1-25-40

Introduction

HEBREWS

Authorship. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews,' the familiar designation, forms no part of the writing itself, and lacks the authority of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament. In these manuscripts the title was simply 'To the Hebrews,' which, in later copies, became 'Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.' Towards the close of the second century the authorship was associated with the name of St. Paul; and in the East, from the third century, this Apostolic origin was generally accepted, and the writing recognised as canonical. Tertullian, who was pre-eminent in the Church of North Africa, assigned the authorship to Barnabas. In Rome no theory of the origin of the epistle was formulated till the influence of Athanasius and other Fathers dominated religious thought in the West, and caused Hebrews to be included among the Pauline writings. Criticism was dead in the Dark Ages, and enslaved in the period of Scholasticism. At the Renascence and Reformation it was alive and striving for freedom, and Erasmus dared to doubt, and Luther to deny, the Pauline authorship. The German Reformer suggested that the author was Apollos, 'born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures' (Acts xviii. 24). Luke, Silvanus, Titus, Timothy, Aquila and Priscilla, Philip the Deacon, Clement of

Rome, have each been named in connection with the epistle. The author, however, is unknown, but it may be affirmed that his cast of thought suggests a student of Alexandrian philosophy, his style points to an eloquent man, his allusions and quotations reveal a writer mighty in the Scriptures, and his theology generally indicates a Paulinist.

Place of Writing. The only phrase which suggests a locality is 'they of Italy salute you' (xiii. 24). No conclusive argument is possible from the Greek words, which may refer to Italians either in their own country or in a foreign land. It is to be noted, however, that there was no one with diocesan authority to speak in name of the Christians of Italy, and one writing from Rome would not describe the city as if it were the country. It is plausible to assume that the author was beyond Italy, and that he sent salutations, in name of companions, to a congregation in the land from which they had gone forth.

Destination. The familiar title is in harmony with the tradition that the epistle was intended for Hebrews, but it is doubtful if Hebrews rather than Gentiles were addressed. A special community received the letter, since the author had been with those to whom he wrote, hoped again to see them, and sent salutations to their rulers (xiii. 19, 23, 24). A considerable time had elapsed from the date of their conversion (v. 12). Though after their illumination they had endured a great fight of affliction, they were now becoming dull of hearing, slothful, neglectful of assembling, and opposed to their rulers (x. 32, v. 11, vi. 12, x. 25, xiii. 7). Where was this community situated? The lapsing, if the title Hebrews be accepted, would be to Judaism ;

and the Christians in Jerusalem, exposed to the most serious temptation, are at once suggested. The first Christians continued in the Temple service, and were conscious of no revolt from the ancient religion. While enthusiasm for Jesus as the Messiah lasted, and Jewish severity did not separate them from Israel, there was no violent break with the past. But when this severity troubled them, and when also they heard the doctrine that Christianity is more than a perfected Judaism, they were forced to decide between their old religion with its splendid tradition and the new faith without imperial or national association. Further, the Christians of Jerusalem are suggested, if the references to sacrifice and intercession imply that the readers were familiar with the Temple ritual. In Leontopolis, in Egypt, there was a Jewish temple, but it lacked the splendour of building, the pomp of ritual, and the majesty of tradition, which made the worship at Jerusalem sacred to every Jew. If it be admitted that the epistle was addressed to Hebrews, growing cold in their faith, amidst the bigotry of an old religion, what more likely than that these Hebrews constituted the Church at Jerusalem ?

It is to be noted, on the other hand, that while there is an atmosphere of Israel in the epistle, it is not probable that a Paulinist would have been an acceptable adviser to Jewish Christians, or that the Greek of the epistle, with quotations from the Septuagint, even if intelligible to them, would have been welcomed by citizens of Jerusalem. It may be argued, also, that the Gospel had not been simply confirmed unto the Jerusalem community by them that heard Him,' and that the members were not in a position to minister to the saints (ii. 3, vi. 10).

From Jerusalem some have turned to Rome as the destination of the epistle. Clement of Rome was the first non-canonical writer to make use of Hebrews, and the non-Pauline authorship was for centuries a definite tradition in the imperial city. The greeting, 'they of Italy salute you,' bears the interpretation that certain men were remembering their brethren in Italy. It is possible, indeed, that Jewish Christians were the recipients of the letter; but the disquisitions on Judaism and references to the Tabernacle, rather than to the Temple, would be as intelligible to Gentiles in Rome, who used the Old Testament, as to converts in Jerusalem. St. Paul, writing to Gentiles in Galatia and Corinth, based arguments on Old Testament incidents, while Philo of Alexandria, addressing pagans, and Clement of Rome, in a letter to Corinthians, made constant reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. It is of further importance to note that not a word in the writing declares that the recipients were Hebrews in danger of lapsing into Judaism; and the exclusive application to Jewish Christians of such passages as 'they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh' (vi. 6) is as easily denied as asserted. Warnings against 'departing from the living God' (iii. 12) and hardening 'through the deceitfulness of sin' (iii. 13) do not imply a return to Judaism, which was a spiritual religion. Fleshly sin (xiii. 4) was one besetting Gentiles more strongly perhaps than Jews; and Jews, with so many principles common to them and Christians, were surely not addressed in the words: 'Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrines of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment' (vi. 1, 2).

The Church of Alexandria has also been suggested as the destination of the epistle, seeing that the author was acquainted with the Alexandrian philosophy. The epistle itself may possibly be identified with the Epistle to the Alexandrians, specified in the famous Muratorian Canon, which does not name Hebrews. A grave difficulty, however, is presented in the fact that the writing was seemingly unknown in Alexandria for at least a century after its composition, and, when known, was associated with the name of St. Paul.

The destination of the epistle, like the authorship, has not yet passed beyond conjecture, though the Church in Rome presents the fewest difficulties. The title Hebrews cannot after long centuries be cast aside, but it involves a theory which has not even a primitive sanction.

Date. The epistle is undoubtedly post-Pauline, since the writer made use of Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Romans, and probably Ephesians. On the other hand, it was anterior to the letter of Clement to the Corinthians (circ. 97 A.D.). Internal evidence, in the judgment of many critics, places the date of composition in the reign of Domitian. The words 'call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions' (x. 32) suited the condition of the Roman Church during the Neronian persecution; while the admonition, 'consider Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds' (xii. 3), pointed to a new trial, such as that which took place in Domitian's reign (81-96 A.D.). The trial was just beginning, since those addressed had 'not yet resisted unto blood' (xii. 4).