Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and appealed to the authority of the "blessed presbyter," probably meaning Pantænus, as an earlier sponsor for its Pauline authorship and apostolic character. To this opinion Origen somewhat dubiously subscribed (H.E. 6:25); at all events he constantly quotes Hebrews as Paul's. and once at least professes himself ready to prove it his, although elsewhere he adopts a different tone. The verdict of Alexandria naturally carried great weight. Dionysius, Theognostus, and Peter Martyr maintained it at Alexandria in the third century; Methodius of Tyre probably accepted it; it gradually pervaded the east, and ultimately influenced even the west to accept Hebrews as Pauline, apostolic, and canonical.

We have reached the time of Eusebius, whose situation in Palestine naturally subjected him to Alexandrian influence. He accepts fourteen epistles of Paul, only pausing to note that the Roman church disputes Hebrews as not having been written by Paul. The canon reached its present limits with the festal letter of Athanasius (A.D. 367), in which Hebrews stands triumphant, fortified now by two centuries of distinguished Alexandrian tradition. Jerome's feeble protest, "The custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical scriptures as St. Paul's," is the last serious expression of Roman disapproval. Isidore of Seville (died 636), it is true, mentions the doubt felt by many Latin Christians as to its authorship, but probably only echoes the language of Eusebius and Jerome.

The century of Eusebius and Athanasius was that of our earliest manuscripts, and the presence of Hebrews among the letters of Paul in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus clearly shows the position the epistle had gained. If, as Hort somewhat improbably surmised, they were written in Rome about the middle of the fourth century, their inclusion of Hebrews among the letters of Paul is an evidence of the acquiescence of the Roman Christians in the established Alexandrian opinion.

III. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE

I. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AS TO AUTHORSHIP

At Alexandria the opinion prevailed from early times that Paul wrote Hebrews. Clement of Alexandria held this view, and professed to derive it from his teacher, Pantænus. Origen, indeed, expressed some doubt about it, but later Alexandrians held to its Pauline authorship, and eventually influenced the whole eastern church to accept it. At Rome, where the epistle is first quoted (Clement of Rome), and to which it was probably written, there is very little testimony as to its author. The Pauline authorship claimed for the epistle by the Alexandrians found little favor there. Novatian, a father of the third century, quotes Heb. 13: 15 as from the most holy Barnabas, but this opinion is otherwise unattested at Rome. Jerome, indeed, knew of it, but preferred the Alexandrian view that Paul was its author, although he was by no means certain of its truth. At Carthage, Tertullian quotes Hebrews as a work of Barnabas (De Pudicitia, 20). Cyprian and other early North African witnesses agree in not referring Hebrews to Paul, although they are silent about Barnabas. Augustine, on the other hand, includes it among Paul's letters, and the Council of Hippo, at which he was present (A.D. 393), acknowledged it as Paul's. By this time the Alexandrian opinion, long since prevalent in the east, had begun to influence the west as well, as Augustine declares.

The ancient testimony of Christian writers as to the authorship of Hebrews is thus inconsistent and the testimony of the epistle itself takes on added importance.

2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS TO AUTHORSHIP

A. Direct. The letter does not name its author in an opening salutation, as most ancient letters do, nor does his name appear in the course of the letter, as Paul's some

times does (1 Thess. 2: 18; 2 Thess. 3: 17, etc.). We are thus thrown back upon the indirect evidence afforded by the epistle, for the means to criticise the ancient testimonies, and if possible reach a conclusion.

B. Indirect. Upon examination, the epistle itself yields a considerable mass of evidence, bearing upon its author. The writer speaks as a Jew, the fathers, the prophets, angels (11-4); Moses, the elders (11:2). He makes free and confident use of the Jewish scriptures, quoting from them about one hundred times, and using them in the Septuagint form of text and canon. He refers to the Psalms as "David" (4: 7), and like Paul, shares the Jewish belief that the old covenant was communicated to men through angels (2: 2. Cf. Gal. 3: 19).

He does not, indeed, argue in the style of rabbinic Judaism, but rather after the manner of academic, philosophic Judaism; at some points resembling Philo, though never going to such lengths as he in the allegorizing of the Old Testament. Thus the tabernacle and its service are a copy and shadow of heavenly realities (8:5; 9:23); Melchizedek possesses an ulterior significance (7 1-3),

etc.

His knowledge of Judaism does not always seem to be accurate, for he once speaks as though the high-priest had daily to offer sacrifices for his own and the people's sins (7:27; but cf. 9: 7 and 25, where a different representation appears). Further, he places the altar of incense within the Most Holy Place (9: 4).

He is plainly a Christian Jew, as every page of his epistle shows. His Christianity is not of the Judaistic type, however, for he regards Judaism as but the shadow and copy of the heavenly realities actualized in Christ (9:23; 10:9). He shares Paul's conception of the futility of the Law, but finds beauty and value in it, as prefiguring, however imperfectly, the new and better covenant (10: 1). He resembles Philo also in that his interest is never in a concrete, actual, contemporary temple, service, and priesthood, but

only in the ideal, statutory Judaism of the tabernacle and the wilderness.

He is a master of Greek style, finished, periodic, and antithetical, standing conspicuous among New Testament writers in this regard. In the wealth and weight of his theological vocabulary, he seems a fully trained exponent of the Jewish Alexandrian school. Like his readers, he is not of those who heard the Lord teach on earth, but has received the message of salvation through such persons (2:3).

He shows acquaintance with the epistles of Paul, or at least with Paul's teaching (2:8, 9), with some elements of which he is in essential sympathy. He is no mere Paulinist however, but a Christian thinker of originality and distinction, exhibiting a type of Christian thought comparable in individuality with the Pauline, the Synoptic, and the Johannine.

He speaks with authority and severity to his readers (5:11), with whose virtues and shortcomings he is thoroughly acquainted (6: 10). He knows the persecution through which they have passed (10:32, 35-39), as well as their present perilous position. He hopes to be speedily reunited with them; that is, at Rome (13: 19). He knows Timothy, and reports his release from prison, announcing his purpose to join him and them. He is apparently outside of Italy when he writes the letter (13: 24).

3. MODERN OPINION

Luther proposed Apollos as the person in the early church most likely to have written Hebrews, and some scholars of ability (Bleek, Tholuck, Alford, Kurtz, Farrar) have accepted his view. Paul has been the chief claimant put forward in modern as in ancient times, but it is doubtful whether any scholar of weight at present assigns the epistle to him. Ullmann, Wieseler, Renan, Ritschl, Weiss, and McGiffert incline to Barnabas. Luke has been urged by

some (Delitzsch), and Mark by others (Lowndes), despite the contrast presented by the style and substance of their acknowledged works. Harnack has recently proposed Prisca, or Prisca and Aquila, presenting a strong array of considerations. Many scholars pronounce the problem insoluble, taking refuge in the dictum of Origen, "Who indeed wrote the epistle God knows."

4. CONCLUSION

If we now seek to test the ancient opinions as to the authorship of Hebrews by the internal evidence of the epistle, the claim of Paul has first to be considered. For this may be urged, first, the testimony of Pantænus, Clement, and later Alexandrians, ultimately accepted by the whole church, eastern and western. Against it stands the silence of the Roman church for more than two centuries, broken only by Novatian's mention of Barnabas. Tested by the internal evidence of the epistle, the Pauline authorship is negatived by the un-Pauline anonymity of the epistle, though this may be an accident; it is condemned by the dissimilarity to Paul's vocabulary, style, theology, and method of reasoning, and by the statement, so unlike Paul, that the writer received the truth from those who heard the Lord speak.

Clement's theory that Hebrews is a translation, by Luke. or Clement of Rome, of a Hebrew original by Paul, is condemned by the unlikeness of the thought and argumentation to Paul's, and of the style to Clement's or Luke's; still further by the impossibility of explaining in a version the extraordinary rhetorical finish and vigor of Hebrews, the markedly, even vitally, Septuagint character of its quotations from the Old Testament, and the nicety of its theological terminology, which could hardly be translated into Hebrew or Aramaic, much less have originated in one of those tongues and survived translation out of it. Altogether it would be difficult to name a New Testament

« AnteriorContinuar »