huisman schreef:Interessant dat jij de Hebreeenschrijver steeds Paulus noemt .
Ik hou het er inderdaad op dat Paulus waarschijnlijk de auteur van de Hebreeënbrief is (met als grote voordeel, dat
Paulus makkelijker te typen is dan steeds
de onbekende auteur van de Hebreeënbrief te gebruiken). Het belangrijkste argument is dat Hebreeënbrief inhoudelijk sterk Paulinisch is. Ook is - vanaf het oudste manuscript van het NT wat wij kennen - de Hebreeënbrief tussen de Paulinische brieven geplaatst.
Er zijn, traditioneel gezien, 3 visies (voor degenen die Engels kunnen):
A. External Evidence A survey of the early Christian approach to the book of Hebrews shows that no firm tradition existed regarding its authorship, at least in the earliest period. It is certain that Clement of Rome knew it, although he cites it without acknowledgment (cf. He. 11:7 and 1Clem 9:4; He. 1:3f and 1Clem 36:1f). In the passages cited from Hebrews in 1 Clement, the sequence of thought is so closely reproduced that there can be no doubt that Clement wrote with this work before him. This shows that Hebrews possessed authority in Rome at an early date. There are a few similarities of expression with the Shepherd of Hermas. The possible marks of its influence on the works of Polycarp and Justin Martyr are very uncertain, while Marcion did not include it in his canon — although this omission may have been for dogmatic reasons, since he would have found the theme of Hebrews unpalatable. Its omission from the Muratorian Canon is more significant, but this could possibly be accounted for by the fragmentary character of the canon. In any case, Paul’s church Epistles are said to be seven in number, which would exclude Hebrews.
When the book emerges into the clear light of history toward the end of the 2nd cent, the tradition as to its authorship is divided into three different streams.
1. Pauline Tradition The idea that Hebrews was the work of Paul first appeared in Alexandria. Clement tells how his teacher, apparently Pantaenus, explained why Paul did not in this letter, as in others, address his readers under his own name. He supposed that Paul refrained from putting his own name to a work addressed to Hebrew people out of reverence for the Lord, who Himself had been their Apostle. Clement accepted this explanation and in addition supposed that the original had been written in Hebrew and that Luke had translated it into Greek. This latter speculation was probably not based on any genuine tradition but was rather an inference drawn by Clement himself from the title, from the dissimilarity of the Greek from that of Paul’s Epistles, and from the similarities observed between Hebrews and Acts.
Origen noted the differences in style between Hebrews and Paul’s Epistles but was impressed by the Pauline character of the thoughts. His own suggestion was that some disciple had written down what he had heard from Paul. He knew of traditions that held Luke or Clement of Rome to be the author, but he himself was not prepared to venture upon any identification. He declared that “God alone knows.” Origen’s caution was not heeded by his successors in Alexandria, who assumed without question the Pauline authorship, an assumption which by the 4th cent had spread throughout the Eastern churches.
2. Barnabas Tradition The only other tradition that can claim ancient attestation is that of Barnabas, and even this seems to have been held in only a restricted area, for its sole authority is Tertullian, who, when introducing a quotation from He. 6:1, 4–6, writes: “There is also an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas … and the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the churches than that apocryphal ‘Shepherd’ of adulterers” (De pudicitia 20). Tertullian is not expressing his mere personal opinion but quoting a tradition that had so far established itself as to appear in the MS title of the book; and he betrays no consciousness of the existence of any other tradition. Vernon Bartlet (Expos 6th ser., 5 [1885], 423) considered that Tertullian was here magnifying Hebrews at Hermas’s expense. In any case, he does not appear to regard it very highly, for the quotation referred to is the only one he makes from Hebrews, whereas he has copious citations from Paul’s Epistles. Moffatt (intro, p. 437) thought that behind this view of authorship was some Roman tradition, but the evidence is too slight to be certain. Later, the African Church, whose opinion Tertullian appears to be representing, embraced the Alexandrian view, for at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (419) Hebrews was included among the Epistles of Paul.
3. Tradition of Anonymity No tradition of authorship appears elsewhere in the West until the 4th century. The earliest definite evidence in support of the Pauline authorship of this book is found in the works of Jerome and Augustine. Yet neither of these seems convinced of Pauline authorship, even though they cite it as Paul’s. Since Hebrews was known as early as Clement in Rome, but without mention of author, it seems most probable that the book circulated in the West anonymously until through Jerome and Augustine the Eastern view was mediated to the West.
The theory of anonymity finds support in the fact that the earliest evidence for the Pauline tradition seems to have arisen in an attempt to explain the absence of Paul’s name, i.e., the anonymity. But how did the strong Pauline tradition arise? It is highly probable that the superficial similarities of doctrinal presentation struck the early Alexandrians. To Origen the Pauline flavor of the thoughts was apparent. Since the work so clearly possessed apostolic authority, it is not difficult to see why the assumption arose that Paul was the author. There is no certain evidence that the Pauline ascription was added to make Hebrews acceptable from a canonical point of view. It is more probable that its canonicity was accepted before its apostolic authorship and not vice versa. In other words, its own spiritual authority and value made it impossible to exclude it from the canon, and the same cause led it to be classed with that other body of theological writings, the Pauline Epistles.
Until the time of the Reformers the Pauline tradition remained unchallenged. But Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin all questioned it. Luther suggested Apollos as author, but he seems to have been the first to do so. Later, Grotius returned to the theory of Lukan authorship, which had been current in Origen’s time. Since Grotius many different views have been held and these will be considered next.
B. Internal Evidence The failure of the external tradition to solve the problem of authorship throws the onus on the internal evidence, which is so sparse that the solution remains a matter of conjecture. The absence of the author’s name is further complicated by the paucity of hints about his personality. But a few details may be inferred. He was probably a Hellenist, a Greek-speaking Jew. He was familiar with the OT Scriptures and with the religious ideas of the Jews. He claims the inheritance of their sacred history, traditions, and institutions (1:1) and dwells on these with an intimate knowledge and enthusiasm that would have been improbable, though not impossible, in a proselyte, and even more so in a Christian convert from heathenism. But he apparently knew the OT only in the LXX, which he follows even where it deviates from the Hebrew. He writes Greek with a purity of style and vocabulary to which the writings of Luke alone in the NT can be compared. Like Philo, his mind is imbued with a combination of Hebrew and Greek thought. His general typological mode of thinking, his use of the allegorical method, as well as his use of many terms that are most familiar in Alexandrian thought, all reveal the Hellenistic mind. Yet his fundamental conceptions are in full accord with the teaching of Paul and of the Johannine writings.
The central position assigned to Christ, the high estimate of His person, the saving significance of His death, the general trend of the ethical teaching, the writer’s opposition to asceticism, and his esteem for the rulers and teachers of the Church all bear out the inference that he belonged to a Christian circle dominated by Pauline ideas. Neither the author nor the readers appear to have been personal disciples of Jesus; rather, they had received the gospel from those who had heard the Lord (2:3). By the time of writing some of these may have been dead (13:7). The writer had probably lived among those whom he addressed and had probably been their teacher. He is anticipating visiting them again soon (13:18). Although the foregoing data are not inconsiderable, they are hardly conclusive enough to be attached to any specific person. Yet many attempts have been made.
C. Various Suggestions Since much tradition points to Paul, he must be considered first. There are a number of reasons why scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting Pauline authorship. (1) Paul makes no claim to be the author. This contrasts strikingly with his practice as we know it from his acknowledged Epistles. If he had been the author, it is difficult, if not impossible, to suggest a reason why he would have omitted his name. Pantaenus’s view that it was from reverence for the Lord, the true Apostle to the Hebrews, is quite unconvincing. Moreover, the author nowhere shows any consciousness of apostolic authority, which was of concern to Paul. (2) The style of Hebrews differs in many respects from that of Paul. As mentioned above, it is nearer to the classical Greek style, and it lacks digressions so frequent in Paul. Its theme is also more carefully worked out according to a definite pattern. All this does not automatically exclude Pauline authorship, since the different occasion and subject matter may have had some bearing on these matters. (3) The author does not show evidence of the same spiritual experience so characteristic of Paul. There is no allusion to the great crisis on the Damascus road. (4) The writer quotes the OT in a different way from Paul. Instead of “It is written” or “The scripture says,” he has “God says,” or “The Holy Spirit says,” or “One somewhere says.” The writer also keeps closer to the LXX (5) The doctrinal emphases are also somewhat different, although not in conflict, with those of Paul. The dominant theme of Hebrews, the high-priesthood of Christ, finds no direct allusion in Paul’s Epistles (although O. Moe, TLZ, 72 [1947], 335–38, finds a few hints of it). The author’s view of the work of Christ also differs in emphasis, being less concerned with the redemptive aspect and more with the cleansing and purifying work. Unlike Paul, there is no reference to the tension between flesh and spirit. It must not, of course, be supposed that any author is obliged to reproduce all his doctrinal positions in every letter he writes, and to this extent care must be taken not to overstress the differences. (6) The historical situation seems much more conclusive in excluding Paul, for that apostle could hardly have written He. 2:3, where the author states that he had received instruction from those who had heard the Lord. Paul was constantly stressing that he was taught through supernatural revelation (cf. Gal. 1:12). The writer of Hebrews quite definitely seems to class himself with his readers among those who had received the tradition secondhand. In view of these considerations and the uncertainty of the external tradition, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul is not likely to have been the author.
Is there any more to be said for Barnabas? The African tradition that Tertullian mentions was probably a conjecture, but there are a few considerations that might support it. As a Levite, Barnabas would certainly have been acquainted with the temple ritual, but this consideration carries little weight, inasmuch as the author of Hebrews is more interested in the biblical cultus than in the current ritual. At the same time, a converted Levite would certainly have been deeply concerned about the issues raised in this book. It has been maintained that the author’s knowledge of Jewish ritual is derived from Jewish tradition rather than from his acquaintance with the temple worship (cf. Moffatt, intro, p. 438). Whatever the source of his knowledge, there is nothing in the author’s arguments that would make it impossible for Barnabas to have written it. The Hellenistic background might have made its mark upon him in Cyprus. On the other hand, it is difficult to suppose that Barnabas would have written He. 2:3, although the absence of any data regarding the way in which he became a Christian makes it impossible to be certain. The impression given by Acts is that Barnabas was closely linked with the Jerusalem church, although no indication is given of the length of his residence there.
Luke has found various supporters, who have mainly based their contentions on certain verbal similarities between Hebrews and Acts, particularly some affinities with Stephen’s speech (cf. F. D. V. Narborough, p. 11; Manson, comm, p. 36, for details of the latter). The argument rests on the assumption that the speech of Stephen is Luke’s own composition, but if Luke is reproducing the genuine ideas of Stephen himself the evidence would not necessarily point in the direction of the Lukan authorship of Hebrews. Moreover, it is evident that the predominantly Jewish background of Hebrews is not shared by the Lukan writings.
There is some slight tradition favoring Clement as author, but a careful comparison of 1 Clement with Hebrews does not lead to the conviction that they were both written by the same author. The parallels are well accounted for on the supposition that Clement was acquainted with Hebrews.
Silvanus (or Silas) has been proposed as author, and there are things to be said in his favor. He was known at Rome and at Jerusalem. He knew Timothy and had worked with him. He may have become acquainted with the temple cultus during his stay in Jerusalem. And if he were the virtual writer of 1 Peter as some scholars believe, it is clear that he was versed in the LXX (cf. G. Wohlenberg, Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 24 [1913], 742–762; and Hewitt, pp. 26–32). This is a conjecture that can neither be confirmed nor rejected. There are inadequate data for determining whether Silvanus possessed the necessary background to write Hebrews.
There would seem to be more to be said for Apollos, for according to Acts 18 he was an Alexandrian and therefore could have been well versed in the type of thought current there. Acts mentions his great biblical knowledge and his oratorical gifts, both of which would support the claim of his authorship of Hebrews. Moreover, he also knew Timothy and had had close association with Paul. This theory, first suggested by Luther, is a plausible conjecture, although it is no more than a conjecture. If a name must be attached, that of Apollos would be as good as any.
The suggestion of Harnack that the author was Priscilla, aided by her husband, is based on a number of questionable suppositions. It was argued that Priscilla was the more important of the two because she is so often mentioned first in the NT, that she must have possessed high intelligence to instruct Apollos, that she uses the plural in 13:18 to include her husband, and that her name was omitted owing to prejudice against women teachers. But while these suppositions may be true, the evidence does not in fact require them. Apollos was in need more of spiritual than intellectual instruction; and there is nothing in Acts to show that Priscilla was equipped for the task of writing Hebrews.
This list has not exhausted all the proposals that have been made, but enough has been said to show that the only reasonable course is to maintain an open verdict. If we reject Pauline authorship, attaching the letter to any other person will not materially affect our understanding of the background.
Bron: Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002).
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Vol. 2, blz 665–667). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
Maargoed, dit alles terzijde.