Preliminary Note on Pauline Authorship

Although the actual commentary is five volumes, it includes two volumes of “preliminary excertitations.” Here Owen discusses several topics that didn’t necessarily fit within the commentary section, or would have proved a distraction to the flow. Among other things, he defends all of the quoted OT scripture in Hebrews, showing that they were not used out of context. He discusses several larger topics, such as the nature of the Messiah, the nature of the “Jewish Church,” the nature of “Sacred Rest,” and includes an exhaustive proof of the authorship of Paul.

It is pretty fashionable, even among conservative folks, to dismiss the notion of Pauline authorship. I can’t think of any respected scholars who considers it to be of Pauline extraction, even stalwarts like JI Packer! After reading Owen’s defense, I was pretty thoroughly convinced. As far as I can tell, the arguments used against Pauline ownership have not advanced much since the days of Owen, if at all. The same objections, theological and linguistic, are still the same. Here is a quick overview:

1. The Greek used in the epistle to the Hebrews is a very different style from the rest of Paul’s letters, more polished and utilizes a broader vocabulary.

2. Unlike all of the other Pauline epistles, there is no greeting. Paul nowhere identifies himself as the author.

3. Theologically, the only objection is that Paul seems to place himself distinct from the apostles in ii.3: “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.” This is not a theological error, per se, but if taken a certain way, could indicate that the author did not consider himself to be an apostle.

There are other arguments that modern scholars make, mainly dealing with a lack of harmony between theological content. Assuming that my audience (as Owen generally does) believes in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, we can assume that this is not a complaint which can be coherently lodged.

Owen ably answers all these objections by pointing out that the purpose of the letter was quite different and therefore his vocabulary and opening are also different. There are clear differences in vocabulary and style between a term paper and a casual letter. In addition, our sample size of Paul’s writings is actually quite small. Look at the total collected writings of Paul that exist and compare them to the existing works of even non-prolific authors like Jane Austen. Writing style changes based on circumstances and context. We have too few samples of Paul to make a conclusive statement. After all, there are MANY similarities as well.
The theological objection is easily answered as well, as Paul placing himself in the position with his audience, something he often does. At worst, it is ambiguous.

There are much bigger problems with attacking Pauline authorship. First of all, the foundation of our trust in the NT is apostolic origin, and the reason Hebrews was included in the canon was because it was written by Paul. I have no idea why this is not a consideration.

Also, it is important to remember that Pauline authorship was not even questioned until nearly 1500 years after it was written. The first man to question it apparently was Luther. One wonders whether the ensuing popularity of denying Pauline origins stems from this man, who was right on so many things.

Anyways, if you claim that Hebrews was written by Paul, people will generally laugh at you now, because conventional wisdom is so strong, and because most seminary grads want to agree with their secular opponents whenever their consciences will allow. But no one has yet answered the extensive proof Owen makes. He assumes Pauline authorship throughout, as will I.