by ssn587 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
Who was it written by and why or in other words Who, What, When, Where, Why.
Wanted to know for the upcoming WT recital.
Another question was just what was happening in and around Jerusalem from 45 ce up to its destruction. How was everday life? What factions were vieing for dominance etc.
any help will be much appreciated. thank you in advance.
Despite what the WT will tell you, Hebrews was probably not written by Paul. Paul was almost surely dead by the time it was written. Nobody really knows who wrote Hebrews. It is a pretty late book in the NT. Hebrews 13:7 talks about the martyred leaders that taught the faith (many apostles were dead, like Peter and Paul in the 60's), verse 24 talks about the release of Timothy. The book talks about the Temple worship of the past, but makes no reference to the Temple in Jerusalem. This makes it look like it no longer exists, putting it's date from the 70's on. It is pretty late in the first century when it was written. However Clement of Rome (Phillippians 4:3) mentions him in his extra-canonical epistle, and he died about the year 100. So that sets the latest date for the book. I am guessing in the early 90's.
BTS
The book of Hebrews is probably the only book in the NT worth reading, albeit still with a grain of salt.
Farkel
I agree with BTS. It is an anonymous homily and its language, style, and theology distinguishes the author as a mind quite different from Paul. Because of the connections between Hebrews and Alexandrian typology and the Wisdom of Solomon (which was written in Alexandria), the book probably was written by an Alexandrian Christian as conjectured by Luther and later writers (who often suspected that Apollos was the author, although there is nothing that substantiates such an ascription).
One may note that the author does not construe himself as an apostle who received revelation directly from Christ: "This promise was first announced by the Lord himself, and is guaranteed to us by those who heard him" (Hebrews 2:3). Paul regularly emphasized his own apostolic status and his direct link to Jesus via personal revelation (Galatians 1:1-12, Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 15:8). The author of Hebrews instead aligns himself with his readers who have not had any direct connection with Jesus, but whose reception of the promise has been mediated by apostolic witnesses. The writer also does not use distinctive Paulinisms (like "Christ Jesus") and has a rather smooth rhetorical style that Origen (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25) noticed was very different from Paul's more rugged form of expression. The author's concept of the Law, faith, and especially the concept of Jesus as a high priest have no direct parallel in Paul. For instance, Jesus' death is viewed as facilitating "sanctification" rather than "justification" (Hebrews 2:11, 9:13, 10:14), which is quite conspicuous in light of Pauline theology but which conforms to Hebrews' priestly perspective.
It is also worth noting that the book was not accepted as canonical in Rome for a long time on account of its non-Pauline authorship:
"Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.5).
And indeed, even as early as the second century AD, the book is omitted in the Muratonian Canon which reflects the views of the church at Rome. According to the tradition reported by Stephen Gobar, Irenaeus and Hippolytus both did not believe that the epistle was written by Paul, and Tertullian (whose Carthaginian brand of Latin Christianity was strongly influenced by Rome) specifically believed that Hebrews was written by Barnabas (De Pudicitia, 20). What is interesting about this tradition is that the epistle that was specifically attributed to this individual, Barnabas, displays a similar Alexandrian style. Barnabas was also depicted in Acts as a Levite Jew (compare the priestly perspective of Hebrews), and while he was recognized as an apostle by the later Church, the author of Acts (in 4:36-37) suggests that he converted to Christianity shortly after Pentacost (and thus was not a hearer of Jesus). Even into the fifth century AD, Jerome wrote concerning Hebrews that the "custom of the Latins received it not among the canonical scriptures" (Ad Dardanum, 129.3).
But what is interesting about the Roman reception of Hebrews is that the earliest trace of the epistle is, in fact, in the writings of Clement of Rome who wrote at the end of the first century AD (cf. Hebrews 1:3-13 = 1 Clement 36:2-5; 2:17, 3:1 = 1 Clement 36:1; 3:2, 5 = 1 Clement 43:1; 3:7, 10:15 = 1 Clement 13:1, 16:2; 4:12 = 1 Clement 21:9; 4:15 = 1 Clement 36:1; 6:18 = 1 Clement 27:2; 11:37 = 1 Clement 17:1; 12:9 = 1 Clement 64:1, etc.). The long historical survey on faith in Hebrews 11 is even imitated in 1 Clement 9-12. This suggests that Rome was either the original destination or place of origin of the homily, and the church there may have had firsthand knowledge of its authorship. If Rome was the original destination of the letter, the Roman rejection of Hebrews as canonical scripture is possibly due to the Roman community knowing that Paul was not its author, having its own local tradition of Hebrews' authorship which took a long time for the dominant view to supplant. The letter itself has a connection with Rome in the reference to the "those from Italy" (hoi apo tés Italias) in Hebrews 13:24, which would suggest either a Roman provenance or a Roman destination. The latter interpretation is probable since the use of apo "from" may more naturally refer to those are from a particular place but not living there at the time, and because the former interpretation is more natural by using en instead of apo, i.e. "those in Italy". They are thus Italians in the company of the author who send their greetings to those at home. But the present ending (13:18, 22-25) may not be original to the book, as it appears to dress up a lengthy homily as a (short!) quasi-Pauline epistle, with its mentions of imprisonment and Timothy (but no tradition of an imprisonment of Timothy exists either in Acts or in early tradition).
Who was it written by and why or in other words Who, What, When, Where, Why.
SSN587,
The book was most likely commissioned by Paul after his struggle with James and the Jewish Christians still keeping the Law not only in Jerusalem but in all his territories. It seems reasonable that all NT books were either written or commissioned by an Apostle since they had real authority over others to make such decisions for the Faith. John would have commissioned the letter by James. Apostles that resided with James needed correction as well and Paul did that when he made several trips to them there. Thousands of Christian Jews were keeping the Law for some 20 to 40 years and James and the Apostles with him did nothing to stop them. You should be able to see this throughout the books of the NT. Then after Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem they nearly killed him. The Roman armies were called in to save his life. It is a story few tell and the WT would not like it revealed because of their claim of being modeled after this Jerusalem congregation with James seemingly in charge. Just so that you can see that all was not rosy in the Faith back then look at what they said to Paul during his fourth visit. Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Can you imagine doing that? Law keeping Hebrew Christians with apostles among them. Hebrews was written to put a stop to this practice once and for all. Paul even appointed elders to do that in his territories even before the book was written. Look how they applied their letter written in Acts chapter 15 some 14 years later. It is the same letter that the WT uses to enforce no blood laws. They restricted it to the Gentiles, forcing just a few Jewish laws and traditions on them instead of all the Law that they kept themselves and wanted Paul to keep. This is apostasy hiding in plain sight and few notice. That is the why as I understand it.
Joseph
Not to unnecessarily spread unsubstantiated speculation, but I'll take the opportunity.
Clement of Rome seems to include several passages from Pauline material in his own letters. IIRC, his citations are used to add some validity to them being older than the second century. I've read an essay arguing that Clement himself may have been behind some of the pastoral letters and Hebrews as a way to strengthen the power of the emerging church of Rome.
Is there any similarity in writing style between Hebrews and Clement?
Is there any similarity in writing style between Hebrews and Clement?
Good question. I don't know. Maybe Leo or Narko will chime in.
BTS
IIRC the problem with Clementine authorship is that the author of 1 Clement comes across more as an imitator than the original thinker we find in Hebrews. I can check my books to get more specific information.
One fascinating thing about 1 Clement is that it is closely familiar with 1 Corinthians, even quoting it directly, but there is not a trace of 2 Corinthians. Since 1 Clement was written to the church in Corinth, this suggests that 2 Corinthians (whose Pauline authorship is undoubted) had not yet been publically released by the Corinthian church by the end of the first century AD. It is certainly a more personal, emotional letter than the former (less likely to have been released in a collection), and some think too that it was cobbled together from two shorter Pauline epistles. There is some evidence that the original Pauline corpus towards the end of the first century AD was a seven letter collection (imitated by John of Patmos and Ignatius, and alluded to as such by the Muratonian Canon), so only later did additional letters like 2 Corinthians come to be added, along with the deutero-Paulines.
Leolaia,
Exactly how things happened we may never know. But the comment at the end of 2 Corinthians in my version of the AV reads: "The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas." This seems like a reasonable conclusion and the letter may not have been available to other writers for some time which accounts for the confusion regarding it. It is remarkable that this document survived for us to enjoy today.
Joseph
