PERFECTION
PERDITION
14
OR
`live', for the great theme of this epistle is the perfecting of the believer through trial and suffering (Heb. 6:1;
10:32-39) with a reward in view. The apostle does not quote the actual words of Habakkuk, but gives his own
rendering. It is noteworthy that the words of Romans 1:17 and Hebrews 10:38 are identical.
One of the chief objections to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews is the mode of Scriptural citation in this epistle,
which, it is alleged, is very different from that of the apostle. Schulz, De Wette, Bleek and others have maintained
that the Pauline habit is to name the human author, whereas the writer to the Hebrews represents the various
Scriptural passages much more definitely as utterances of God the Holy Spirit, without any reference to the human
instrument by whom it was communicated, and leans to the Alexandrian rather than the Palestinian Biblical method,
being akin to the mechanical theory of inspiration held by Philo.
But what are the facts? In the Acts of the Apostles we have specimens of the way the apostle Paul addresses the
Jews, and how he varies his mode of introducing quotations from the Old Testament. There are six Old Testament
quotations in his speech at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13), prefixed by `He (God) gave testimony and said' (22), `as it
is also written in the second Psalm' (33), `He (God) said on this wise' (34), `He saith also in another Psalm' (35),
`Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets' (40), `the Lord commanded us
saying' (47). It will be noticed that the human author is not once mentioned. There are only two more occasions in
the Acts in which Paul formally quotes Scripture, namely when brought before the Sanhedrin, he reviles the high
priest and then repents saying: ... `for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people' (Acts 23:5),
and in the last chapter where he quotes for the last time in the New Testament the solemn words of Isaiah 6 to the
Jews at Rome. But he introduces the quotation, saying: `Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah the prophet'. In
neither case is the human writer mentioned by himself.
From an examination of the epistles, it is clear that the apostle had no stereotyped method of quoting Old
Testament Scripture. Three times he mentions Moses as the author of his quotation, David twice, Isaiah five times,
but all these cases, with two exceptions (Acts 28:25 and 1 Cor. 9:9), occur in one epistle, that to the Romans, and
there is no evidence that the apostle attributed any particular doctrinal significance to the human authors. The fact is
that Paul often used the impersonal way of introducing Scripture as is done in the epistle to the Hebrews. In at least
three cases Paul makes God the speaker of a Scripture (Acts 13:35; 2 Cor. 6:17; Eph. 4:8), not merely quoting a
word of God registered in the Scriptures.
Of the supposed Philonic and Alexandrian influence on the writer of Hebrews, Dr. W. Leonard writes:
`... A fair estimate of his (Philo's) method may be deduced from a personal examination of three books, namely,
the first book of Allegories, the first book on Dreams, and his work on the Intoxication of Noah. Such an
examination, together with tests made on about two dozen quotations occurring in eight or ten different works of
Philo show that the affinity of Hebrews with the Alexandrian method of citing Scripture has been very much
exaggerated ... As a matter of fact the Alexandrian writer very frequently indicates the human source of his
quotations, sometimes by naming the collection of books, law, prophets or hymns, from which he quotes;
sometimes by naming the individual authors, specially Moses ... Philo, it is true, had a certain preference for a
particular mode of citation, but that mode of citation is found not only in the epistle to the Hebrews, but in St.
Paul and also in the Talmudic and Midrashic literature'.
(The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 281, 282, 284).
We cannot do better than to quote Dr. Leonard's conclusion: `In regard to the formulae of citation, we have seen
once again, how the critics have built on the sand of their own hasty impressions. They have failed to take adequate
note of the whole citational formulary of the Pauline epistles; they have neglected the testimony of the Acts, and
especially the apostle's synagogal address at Antioch of Pisidia. They have not recognized that the customary
Palestinian modes of citation admitted very considerable variety. They have suppressed some of the facts regarding
Philo, namely that he not infrequently names the human authors of Scriptural oracles, cites them under passive
formulae, and in the quotation of Scripture uses phrases which our author would in all probability have imitated, had
he been to any great extent under Philonic influence. The critics also have misrepresented the epistle to the Hebrews
itself, because they have failed to note that the purely Scriptural dicta attributed to God do not exceed a half dozen,
whereas direct oracles are predominant. They have not taken the intention of the author sufficiently into account.
They have merely imagined oppositions to Pauline practice and they have drawn conclusions about the author's
notion of inspiration which are wholly unwarranted, because they rest on the double sophism: non causa pro causa