|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 6, 2015 1:18:36 GMT -6
Great summation of my view, Daniel! One modification to #5 - Eusebius may have misquoted Origen, or may have quoted an earlier or later viewpoint of Origen that we do not have among all the extant works of his which consistently support Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Or, in my own opinion, Eusebius knew Origen supported Pauline authorship and had stopped quoting Origen in the middle of 6.25.13 and then was giving his own view the rest of that paragraph and also 14. His quote of Clement of Alexandria may also have been correct. Like with Origen, we do have extant in Clement of Alexandria's writings a quote attributing Hebrews to Paul - "For Paul too, in the Epistles, plainly does not disparage philosophy.... Wherefore also, writing to the Hebrews, who were declining again from faith to the law, he says, 'Have ye not need again of one to teach you which are the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat?'" (cf. Heb. 5:12) Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 8.
I believe Eusebius was promoting the Alexandrian view. He does mention that the church of Rome rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews (3.3.5), but in the same place he affirms his own acceptance of Pauline authorship, which he clarifies later as being in a Hebrew original. I think he is only uncertain as to who translated it into Greek, and his "God knows" statement relates to that point only. It is interesting that modern historians all think Eusebius is quoting Origen with the "God knows" statement It is interesting that Eusebius was familiar with Tertullian, but does not mention his view of Barnabas' authorship.
Brother Klein's Alexandrian manuscript evidence is strong support that the Alexandrian view of Pauline authorship was well established by AD 200. I am not contending that the Alexandrian view didn't exist early or that it was later than Tertullian's testimony of Barnabas' authorship. It just seems a little interesting to me that a number of men in my circle reject Alexandrian scholarship because of their foundational influence for allegorical interpretation of Scripture, mixture of Greek philosophy with Christianity, and their shoddy preservation of the Greek text of Scripture, but then lean so heavily on their Pauline authorship for Hebrews that may well be an Alexandrian fabrication, especially when there is great alternative evidence, just as early and from a more fundamental scholar of biblical truth, like Tertullian. Brian
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 6, 2015 23:27:19 GMT -6
Is this any better? If not, I'd love to see you put it in a nutshell for me.
5) HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WOULD SUGGEST THAT Eusebius, WHETHER KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY, MISREPRESENTED Origen on his view of the authorship of Hebrews, thus Eusebius MAY HAVE LIKEWISE MISREPRESENTED Clement of Alexandria, leaving Tertullian as the earliest, most trustworthy source on the subject.
On a separate point, you've noted that proponents of Pauline authorship are quick to point to Latin scholars for support who share their view, but that they are often loathe to point to them on other matters. But what axe are the Latin scholars grinding by propagating Pauline authorship over that of Barnabas? Preferring one or the other with regard to authorship hardly seems to compare with the benefits that would come to them with regard to theological issues, particularly soteriology.
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 7, 2015 13:34:52 GMT -6
Your edit is ok. I actually think history has misrepresented Eusebius' and attributed words that he wrote as if he was quoting Origen, when actually Eusebius was finished quoting and was then summarizing his own opinion. In fact, most modern commentators even misquote Eusebius' supposed quote of Origen when they write "only God knows" when the word "only" is not in the original. I would recommend deleting #5 from your list, for my view is that Eusebius had already bought into the Alexandrian view of Pauline authorship and I have no problem seeing that as an early opinion.
The Alexandrian opinion is Greek not Latin. I am sorry that I was not more clear on that. They were Greek scholars. Tertullian was Latin, and wrote in Latin, though he understood Greek well as far as I am aware. You are asking a great question as to why the Alexandrian scholars chose Pauline authorship! Remember, Tertullian, the Latin scholar, said he had a manuscript, most likely in Greek, that had Barnabas' name on it, and that it was recognized as apostolic by all the churches (probably meaning those he was associated with). The Alexandrian scholars never speak of having manuscript evidence with Paul's name on it. And we only know their (Clement's and Origen's) discussion of why the Greek of Hebrews is so non-Pauline and why Paul's name was not added because of their quotes only found in Eusebius' history around 100 years later. Did he fabricate those quotes? Some scholars are wondering how much Eusebius may have made up out of "whole cloth" in his attempt to help Constantine establish a sacramental, magisterial denomination of Christianity by "proving" it was historically reflected in a clear lineage of teaching and events from the first 300 years.
The book of Hebrews is anonymous, like the Gospels, Acts, and Johannine epistles. Scholars like figuring out the unknown, and to figure it out dogmatically! :-) Proving Pauline authorship dogmatically, especially since it goes against Paul's normal modus operendi sounds like a scholars' dream to make a name for himself! I know, I move in those circles. The scholarship of Alexandria became very powerful, especially in the battles of Christianity against the Gnostics and the Arians before Nicea took place. Alexandrian scholars also were liberal, magisterial, and sacramental, and a perfect fit for the imperial denomination that Constantine started at Nicea. Their opinions, like Pauline authorship of Hebrews, became accepted as dogmatic orthodoxy, much like their opinions on baptismal regeneration, sacramental priesthood and apostolic succession. Whereas Tertullian, who left the pre-Nicea political Christianity that was forming in Rome and Alexandria even in the late second century and early third century, would have his views of priesthood of all believers, authority of Scripture, and authorship of Hebrews receive less support.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 7, 2015 23:11:27 GMT -6
No, Brian, you were clear. I simply misspoke. Insert GREEK for LATIN above. My questions was: In your opinion what axe are the GREEK scholars grinding by propagating Pauline authorship over that of Barnabas if the latter was the prevalent view? Clearly on theological issues there is so much more at stake, for example, but authorship is not so critical when both have apostolic authority. Even we can disagree regarding Paul vs. Barnabas and it doesn't affect the theological outcome of our view of Hebrews. You've answered well in your last post. I appreciate it!
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 10, 2015 9:26:22 GMT -6
Brian, excluding point #5 from the previous list regarding Eusebius, your complete argument outlines as follows with my thoughts attached.
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.
Again, I don't think there is an existential necessity for Paul to sign Hebrews if he had a pertinent objection, and you've admitted yourself that it is at least possible that he did not sign it, presumably meaning that you don't think there is a loss of moral fortitude for those who hold to that possibility. I think it is safe to say that it was his customary practice to sign all his epistles. I have a preference for biblical evidence over extra-biblical evidence, so I consider this one of your stronger arguments for the authorship of 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.
But there are quite a number of striking parallels to Paul's life and similarities between Paul's epistles and Hebrews that do give one considerable pause at least and do not make it difficult to connect the dots to Pauline authorship as at least a strong possibility. For me the internal evidence of Hebrews is very strong if not compelling. I also think that there are at least a few markers that make Paul stand out and that make Barnabas merely a conjecture--e.g., the writer's imprisonment and his close association with Timothy.
3) Tertullian remarked in De Pudicitia that the manuscript circulating under the name of Barnabas in the 2nd century was accepted by the churches.
But I'm not convinced that Clement's assertion cannot be trusted (and it is just as early), and it would not be hard to add a subtitle to any manuscript adding the name of Barnabas for the same reason that you have suggested that the Alexandrian writers proposed Paul, i.e, namely to settle the question and to make a name for themselves.
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.
Could not disagree.
5) 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. 6) Codex Claremontanus listed Hebrews under the name of “Epistle of Barnabas.”
Arguments from external evidence are not compelling for me on this issue. There is too much division among them and the Codex Claremontanus is also quite late.
Could Paul (perhaps with Luke as his amenuensis) have authored Hebrews? Yes. I think it is quite befitting the internal evidence of the book, which admittedly I give stronger credence to than to the divided external evidence. Could Barnabas have written Hebrews? Yes. I personally don't have any problem with that contention. I simply find the evidence for Pauline authorship more compelling than the evidence for Barnabas, but in the end, I don't find it necessary to settle in on one or the other. I'm content with the tension for now.
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 12, 2015 14:02:18 GMT -6
Daniel, I was not sure if you meant your last post to be the final word for this discussion, like icing on the cake. I thought maybe the one before was that, and by this one you were looking for some more response. If not, you’ll have to use your next post as the icing!
In my own opinion, this issue has theological importance as it relates to canonicity, ecclesiastical dogmatism, and biblical application. I believe that for canonicity NT books must be tied to apostolic origin. For ecclesiastical dogmatism, only clear Scriptures must be used. And for biblical application, inclusive statements and commands that use terms like “all” or “every” must be prioritized.
So when weighing the points you listed, here’s what I would do, even trying to give the Pauline authorship choice as many points as my conscience will allow. 1. 2Thess 3:17 is worth 40% of the argument because it is an inspired piece of evidence directly related to the Pauline authorship issue because of its use of the term “every”. Paul only get 5 of that 40, leaving the other 35 to someone else apostolic. For the other reasons below I give 30 of it to Barnabas and 5 to Luke.
2. Internal evidence is worth 30% of the argument, and I would compare what you shared as Pauline in #2 with what you shared about Barnabas in your #4. I am willing to split this equally between them both, giving each 15 of the 30. As a side note, not just Jude quoting from Peter, but as the Synoptic Gospels demonstrate, there probably was some copying going on by later gospel authors from the earlier ones. Now there’s a subject for the next NT post! 3. Early Scholarship’s opinion is worth 30% of the argument, and I would put what you shared in #5 and #6 together. The evidence in #6 can be compared against the early Alexandrian NT manuscripts that linked Hebrews with the Pauline Corpus. I am willing to split this in half with 15 each to Paul and Barnabas or even three ways with 10 each and 10 to Luke, not as an amanuensis for Paul, but as a burdened scholarly Jew himself, perhaps even from a Levitical background as some have suggested based on internal evidence from Luke and Acts. But I am being very generous, I feel to Paul and Luke in this, for Tertullian was an evangelical reformer with a much higher view of Scripture than the philosophical sacramentalists, Clement and Origen, in my view.
So Barnabas wins with over 50% of the evidence in his favor! I cannot put any ecclesiastical dogmatism behind that decision since there is no clear biblical reference that says – Barnabas wrote Hebrews. But I can be dogmatic that the book was written with apostolic authority, which only existed in the first century, and that Hebrews was Holy Scripture the moment it was completed. Brian
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 12, 2015 16:51:16 GMT -6
Made me smile to see you had posted again! I am thoroughly enjoying the dialogue and have no intention of icing any cakes as long as members keep posting. That's why I started the forum in the first place. It stretches me and I love learning! My style is not to throw a "gotcha" hand grenade and then claim victory. I've always told my students that the best compliment I can give them in the writing of their papers is that I learned from reading them. Well, I'm learning from you, and hope it flows both ways. We just need more voices for the iron to be sharpened to a razor's edge. That will happen! It's clever how you graded the arguments. I've also observed that sometimes teachers like you and me think that once we've put a position into print, then we have to die for that position for fear that we look weak or unlearned. My hope is that I will always remain a humble student of God's Word. Let me get down to dinner for now, but I'll take a closer look at your last post later. Maybe I should try to create a poll to see what others think. Haven't tried that previously. Well, take care, brother.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 13, 2015 0:55:51 GMT -6
Brian, clearly one of your strongest objections to Pauline authorship is his statement in 2 Thes. 3:17, "The salutation of Paul with my own hand which is a sign in every epistle so I write." The argument proposes that since Paul did not sign Hebrews, using his name, then he cannot therefore have been the author of Hebrews. But as I've looked at that verse again and again in 2 Thessalonians, here's my question: What is the sign in every epistle of which Paul speaks? The inclusion of his name in his own handwriting? Or the inclusion of his salutation, which he includes immediately following v. 17 and which closes out his letter, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen"? Pastor Klein has pointed out that the author of Hebrews does in fact include a strikingly similar salutation to close out the letter, "Grace be with you all. Amen" (Heb. 13:25), which is admittedly an abbreviated form of the salutation, but which (when I checked) is otherwise identical in the Greek. I've admitted that I don't see a necessity for Paul's use of "every" in 2 Thes. 3:17 to require an unequivocal inclusion of his signature (by name) in every subsequent letter any more than his use of "all" (same word) in 2 Thes. 2:9 with regard to the lawless one's coming with "all" power would imply omnipotence. But if the sign is the wording of his salutation rather than his signature by name, then any preclusion against Pauline authorship based on 2 Thes. 3:17-18 takes a hit or perhaps even falls away entirely. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 13, 2015 16:23:28 GMT -6
I don't think you are trying to say that you want to be dogmatic about Pauline authorship. That would be a key issue relating to the topic of ecclesiastical authority, as I mentioned above. So it would be interesting to see what percentages you would give to the possible choices based on the evidence.
A study of the 13 Pauline epistles indicates that Paul consistently shows a concern that his epistles would be recognized as his. They all begin with his name, and it seems certain from 2Thess 3:17 that his modus operandi was that his final words (which did not always include his name) were written by his own hand. Perhaps all of Galatians itself was written in his hand (6:11). All of final greetings do have “grace to you” somewhere, but some are usually much lengthier. That short phrase could easily, by itself, be a common ending for someone else.
The most important related question would be how did Hebrews fail to be passed on clearly as Pauline. If Paul seems so consistently concerned with identifying himself and his apostolic authority when he writes, the argument that the Holy Spirit would want him to hide those details so that the truth would be better received does not seem reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 14, 2015 23:31:45 GMT -6
The answer to my own question above is that the sign of Paul's epistles is not the inclusion of his name in his own handwriting, as you seem to concur, but rather the key salutation, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" or at least something similar in his own handwriting. Your statement that this salutation "could easily, by itself, be a common ending for someone else" is quite fair. Oh, how I would love to read the original manuscript of Hebrews to see if "Grace be with you all. Amen" was written in a handwriting dissimilar to what had preceded it! But yes, certainly it could be a "common ending for someone else," yet it is striking that such a greeting appears in all the known Pauline epistles and Hebrews. It's true that John's Revelation also ends with "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen," suggesting as you have argued that it may have been common, so your point is well made and not entirely to be dismissed. I'm generally very sympathetic to your point, but don't see it as bearing the same weight as you have proposed though I'm not sure how to quantify it. I'm not one to argue that the Holy Spirit wanted to hide Paul's authorship in order that the truths of Hebrews might be better received. You'll recall that I questioned Pastor Klein's point that no one would read it otherwise. I do not know why the Holy Spirit would allow any New Testament books to be written without a clear indication of authorship, but it's not without precedent for an author to sign one book (Jeremiah) and yet not to sign another (obviously Lamentations is widely ascribed to Jeremiah). I don't know why Paul wouldn't sign it and I don't particularly find any arguments on that matter very satisfying, but I'm not uncomfortable with the silence on that point, but try to do what I always do--to look carefully at the internal evidence and see where it leads. For me it still leans towards Paul. Looking forward to seeing how others will vote in the poll.
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Feb 15, 2015 7:34:38 GMT -6
Your intellectual honesty and openness, Daniel, is very refreshing! Your poll is a great idea! I have found this topic to be a great test case for evaluating how dogmatic we can become sometimes, or how unwilling we can be to change from something we've been taught, or how we weigh evidence for disputable matters (Rom. 14:1).
One final thought from me... I may not have stated it clearly enough, but I believe, or lean, towards the idea that the salutation is not just Paul's name, or the line with "grace" in it, but the entire ending, from wherever that might have begun in the text. In Romans is seems to be pretty long!
You do great analysis work!
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Feb 16, 2015 15:36:06 GMT -6
Thanks for your kind words!
|
|
|
Post by Rich Klein on Mar 1, 2015 15:56:23 GMT -6
Codex Claromontanus is sixth century, and distinctly Western. Aland rates this Greek-Latin diglot as a category II. The work of at least nine different correctors has been identified throughout, their touches being found all the way into manuscript copies of the ninth century. A rather late document, I think, in an argument for Barnabas as author.
|
|