Quantcast
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 7

Read In: Part 1 the Lukan Authorship of Hebrews

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The conclusions one draws about the authorship of Hebrews will in large part depend on methodology. In reading the Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, we need to pay strict attention to the methodological structure that David Allen sets in place.

First, Allen gives clear primacy to NT authors with whose writings we are familiar. While he does not discount potential authors such as Barnabas, Apollos, Aquila and/or Priscilla, it is equally clear that he views these theories as arguments from literary silence. Allen therefore gives precedence to NT authors whose writings we can clearly compare with Hebrews (Allen, Pp. 1-5), and by doing so presents a clear preference for textual comparison and analysis.

The problem with this approach should be fairly obvious. Can we eliminate possible contributors simply because we have no other documents known from their pen? The answer is a conditional “yes”. If it can be shown that a sufficient number of similarities between Hebrews and other NT book s exist, then it only makes sense to appeal to these other NT books (i.e. Acts or Romans) in our search for an author. While not perfect, it makes sense to begin with NT authors, rather than those writers with whom we are not familiar.

Further, we may have even more confidence in this approach if we can establish some historic proximity between a literary document and its alleged author. In this instance, we can establish a strong relationship between the city of Rome and Hebrews via a quotation from Hebrews by Clement of Rome around 96A.D., about 25 years after Paul’s martyrdom. This makes Paul’s influence on the book historically tenable, and certainly makes his authorship of it possible, and for many, likely. For these and other reasons Allen believes that Hebrews was written in Rome by Luke between 67-69 A.D., after Paul had been executed.

Nevertheless, we should retain a certain amount of space here to historical association with possible authors whose work we do not know; especially if strong historical proximity can be demonstrated. For instance, if there were strong historical evidence of a relationship between the Apostle John and Hebrews, then it would be illegitimate simply to exclude him as an authorial candidate regardless of whether or not other documents from his hand are known. Yet, if neither a historical proximity can be shown or a literary comparison conducted, the authorial candidate should be considered very unlikely.

With this important note in mind, Allen’s belief that Paul and Luke are the most likely candidates responsible for Hebrews is based on a sound reading of the available historical and textual evidence. While there are many other theories about Hebrews’ authorship, I believe along with Allen that the evidence requires us to give paramount consideration to one of these two defining NT authors.

As Allen states:

    “When enough physical evidence from the “crime scene” is collected and evaluated; when the field of “suspects” is narrowed to include two or three individuals; when the historical, textual and other witnesses have been interrogated, the crucial question becomes, “Which suspect is most implicated by the evidence?” (5).

Second, it should be clear that Allen is not basing his conclusion, namely, that “Luke was the independent author of Hebrews”, on any one evidential item. Rather he follows an accepted methodological practice that John Henry Newman described as “informal inference”; the cumulative effect and force of the overall evidential picture in support of a theory.

This is not to say that some pieces of Allen’s argument are not more weighty and/or stronger than others, but it is to say that Allen is attempting to balance all of the data in appropriate relationship to the larger evidential picture that emerges. While some may question the validity of this approach, or even how much it can actually achieve, such an approach is perfectly acceptable when it is clear that insufficient evidence exists to prove any theory. If we cannot prove a theory, it is acceptable to ask about the direction the evidence points.

Lastly, part of Allen’s project is to challenge traditional views concerning Luke’s ethnic identity, and present new literary evidence in his theory of the Lukan composition of Hebrews. We should keep these two points of emphasis in mind as we read: 1) Allen challenges the prevailing view that Luke was Gentile, and thus incapable of composing a document so thoroughly steeped in Jewish tradition, practice, and Law; 2) Allen provides a comparative analysis (considering his methodology of preference for biblical authors) of the literary relationship between Luke-Acts and the book of Hebrews. Here we will want to not just how well Allen balances the literary data both in favor of and dissent from Lukan authorship.

These are the primary methodological issues we will need to keep in mind as we proceed through Allen’s book. I want to know what you, the people reading the book are thinking.

Can you accept Allen’s approach?

Are there problems with it?

If so, what are they?

Given Allen’s agenda, what does he need to do to convince you?

Are there question you have that Allen has left unanswered?

Just a reminder, there is a high likelihood that David Allen will be looking in on our discussion, so don’t hold back folks bring your concerns to the table.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 7

Trending Articles