Letter to the Hebrews (Part Fifteen)

Part Fifteen of the New Testament Survey Series

Khen Lim





Paul (Image source: ecotopia.org)

Within the context of the New Testament, much is made about Paul’s letter to the Hebrews that in terms of sheer importance, this towering piece of work is, to some, second only to his letter to the Romans. The overriding theme in this letter is its Christology for here, Paul has brought Christ into very sharp focus for the reader.

That He is the high priest, superior to the Aaronic priesthood and is the ultimate fulfilment of both the Law and the Prophets. This letter doesn’t only introduces the greatness of Christ but it also reaffirms and amplifies Him as the Author and Perfector of the Christian faith (12:2).

As brilliant as this piece of work is, the question of authorship rears its ugly head once more. The avid reader of the Bible may notice that the title, “To the Hebrews” that is found at the beginning was never there in the first place. The appendage is, in fact, an afterthought that somehow ‘found’ its way into the letter.

Some have actually asked if this is, in fact, a letter and perhaps in the finest of Pauline traditions, it may not be because there is nothing resembling a salutation that we’ve been familiar with. In fact, this ‘letter’ dives straight into no-frills Christology to assert that Jesus, the Son of God, appeared, had atoned for our sins and is now seated at the right hand of God in heaven (1:1-4).

On the other hand, we may observe some Pauline-style letter-writing towards the end where verse 13:25 shows the words, “Grace be with you.” We must remember that these words are also found in the following of Paul’s other letters:

Romans	16:20	First Corinthians	16:32
Galatians	6:18	Second Corinthians	13:14
Ephesians	6:24	Philippians	4:23
Colossians	4:18	First Timothy	6:21
First Thessalonians	5:28	Second Timothy	4:22
Second Thessalonians	3:18	Titus	3:15
Philemon	25

However we must also be aware that Peter uses something similar in his letters as well (1 Pet 5:14, 2 Pet 3:18). Because of this, we could surmise that such a written greeting may be a common tradition back then and if it is, then we still don’t know if Paul is the actual author of the letter.

Perhaps we should do the obvious and ask the question how this piece of work had become an early candidate for canonisation by the Early Church Fathers. If they had deemed fit to accept that Paul is the author, why the argument today? The Early Church Fathers would have sensed the immense apostolic stature and considered it an automatic choice for inclusion in the Holy Scripture.



Tertullian (Image source: crossroadsinitiative.com)

Even so, there appeared to be a disagreement – while the Eastern Orthodox churches found no difficulties recognising and accepting the work, Western churches struggled, which was when we first noted authorship questions raised by authorities like Tertullian.

These struggles might have had endured through the centuries but much of the dissension had quelled and Paul was, for better or worse, accepted if grudgingly. After a period of quietening, questions again began to surface by the nineteenth century till today where modern biblical scholars have continued the pursuit of doubting the authorship claims of the Early Church Fathers. So what are these doubts? Let us look at some of the more legitimate ones:

-         Lack of proper identification

Other than lacking a proper Pauline salutation, Paul actually does not identify himself anywhere in the letter.

Defenders of Paul may admit that he doesn’t habitually write anonymously but in this case, he might have deliberately done so because he was addressing this letter to Hellenistic Jews and he obviously, being so unpopular, did not want to be visible to them.

-         Questionable literary artistry

Some scholars claim that such a sophisticated writing style and layout does not match someone like Paul. Although many acknowledge that the apostle isn’t exactly unskilled, they maintain that even for someone as educated as he, this premium level Greek could well be beyond his grasp.

We don’t really know enough of the background behind this letter but there is a possibility that Paul might have originally composed the letter in Hebrew and then, by his own authority, had it translated to Greek by someone far more adept. That ‘someone’ could be either Luke or Timothy, for we should be aware that both of these were not only Paul’s friends but they have excellent Hellenistic penmanship.

An interesting but possibly relevant note may be found in 1 Cor 1:17 (also 2:1, 2 Cor 11:6) where Paul had intentionally set out not to speak with a “commanding vocabulary.” We may take this to mean that he could have adopted a style that was most unlike his normal self.

-         References that are unlike Paul

Some scholars like to point out that the frequent references to the Septuagint (LXX) is something unfashionable for Paul to do simply because he doesn’t do this. Being a Pharisee by tutelage, Paul would have been more familiar with Scripture that is in his own mother tongue.

In fact he has demonstrated this with some of his other letters where he draws references or paraphrases to the Old Testament using Masoretic Text instead of the Septuagint.

But with this letter, Paul was addressing Diaspora Jews who were likelier to favour Greek. And if he was doing this in Rome, then the use of the Septuagint not only made a lot of sense but in deference to the Masoretic Text, this would also be very possible indeed.

-         Conflicting claims

While we are aware of Paul’s claims that his revelations came directly from Jesus (1 Cor 11:23, Gal 1:12), verse 2:3 says that he was taught by an apostle instead. This conflict is impossible to ignore and justifiably so.

That would all be correct unless the writer was an amanuensis, a literary assistant who takes dictation or copies manuscripts. If this is true, then the seemingly conflicting claim (of being taught by an apostle) would be very easy to accept.

The question now should be, if Paul isn’t the author of this letter, who then is?

It seems that depending on who you ask, the candidates can vary fairly dramatically. Some have proposed Barnabas, saying that as a close friend and occasional mentor to Paul, he could easily qualify. Being also a Levite, Barnabas’ authority over the Old Testament would have allowed him to speak effortlessly on the subject so close to his heart.



Priscilla (Image source: bbc.com)

Some others have suggested Priscilla. A few others ventured to propose Clement of Rome. Ask Martin Luther and he’d thought Apollos could be a good bet because he was apparently eloquent and educated enough to write in such an exceptionally sophisticated way.

We also know that some don’t believe this is a letter (or epistle) but instead a compilation of sermons that were put together by Paul for a Hellenistic Jewish audience and as such, he wrote it in Hebrew and then instructed either Luke or Timothy to translate it into Greek. And so it goes on and on.

And after all of that, Paul might end up being the original writer especially when we take note of verse 2 Pet 3:15 in Peter’s second letter where the latter wrote the Jews saying, “…even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you.” That is another way of saying that Paul did write “something” to the Hebrews and that “something” might well be this very contentious letter!

Buried in all this perplexity about authorship, let us not lose sight of the towering theology that is typically Paul, reverberating through verses 4:2, 6:12, 10:19-22, 10:37-39 and 11:1-40. These verses are signature evidence of salvation by faith and they are most patently Paul’s unique trademark.

Therefore some of us feel that either Paul himself wrote it or he had commissioned someone who he had masterfully trained to write in such an exceptional but strongly Pauline manner.

Again, we return to the same question – who is the author?

There is no denying that both sides offer convincing arguments (and counter-arguments). It is so evenly argued that it remains too difficult to say if it is indeed Paul or otherwise. But one thing is clear – there is no doubting that this letter is an invaluable and integral part of Scripture because it fleshes out our faith and defines it using principle values of Christian living, that only Paul’s letter to the Romans comes close to matching.

And so in the end, we may never have a convincing answer either way. For as long as we live, we are never going to find out but then, why should we care? Why be so concerned about who wrote it and not retrain our focus on what the contents tell us? Wouldn’t the contents be more important than the author of the letter? For that matter, who cares if it is actually a letter or a compilation of different sermons put together?

This letter to the Hebrews – and we are still going to presume Paul is the author – is an indispensably important part of the Holy Bible. It will never be seen in any other way. It is a validated and fully canonised element of our Holy Scripture and in that very sense, who we identify as the mortal author is not as important as the realisation that these are words inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16-17).

If we are to look at it from this standpoint, then should we not be in awe of a divine author instead? Should we not point to Him as He is for all of Scripture not just our Creator but also the ultimate Writer behind all mortal writers?

Part Sixteen (The Pastoral Epistles of First and Second Timothy and also, Titus) will be available on March 23 2016