The Books of the New Testament

by Leighton Pullan

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

[Sidenote: The Author.]

The question of the authorship of this Epistle is one of the most fascinating problems raised by the criticism of the New Testament. It does not in the least involve any charge of forgery, such as is involved in a consideration of St. John's Gospel or of St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Nor does it involve the fact of an author absorbing the work of a previous writer, such as we find in the case of St. Luke. The work is one complete and original composition of great finish and perfection, and yet this perfect work contains hardly a hint as to its author. The title which is placed above it in our Bibles deserves serious consideration, as it represents an opinion which was held in many parts of Christendom in the 4th century, and in some parts of Christendom even in the 2nd century. But it by no means represents the universal judgment of the Church, and is contradicted by good evidence, both external and internal. A remarkable divergence of opinion on the subject existed between the Churches of the east and those of the west.

Alexandria appears to have been the first centre of the belief that this Epistle was written by St. Paul. We find that about A.D. 170, Pantaenus, the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria, attributed it to St. Paul. His successor Clement agrees with this, but states that it was written in Hebrew and translated by St. Luke into Greek—a statement which implies that scholars were conscious that the style of Hebrews is not {209} the style ordinarily used by St. Paul. In A.D. 240, Origen, the successor of Clement, defends the Pauline authorship—a defence which shows that the authorship was disputed. In A.D. 245 Origen had learnt to doubt the validity of his former defence, and states that the writer was a disciple of Paul, but "who wrote the Epistle God only knows." In A.D. 269 the famous heretic Paul of Samosata quoted Hebrews as the work of St. Paul in a letter read at the Synod of Antioch which deposed him from his bishopric. Early in the next century Eusebius quotes the Epistle as by St. Paul, but he shows the same perplexity as Clement of Alexandria, for he thinks that it was translated from the Hebrew, possibly by Clement of Rome. After the time of Eusebius the Greek Fathers all ascribe it to St. Paul. We can therefore sum up the evidence of the Greek Churches by saying that though it mostly favours one theory, it is not so cogent as to remove all our suspicions.

Moreover, the complete absence of references to this Epistle in the extant writings of Irenaeus[1] almost compels us to ask if the Greek Churches of Southern Gaul and Asia Minor regarded this Epistle as Pauline. Irenaeus might naturally omit to quote a short and comparatively unimportant Epistle, but his omission of a long Epistle, well adapted to his arguments, inclines us to place him in a rank opposite to his contemporary, Clement of Alexandria. A Greek writer of the 6th century actually says that Irenaeus, in a passage now lost, denied that St. Paul wrote the Epistle.[2]

The Latin Churches of the west seem to have been for three centuries under the conviction that this Epistle was not by St. Paul. It is quoted by Clement of Rome, A.D. 95, a fact which {210} alone is sufficient to prove its early date and its sacred character. But Clement makes no statement as to its authorship. Caius of Rome, A.D. 200, excludes it from the list of St. Paul's Epistles, and the same hesitation with regard to it existed in the great Latin-speaking Church of Carthage. St. Cyprian, A.D. 250, does not include Hebrews among St. Paul's Epistles. No Latin Father attributes it to St. Paul before Hilary of Poictiers in A.D. 368, and Hilary was in close contact with the East. At the end of the 4th century St. Jerome shows distinct hesitation in attributing it to St. Paul, and it was not commonly attributed to him in the west until the time of St. Augustine, who died in 432.

Internal evidence agrees with the external evidence in making it very difficult for us to believe that St. Paul wrote Hebrews.

(1) The Greek is more elegant than that of St. Paul's Epistles. The styles are widely different. That of St. Paul is abrupt and vehement like a mountain-torrent, that of Hebrews is calm and smooth like a river running through a meadow.

(2) The quotations are very unlike St. Paul's. They are all from the Greek version of the Old Testament, with the exception of that in x. 30, which occurs in the same form in Rom. xii. 19. It had probably taken this shape in popular use. The quotations are introduced by phrases such as "God saith," or "the Holy Spirit saith." But St. Paul often shows a knowledge of the Hebrew when he makes quotations, and he uses such phrases as "it is written," or "the Scripture saith," or "Moses saith."

(3) There is no salutation such as is usual in St. Paul's Epistles.