<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</SPAN></span></p>
<h2>LESSON XXXIII</h2>
<h3>JESUS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</h3>
<h4>The Epistle to the Hebrews</h4>
<h5>1. PAUL NOT THE AUTHOR</h5>
<p>(<strong>1</strong>) <strong>The Tradition.</strong>—At Alexandria in the latter part of the second
century Paul was thought to be the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews; but in North Africa a little later Tertullian attributed the
epistle to Barnabas, and in other portions of the Church the Pauline
authorship was certainly not accepted. In the west, the Pauline
authorship was long denied and the inclusion of the epistle in the
New Testament resisted. At last the Alexandrian view won universal
acceptance. The Epistle to the Hebrews became an
accepted part of the New Testament, and was attributed to Paul.</p>
<p>Clement of Alexandria, who had apparently received the tradition
of Pauline authorship from Pantænus, his predecessor, himself
declares that Hebrews was written by Paul in the "Hebrew"
(Aramaic) language, and was translated by Luke into Greek.
The notion of a translation by Luke was based upon no genuine
historical tradition—Hebrews is certainly an original Greek work—but
was simply an hypothesis constructed to explain the peculiarities
of the epistle on the supposition that it was a work of Paul.</p>
<p>(<strong>2</strong>) <strong>The Value of the Tradition.</strong>—The tradition of Pauline authorship
is clearly very weak. If Paul had been the author, it is hard to
see why the memory of the fact should have been lost so generally in
the Church. No one in the early period had any objection to the
epistle; on the contrary it was very highly regarded. If, then, it
had really been written by Paul, the Pauline authorship would have
been accepted everywhere with avidity. The negative testimony of
the Roman church is particularly significant. The epistle was
quoted by Clement of Rome at about A. D. 95; yet at Rome as
elsewhere in the West the epistle seems never in the early period to
have been regarded as Pauline. In other words, just where acquaintance
with the epistle can be traced farthest back, the denial
of Pauline authorship seems to have been most insistent. If
Clement of Rome had regarded Paul as the author, the history of
Roman opinion about the epistle would have been very different.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[185]</SPAN></span></p>
<p>On the other hand, on the supposition that there was originally
no tradition of Pauline authorship, the subsequent prevalence of
such a tradition is easily explained. It was due simply to the
evident apostolic authority of the epistle itself. From the start, Hebrews
was felt to be an authoritative work. Being authoritative, it
would be collected along with other authoritative works. Since it
was an epistle, and exhibited a certain Pauline quality of spirit and
subject, it would naturally be associated with the other works of the
greatest letter writer of the apostolic age. Being thus included in a
collection of the Pauline Epistles, and being regarded as of apostolic
authority, what was more natural than to attribute it to the apostle
Paul? Such, very possibly, was the origin of the Alexandrian
tradition.</p>
<p>This tradition did not win immediate acceptance, because the
rest of the Church was still aware that the epistle was not written by
Paul. What led to the final conquest of the Pauline tradition was
simply the character of the book itself. The question of Pauline
authorship, in the case of this book, became connected with the
question of apostolic authority. The Church had to choose between
rejecting the book altogether, and accepting it as Pauline. When
she finally adopted the latter alternative, undoubtedly she chose the
lesser error. It was an error to regard the epistle as the work of
Paul; but it would have been a far greater error to exclude it from the
New Testament. As a matter of fact, though the book was not
written by Paul, it was written, if not by one of the other apostles, at
least by an "apostolic man" like Mark or Luke. Scarcely any book
of the New Testament bears clearer marks of true apostolicity.</p>
<p>(<strong>3</strong>) <strong>Internal Evidence.</strong>—The argument against Pauline authorship
which is derived from tradition is strongly supported by the contents
of the epistle itself. In the first place, it is exceedingly doubtful
whether Paul could have spoken of himself as having had the
Christian salvation confirmed to him by those who had heard the
Lord. Heb. 2:3. Knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus was
indeed conveyed to Paul by ordinary word of mouth from the eyewitnesses;
but the gospel itself, as he insists with vehemence in
Galatians, was revealed to him directly by Christ. In the second
place, the style of the epistle is very different from that of Paul,
being, as we shall see, far more carefully wrought. In the third
place, the thoughts developed in Hebrews, though undoubtedly they
are in perfect harmony with the Pauline Epistles, are by no means
characteristically Pauline. It is a little hard to understand, for<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[186]</SPAN></span>
example, how Paul could have written at such length about the law
without speaking of justification by faith or the reception of Gentiles
into the Church. This last argument, however, must not be exaggerated.
Undoubtedly Paul would have agreed heartily to
everything that Hebrews contains. Paul and the author of this
epistle have developed merely somewhat different sides of the same
great truth.</p>
<h5>2. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR?</h5>
<p>If Paul did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews, who did write it?
Prodigious labor has been expended upon this question, but with
very little result. In ancient times, Barnabas, Luke and Clement
of Rome, were each regarded as the author. Of these three views
the first is most probable; the second is exceedingly unlikely; and the
last is clearly impossible. Whoever wrote the epistle, Clement
certainly did not. The letter which we possess from his pen is immeasurably
inferior to the apostolic writings to which Hebrews
certainly belongs. Clement was a humble reader of Hebrews, not
the author of it. Luther was inclined to regard Apollos as the
possible author of Hebrews; and of all the many suggestions that
have been made, this is perhaps the best. Undoubtedly the circumstances
and training of Apollos were in a number of respects
like those which might naturally be attributed to the author of the
epistle. Apollos was closely associated with Paul, and perhaps at a
later time with others of the apostles, just as might be expected of
the author of an apostolic work such as Hebrews. On the other
hand, like the author of the epistle, he was not an eyewitness of the
life of Jesus. Compare Heb. 2:4. Like the author of the epistle
he was no doubt acquainted with Timothy. Compare ch. 13:23.
He was an "eloquent" or "learned" man, Acts 18:24, who might
well have produced the splendid rhetoric of the epistle. He was a
Jew and mighty in the Scriptures, as was also the author of Hebrews.
He was a native of Alexandria, the university city of the period, and
the seat of a large Jewish community, where just that combination
of Greek rhetorical training with Scriptural knowledge which is
exhibited in the epistle is most naturally to be sought.</p>
<p>These indications, however, can merely show that Apollos might
conceivably have written the epistle; they do not show that he did
write it. The authorship of this powerful work will always remain
uncertain. How little we know, after all, of the abounding life of
the apostolic Church!</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[187]</SPAN></span></p>
<h5>3. WHERE WERE THE READERS?</h5>
<p>In the Student's Text Book, it has been shown that the readers of
the epistle were probably members of some rather narrowly circumscribed
community. Where this community was is by no
means clear. The one indication of place which the epistle contains
is ambiguous. In ch. 13:24 it is said, "They of Italy salute you."
These words may mean that the author is in Italy and sends greetings
from the Christians of that country, or they may mean that the
author is outside of Italy and sends greetings from Italian Christians
who happened to be with him. In the latter case, probably the
readers were in Italy; for otherwise they would have no special
interest in the Italian Christians. All that we can say is then that
the epistle was probably written either from Italy or to Italy. If it
was written from Italy, then since the readers were Jews, it is natural
to seek them in Palestine. The Palestinian Christians were "Hebrews"
in the narrower, linguistic sense of the word, as well as in the
broader, national sense. The ancient heading of the epistle thus
comes to its full rights. On the other hand the Palestinian hypothesis
faces some rather grave difficulties. If the readers are to be
sought in Italy, then perhaps they formed a Jewish Christian community
in Rome or in some other Italian city. The question cannot
be settled with any certainty. The destination of the epistle is an
even greater riddle than the authorship.</p>
<h5>4. WHEN WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN?</h5>
<p>The Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written before A. D. 95,
for at about that time it was quoted by Clement of Rome. The
mention of Timothy in ch. 13:23 perhaps does not carry us much
farther, for Timothy, who was a grown man at about A. D. 50,
Acts 16:1-3, may have lived till the end of the first century. The
epistle, however, does not bear any of the marks of late origin. The
question of date is closely connected with the question whether in
the epistle the temple at Jerusalem is regarded as still standing.
This question cannot be settled with certainty. But on the whole the
continuance of the Levitical ceremonies seems to be assumed in the
epistle, and at any rate there is no clear reference to their cessation.
Probably therefore the Epistle to the Hebrews was written before the
destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.</p>
<h5>5. HEBREWS A LITERARY WORK</h5>
<p>The Epistle to the Hebrews is a product of conscious literary art.<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[188]</SPAN></span>
The rhetoric of Paul is unconscious; even such passages as the first
few chapters of First Corinthians or the eighth chapter of Romans
may have been composed with the utmost rapidity. The author of
Hebrews probably went differently to work. Such sentences as
Heb. 1:1-4, even in an inspired writer, can only be the result of
diligent labor. By long practice the writer of Hebrews had acquired
that feeling for rhythm and balance of phrase, that facility in the
construction of smooth-flowing periods, which give to his epistle its
distinctive quality among the New Testament books. Greek
rhetoric of the Hellenistic age, freed from its hollow artificiality, is
here laid under contribution for the Saviour's praise.</p>
<p>The presence of such a book in the New Testament is highly
salutary. Devout Christians in their enthusiasm for the simplicity
of the gospel are sometimes in danger of becoming one-sided. They
are sometimes inclined to confuse simplicity with ugliness, and then
to prize ugliness for its own sake. It is perfectly true that the
value of the gospel is quite independent of æsthetic niceties, and that
the language of the New Testament is for the most part very simple.
But it is not true that the simplicity of the New Testament has anything
in common with the bad taste of some modern phraseology,
or that eloquence is of itself evil. The Epistle to the Hebrews
shows by a noble example that there is such a thing as Christian art.
The majestic sentences of this ancient masterpiece, with their
exquisite clearness and liturgic rhythm and uplifting power, have
contributed inestimably to the Christian conception of the Saviour.
The art of Hebrews is not art for art's sake, but art for the sake of
Christ. Literary perfection is here combined with profound
genuineness and apostolic fervor; art is here ennobled by consecration.</p>
<hr class="tb" />
<p><span class="smcap">In the Library.</span>—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"
pp. 164, 165, 265-267, 286-289. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible":
Purves, article on "Hebrews, Epistle to the." M'Clymont, "The New
Testament and Its Writers," pp. 116-122. Ellicott, "A New Testament
Commentary for English Readers," vol. iii, pp. 275-348: Moulton,
"The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." Westcott, "The
Epistle to the Hebrews." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament,"
vol. ii, pp. 293-366. The two last-named works are intended
primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be
used by others.</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.