Origen Did Think Paul Wrote Hebrews

Hebrews written by Paul in GA 104

Last fall, when teaching Hebrews at the seminary, I did what one does when discussing authorship of Hebrews: I noted that tradition ascribes it to Paul, pointed out that it’s anonymous (but see here), showed why Paul isn’t the author, surveyed the alternate options, and then ended with Origen who says, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows.” Once the standing ovation had died down, I moved on.

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.

The ‘Anonymity’ of Hebrews in Minuscule 104

The NA27 has a helpful feature that was sadly removed from the NA28 and that is a selection of subscriptions to the NT books. These often contain information about authorship and even the location of writing. In preparing to teach Hebrews, I noticed this particular subscriptio cited for minuscule 104. According to NA27, the subscriptio for Hebrews reads: πρ[ος] Ε[βραιους] εγ[ραφη] Εβραιστι απο της Ιτ[αλιας] ανονυμως δ[ια] Τιμ[οθεου], or “to the Hebrews, written in Hebrew from Italy anonymously through Timothy” (cf. Clement acc. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.14.2–4).

A number of other manuscripts include the reference to Italy and to Timothy but, so far as the NA27 goes, only 104 adds that it was written in Hebrew and anonymously so. It’s that last part about anonymity that grabbed my attention and turned me to the manuscript. GA 104 is also known as BL Harley MS 5537 and, per the BL catalog, was copied by Ioannes Tzoutzounas (Ἰωάννης Τζουτζούσας), hieromonk of the Asekretis Monastery in Artanion, in May 1087. When I checked the images of the manuscript, however, I found to my surprise that Hebrews is anything but anonymous. On the first page of Hebrews, the book is clearly titled “Epistle to the Hebrews by the Apostle Paul (του αγιου Παυλου).” Turning to the end of the book, I found I wasn’t getting the whole story from the NA27 there either. Because the subscriptio also names Paul as the author.

If you zoom in, you can see the full subscriptio is του αγ(ιου) απο(στολου) Παυλ(ου) επιστολ(η) προς Εβραιους εγραφη Εβραιστι απο της Ιταλιας ανονυμως δια Τιμοθ(εου), or “by the holy apostle Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, written in Hebrew, from Italy anonymously through Timothy.”

The obvious problem here is how something can be called “anonymous” when we’re told who the author and the amanuensis (?) are! A check of the dictionary (in this case, Brill’s GE), offers a solution in that the adverb ἀνωνύμως simply means “without a name.” That definition would fit well with the book of Hebrews, which never names its author within the text. (There’s a side lesson here about the danger of “false friends.”)

A couple of observations. The first may be obvious, but it is that the scribe’s own subscriptio requires that we clearly distinguish between the text and paratext of Hebrews. The rubrication and accompanying decoration do that too, of course. But it’s surprising to see that the subscriptio itself doesn’t make sense unless we keep that distinction firm. The text of Hebrews is ἀνωνύμως (without a name) whereas the very paratext that tells us this, just as clearly isn’t. Here the paratext is secondary—and must be read as such—otherwise it becomes self-contradictory.

The second observation is that this description should expand our conception of “anonymity.” ἀνωνύμως does not mean here that the author of the book is unknown; it means only that his name is unstated in the book itself. I draw attention to this because when it comes to other books like the Gospels and their alleged anonymity, we should not conflate unnamed authorship (ἀνωνύμως) with unknown authorship. For more on that matter, see Simon Gathercole’s recent article in JTS.

Beyond these two observations, I mostly thought it was a fun subscriptio and shows the unexpected things you learn when you go beyond the Nestle-Aland apparatus.

Early Manuscript of Hebrews Discovered

Brian Small, PhD student at Baylor University and regular reader of this blog, published the following startling announcement (Polumeros kai Polutropos)

Newly Discovered Manuscript Fragment on Hebrews
Baylor University is hosting a King James Bible conference this weekend. Concurrent with the conference is an exhibit showcasing ancient manuscripts and Bibles through the Middles Ages and Reformation and beyond. One of the manuscripts is a newly-discovered (three weeks ago!) papyrus fragment containing a portion of Hebrews 11. It was discovered in a funerary mask and is dated to the second century! I have pictures but I cannot post them here since the manuscript has been assigned to someone for study and publication.

Apparently, it seems to be Scott Carroll, Research Professor of Manuscript Studies and the Biblical Tradition at Baylor, who is the scholar in charge of this collection to which I assume the early papyrus belongs. On his webpage we read about Carroll that "He is presently directing the research of some of the earliest-known Greek literary papyri in the world which Dr. Carroll extracted from mummy cartonnage and some of the earliest biblical texts known to-date."

In the 1990's Carroll helped Robert van Kampen build the private Van Kampen Collection of Bibles and related material in Florida. Now he is working with another wealthy family, Green, to build up another great collection of bibles and manuscripts to be exhibited in a Bible museum in Dallas. More information about the Green collection in NY Times story here and here (slideshow). One of the MSS they acquired last year from Cambridge was Codex Climaci Rescriptus, which we reported about here (with further links). Apparently, Carroll himself is currently working on a publication of Codex Climaci Rescriptus.

In addition to the growing collection, there is the Green Scholars Initiative which has been organized allow scholars to research and produce scholarship around items in the Green Collection. Scott Carroll is Director and Principal investigator of the collection, whereas Jerry Pattengale is Director of the Green Scholars Initiative.

While we wait for a scholarly edition of the Hebrews papyrus, hopefully including images, and adequate information about the provenience, we have to be extremely cautious about the claimed second-century date. In the past there have been numerous claims from representatives of collections like these including the Van Kampen collection, and of course there is, coupled with a strong interest to promote the items in the collection, a real danger to through out sensational claims about "earliest biblical texts known to-date," etc (which media just loves). For a discussion of the the "early dating issue" raised by Roger Bagnall recently, see Peter Head's posts here and here.

The papyrus is on display at Baylor University until tomorrow. Perhaps some reader of this blog, who lives nearby Baylor could go there and take a peek for us? Any significant readings?

Conference schedule here

Conference and exhibition flyer here

Up-date: Some photos from the exhibition have been posted on the Baylor web-site (here) - image 13 has P39 and another papyrus text - probably the Hebrews text under discussion. (HT: MH)

New Commentary on Hebrews

Finally, my new commentary on Hebrews is out (in Swedish), With Eyes Fixed on Jesus: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Tomorrow we will have a release party at Örebro Theological Seminary, when I will present the commentary, be interviewed, and hopefully sign some copies.

The commentary is the fifth in the Swedish commentary series Nya testamentets budskap (The Message of the New Testament). I would characterize it as an intermediate level commentary.

For Scandinavian readers who want to order the book, go here (Sweden); here (Norway); here (Denmark); here (Finland).

LXX Citations in their NT Versions

In a previous post here Peter Head draws the attention to a variant reading in Heb 1:8 involving a citation from the Septuagint. I would like to remind the readers that Martin Karrer, Wuppertal, Germany, is heading a project to create a new tool for the study of LXX citations in the New Testament. I attended a presentation of the project last year at the SNTS 63d meeting in Lund. There is a description of the project here.

Regarding Hebrews and the LXX, Karrer has published an essay, "The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Septuagint," in Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (eds. W. Kraus and G. Wooden; SBL.SCS 53; Atlanta / Leiden, 2006), 335-353.

There will be a session devoted to the subject of LXX and NTTC at the SBL in New Orleans on Monday 23 November, 9:00–11:30:

New Testament Textual Criticism (The Two Bibles: The LXX and NTTC),
Leonard J. Greenspoon: “If I forget thee…: Remembering, and Forgetting, in ‘Scriptural Citations’ (20 min)
Martin Karrer and Ulrich Schmid: LXX Citations in their NT Versions
Kristin De Troyer: Quotations of "the Septuagint" in the NT
William Adler, Respondent

Papyrus 126: A New Fragment of Hebrews

Today Claire Clivaz announced on the textual criticism discussion list that a new papyrus manuscript, PSI 1497, has been registered as P126. The fragment contains Heb 13:12-13, 19-20 and is dated to the fourth century,

Editio princeps:

Papiri Greci e Latini, Firenze : Le Monnier : Istituto papirologico
"G. Vitelli", vol. 15, 2008, p. 171-172.

Clivaz also reminded of the conference «Egyptian New Testament Papyri among Others» that will take place at the University of Lausanne, in October 22-24, where she will hold a lecture that includes information about this new papyrus.

More information about the conference in this flyer.

Hebrews 6:9: Future or Present?

This is a linguistic problem rather than text-critical problem. The text in Heb 6:9 reads:

Πεπείσμεθα δὲ περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀγαπητοί, τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, εἰ καὶ οὕτως λαλοῦμεν.

The NIV translates: "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case–things that accompany salvation."

The NIV, as most translations, follow the same interpretation of ἐχόμενα as in BDAG, s.v. ἔχω 11a: "to be closely associated" of proper situation or placement where the "to" of belonging and the "with" of association are expressed by genitive (in this case σωτηρίας), where Heb 6:9 is listed among the examples.

The Swedish Bible translation, B2000, on the other hand, reads in retranslation to English: "But concerning you, my beloved, I am, in spite of these words, confident of the better and that you are close to salvation."

Disregard the awkward style since this is a retranslation. The thing that interests me here is the interpretation of τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας in a temporal (futuristic) sense as "the better things and coming (things) – salvation." Perhaps the focus on future salvation in 1:14; 10:25, etc. led the committee to this decision. However, salvation is also present to the author, e.g., 7:25.

The translation committee has apparently chosen to interpret ἐχόμενα according to BDAG s.v. ἔχω 11β, i.e., temporal, to be next, immediately following, hence "close," with σωτηρίας understood as an epexegetical genitive. I wonder whether this is possible, especially since there is no definite article with ἐχόμενα.

Perhaps it is needless to say that I will not follow the latter interpretation in the commentary I am working on.

Hebrews 10:39 offers an important parallell where the author, after a similar warning as in 6:4–8, associates the addressees with salvation, ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς.

Any insights and suggestions are welcome!

A Commentary on Hebrews

Right now I am working on a commentary on Hebrews in the series Nya Testamentets Budskap (NTB). I have just entered chapter 11. It is a brief popular level commentary with focus on the message ("budskap"=message) and theology of Hebrews and its application today. The scope and format is something like New International Biblical Commentary but without the notes. To some degree I deal with issues of translation, but the basis is the official Swedish translation Bibel 2000 (completed in 2000). There is practically no room for text-critical discussion – the scholar who wrote on the Gospel of John (the book to the left in the image) did include two brief paragraphs on the Pericope of the Adulteress. Perhaps I should double his amount and pick two passages then; after all, textual criticism is my thing.

If you were to choose one text-critical problem of exegetical signficance in Hebrews what would you pick?