Did Peter Write Hebrews?
I recently came across an article that postulates that the author of the Book of Hebrews is not Paul, Luke, Barnabas, Apollos or Aquila, but rather the author is Peter.
Before reading this article, I laughed, “Peter, you must be kidding me.” But then I hesitated as I have been studying the Petrine epistles. The Books of 1Peter and 2Peter are quite amazing in detail and are so full of rich theology that I just had to read this article with an open mind.
The Authorship of the Book of Hebrews is an article written by Jeffrey S. Bowman. In this excerpt, Bowman first refutes the authorship of Paul:
Guthrie in his volume “New Testament Introduction” states: “Most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory.” [1] Guthrie continues and lists five arguments against a Pauline authorship. Summarized they are as follows: 1. The anonymity of the book is not in keeping with Paul’s pattern. 2. Differences in style. 3. The absence or lack of Pauline spiritual experience. 4. Theological differences both theoretical and practical. 5. A different historical position of the writer than Paul. [2] One can also find similar arguments against Paul or a student of Paul’s authorship of Hebrew in the research of many able New Testament scholars. Books by Milligan, Zahn, and Allen & Grensted are of note. [3]
Bowman further demonstrates that Paul was the Apostle to the Uncircumcised while Peter was entrusted as a Pillar of the Church and his Ministry was to shepherd the Jewish flock.
The language that Paul uses in his letters is geared towards Gentiles, non-Jews, while the language in Hebrews is Hebrew-centric.
Examples from his article:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bowman calls Peter the “Forgotten Apostle of the Circumcision.” He then proceeds “to observe ‘fingerprint patterns’ consisting of style and vocabulary” and then to look into Hebrews and draw a great connection.
The parallels between the Petrine letters and Hebrews are strong. Although Bowman lists many, here is a sampling of those passages that carry similar imprints:
PETER HEBREWS I Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.10:2 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. I Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant I Peter 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward. I Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. I Peter 3:21. The like figure [antitupon] whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures [antitupon] of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.*** note *** The greek word [antitupon] only appears in these two passages.
These are just a few of the “finger prints” that Bowman points out to us. I have got to say that this is most intriguing and so encouraging for someone like me who can so easily identify with Peter - brash, head-strong, broken and Spirit-filled Peter.
In Acts 1:20 -22, we see that it was Peter who was quite familiar with the scriptures. It is Peter who quotes from Psalms and convinces everyone that someone needs to take the leadership position that Judas forsook:
“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
” ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and,
” ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Peter was an amazing man. Earlier in John 21, Jesus reinstates Peter as the one who will shepherd his flock. It is quite evident here in Acts that Peter was no longer one who lacked both restraint and discernment. He immediately gets down to work - work that glorifies Christ. Peter can no longer be identified with the frightened coward. He now speaks with power and authority. He is now both bold and courageous.
Once he was filled with the Spirit, his giftings became even more evident and fruit producing. In chapter Acts 2, Peter takes the lead and speaks, relying heavily upon the scriptures. He persuades 3,000 men (plus women and children) to come to Christ at that time. Later, Peter and John are arrested for speaking with such authority and mighty command of the word. Peter gives an amazing defense and turns the tables on the religious leaders of the day. Peter, filled with the Spirit, was able to do amazing things. He was able to confound those who would not believe or be moved by the prompting of the Spirit. Peter was a man who knew his word.
From the speeches in Acts and from the Petrine letters, we see that Peter could have indeed written the complex and theology rich letter of Hebrews. Christ understood that the church would be build upon the Rock, Petras. It was not only Peter’s amazing faith that Christ saw, but it could also have been Peter’s deep love and understanding of the Word.
Perhaps no introduction was necessary for the author of Hebrews. Perhaps it was “a given,” as all knew who Peter was and that he spoke with God inspired authority. Peter was the Rock upon which the church was built.
So I thank you Mr. Bowman for writing such a wonderful article. I know that no one can know for certain who wrote this book. From now on though, it delights my soul to consider and titillates my mind to think that it was Peter who composed such a mighty work.
Perhaps Hebrews was to the circumcised as Romans was to the uncircumcised. Perhaps Peter was just as an amazing theologian as Paul was. Who can know just how amazing it is to be filled and empowered through and by the Holy Spirit? Who can fully comprehend?
Peter used his gifting so well. I can only hope that someday the Lord will use and refine the gifts that he has given to me. Please read this article by Bowman. You will not be disappointed. You may even become inspired by both the Holy Spirit and by the Word.
Re: “Bowman further demonstrates that Paul was the Apostle to the Uncircumcised while Peter…to shepherd the Jewish flock”
Just because Paul’s primary outreach was Gentile does not mean he wasn’t deeply grieved and burdened and proactive concerning the Jewish reception of King Messiah. Also, Peter was writing to Gentiles in 1 & 2 Peter, so how does that fit in this argument?
Bowman ought to read the book of Acts and explain why Paul always FIRST went to the synagogues on all three missionary journeys, and why he collected money for Jerusalem, and why that was such a huge deal to him. Was he not living his deepest burden as expressed in Rom. 9:
“For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel…” Romans 9:3-4 (NIV)
Re: Bowman’s use of Guthrie’s arguments, #1) & #3) are the same - Anonymity, that’s precisely what Paul had to do, knowing the deep resentment they held against him (read Gal. 1 or 2).
Re: Bowman’s use of Guthrie’s arguments, #2) Different Style - The earliest attestation to Pauline authorship (within a generation of its authorship) says it was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek. Knowing that Aramaic is Paul’s native language completely dismisses this argument.
Re: Bowman’s use of Guthrie’s arguments, #4) Theological Difference - is utterly nonsensical. Hebrews is all about Condition/Position (found in every Pauline epistle) and a reiteration of his Romans 2 argument concerning Judaizer Christianity.
Re: #5) “Different Historical position” - Again, absurd. I think Paul was in a good historical position for this: “Our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you.” (Hebrews 13:23) It’s simply incredulous that Timothy started travelling with Peter instead of Paul, especially getting out of prison - the first guy Tim would go to is Paul, not some stranger.
Here’s but one of many examples of doctrinal and wording similarities found in Paul’s signed letters and reiterated in Hebrews:
“Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have…” Hebrews 13:5 (NIV)
“If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content… For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil.” 1 Timothy 6:8-10 (NASB)
Frankly, I find the Pauline languange parallels far more convincing than his list of Petrine parallels. To call Christ a “Shepherd” is not a profound insight belonging to Peter alone, for example. They all called him that. (He called himself that!)
Peter’s gifts were greatly amplified by the coming of the Holy Spirit, this is true. But not his scholarship! Sorry, but the deep OT scholarship of Hebrews is characteristically Pauline, especially his knowledge of the Tabernacle, sacrificial system, priesthood, Melchezedek and the use of OT law. Peter never comes close to the clear renunciation of the Old Covenant like Paul does: which was, BTW, the epitome of Paul’s theology and ministry.
Peter’s speeches in Acts are not theologically complex. Stephen’s speech is. Never Peter’s. He was a populist speaker, as evidenced by the mass salvations. Same in his letters: no deep OT scholarship like this Hebrews demonstrates.
Yet I wouldn’t be dogmatic that this is Paul, even though realizing his fingerprints are all over it greatly enhances the understanding of what the author is saying. Yes, through a great stretch of imagination, I suppose it could be Peter, but frankly it just doesn’t make sense to me at all, especially the Timothy giveaway…that’s a killer.
Also a killer is the earliest historical attestations to Pauline authorship. Peter isn’t even in the running there.
Bowman is attempting to immitate the highly-speculative approach typical of “higher critism” and redactionists, but unfortunately he really has very little tangible fiber in his speculation.
Honestly, I was more caught up in the possiblity of it more so than the reality of Peter’s authorship.
I also realize that Peter himself attests that another letter was sent to his flock in 2 Peter, one he did not write, one he attributes to Paul:
I also realize that Peter may have been working from the letter of Hebrews and that may be why there are parallels.
The reason I even considered that Peter may have indeed been the author of Hebrews was the notion that God uses weak and foolish things to accomplish miraculous and great things - like perhaps an unlearned, fisherman writing Hebrews.
The idea is just so “romantic” to a sentimental gal like me. Besides, “Who knows just how great a work God has prepared in advance for me (or anyone) to walk in?”
I like to ponder that with Hope.
Thanks for bringing that to mind.
While he could have written Hebrews, the OT scholarship is the biggest hurdle, along with the absence of any authoritative historical witness (historical citations are pretty useful for understanding history).
Still, it’s an excellent study, and I’m thrilled to see someone digging into it, Lisa. Great job! If you’d written this paper in a class, you’d get an A for sure.