Λ Superior Book: Hebrews Gerald L. Borchert

The book of Hebrews is one of the great theological treasures of the Chris­ tian faith. Yet it raises issues that have caused Christians for centuries to wonder about its place and function in the Christian canon. Indeed, some early canonical lists like the Muratorian Canon and Marcion's expurgated Apostoli- kon completely omitted any reference to Hebrews. As an introductory article for the Review and Expositor's annual January Bible Study issue, this article will deal with issues such as authorship, dating, recipients, unity and structural matters, together with statements concerning the book's nature and purpose. A summary of the book has also been included to assist the reader in integrating the study of Hebrews and developing a theology for the book. It would be an understatement to say that the book of Hebrews has been involved in disputes with respect to some of its aspects. Few matters of He­ brews have been untouched by debate. It is important to add that these con­ cerns are by no means insignificant in shaping our interpretations and our preaching and teaching. It is likewise significant to note that because of the multitude of difficulties with Hebrews many preachers and teachers in South­ ern Baptist ranks avoid the book like the plague, except for a few well-chosen texts primarily in chapters 1, 11, and 12. For all practical purposes, however, many have followed the lead of Luther in relegating Hebrews to the non- working section of their canons.1 It is with some hope of reversing this unfortu­ nate tendency that I welcomed the opportunity to edit this issue and write the introductory article. My first existential encounter with teaching Hebrews goes back over a quarter of a century to the days of my graduate studies at Princeton, when having come fresh from a course in reading the Pauline epistles and Hebrews in Greek in one quarter, I made the statement to a Sunday School class: "After reading Paul and Hebrews in Greek, it was obvious to me that Paul did not write Hebrews." An elderly deacon who was a prominent engineer with RCA but who could read no Greek responded: "After reading my King James Bible, I'm convinced that Paul did write Hebrews." I thank God that he gave me the wisdom at that point not to try to fight that issue, because by the time we finished the study I had gained a friend who had learned something of the magnificence of Hebrews. The reason I tell this poor little story in such a

319 respectable periodical is because I believe it says something about Hebrews that every teacher and preacher ought to understand. Matters related to He­ brews can very easily polarize people, and the great message of the book gets lost in our arguments! If we could excise from church history the arguments over Genesis, Jonah, Hebrews, and the Revelation, our history might be quite different. We, as Christians, need to discuss issues without attacking our brothers and sisters in Christ. The lesson of Hebrews may be that we do not all need to be clones to listen to the messages of the Bible. With this attitude in mind, I turn to the issues of Hebrews, recognizing that there are differences of opinion. Indeed, it is interesting that in the matter of authorship there is, even in this edition of the Review and Expositor, a slight difference of opinion between the various au­ thors.

Authorship The issue of the authorship of Hebrews is not a new one. There is not a preserved hint at who wrote the book until the late second century. Then, there seems to be a major difference of opinion in the Eastern and Western Church traditions. In the East, Eusebius suggests that Pantaenus considered Paul to be the writer.2 Pantaenus' follower, Clement of Alexandria, regarded the book to have been written originally in Hebrew. Moreover, he suggests that Luke was proba­ bly the translator who put the work into the Greek tongue.3 Origen, however, was not quite so sure about the authorship question. While he viewed the book as probably having been written by a Pauline disciple, his famous dictum has sounded down through the corridors of history: tis ho grapsas tën epistolëh, to men atëthes theos oiden ("who wrote the epistle, God knows for sure!").4 In the West, the early opinion among such stalwart heresiologs as Irenaeus and Hippolytus seems to have been a denial of Pauline authorship. There followed for many a corresponding refusal to recognize the place of Hebrews in the canon. This fact explains its omission from the Muratorian Canon and other Western lists like the later African Canon. Even in the time of Eusebius, Rome still did not recognize the book as Pauline. Indeed, if one looks for early specific references to authorship in the West, Tertullian comes immediately to mind and he thinks Hebrews was written by Barnabas, one whom he says is a deo satis auctoritati viri (a sufficiently authoritative man from God).5 But while Tertul­ lian recognized the role of Barnabas in Hebrews, he did not seem prepared to give canonical status to the book. This uneasy situation changed about the middle of the fourth century. Then, the West generally adopted the Eastern view that the book is to be viewed as canonical and Pauline. Nevertheless, Hilary does not specifically mention that it was written by Paul, and Jerome warns about a sense of the book's

320 A Superior Book: Hebrews Review and Expositor unsettled history.6 But after Augustine the canonicity of Hebrews and its Pauline authorship remained pretty much undisputed during the next thousand years.7 With the dawn of the Reformation, however, haunting questions resurfaced as Erasmus and others tried to deal with the concerns of Jerome. Luther added fire to these views for theological reasons. He detested the theology of Hebrews 6:4ff. and the idea of the impossibility of repentance. Therefore, he relegated Hebrews along with James, the Revelation, and Jude to a later and lesser authoritative section of the canon. Moreover, he suggested that Apollos, the articulate Alexandrian, probably wrote the book.8 Luther's hero, Paul, could never have written such words. Calvin, Melanchthon, and the Geneva school joined Luther in opposing Pauline authorship. Historically and theologically, the theory of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews received a blow in the era of the rebirth of learning. The Counter-Reformation and the Council of TVent tried to use whatever conservative power might be available in stopping the reformers. Thus, the Catholic hierarchy declared Paul's authorship of Hebrews was fixed.9 TVadition was thus matched against the new venturesome spirit of learning in the Church, and Hebrews became a part of that battle. It is intriguing to note how those battles continue today and the place of Hebrews in them. But who wrote Hebrews? Was it Paul? Even first-class conservative schol­ arship today answers: Not likely!10 The style and perspective is hardly Paul's; the Greek is hardly Paul's; and the theology is not quite Paul's. Certainly, Hebrews has verbal similarities to Paul, but there are striking theological differences such as different twists of meaning on faith, on law, on soteriology, on flesh and spirit, on covenant, and on priesthood. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on the resurrection seems telling. Paul is an apostle of the resurrec­ tion. Such is not the emphasis of Hebrews. Then, if it was not Paul, who wrote Hebrews? It may have come from a context where Paul's influence had been felt, and it may have been written by someone who had associations with Paul. Such a thesis seems to explain the perspective of Hebrews 2:3—namely, that the writer seems to be one generation removed from those who encountered Jesus directly. I believe Paul would never have written such a statement for it runs directly in the face of the claims he makes in letters which we know he wrote (cf. Gal. 1:12; lCor.9:l; 15:8-11; 2Cor. 12:1; and the many references to imitation).11 To sum up the situation, then, the possibilities for associates of Paul who might have written Hebrews may be numerous, but those usually mentioned are Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, and Clem­ ent. To a brief review of the possibilities attention is now turned. One suggestion is Luke. As indicated above, Luke's name was linked with Hebrews as early as Clement of Alexandria. His suggestion, however, was not that Luke was the author, but the translator. Those who have taken the position 321 of Lucan authorship seem to have been influenced primarily by some stylistic and linguistic connections and also by the fact that Luke does use some of the motifs which appear in Hebrews, motifs such as divine communication through angels and the importance of Abraham and Israelite history.12 Yet it seems on balance that Hebrews is far more Jewish in background than either Luke's gospel or Acts. Another possibility is Tertulliano suggestion of Barnabas. The fact that Barnabas was a Lévite certainly would argue strongly for a connection with the concerns of Hebrews.13 But the question remains whether a Cypriot Jew would develop a writing style closely akin to the Alexandrian writers. It is, of course, not impossible because Philo and other Alexandrian writings were known on the island. It is also interesting to speculate about the relationship of Hebrews to the later Epistle of Barnabas. B. E Westcott argued some time ago that Hebrews may be the epistle mentioned in Claromontanus in connection with Barnabas because the length of lines mentioned in that listing conforms more to Hebrews than to the Epistle of Barnabas. Interestingly, both deal with some­ what similar motifs, though the later work is very marginal when compared with the magnificent book of Hebrews. Moreover, as Kirsopp Lake observed, the attributing of the Epistle of Barnabas to Paul's associate is definitely secondary.14 Could it be, then, that as the arguments for canonicity developed, clerics attributed a work of Barnabas to Paul for the purpose of guaranteeing its acceptance in the canon and then in parallel fashion attributed to a lesser work the name of Barnabas so that his tradition would be preserved? The question, of course, remains at this point unanswerable, but it is nonetheless very interest­ ing. Another possibility is Luther's suggestion of Apollos. The major problem with this view is that it seems to lack any sense of antiquity and, although James Moffatt argues that it antedates Luther, I have the feeling that it is a construct of the last five hundred years.15 Nevertheless, if one is to conjecture about who wrote Hebrews, it would be difficult to propose a finer candidate. Apollos, as Hugh Montefiore has shown, fits an Alexandrian background and his reported eloquence suits the magnificent style of Hebrews (Acts 18:24).16 His familiarity with Paul's companions like Timothy would explain the refer­ ence in Hebrews 13:23. Moreover, his obvious Greek background would explain the fact that the Septuagint (or Greek Old Testament) rather than the Hebrew Old Testament seems to stand behind the book of Hebrews.17 The proposal is inviting, but it also remains a proposal. The argument of Ceslaus Spicq that the author was a Philonic convert to Christianity seems less likely. Spicq thought that Hebrews so closely paralleled the thinking of Philo that the author was probably a personal student of the famous Hellenistic Jewish scholar.18 Ronald Williamson, however, in his disser­ tation, went head to head with Spicq on this issue and closed the door on anything more than superficial verbal similarity between Philo and Hebrews.19 322 ^s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.