Hebrews Highlights August 2018

Alastair Roberts explains in a video How Should We Understand the People Who Fall Away in Hebrews 6.

Ken Schenck has posted additional installments of his video series on his Hebrews Bible Study:
     Week 2: Jesus Fulfills the Story of Salvation.
     Week 3: The Supremacy of Christ Should Keep Us Going.

Andreas Köstenberger has a brief series on introductory matters regarding Hebrews. He attempts to answer the following questions:
     Who is the Author?
     What is the Message?
     Who Were the Readers?

Simon Woodman continues his preaching series on Hebrews: The Returning Jesus, based in part on Hebrews 10:24–25, 35–38; 9:26b–28.

Andrew Perriman offers Some notes on Jesus as Son and Wisdom of God in Hebrews 1:1–4.

Hebrews Highlights September 2017

Hebrews has seen some considerable discussion this month, but it has all been on Michael Kok's blog: He provides some Ancient External Evidence for the Authorship of Hebrews. He links to articles about Irenaeus and Origen on the Epistle to the Hebrews. He then examines the Internal Evidence for the Authorship of Hebrews. He then considers evidence for The Date of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He then provides a nice overview about the issues regarding The Audience of Hebrews. He provides some links to some online scholarly Outlines of Hebrews. He explores a couple of options for The Genre of Hebrews. He then discusses why Hebrews make Jesus out to be A Priest Like Melchizedek. He then discusses New Covenant Theology and Interfaith Dialogue. He then highlights Jewish Scholars on the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Hebrews Highlights October 2016

Jonathan Bernier surmises about the context in which Hebrews was written.

Hebrews Highlights January 2015

Ken Schenck argues for the Gentile audience of Hebrews. He further argues that Rome is the most likely destination for the book.

Matthew Montonini discusses Tom Schreiner on Hebrews.

Andrew Perriman comments on The glory of the builder of the house in Hebrews 3:3–4.

Hebrews Carnival July & August 2013

Since there was only one blog post for July, the July and August blog posts are combined here:

Ken Schenck discusses the Ethnicity of Hebrews' Audience.

Henry Neufeld discusses David Alan Black's Rhetorical Analysis of Hebrews 1:1–4.  Black's article, "Hebrews 1:1–4: A Study in Discourse Analysis," is now available online and has been added to the articles page.

Charles Savelle has a quote about Biblical Theology and the Book of Hebrews from Gerald Bray's article, "Biblical Theology and From Where It Came."

James McGrath identifies The Most Shocking Verse in Hebrews.

Ken Schenck declares that his Hebrews life is now complete.

Jared Calaway announces that his book, Sabbath and Sanctuary is now available in print from Mohr Siebeck.  He also declares that Hebrews 9:23 Really Bothers Him.

Jacob Cerone links to an article he wrote on his post The Use of γράφω and its Compounds in Eusebius: Origen and Pauline Authorship of Hebrews?

Abram Kielsmeier-Jones has a lengthy post on Hebrews 11.

Henry Louis Laharpe on the Authenticity of Hebrews

Laharpe, Henry Louis. Essai critique sur l’authenticité de l’épitre aux Hébreux. 1832.

Laharpe sets out to demonstrate the authenticity of the epistle to the Hebrews by arguing for the probability of Pauline authorship.  Part 1 examines the internal evidence. 

First, he examines the doctrine which Hebrews and Paul contain: 1) Christianity possesses a superiority over Judaism: a) The Gospel gives to humanity more light and religious knowledge than the Law; b) The Gospel is superior to the Law in that it offers more powerful motives and greater encouragement for the practice of piety and virtue; c) The Gospel has a superior efficacy to advance and assure the real and constant happiness of the human race; d) The Jewish dispensation is only a type or shadow of the Christian dispensation; e) The Mosaic dispensation is abolished because of its imperfection, but the Christian dispensation exists perpetually.  2) The doctrine of the person and expiatory mediation of Jesus: a) The doctrine of the mediator is presented in the same manner by Paul and Hebrews; b) the death of Christ is an expiatory sacrifice for sins by which sinners are reconciled to God.

Second, he argues that the didactic and hortatory method Hebrews uses is analogous to that of Paul’s: 1) The general disposition of Hebrews is similar to that ordinarily employed by Paul; 2) There is a similarity in the citation and application of the OT; 3) There is an analogy between Hebrews and Paul with respect to the manner in which certain reasons are in turn suspended and reprised.

Third, he compares the style and diction of Hebrews and Paul under the following headings: 1) Concordance of style and ideas: a) Concordance of ideas presented in the same manner, although with a slightly different style; b) Concordance of ideas with a more striking relation in diction; c) Concordance of passages in which there is only a slight difference in expression; d) Concordance of passages which present the same expressions; 2) Words which are found only in Paul and Hebrews, or which are employed by other authors of the NT in an entirely different sense; 3) Remarkable particularities in grammatical construction.

Fourth, he examines several statements in Hebrews which seems to throw proper light on the question of authorship: 1) The particular way Timothy is mentioned in 13:23; 2) The author was a prisoner for a short time (13:18-19); 3) The statement regarding bonds in 10:34 is naturally applied to Paul; 4) The salutation in 13:24 forms another probability in favor of Pauline authorship; 5) There is no reason to doubt that Paul could have written the statements in 2:3.

In part 2 Laharpe examines the external evidence on the question of authorship.  In section 1 he examines the Alexandrian evidence of Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others.  Section two examines the witnesses of the Eastern Church, such as Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, and others.  Section three looks at witnesses of the Western Church: Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Caius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine, and the Council of Carthage.  Pauline authorship found opposition only in the Western Church, but eventually the tide of opinion turned in favor of Pauline authorship.

In part 3 Laharpe examines two particular questions regarding Hebrews: 1) What was the original language of the epistle?  2) Who were the addressees?  He concludes that Hebrews was originally written in Greek (not Hebrew).  It is likely that Paul would have used Greek even when writing to Hebrew Christians in Palestine, the OT quotations appear to have been drawn primarily from the LXX, and the Greek style all point to this conclusion.  Laharpe then argues that Hebrews was written to the Church in Caesarea.

In part 4 the author draws together his conclusions.  Hebrews’ doctrine is apostolic and shows remarkable similarities to the writings of Paul.  The internal and external evidence points favorably towards Pauline authorship. The authenticity of Hebrews leads to the conclusion that this epistle possesses a full and complete canonical authority and that it is decisive in all matters that it treats: the divinity of Christ, the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, the necessity of expiation for sins by the blood of Christ, and the necessity of a more perfect sacrifice than that offered in the Law.

Koester's Survey of Research

Koester, Craig R. “The Epistle to the Hebrews in Recent Study.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 2 (1994): 123-45.
Craig Koester (1953- ) has been Professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota since 1986. He has published a commentary on Hebrews for the Anchor Bible Commentary, as well as several articles on Hebrews.
This review of research on Hebrews nicely compliments J. C. McCullough’s two articles of the same year. While McCullough focuses on introductory issues such as authorship, recipients, genre, structure, style, and date, Koester concentrates on the following topics: 1) Commentaries, 2) Literary and Rhetorical Aspects, 3) Historical, Social, and Religious Context, 4) Theological Themes and Major Passages, and 5) History of Interpretation and Influence. Koester’s article concludes with an eight-page bibliography. Koester’s article covers the previous ten years since the publication of Helmut Feld’s survey.
Commentaries: Koester provides brief overviews of English commentaries by Attridge, Lane, and Ellingworth (NIGTC). Passing references are made to Wilson, Ellingworth, Bruce, Kistemaker, and Evans. Koester then makes brief comments on the German commentaries by Weiss, Grässer, Hegermann, and Braun, and the French commentary by Bénétreau. Passing references are made to Laub and März. Basically, Koester enumerates the contents of the introductory sections and excurses and the general layout of each commentary.
Literary and Rhetorical Aspects: Numerous scholars have paid attention to the various literary and rhetorical devices employed by Hebrews (Attridge; Lane; Jobes; Cosby; Lindars; Mitchell). Wills attempts to identify the features of Hebrews’ self-designation as a “word of exhortation,” while Black attempts to relate this form to classical rhetoric. Scholars differ on the type of rhetoric employed in Hebrews: some argue that Hebrews is a kind of deliberative rhetoric (Übelacker; Lindars), while others consider it epideictic (Attridge). Koester remarks that Hebrews does not fall neatly into either category. Scholars have tried to relate the different sections of Hebrews to the parts of ancient speeches.
Regarding structure, Vanhoye proposed a five-part concentric structure of the book, while others hold to a tripartite structure (Michel; Weiss). Various proponents have sided with both proposals. Alternative structures have also been presented by Übelacker and Brawley. Dunnill investigated the relationship between the “forward, linear movement of Hebrews” and its “repetitive or circular quality” (127).
Historical, Social, and Religious Contexts: Scholars agree that the author is unknown (e.g., Attridge; Ellingworth; Grässer; Lane; Weiss). Scholars either date the work before 70 AD (e.g., Bénétreau; Lane; Lindars; Ellingworth) or after it (e.g., Hegermann; Grässer; Isaacs; Weiss). Many situate the recipients of Hebrews in Rome (e.g., Attridge; Bruce; Ellingworth; Lane; Weiss), while Dunnill locates them in Western Asia Minor.
Concerning the social situation of the recipients, scholars have noted that Hebrews is addressed to a specific group within a wider Christian community (Weiss; Lindars) and that they are probably members of a house church (Lane). Scholars have determined that the ethnicity of the recipients were either Jewish (Bruce; Rissei; Feld; Lindars; Isaacs), Gentile (Braun; Weiss; Delville), or mixed (Ellingworth; Grässer). Scholars have surmised various scenarios for the occasion of the writing: crisis of faith triggered by Neronian persecution (Lane); a relapse into Judaism as a means of dealing with their need for atonement (Lindars); moral lethargy (Schmidt); a weariness of the faith of second-generation Christians (Grässer); a “preoccupation with sacred space . . . connected with the loss of Jerusalem and its temple” (129). Attridge argues that the author constructed a complex response to an equally complex situation in which no one problem is the key to understanding the situation.
Regarding Hebrews’ relationship to other early Christian groups, affinities with 1 Peter suggest a common Christian tradition, possibly in Rome (Hurst; Weiss; Attridge; Witherington; Backus). Manson’s proposal of a connection with Hellenistic Christians as exemplified by Stephen in Acts 7 was adopted with modifications by some scholars (Hurst; Lane; Lindars). Many scholars have also tried to locate Hebrews within the larger religious and intellectual context such as Hellenism (including Philo), Gnosticism, and apocalyptic Judaism. Scholars recognize that Hebrews utilizes extra-biblical Jewish sources, but mystic traditions and Samaritan sources are of little help in interpreting Hebrews. Much attention has been given to similarities between Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it is likely that neither the author nor the audience were related to the Qumran community in any way (Lehne; Scholer et al). Greco-Roman sources have also been used to help in the interpretation of Hebrews (Aune; Neyrey; van der Horst).
Theological Themes and Major Passages: Dunnill examined the concepts of sacrifice and covenant from an anthropological perspective. Isaacs investigated the notion of sacred space as a way of drawing together all the themes of Hebrews. Rissi claimed that the problems arising for the recipients of Hebrews originated from their idea of realized eschatology. Lindars contended that Hebrews addresses the audience’s problems of atonement for sin and guilt. Numerous studies have been done on the various aspects of the Christology of Hebrews (Meier; Dunn; Caird; Hurst; Savey), and in particular the author’s high-priestly Christology (Vanhoye; Estrada; Casalini; Laub; Bénétreau; Levoratti; Pursiful). Other studies have focused on the subject of the sanctuary (Lindars; Gordon; Löhr; Koester), the relationship between the high-priestly work of Christ and the priestly understanding of Christian life and community (Vanhoye; Fernάndez; Scholer; Nardoni; Swetnam), or the concept of faith (Hamm; Söding; Attridge; Weiss).
History of Interpretation and Influence: Commentators have examined the canonization process of Hebrews (Weiss; Lane; Ellingworth) and its role within the debates of the early church and the Reformation (Feld). Scholars have also begun to examine the history of Hebrews’ influence “by noting how the text is used in theological, devotional and polemical writings, liturgy and art, as well as in commentaries” (137). Grässer and Feld have engaged in special studies on the history of influence.

McCullough's Second Survey of Research on Hebrews

McCullough, John C. “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship.” Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994): 66-86, 108-20.

John Cecil McCullough, an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, was professor of New Testament at Near East School of Theology in Beirut, Lebanon and later at Union Theological College and Queen’s University in Belfast, Ireland, and is (was?) editor of Irish Biblical Studies. His dissertation was on “The OT Quotations in Hebrews” and he has published several articles on Hebrews.

This survey of recent scholarship is a follow-up article that the author published in 1980. This article covers the years 1980-1993 in which, according to the author, Hebrews scholarship has proliferated. The survey proceeds in a topical fashion.

Author: Generally speaking, speculation about Pauline authorship has come to an end (although Hugedé leaves open the possibility). Some discussion has revolved around whether the author of Hebrews belonged to a Pauline school: Schröger rejected the notion; Strobel concluded that the author might have been part of the wider Pauline missionary work; Ruager said that he was a member of the Pauline circle; and Backhaus argued that he did belong to a Pauline school.

Others have attempted to identify an alternative author and numerous names have been proposed. J. M. Ford offered the novel suggestion that Mary the mother of Jesus wrote Hebrews. Jewett proposed Epaphras, while D. L. Allen (incorrectly listed as “Alan” in the article) has contended for Luke. McCullough opines that “Such efforts to pinpoint names may be judged largely to have been a failure” (68). He suggests that the two best candidates are Barnabas and Apollos, but the evidence is too scanty to prove either one. Scholars are beginning to accept that the work is anonymous (e.g. Attridge). Grässer argued that the work was anonymous because the author wanted it to be that way for theological reasons; exclusive authority belongs to Jesus alone.

Acceptance of anonymity has prompted scholars to ascertain what can be known about the author from the writing itself. 2:3 suggests that the author was not an eyewitness of Jesus and was likely two or three generations removed. 11:32 hints that the author was a male. The author evinces a strong Hellenistic education and was proficient in the Greek language, while there is no evidence that he knew any Hebrew. The author probably had training in Greek rhetoric.

The precise intellectual influence on the author of Hebrews still remains a matter of debate. Spicq’s argument for Philonic influence was thoroughly refuted by Williamson. Nevertheless, the author is thoroughly immersed in the Hellenistic thought world of which Philo was a part (Thompson; Dey; Ruager), so the question becomes “how the author uses the traditions which he has in common in Philo” (74). Other scholars want to see Gnostic influence on the thought world of Hebrews (Windisch; Käsemann; Grässer; Theissen). Others have advocated for the author’s Jewish background. Earlier scholars such as Michel, Barrett, Michel, Klappert, and Hofius have all noted the Jewish eschatological components of the book, and this has been recognized by other scholars (Thompson; Strobel).

Recipients: Scholars are divided over whether the recipients were Jewish Christians (Hagner; Kistemaker; Casey; Morris; Rissi; Bénétreau; Bruce; Ellingworth) or not (Braun; Grässer; Laub; März; Hegermann; Weiss). As for provenance, many scholars are undecided, but it is clear that Hebrews has a connection with Italy (13:24). Some scholars state that Hebrews was written in Italy or even Rome, while many others advocate for a Roman destination (Hagner; Attridge; Bruce; Wilson; Rissi; Weiss). R. Brown argues for a Roman destination in the fact that it was known to other Roman writers (Shepherd of Hermas; Clement of Rome; Hippolytus), and Rome’s reluctance to accept it as canonical because they knew it was not written by Paul.

As for the occasion of the letter, some scholars say it was generally a faith crisis (Laub) perhaps caused by the delay of the parousia (Weiss; Strobel). Others see a connection with current or impending suffering or persecution (Lane; Buchanan; Robinson; Guthrie; Schmithals) or the Fall of Jerusalem and the Temple and the recipients were in danger of lapsing in their faith (Brown; Isaacs). Manson, by contrast, states that the danger was not relapsing, but of not taking full advantage of the opportunities afforded by Christianity. Lindars contended that they were struggling with the idea of forgiveness for sins committed after becoming Christians; they were tempted to return to the old sacrificial system which provided an ease for their consciences. Hooker surmises that they were Christians who were already cut off from Judaism and the Temple.

Genre, Structure and Style: Ellingworth surmises that a descriptive first leaf that would have been attached to the beginning of the manuscript was lost early on. Grässer concludes that chapter 13 was added by a later hand since the author wanted to remain anonymous and would not have added the Pauline ending. Weiss, on the other hand, determined that the ending was added by the author since a later redactor would also have appended a letter opening.

Discussion has also revolved around the issue of whether Hebrews is a general treatise or whether it is addressing a particular situation. Some view Hebrews as a letter (e.g., Kistemaker), while many others consider it a sermon (Swetnam; Grässer; Weiss; Lane; Michel; Thyen; Schierse; Isaacs; Vanhoye), or tractate (Rissi; Windisch). Various attempts have been made to determine the rhetorical structure of the work (Spicq; Wills; Black; Übelacker), and the type of rhetoric employed, whether it be deliberative or epideictic. Numerous other studies have worked on the literary structure of Hebrews.

Date: The terminus ad quem is usually fixed at 96 AD because Hebrews is used by 1 Clement, although there has been some debate as to whether 1 Clement is actually dependent on Hebrews. Some scholars have concluded that Hebrews was written before 70 AD because it refers to the sacrificial cult in the present tense. However, it has been demonstrated that other writings post-dating the destruction of the temple continue to use the present tense to describe the sacrificial cult. So, McCullough concludes that “the destruction of the Temple cannot, therefore, be used with any certainty to date the Epistle” (119). Scholars have not come to a consensus regarding the dating of the book, with dates ranging from the 60s to the 90s.

McCullough ends part one with a considerable bibliography on commentaries and monographs on Hebrews. McCullough provides a nice overview of scholarship for the period covered. Naturally, he was limited by space considerations so other important issues such as the author’s use of scripture or his theology could not be addressed.

Godet on Hebrews

Godet, Frederic. “The Note of Warning to the Judeo-Christian Churches.” Pages 307-39 in Studies on the Epistles of St. Paul. Translated by Annie Harwood Holmden. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889.

Frederic Godet (1812-1900) was a Swiss Protestant theologian who was professor of theology at Neuchâtel 1850-1887 and also held a pastorate there from 1851 to 1868. In 1873 he was one of the co-founders of the Evangelical Church of Neuchâtel. A nice biography of his life can be found here.

In this essay Godet sets out to answer three questions:
1) To what churches was this church addressed?
2) What was the object which the writer proposed to himself?
3) Who was the writer?

1) Godet believes that the superscription “To the Hebrews” was penned by the author himself! “Hebrews” refers to Judeo-Christians generally. Passages such as 5:11-12; 10:34; and 13:7 indicate that the epistle was addressed to one or more specific congregations. Godet notes that scholars have posited numerous locations for the audience: Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, Spain, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Palestine. Godet favors the last option declaring that there is no indication in the entirety of the letter that Gentiles are being addressed. As the readers had “an obstinate attachment to the worship of the visible sanctuary” (311), a location near Jerusalem is the most reasonable hypothesis. 2:3 suggests that they were converted by those who had personally heard Jesus, and 13:7 references the death of their leaders which accords well with what we know about James’ martyrdom in 62.

Godet then tries to refute alternative solutions. Hebrews 6:10 does not seem to apply to the Jerusalem church which was itself in deep poverty. However, the author may have been writing to a church elsewhere in Judea, or there may have been a few wealthy persons in the Jerusalem church, or it could be that even the poor in Jerusalem were generous in their giving.

Godet lists three things in favor of the hypothesis that the epistle was written to the church in Egypt: the “Alexandrine style” of the writer, the similarity of ideas to Philo, and the author’s penchant for quoting from the Septuagint. These facts, however, favor an Alexandrian origin, not a destination. Godet counters by arguing that the Alexandrian culture was rather widespread among the oriental Jews. Moreover, the church at Alexandria was far from being a purely Judeo-Christian group. Finally, he notes that Alexandrian teachers such as Clement and Origen never hint that Hebrews was written to the church at Alexandria.

Godet says that a Roman destination for the epistle was waning in favor in his day (It is interesting to note, then, that there are still strong advocates for this view to this day, 120 years after he wrote this). The support for a Roman destination is taken from 13:24 which says “they of Italy salute you.” Godet disputes this possibility: “does it seem probable that any Church of Italy . . . should have been so strongly tempted to fall back into Judaism, as those seem to have been for whom this Epistle was intended?” (315) Godet concludes, rather, that the epistle was written from Italy.

2) To answer the second question regarding the purpose of the writing, Godet proceeds to give an overview of the book. He divides the book into parts: the didactic (ch. 1-10) and the practical (ch. 11-13) with a concluding appendix (13:22-25). Of course, it has been demonstrated that the structure of Hebrews is far more complex than this simplistic outline.

Chapters 1-2 show the superiority of Christ to the angels. The comparison between Jesus and the angels was made because, from a Jewish point of view, the law was given through the agency of angels. Chapters 3-4 demonstrate the superiority of Jesus to Moses and Joshua. In the third section (5-10) the author demonstrates the superiority of Jesus and his priesthood to that of Aaron’s. The author also sets forth the substitution of the new covenant for the Sinai covenant.

In the practical part of the letter, Godet says this regarding chapter 11:

If we remember the tenacity with which the Churches addressed appear to have clung to the visible sanctuary at Jerusalem, and the value which they attached to the maintenance of their oneness with the chosen nation settled in the land of Canaan, we shall easily understand the scope of the writer’s observations in chap. xi., in which he held before them the picture of the life of faith and endurance led by the patriarchs and prophets. All these, each in his own manner, let go the seen that they might grasp the unseen. (324)

Chapter 12 deals with the duty of steadfast patience and chapter 13 with that of utter self-renunciation, to which the whole epistle had been leading. Godet believes this is the gist of the whole epistle:

At length (chap. xiii. 13) he speaks out, and demands the supreme act of sacrifice. . . . As Jesus was led forth in ignominy outside the walls of Jerusalem, bearing his cross, so the time is come for those believing Jews, who have cherished till now the bond of oneness with the Jewish nation and religion, to make the great surrender, and break with a bond which threatens to lead them to their ruin. “Break loose from Judaism. Be wholly His who is better to you than the angels, better than Moses or Joshua, better than Aaron and his priesthood. Be all for Jesus, in whom you possess the eternal reality of all the good things of which Judaism offers you only the shadow.” (325)

Thus, for Godet, the epistle was addressing the danger of these Christians of Jewish origin from lapsing back into Judaism. These Judeo-Christians had a great attachment to outward rites and ceremonial worship, which created a great hindrance in advancement in the Christian life. Other circumstances exacerbated their situation: the impending war with Rome, and the preaching of Paul among the Gentiles which downplayed the ceremonial law. Godet surmises that after Paul’s visit, messianic Jews were excluded from worship at the temple which inclined some to revert to Judaism. Other circumstances which contributed to their situation were the recent martyrdom of James and other early leaders, the continued refusal of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and the delay of the parousia. All this leads Godet to conclude that the epistle was written around 65-66 CE. This date is confirmed by the reference to Timothy who was probably imprisoned with Paul in Rome, and was only released after Paul’s execution. Godet disputes the dating of the epistle to 80 or later by such scholars as Zahn, Holtmann, Harnack and Von Soden. Why would the author of Hebrews need to argue about the obsolescence of the old covenant, if the sacrificial rites of the old covenant had already ceased? I find this part of Godet’s argument rather compelling.

3) Godet notes that Pauline authorship was readily accepted in the East, but was not accepted in the West until the Synod of Carthage in 397 under the influence of Augustine. The Eastern Fathers, however, did recognize the difficulty of ascribing the letter to Paul as the letter does not evince his characteristic style, nor does he identify himself in the letter as was his custom. Clement surmises that the epistle was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek by Luke. In a brief history of interpretation, Godet identifies other candidates for authorship that have been proposed: Clement of Rome, Luke, Apollos, Barnabas, and Silas.

Godet rejects Pauline authorship due to the absence of an epistolary heading, its markedly different literary style, the fact that the author copies the Septuagint (whereas Paul corrected the Septuagint by the Hebrew), and by his citation practice. Moreover, there is a dramatic difference with respect to its “religious point of view” (333). Hebrews focuses on the redemptive work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, while Paul centers on the cross. In addition, 2:3 suggests that the author received the gospel secondhand, while Paul would have denied any such dependence on the other apostles (cf. Gal 1:11-17). Godet also rejects the theory that the epistle was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek: “it abounds in compound words which are essentially Greek, and have no analogues in Aramaic or in Hebrew, and it contains plays upon words such as could only occur in a composition originally Greek” (335).

Godet quickly dismisses Luke and Clement of Rome as authors due to literary style. He also dismisses Apollos since he could not claim to have learned the gospel from those who personally heard Jesus, nor is it likely that he would have written to Christians in Judea. Barnabas is a strong candidate for authorship: he was one of the early leaders of the church in Jerusalem; he was a Levite by birth and hence acquainted with the ceremonial law; he was a Hellenistic Jew from Cyprus and so was competent to write in excellent Greek; his description of his work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22) evokes the name the apostles gave him: “son of exhortation” (4:36); and there is at least some early patristic testimony to his authorship: Tertullian. Yet, he asks “how is it possible that a well-known and all but apostolic name, like that of Barnabas, should have been almost completely lost?” (337)

Godet then proposes Silas as a likely candidate for authorship. Silas was also a prominent member of the church of Jerusalem. He succeeded Barnabas as Paul’s traveling partner on his missionary journeys and helped form churches in Greece. He was also associated with the work of Peter (1 Peter 5:12). Thus, it was likely that he knew Timothy (cf. 13:23). Any similarities with Paul’s writings could also be easily accounted for due to his relationship with Paul. All that we can say about Godet’s advocacy for Silas is that it is possible, but his evidence is not decisive. The authorship of Hebrews remains as elusive as ever.

Bartlet on the Historical Situation of Hebrews

Bartlet, Vernon. "Barnabas and His Genuine Epistle." The Expositor. Sixth Series, 5 (1902): 409-27; 6 (1902): 28-30.

Bartlet, Vernon. "The Epistle to Hebrews as the Work of Barnabas." The Expositor. Sixth Series, 8 (1903): 381-96.

Bartlet, Vernon. "More Words on the Epistle to Hebrews." The Expositor. Sixth Series, 11 (1905): 431-40.

James Vernon Bartlet (1863-1940) was an ecclesiastical historian who taught at Mansfield College, Oxford, 1889-1928. He wrote primarily on the New Testament and early church history.

It never ceases to amaze me that competent scholars can look at the same exact text and come up with entirely different interpretations incompatible with one another. Such is the case with our next series of essays. Bartlet differs with Harnack (and George Milligan, and A. S. Peake) regarding the historical setting of the epistle. Whereas Harnack believed that Hebrews was written by Priscilla (and Aquila) to Jewish or Gentile Christians in Rome after the Claudian edict, Bartlet argues that Hebrews was written by Barnabas to Jewish Christians in Caesarea in the crisis years leading up to the Jewish revolt, and in particular, in response to the execution of James in 62 A.D.

In the first decade of the twentieth century Bartlet wrote a series of essays on the historical situation of Hebrews. Like a detective Bartlet pieces together clues from the biblical texts and from patristic writings to build his case that Barnabas was the author of Hebrews:

1) Barnabas was one of the leading Christians in the Jerusalem church. He was sent as an envoy to the Antioch to authenticate and confirm the beginnings of the gospel there. He used his considerable influence to introduce Paul to the Jerusalem apostles. He is mentioned before Paul in Acts 15:12, 25 and was equally called to be an apostle to the Gentiles as Paul was (Gal 2:9) Although he would eventually be overshadowed by Paul, Bartlet believes that many in the early church would have regarded Barnabas as the greater man.

2) Bartlet attributes Barnabas’ influence to the possibility that he was a close associate of Jesus and was among the unnamed followers of Jesus outside the circle of the twelve (see, for example, Luke 24:9). He may have also been among the mission of the 70 (Luke 10:1, 17). Bartlet finds his support in Clement of Alexandria who calls Barnabas an "apostle" and names him as one of the 70 (Stromateis 2.20). It is possible that Barnabas was aware of Jesus’ sufferings and crucifixion during his final week in Jerusalem, which could explain the "extraordinary realism" of Jesus’ temptations, particularly with the Garden of Gethsemane scene in Heb 5:7-8. Of course there is no indication in the gospels or Acts that Barnabas was one of Jesus’ close associates. Barnabas is introduced rather abruptly at the end of Acts 4 (verse 36-37) and there is no indication that he had any prior contact with Jesus. However, the reference in Clement of Alexandria is quite intriguing–does he preserve a tradition that has otherwise been lost?

3) Barnabas was a Hellenistic Jew: he was from Cyprus. Cyprus, Bartlet claims, would have been under the influence of both Alexandria and Jerusalem. According to Bartlet, this "dual training finds its counterpart in the mingled idealism and realism of the thoughts in Hebrews."

4) Barnabas was a Levite. As a Levite he would have had intimate knowledge of the sacrificial system in Jerusalem. Bartlet speculates that Barnabas did not find the sacrificial rites of Judaism adequate to give him a clean conscience from the sense of defiling sin. Barnabas instead found that perfect cleansing of conscience in the final sacrificial work of Christ (cf. Heb 9:9, 14; 10:22).

5) Barnabas may have visited Italy, if not Rome. The Clementine Recognitions (1:7) preserves a tradition that Clement heard the gospel from Barnabas in Rome. The Gnostic Acts of Peter preserves a tradition that Barnabas and Timothy were together with Paul in Rome, and were sent by him to Macedonia.

6) Heb 2:3 does not count against Bartlet’s thesis because Barnabas would have been simply identifying himself with his readers; he rhetorically includes himself with his readers.

7) There is a strong tradition that connects Barnabas with Hebrews. The strongest of these traditions is found in Tertullian’s On Modesty 20:

I wish, however, redundantly to superadd the testimony likewise of one particular comrade of the apostles,–(a testimony) aptly suited for confirming, by most proximate right, the discipline of his masters. For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas–a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence . . . And, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the Churches than that apocryphal "Shepherd" of adulterers. (Quotation from the Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Tertullian proceeds to quote from Heb 6, so it is clear that he has the canonical epistle in mind. Tertullian does not seem to waver in his belief that Hebrews was written by Barnabas. Thus Bartlet finds strong support for Barnabas’ authorship in Tertullian (and some other more obscure patristic witnesses). While I, at this point, find no major objections to Barnabas’ candidacy as the author of Hebrews, I often found Bartlet’s reconstruction highly speculative at points. He takes passing references in his sources to build a whole scenario. But perhaps the biggest objection to Barnabas’ candidacy is Bartlet himself who changed his mind years later and attributed the authorship to Apollos!

We now turn to Bartlet’s reconstruction of the situation of the recipients of Hebrews:

1) They were Jewish Christians who were beginning to fall away from the faith after a long period because of persecution and perhaps because of the delay of the parousia. Heb 3-4 contains a severe judgment on Israel’s past: their leaders failed to bring them into God’s rest.

2) The language of priesthood, sacrifices, covenant and commonwealth suggests that the recipients lived within the sphere of Jerusalem and its temple. They lived in Palestine.

3) They lived somewhere along the seacoast between Joppa and Caesarea (most likely the latter since it had the closest relations with Italy). Bartlet finds support for this in the nautical metaphors that Hebrews uses: a ship drifting away from its moorings (2:1); Christ as the anchor of the soul (6:18). The race metaphor of 12:1 would have been more familiar with Jews living near Caesarea where "non-Jewish sports were within the experience of even Hebrew Christians." I find this highly speculative. The metaphors that the author of Hebrews uses are not particularly extraordinary or obscure and would likely have been readily understood even by Jews living further inland. Besides ancient Jerusalem also contained a hippodrome–Jews would not have been ignorant about Greco-Roman sports.

4) The letter was only sent to one small community. The author tells them to greet "all" of their leaders, so only a section of the community is being addressed. The author perhaps aimed to bring this community in line with the views and practices of the local leaders.

5) The community consisted of wealthy and influential members (6:10; 10:32-34; 13:1-6). Bartlet supposes this is the reason why the community had not suffered unto the "shedding of blood" (12:4) or why they had not been imprisoned. They would have been among the more respected element among the Jewish people. Moreover, their wealth and status could suggest that they were more susceptible to worldliness, thus explaining the exhortations against the reliance on wealth (11:25-26; 12:16; 13:5-6). The exalted diction of the epistle also seems to indicate that the audience was among the intellectual elite among the Jewish Christians in Caesarea.

6) Bartlet imagines that the crisis was precipitated during the tenure of the Roman governor Felix when a struggle erupted between the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea for control of the city. Nero ruled in favor of the non-Jews around 61 AD. The crisis was exacerbated by the execution of James in 62 AD. Bartlet speculates that Barnabas might have felt the need to step in to fill the void created by James’ death. Bartlet thus situates the writing of the letter quite specifically in the summer of 62 AD.

7) Barnabas was writing from Italy, but not Rome. He was most likely writing from a seaport town, perhaps Brundisium, on the verge of sailing back to Palestine. He was hoping that Timothy would join him on the trip, having recently been released from prison (Heb 13:23).
Bartlet concludes with an explanation on why the epistle lacks an opening address. First, it may never had an address. But more likely the address, due to its very particular and restricted nature, would have been left off when the epistle was copied for a more general audience. If the address had been of a more general nature, then the address would not have disappeared. He gives the instance in which a copy of Romans from which all local references had been excised (according to Origen).

Milligan on the Recipients of Hebrews

Milligan, G. "The Roman Destination of the Epistle to the Hebrews." The Expositor. Sixth Series, 4 (1901): 437-48.

George Milligan (1860-1934) was Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow 1910-1932. He is the author of The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1899).

George Milligan is responding to earlier essays by Theodor Zahn and Adolf Harnack but does not differ from them significantly. In this essay Milligan deals with the identity of the recipients of Hebrews:

1) It is a small body of believers. There is no evidence of any differing opinions among the recipients in the book of Hebrews. It would also explain the lack of an introduction, since we would expect an introduction if addressed to a larger body of believers.

2) This small group is probably not part of a larger church, since the relation to the larger body of believers would have been indicated in the text. Therefore, the recipients are a small independent community or congregation.

3) The audience is of Jewish descent. The recipients are treated as direct descendants from the people of the Old Covenant. Moreover, his argument is largely based on the comparison between the Old Covenant and the New which would have more forcefulness with a Jewish audience. There is no absolute proof that the audience consisted of Gentiles.

4) 2:3 suggests that the recipients were converted by the those who had heard the apostles. There conversion was whole-hearted as is evidenced by the fact that they have suffered for their faith and have been despoiled of their property.

5) The phrase "latter days" suggests that some time has elapsed since their conversion. They have begun to slacken in their zeal. But there is no trace of a lapse back into Judaism. The warning are of a more general kind.

6) Rome is the most likely destination for Hebrews. There was a strong Jewish element in the church at Rome. 2:3 seems to accord well with what one would expect of the believers in Rome. Some particulars that suggest a Roman audience are: a) the epistle was well-known in Rome before the end of the first century as is indicated by its usage in 1 Clement; b) the liberality of the church (6:10) and the exhortations to continue (13:1, 2, 5) is applicable to inhabitants of a wealthy city like Rome; c) their sufferings accord well with the persecution of Christians in Rome under Claudius or Nero; d) the personal allusions and greetings support a Roman destination: (1) the use of οι ηγουμενοι for the leaders of the church finds parallel usage in 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas; (2) the mention of Timothy in 13:23 is explicable, as he was known by the Roman Christians; (3) The greeting from "those from Italy" is most naturally explained by positing a Roman audience.

Is the Book of Hebrews Addressed to Samaritans?

Richard Anderson who wrote the article "The Cross and the Atonement from Luke to Hebrews" (Evangelical Quarterly 71 [1999]: 127-49) has a posting on his blog site about the recipients of the Book of Hebrews. He argues that the recipients were Samaritans, in part, it seems, on the title itself, "The Epistle to the Hebrews." He says that the Samaritans called themselves Hebrews, while the Jews did not. Since the the title is not original to the book, it would seem to me to be a dubious argument to identify the recipients of the book on this basis.

Is Priscilla the Author of Hebrews?

Adolf Harnack. “The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Lutheran Church Review 19 (1900): 448-471. (Translated by Luther D. Lazarus)

Adolf Harnack. “Probability about the Address and Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 392-415 in The Bible Status of Woman. Edited by Lee Anna Starr. New York: Revell, 1926. (Translated by Emma Runge Peter)

The two articles listed above are actually two different translations of the same German article written by Harnack for ZNW in 1900. Harnack was a prominent German theologian and church historian producing over 1500 works during his lifetime. He taught at Leipzig (1874), Giessen (1879), Marburg (1886), and Berlin (1889-1921).

In this article Harnack argues that Hebrews was likely written by Priscilla. He appears to be the first person to make this argument (at least he believes he is the first).

Harnack first deals with the question of the addressees. He agrees with Theodor Zahn’s argument that the recipients were not likely a larger congregation, but that they were a small group of older Christians. These recipients were not the leaders of their local congregation, since the writer of Hebrews tells them to obey their leaders (13:17), but at the same time they had been Christians long enough that they themselves should be teachers (5:12). They were likely second-generation Christians (2:3). With Zahn Harnack believes the recipients were Roman. Harnack gives several reasons for placing them at Rome, but none are particularly decisive. The strongest evidence is the ambiguous statement “Those from Italy greet you” (13:24). This could equally mean that Hebrews was written from Rome. First Clement, which is written from Rome, seems to be well aware of Hebrews, alluding to it frequently, but Clement is also aware of other early Christian writings, not all of which were addressed to Romans.

Harnack does take issue with Zahn’s insistence that the addressees had to be Jewish Christians. Gentiles, when they converted to Christianity, would have adopted the OT as their book as well and could have been well-acquainted with it. For Harnack the distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians is overdrawn.

Although Harnack does not attempt to date the book, He believes that the addressees had experienced the Neronian persecution and that the author of Hebrews alludes to the martyrdom of their leaders, i.e., Peter and Paul (10:32; 13:7). Thus it would appear Harnack would date the book sometime in the 70s.

Harnack makes a brilliant case for Priscilla’s authorship. He proposes that Priscilla is the author of Hebrews for a number of reasons:

1) the author was highly educated and seems to have held a prominent teaching position. In Acts 18 Priscilla along with Aquila were able to instruct Apollos who was himself an eloquent and learned man (Acts 18:24-26).

2) Both Priscilla and Aquila were among the Pauline circle of friends and were associates with Timothy (13:23).

3) Assuming the Roman audience, the author would then have been a part of the Roman church and been familiar with the circumstances of the Christians in Rome. Moreover the author seems to have been a respected leader among the Roman Christians and hoped to be restored to them someday (13:19). We know from Acts 18:1 that Priscilla and Aquila were expelled from Rome due to the Edict of Claudius in 49 A.D.

4) It is clear that Hebrews was written by one individual since the first-person singular is used (11:32; 13:19, 22). But at other times the author uses the first-person plural that suggests that the author was speaking for more than him or herself. The most decisive example for me that Harnack gives is 13:18 in which the author says “pray for us.” Harnack also believes that 13:22 and 6:1-3, 9, 11 are other examples in which the author speaks for others. Since Priscilla and Aquila were partners, it would be logical to assume that the author was also speaking for his or her partner. (However, could not the author have been speaking just as well for his fellow Christians “from Italy” or other Christian associates?)

Why then Priscilla, and not Aquila? In a few instances in Acts and the Pauline letters Priscilla’s name is mentioned before Aquila’s. This suggests to him that Priscilla was the more prominent of the two. This, I believe may be overreaching the evidence. Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned six times by name (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19). Twice Aquila is mentioned first, four times Priscilla is mentioned first. This is just not a large enough sampling to make any kind of decisive statement. Perhaps Priscilla’s name is mentioned first because it was more euphonious to the Greek ear, much like “ladies and gentlemen” is more euphonious to the English ear than “gentlemen and ladies.” What is clear to me is that Priscilla and Aquila were co-equal partners in ministry. One is never mentioned without the other.

Harnack speculates–and it is speculation–that Priscilla was a Roman from a noble family, while Aquila may have been a freedman. This would explain Priscilla’s more prominent status. Of course, there is nothing in the biblical texts to suggest this. Samuel Terrien in his book Till the Heart Sings adduces some archaeological evidence to suggest that Priscilla was related to the Pudens family of Rome, but Terrien has to connect the dots for us, because the evidence is not decisive in this matter. We know that Aquila was a Jew from Pontus. It is entirely possible that Priscilla was also from there. Terrien argues that Priscilla is a Roman name and so she must have been from Rome. But Aquila is a Roman name too (it means “eagle” in Latin), and he was from Pontus! The Roman empire extended over a wide territory; it would not be surprising to find Roman names in other parts of the empire besides Italy.

5) Among the parade of heroes some women are mentioned. This suggests that the author was a woman in sympathy with these heroes from the OT. Terrien absurdly says “Would it not at least be unexpected for a man to praise ‘Rahab, the prostitute,’ who ‘by faith did not perish with rebels, for she peacefully welcomed the spies’ (11:31)?” By the same reasoning then we must assume that the authors of the epistles of James and First Clement were also women since they praise Rahab. By the same reasoning the author of Luke-Acts must be a woman for the sympathetic portrayals of women found in these works.

6) Harnack suggests that the reason why the name of the author of Hebrews was lost is because the author was a woman. If the author was Paul, Luke, Apollos, or Barnabas, there would be no good reason why the author’s name would have been lost. Harnack believes that the disappearance of the author’s name is due to the fact that women teachers fell into disrepute in the early church. He adduces evidence from Codex Bezae on Acts to show how the copyist suppressed Priscilla’s role.

Harnack believes that of all the candidates for the authorship of Hebrews, Priscilla is the best one. He closes confidently saying “as far as I can see, not a single contrary observation exists.” But Harnack overlooks the masculine participle diegoumenon in 11:32 which modifies the personal pronoun me. This suggests that the author of Hebrews was a male. Terrien says that this is a “faulty or biased knowledge of Greek syntax,” that one would use a neuter participle in this instance, which is indistinguishable from the masculine. But would a Greek writer use a neuter participle to modify a personal pronoun in this way? An authority no less than Harold Attridge in his monumental commentary writes in a footnote on page 347: “The masculine gender tells against the hypothesis of a female author.” Likewise William Lane in his commentary says in his notes on his translation “the masc ending of the ptcp is adverse to the proposal that Hebrews was composed by Priscilla or by some other woman” (p. 381). It is not that I don’t think that Priscilla could not have written Hebrews, it is just that the grammar of 11:32 doesn’t support that contention.