Who wrote Hebrews?

Who wrote Hebrews – and why it matters.

I promised my September resolution would be to get back to blogging.  One thing I plan to do is get round to writing those posts that, over the years, I’ve promised: the ‘7 habits’ one, the ‘Liz Murray’ one (the video no longer works on this entry - try Youtube) – maybe even the dispensationalist one (but it would be unwise to hold your breath for that!)

But first, a little piece on Hebrews.  I’ve always believed that Paul wrote Hebrews, and I still do – largely because the evidence against it is so flimsy.  The ‘traditional’ view is that Hebrews was written by the apostle Paul, sometime around 55-58 A.D.  This view is now often regarded as outdated and you may come across statements along the line of ‘Nobody nowadays believes Paul wrote Hebrews.’  Well, I do; let me give you some reasons (and you may also like to read Fred's).

1. Why ‘Pauline’ authorship is often denied

Remarkably few reasons are actually given, but they include:

a)      the Greek style is very different

b)      there is no opening greeting from Paul

c)      When Hebrews quotes the Old Testament, it quotes the Greek, Septuagint, version, whereas Paul does not

d)      2:3 seems to suggest that the writer had heard the gospel second-hand; Paul insists that he received the gospel personally from the Lord (see Galatians 1:11-12).

2. Why I still believe Paul wrote Hebrews

Starting with the ones above, then moving on:

a)      Stylistic differences may be easily accounted for.  For example, Hebrews may have been written in Aramaic for its Jewish audience, and then translated into Greek.  Or it may simply reflect different times and circumstances.  The Greek style of John’s gospel, 1,2 and 3 John and Revelation are said to be quite different, but they all come from John’s pen.

b)      The missing greeting is interesting but not conclusive; circumstances may have required it in some way.  It's a strange argument anyway: 'It doesn't say Paul wrote it, so he didn't.'  Hmm.  It doesn't say anybody wrote it - perhaps nobody did?

c)      If Hebrews was first written in Aramaic and then translated (by Paul or someone else) it would have been natural to include Scripture quotes from the Greek Old Testament.  And many writers on the Bible quote different versions at different times.

d)      This is the strongest argument, but is equally easily turned in favour of Pauline authorship.  Galatians tells us that Paul received the gospel directly from Jesus, but that it was confirmed by the other apostles (Galatians 2:5-9).  That’s just what Hebrews 2:4 says!

e)      The writer of Hebrews is very close to Paul’s ‘son’ Timothy – 13:23.

f)        Ancient writers from as early as 150 AD say that Paul wrote Hebrews (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, Origen, 185-253 AD).  The early church historian Eusebius also attributes it to Paul.

g)      The earliest collection of Paul’s writings, known as the Chester Beatty manuscript and dated about 200 AD, includes all of Paul’s epistles except the Pastorals, but does include Hebrews (between Romans and 1 Corinthians).

h)      Peter says clearly (2 Peter 3:15) that Paul had written ‘Scripture’ to Peter’s (Jewish) readers.  If that’s not Hebrews, we don’t know what it is.

i)        Writings were only accepted as ‘canonical’ by the early church if they had apostolic authorship or approval.

Why it matters

But does it matter?  I’ve always said ‘No’, but I’ve changed my mind.  Let me tell you why.

As I've said, the church decided which of the many writings available were ‘Scripture’ on the basis of apostolic authority: did an apostle write it?  If not, was an apostle behind it (as seems to be the case with the gospel of Mark)?  If yes, it was Scripture, God’s word.  If no, then it wasn’t – full stop.

If Paul didn’t write Hebrews, then there is no evidence at all of an apostle behind it.  If that’s true, it isn’t Scripture.  The comments we sometimes read (‘Oh, it’s so obviously God’s word; anyone can tell that…’) are so subjective as to be worthless.  And they’re effectively the ‘burning bosom’ argument that Mormons use to justify their own rubbish.

If you don’t think Paul wrote it – why is it still in your Bible?

Dissing Dispies?  #2: Hermeneutics

In my first look at Dan Phillips ‘Twenty-five stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism’   I tried to show how Dan begins the process of softening us up to believe that Dispensationalists have got it right by using an ‘ad hominem’ argument: the Reformed, and especially one Reformed Great, have been really unkind to Dispensationalists in general and Dan in particular; have a look – I’m not going to repeat myself.

There’s a second preliminary Dan gives us before he gets to the 25 of the title – the question of hermeneutics.  ‘…when I consistently apply the hermeneutic that God used to save me, I end up Reformed… and dispensationalist.’

What’s hermeneutics?  It’s the science, or art, (it’s both) of interpreting the Biblical text.  But isn’t it obvious what a text means?  Well, yes – usually – hence Dan’s principle

When the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, take every word in its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and fundamental and axiomatic truths, clearly indicate otherwise.

 It’s called ‘grammatico-historical’ hermeneutics, or sometimes the historico-grammatical principle: you take into account the grammar, and the history.  In brief, a text means what it says, and especially what the first readers would have understand it to mean.

Dan’s right – it’s fundamental.  It saves us making blunders like Augustine’s, insisting that in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the two coins were the sacraments, the inn was the church, the inn-keeper the Pope, etcetera.  

But it’s also a bit more complicated than that – for a slavish adherence to h/g won’t save us from Origen’s misunderstanding of Matthew 19:12 – it won’t stop us castrating ourselves.  And some of us are really keen not to go that way...

Let me illustrate by taking the matter of prayer.  Jesus says

In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. (John 16.23)

The ‘historico’ bit would have us ask: when will this promise be kept?  And the immediate context tells us – when the disciples see Jesus again, after his death.  That is – when he is risen.  What does the plain meaning of the text (the grammatico bit) tell us?  That in that day, Christians can have absolutely anything they ask for – or at least, the apostles can.  Winning the lottery?  Perfect health?  Therein, you see, is the Prosperity Gospel.  Dan knows this, of course, and makes the point by saying ‘in the light of related passages and fundamental and axiomatic truths.’

Once we look at other things the Bible says about prayer, for example James 4.3

When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures...

…a restriction or qualification is there that isn’t in the first text.  So, to apply the h/g principle properly, the context of a text that has to be taken into account is the whole of Scripture.  And that, some of us think, is where dispies may be going wrong.

Dan – in another blog entry – references a speaker at this year's Shepherds' Conference  who said ‘you might be a dispensationalist if you think the primary meaning of an Old Testament text is found in the authorial intent of the OT writer as determined by historical-grammatical hermeneutics’.

True – but you might also be wrong.  Sometimes, at least, the true meaning of an Old Testament text is found in the New Testament.  Isaiah 7.14 springs to mind. 

It isn’t that our dispie friends aren’t aware of this – the same speaker says

You may believe that God, in the New Testament, may do more than what the OT author meant, or apply the OT passage in ways not seen by the OT author, but God will never do less or go contrary to the original meaning of the OT author. Thus, the meaning of OT passages is anchored in the OT passages themselves.

The question has to be:  is that the way the New Testament writers themselves see the Old Testament?  When the apostles on the Day of Pentecost are accused of drunkenness, they say ‘No, this is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel’ and goes on to quote Joel 2:28-32.  According to Peter, Joel is prophesying Pentecost – but it doesn’t look like that in its original context.  In fact, Joel prophesies (and Peter quotes) ‘The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood’ as part of the same prophecy.  ‘This is that’?  Yes: but we know – because Acts tells us – that it isn’t the end of the world.

Similarly, the true meaning of Amos 9:11,12 is not the restoration of Israel to its nation, says Acts: rather, it foretells the ingathering of the Gentiles in the gospel age (Acts 15:16ff)

Hermeneutics is a difficult issue.  But DJP simply isn’t fair when he implies – and even says – that dispies are the ones ‘who still take all of the Bible seriously’.  That ain’t the way it is, Dan.

Dissing Dispies? #1: Preliminaries

I’m sitting at the moment in a beautifully-placed little mezzanine study in Grindelwald, Switzerland. Six feet to my right is a French window through which the Eiger – North Face, I think – can be clearly seen only a short distance away. Evening is falling; the day is almost over – and it’s been a good day. And because I’m on holiday, there’s really nothing pressing to do – a wonderful feeling. But – well, you’ve got to do something, and I’ve been thinking for a while about Dan Phillips’ blog post ‘Twenty-five stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism.’ I’ve wanted to respond to this for a while, hoping to use it to sort out my own thinking. But time’s always short; except now. So I thought I’d get started. Before I begin to interact with Dan, here a couple of preliminaries – even pre-preliminaries.

#1. I like Dan Phillips.
Actually, I’ve never met him.  People are a lot easier to like before you meet them, aren't they?  But we’ve emailed a few times and I follow his Biblical Christianity blog and his contributions to Pyromaniacs. He has a wicked sense of humour, a swashbuckling approach to debate (which is fun when he’s attacking others, but sinful of course when he’s attacking a position I agree with) and a humanity in his writing that’s appealing.  I like him.

#2. I respect Dan Phillips.
His posts give real evidence of a heart that loves the Bible, a mind that’s studied the Bible, a sensitive conscience and an intellect that has no need to be ashamed. Of course, he’s wackily wrong about dispensationalism (he even admits he’s not sure about some parts of it that – surely – ought to be settled? ‘...five points, seven dispensations (+/-)’ – come on Dan, you should know that if you’re a dispensationalist! I mean ‘two testaments, four gospels (+/-)’ wouldn’t really impress, would it?).  But I respect him; he thinks, he debates, and he does it well.

#3. I agree with Dan Phillips – on most things. 
His swashbuckling defences of Calvinism are spot on.  His perception of the problems of the charismatic movement, likewise. I agree with Dan Phillips – on most things except dispensationalism. And cats.

So, given those things - if I appear to be dissing Dan, I'm not.  I MAY be dissing his argument (or trying to); I MAY be dissing dispensationalism (ditto).  Chances are, though, I'm just teasing, or trying to swashbuckle a little myself.

Oh, and one more thing.  In the blog I've mentioned, Dan doesn't actually defend or explain dispensationalism much; that's not his point.  He does that a bit in What dispensationalism isn't.  Consequently, you may note that this series of blogs is not really a critique of dispensationalism, either.  That may come later - or it may not.  But this series is really no more than a reflection on Dan's twenty-five stupid reasons - and an attempt to show i) there aren't 25 and ii) they're not all as stupid as Dan suggests.

OK - got that?  Then I can begin.  Note first the way

He softens you up to believe
It's called an ad hominem argument ('against the man') and it's bad form, as well as having no value in logic. His first paragraph suggests - nay, states - that non-dispensationalists were filled with envy in the seventies, that their literature isn't real literature, and their attitude is sourpuss.  (Apart from that we're OK, right Dan?)

Where my non-d friends have succeeded in winning people to their views, it is 'more... through image than substance'; that is, they haven't won the argument, merely convinced people that 'it isn't cool to be a dispensationalist'.

Then, he turns his guns on one particular non-dispensationalist, William Hendriksen.  Now, WH has been dead for around a quarter of a century, so he's not in a position to defend himself when Dan says 'he slapped me down something fierce'.  Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. 

Maybe from WH's point of view the encounter looked very different.  At any rate, Dan's words '[h]e told me to read this and that book, and not to write him again until I was 100%' COULD mean he said 'My dear Dan, I find it impossible to answer your question on the problem of evil starting from your own dispensational base.  But you may find this book helpful, and that book.  If you read them and still have problems, get back to me by all means.'  Or it COULD mean he said 'You great ignorant upstart - of course you have difficulty with the problem of evil!  Idiot!  Anybody who holds your view would.  Now, I'm really too busy to bother with idiots - but if you read this book, and that book, and grovel a bit - I might be prepared to give you a bit more time.  Get back to me then and we'll see.'

Either response from WH would be covered by Dan's actual words.  But Dan's tone ('slapped me down something fierce' and 'he even suggested...') suggest it's on a spectrum nearer the latter.  So, plainly, non-d's have no real argument, but resort to fierce behaviour - even the greatest of them.

And so, dear reader, we're softened up to believe that what non-d's say against dispensationalism is going to be stupid, and maybe even reflect their sinful, sourpuss, envious, resentful hearts...

Next time, we'll come to 'the hermeneutic God used to save me (Dan)'.  Till then, don't go talking to any amillenialists, now.