Corpus-Paul

["Michael Davies" <miser17 AT epix.net>]

Wes wrote:

> 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). 

On the other hand, it might not have been considerations of 
authorship that led the text to be placed after Romans but a 
judgement that Hebrews was of more considerable importance
than, e.g. 1 Cor. and so it deserved a more prominent place. We 
don't know.

> 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.

Boy, there's an argument from silence for you. It's one that would
affirm the facticity of the authors Mt Mk Lk Jn as well, along with
Thomas, and Philip, and James for the Protoevangelium etc. etc.

> 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.

I think it's generally but not universally thought that people made 
attempts to make letters appear to be from Paul even when they 
weren't (3 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, etc.). Hence it can't be said that
ipso facto a letter pretending to be from Paul (in prison with 
Timothy etc.) was in fact a letter written by Paul. 

> 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."

It is certainly written to people who are assumed to value and find 
significant the Jewish Temple as found in LXX Leviticus. But Gentile
Christians did indeed find the Jewish Scriptures significant, hence
the appeal of appeals to prophecy. Paul's extraordinary exegetical
flights in Galatians presuppose that the Galatian Gentile Christians
would be aware of and value Genesis.

I find this to be rather amazing, actually. I wonder, for example,
whether it is even a reasonable possibility that a single copy of
the LXX existed in Galatia... consider the enormous cost of the
thing. What would an LXX have cost back then, how many pounds would
it have weighed? Yet we do tend to assume our authors and their
audiences were familiar with it. 

But, in any event, an appeal to Jewish scripture does not single
out Jews as opposed to Gentile Christians as the intended audience.

> 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 don't know of anything in Hebrews that indicates that the author 
had a Pharisaic background. But I think there's an invalid syllogism
here.

Paul was a knowledgeable Jew
Some knowledgeable Jew wrote Hebrews 
Therefore Paul wrote Hebrews

Stevan Davies
College Misericordia