Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: LARRY SWAIN <theswain AT sbcglobal.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?
  • Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT)



> The key phrase, which indeed answers your question,
> is "same ilk". Ancient
> and modern folk who ascribe Hebrews to Paul have a
> uniquely unhistorical or
> perhaps a-historical understanding of scripture and
> the process by which it
> came to be. Ancients who attributed Hebrews to Paul
> were, according to
> Origen, of a unique mentality.
>
Oi. I have to say Jim, you seem to have an axe to
grind. According to Eusebius, the attachment of
Hebrews to Paul seems based on two traditions that
predate him and relate to one another.

1) Acc to Clement of Alexandria Paul wrote the epistle
in Hebrew to the Hebrews anonymously since they
already hated him, and Luke translated the epistle
into Greek, hence the similarity of phrasing between
Hebrews and Acts (acc to Clement anyway...). This is
reported as Clement reporting a tradition, though in
context it seems more like Clement's guesses.

2)Eusebius also cites Origen who says that the letter
is not by Paul's hand but by someone remembering
Paul's teaching and setting it down, so that any
church who claims the letter to be by Paul should be
commended for doing right. He then reports two
traditions that either Luke or Clement of Rome did the
"translation" or composition of the letter.

WIth Origen then, we have 3 personal connections in
the letter to Paul that go back into the mid-second
century if not earlier. Luke, known associate of
Paul, Clement, mentioned in one of Paul's letters, and
of course the mention of Timothy. Combine that with a
"hoary" tradition, and some similarities of phrase
attributed to Luke and Clement (see Eusebius who
mentions this "fact" though not examples) known
associates of Paul, and you have yourself a tradition
of attribution by gum. I think you've misunderstood
Origen on the matter.

Best Regards,

Larry Swain




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page