Authorship: It is one thing to see that the Council of Trent (DS 1503) declared this Letter is inspired or canonical; another thing to say it is by St. Paul.
In the first centuries there were doubts about the authorship. The churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Cappadocia considered it Pauline, but there were doubts in the Latin church. The Muratorian Canon, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus and Gaius of Rome did not consider it Pauline; Eusebius says it is clearly by Paul. A bit later Ambrosiaster did not include Hebrews among the Pauline Epistles on which he wrote commentaries.
St. Jerome and St. Augustine seem to have swayed opinion in the west to considering it was by Paul. Augustine said he was influenced by the prestige of the Eastern churches. After the 6th Synod of Carthage in 419, it became usual in the west to consider it by Paul.
Many today would favor the view of Origen, who notes that the Greek is more literary than is usual for Paul, and that the style and composition differs from Paul's though the teaching is Paul's. We know at least often Paul dictated his Letters. For certain he would have had to do that with 2 Timothy, if we consider it his, for then Paul was in prison with no facilities for writing. But Popes and Presidents and other important people have often, in our time and before, used others to write documents for them, after telling them what content they want. Then they would go over it, perhaps make changes, and sign it. The names of Jude, Luke, Silvanus (Silas), Barnabas, and Apollo have been suggested as actual writers.
* You can find Fr. Most's commentary on the Pastoral epistles here.
Posts
10 comments:
Apollo as a bible writer. Interesting.
LOL, Eric! I'm thinking it might be another Apollo, e.g., the Apollos mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:11.
I nominate Apollos, said to be a highly intelligent convert, conversant in theology.
St Irenaeus Ministries has up a series of podcasts on Hebrews which you and your readers may be interested in:
http://siministries.org/Podcast/PodcastList
Also, Baker Books is publishing a New Testament Commentary series by Catholic authors entitled CATHOLIC COMMENTARY ON SACRED SCRIPTURE. I've read the first two published volumes and found them excellent.
This series has been warmly endorsed by Biblical Scholars such as Gary Anderson, Father Robert Karris, Father Donald Senior and Cardinal Vanhoye. Also by Cardinal Schonborn, Archbishop Chaput, Robert Louis Wilken, Father Benedict Groeschel, Aidan Nichols, and Jeff Cavins. Consulting editors include Biblical Scholars Dr. Scott Hahn, Father Willian Kurtz, Father Daniel Harrington, Father Francis Martin, and Frank Matera.
Two volumes are currently available: THE GOSPEL OF MARK, by Mary Healy, and FIRST AND SECOND TIMOTHY, TITUS, by Father George T. Montague. Two more volumes will be available by years end. (I love the fact that Father Montague defends the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals!)
You can read excerpts from Mark and Timothy/Titus in PDF format here:
http://www.catholiccommentaryonsacredscripture.com/volumes-and-authors
I forgot to mention that Mary Healy will be on EWTN'S The Journey Home on July 13th. I presume she'll be talking about CATHOLIC COMMENTARY ON SACRED SCRIPTURE since she is one of the General Editors.
There are too many obscure references to Judaism and Temple Worship for the Letter to the Hebrews to be written by a Gentile convert, IMHO.
Brant Pitre and Scott Hahn are both of the opinion that Paul did write the letter, but that it was (surprise surprise) written in Hebrew, not Greek, and then was translated (by Luke?) into Greek.
I've heard Dr. Hahn's 8 CD set on the Letter where he lays out the argument, I'm looking forward to see how Dr. Pitre defends the position in his CD set on St. Paul.
From what I've read, the Greek employed in Hebrews is the most polished and "classical" of the NT, better even than Luke's (which is itself of high quality).
At the other end is the Greek text of Revelation, which is hamhanded and ungrammatical in parts, *suggesting* (but not establishing) an inartful word-for-word translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic original.]
Then again, we simply have no clear manuscript evidence of non-Greek originals for NT books even though I have to concede that the Hahn theory does have the testimony of Eusebius behind it. And Hebrews cites almost exclusively to the Septuagint version of the OT, which argues against (but, again, not conclusively) a Hebrew original.
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
I tend to favor Apollos, too. Luke is proof that a Gentile could have a good grasp of Second Temple Judaism. No matter how it shakes out, it does make for some fascinating discussions. :)
Let me also give a provisional thumbs up to the Catholic Commentary series noted by Dim Bulb. I paged through the Pastoral Epistles volume at a local bookstore and it struck me as very, very good.
Ditto what DP and Dim said about the Catholic Commentary series. I've been using Mary Healy's volume to supplement our study of Mark. It's a near-perfect blend of scholarship, exegesis, and practical application. I do hope they release a Gospel study this fall to coincide with next year's liturgical calendar (as they did with Healy on Mark).
The two volumes which will be released latter this year are Ephesians and 2 Corinthians. This year's liturgy just finished focusing on 2 Corinthians,and now moves into Ephesians. I suspect these volumes were planned for release earlier but were delayed. I recall hearing that the publishing focus was motivated by the just completed Year of St Paul. This would explain why the Pastorals were published, they'll be the first readings of the weekday masses latter this year.
Post a Comment