AUTHORSHIP
EPISTLE
HEBREWS
5
OF THE
TO THE
`It is very certain then, that the churches and writers who were ancient with respect to Origen, had one common
tradition, that St. Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. And their testimony to this matter of fact
cannot but be of great weight, since those Christians who were ancients with respect to Origen, must have
conversed with the Apostles, or at least with their immediate successors'.
Origen therefore does not question the ancient tradition that linked the epistle to the Hebrews with Paul's name,
but his standpoint is whether the epistle, precisely as we have it in Greek, can have come directly from Paul's hand.
In other words the actual Greek may have been written by an amanuensis, which was a common occurrence in New
Testament times, an example of which we have with the epistle to the Romans. Its material and doctrine is Paul's,
but the actual writing was done by Tertius (Rom. 16:22), and just how much latitude was given to an amanuensis we
have no means of knowing, this possibly varying according to the attitude of the author and capability of the actual
writer. We cannot say that it was always merely verbal dictation. Bishop Westcott sums up as follows:
`Thus Clement and Origen, both familiar with the details of the tradition of the "men of old time" to whom they
refer, agree in regarding the Greek epistle as Paul's only in a secondary sense. Clement regards it as a free
translation of a Hebrew (Aramaic) original, so made by St. Luke as to show the characteristics of his style.
Origen regards it as a scholar's reproduction of his master's teaching. Each view must have been consistent with
what was generally received .... Both use the epistle as Paul's without any qualification, because it was naturally
connected with the collection of his letters. Origen goes so far as to say that he was prepared to show that "the
epistle was Paul's" in reply to those "who rejected it as not written by Paul" (Ep. ad Afric. 9); and in another
passage, preserved in a Latin translation, he speaks of "fourteen epistles of St. Paul" (Hom. in Jos. VII)'.
The Epistle to the Hebrews p. lxviii.
Eusebius, having included Hebrews among the epistles of Paul, cites it as Pauline in some twenty seven
passages. There is no doubt at all that the primitive tradition of the East associated the epistle with Paul, although
not written with his actual hand.
In the West it was, as we have noted, altogether different. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (born circa A.D. 130) was
among the first to cite the New Testament books by their titles apparently, but rarely mentions the letter to the
Hebrews and never declares it to be Pauline. Victorinus (A.D. 303), the Muratorian Canon, and Gaius (circa 190)
count only 13 epistles of Paul. Cyprian says that Paul wrote to seven churches: Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Colossae,
Philippi, Thessalonica and Galatia. There is no room here for an epistle to the Hebrews. Tertullian, with great
decision, names Barnabas as its author. It can be said that, from the second to the fourth century, in Italy and Africa,
the Hebrews epistle was held not to be an epistle of the Apostle Paul. It came to the Western church but late and
slowly. Paul is not named in the introduction, and it was therefore, from this and its un-Pauline Greek, not reckoned
to be an epistle of his.
Thus we find two traditions weighing against each other, but that of the East is the heavier in the scale. The
latter bears a positive character, whereas the West is negative. Apparently there was no doubt in Alexandria as to
who was the real author, but, owing to its style, the amanuensis and translator who had worked it out was
questioned. Those who come to a conclusion of authorship solely on internal grounds, should give an adequate
explanation as to how the Eastern church so early arrived at the idea that this epistle was one sent from the apostle
Paul, even though he may not have been the actual penman.
Was Clement of Rome right in saying that the Hebrews epistle was a translation from an Aramaic original?
There are grave doubts that it could have been a literal translation. The epistle has a good number of paronomasias
or play on words, such as we find in the Greek of 2:8; 7:3,19,22-24; 10:29 etc. These and other genuinely Greek
constructions would have no corresponding Aramaic equivalents and the development of thought would not lend
itself either to Aramaic. The most that can be said is, that if there was such an Aramaic original, the Greek letter is a
free reproduction of it, using it only as a basis, and is in no sense a translation.
From the earliest times many scholars have found difficulty in accepting the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, the
chief difficulties being (1) the style of the Greek, (2) the statement of chapter 2:3, which apparently militates against
the independent apostleship of Paul. As regards (1) it must be conceded that the Greek of the epistle to the Hebrews
is generally unlike that of the apostle. It shows everywhere traces of effort and care and polish, very unlike the
impetuous, almost rough Greek at times of the apostle Paul. We must be careful here however. No one can say with