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: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?
  • Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 07:09:53 -0700

Steve Black ASKS:

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.<<



Edgar Krentz comments
Isn't it significant that the auctor ad Hebraeos does not refer at all to the temple, but to the tabernacle as instituted in the exodus? Which means, perhaps, that the date of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem is irrelevant to the dating.

Note also that the Mishnah discusses at length the proper modes of sacrifice in the temple more than 125 years after the temple was destroyed--even though the discussion is not immediately relevant to its own time.

Firstly I have to say that my thoughts about re-dating Hebrews are not meant to be taken as categorical or anything - I have no smoking gun. I am merely asking questions - I am arguing from silence which is a dubious method in any event. Yet it is suggestive to me. I am not trying to "prove" anything.

The argument that you forward re: the tabernacle is good. Yet I still think there is some polemic punch available is discussing the destruction of the temple. As I understand Hebrews a mention of it would have furthered his/her cause significantly, over and above the mentioning of the tabernacle. Yet I do acknowledge that what you say does make good sense.

As far as the Mishnah goes, however, I think the story is a bit different. It is the difference between promise and peril. For the writers of the Mishnah (I am going on my rather skimpy knowledge of the Mishnah not being well versed in it - so I could be off here) the destruction of the temple presented a serious problem to overcome - in others words it was "peril". On the other hand - for the writer of Hebrews - it would have worked perfectly for his/her polemical purpose - in other words it was "promise". So, this would explain why the Mishnah avoids the topic but NOT why Hebrews does.
--
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