Hebrews, Epistle To the

HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE.

Title and Destination (§ 1).
Contents (§ 2).
The Readers (§ 3).
Date (§ 4).
Authorship. Definite Data (§ 5).
Tradition of Pauline Authorship (§ 6).
Ascription to Barnabas and Apolloe (§ 7).

Although the epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most important doctrinal works comprised in the New Testament, its author can not be determined with certainty either from ecclesiastical tradition or by modern critical research; nor is there any notable tradition from which to identify those to whom it was addressed, beyond the vague " to

Hebrews " written at the beginning and the end.

Although the title is, of course, not of the author's writing, it goes back to the beginning of the circulation of the epistle, which was uni

>. Title formly called "the Epistle to the and Hebrews" by the year 200, among

Destination. writers and churches that differ widely as to its authorship and relation to the canon, in Clement of Alexandria and his teacher

(Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI. xiv. 2-4) equally with

Tertullian (De pudicitia, xx.). It cannot be shown that the epistle was ever read without this title or with another. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to identify it with the epistle to the Laod iceans mentioned in Col. iv. 16, and now extant in a Latin version; and still more groundless at tempts to show that it is the pseudo-Pauline epistle "To the Alexandrians," of which there is no certain knowledge. The ancient title, differing from those of the Pauline epistles in that the recip ients are not designated by their place of residence, shows that the author of the title wished to mark them out as born Jews. If the title is supposed to give the original destination of the epistle from tradition, one can not see why it should have been addressed to the Hebrew-speaking part of Jewish

Christianity, or to a particular Jewish-Christian

Church like that of Jerusalem, to the exclusion of the Hellenistic part. If it is based on the contents of the letter, it is equally difficult to imagine why a work written in such good Greek should be sup posed to have been originally addressed to Hebrew apeaking Christians. This theory did not create the title, but from the title Clement evolved the theory that the epistle was first written in Hebrew and then translated by Luke; later writers repeated this view, some substituting Clement of Rome for Luke.

The weakness of this hypothesis is now generally recognized. Even if it be established that the recipients are designated as Hebrews with reference to their nationality and not to their language, the conclusion does not follow that the Hebrews of

Jerusalem or Palestine are alone meant, as Clement of Alexandria and his teacher (probably Pantaenus),

Euthalius, and Ephraem thought. The supposition that all Jewish Christians throughout the world are meant is excluded by xiii. 18-25. The addressing of the recipients by their nationality instead of by their residence (supposing the latter to have been known) can be explained only by the fact that the

193

giver of the title knew or believed the epistle to have been addressed to the Jewish-born part of a definite local or provincial church. This, then, is the sense of the title, if it rests on a tradition going back to the date of the epistle's composition. It is also possible that the title merely reproduces the impression made from the beginning to the present time on most readers of the epistle. The next impression received from the epistle itself as to the character of the recipients is that they formed a homogeneous body. Complete similarity between their conditions appears in the references to the origin of their belief and the men to whom they owe it (ii. 3, 4, vi. 1, xiii. 7), to the duration of their adherence to the faith (v.12); to their showing of its results by works of mercy (vi. 10), and their sufferings for it (x. 32-34); to their dispositions and the dangers threatening them. That they as well as the author are Jews by descent is evident from numerous passages (i. 1, iii. 9, ii. 16, xiii. 13; cf. vi. 12-18 with I Cor. x. 1; Gal. iii. 7-29, iv. 21-31; Rom. iv. 11-18). The writer considers himself and his readers the direct continuation of the preChristian people of Israel, without asking how they became members of God's household. Although he insists on the universal significance of the death of Christ (ii. 9, 15, v. 9, ix. 26-28), he regards it so entirely from the standpoint of the Jewish com-. munity that it almost seems as if he knew only of its atoning operation on the sins not atoned for under the old covenant (ix. 15, xiii. 12; cf. Matt. i. 21), and considered the new covenant as one which, like the old, was only for the people to which the old was given and the new promised (viii. 6-13, x. 16, 17).

For the understanding of the epistle it is necessary to bear in mind that it is really a letter, and one with a practical religious purpose, to

Con- which all theoretical expositions are tents. only means. Immediately after the fine exposition in chapter i. the practical purpose comes out in the earnest warning based upon it (ii. 1-4). After the second theoretical exposition (ii. 5-18) comes the exhortation in chapter iii. only broken by short argumentative bits. The exhortation in iv. 14-16 is justified-by the exposition of the Jewish high-priesthood and the royal priesthood of Christ. And the passage which is most like a doctrinal dissertation (vi. 13-x. 18) is anticipated and followed by much strong practical admonition (v. 11-vi. 12, x. 19-39), and again chapter xi. is plainly subordinate to the warnings which precede and follow it. If in some places (iii. 12, iv. 1, 11, xii. 15, 16) the danger of individual lapse is mentioned, the whole body is none the less warned not to fall by neglecting the message of salvation (ii. 1-3, xii. 25), not to tread under foot the Son of God and crucify him afresh (vi. 4-8, x. 26-29). In spite of their long continuance in the Christian faith, they are 'still in the position of new converts who need to be taught the first principles (v. 11-vi. 3). A general relaxation shows itself (xii. 12); their patience fails (x. 36, xii. 1-11). Like the Israelites in the wilderness, they make comparisons between what they have given up and what they have gained in exchange. But the V.-13

claims which they make are such as only those who were brought up in the faith of the old covenant and its promises could make. Not only in order to show the greater responsibility imposed by the knowledge of Christ's revelation (ii. 1=4), but to remind them of its incomparable excellence, the writer shows the superiority of their mediator to all mediators of the old covenant, even to the angels (i.). What they find unsatisfying is that this mediator has died the common death of men and since that has been invisible; so he shows them how, precisely in order to. be their redeemer, Jesus had to partake fully of the common lot (ii. 5-18), and that only through his death and consequent exaltation could he be the high priest who was to do perfectly what the old high priests had done only in type and figure and to fulfil the promise of a royal priesthood (iv. 14-x. 18). Jewish Christians have thus incomparably more than they had before their conversion; but only on condition of holding fast to their faith. It follows that the danger to the recipients of the epistle was not the being led by false, teachers into a wrong conception of the Christian faith; the "divers and strange doctrines" mentioned in xiii. 9 are only of subordinate importance. Nor, again, is it that of falling away to a Judaizing Christianity by a belief of their own in the Mosaic law as permanently binding. The view to which the Hebrews are inclined, that faith in the crucified Jesus does not compensate for the trials of the Christian life, is not really a religious doctripe at all. Against a genuine Judaism it would be useless to adduce the fact, on which it insisted itself, that the promises made to God's people were not yet all fulfilled, but were certain of fulfilment. But there was a kind of Judaism which was such in name only -the Judai= of the high priest who brought about the crucifixion, and of Josephus, who betrayed the hope of the nation to the Roman emperor for the "mess of pottage" of court favor (Wars, III., viii. 9; VI., v. 4). Against a Judaism like this, without faith or hope, Paul stood with the Pharisees (Acts xxiii. 6-9; Rom. x. 2); and it was to such a Judaism that the recipients of this letter, to judge by the expressions of its author, were in danger of falling away.

The opinion represented by Roth (Epistolam vulgo "ad Hebraeos" imcnptam . . . L eipsie, 1836) and Von Soden (dPT, 1884,

3. The pp. 435 sqq., 627 sqq.) that the Readers. epistle. was addressed to Christians of predominantly pagan origin scarcely deserved the attention it received; and not much more tenable is that which prevailed among a number of the older commentators (Bleek, Riehm), that the recipients were still taking part in .the Jewish temple worship and sacrifices, and held this to be necessary to the atonement for sin, so that the purpose of the epistle was to reason them out of this and its practical consequences. Nor is there any support in the epistle for the as-

sumption that the recipients were residents of Jerusalem or of Palestine and the same may be said of the other theory that they lived in Alexandria and adhered to the worship of the temple at Leontopolis. The view brought up again by

194

Hofmann, that they were Jewish Christians of Antioch and its neighborhood has at least this in its favor, that the appropriateness of what is said in ii. 3, v. 12, vi. 10 may be historically demonstrated (see Acts xi. 19 sqq., xii. 25, xiii. 1). But there is no strong probability for any hypothesis except the one first put forth by Wetatein (in his ed. of the New Testament, u. 386, Amsterdam, 1752), that the recipients are to be looked for in Italy, and especially in Rome. Theodoret argued from xiii. 24 that the epistle was written in Italy; and while one can not positively assert the contrary from the designation of those who send salutations as "they of Italy," it seems the most natural construction. Instead of sending greetings from all the Christians near him (I Cor. xvi. 20) or from the church of the place where he is (I Pet. v.13), the writer sends them here only from the Christians born in Italy, because they would have a special interest in the dwellers in that country. Moreover, in xiii. 9 we find mention of an ascetic tendency related to that discussed in Rom. xiv. The dispositions of the Jewish-Christian majority in Rome which are combated in Rom. ix. 1, xi. 12, might have developed into a bitterness which is reproved in Hebrews. The first traces of the influence of the epistle are found in the earliest writings that issued from the Roman Church, admittedly in the epistle of Clement, and probably in the Shepherd of Hermas. The fact that until the middle of the fourth century the epistle did not belong to the New Testament as received in Rome would be explained by its not being addressed to the Church as a whole, but to a section of Roman Christians, a group within the larger body. Those who have the rule over them in their narrower circle (xiii. 17) are not identical with " all them that have the rule over you " in xiii. 24, whom they are to salute, and similarly "a71 the saints" in that verse are not identical with those to whom the letter is addressed. According to x. 32, they have at some fairly remote period suffered severe trials. The statement that these occurred after they were illuminated would be quite superfluous if the writer had not in mind a contrast with other such trials which they had endured before their conversion. Under Claudius, probably about 52, the Jews were banished from Rome, not without loss of property and other sufferings; under Nero, in 64, the Christians of Rome, for the most part of Jewish birth, suffered much more severely. Like Aquila and Priscilla (Rom. xvi. 3), many more of those who left Rome as Jews -under Claudius may have returned as Christians under Nero, or have been converted after their return. In another context they are reminded of the deceased preachers and teachers who have sealed their testimony with their blood-thus especially Peter and Paul (xiii. 7; cf. Clement, I Cor. v.).

From the foregoing it follows that the epistle was not written immediately after 64-67, but probably in 75 at the earliest. On the other