Hebrews
The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the books in the New
Testament. Its author is anonymous.
The primary purpose of the Letter to the Hebrews is to exhort
Christians to persevere in the face of persecution. The
central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the
Person of Christ and his role as mediator between God and
humanity. No author is internally named. Since the earliest
days of the Church, the authorship has been debated and still
is unknown.[1]The Epistle to the Hebrews was thought by some
in antiquity such as Clement of Alexandria (Fragments from
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History Book VI)[2] to be by Paul.
The epistle opens with an exaltation of Jesus as "the radiance
of God's glory, the express image of his being, and upholding
all things by his powerful word."[1:3 ] The epistle presents
Jesus with the titles "pioneer" or "forerunner," "Son" and
"Son of God," "priest" and "high priest."[3] It has been
described as an "intricate" New Testament book.[4]...
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_He...
LITERATURE
I. Title.
In the King James Version and the English Revised Version
the title of this book describes it as "the Epistle of Paul
the Apostle to the Hebrews." Modern scholarship has disputed
the applicability of every word of this title. Neither does
it appear in the oldest manuscripts, where we find simply
"to Hebrews" (pros Hebraious). This, too, seems to have been
prefixed to the original writing by a collector or copyist.
It is too vague and general for the author to have used it.
And there is nothing in the body of the book which affirms
any part of either title. Even the shorter title was an
inference from the general character of the writing. Nowhere
is criticism less hampered by problems of authenticity and
inspiration. No question arises, at least directly, of
pseudonymity either of author or of readers, for both are
anonymous. For the purpose of tracing the history and
interpreting the meaning of the book, the absence of a
title, or of any definite historical data, is a
disadvantage. We are left to infer its historical context
from a few fragments of uncertain tradition, and from such
general references to historical conditions as the document
itself contains. Where no date, name or well-known event is
fixed, it becomes impossible to decide, among many
possibilities, what known historical conditions, if any, are
pre-supposed. Yet this very fact, of the book's detachment
from personal and historical incidents, renders it more
self-contained, and its exegesis less dependent upon
understanding the exact historical situation. But its
general relation to the thought of its time must be taken
into account if we are to understand it at all...
Link: https://bible-history.com/isbe/H/HEBREWS...
LITERATURE
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews" was a work of early
Christian literature to which reference is frequently made
by the church Fathers in the first five centuries, and of
which some twenty or more fragments, preserved in their
writings, have come down to us. The book itself has long
disappeared. It has, however, been the subject of many
critical surmises and discussions in the course of the last
century. It has been regarded as the original record of the
life of Jesus, the Archimedespoint of the whole gospel
history. From it Justin Martyr has been represented as
deriving his knowledge of the works and words of Christ, and
to it have been referred the gospel quotations found in
Justin and other early writers when these deviate in any
measure from the text of the canonical gospels. Recent
discussions have thrown considerable light upon the problems
connected with this Gospel, and a large literature has grown
up around it of which the most important works will be noted
below.
1. References in Early Church History:
Speaking of Papias Eusebius mentions that he has related the
story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the
Lord, which is contained in the "Gospel according to the
Hebrews." This does not prove that Papias was acquainted
with this Gospel, for he might have obtained the story,
which cannot any longer be regarded as part of John's
Gospel, from oral tradition. But there is a certain
significance in Eusebius' mentioning it in this connection
(Euseb., HE, III, xxxix, 16). Eusebius, speaking of Ignatius
and his epp., takes notice of a saying of Jesus which he
quotes (Ep. ad Smyrn, iii; compare Lk 24:39), "Take, handle
me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." The saying
differs materially from the saying in Luke's Gospel, and
Eusebius says he has no knowledge whence it had been taken
by Ignatius. Jerome, however, twice over attributes the
saying to the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," and Origen
quotes it from the "Teaching of Peter." Ignatius may have
got the saying from oral tradition, and we cannot,
therefore, be sure that he knew this Gospel...
Link: https://bible-history.com/isbe/H/HEBREWS...
1. The author --There has been a wide difference of opinion
respecting the authorship of this epistle. For many years
Paul was considered the author; others think it may have
been Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos. Much of the theology and
the language are similar to Paul's, but the authorship of
the epistle ia still disputed.
2. To whom written. --The epistle was probably
addressed to the Jews in Jerusalem and Israel. The argument
of the epistle is such as could he used with most effect to
a church consisting exclusively of Jews by birth, personally
familiar with and attached to the temple service.
3. Date. --It was evidently written before the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, probably about A.D. 62-
64.
4. Place. --It was probably written in Italy, while
Paul was a prisoner at Rome.
5. Contents. --With respect to the scope of the
epistle, it should be recollected that while the numerous
Christian churches scattered throughout Judea, Ac 9:31; Ga
1:22 were continually exposed to persecution from the Jews,
1Th 2:14 there was in Jerusalem one additional weapon in the
hands of the predominant oppressors of the Christians. The
magnificent national temple might be put against the Hebrew
Christian; and even if this affliction were not often laid
upon him, yet there was a secret burden which he bore within
him, the knowledge that the end of all the beauty and
awfulness of Zion was rapidly approaching. The writer of
this epistle meets the Hebrew Christians on their own
ground, showing that the new faith gave them Christ the Son
of God, more prevailing than the high priest as an
intercessor; that his Sabbath awaited them, his covenant,
his atonement, his city heavenly not made with hands. Having
him, believe in him with all your heart, with a faith in the
unseen future strong as that of the saints of old, patient
under present and prepared for coming woe, full of energy
and hope and holiness and love. Such was the teaching of the
Epistle to the Hebrews.
Link: https://bible-history.com/smiths/H/Hebre...
(1.) Its canonicity. All the results of critical and
historical
research to which this epistle has been specially
subjected
abundantly vindicate its right to a place in the New
Testament
canon among the other inspired books.
(2.) Its authorship. A considerable variety of
opinions on
this subject has at different times been advanced.
Some have
maintained that its author was Silas, Paul's
companion. Others
have attributed it to Clement of Rome, or Luke, or
Barnabas, or
some unknown Alexandrian Christian, or Apollos; but
the
conclusion which we think is best supported, both
from internal
and external evidence, is that Paul was its author.
There are,
no doubt, many difficulties in the way of accepting
it as
Paul's; but we may at least argue with Calvin that
there can be
no difficulty in the way of "embracing it without
controversy as
one of the apostolical epistles."
(3.) Date and place of writing. It was in all
probability
written at Rome, near the close of Paul's two years'
imprisonment (Heb. 13:19,24). It was certainly
written before
the destruction of Jerusalem (13:10).
(4.) To whom addressed. Plainly it was intended for
Jewish
converts to the faith of the gospel, probably for
the church at
Jerusalem. The subscription of this epistle is, of
course,
without authority. In this case it is incorrect, for
obviously
Timothy could not be the bearer of it (13:23).
(5.) Its design was to show the true end and meaning
of the
Mosaic system, and its symbolical and transient
character. It
proves that the Levitical priesthood was a "shadow"
of that of
Christ, and that the legal sacrifices prefigured the
great and
all-perfect sacrifice he offered for us. It explains
that the
gospel was designed, not to modify the law of Moses,
but to
supersede and abolish it. Its teaching was fitted,
as it was
designed, to check that tendency to apostatize from
Christianity
and to return to Judaism which now showed itself
among certain
Jewish Christians. The supreme authority and the
transcendent
glory of the gospel are clearly set forth, and in
such a way as
to strengthen and confirm their allegiance to
Christ.
(6.) It consists of two parts: (a) doctrinal (1-
10:18), (b)
and practical (10:19-ch. 13). There are found in it
many
references to portions of the Old Testament. It may
be regarded
as a treatise supplementary to the Epistles to the
Romans and
Galatians, and as an inspired commentary on the book
of
Leviticus.
Link: https://bible-history.com/eastons/H/Hebr...
Canonicity. - Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.) refers to
it oftener than any other canonical New Testament book,
adopting its words as on a level with the rest of the New
Testament. As the writer of this epistle claims authority
Clement virtually sanctions it, and this in the apostolic
age. Westcott (Canon, 22) observes, it seems transfused into
Clement's mind. Justin Martyr quotes its authority for
applying the titles "apostle" and "angel" to the Son of God.
Clement of Alexandria refers it to Paul, on the authority of
Pantaenus of Alexandria (in the middle of the second
century) saying that as Jesus is called the "apostle" to the
Hebrew, Paul does not in it call himself so, being apostle
to the Gentiles; also that Paul prudently omitted his name
at the beginning, because the Hebrew were prejudiced against
him; that it was originally written in Hebrew for the
Hebrew, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the
Greeks, whence the style resembles that of Acts.
He however quotes the Greek epistle as Paul's, so
also Origen; but in his Homilies he regards the style as
more Grecian than Paul's but the thoughts as his. "The
ancients who handed down the tradition of its Pauline
authorship must have had good reason for doing so, though
God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer,"
i.e. probably the transcriber or else interpreter of Paul's
thoughts. The Peshito old Syriac version has it. Tertullian
in the beginning of the third century, in the African
church, ascribes it to Barnabas. Irenaeus in Eusebius quotes
it. About the same time Caius the presbyter of Rome mentions
only 13 epistles of Paul, whereas if epistle to Hebrew were
included there would be 14.
The Canon fragment of Muratori omits it, in the
beginning of the third century. frontCANON.) The Latin
church did not recognize it as Paul's for a long time
subsequently. So Victorinus, Novatian of Rome, and Cyprian
of Carthage. But in the fourth century Hilary of Poitiers
(A.D. 368), Lucifer of Cagliari (A.D. 371), Ambrose of Milan
(A.D. 397), and other Latins quote it as Paul's; the fifth
council of Carthage (A.D. 419) formally recognizes it among
his 14 epistles...
Link: https://bible-history.com/faussets/H/Heb...
