Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 09.djvu/766

* HEBREWS. 706 HEBREWS. HI. The readers of the Epistle have generally been c'OiiJiiiU'rcd Jewisli C'liristiaiis — a conclusion which would appear to be clearly evidenced by the distiiicUvely Hebrew eliaracter of the arini- nient employed in the Epistle. Eecently, however, critics have claimed a Gentile Christian reader- ship, saying that a Hebrew argument might have been fornuilated for Christians who ■were not •Jews. Theoretically this is true : but were it so in this particular case, the Epistle would be- come a purely ac^adeuiie essay, lacking all the significance which wovild otherwise come from its appeal to the Jewish race from the point of view of its peculiar institutions and its distinctive Scriptures. It amounts to nothing in support of such Gentile readership to contend that the Epistle contains no direct statement of the fact that the readers were in danger of an apostasy to Judaism, for the readers might not have come to the point of apostatizing and yet have been Jews. Jewish Christians as well as Gentile might have been simply weak in the faith and in need of exhortation to hold fast to their profes- sion. In fact, if this weakness of faith and in- security of jirofession was the condition of the readers, it is difficult to understand why such a Jewish background to the strengthening exhorta- tion given them was selected, unless they were Jewish themselves. In view of this background, such passages as vi. 1, 2, and xiii. 4 are of no significance, since they are both specifically ap- plicable to Jewish Christians, the latter especial- ly, in view of Paul's arraigranent of the race in Rom. ii. 17-20. Admitting the probability, therefore, that the readers were Jewish, their habitation would seem to be most naturally in a place of Jewish sur- roundings such as Palestine and Jerusalem. Against this, however, is the strong Alexandrian mode of thought which quite plainly underlies the Epistle's argument. This would not be nat- ural in the places mentioned above. On the con- trary, it would suggest Alexandria itself and Egypt. Against this latter location the only argument would be our general ignorance of the oondition of early Christianity in this region. Rome is urged by modern critics, and. as far as the Alexandrian niode of thought is concerned, there might not be much against the place. As a matter of fact, however, the critics base their contention largely on the specifically Jewish character of the Roman Church — an argument which is so clearly against the facts of the Roman Epistle as to be impossible of acceptance. There would, consequently, seem to remain only some such locality as the Phrygian region of Western Asia — a region largely inhabited by Jews and largely under the influence of Alexandrian thought. With such a locality Timothy's rela- tionship (xiii. 2.3. 'our brother Timothy'), and the evident tendencies of the readers to angel- worship (chs. i. and ii.), an eclectic spirit and a false asceticism (ch. xiii.) would be signifi- cant. In view, therefore, of the probable Jewish char- acter of the readers and their most natural loca- tion in Western Asia ilinor, the strong probabil- ity of an Italian place of composition Is greatly strengthened ; since to Jevish readers resident in Phrygia a salutation from mere Italian so- journers would have no meaning. And in view of all three points, a date some time after the Jewish War would seem most reasonable ; for then the Jewish colonies in the Diaspora would be largely increased and such independent Hebrew congregations more possible. We could also thus untlerstand by the persecutions of the "former days' the .Jewisli War, whose horrors were not likely to have faded from the exiles' minds ; while the newer jicrsecutions, in the beginnings of which the readers were (xii. 4), could quite easily be the rise of the Doiuitian anti-Christian aggressiveness. This supposition is favm-ed by two considerations — the distinctive Jewish rivalry to Christianity after the destruction of .lerusa- leni, and the general Christian disapi)ointnient at the non-return of Christ, which had been wide- ly expected in connection with this catastrophe, in view of the common understanding of the' words of Christ as promising it. These two facts would almost seem to account for the troublous situation of the readers, at least from its Jewish side; for it is clear they were sutTering from oppression by their unbelieving countrymen — an oppression which gathered an irritating strength largely from the failure of the expected return of their Christ. This oppression might be more or less connected with the Government's hostility, and shows the situation to have been one of peculiar danger, because of the combination of evil which threatened them. We might place the writing of the Epistle, therefore, somewhere about A.D. 00. IV. The question of author has been generally held to be the most important point connected with the criticism of the Epistle. It is. in fact, the least important, since the even approximate settling of the above questions gives us practical- ly all the critical knowledge of the Epistle which we need for working puriJOses. The fact, there- fore, that there is no certain answer to this ques- tion is of no significance. At the same time it can be safely said that, whoever the author may have been, he was not Paul. This is universally accepted by critics to-day. Outside of Paul, evi- dence would seem, in some respects, to ]ioint to Barnabas, whose name was apparently nttaclied to the manuscripts of the Epistle with which Tertullian was acquainted, and was considered by liim in his day as an accepted tradition. Any definite conclusion, however, is impossible. The attempt of Harnack to credit it to Prisca and Aquila, chiefly Prisca, is not supported by the facts. BinLiOfiR.pnY. Co-Ill m ph taries : Delitzscli ( I^eip- zig, 1857): Kurtz (Mitau. ISfiO) : Ewald (Giit- tingen. 1870) ; Westcott (2d ed.. London. 1802) ; Davidson, in Handbooks for Bihle Classes (Edin- burgh. 1882) : Kiibel, in Strack-Zockler. Koni men- far (2d ed.. Jlunich. 180.5) : E. Weiss, in Jlever, Konimcnfar (6th ed., Gottingen, 1807); Von Soden in TJand-Kommentar :iim Xeuen Trsla- nient (3d ed.. Freiburg. 1901). Introductions: Holtzmann (3d ed.. Freiburg. 1802) ; Salmon (7th ed.. London, 1894) ; Jiilicher (4th ed.. Tii- bingen. 1001): B. Weiss (English translation, Xew York, 18881 : Zahn (2d ed.. Leipzig. 1000) ; Bacon (Xew York. 1900) ; Jloffatt, HMorical .Ypic Testament (New York, 1000). Discussions: Bleek. Der Brief an die Eelriier erliiufcrt (Ber- lin. 1828-40) ; Wieseler. Untersnelitingen iiher den nrhnierhrief (Kiel. 1861); Riehra. Lehrheqriff des Hehmerhriefes (Basel, 1867) : Ayles. Destina- tion. Date, and Authorship of the Epistle to the neT)7-en-s (London, 1899) ; Bruce, Th-e Epistle to