The Epistle to the Hebrews

By Paul Ellingworth

This superb work is sure to win a name for itself as one of the major commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews. The principal purpose of this substantial volume is to clarify the meaning of Hebrews, long considered a complicated and obscure book. Paul Ellingworth's fine-tooth-comb coverage of Hebrews looks at the text up close and in a broad light, enabling the reader to see the forest as well as the trees.

In his determined quest to understand Hebrews, Ellingworth begins with a detailed study of the Greek text, working outward to consider the wider context, linguistic questions, and the relation of Hebrews to other early Christian writings and to the Old Testament. Nonbiblical writings such as Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls, though less directly related to Hebrews, are considered where appropriate.

Unveiling the discourse structure of this carefully written letter, Ellingworth's commentary helps make coherent sense of the complexities of Hebrews. As a result of his exhaustive study, Ellingworth finds Hebrews to be primarily a pastoral, not a polemical, writing. Showing how Hebrews beautifully emphasizes the supremacy of Christ, Ellingworth concludes that the essential purpose of the epistle - which maintains the continuity of God's people before and after Christ - is to encourage readers to base their lives on nothing other and nothing less than Jesus.

A substantive bibliography and a comprehensive introduction precede Ellingworth's commentary, and three indexes - of subjects, authors, and Greek words discussed - conclude the volume.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Jun 4, 1993
• ISBN: 9781467423298

Paul Ellingworth

 Paul Ellingworth (1931–2018) was a British biblical scholar who taught at the University of Aberdeen and served as a translation consultant for the United Bible Societies.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH HEBREWS WAS WRITTEN

We are unlikely ever to be able to give certain and specific answers to such questions as: Who wrote Hebrews? Where? And to whom? Hebrews itself does not give this information, and there is no textual evidence that it ever did. External evidence of authorship is unreliable and divided, and external evidence of the circumstances in which the letter was written is largely lacking.

The study of such introductory questions is nevertheless of interest from at least two points of view. Historically, it reveals the forms in which such questions have been asked in the past and the motives for asking them. In terms of our present understanding of Hebrews, these questions impel the student to fit together the fragments of evidence provided by the epistle into a coherent, if always provisional, pattern.

THE AUTHOR

Evidence for authorship may conveniently be classified as (a) comparative, that is, pointing to attribution of Hebrews to an author on the grounds of comparison with writings known to be by that person, and (b) internal, that is, evidence from within Hebrews itself. Each of these types of evidence may be supported by nonliterary circumstantial evidence, in which case discussion of authorship tends to be combined with consideration of other introductory questions such as those of date, place, and addressees. Of the thirteen persons listed below, who have all been suggested as the author of Hebrews, the first six are those to whom other writings have at least been attributed; with these may be coupled the name of Stephen, on the basis of the speech attributed to him in Acts 7. The remaining names are those of people to whom other writings were not attributed in ancient times.

Paul. The idea of Pauline authorship of Hebrews is now almost universally abandoned.¹ Yet a study of the reasons why Hebrews was for so long associated with Paul, the terms in which it was associated with him, and the reasons for the general change of view is still of interest as revealing points of similarity and contrast between the Pauline corpus and the sole extant writing by the author of Hebrews. We therefore make no apology for discussing the question of Pauline authorship in some detail, as being of current as well as historical significance. (The acceptance of Hebrews as canonical is historically inseparable from its acceptance as Pauline, even though the two developments are logically distinct, and will be discussed separately as far as possible.)²

Possible references to Hebrews in the Apostolic Fathers are at most passing allusions, and certainly do not raise the question of authorship. By contrast, the problem of the anonymity of Hebrews is raised clearly in the Alexandrian tradition from an early date. Eusebius³ quotes Clement of Alexandria as having written:

But now, as the blessed elder [Pantaenus, d. c. 200] used to say, since the Lord, being the apostle [cf. Heb. 3:1] of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through modesty [ Inline-image ], since he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not inscribe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, both to give due deference to the Lord and because he wrote to the Hebrews also out of his abundance [ Inline-image ], being a preacher and apostle of the Gentiles.

Metzger⁴ describes this opinion as apparently "an attempt at conciliation, made necessary by the existence of two types of the corpus Paulinum, one with and the other without the Epistle to the Hebrews."

Eusebius prefaces to his reference to Pantaenus the following summary of a passage in Clement’s Hypotyposeis:

… as for the Epistle to the Hebrews, [Clement] says indeed that it is Paul’s, but that it was written for Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke, having carefully translated it, published it for the Greeks; hence, as a result of this translation, the same complexion of style is found in this Epistle and in the Acts: but that the [words] Paul an apostle were naturally not prefixed. For, says he, in writing to Hebrews who had conceived a prejudice against him, he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name.⁵

Despite these reservations, Clement quotes Hebrews frequently,⁶ sometimes as being by Paul,⁷ evidently concurring in a view already general in his time (c. 150–c. 215).

Pauline authorship is affirmed with stronger reservations by Clement’s successor Origen (c. 185–c. 254):

That the character of the diction [ Inline-image ] of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech [ Inline-image , 2 Cor. 11:6], that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended [ Inline-image ]. For not without reason have those of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows [ Inline-image ].⁸

Several aspects of Origen’s assessment are worthy of note. (1) The weight of tradition was already so strong that, although (or indeed because) the canonical status of Hebrews was not yet assured, it is explicitly on traditional grounds, and against his own literary judgment, that Origen feels constrained to defend Hebrews as essentially Pauline. Elsewhere⁹ he attributes fourteen letters to Paul, thus including Hebrews; he introduces quotations from it by such phrases as the Apostle says¹⁰ and Paul says.¹¹ (2) Origen’s judgment is all the more significant since he lived in Rome c. 210-211 and knew that the canonical status of Hebrews was more uncertain there than in the East. (3) Origen, unlike Clement, refuses to speculate on the identity of the actual writer or final redactor of the epistle. (4) Even such an independent spirit as Origen does not feel confident in making a clear distinction between canonicity and authenticity in such a way as to claim outright: This writing is inspired, even though we do not know who wrote it.

From that point, the Pauline origin of Hebrews was firmly established in the eastern churches, and any contrary view was increasingly condemned.¹² Speaking in his own name, Eusebius (fl. c. 450)¹³ writes:

The fourteen letters of Paul are obvious and plain, yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was rejected by the church of Rome as not being by Paul …

— thus clearly identifying authority and authenticity.

But Eusebius also refers, for example, to "the letter to the Hebrews and the rest of Paul’s letters [

Inline-image

Inline-image ],"¹⁴ suggesting some difference of status or circumstances.

Epiphanius (c. 315-403)¹⁵ claims that only Marcion and the Arians¹⁶ reject Hebrews, and that it is in all the manuscripts of the NT. The canon of fourteen Pauline epistles is constantly reaffirmed. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) explicitly identifies canonicity with authenticity when he writes that believers

accept the epistle [to the Hebrews] as having been written by Paul, like the others. If this were not so, what is written [in it] would not be profitable for them.

The tradition of uncertainty regarding Pauline authorship did not, even so, die out in the East. Ephraem Syrus (c. 306-373) summarizes earlier objections to Pauline authorship, mentioning particularly the view that Clement of Rome was the author or translator, but quotes Hebrews as Pauline, and was apparently the first to see in the reference to Timothy (13:23) a mark of Pauline authorship.¹⁷

The manuscript tradition bears witness both to the early inclusion of Hebrews in the Pauline corpus and also to varying assessments of its status.¹⁸ Hebrews is included in collections of Pauline letters from Inline-image ⁴⁶ (c. 200) onwards, but in various positions, namely:

1. Hebrews is placed among the epistles addressed to churches:

a. It is placed after Romans in Inline-image ⁴⁶, in a Syrian canon of c. 400,¹⁹ and in six minuscules from the eleventh century (103) or later (455, 1961, 1964, 1977, 1994). This arrangement suggests that Hebrews was considered in some areas, especially Egypt in the third century, as second in importance, as it is second in length, to Romans.

b. It appears after 2 Corinthians in the late minuscules 1930 and 1978, and in a codex (Codex 2248) containing the commentary of Theophylact on the Pauline epistles in the Sahidic (earliest Coptic) version. This arrangement suggests the same high view of Hebrews as a., but coupled with a reluctance to separate 1 and 2 Corinthians.

c. Hebrews is placed after Galatians in an archetype of B, as shown by the chapter numbers in B.

d. Two lesser witnesses place Hebrews respectively after Ephesians (606) and after Colossians.²⁰

2. Hebrews is placed immediately after the letters to churches and before those written to individuals in א A B C H I P 0150 0151 and at least 60 minuscules, some Bohairic codices, Athanasius’s thirty-ninth Festal Letter (367), Euthalius (fl. before 350?), Jerome,²¹ probably Cyril of Alexandria,²² and other witnesses. This tradition was known to Epiphanius, and probably originated in Alexandria.

3. Hebrews is found after Philemon, at the end of the Pauline canon, in D E K L and most minuscules; probably in the NT recension of Lucian of Antioch (c. 300); in Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 340-395), and in one of two traditions known to Epiphanius (cf. 2 above). Western influence was eventually decisive in imposing this order.

The single most striking piece of internal evidence against Pauline authorship of Hebrews is the author’s explicit statement that the message which began with Jesus

Inline-image

(2:3); in other words, that the author and his readers received the gospel indirectly. This need not mean that they were Christians of the second or a later generation (see p. 30), but it is in sharp contrast with Paul’s claim (Gal. 1:1, 12) that he received his commission directly from the risen Lord. The author of Hebrews often associates himself for pastoral reasons with his readers, but on such a vital matter as the source of his message he would scarcely have failed to give his personal testimony, had he had any to give.

Significant differences between the vocabularies of Paul and Hebrews are found in many different areas. The categories listed below are not intended to be strictly precise or mutually exclusive; many terms, such as Inline-image and Inline-image , are used in different senses, depending on the context. The number of occurrences in Paul, excluding the Pastorals, is given first, followed by the number of occurrences in Hebrews.²³

a. Terms related to knowledge and revelation: Inline-image 8/0; Inline-image Inline-image 11/0, Inline-image 11/1; Inline-image 15/1 (in Paul, especially Inline-image Inline-image and Inline-image [Greek]); Inline-image 33/1; Inline-image 47/4, Inline-image 22/0, Inline-image 11/0, Inline-image 11/1, Inline-image 18/0; Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 13/0, Inline-image 13/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image Inline-image 3/0, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 33/1; Inline-image 18/0, Inline-image 3/1, Inline-image 6/0; Inline-image 22/0, Inline-image 12/0; Inline-image 28/0, Inline-image 16/0, Inline-image 1/0; Inline-image 12/0, Inline-image 3/2; Inline-image 19/0; Inline-image 8/1; Inline-image 23/0, Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 5/0, Inline-image 5/0.

Paul’s polemical use of gnostic²⁴ vocabulary has no parallel in Hebrews; the lack of such terms in Hebrews produces a growing impression of consistent avoidance. It is possible that the gnostic threat had not touched the community for which Hebrews was written; it is perhaps more likely that the community bore the scars of such a controversy and that the author was sensitive to the danger of reopening them.

b. Expressions of emotion: Inline-image 13/0; Inline-image 6/0; Inline-image 10/0; Inline-image 10/1, Inline-image 8/0, Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 8/0; Inline-image 4/1, Inline-image 13/0, Inline-image 1/0; Inline-image 35/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 10/1, Inline-image 10/0; Inline-image 9/1, Inline-image 5/0; Inline-image 26/0, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 8/0, Inline-image 1/0; Inline-image 8/0; Inline-image 29/0; but Inline-image 52/4, Inline-image 20/3.

Paul’s relationship to his readers is marked by stronger expressions of personal feeling than are to be found in Hebrews, though it is likely that the writer of Hebrews had a specific community in mind. It is possible that his expressions of fear for his readers’ salvation (2:1-3; 6:4-6; 10:26-31) played in his relationship with them a role similar to Paul’s more positive expressions of personal concern (e.g., Rom. 9:1-5).

c. Terms relating to life and death: Inline-image 6/0, Inline-image 3/0 (but Inline-image 7/3); Inline-image 42/7, Inline-image 1/0; Inline-image 40/1; Inline-image 7/3; Inline-image 7/0, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 6/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 3/0, Inline-image 6/0; cf. Inline-image 48/2, Inline-image 109/32, Inline-image 16/5.

For Hebrews, the resurrection of the dead is one of the elementary truths within Christianity, or which Christianity presupposes (→ 6:2). Jesus’ exaltation is more prominent than his resurrection. Hebrews pays virtually no attention to the resurrection of believers with (or in) Christ, or to their life in Christ, which are central themes of Paul’s teaching. Related to this is the comparative lack in Hebrews, by comparison with Paul and John, of theological reflection on the theme of faith. Only six occurrences of Inline-image are found outside 10:38-11:39, a passage in which Inline-image is mostly used as a refrain; in → 6:1, faith in God is listed among elementary truths which the readers are exhorted to progress beyond. The theme of faithfulness is, however, closely related to the purpose of Hebrews; the author writes in order that his readers may remain faithful to Christ.

d. Expressions referring to power, conflict, and judgment: Inline-image 5/0; Inline-image 0/3; Inline-image 26/1; Inline-image 8/0, Inline-image 18/0; Inline-image 24/1; Inline-image 12/0; Inline-image 10/0, Inline-image 7/0, Inline-image 3/0, Inline-image 5/1, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 20/5; Inline-image 14/0; Inline-image 3/0, Inline-image 12/0; Inline-image 20/0; Inline-image 14/3, Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 53/6, Inline-image 25/0; Inline-image 16/0; Inline-image 24/1; Inline-image 11/0, Inline-image 11/0; Inline-image 39/2 (1Q), Inline-image 10/1, Inline-image 1/2, Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 0/1 (of God); Inline-image 12/1; Inline-image 6/0, Inline-image 3/0; but Inline-image 0/4; Inline-image 0/7.

The forensic language of justification by faith is central for Paul and absent in Hebrews. In Hebrews, as, for example, in Matthew, Inline-image is used of obedience to God’s will.

e. Other anthropological and ethical terms: Inline-image 9/0, Inline-image 11/2, Inline-image 3/1; Inline-image 8/0; Inline-image 16/0; Inline-image 32/1; Inline-image / Inline-image 14/0; Inline-image 32/2, Inline-image 65/2, Inline-image 25/1; Inline-image 13/0; Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 13/0; Inline-image 16/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 7/0 (but Inline-image 0/1); Inline-image 6/0, Inline-image 5/0, Inline-image 4/0; Inline-image 23/1; Inline-image 9/0; Inline-image 12/0; Inline-image 1/4; Inline-image 8/0; Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 3/0, Inline-image 3/0, Inline-image 14/1; Inline-image 139/12; Inline-image 91/5; Inline-image 6/0; Inline-image 10/0, Inline-image 3/0, Inline-image 5/2; Inline-image 18/0; Inline-image 6/0; Inline-image 90/6, Inline-image 6/0, Inline-image 3/1; Inline-image 11/1; Inline-image 13/4, Inline-image 1/9, Inline-image 0/1, Inline-image 0/1; Inline-image 7/0; Inline-image 7/0, Inline-image 11/0, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 9/0; Inline-image 13/6, Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 1/0.

Paul pays greater attention than Hebrews to matters of sexual morality and the use of wealth. The treatment of the theme of perfection in Hebrews is distinctive (→ 2:10), as is Paul’s use of Inline-image . The rarity of Inline-image language in Hebrews is remarkable.²⁵ Although Inline-image is far from being a mere emotion, the infrequent use of this and related words in Hebrews may be linked with the general lack of emotional language in Hebrews already noted.

f. Terms relating to the people of God: Inline-image 59/2; Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 3/0, Inline-image 5/0; Inline-image 11/0, Inline-image 13/2; Inline-image 19/0; Inline-image 13/0, Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 1/2; Inline-image 24/0; Inline-image 8/2, Inline-image 20/1, Inline-image 18/0; Inline-image 9/17; Inline-image 26/0, Inline-image 15/0; Inline-image 51/0; Inline-image 13/0; Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 26/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 5/0 (but Inline-image 7/11), Inline-image 9/0, Inline-image 6/0, Inline-image 1/0, Inline-image 15/0, Inline-image 8/1; Inline-image 1/1, Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 5/0; Inline-image 22/0, Inline-image 5/0, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 0/1; Inline-image 29/0, Inline-image 9/0; Inline-image 14/0, but Inline-image 16/3; Inline-image 6/4, Inline-image 5/2, Inline-image 7/3, Inline-image 2/1; Inline-image 11/13.

The consistent avoidance in Hebrews of terms relating to the distinction between Jews and gentiles is in sharp contrast with Paul’s usage, and raises questions similar to those raised by the apparent avoidance of gnostic language noted under (a.) above. Either the community for which Hebrews was written was so completely Jewish as practically to ignore the existence of other peoples, or it was to some extent a mixed community which the writer did not wish to divide. There is independent evidence to support the latter view: for example, the use of the fathers rather than our fathers in → 1:1, and the repeated avoidance of references to gentiles in the contexts of OT quotations. The author of Hebrews shows less interest than Paul in distinctively Christian institutions such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper; there are, however, Pauline writings of similar length, such as 2 Corinthians, which are similarly silent on these subjects, so this argument from silence cannot be pressed.

g. Liturgical terms (including terms used in discussing relationships within the Christian community): Inline-image 4/17; Inline-image 0/6; Inline-image Inline-image 12/0, Inline-image 18/1; Inline-image 0/20; Inline-image 72/19 ( Inline-image / Inline-image 0/5); Inline-image 12/21; Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 54/1; Inline-image / Inline-image 43/2; Inline-image / Inline-image 9/0, Inline-image 1/0; Inline-image 5/15; Inline-image 0/14, Inline-image 0/17; Inline-image / Inline-image 16/0, Inline-image / Inline-image 14/0; Inline-image 2/4, Inline-image 0/1, Inline-image 1/1, Inline-image 0/1; Inline-image 3/1, Inline-image 4/1, Inline-image 13/1, Inline-image 5/1, Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 3/0; Inline-image 1/1, Inline-image 3/2, Inline-image 0/1, Inline-image 3/2; Inline-image 7/7, Inline-image 9/2, Inline-image 5/0, Inline-image 1/0; Inline-image 8/0; Inline-image 119/14; Inline-image 0/3; Inline-image 0/4, Inline-image 0/1; Inline-image 0/6; Inline-image 0/10; Inline-image 0/20, Inline-image 2/5; Inline-image 11/0, Inline-image 13/2.

The whole argument of Hebrews is marked by reference to the OT cultus, in particular to the Exodus tabernacle and the ritual of the Day of Atonement; this has little counterpart in Paul. Paul’s interest in the Law is primarily ethical, while that of the writer of Hebrews is primarily cultic (→ 7:12).

h. Terms referring mainly to the author’s own situation and work: Inline-image 29/1 (in Hebrews of Jesus, 3:1); Inline-image 17/0; Inline-image 56/0, Inline-image 21/2; Inline-image 18/0, Inline-image 5/0; Inline-image 6/0, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 4/0, Inline-image 17/0; Inline-image 14/0; Inline-image 30/0; Inline-image 11/1, Inline-image 11/2, Inline-image 2/0; Inline-image 11/1.

The author of Hebrews does not claim to be an apostle, or indeed to have any kind of authority over the people to whom he writes. He only uses a first person singular pronoun once, in passing (10:32), and the corresponding verb forms are rare (10:32; 13:19 bis, 22 bis, 23). Paul, in contrast, frequently refers to himself. In Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon, he vigorously defends his status and ministry, calling, for example, for obedience (Phil. 2:12; 2 Thes. 3:4; Phm. 21) and imitation (Phil. 3:17). The writer to the Hebrews is by comparison self-effacing.

i. Divine names and titles. Paul refers to God as Father 35 times, excluding quotations from the OT.²⁶ Hebrews never uses this title absolutely: It occurs in an OT quotation (1:5) and in the phrase Father of spirits (12:9). It is astonishing that Paul uses the name Inline-image alone and in the nominative only twice (significantly in the credal passage 1 Thes. 4:14 and in the anti-creed Inline-image in 1 Cor. 12:3); Hebrews does so three times (6:20; 7:22; 13:12). With this goes the relatively more frequent use in Hebrews of Jesus’ name unaccompanied by any other name or title (14/9). These occurrences are usually in emphatic positions and at crucial points in the argument. By contrast, use in Hebrews of Jesus Christ (10:10; 13:8, 21) and our Lord Jesus (13:20) is limited, and Hebrews does not use the frequent Pauline expression Christ Jesus. The absolute use in Hebrews of Inline-image in reference to Jesus (1:2; 5:8; 7:28) has no counterpart in Paul. The letter’s occasional references to the Holy Spirit (→ 2:4) by no means match Paul’s profound reflection on the Spirit’s nature and work, for example, in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 12. The same is true of its references to the grace of God (→ 2:9); Inline-image does not occur in Hebrews.

In addition to these groups of terms and the miscellaneous favourite terms of the author of Hebrews, such as Inline-image 2/4; Inline-image 3/8, Inline-image 2/3; Inline-image 4/13, his use of particles is distinct from Paul’s and is at least an equally significant guide to his style: Inline-image 12/0; Inline-image 10/0; Inline-image 11/0, Inline-image 5/0, Inline-image 0/1; Inline-image 63/0; Inline-image 10/9; Inline-image 16/13; Inline-image 116/4; Inline-image 9/0; Inline-image 2/0, Inline-image 6/0, Inline-image 0/3; Inline-image 0/4; Inline-image 14/0, Inline-image 9/2; Inline-image 39/0,²⁷ Inline-image 54/23; Inline-image 25/20; Inline-image 26/1.

As one might expect, the vocabularies of Paul and Hebrews indicate that the two writers stand in a common Judeo-Christian tradition, dominated by the OT and in particular by the LXX and influenced to a lesser extent by popular ethical teaching, for example about conscience. Both use such terms as Inline-image 7/2; Inline-image 24/14; Inline-image 11/6; Inline-image 3/3; Inline-image Inline-image 14/5; Inline-image 12/13; Inline-image 29/15; Inline-image 15/2, Inline-image 61/25, Inline-image Inline-image 6/2; Inline-image 14/11; Inline-image 39/4; Inline-image 32/5, Inline-image 15/1; Inline-image 48/9; Inline-image 9/6; Inline-image 50/11; Inline-image 6/4, Inline-image 5/2, Inline-image 7/3; Inline-image Inline-image 6/8, Inline-image 6/2; Inline-image 13/6; Inline-image 7/5, Inline-image 3/1; Inline-image 16/7; Inline-image 41/24 (15/6 of Christ). Such overlap of vocabulary is quite insufficient to suggest common authorship or to outweigh the cumulative differences of usage noted above. Even where Paul and Hebrews develop similar themes, they tend to do so with the use of different synonyms: for example, the themes of rest ( Inline-image 4/0, but Inline-image 0/3, Inline-image 0/8) and perseverance ( Inline-image 2/4, Inline-image 13/2; but Inline-image 7/0; Inline-image 5/0).

These differences of vocabulary between Paul and Hebrews are reflected in other aspects of their use of language. It is not necessary to adopt any particular view of the structure of Hebrews to appreciate its generally harmonious development, smooth rhetorical structure, and skilful use of Greek, contrasting with Paul’s vigorous but sometimes obscure oratory and frequent anacolutha. As Spicq remarks at the conclusion of a detailed analysis, It is impossible from the linguistic point of view to attribute to Paul the direct paternity of Hebrews.²⁸

Clement of Rome. The ancient testimony to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews is incomparably stronger than any other, and other names may thus be dealt with more briefly. A double tradition mentioning Clement and Luke as possible authors was, according to Eusebius,²⁹ known already to Origen. It was taken up by, among others, Jerome, John of Damascus, and Ephraem and later by a number of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholars.³⁰

This tradition is, however, certainly incorrect. While Clement quotes or alludes to Hebrews,³¹ attributes OT quotations directly to the Holy Spirit in a way paralleled in the NT only by Hebrews,³² and derives some of his language from that more creative writing³³ (not quoting Hebrews as scripture or attributing it to Paul), his thought runs fundamentally counter to that of Hebrews. Where Hebrews is concerned to show the supremacy of Christ and the uniqueness of his priesthood, Clement uses Heb. 7:14 as the point of departure for an argument about the many kings and princes and rulers in the line of descent from Judah (32:2). Clement misunderstands the teaching in Hebrews about Christ’s high priesthood as if it justified the establishment of a Christian hierarchy modelled on the Jewish hierarchy and including a high priest, priests, levites, and laymen (40:5). Such a reversal is unthinkable in the mind of a single writer.

Luke. The coupling of Luke’s name with Clement’s as a possible author of Hebrews and the medieval preference for Luke over Clement³⁴ normally served to explain the excellent Greek style of the letter. Clement of Alexandria thought that Luke had translated Hebrews from Hebrew into Greek. Spicq³⁵ lists 30 words and a number of other expressions, constructions, and usages occurring in the NT only in Hebrews and Luke-Acts. This list, while interesting as an illustration of the kind of vocabulary common to Greek-speaking Christians of the first century, falls far short of proving common authorship. It should be noted, for example, that some terms, such as Inline-image (Heb. 6:19; Acts 27:29f., 40) and Inline-image (Heb. 12:28; Acts 27:41), are used figuratively in Hebrews and literally by Luke, that Luke uses Inline-image (Acts 7:49) only in a quotation and Inline-image (Acts 14:18) in a sense quite alien to Hebrews, and that some of the terms common to Hebrews and Luke ( Inline-image ) occur only in the Lucan birth narratives, where, as in Hebrews, OT influence is strong. It is significant that Luke and Hebrews alone witness to Inline-image (→ 2:10) as a title of Christ. The absence from Luke-Acts of themes such as God’s sabbath rest and Christ’s high priesthood, which are central to Hebrews, cannot be explained on the grounds of different purpose or genre alone.

Barnabas. Tertullian³⁶ refers to an epistle of Barnabas entitled ‘To the Hebrews.’ It is not clear from this fleeting reference whether Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote Hebrews in addition to the epistle which traditionally bears his name, or whether, as is perhaps more likely, he was confusing the two writings. Tertullian’s attribution was in any case not upheld by later North African fathers, though it is mentioned by Jerome alongside other possibilities³⁷ and enjoyed a resurgence in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.³⁸

One thing at least is clear: the so-called Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot have a common author. The sensitivity of the author of Hebrews to his Jewish readers (e.g., his carefully prepared statement that the old covenant is near to vanishing away [8:13]) contrasts with the blunt assertions by Barnabas, for example, that physical circumcision has now been completely set aside ( Inline-image , 9:4).³⁹ Nowhere does Hebrews distinguish between two peoples of God, as does Barnabas.⁴⁰

The historical Barnabas has a more plausible claim to be the author of Hebrews, but in the absence of authentic writings by him these claims must remain speculative. He was a Greek-speaking levite born in Cyprus, who was generous to the church of Jerusalem (Acts 4:36f.), where he was well respected (Acts 11:24-30), to such an extent that it was at first through his influence that Paul became accepted there (Acts 9:27). He represented the apostles at Antioch (Acts 11:22f.), where he supported the gentile mission, in which he later took a personal share as Paul’s companion (Acts 13-14). He is mentioned before Paul in the account of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12, 25; contrast v. 22). He broke with Paul over plans for a second journey (Acts 15:35-40), and Paul later criticized him for failing to maintain table fellowship with the gentile Christians of Antioch; but Paul continues to mention him with respect (Gal. 2:13), and both he (1 Cor. 9:6) and Luke (Acts 14:14; cf. v. 4) count him as an apostle. Luke’s interpretation of his name as Son of Consolation (One who Encourages, TEV) probably reflects Barnabas’s character rather than strict etymology. There is in any case no connection with Heb. 13:22.

Despite these points of contact, there are strong arguments against the hypothesis that Barnabas was the author of Hebrews. One so closely associated with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem would scarcely have placed himself in a second rank, as the author of Hebrews appears to do (2:3),⁴¹ or failed to claim apostolic authority. Acts 14:12 suggests that Barnabas was less eloquent than Paul; this would not lead one to expect the careful writing and effective rhetoric of Hebrews. Barnabas’s work, like Paul’s, appears to have been mainly among gentile Christians (Acts 11:22-26; Gal. 2:9). This, if Barnabas were the author of Hebrews, would make it difficult to understand the apparently systematic exclusion of any reference to the gentile mission. Even the argument that, as a levite, Barnabas would have an intimate knowledge of Jewish ritual, tells on closer examination against his authorship of Hebrews: the author’s cultic information appears to be derived directly from the OT rather than from contemporary practice, and levites are not mentioned in Hebrews (Levi, 7:5, 9; Inline-image , 7:11).

Peter. Direct authorship of Hebrews by Peter was never affirmed in ancient times, and modern speculation has rarely gone so far.⁴² It has somewhat more plausibly been suggested⁴³ that Hebrews was the work of Silas, the successor of Barnabas as Paul’s travelling companion (Acts 15:40), and Peter’s amanuensis (1 Pet. 5:12). There is no evidence for this; if it were so, one would expect stronger Pauline influence in Hebrews, and a greater concern for the gentile mission. Attribution to Silas, like many theories involving an amanuensis, is essentially a device for explaining similarities between writings, without taking differences between them