 |
| Hebrews written by Paul in GA 104 |
The problem with my presentation turns out to be the last part about Origen. The larger context of Origen’s comment is as follows:
But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts. (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11–14)Today, a very good article on Origen and the authorship of Hebrews has been published in NTS by Matthew J. Thomas, arguing that I and so many others have misread this passage. Thomas instead shows that the right way to read this is not that Origen doesn’t know who authored Hebrews but that he doesn’t know who put pen to papyrus. Thus, exactly as he says, the thoughts are indeed the apostle’s but the actual composition is someone else’s. Thomas says that “while Origen suspects Hebrews’ composition to involve more than Paul alone, his surprisingly consistent testimony is that the epistle is indeed Paul’s.”
I read the article in an earlier draft and was convinced and had to revise my course notes accordingly. Next time I teach it, I will not be using Origen as evidence against Pauline authorship. (Hopefully I’ll still get the standing-o though.)
You can read the whole argument here.
Dr. Gurry, it takes alot of class and even more humility to correct oneself. You get a standing ovation from me!
ReplyDelete"and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" Matt.23:12
On a side note; has anyone ever covered the possibility that the "autograph" written to the Hebrews, if indeed it were written in the hebrew tongue, may explain the non-Pauline style of greek by way of a translation from the hebrew into Greek?
David Alan Black also wrote a booklet on this some years ago in which he argued the same point.
ReplyDeleteThe critical wisdom that I inherited in books was most often the bald sentence, said to be what Origen wrote, that Paul did not write Hebrews. Later, in confusion and exasperation, I decided to see for myself what the blessèd Origen did write; and lo! the revelatory words that Peter has quoted. That experience taught me to be very wary of unsupported and/or all-but-unsupported statements in academic books! I can see why Origen was mentioned only briefly and grudgingly, as he all-but-destroyed the inherited critical view. Even in modern textbooks, especially those designed as introductions for initial tertiary courses, where some participants will have poor or non-existent Bible etc. knowledge, such cursory statements are made. It was a pleasure some years later to discover Black’s book, and to recommend it to others.
DeleteDr. Wallace,
ReplyDeleteHe sure did, “The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul”. This was my first thought as I read the article by Thomas. I would argue, the case for Paul has now been confirmed.
Tim
That's a bit optimistic.
DeletePG,
DeleteIt is, as you took it! I meant Black’s argument was confirmed! Though I do hold to Pauline authorship for a variety of reasons, many of which Black also articulated!
Tim
It's abundantly clear from reading the rest of Origen that he thinks Hebrews was Pauline. Eusebius quoted the only modicum of doubt that survives.
ReplyDeleteSC,
DeleteAnd if you accept Thomas’ article, that modicum of doubt itself does not exist.
Tim
A modicum isn't very much to begin with. It is clear that Origen recognizes that Paul's connection to the epistle is more attenuated than the others.
DeleteThanks for the article and the link to that by Thomas - a helpful discussion and affirmation of the need for rigor regarding context.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with a Hebrew original is that the OT quotes would probably have to have been reworked to follow the LXX. On the other hand, the author may have had access to a less Proto-Masoretic Hebrew text.
ReplyDeleteI am at present pondering on this very question of OT quoted in NT. The old consensus, which I inherited, was that there was a unitary Greek Bible, called the Septuagint, that was used by the Christian Church (churches?). OT was quoted from it, in NT. Oh, not always? Ah, the writer adapted the quote. But…? OK, he sometimes used his own or a third translation. And so my inherited certainty started to wane. And then…..just where are the many pre-Christian Septuagint manuscripts that should be extant - have they all simply vanished? So, present uncertainty and scepticism remain, not least because textbooks seem to shy away from discussing, let alone proving, the existence of an undoubted and widespread Christian Greek edition of all (at least non-apocryphal) OT books.
Delete