Paul - Apostle to the Gentiles?

[TimothyH]

Well, not so fast…

Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. (Romans 13:14)

It is commonly accepted as fact that Paul ministered exclusively to the Gentiles. He even called himself an “apostle to the Gentiles”. But when we examine the texts themselves, it is not so clear that he ministered only to the Gentiles or that his main focus was the gentiles.

The fact is that every time Paul entered a new city, the first place he went was to the synagogue, and if there was no synagogue then he went to the Jewish house of prayer which was usually someone’s home.

*So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu’cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus. When they arrived at Sal’amis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them. (Acts 13:4-5)

Now at Ico’nium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue, and so spoke that a great company believed, both of Jews and of Greeks. (Acts 14:1)

Now when they had passed through Amphip’olis and Apollo’nia, they came to Thessaloni’ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, (Acts 17:1-2)*

It was Paul’s custom to go to the Synagogue first. Paul always went to the Jews first, and only after he was rejected by the Jews did he go to the Greeks and other Gentiles.

***And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. *(Acts 13:46)

Paul did convert the gentile world, and did call himself an Apostle to the Gentiles, but the fact of the matter is that he always went to the Jews first. He always tried to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah first, before he went to the gentiles.

-Tim-

 

[Nita]

…It is commonly accepted as fact that Paul ministered exclusively to the Gentiles. …-

I don’t know where you heard such a thing. One of his epistles is the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t know where you heard such a thing. One of his epistles is the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Paul absolutely did not write this Epistle. This is a myth started by the protestant translators of the King James Bible, who titled Hebrews in this manner (the original manuscript had no titles, and claims no authorship - this was just a guess on their part).

We are pretty sure that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans (the Epistle explicitly says it was written by Paul), and we are absolutely positive that the guy who wrote Romans was not the same person who wrote Hebrews. There is no possibility on God’s green earth that the same guy wrote both letters. This is just a protestant myth. We have no idea who wrote Hebrews.

 

[Geo17]

I have always heard that the author of the letter to the Hebrews is unknown. Personally, I too think it sounds like Paul. But we really don’t know.

But what difference does it make whether it was Paul or someone else?

 

[DavidFilmer]

But what difference does it make whether it was Paul or someone else?

The OP asked about Paul. Another responder claimed that Paul was the author of Hebrews. He clearly was not.

Truth matters.

And nobody has answered the OP’s question. I look forward to that reply.

 

[po18guy]

I have always heard that the author of the letter to the Hebrews is unknown. Personally, I too think it sounds like Paul. But we really don’t know.

But what difference does it make whether it was Paul or someone else?

The Church has tested it and found it to be inspired, so we are safe to assume the the Holy Spirit is the primary author, as is the case with all scripture.

The OP asked about Paul. Another responder claimed that Paul was the author of Hebrews. He clearly was not.

Truth matters.

And nobody has answered the OP’s question. I look forward to that reply.

The truth appears to be that no one can say, one way or the other, just who authored the original document. Paul is believed by a minority of scholars, but we just don’t know. The Church has made no declaration either way. Looking at the big picture, we do not know that a single bit of scripture was written by the traditionally attributed author, as all signed original manuscripts disappeared long before even Jerome examined copies of them. Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., author of Inside the Bible, maintains that “most scholars now say that it was not written by Paul”

“Most” indicates that the matter remains unsettled.

As to a “protestant myth” that Paul wrote it, that must be a fairly recent development, as Martin Luther did not like the letter at all, partially because of its unknown provenance. It is primarily via the influence of Luther’s fellow “reformer” Melanchthon that the 1545 Luther Bibel > subsequent protestant bibles include Hebrews.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, not so fast…

Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. (Romans 13:14)

It is commonly accepted as fact that Paul ministered exclusively to the Gentiles. He even called himself an “apostle to the Gentiles”. But when we examine the texts themselves, it is not so clear that he ministered only to the Gentiles or that his main focus was the gentiles.

The fact is that every time Paul entered a new city, the first place he went was to the synagogue, and if there was no synagogue then he went to the Jewish house of prayer which was usually someone’s home.

So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu’cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus. When they arrived at Sal’amis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them. (Acts 13:4-5)

Now at Ico’nium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue, and so spoke that a great company believed, both of Jews and of Greeks. (Acts 14:1)

Now when they had passed through Amphip’olis and Apollo’nia, they came to Thessaloni’ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, (Acts 17:1-2)

It was Paul’s custom to go to the Synagogue first. Paul always went to the Jews first, and only after he was rejected by the Jews did he go to the Greeks and other Gentiles.

***And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. ***(Acts 13:46)

Paul did convert the gentile world, and did call himself an Apostle to the Gentiles, but the fact of the matter is that he always went to the Jews first. He always tried to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah first, before he went to the gentiles.

-Tim-

Tim, except for the “it is commonly accepted” part, the rest of your post is correct. Paul did speak to the Jews first in every city, and I suspect that he won over a few of them. However, the Gentiles were much more receptive as scripture shows.

So, is there a question?

 

[patrick457]

Paul absolutely did not write this Epistle. This is a myth started by the protestant translators of the King James Bible, who titled Hebrews in this manner (the original manuscript had no titles, and claims no authorship - this was just a guess on their part).

We are pretty sure that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans (the Epistle explicitly says it was written by Paul), and we are absolutely positive that the guy who wrote Romans was not the same person who wrote Hebrews. There is no possibility on God’s green earth that the same guy wrote both letters. This is just a protestant myth. We have no idea who wrote Hebrews

Why blame the Protestants for everything? It was basically the Alexandrian fathers (Clement of Alexandria and Origen) who first expressed the belief that Paul was the author of Hebrews - their belief influenced the judgment of eastern Christianity, and ultimately, from the mid-4th century, of western Christianity too. At the same time, however, the Alexandrians did notice the difference in literary style between Hebrews and of Paul’s letters; they however devised explanations to harmonize their belief with this fact. Clement for example said that Paul wrote the letter for the Hebrews in ‘Hebrew’, but Luke translated it into Greek; a generation later, Origen disagreed (perhaps his knowledge of Hebrew led him to realize that the Greek of the epistle bears no sign of having been translated into Hebrew) with Clement and proposed instead that while the general thought of the letter is Paul’s, the letter was actually written by a disciple who recalled and jotted down what Paul said.

To sum up briefly, [Clement] has given in the Hypotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books, — I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter. He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name. Farther on he says:

But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance.

• Eusebius, Church History 5.14

In addition [Origen] makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it:

That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech’ (2 Corinthians 11:6) that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.

Farther on he adds:

If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s.

• Church History 6.25

The heretics say that this epistle is not Paul’s, and they offer as their first proof of this that his name is not subscribed as in the other epistles. Second, his vocabulary is different, that is, it is foreign to Paul’s customary word choice and usage. One must know, however, that Paul was hated by the Jews on the grounds that he was teaching apostasy from the law … …] Therefore, writing something useful to the Hebrews, he does not append his name, so that they might not lose any advantage they could have derived from the letter because of their hatred against him. And he writes to them in the tongue of the Hebrews, which was also translated by one of his disciples.

• Severian of Gabala, Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews (prologue)

Unlike in the East, there was hesitation in the West to ascribe the letter to Paul. Tertullian for instance ascribes it instead to Barnabas (On Modesty 20); the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Gaius of Rome clearly did not regard the epistle as Pauline. Even Eusebius remarked that some Romans in his day denied Hebrew’s Pauline authorship (Church History 6.20.3). ‘Ambrosiaster’ (writer of a commentary on Paul’s epistles) did not include Hebrews; he accepted its canonicity, but for him it was an anonymous work.

 

[patrick457]

It was Jerome and Augustine who were influential in swaying the general Western opinion that Hebrews was a work of Paul. They did not base themselves on the grounds of literary criticism but simply because they were, in Augustine’s words, “moved by the prestige of the eastern churches which include this epistle too among the canonical writings.” Even so, there were still attempts by the earliest synodical promulgations of the scriptural canon in the West to preserve a distinction between Hebrews and the ‘other’ letters of Paul. Both the Synod of Hippo (393) and the third synod of Carthage (397) enumerate “Of Paul the apostle, thirteen epistles; of the same to the Hebrews, one.” By the time we go to the sixth synod of Carthage (419), however, we find “fourteen epistles” ascribed in so many words to Paul, the same expression St. Athanasius used in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367):

In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon.

From then on, Pauline authorship of Hebrews was simply taken for granted by everyone in the East as well as in the West, although some more discerning authors might still name Clement of Rome or Luke as translator or editor of the epistle, which is what St. Thomas Aquinas did:

But before we come to the task of dividing this epistle, it should be noted that before the Council of Nicaea, some doubted that this was one of Paul’s epistles for two reasons: first, because it does not follow the patters of the other epistles. For there is no salutation and no name of the author. Secondly, it does not have the style of the others; indeed, it is more elegant. Furthermore, no other work of Scripture proceeds in such an orderly manner in the sequence of words and sentences as this one. Hence, they said that it was the work of Luke, the evangelist, or of Barnabas or Pope Clement. For he wrote to the Athenians according to this style. Nevertheless, the old doctors, especially Dionysius and certain others, accept the words of this epistle as being Paul’s testimony. Jerome, too, acknowledges it as Paul’s epistle.

To the first argument, therefore, one may respond that there are three reasons why Paul did not write his name: first, because he was not the apostle of the Jews but of the Gentiles: ‘He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles’ (Gal. 2:8); consequently, he made no mention of his apostleship at the beginning of this epistle, because he was unwilling to speak of it except to the Gentiles. Secondly, because his name was odious to the Jews, since he taught that the observance of the Law were no longer to be kept, as is clear from Acts (15:2). Consequently, he concealed his name, lest the salutary doctrine of this epistle go for naught. Thirdly, because he was a Jew: ‘They are Hebrews: so am I’ (2 Cor. 11:22). And fellow countrymen find it hard to endure greatness in their own: ‘A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and in his own house’ (Mt. 13:57). To the second argument the answer might be given that the style is more elegant, because even though he knew many languages: ‘I speak with all your tongues’ (1 Cor. 14:18), he knew the Hebrew language better than the others, for it was his native tongue, the one in which he wrote this epistle. As a result, he could write more ornately in his own idiom than in some other language; hence, he says: ‘For though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge’ (2 Cor. 11:6). But Luke, who was a skillful writer, translated this ornate Hebrew into Greek.

By the Renaissance and the Reformation, fresh attention was directed as to who really wrote Hebrews. Erasmus regarded the style of the epistle as excluding Pauline authorship, although he conceded (pretty much like Origen) that it was inspired by Paul. Calvin thought that either Luke or Clement was not simply the translator or editor, but the author of the letter. Luther was the first to make the admittedly pretty good guess that the author could be Apollos (an opinion which still has some following to this day). Since then other possible authors were named (say, Priscilla and Aquila), and the idea that the author was Paul again receded into a minority.

I’ll summarize what I said: it’s all the Alexandrians’ fault. And Jerome’s and Augustine’s fault for choosing to simply go with the (Eastern) flow.

 

[TimothyH]

The OP asked about Paul. Another responder claimed that Paul was the author of Hebrews. He clearly was not.

Truth matters.

And nobody has answered the OP’s question. I look forward to that reply.

I am the OP. My post did not contain a question. I did not ask a question

I didn’t ask a question but rather pointed out how the idea of Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles, either primarily or exclusively, is a misnomer. There have been several threads recently where people claimed exactly this in order to back up some point they were trying to make and I wanted to clarify that Paul’s labeling of himself as Apostle to the Gentiles has to be taken in its context, which is his letter to the Romans specifically.

That the thread immediately took to arguing the authorship of Hebrews is surpising to me.

-Tim-

 

[Nita]

Paul absolutely did not write this Epistle. This is a myth started by the protestant translators of the King James Bible, who titled Hebrews in this manner (the original manuscript had no titles, and claims no authorship - this was just a guess on their part).

Any source for that. I’ve found almost the opposite. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation that Bibical scholars began to again question Paul’s authorship. Prior to that, the Eastern Church had accepted his authorship, and the Western Church, after some questioning in the first 300 years, subsequently accepted it – until the time around the Refromation.

See the introduction to Hebrews in the NAB on the Vatican Website.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P11F.HTM

From the online Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm
External evidence(a) In the East the writing was unanimously regarded as a letter of St. Paul. Eusebius gives the earliest testimonies of the Church of Alexandria in reporting the words of a “blessed presbyter” (Pantaenus?), as well as those of Clement and Origen (Church History VI.14.2-4; Church History VI.25.11-14).
(b)…… Up to the fourth century the Pauline origin of the letter was regarded as doubtful by other Churches of Western Europe. As the reason for this Philastrius gives the misuse made of the letter by the Novatians (Haer., 89), and the doubts of the presbyter Caius seem likewise to have arisen from the attitude assumed towards the letter by the Montanists (Photius, Cod. 48; F. Kaulen, “Einleitung in die Hl. Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments”, 5th ed., Freiburg, 1905, III, 211).

After the fourth century these doubts as to the Apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews gradually became less marked in Western Europe. While the Council of Carthage of the year 397, in the wording of its decree, still made a distinction between Pauli Apostoli epistoloe tredecim (thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle) and eiusdem ad Hebroeos una (one of his to the Hebrews) (H. Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 92, old n. 49), the Roman Synod of 382 under Pope Damasus enumerates without distinction epistoloe Pauli numero quatuordecim (epistles of Paul fourteen in number), including in this number the Epistle to the Hebrews (Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 84). In this form also the conviction of the Church later found permanent expression. Cardinal Cajetan (1529) and Erasmus were the first to revive the old doubts, while at the same time Luther and the other Reformers denied the Pauline origin of the letter.

We are pretty sure that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans (the Epistle explicitly says it was written by Paul), and we are absolutely positive that the guy who wrote Romans was not the same person who wrote Hebrews. There is no possibility on God’s green earth that the same guy wrote both letters. This is just a protestant myth. We have no idea who wrote Hebrews.

As to how letters “sound”, an author tailors his writing to the recipient – the recipient’s culture/background/knowledge level/… Thus, a difference in style, content, verbiage, expressions, wouldn’t surprise me in the least. In fact, I would expect it. I would very much expect Paul to speak differently in a letter to Jews than he would to Gentiles.

In conclusion, I would agree with the Enclopedia article linked above.
Most probable solutionFrom what has been said it follows that the most probable solution of the question as to the author is that up to the present time the opinion of Origen has not been superseded by a better one. It is, consequently, necessary to accept that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the actual author is to be distinguished from the writer. No valid reason has been produced against Paul as the originator of the ideas and the entire contents of the letter; the belief of the early Church held throughout with entire correctness to this Apostolic origin of the Epistle.

The writer, the one to whom the letter owes its form, had apparently been a pupil of the Apostle. It is not possible now, however, to settle his personality on account of the lack of any definite tradition and of any decisive proof in the letter itself. Ancient and modern writers mention various pupils of the Apostle, especially Luke, Clement of Rome, Apollo, lately also Priscilla and Aquila.

 

[Nita]

I am the OP. My post did not contain a question. I did not ask a question

I didn’t ask a question but rather pointed out how the idea of Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles, either primarily or exclusively, is a misnomer. There have been several threads recently where people claimed exactly this in order to back up some point they were trying to make and I wanted to clarify that Paul’s labeling of himself as Apostle to the Gentiles has to be taken in its context, which is his letter to the Romans specifically.

That the thread immediately took to arguing the authorship of Hebrews is surpising to me.

-Tim-

My initial response was probably misleading because of its brevity. I agree with your OP position - that Paul preached to the Jews also. My intention was to provide additional support to the quotes you gave.

The part of your opening post that I had a question about was where you had heard that he went “exclusively” to the Gentiles. I had never heard anyone say that before – in the Catholic Church or in my involvement with non-Catholic’s and their Bible studies.

 

[TimothyH]

My initial response was probably misleading because of its brevity. I agree with your OP position - that Paul preached to the Jews also. My intention was to provide additional support to the quotes you gave.

The part of your opening post that I had a question about was where you had heard that he went “exclusively” to the Gentiles. I had never heard anyone say that before – in the Catholic Church or in my involvement with non-Catholic’s and their Bible studies.

Yeah, words are the most difficult medium to work with. Sorry about the word “exclusively.” Let me rephrase.

There have been statements like, “Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews” in a few other threads recently. This gives the impression that Paul avoided Jews and that Peter avoided Gentiles. The belief that Paul went only to the Gentiles and that Peter went only to the Jews was then used as the basis for some argument about another point.

Peter baptized the first gentile Christians, Cornelius and his houshold, and Peter was the one who decided that gentiles were also called to be part of God’s family. This decision predates the start of Paul’s ministry by several years.

So the Paul/Gentiles and Peter/Jews division is false. That was my only point.

-Tim-

 

[ezeekl]

I am the OP. My post did not contain a question. I did not ask a question

I didn’t ask a question but rather pointed out how the idea of Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles, either primarily or exclusively, is a misnomer. There have been several threads recently where people claimed exactly this in order to back up some point they were trying to make and I wanted to clarify that Paul’s labeling of himself as Apostle to the Gentiles has to be taken in its context, which is his letter to the Romans specifically.

That the thread immediately took to arguing the authorship of Hebrews is surpising to me.

-Tim-

In all probability Paul became known as “The Apostle to the Gentiles” due to Jesus more or less giving that title to him. In Acts 9:10-15:

10"Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,
12 and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;
14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;”

As a Roman citizen Paul could travel freely in the empire. The other Apostles also went out to the Gentiles after preaching to the Jews in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. The first christians were indeed former Jews, some of whom became known as the Judacizers who created problems for Paul wherever he went.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

For those who are unaware, some Protestants jump on Paul’s statement in Galatians 2 that Peter was an apostle to the Jews and Paul an apostle to the Gentiles as proof that Peter was never in Rome, because Peter only preached to the Jews. It is good to remember that in fact Paul did preach to Jews and Peter did preach to Gentiles.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

There was another reason why Paul went to the synagouges.

Acts 17

*While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23** For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god.** So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.*

The publication of the Septuagint in Greek allowed for those in the Hellenistic world to learn about God. These individuals would go to the synagogues to hear the rabbis speak. This existing knowledge about the OT and the One God, gave the Greeks some schema to understand Christ.

I won’t go as so far as to say that we know that the early Greek-Christians were the God fearing ones exclusively, or that Paul didn’t try to convert Jews, as he obviously did. But his reason for going into the synagogues isn’t’ a only part of the Jewish/Gentile dichotomy. He went there to find open-minded Gentiles too.