Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steve Black <sdblack AT telus.net>
  • To: dhindley AT compuserve.com, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?
  • Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 08:12:53 -0700

Steve Black ASKS:

Dave, why do you think that Hebrews would only make sense if one had some
"familiarity with the other Paulines"? I haven't thought this in the past -
am I missing something?<<

Steve,

I do not want to ignore your question, but my attention has been diverted by
my recently changed employment status (i.e., none). I do think it is a
subject that requires a closer look, and will see if I can turn my head to
it this weekend. I had once created a file containing the Christ-theological
statements in the Pauline corpus, but when I looked at it today I found it
incomplete. My backups are on a Zip disk but my Zip drive blew a transistor
a few months ago so I cannot access it at the moment. I can recreate it from
another file, and will compare the themes in Hebrews to those in the
Christology file. I may have to make a summary case, as Hebrews is a
relatively big book.

I have accounted for (what I think to be superficial) similarities between Hebrews and Paul as (perhaps) being due to a wide range of popular jargon within the early Xn movements. This might (but not necessarily) betray some awareness of Paul on an oral level. I would be interested in evidence that would suggest some literary connection.

Good luck with the computer by the way!!


On a related - but also unrelated note - Usually Hebrews is dated
late-ish - but I have wondered at the lack of mention of the destruction of
the temple in it. As I follow the argument as presented by its author - it
seems like it would have been a powerful means to further his/hers aims in
the letter. More so than any where else in the NT - as I see it. His flow of
"logic" "calls out" for an explicit mention of the temple - and because this
is not to be found - it makes me wonder if the temple had not yet been
destroyed when it was written - making it earlier than usually thought.<<

Verisimilitude. If the author is speaking for Paul, and intends to harmonize
and clarify the Christological statements in the Pauline corpus for the
edification of readers, he may not have felt any need to mention the
destruction of Jerusalem or the post-war fate of the Jews. Unlike some
(interpolated?) statements found in the "other" Paulines, the author of
Hebrews made a conscious decision not to leave behind crude anachronisms. If
the Paulines are rough, Hebrews is polished.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying - but are you suggesting that the writer of Hebrews intended the work to be understood as being written by Paul. If so, this would have been better achieved had the name "Paul" actually been used within the text (like the writers of Eph, Col, etc). I have thought that this writer in no ways intended to have this work understood as Pauline - a feat which later tradition accomplished anyways...


A later document would also not have as much of a propensity to gloat over
the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction may have had something to do
with the creation of those doctrines, but once firmly established as a
"given," the Christ doctrine can easily be transmitted without reference to
it.

I think, too, that the author may be thinking of a heavenly temple rather
than the earthly one, along the lines of the themes found in the DSS
Melchizedek and Michael texts.

Yes, exactly - but wouldn't the contrast between the heavenly temple be ever so much stronger when held up against an earthly temple now in ruins?


--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

The lion and the calf shall lie down together
but the calf won't get much sleep.
-Woody Allen




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page