|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 2, 2015 15:10:28 GMT -6
We believe, based on external historical evidence alone, that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke and Acts, and John wrote John. I would like to suggest that the evangelical historical testimony of Tertullian that the churches, in his area at least, accepted Barnabas as the author of Hebrews. Tertullian said -
For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas, a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: “Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?” [cf. 1Corinthians 9:6] And, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the Churches than that apocryphal “Shepherd” of adulterers. Warning, accordingly, the disciples to omit all first principles, and strive rather after perfection, and not lay again the foundations of repentance from the works of the dead, he says: “For impossible it is that they who have once been illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have participated in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the word of God and found it sweet, when they shall—their age already setting—have fallen away, should be again recalled unto repentance, crucifying again for themselves the Son of God, and dishonouring Him.” [cf. Hebrews 6:1, 4-6]
Tertullian thus has in his possession, or at least knows about, based on his word "extant", a manuscript, presumably in Greek, that was recognized as being addressed to the Hebrews and was inscribed on the document ("under the name") as being authored by Barnabas. He even entitles it the Epistle of Barnabas. He also declares it as “generally received among the Churches” as a part of apostolic Scriptures. Then he quotes from it what we know is from Hebrews 6.
And this is only some of the external evidence. Since Barnabas was a Hellenized Jew from Crete with a more polished Greek language background, a Levite familiar with Old vs. New Covenant issues relating to Christianity, and the "Son of Encouragement", the internal evidence of the book, this "word of encouragement" (13:22) points easily to someone like Barnabas! What do you think? Can we say Barnabas wrote Hebrews just as much as we can say Matthew wrote Matthew? |
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 2, 2015 23:25:19 GMT -6
Quick thoughts!
Clement of Alexandria is of course just as early as Tertullian, and he is quoted by Eusebius (6.14.2), albeit writing much later, “The epistle of the Hebrews he asserted was written by Paul to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, but it was carefully translated by Luke and published among the Greeks since one finds the same character of style and of phraseology in the epistle as in the Acts.” What is the source of your quote above? In my PowerPoint notes I have that Tertullian called it "Epistle to the Hebrews" in De Pudicitia, “On Modesty,” 20.2. Is that your source? I haven't taken the time to search that out!
Barnabas is indeed called an apostle in the New Testament, which serves to legitimize any possible claims to his authorship of Hebrews, but there seems to be as much uncertainty early as late regarding authorship in general, though Paul's authorship seems to have picked up steam over time.
A review of my notes includes an argument for Pauline authorship as follows:
1) 13:18-19 suggests that the readers knew the author and that the author would soon be restored to them, suggesting possible imprisonment (cf. 10:34, “in my chains”; also see Philemon 22), perhaps even a Roman imprisonment (13:24); BUT perhaps Barnabas could have experienced imprisonment as well.
2) 13:23 acknowledges a close relationship with Timothy (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2), perhaps even a cell-mate; BUT Barnabas has no known association with Timothy to my knowledge, particularly since Paul picked up Timothy during his second missionary journey after separating from Barnabas after the first.
3) doctrinal affinities with Paul’s letters, including Paul’s high regard for the person and death of Christ; his usage of the Old Testament to support his argument; similar phraseology; and his teaching on the Law, particularly that adherence to the Law is clearly inferior to faith (cf. Phil. 3:4-9); BUT of course Barnabas' close association with Paul on their first missionary journey could explain any affinities with Paul's arguments.
4) early attestation by both the church councils and individuals, including Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Jerome and Augustine although Origen conceded that no one could know its true authorship; BUT you've already mentioned an early attestation to Barnabas as well.
I think I'm inclined to side with Origen who argued that only God knows! I'm not sure I'm overpowered by Tertullian's remarks unless you can persuade me further.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 3, 2015 10:46:33 GMT -6
Yes, Brother, it was a quote from "Modesty", chapter 20. I like this topic because of the ecclesiastical authority issue that is connected with it! Why do we think Matthew wrote Matthew? How much can we trust what the Roman Catholic denomination authorities have said, since they also held to a false gospel from their beginning in AD 325? Eusebius is their historian for the 300 years prior their denomination's birth . And he does not seem to be quoting Origin accurately for, unless Origen had changed his view early or late, all of his references in the abundant extant literature that we have from him confirm that his view was, like Clement's, that Paul was the author of Hebrews!
However, I am not a big fan of the Alexandrian theologians of the first three hundred years. I believe their writings were preserved because they voiced the same sacramental gospel that Roman Catholicism wanted to declare "orthodox" when it began in the fourth century. Tertullian was in that camp also, but left it and became more evangelical, I believe. And thus I am more favorably inclined to his evangelical view of Hebrews' authorship, which he declares was "generally received among the churches", than I am towards the liberal theologians' view of the Alexandrian scholars.
I appreciated your concessions that all the Pauline arguments fit for Barnabas, and your added note of his qualification as an apostle. I believe Paul's own inspired limitation, voiced in 2Thess 3:17, clearly precludes him from being the author - "The salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle; so I write."
So my conclusion is, if we accept the authorship of the unsigned Gospels based on external evidence alone, and that mostly found in writers from the first 300 years, preserved by Roman Catholicism, perhaps that external evidence can be reevaluated for the authorship of Hebrews. It is interesting that the RC textual scholar Jerome said around AD 400 - "The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his, [i.e. Paul’s] on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement afterwards bishop of the church at Rome...." (Illustrious Men, Chapter 5) Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 3, 2015 15:41:13 GMT -6
Brian, certainly external evidence is critical to the discussion, but we are not limited to the external evidence with regards to Hebrews. Indeed, in the face of conflicting external attestations, would it not be wise to look with heightened interest to the internal evidence in Hebrews? Notwithstanding my tongue in cheek comment earlier about siding with Origen on the matter of authorship in saying that only God knows, I am favorably inclined to the historic argument for Paul when feasting primarily on the internal evidence of the book. I've certainly acknowledged that Barnabas is a reasonable consideration, but ...
a) given a dating for Hebrews of 64-68 [befitting a time when Christians had faced displacement (13:24, “those from Italy greet you”; perhaps a reference to Emperor Claudius’ expulsion of Jewish Christians from Rome in 49 A.D. noted in Acts 18:1-2, which tentatively establishes a bottom date for the epistle), plundering of goods (10:34), imprisonment (13:3; note too the particular mention of Timothy’s release from imprisonment in 13:23) and even bloodshed (12:4), circumstances which would fit well with the period following Nero’s widespread, murderous persecution of Christians that began in 64 A.D.]; and
given that Paul was imprisoned around that time with no historical evidence of any such imprisonment for Barnabas;
b) given that Paul had a close relationship with Timothy and that there is no known association of Barnabas and Timothy;
c) given that the content of Hebrews has an affinity to Pauline theology and we have no known source of Barnabas-ine theology to which to compare;
therefore I'd suggest that the internal evidence aligns neatly with known circumstances (literary and historical) in the life of Paul, but does not align with Barnabas except by conjecture.
Would you agree?
Perhaps more later ... I've invited my good friend Richard Klein to jump in on this discussion as well because he has given this topic much thought. We are having some technical difficulties getting him registered, but hopefully he will be able to weigh in soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 3, 2015 22:19:11 GMT -6
Daniel, I hope I am not coming across argumentative! I am just curious what you might say concerning Jerome's evaluation, that I mentioned, which seems to indicate that Hebrews does not align "neatly" with Paul's literary style and language. And also I am wondering how you would view what I mentioned about Paul's testimony in 2Thess 3:17, that he signs all his epistles, which would seem to justly exclude Hebrews as being his? I also look forward to Brother Klein's input. Thanks. Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 4, 2015 0:38:53 GMT -6
Brian, I tell my students that the classroom is a safe place for working through the arguments, and this forum is no different. We must stir the pot of ideas to grow. I don't sense an argumentative spirit. I sense passion and a desire to know, which I share, and isn't that why we're here?
Oh, for sure you have some thoughts that are stretching me and to which I haven't responded in part because I'm working through them. Again, in the classroom I would often say when presented with an idea or question with which I hadn't yet grappled fully, "Well, I'm so sorry we just don't have the time today to explore that, but perhaps we can revisit it next week," and then I'd run home and dig into Scripture. Surely, I'm not the only prof who's done that! :0)
But at the very least I wanted to establish the point that internal evidence does "neatly" point to Paul in ways that it does not do so fully with Barnabas. That doesn't exclude Barnabas from the conversation, but it forces me to rely on the external evidence more exclusively if I am to posit Barnabas as the author, and clearly internal evidence is more compelling in the absence of external evidence or when external evidence is divided in its opinion.
It's true that the Greek is polished, but then Clement's statement that Luke had his hand in the translation would certainly explain why the Greek is perhaps more polished than we are used to with Paul. Therefore the polished Greek doesn't tip the preponderance of the internal evidence to Barnabas over Paul given the other things that do seem to point to Paul.
Now, the one point that stretches me in your presentation of the internal evidence is that of Paul's habitual signature in each epistle. Several arguments have been forwarded for why Paul may have chosen not to sign this particular epistle (if we can rightly call it an epistle), but a practice to sign every epistle need not mean an existential necessity to do so in the case of Hebrews if Paul thought it wise for his purposes to remain anonymous. I may need a lifeline ... and perhaps some sleep.
Good discussion!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Rich Klein on Feb 4, 2015 8:43:49 GMT -6
Clement of Alexandria (b. 150) suggested that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew and Luke the physician translated it into Greek. Thomas Aquinas, though late, thought the same thing. Though much later, I agree with the two gentlemen aforementioned.
The overwhelming bulk of early proponents and scholars of the Book of Hebrews authorship support Paul as the author.
Major church councils support Pauline authorship as a compliment to apostolic canonicity.
It is obvious that the writer of Hebrews was profoundly versed in the Septuagint. Who could possibly compete with Paul's training? His bonds and prison experiences qualify Paul in that regards well beyond all others. His association with Timothy in and out of jail are singular. And, the "righteous/faith" chain that tracks through Habakkuk, Romans, and Galatians, concludes in Hebrews 10:38. Inferential evidence to be considered seriously. Notice too the pecfuliar Pauline Greek construction at Hebrews 13:5 and Romans 12:9. Then note the "but we" unique construction in the Greek of Hebrews. Luke and Paul resort to this construction twenty-seven times in their writings, while the construction is only found in one other place in the New Testament, John's Gospel. If one wants to discuss manuscript evidence Papyrus 46, Sinaiticus, and Coptic Version of the New Testament (c. 346) all insert Hebrews in the midst of the other Pauline writings. In the middle. He may not be the best person to bring to court here, but Pelagius, the heretic, supported Pauline authorship for Hebrews.
I have personally located in fifty-one verses throughout Paul's epistles echoes from thirty-one verses in the Book of Hebrews. Even the images that Paul makes use of in four places in Hebrews can be correlated with the same images in his other epislatory literature. that is First Corinthians (twice), Ephesians, and Colossians.
It is curious that someone like Harry Ironsde, an amateur scholar with no formal training, would observe the "secret mark" in the closing of every "undisputed" epistle of Paul's origin, the "secret mark" being the closing words: "Grace be with you." That is how Paul concludes Hebrews.
If more detail is needed to support these arguments, I have it in my computer. Simply contact me if you are interested and give me your e-mail address. I will attach Power Points to you.
By the way, if Paul had signed his name to the epistle, what Jew would have read it:)
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 4, 2015 12:06:08 GMT -6
Brian, do you think that Paul's statement in 2 Thess. 3:17 "clearly precludes him from being the author"? Do you think that there is any reasonable argument for why he might have written a work without signing it? Any reasonable argument at all? Or do you think it is untenable to even consider such an argument?
Pastor Klein has suggested that no Jew would have read it otherwise. I am quite sure, however, that most would acknowledge that Hebrews was written to second-generation (2:3), persecuted (10:32-34), Jewish believers (1:3; 3:1; 4:3, 16; 6:4-5; 10:10; 12:2). They were Jewish believers, not unbelievers, and Paul had spoken quite strikingly to Jews in Romans 2, 9-11, for example, so I'm not convinced that we can dismiss any objection to Pauline authorship so quickly by simply arguing that no Jew would have read it otherwise. Yet, it seems to me that the exclusion of Paul's signature does not necessitate the abandonment of any consideration for Pauline authorship. Would you agree?
Still chewing on everything!
- Daniel
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 4, 2015 12:15:47 GMT -6
Brother Klein, Your response is exactly why I thought this would be an interesting subject to discuss. I think we all could agree that Barnabas has the qualifications to write a NT canonical book. The main issue is how to weigh external evidence. Internal evidence, as Daniel pointed out could fit easily with Paul or Barnabas, though, of course we only have Paul's other epistles to compare with for phraseology. And that is not an exact science or we could say Jude was written by Peter if Jude's name weren't attached.
I am not sure what you mean by "overwhelming bulk of early proponents" if you are talking about pre-Nicea. There is no doubt, as you have well demonstrated, even with the manuscript evidence, that the Alexandrian school was convinced of Pauline authorship. I am suggesting that the Latin school represented by Tertullian and Jerome did not support Pauline authorship. And Tertullian's early evangelical witness includes the important reference that it was accepted among the churches.
Post Nicea I find that even Eusebius got Origen's view incorrect. And as I mentioned above, I am skeptical of the integrity of scholarship in RC anyway, since they have had an errant gospel since Nicea. So what weight should we put on those who control public "orthodoxy" from AD 325 - 1517. Luther presents a good example of one willing to critique the "orthodox" view, and be used of the Lord to honor Scripture's authority. I still think the fact that the Holy Spirit had Paul write that he signs ALL his epistles is not so easily dismissed as important external evidence. So in my weighing of eternal evidence, especially if Barnabas' epistle was first sent to the Latin world as would be probable based on the traditional witness of his movements, the Latin witness would trump those liberals in Alexandria! :-) Brian
Brother Daniel, Your response got posted just before mine. I would add that the 2Thess 3:17 verse is not airtight because it was written before Hebrews was composed, most likely. However, with a presupposition that there is a unity in the NT canon, I still lean strongly (95% sure) that it relates to all Paul's writings. Zane Hodges (Bible Knowledge Commentary) leans towards Barnabas as the author and includes this other evidence - "The view that Barnabas wrote Hebrews was referred to at a later time by Jerome and reappeared in Gregory of Elvira and Filaster, both writers of the fourth century. There is reason to think that in the ancient catalog of canonical books found in the Western manuscript called Codex Claremontanus, the Book of Hebrews went under the name of the Epistle of Barnabas."
You bring up an interesting issue about the audience of Hebrews. That may be for another post discussion. But I think Barnabas was addressing both those who possessed salvation as well as though who only professed, the later being in danger of having never entered in to salvation and being tempted to return to Judaism. Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Rich Klein on Feb 4, 2015 16:52:37 GMT -6
I think Tertullian is too late when compared to earlier sources,
and still stands almost alone in his viewpoint regarding Barnabas.
Early Greek primary (almost) sources appeal to me more than skewed Latin viewpoints of
nearly everything early or even late.
By the way, several are called apostles including Paul and Barnabas,
who were not part of the original apostalate/thirteen,
and this with the fact that Barnabas was a Levite both are just not enough to convince.
Beyond those two "qualifications", Paul shadows Barnabas in almost every other way,
including some really big gaffs on the part of Barnabas.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 4, 2015 17:15:04 GMT -6
Brother Klein, Again, I am not sure what you mean by earlier sources. Both Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian are writing about the same time - AD 200 and P46 is also from around then. What earlier sources are you referring to? I'm interested in all that's available. Thanks. I won't attempt to address the idea of 13 apostles :-) Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Rich Klein on Feb 4, 2015 17:29:18 GMT -6
Thirteen apostles - Twelve plus Matthias.
Five more folks in the NT are called apostles.
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 4, 2015 23:32:18 GMT -6
Side note: I've always been fascinated by the number of apostles and once did some research. I discovered that those called apostles, whether in a more technical sense or in a more general sense, total 25:
The 12, Matthias (Acts 1:25), Paul (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 15:9), Barnabas (Acts 14:14; 1 Cor. 9:6), James the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19), Andronicus & Junia(s) (Rom. 16:7), Apollos (1 Cor. 4:6, 9), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), Silas (1 Thes.1:1; 2:6), Timothy (1 Thes. 1:1; 2:6) and two unnamed in 2 Cor. 8:18, 22. Oh, wait, and Jesus (Heb. 3:1)! Total of 25.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardklein on Feb 5, 2015 9:17:50 GMT -6
I agree on twenty-one now:) Not eighteen as I previously thought. Very good!
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 5, 2015 15:21:58 GMT -6
Brian, is this your full argument for the authorship of Barnabas over Paul?
1) Paul cannot be the author of Hebrews because in 2 Thes. 3:17 he clearly stated that he signs all his epistles; therefore, one must find the best non-Pauline alternative, leading to Barnabas.
2) A similarity in writing style between that of Hebrews and that of Paul’s other writings is overstated, and furthermore similarity does not presume identity as witnessed by the similarity between Peter and Jude.
3) Tertullian remarked in De Pudicitia that the manuscript circulating under the name of Barnabas in the 2nd century was accepted by the churches.
4) Barnabas was a Hellenized Jew from Crete whose Greek would have been quite polished; a Levite familiar with Old vs. New Testament tensions; named “son of encouragement” which ties in perfectly with a key purpose of the book (cf. 13:22); and an apostle (Acts 14:14; 1 Cor. 9:6) and therefore qualified to write Hebrews.
5) Eusebius misquoted Origen on his view of the authorship of Hebrews so Eusebius cannot be trusted to quote Clement of Alexandria accurately, leaving Tertullian as the earliest, most trustworthy source on the subject.
6) Latin scholarship, which supported non-Pauline authorship (notably the writings of Jerome, Gregory of Elvira and Filaster) trumps Alexandrian scholarship on the question of authorship because Hebrews would have most likely circulated first among the Latin churches.
7) Codex Claremontanus listed Hebrews under the name of “Epistle of Barnabas.”
|
|
