New Testament Study Helps:
    Letter to the Hebrews

Letter to the Hebrews

1. Authorship

A review of the early history of this epistle makes it immediately clear that there was no firm tradition on the matter of authorship even in the earliest period. There are remarkable parallels between this epistle and the epistle sent by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (cf Heb 11:17 and 1 Clem 9:4 and 12:1; Heb 1:3f and 1 Clem 36:1f) which make it certain that Clement was in possession of the epistle. Suggestions that trace both to a common source or suppose that the author of Hebrews was acquainted with 1 Clement cannot seriously be maintained. There is little other positive evidence about the epistle until the end of the second century. It was excluded from Marcion's Canon, but the epistle would certainly not have appealed to him with his aversion to the idea of a continuity between Old Testament and Christianity, which forms so integral a part of the thought structure of Hebrews. It is further omitted from the Muratorian Canon, although this may be due to the corrupt state of the text of that Canon. In any case, it was definitely not included in the Pauline epistles, for these are restricted to seven churches.

At the end of the second century, however, more specific references are made to it, but these at once reveal a divergent tradition. In the East the epistle was probably regarded as Pauline, at least from the time of Pantaenus. Clement of Alexandria, who described the epistle as Paul's (Eusebius 6.14), derived this opinion for "the blessed presbyter", who is generally supposed to be his predecessor at Alexandria, Pantaenus. Origen was equally certain that the thoughts were Pauline, but he could not imagine the style to be his. His own supposition was that one of the pupils of the apostle Paul wrote down from memory what he had heard. For this reason he not only did not quarrel with any church which regarded it as Paul's but even himself cited it similarly. Yet he added his famous caution: "But who wrote the epistle God only knows certainly" (Eusebius 6.25, 11-14). At the same time he mentions that some held "Clement, who became bishop of Rome" and others Luke, to be the author. Subsequent to Origen, the eastern church generally did not doubt the canonicity of the epistle and indeed assumed its Pauline authorship. In the West the only early evidence of views on authorship comes from Tertullian, who attributed it to Barnabas in the only place where he mentioned it (De pudicitia, 20). This isolated use of the epistle suggests that it did not possess the same authority as the epistles of Paul which were extensively cited by Tertullian. Eusebius (3.3), who follows the general eastern tradition in including this epistle among the Pauline epistles, mentions that in his time the Roman church disputed the Pauline authorship and that ion the grounds of this some others were rejecting the epistle. It was similarly omitted from the later African Canon, while Cyprian never mentions it.

This reflects the prevailing approach of the west towards the epistle until the time of Hilary, Jerome and Augustine. These writers show the impact of Eastern ideas on the Western churches, but it is significant that although Hilary regarded the epistle as canonical, he does not specifically cite it as Paul's. The other writers similarly witness to a compromise effecting the Western church, for neither seems convinced of Pauline authorship although both cite it as Paul's. It is significant that Augustine ceased to do this in his later works, always citing it as anonymous. Nevertheless, its canonicity was never called into question, and this led to its general acceptance in the West. Waverings on Pauline authorship were forgotten and the letter attained an almost unchallenged position in the Western church until the Reformation. Erasmus, Luther and Calvin all questioned it. For Luther, this involved its relegation to the end of the bible with other books considered by him to be of lesser value. His own theory was that Apollos wrote it. Later Grotius returned to the earlier theory that Luke was its author. In all, several suggestions have been made regarding the identity of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. They are: Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Clement, Silas (Silvanus), Apollos, Philip, Priscilla, and others including: Epaphras, Mary mother of Jesus with the help of John and Luke, an anonymous Christian monk, or a pseudo-Paul.

2. Readers

No dogmatic conclusion can be reached on the grounds of internal evidence regarding to whom the letter was written, yet a definite balance is favor of a Jewish Christian destination must be admitted, if any credence at all is to be attached to the traditional title.

3. Purpose

There is almost as much difference of opinion about the writer's purpose as about his identity. This problem is nevertheless of greater imprtance, since it affects the interpretation of the epistle. The writer describes his writing as "a word of exhortation" (13:22) and full attention must be given to this before proposing other aims. That there are many hortatory passages scattered throughout the epistle cannot be denied, and this would well conform to the idea of "exhortation". But the problem is to find the purpose of the doctrinal sections, for these cannot be so easily fitted into the "exhortation" theme. There have been various suggestions regarding the purpose of the doctrinal sections:

1. To warn Jewish Christians against apostacy to Judaism.
   This is the most widely held view and is supported by the assumption that chapters 6 and 10 suggest that the readers are tempted to apostatize. Since the argument of the epistle is designed to show Christ's superiority over the old, it is further assumed that the apostacy in question must involve a return to Judaism. In 13:13 the readers are exhorted to make a clear break and to come outside "the camp", which may reasonably be interpreted as the camp of Israel. The challenge of the hour for Jewish Christians is to sever connections with their ancient faith, since Christianity is of a different and higher order.

2. To challenge restricted Jewish Christians to embrace world mission.
   This theory holds that the primary danger is not that of apostacy from Christianity to Judaism, but rather the failure to embrace the world mission purpose of God. The readers shared the restricted approach of the Jerusalem church and were content to regard Christianity as little more than a sect of Judaism. The writers absorbing interest in the Old testament was to reassure these Christians, who were missing the culture of Judaism, that the universal truths of Christianity were of far greater consequence.

3. To announce the absolute character of Christianity to mainly Gentile Christians.
   Christian believers, surrounded as they were by many other faiths, would require an assurance of the greatness and superiority of Christianity over all other religions. They would want to know that it presented a method of worship which was not one of many, but was unique because none other taught the perfect way of worship. The writer would, therefore, appeal to the Old testament in order to prove the glory of Christianity and for this reason would not specifically deal with Judaism.

4. To counteract an early type of heresy.
   This suggestion has been maintained in two forms: as an answer to a sect of Jewish Gnostics, or as an answer to the specific Colossian heresy. Under the hypothesis that Jewish Gnosticism is being combated, the threratened apostacy is understood as a forsaking of Christianity in preference for an incipient Gnosticism, which not only maintained the mediation of angels and thus depreciated the unique mediatorial work of Christ, but also tended towards asceticism on the one hand and immorality on the other.

4. Destination

Many have maintained a Jerusalem or Palestinian destination, but most of these have done so in the belief that Jewish Christians, who were tempted to apostatize to Judaism, are in mind. Many modern scholars favor Rome as the destination mainly on the strength of the following evidence:

1. It is in Rome that the epistle was first known, as early as the first century;

2. the concluding salutation in 13:24 seems more naturally understood to refer to Italians who are away from Italy and are sending greetings home;

3. Timothy, who in mentioned in 13:24 was known to the Roman Christians (Col 1:1; Philemon 1);

4. The description of the leaders in 13:7, 17, 24 is similar to that in 1 Clement 1:3;

5. the allusions to the generosity of the readers in 6:10ff; 10:32ff would agree with the known history of the Roman church from other sources;

6. the reference to ceremonial foods in 13:9 suggests a tendency which is similar to that seen in Romans 14;

7. the spoilation of goods referred to in 10:32 could be explained either by Claudius' edict (49 AD) or by Nero's persecution, both of which affected the Roman Christians.

5. Date

The difficulty of settling the precise circumstances of the readers and the identity of the author naturally affects the ability to precisely date the epistle. But the latest possible date is certainly clear, and fixed by Clement's epistle, which is generally dated at 95 AD.

6. Outlines

In progress