4
INTRODUCTION
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
One peculiar characteristic of this epistle is that it commences without a customary salutation, or giving the
name of the writer and those to whom it was addressed. This has caused, from the earliest times, considerable
research and debate as to who the human author was, even though the epistle is accepted as canonical without
question and part of the inspired Word of God. The Authorized Version heading: `The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to
the Hebrews' is only found in late Greek manuscripts; it is not found in the oldest manuscripts, which simply read
Pros Hebraious, To Hebrews, and it is not certain that even this formed part of the original document, but it must
have been given to the epistle at an early date in the second century, when it first came into public use as part of a
collection of apostolic letters. That this title was undoubtedly right, the internal testimony clearly shows, for its
setting forth of the types and shadows given to the fathers of Israel, finally finding their fulfilment in Christ, would
have no meaning to the pagan Gentile world to whom the apostle Paul ministered. It might have had some meaning
to the number of God-fearing Gentiles (as Cornelius) who attended the Jewish synagogue, but there is no evidence
whatsoever that these are in the mind of the author of this epistle. It is much more natural to see those addressed as
being a number of Hebrew Christians, to whom the Mosaic tabernacle and Levitical offerings would have real
meaning, although their residence cannot be determined with absolute certainty.
It is a peculiar fact that, from the first, the Eastern Church decided that the epistle was the apostle Paul's, if not
directly, then mediately, either as a free translation of his words or a reproduction of his thoughts and teaching;
whereas the Western Church did not reckon it among the Pauline epistles or recognize its canonical authority until
the fourth century A.D.
The first witness is Clement of Rome who shows clear evidence that he was acquainted with it, in the letter he
wrote to the Corinthian church about A.D. 96, but he nowhere names the epistle or its author. The most explicit
testimony is that of the Alexandrian church preserved by Eusebius (A.D. 264-340) from the lost writings of Clement
of Alexandria (about A.D. 190-203) and Origen (A.D. 185-254). Eusebius relates that Clement in his Hypotyposes
(sketches or outlines) says: `... that the epistle is Paul's, and that it was written to Hebrews in the Hebrew (Aramaic)
language, and that Luke translated it with zealous care and published it to the Greeks, whence it is that the same
complexion of style is found in the translation of this epistle and the Acts'. He states further that `... the phrase,
`Paul an Apostle', was not placed at the head of the epistle for good reason; in writing to Hebrews who had formed a
prejudice against him and viewed him with suspicion, he was wise not to repel them at the beginning by setting his
name there'. It is possible, from another quotation of Clement, that he derived the idea of an Aramaic original from
his master, `the blessed presbyter', Pantaenus.
Coming to the testimony of Origen, Eusebius gives it in Origen's own words:
`If I were to express my own opinion I should say that the thoughts are the thoughts of the Apostle, but the
language and the composition that of one who recalled from memory and, as it were, made notes of what was
said by his master. If therefore any church holds this epistle as Paul's, let it be approved for this also for it was
not without reason that men of old time have handed it down as Paul's (that is as substantially expressing his
thoughts). But who wrote the epistle God only knows certainly. The account that has reached us is twofold:
some say that Clement, who became bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle; others that Luke wrote it, who
wrote the Gospel and the Acts. But on this I will say no more'.
This testimony is supplementary to that of Clement's. Origen was obviously aware that some churches did not
receive the epistle as Paul's. In the strictest sense of authorship he agreed with them, but at the same time held that
it could be regarded as the apostle's, as embodying his thoughts and doctrine and he (Origen) was prepared to
defend it as such. In other writings he uses such phrases as `in the epistle to the Hebrews, the same Paul says', and
`Paul himself, the greatest of the apostles, writing to the Hebrews, says' and then quotes Hebrews 12:18,23. Origen
goes back to the opinion held `in ancient times'. As he was born in A.D. 185, this must refer to apostolic, or sub-
apostolic times. Consequently as Hallet remarks: