 |  |
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 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 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 and ab uno
ad omnes. They suppose that Philo's mantic view of inspiration must be the reason why
he is so little concerned with the secondary human authors and then suppose that our
author's insistence on the uniquely divine authority of Scripture must be due to the same
cause.
On the contrary, the facts which have been adduced above show that, whereas the
mode of Scriptural citation in our epistle furnished no positive argument against its
Pauline authorship, that mode of citation coincides with Pauline practice more than once,
and is by no means Alexandrian rather than Palestinian."
Parallel passages and doctrine in Hebrews and Paul's epistles.
We have seen that the figure of a race or contest (agon) which is characteristic to Paul
is found elsewhere only in Hebrews. "Ye did run well; who did hinder you?" (Gal. 5: 7).
"Let us run with patience the race set before us" (Heb. 12: 1. See also I Cor. 9: 24-27;
Phil. 3: 13-15). There are remarkable parallels between the doctrine of Galatians and
Hebrews. We have seen the emphasis on the old and new covenants:
"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the
law, which was 430 years after, cannot disannul . . . . ." (Gal. 3: 17).
"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a
free woman . . . . . which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants, the one