History of discussion

The introduction last century of the “Alexandrian” interpretation of Hebrews soon made it fashionable to see little if any connection between Hebrews and Paul. Ménégoz began the movement when, in concert with his idea that Hebrews had been written by a convinced Philonian, he declared that “it is no less certain that he had not been his [Paul's] disciple.” The subsequent addition of other backgrounds has strengthened this idea. W. Manson, for instance, viewed Hebrews and the Pauline mission as having little or no contact. For him they run on separate but parallel tracks. Accordingly, he summarized three points which he felt precluded serious contact; (1) For Paul the gospel is juxtaposed with the old order as legal code; for Auctor it is as the cultic “apparatus of grace.” (2) For Paul the cross, following the old covenant, stands as a shocking paradox; for Auctor it is neither shocking nor new, since it was already contained in shadow form in the old covenant. (3) Paul emphasizes the resolution of conflict within the present soul of the believer and stresses union with Christ; for Auctor “the Christian life is a tense and unending conflict which finds resolution and rest only at the End.” In addition to these there have been noted other differences: (1) Auctor nowhere mentions either the Gentiles or the question of circumcision. (2) In Hebrews characteristic Pauline terms are missing (“Christ Jesus,” “the gospel,” “mystery,” “to fulfil,” “to build up” and “to justify”).