal that he
heard the Gospel from others.
Bruce (1990:14) postulates that according to the
Alexandrian belief Paul was the author and this influenced the judgement of the
Eastern Christianity and from the middle of the 4th century the
Western Christianity as well. Leaders of the catechetical school in Alexandria
argue that Paul’s authorship could not be claimed with ease like in Galatians
and Romans.
According to Brown (2004:693-695) in the 4th
and early 5th centuries canonical lists, Hebrews was counted as a Pauline
epistle included in the fourteen credited to Paul. The factors that contributed
to the attribution of Hebrews were firstly the appearance of the name Timothy
in Hebrew 13:23 which also appear in other Pauline letters like 1st Thessalonians
and 2nd Corinthians. Secondly the benediction and greetings in
Hebrews 13:20-24 resemble a Pauline letter ending. On the contrary Hebrews
2:3-4 and 10:37-38 talks of justification by works which is unlike of Paul in
Galatians 3:11 and Romans 1:17 where he talks of faith which he is known for.
The phraseology and theology in Hebrews also fits that of Paul. There is also
evidence against Paul’s authorship especially the elaborate use of Greek as
quoted by Origen and Clement. Paul’s theology dwells much on resurrection but
Hebrews major theme is of Christ as High priest which does not appear in Paul’s
other letters. It would appear that the writer was a Jewish Christian with good
Hellenistic education and some knowledge of categories of Greek philosophy and
his hermeneutical style equals that of Philo which is unlike of Paul.
Carson, Moo & Morris (1992:396-397) made
suggestions that Barnabas a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36) is the author. He is
known to have been a strong collaborator of Paul for some time (Acts 9:27). The
fact that he was a Hellenistic Jew makes him potentially qualified to have been
the writer. Luther suggested Appolos and this has gathered support because of
his eloquence, thorough knowledge of the scripture (Acts 18:24), Alexandrian
nativity and his connection with the Pauline mission. Others argue that this
was mere speculation. Priscilla with his husband playing a minor has been
another suggestion. The absence of a name might suggest the appealing to
antifeminist tendencies in the church. The use of “I” and “We” in the book may
account for that as well. The two must have known Timothy since he worked with
Paul in Corinth. The use of masculine tendencies in Hebrews 11:32 level to rule
this theory out. Clement of Alexandria (AD150-215) and Origen (185-263) argue
that it is Paul who wrote Hebrews even though they accept that there are
problems to justify the theory. Clement suggest that Paul wrote Hebrews to the
Hebrews using Hebrews who had formed a strong bias against him and he had
deliberately left out his name. The Greek of Hebrews and that of Luke-Acts are
quite similar and therefore Luke could have translated the book from Hebrews to
Greek for Paul. Origen suggests that Paul’s disciples could have taken notes
from the apostle and written the book for him. This could have also been Luke
but Origen refuses to speculate and says, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth
God knows”.
According to Guthrie (1988:23) the writer’s purpose
of writing Hebrews is contained in 13:22 which says “bear with my word of
exhortation”. The meaning of the “exhortation” has derived various opinions
over what the author was warning his audience to refrain from and the various
suggestions may be classified in accordance with the destination of whether
Jewish or Gentile.
Guthrie (1988:21-34) postulates that the traditional
view is that the readers were Jewish converts and passages to support that view
of warnings are chapters 6 and 10 and the whole epistle is interpreted in light
of these. According to verses 6:6 and 10:29 falling into apostasy was bringing
Christ into disgrace by crucifying him all over again and insulting the spirit
of grace respectively. Hebrews 2:3 highlights that there is a danger of failing
to escape retribution for neglecting such great salvation. Hebrews 15:13 gives
us further insight that these people were converted Jews who feared being prevented
by the Judaizers worshiping Christ without converting to Judaism.
All Jews used the temple as the center of worship
but Christians met at homes without a central meeting place and had no priest,
no altar and no sacrifices. It is not understandable that at that time one
could be in both camps of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian because of the
strict laws like dietary that existed then. Non Jewish Christians were more
inclined to go into apostasy or falling into Judaism because of the persecution
they faced from Jews (Heb10:32).
This argument entails that the writer wanted
to show that the loss of virtual glory was adequately compensated by the
superiority of Christianity which had a better sanctuary, a better covenant, a
better priesthood and a better sacrifice. The writer also maintains that Christ
was a priest of a different kind from the Aaronic line, typified in Melchizedek
and deliberately transgressing against this will attract serious consequences.
The writter mentions nothing on apostasy from Judaism but away from Christ
only.
Guthrie (1988:34) brings another dimensions that the
letter could have been addressed to Jews namely former members of the Qumran
sect. The Qumran covenants were keen students of the Old Testament and their
interest in exegesis was to preserve the old covenant in terms of their own
community by contextualizing the Old Testament with little regard to context.
The author had already taken cognoscente of the historical text. This dispels
the theory that the letter could have been written to Jews.
Guthrie (1988:36-37) postulates that the letter
could have been written to Gentiles because of Hellenistic thought forms which
form the major background to the letter with the intention of contributing
Gnostic influences. The writer’s appeal to Old Testament is to make it clear
that Christianity is a superior not only to Judaism but to all religions. The
author’s interest with cultic centers again makes it a problem with Gentiles
who had no such knowledge. The readers could then have been Hellenistic’s Jews.
Yet another view is that the readers could have been Jewish Gnostics who were
corrupting pure Christians’s faith by the infiltration of Gnostic ideas.
Some
of the ideas were the emphasis on angles which was detracting from the
uniqueness of the mediatorial work of Christ, the idea of salvation through
selected food (Heb 13:9). Although some of these parallels may be valid but the
author dwells much on Jewish culture if his target was Gnosticism. The quest for
rest is the main aim of salvation. The view of Jesus as high priest is said to
have been influenced by the Gnostic redeemer myth in which the redeemer must
himself be redeemed before he acts as redeemer and in the same vain the priest
must be perfect (chapters 3-4).
Hewitt (1960:39-45) argues that when the old
covenant of Judaism is compared to the new covenant Christianity the letter is
more superior because of the agent through which the revelation came. Christ
was more eminent in his priestly character than the Levite priests who cannot draw
people closer to God. Levites fail because of their imperfection in that they
have to do a sin offering of their own sins before doing that of people (Heb
5:3) and the sacrifice of the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin
(Heb10:4).
The new covenant provides Christians with a law of inward spiritual
power which enables them to keep the covenant (8:10). People have free and permanent
access to God (10:19-22). The most important blessing is the forgiveness of
sins (8:12). All this is based on the sacrifice of his body, the superiority of
his priesthood, the authority behind his resurrection and his ascension to the
throne of God.
The absence of a name in the introduction of Hebrews
unlike other Pauline letters raises a lot of questions of whether Paul was
really the author and if so why he did not introduce himself. The argument that
he was addressing Jews to whom he wanted to remain anonymous should be
dismissed because a name is what gives a letter authority.
The letter strongly appears to have been addressed
to the Gentile Christians and to a laser extend the Jewish Christians exhorting
them on the dangers of falling into apostasy. Christ is revealed as the
universal righteous high priest better than the Aaronic prone to sin.
Backsliding was tantamount to crucifying Christ again.
References
Brown, R.E 2004. An Introduction to the New
Testament. Bangalore: Theological Publication in India.
Bruce F.F 1990. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Revised.
Grand Rapids: Wn. B. Eerdmans Publishing House.
Carson, D.A, Moo, D.J & Morris. 1992. An
Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
Guthrie, D. 1988. The letter to the Hebrews. An
Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: Intervarsity Press.
Hewitt. T. 1960. Hebrews. An introduction and Commentary.
Leicester: Intervarsity Press.
No comments: