Scripture, Culture, and Missions
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 55, No. 1 – Fall 2012
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
By David L. Allen. NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010. 416 pages. Hardcover, $24.99.
The authorship of Hebrews has been a puzzling question for biblical scholars since the days of early church fathers. Many suggestions have been made and various evidence has been presented, but no scholarly consensus has been reached. Most modern scholars are skeptical that the author of Hebrews will ever be known. Although the authorship of Hebrews no longer attracts much scholarly attention these days, it has always been a fascinating topic for David Allen, Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Ever since he was first introduced to the topic in college, he never stopped asking questions and searching for answers. He later completed his doctoral dissertation on this topic. Even after the completion of his dissertation, his quest for the authorship of Hebrews did not stop. He continuously worked on his thesis by revising and expanding his argument with new insights and evidences. His 35 years of research culminated in the publication of this volume.
Allen argues for Luke’s independent authorship of Hebrews. He bases his argument primarily on the apparent similarities in linguistic features, purpose, and theology between Hebrews and Luke’s other known works, namely, the Gospel of Luke and Acts. In addition, he offers a serious rebuttal to the common assumption that Luke was a Gentile and thus was not likely the author of Hebrews. He then provides a historical reconstruction of the background and provenance of Hebrews in light of the Lukan authorship.
Allen divides the book into seven chapters. In chapter one, he traces the history of the study of the authorship of Hebrews and points out that Luke has been frequently mentioned, even by early church fathers, either as a translator, editor, or author of Hebrews. In chapter two, he evaluates three candidates who gained the most support among modern scholars (Barnabas, Apollos, and Paul). He quickly dismisses Barnabas and Apollos because there are no extant letters written by them that can be compared with Hebrews. He is, however, more careful in dismissing Paul because of the strong church tradition and the internal evidences that seem to support the Pauline authorship. Nevertheless, he concludes that Paul is less likely the author of Hebrews because there are apparent differences in style and theology between Hebrews and Paul’s letters.
In the next three chapters, Allen presents hard evidence that he considers “the weight-bearing walls” for his argument. In chapter three, he examines the linguistic features with a focus on the lexical, stylistic, and textlinguistic similarities and parallels between Luke-Acts and Hebrews. He presents the following findings: (1) There are 53 words unique to Hebrews and Luke-Acts and 56 words unique to Hebrews and Paul’s letters. Although the number of unique words is pretty evenly divided between Luke and Paul, Allen leans toward Luke because he finds a few other words, including some medical terms, which are unique or common to Luke and Hebrews but never or rarely used in Paul. (2) The writing style of Hebrews is more similar to that of Luke than of Paul. Allen regards this as the most forceful evidence against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. He first points out that unlike other Pauline letters, the prologue of Hebrews lacks Paul’s name and his characteristic salutation. He then identifies 39 specific Greek usages or phrases that are unique to Luke-Acts and Hebrews and an additional 25 Greek usages that further illustrate the similarity of Luke-Acts and Hebrews, although they are not unique to these three books. (3) The Old Testament quotation formulae in Hebrews are much more akin to those in Luke’s Gospel than in Paul’s letters, although they are not identical to the usage of either Luke or Paul. (4) The prologues of Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are similar in length, literary style, perspective, and word choice. (5) Acts 7 and Hebrews 11 are strikingly similar in word choice, Old Testament quotation formulae, and roles attributed to Abraham, Moses, and David. In addition, many words and ideas expressed in Acts 7 are found elsewhere in Hebrews. (6) Luke-Acts and Hebrews have a tendency to superimpose a chiastic framework and parallelism over the entire discourse, which is rare in other books of the New Testament. From these linguistic observations, Allen concludes that although there are lexical similarities among Luke, Paul, and Hebrews, the stylistic similarities between Luke and Hebrews and the stylistic dissimilarities between Paul and Hebrews point to Luke as the author of Hebrews (or at the very least as co-author with Paul).
In chapter four, Allen compares the purpose of Luke-Acts with that of Hebrews with special attention given to the lexical and semantic parallels between the Lukan prologues and the prologue and hortatory sections of Hebrews. From this analysis, he concludes that both in Acts and Hebrews there is significant emphasis on the concept of the “Word” and the “hearing of the Word” and that Luke-Acts and Hebrews all exhibit a pastoral concern for the readers who are wavering in their faith. In chapter five, Allen highlights the theological similarities between LukeActs and Hebrews, especially in the area of Christology, eschatology, and prophetic fulfillment. In terms of Christology, he insists that both Luke-Acts and Hebrews focus on Jesus’ ascension and exaltation and present Christ as the high priest, as the ruler over Israel in the fulfillment of the Davidic prophecies in 2 Sam 7:14, and as the Son in Ps 2:7. With regard to eschatology, all three books employ the pattern of promise and fulfillment and place less emphasis on the parousia than in Mark, Paul, or John. In addition, they reveal similarities in the concept of salvation, in the theology of the cross, in the use of the priestly terminology, and in the understanding of the new covenant.
In chapter six, Allen deals with the common assumption often used against the Lukan authorship of Hebrews, namely, that Luke was a Gentile and thus was not likely the author of Hebrews which was clearly intended for a Jewish audience. Allen asserts that neither Paul’s statement in Col 4:10-14 nor Luke’s mastery of the Greek language warrants this assumption. By contrast, he contends that “the men of the circumcision” in Col 4:11 can refer to the Jewish Christians of a stricter mind-set concerning the law and that Luke’s name was mentioned last in this passage probably because he was especially close to Paul. In addition, Allen points out that there is no evidence that even Epaphras who is included in the second group along with Luke was a Gentile and that Col 4:10-14 was never used by early church fathers to speak of Luke as a Gentile. In further support, Allen presents evidences from the Luke and Acts that point to Luke as a Jew. Going one step further, Allen identifies Luke with Lucius mentioned in Rom 16:21 and characterizes Luke as a Hellenistic Jew born in Antioch of Syria. For evidence, he refers to Luke’s special interest in Antioch in Acts and to the codex Bezae that has the first “we” narrative in Acts 11:28 as occurring in Antioch.
In the final chapter, Allen offers a historical reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding the writing of Hebrews in light of the Lukan authorship. His reconstruction goes as follows: Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts independently while he was with Paul in Rome (c. AD 60-63) in order to exhort Theophilus, a former high priest who served from AD 37 until AD 41. He then served as Paul’s amanuensis for the Pastoral Letters during Paul’s second Roman imprisonment. In AD 67 or 68, probably after Paul’s death and thus independently of Paul and after Timothy’s release from prison, he wrote Hebrews from Rome to encourage the converted former Jewish priests who were in Antioch of Syria and were under immense pressure to revert to Judaism and defend their nation against the perils from the Romans. Allen thinks that these priests are those mentioned in Acts 6:7 and they relocated in Antioch due to the persecution that arose over Stephen’s death. Allen concludes his argument for Luke’s independent authorship of Hebrews with the following closing statements: “The cumulative effect of the evidence implicating Luke is substantial. If the field of suspects for authorship is narrowed to include only those who are New Testament writers, then the evidence points to Luke. Having evaluated the available clues in this case of authorship attribution, I conclude that the missionary doctor, in Rome, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, wrote it” (378-79).
Undoubtedly, Allen has produced one of the most comprehensive and thorough monographs on the question of the authorship of Hebrews and probably the most convincing argument for the Lukan authorship. He deals with every pertinent issue that has been raised and examined every piece of evidence that has been presented. Practically no stones are left untouched and no evidence is left unexamined. His analysis of the linguistic evidence is painstaking and his immense knowledge of the secondary literature is apparent. Furthermore, his argument is well structured and his points are communicated clearly, though the subject matter occasionally becomes highly academic and technical. Also noteworthy is his rebuttal to the common assumption that Luke was a Gentile and thus was unlikely the author of Hebrews.
There are certain limitations in the lexical approach, subjectivity in the theological analysis, and uncertainty in the historical reconstruction. For this reason, Allen heavily relies on the analysis of stylistic and textlinguistic similarities and parallels between Luke-Acts and Hebrews for his argument. The uniqueness and significance of several Greek usages which Allen presents as evidence are, however, highly debatable. Interestingly, most of the similarities and parallels in Old Testament citation formulae and literary structure between Acts and Hebrews which Allen presents are found in the speeches incorporated in Acts. There is no doubt that Luke influenced the form, structure, and even content of these speeches, but if any of these linguistic features in the speeches came from the original speakers rather than from Luke, the basis for Allen’s comparison becomes weaker. Allen’s historical reconstruction in chapter seven is innovative and engaging, but the connections of Theophilus with the former high priest, the recipients of Hebrews with the former Jewish priests mentioned in Acts 6:7, and Luke with Lucius mentioned in Romans 16:21 are weak and need additional support. In addition, Allen’s argument that Luke wrote Hebrews after Paul’s death and thus independently of Paul is based on a particular reconstruction of the events mentioned in the Pastoral Letters that are historically uncertain and difficult to harmonize.
Can Luke be the author of Hebrews? I would say, “Yes.” Am I convinced that he is? No. In my judgment, evidence is still insufficient to render the final verdict. Nonetheless, I think that Allen makes a significant contribution by successfully demonstrating that the question of the authorship of Hebrews is still open and that Luke is certainly a viable option. Moreover, his argument for Luke’s independent authorship is intriguing. Whether one agrees with the conclusion drawn in this book or not, he/she cannot ignore or dismiss Allen’s work too quickly.
