Corpus-Paul

["Williams, Wes" <Wes.Williams AT echostar.com>]

Jim mentioned in another thread:

At 03:12 PM 3/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I would have thought Hebrews didn't belong on the list at all.
>
>Licia Kuenning

You are obviously correct.  It does not.

Best,

Jim
_________
To state my position on this up front, I am not arguing that Paul *was* the
author of Hebrews. However, I question the judgement that states it
definitely was *not* Paul. Is it really proper to say that Paul did not
author Hebrews in the light of favorable evidence of Pauline authorship?
(This is considered out of bounds on B-Greek and I apologize to the IOUDAIOS
list members if this has already been considered there).
Positive Considerations
The author was apparently in Italy at the time of writing (13:24). Paul was
imprisoned twice. The author was also an associate of Timothy. In 13:23, the
author writes "Take note that our brother Timothy has been released, with
whom, if he comes quite soon, I shall see you." This seems to indicate that
the writer was expecting an early release from prison and hoped to accompany
Timothy, who had also been imprisoned but who had already been released.
This would suggest the first imprisonment, the final year of which is
suggested to be 61 C.E.
While the MS evidence is not conclusive, at the same time it does not appear
to be easily dismissed. Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote on P46 (century and a half
after Paul's death): "It is noticeable that Hebrews is placed immediately
after Romans (an almost unprecedented position), which shows that at the
early date when this manuscript was written no doubt was felt as to its
Pauline authorship" ("The Story of the Bible," 1964, page 91). McClintock
and Strong's Cyclopedia states pointedly: "There is no substantial evidence,
external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship of this
epistle except Paul." 1981 reprint, Vol. IV, page 147.
Some Objections Considered
Anonymity: Granted that the author did not identify their self, it was a
common presupposition to the congregations who the author was (13:23,24
"Give my greetings..."). If it were Paul, he may have omitted his name
simply because his name was such an object of hatred in Judea so as to avoid
the ad hominum bias.
Style: Granting that the style is different, this objection is easily met
that Paul was one who could "become all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22).
The style had to be different since the audience was Jewish. On this point
Clarke's Commentary, Volume 6, page 681, says concerning Hebrews: "That it
was written to *Jews,* naturally such, the whole structure of the epistle
proves. Had it been written to the Gentiles, not one in ten thousand of them
could have comprehended the argument, because unacquainted with the Jewish
system; the knowledge of which the writer of this epistle everywhere
supposes."
Audience:  "This man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the
nations AS WELL AS to kings and *the sons of Israel.*" (Acts 9:15; Gal. 2:8,
9). Paul, the former Pharisee, was well-qualified to supply Jewish
Christians with powerful arguments and refutations of Jewish tradition.
I am not arguing here that Paul *was* the author. I simply wish to make the
point that while I appreciate that the author did not identify their self
explicitly and the style is different, is it really proper to swing the
pendulum the other way and say it was *not* Paul?
The favorable evidence should reflect good balance with the unfavorable.
Sincerely, 
Wes Williams