AUTHOR
AUTHOR
In the earliest text of Hebrews that has come down to us—p 46 (early third century)— this epistle is placed in the Pauline corpus, right after Romans. 12 This undoubtedly 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 quite remarkable. Doubtless because of similarities between the Greek 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 (H.E. 6.14.2). Clement explains the lack of a Pauline superscription by saying that Paul was writing for Hebrews who had formed strong biases against him, and therefore he prudently left his name off. Although Origen insists that the content of Hebrews is not inferior to what is found in Paul’s acknowledged 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 others Clement of Rome, but Origen himself refuses to speculate: "But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows” (H.E. 6.25.14).
In the Western church, Pauline authorship was resisted until the latter half of the fourth century. The Muratorian Canon, Ireneus, and Hippolytus of Rome all agree that Paul was not the author. But the only alternative suggestion is that of Tertullian (in the second century). He insists that Hebrews has more authority than the Shepherd of Hermas, owing to the eminence of its author, whom he identifies as Barnabas, as if he is making an ascription that is commonly agreed in his circles (On Modesty 20). When Eusebius wrote (c. 325), many in Rome still did not consider Hebrews to be Pauline.
It was the combined opinion of Jerome and Augustine that shifted opinion in the West. Here it was not so much the weight of literary criticism that persuaded them as the fact that admission of a book to the canon was greatly helped by recognition of apostolic authorship. Both Jerome (Epistle 129.3) and Augustine (Forgiveness of Sins 1.50) refer to the prestigious opinion of the Eastern churches; the former acknowledges that many in the West still had doubts and says that it does not matter who the author really was, since the work is "honored daily by being read in the churches.” Despite such weighty support for Pauline authorship, Western synods initially preserved some distinction between Hebrews and the generally recognized Paulines. Both the Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Third Synod of Carthage (397) enumerate, "Of Paul the apostle, thirteen epistles; of the same to the Hebrews, one.” By the Sixth Synod of Carthage (419), fourteen epistles are ascribed to Paul. By and large, Pauline authorship is thereafter affirmed in the West, although even so, the most learned commentators raise caveats. Thus Thomas Aquinas affirms that Luke translated the epistle into excellent Greek. 13
Not until the Reformation questioned countless ancient traditions was this one submitted to forceful reexamination. Calvin (on Heb. 13:23) argued for Clement of
Rome or Luke as the author; Luther proposed (for the first time, so far as we know) Apollos. The (Roman Catholic) Council of Trent responded by insisting there are fourteen Pauline epistles—though few Catholic scholars would espouse that view today.
The last major defense of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews was written more than half a century ago. 14 Today virtually no one would repeat the effort. Quite apart from the differences in vocabulary, Greek style, and rhetoric, which cannot of themselves disprove Pauline authorship but certainly 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, numerous common 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” (Heb. 2:3; cf. Gal. 1:1112).
Neither Luke nor Clement of Rome draws many votes today. The points of connection between Luke and Hebrews are too slight to support a theory of common authorship. Clement of Rome must be dismissed as a likely candidate, not only because he appears to quote Hebrews in several places (though doubtless one could argue that he is quoting his own work!), but especially because his treatment of several themes is so widely removed from the approach of Hebrews. For example, he chooses to buttress his arguments about the nature of the church’s ministry by appealing to the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament—a stance utterly at variance with the arguments of Hebrews.
At least in the case of Paul, Luke, and Clement of Rome, there are some extant writings that can be compared with the epistle to the Hebrews. Evidence in support of other writers is entirely circumstantial, since no undisputed document from their pens has come down to us. There are four principal options.
1. Those who suggest Barnabas is the author point out that he was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36) and therefore a member of the Hellenist party in the Jerusalem church. 15 On this ground, it is suggested he may have shared the antitemple perspectives of Stephen (Acts 7:48-50). For a time he was a close collaborator of Paul (Acts 9:27; 11:30; 13:1-14:28), and since he was called υιός παρακλήσεως (huios parakleseos, "Son of Encouragement,” from υιός + παρακλήσις, G5626 + G4155 Acts 4:36), it is entirely appropriate that he should write [τόν λόγον] ([ton logon, from λόγος, G3364] τής παρακλήσεως tes paraklesos, a "word of exhortation,” Heb. 13:22).
But παρακλήσις (paraklesis, "encouragement” or "exhortation”) is sufficiently common in the New Testament that it cannot be restricted to an association with only one person. The epistle to the Hebrews is not so much antitemple as interested in demonstrating the obsolescence in principle of the biblical cultus. That Barnabas was a Hellenistic Jew makes him at least potentially qualified to write a Christian book so deeply interacting with the LXX but hardly identifies him as the author.
2. Luther’s suggestion of Apollos has gathered a fair bit of support. 16 He is described as ανήρ λόγίός (anerlogios, "a learned man”—more probably, "an eloquent man”, G467 + G3360) with "a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24). 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.
But although Luther’s suggestion is a brilliant guess, there is insufficient evidence to make it testable. Moreover, many have pointed out that although Hebrews shares some important vocabulary with Philo, the basic elements of his thought are far removed from the neoplatonism and Stoicism that undergird so much of Philo. 17 Of course, Apollos may have transformed the categories in which he was trained as he improved his knowledge of the Christian way. But this is to pile speculation on speculation.
3. From the time of Harnack, a number of scholars have suggested that Priscilla is the author, perhaps in conjunction with her husband Aquila in the minor role. 18That might account for the interchange between "we” and "I” in the book (the former is more common). They were sufficiently informed that they undertook the teaching of Apollos (Acts 18:26), and they must have known Timothy (see Heb. 13:23), since, like them, he worked with Paul in Corinth and Ephesus (Acts 18:5; 19:22; 1 Cor. 16:10, 19). The disappearance of the author’s name might then be accounted for by appealing to antifeminist tendencies in the church. Once again, however, there is too little evidence to support the thesis. Above all, this theory seems to be ruled out by the self-reference in the masculine singular in Heb. 11:32.
4. Similar objections can be raised against theories that advance as the author of this book Silas, Timothy, Epaphras, the deacon Philip, or Mary the mother of Jesus.
It is far better to admit our ignorance. We do not know who wrote it; almost certainly the first readers did. In all likelihood the author was a Hellenistic Jew who had become a Christian, a second-generation believer (Heb. 2:3). He was steeped in the LXX (none of his numerous quotations from the Old Testament depends on the Hebrew) and, judging by his excellent vocabulary and Greek style, had enjoyed a good education.