The Plural Authorship of Hebrews (Part 2)

NT Examples of Plural Authorship:

     Both letters to the Thessalonians begin by naming three co-senders – Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1:1) – and both are written almost entirely in the first person plural (“we”) form of address. Over 96% of the first person terms in 1 Thessalonians are plural, with 92% in 2 Thessalonians, the majority of which are contrasted with “you” (the readers). First person singulars are only occasionally interjected (1 Thess. 2:18; 3:5; 5:27; 2 Thess. 2:5; 3:17), twice with Paul’s name emphatically appended, showing that he was the leading correspondent.

     Since Paul draws attention to the fact that he is writing the postscript with his own hand (2 Thess. 3:17), the implication is that someone other than the apostle did the actual writing of the preceding material. Like Paul, both Silvanus and Timothy were inspired men (Acts 15:32; 2 Tim. 1:6) and acknowledged writers (Acts 15:22-23; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Cor. 1:1, 13). Similar features are also found in 2 Corinthians (particularly chaps. 1–9) and Colossians.

The Plural Authorship of Hebrews:

     Since Hebrews displays a literary affinity with Luke-Acts, 1 Peter, and the writings of Paul (see Part 1), it is possible that it is the product of compositional collaboration (as 1-2 Thessalonians appear to be), perhaps involving the cooperative efforts of Luke, Silvanus, Paul, and/or others. Such a possibility renders many of the objections to any one of these potential writers practically insubstantial. 

     When scripture quotations are eliminated,¹ Hebrews consists of only eight first person singulars (“I” references) in four verses. The first of these does not occur until nearly eleven chapters have been written (11:32), and the rest are confined to the final chapter (13:19, 22, 23). This is quite uncharacteristic of a single-authored document and supports the hypothesis that Hebrews may have been co-authored, albeit with the infrequent interjection by the dominant member.²

     Hebrews contains 107 plurals in the first person (“we” references), ninety-eight of which are inclusive of the general audience. The remaining nine appear to be references to persons not included among the recipients. 

o   The writer(s) make reference in 2:5 to the coming world, “concerning which we are speaking.”³ This appears to be an allusion to either multiple authors or a lone author and his immediate companions. Since Hebrews is written like a homily or a series of sermons, multiple “speakers” are implied in this passage.

o   In 5:11 the statement is made: “Concerning him we have much … to say.”  Here a clear distinction is seen between “we” and the reading audience (vv. 11b-12). 

o   “We” in contrast to “you” is also evident at 6:9 and 11: “but we have been convinced concerning you, beloved … though we are speaking in this manner …. but we desire each one of you …”

o   The request is made in 13:18, “Pray for us,” followed by three more “we” references and contrasted with “you” in vv. 18b-19. 

A Reasonable Proposal:

     While the documentary evidence (see Part 1 ) seems to point to different individuals (e.g. Paul, Luke, Silvanus), rather than using it to advocate one and discount another, would it be so unreasonable to conclude that they all may have had a hand in the composition? Paul, Luke, and Silvanus were each associated with Timothy (13:23) and had connections with Rome (13:24). Collectively they also had ties with Jerusalem, were familiar with the rituals of Judaism, were steeped in the LXX, and shared an amicable history of ministerial camaraderie and literary collaboration. And all of these men were inspired writers of the NT, including Silvanus (cf. Acts 15:22-23, 32; 1 Thess. 1:1-2; 2 Thess. 1:1-3; 3:17; 1 Pet. 5:12).

     If external evidence supports Pauline authorship and internal evidence raises doubts, it does not have to be an “either-or” situation when the variable of joint-authorship is allowed a hearing. A modern-day demonstration of this proposal is inadvertently provided by D. A. Carson, D. J. Moo, and L. Morris’s collective work, An Introduction to the NT. This co-authored textbook is not neatly divided into designated sections ascribed to the respective writers. Rather, as the authors themselves explain: “Each of us has written about a third of this volume and offered written critiques of the work of the other two. One of us has tried to reduce stylistic and other differences to a minimum. In two or three instances, references in the text betray the individual author. Elsewhere, readers are warmly invited to identify the redactor and the individual sources” (10).

     An apparent weakness of the joint-authorship hypothesis is the statement in Heb. 13:22, “through a few [words] I have written to you.” However, this is similar to the endings in Paul’s letters where he seems to have taken the pen from the amanuensis and written the postscript in his own hand (e.g. Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17; Philm. 19). Accordingly, Heb. 13:22 would apply merely to the postscript and not to the entire document.

     Perhaps Paul was responsible for the “I” statements (as in 1-2 Thessalonians), which resulted in the entire document being ascribed to him in subsequent generations. Interestingly, every letter attributed to Paul in the NT concludes with a charis (“grace”) benediction.⁴ This unique feature is also found in Heb. 13:25 but not in any other NT epistle.

Conclusion:

     The original recipients knew the author(s), and the document was quoted, recognized as divinely inspired and authoritative, very early (cf. Clement of Rome, ca. 95-96). Its canonical status is not in question, neither is its value diminished, by ongoing debates about authorship. Nevertheless, this brief study grounds the epistle in the history of the early church and demonstrates that it not only teaches the fundamental importance of unity and cooperation among God’s people (3:13-14; 10:23-25; 12:12-14; 13:1) but appears to be the result of it.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ In Hebrews 74 of the 82 first person singulars are found in scripture quotations.

     ² T. Weis comments: “If one is not predisposed to thinking Hebrews is the work of one person, it is very possible to take the plurals in question as representing co-authorship. Viewing the plurals in this way explains the presence of the singulars; the leader of the letter writing team takes the liberty of making personal comments. This is certainly evident in Paul’s work and also in the papyri. Considering that this epistle is a magnum apologetic of Jesus Christ, it is conceivable that more than one person wrote it” (“Literary Plural” 94). See also D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 396-97.

     ³ Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ⁴ Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:23; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 6:18; Eph. 6:24; Phil. 4:23; Col. 4:18; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18; 1 Tim. 6:21; 2 Tim. 4:22; Tit. 3:15; Philem. 25. Also in the NT, the noun eppaggelia (“promise”) and its verb form appear mostly in Paul’s letters, Luke-Acts, and Hebrews. 

Related Posts: Hebrews Authorship Part 2, Letters to the Thessalonians, Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 4), Introducing the Book of Hebrews

Image credit: http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/87300/87371/87371_scribe_lg.gif 

The Plural Authorship of Hebrews (Part 1)

     The NT book of Hebrews was written anonymously only in the sense that the author’s name does not appear in the text, although he would have been known to the original audience. Here is what can be inferred about the author from the document itself:

o   He was familiar with his readers (5:12; 6:9-10; 10:34; 13:7, 18-25).

o   He and his readers were acquainted with Timothy (13:23).

o   He was not a personal disciple of Jesus (2:3).

o   He was familiar with the Levitical ritual of the Jewish temple (5:1-4; 7:5, 27-28; etc.).

o   He was well versed in the Jewish scriptures, particularly the LXX Greek version (1:5-13; 2:6-8; etc.).

o   He wrote with a high quality of literary Greek.

     One of the most often-cited statements about this enigmatic writer is from the 3rd-century theologian Origen: “But who it was that really wrote the epistle, God only knows” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.14). While this sentiment is no doubt true, the entirety of Origen’s statement, along with his other writings (e.g. De Principiis 1.2.5; 3.1.10; 4.1.13), attribute authorship to the apostle Paul. Origen’s uncertainty is not necessarily in reference to authorship but rather to the identity of the author’s scribe – the one who actually put reed pen to papyrus on his behalf.

Who Wrote the Book of Hebrews?

     Paul the apostle is a strong possibility. The oldest extant evidence on the authorship of Hebrews comes from Clement of Alexandria near the close of the 2nd century, attributing it to Paul. The identification goes back even earlier to Clement’s teacher, Pantaenus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.14; cf. 5.11; 6.13, 25). The most primitive surviving text of Hebrews is part of the early 3rd-century Chester Beatty papyrus (P⁴⁶), wherein Hebrews is placed in the Pauline corpus between Romans and 1 Corinthians.¹ Not only is it treated as Pauline in the oldest surviving manuscripts, its inclusion among Paul’s letters has extensive attestation.² In fact, Hebrews was commonly attributed to Paul between the 3rd and 19th centuries, and the translators of the KJV labeled it: “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.”³ The vast majority of modern scholars, however, dogmatically reject Hebrews as a document written by Paul because of its anonymity, differences in language and style, absences of key Paulinisms, theological variations, and historical positioning.⁴

     Luke the physician is another authorial candidate. Clement of Alexandria and Origen attest to Luke’s involvement in composing Hebrews.⁵ Its purer Greek resembles Luke’s writing, and there are verbal and stylistic similarities to Luke-Acts.⁶ It was customary for Luke to write anonymously, and he was well acquainted with Timothy (cf. Acts 16:1-17; 20:4-6). Being Greek, he would have been more familiar with the LXX version than with the Hebrew. But the strongest objection is that the author of Hebrews seems to write from a Jewish perspective, whereas Luke appears to have been non-Jewish.

     Another possibility is Silvanus, seeing that Hebrews also has a literary correspondence to 1 Peter. Silvanus participated in the writing of 1 Peter (cf. 5:12), and the apostle Peter was not included among those for whom Christ’s testimony was confirmed by eyewitnesses (Heb. 2:3). Both Hebrews and 1 Peter are steeped in the LXX, and Silvanus (a.k.a. Silas) was associated with Timothy (Acts 16:1-17; 17:14; 18:5). Moreover, Silvanus’ connection with Jerusalem (Acts 15:22) would potentially have familiarized him with the temple rituals. Although Silvanus made a significant contribution to NT writings (Acts 15:22-32; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12), his literary proficiency seems to be ignored or underappreciated by most scholars.

     Other suggestions include Apollos, Aristion (an elder mentioned by Papias), Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Epaphras, Mary the mother of Jesus, Philip, Priscilla and/or Aquila, Stephen, et al.⁷ A female author is ruled out by the statement in 11:32, “And what more shall I say? for the time will fail me for recounting …”⁸ The participle diēgoumenon (“recounting”) is masculine in gender, implicitly identifying the writer as male. As for the other proposals, in the absence of any extant writings from them to compare with Hebrews, the case for each is much more circumstantial and speculative.

Plurality of Authors?

     Almost all debates about the authorship of Hebrews proceed under the assumption that it was penned by a solitary writer. If, however, the document betrays the compositional influence of multiple persons, arguments pertaining to a lone author (e.g. structure, style, vocabulary, etc.) significantly diminish in persuasive value.

     Plural authorship was not uncommon in ancient times, and the two letters embedded in the book of Acts provide a simple model of comparison. The letter in Acts 15:23-29 is from multiple persons and is written entirely in the first person plural (“we”) form of address. The letter in Acts 23:25-30 is from an individual and is written entirely in the first person singular (“I”) form of address.

     In the vast majority of extant multi-sender papyrus letters from antiquity, first person terminology is entirely plural, demonstrating that the responsibility for the content rests equally with each correspondent.⁹ However, some of these ancient letters (e.g. P. Oxy. 1158, 3094, 3313, P. Mur. 42) alternate between “we” and “I,” indicating that one of the senders is the primary spokesman or leader of the group who at times refers only to himself.

     While the popular assumption is that Hebrews is the product of a solitary penman, is it plausible that multiple persons could have been involved? Divine inspiration notwithstanding, this is the focus of the next post.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Hebrews also follows Romans in a Syrian canon of around AD 400 and in six minuscule manuscripts (see B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman, The Text of the NT [4th ed.] 55 n. 7).

     ² The most ancient manuscripts including Hebrews in the Pauline corpus are Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. For further documentary evidence, see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary 591-92; G. Zuntz, Text of the Epistles 15-16; and D. Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection 7-27.

     ³ This can be traced back to the title in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos. For a list of similarities between Hebrews and Paul’s writings, see D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 722-23; and N. R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today 20-22.

     ⁴ For a summary of arguments for and against Paul’s authorial role, see D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 688-98; N. R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today 20-27; and G. W. Wade, NT History 304-307.

     ⁵ Clement of Alexandria claimed that Paul wrote Hebrews in the Hebrew language and that Luke translated it into Greek (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14). Origen reported that some in his day maintained that Luke “wrote” Hebrews (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14), but it is uncertain whether this refers to authorship or to transcription.

     ⁶ See C. M. P. Jones, “Hebrews and Lucan Writings,” in Studies in the Gospels 113-43. T. Rees observes: “He [the author of Hebrews] writes Gr[eek] with a purity of style and vocabulary to which the writings of L[uke] alone in the NT can be compared” (ISBE 2:1357).

     ⁷ See D. A. Carson, D. J. Moo, and L. Morris, Introduction to the NT 396-97; also C. Holladay, Critical Introduction to the NT 639-42.

     ⁸ Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ⁹ See S. Byrskog, “Co-senders” 233-36; J. Murphy-O’Connor, Letter-Writer 18-19; M. Prior, Letter-Writer 38-39; A. von Roon, Authenticity 89-90.

Related Posts: Plural Authorship of Hebrews Part 2, Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 3), Introducing the Book of Hebrews

Image credit: https://regenerationandrepentance.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/130117060558133207.jpg

The Letters of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy to the Thessalonians

     Who wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians? While the apostle Paul was a capable evangelist and prolific letter writer, he rarely worked alone.¹ To focus exclusively on his personal involvement in his ministry and writing projects is to discount the invaluable contributions of his colleagues.

     The naming of three senders in 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2 Thessalonians 1:1 is a unique feature, unlike any other opening address in the Pauline corpus.² Moreover, of all the first person verbs, pronouns, participles, adjectives and articles in the extant writings of Paul, the highest concentration of plurals (‘we,’ ‘us,’ ‘our’) is found in the Thessalonian letters. Over 96% of the first person terminology in 1 Thessalonians is plural, with 92% plural in 2 Thessalonians. No compelling reason can be given for not taking these “we” references at face value and as indicative of a cooperative endeavor.

     The fact that first person singulars appear in both 1 Thessalonians (2:18; 3:5; 5:27) and 2 Thessalonians (2:5; 3:17), twice with Paul’s name emphatically appended (‘I, Paul’), shows that he was the leading correspondent, although he kept his personal comments to a minimum. And the implication of 2 Thess. 3:17 is that the actual writing of the material preceding the postscript was done by someone other than Paul himself.³

     A distinct feature of both 1 and 2 Thessalonians is the wording of the introductory thanksgiving. Elsewhere in Paul the introductory thanksgiving is typically in the first person singular (eucharistō = ‘I thank’), even when co-senders have been named.⁴ Yet in 1 Thess. 1:2 (eucharistoumen = ‘we give thanks’) and 2 Thess. 1:3 (eucharistein opheilomen = ‘we ought to give thanks’) the plural form appears – clearly suggestive of multiple persons – while a distinction is made with the second-person readership (‘you’). Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy are most naturally understood as the thanks-giving communicants, as no doubt the initial recipients would have inferred.⁵

     Also unique to the Thessalonian correspondence is how the Pauline parakaleō formula is worded. The apostle’s frequent use of this clause, while customarily in the first person singular (parakaleō humas = ‘I appeal to you’),⁶ is consistently plural in the Thessalonian letters (1 Thess. 2:12; 4:1, 10; 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:12). Outside of these letters, only in 2 Cor. 6:1 (where ‘we’ naturally includes Timothy [1:1, 13] and is contrasted with ‘you’) and in 1 Cor. 4:13 (where parakaloumen applies to ‘us the apostles,’ v. 9) is the first person plural used.

     With Paul as the prominent figure, 1 and 2 Thessalonians were co-authored by him, Silvanus (a.k.a. Silas), and Timothy from Corinth in late 50 and/or early 51. The two letters appear to have been composed within close proximity of one another, and 1 Thess. 2:17 indicates that this was a relatively short time after the three-man mission team had left the Thessalonian brethren. Having planted churches in Macedonia and then separating for a time, Paul and his companions rejoined one another in Corinth in late 50 (Acts 16–18).⁷ At the time of writing the three missionaries were together, and Timothy had had time to revisit Thessalonica and rejoin his colleagues (1 Thess. 3:1-6; cf. Acts 18:5). Corinth (as opposed to Athens) is the most likely place where these documents were penned, since enough time needed to elapse for the situation addressed in the letters to develop.

     The Thessalonian epistles seem to be the earliest extant writings in which Paul was involved.⁸ The question of what happens to Christians who die before the Lord’s return (1 Thess. 4:13 ff.) must have arisen fairly early in the history of the church. In the openings of 1 and 2 Thessalonians Paul is mentioned by name only, with no reference to his apostleship or any other appendage, while in every subsequent letter a descriptive designation is added. Moreover, a number of manuscripts of 1 Thess. 1:1 have the abbreviated greeting, “grace to you and peace” (cf. N/ASV, ESV),⁹ while the other Pauline documents include the added phrase, “from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.” This could suggest that the stereotypical Pauline greeting developed after the earliest letter (1 Thessalonians) had been composed.

     Because of discernable differences between the two documents, a number of critics have rejected 2 Thessalonians as a genuine Pauline writing. The sentences are longer and more complex in 2 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians is more formal in tone than 1 Thessalonians. It has also been alleged that the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians (with a sense of the imminent return of Christ) is different from 2 Thessalonians (warning against thinking the Lord’s return is imminent).

     While the extent of the differences has been exaggerated in some scholarly circles, one must appreciate the collaborative effort of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy in producing these letters. If Silvanus did the actual transcribing of one and Timothy the other, both the similarities and the differences are not only explicable but are perfectly understandable. Further, the respective issues and emphases would readily account for the seemingly different tones.

     The two epistles are responding to two different ideas about the Lord’s second coming. The first letter responds to the fear that those who had died will miss out on the return of Christ, and emphasis is placed on the suddenness and unexpectedness of the return (whenever that might be). The second letter addresses the false idea that Christ has already come back, therefore emphasis is on certain events that must take place first. The theology is not different between the two letters, but the emphasis is because of different circumstances.

     Under the guidance of God's Spirit, who wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians? Do we believe in giving credit to whom credit is due? When reading, for example, “you received the word of God which you heard from us …” (1 Thess. 2:13) and “we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ …” (2 Thess. 3:6), why do so many emphasize Paul alone and dismiss the contributions of Silvanus and Timothy? All of these men were spiritually gifted (cf. Acts 15:32; 2 Tim. 1:6) and equally involved in the Lord’s work. Rather than speaking of “Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians,” would it not be more accurate to make reference to “the letters of Paul, Silvanus and Timothy to the Thessalonians”? Not only does the New Testament teach the importance of unity and cooperation among brethren, the Thessalonian correspondence is a product, example and demonstration of it.

 --Kevin L. Moore  

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Paul the Myth Vs. the Real Paul, and Biblical Authorship (Part 4).

     ² Two senders are designated in 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, and only one in Romans, Ephesians, and the Pastorals. While at least three (possibly more?) co-senders are mentioned in Galatians, only Paul is actually named.

     ³ Cf. Rom. 16:22; 1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; Philm. 19. Since Timothy is mentioned in the third person in 1 Thess. 3:2-6 and the adept writing ability of Silvanus (a.k.a. Silas) is elsewhere suggested (Acts 15:22-23; 1 Pet. 5:12), Paul’s authorial partner in 1 Thessalonians was probably Silvanus. Timothy’s name in the opening address on the same level as Paul and Silvanus suggests his collaborative role, and the verbal and stylistic differences between 1 and 2 Thessalonians may be due to a greater involvement of Timothy in the drafting of the second letter.

     ⁴ Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4; Phil. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Philm. 4. In 2 Cor. 1:3 and Eph. 1:3 the introductory blessing or eulogy is worded generically with no reference to person. Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are the author's own translation.

     ⁵ The first person plural is also used in the introductory thanksgiving of Colossians, naturally inclusive of Timothy (1:1-3). The main difference between Colossians and the Thessalonian letters is that the “we-you” contrast does not extend beyond 1:12 in Colossians (except for sporadic instances in 4:3, 8), whereas it is maintained throughout the Thessalonian correspondence.

     ⁶ Thirteen times this formula is used in Paul’s writings in the first person singular: Rom. 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10; 4:16; 16:15; 2 Cor. 2:8; 10:1; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 4:2; 1 Tim. 2:1; Philm. 9, 10.

     ⁷ Silas and Timothy met up with Paul in Athens (Acts 17:15; 1 Thess. 3:1), apparently returned to Macedonia, and then joined Paul again in the city of Corinth (1 Thess. 3:2-6; Acts 18:5). Claudius had dispelled Jews (including Aquila and Priscilla) from Rome in 49, and Gallio began as proconsul of Achaia in June 51 (cf. Acts 18:2, 12).

     ⁸ The letter embedded in Acts 15:23-29 would be an exception, but this is best left for another discussion.

     ⁹ Both the Alexandrian and Western text types are in agreement on the abbreviated clause. It seems more reasonable to conclude that later copyists sought to harmonize the shorter reading of 1 Thessalonians with the conventional longer version than having omitted the rest of the phrase (see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 561).

Related Posts: Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions Part 3 and Part 4

Image credit: http://www29.homepage.villanova.edu/christopher.haas/ethiopian-icons.htm