60 A.D – 90 A.D. according to Raymond Brown

At the lower end of the spectrum, the writer of Hebrews does not belong to the first generation of Christians since apparently he is dependent on those who heard the Lord (2:3). At the upper end, a limit is set by I Clement 36:1–5 (probably written in the late 90s, but not later than 120), which echoes Hebrews 1:3–5,7,13. Thus the most frequent range suggested for writing Hebrews is AD 60 to 90, with scholars divided over whether it should be dated before (60s) or after (80s) the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. More information about the writer or even Timothy’s release would likely add to the accuracy of attempts to determine the dating. The strong emphasis on the replacement of the Jewish feasts, sacrifices, priesthood, and earthly place of worship is support for a dating in the 80s—indeed the first or old covenant is being replaced by the new (8:7–8,13). Similarly it was in the last third of the century that the custom of using “God” for Jesus became more prominent. Finally, one must recognize that an argument for dating that draws on comparative theology is very weak, since “advanced” theological insights did not all come at the same time in every place.

A text from the Talmud sets the latest possible date for Hebrews. R. Ishmael died c. 135 CE; if these are his words, the composition of Hebrews (to which Ishmael refers) must have taken place before his death.

R. Zechariah said, in the name of R. Ishmael,
The Holy One – blessed be He – sought to cause the priesthood to go
forth from Shem.
For it is said:
And he was a priest of God Most High. [Gen 14:18]
As soon as he put the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of
God, he caused it to go forth from Abraham, as it is said,
And he blessed him and said:
Blessed be Abraham of God Most High, possessor of
heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High. [v.19]
Abraham said to him:
Do they put the blessing of the servant before the
blessing of his owner?
Immediately it was given to Abraham, as it is said:
The Lord says to my Lord:
Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy
enemies a footstool for thy feet. [Ps. 110:1]
And further down it is written,
The Lord hath sworn and will not repent,
Thou art a priest forever after the order of
Melchesidek, [v.4] according to the saying of Melchesidek.
And this is what is written.
And he was priest of God Most High. [Gen 14:18]
He was priest; his seed were not priests.

Babylon Talmud, Nedar. 32b, quoted in Travers R. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1903, I, b, iv; pg 338, item 139.

Hebrews was clearly known to the author of 1 Clement (17:1, 36:2-5). This sets the terminus ad quem for the book of Hebrews. However, dating 1 Clement is difficult, with commentators ranging from 95 CE to 120 CE or even as late as 140 CE.

Attridge states on the dating of Hebrews (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, p. 97):

Within the broad range of the years 60-95 C.E., various conjectures have been made about a more precise dating. References to the Jewish sacrificial cult in the present tense (9:6-10; 10:1-4), along with the lack of any mention of the destruction of the temple, have been taken as evidence of a date prior to 70 C.E., when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. This argument, however, is inconclusive, since our author is not at all concerned with the Herodian temple. Rather, he deals with the desert tabernacle and argues exegetically from biblical data. Moreover, authors writing after 70 C.E., such as Josephus, Clement of Rome, and the compilers of the Mishnah, often refer to the temple as a present reality.

1. Kummel dates Hebrews as follows (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 403):

“To the obvious question whether Jerusalem is still standing (13:13 f) and the temple cultus is still in process (9:9 f) Heb gives no answer. In its timeless scholarly movement of ideas only the OT sanctuary plays a role, not the Herodian temple; an origin before 70 cannot be inferred either from the silence concerning the catastrophe of the year 70 or from the expression in 8:13 that the Old Covenant is ‘in the course of passing away.’ On the contrary, the persecutions which the community has experienced (10:32-34) and the spiritual proximity to Lk-Acts point in all probability to the post-Pauline period. Heb was, however, written before 96 (I Clem); Timothy, who as a young man had been a mission aide of Paul, is still living (13:23), writers and readers belong to the second Christian generation (2:3), the new suffering which threatens the readers (12:4) may point to the time of Domitian (81-96). Accordingly the letter was probably written between 80 and 90.”

Hebrews 2:3 states:
“Announced first by the Lord, it [salvation] was confirmed to us by those who had heard him.”
Hebrews 13:7 states:
“Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you; consider how their lives ended, and imitate their faith.” This is compatible with a date of Hebrews during the second or third Christian generation.
Occasion 📜
Of all the early churches none surpasses in interest or significance the one at Rome. Our first glimpse of it is when Paul writes the Letter to the Romans, about A. D. 56. The Acts gives us an account of Paul’s arrival there and his stay there as a prisoner for two years, somewhere about A.D. 60. Then comes Nero’s attack upon the church, in August of 64, so tellingly described in Tacitus. There follows the writing of the Gospel of Mark, about 70. And then the writing of what, ever since the time of Tertullian at least, has been known as the Letter to the Hebrews.
“Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos,” De Pudicitia 20.
Forty years had now passed since Paul had written Romans. The Roman church was in its second generation. Roman Christians had grown up in the faith. It had been familiar to them from childhood. Most of them had never known any other. They came of Christian parents and had never thought of being anything but Christians. But the primitive apocalyptic expectations had waned. The great distinctive values of Christianity had grown dim. The early enthusiasm had evaporated. Christianity was coming to be an old story. Apathy was pervading the church.
Upon a church thus spiritually decayed the blow of Domitian’s attack fell, as it had fallen on Ephesus and the neighboring churches of Asia. The demand of emperor worship as a test of loyalty to the empire found a church cooled in its zeal, like Ephesus to which John had written in the name of Christ, “You do not love me as you did at first.”
The Roman church had a great tradition. It had had its baptism of fire in that terrible August of 64 when Nero tried to lay upon it the blame for burning the city. Tacitus in his Annals (xv. 44) describes what happened:
First those were seized who confessed that they were Christians. Next, on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of hating the human race. And in their deaths they were also made the subject of sport, for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses or set ore to and when day declined burned to serve for nocturnal lights. Nero offered his own gardens for the spectacle.
source: Translation in “Harper’s Classical Library.”

Those terrible days are reflected in Hebrews in very similar words:
You must remember those early days when after you had received the light, you had to go through a great struggle with persecution, sometimes being actually exposed as a public spectacle to insults and violence, and sometimes showing yourselves ready to share the lot of those in that condition. For you showed sympathy for those who were in prison, and you put up with it cheerfully when your property was taken from you, for you knew that you had in yourselves a greater possession that was lasting. You must not lose your courage, for it will be richly rewarded, but you will need endurance if you are to carry out God’s will and receive the blessing he has promised [10:32-36].
The Roman Christians had done a great work and shown their love for the cause by giving help to their persecuted fellow-Christians, 6:10. But now, with their zeal declining, they were confronted by this fresh attack under Domitian, and to the danger of apathy was added that of apostasy.

Two things were pressingly demanded. They must be shown the immense value of the religion they had come to take as a matter of course, and they must be told how awful the consequences of renouncing it would be. Apathy must be cured and apostasy prevented. But since, sometimes, people unequal to their present tasks can be stirred to meet them only by being called upon to do something still more exacting, so now the Roman church is stingingly reminded that, old as it is among the churches, it is not leading and instructing the others as it should do. From the length of their Christian experience they ought to be teaching the others, but as it is, they actually need someone to teach them over again the very elements of Christian truth, 5:12.
It was to accomplish these ends that Hebrews was written. To counteract the prevalent apathy of the Roman Christians, it compared Christianity point by point with the next greatest religion, Judaism, showing how at every point the new faith far surpassed it. To prevent apostasy, it showed the dreadful, even irreparable, consequences of such a course, for which there could be no repentance or forgiveness. (This terrible doctrine was to have important consequences in Christian history.) And to rouse the Roman church from its lethargy, it was called upon to accept the great role that belonged to it and become the teacher of the churches, 5:12.
The writer of Hebrews had for his model the Pauline letter-type, which had just clearly emerged before the churches in the published collection of Paul’s letters. His letter is about two-thirds the length of Paul’s letter to Rome, written almost forty years before. Like Paul, the new writer varies instruction with entreaty, only much more frequently than Paul had done. Barnett finds it reasonably likely that Hebrews used eight of the ten letters of the primary Pauline canon—all except II Thessalonians and Philemon. Its clearest use of them is in the great catalogue of the heroes of faith, where Paul’s characteristic doctrine of faith is glorified somewhat in the manner Paul himself used in dealing with love in I Corinthians, chapter 13, only much more elaborately and rhetorically. Hebrews is, in fact, the most elegant rhetoric in the New Testament. Indeed, its atmosphere is for the most part really that of a sermon: “My time would fail me if I told of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets,” 11:32. “Listen patiently to this appeal”—the same expression as that used of the synagogue address or sermon in Acts 13:15. And yet the writer goes on, “For I have written you but briefly,” 13:22. He evidently means in comparison with Paul’s great letters to the Romans and Corinthians, each of which is considerably longer. He brews is both letter and sermon and naturally enough, since it was intended to be read in Christian meetings as a sermon. Read in that way, it would take forty-five or fifty minutes—a rather long sermon, yet not so long as Romans or I or II Corinthians.
To modern ears Hebrews does not sound at all like Paul, but the ancients viewed it very differently. The great Alexandrian fathers from Pantaenus to Origen considered it Paul’s, and the recently published papyrus manuscript of Paul’s letters, dating from about A.D. 200 (Gerstinger, Wilcken) to 250 (Kenyon, Sanders), already has Hebrews standing second among the Pauline letters, following Romans and preceding I Corinthians.
Whether Hebrews was originally pseudepigraphical and actually claimed the name of Paul is an interesting question. Its early acceptance as among the Pauline letters would strongly suggest that it did, and the reference to Timothy quite in the Pauline manner, 13:23, makes this rather probable. If we are right in thinking it is strongly influenced by the published Pauline corpus, we may date it with some definiteness in the eventful period just before or about A.D. 95, for Hebrews was copiously used, as even Eusebius observed (Church History iii. 38. 1), in the Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written probably before the death of Domitian in A.D. 96.
Of its name we can say only that it reflects an ancient mistaken editorial inference from the very large part Judaism plays in its argument, from which as early as the end of the second century it was imagined that it must have been addressed to a Jewish public, seeking to win it to the Christian faith, or to Christian Jews, seeking to confirm them in it. But the writer’s Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, manifestly gained from the reading of the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, and his polished Greek style would be a strange vehicle for a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood. Before his mind is always the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, never the Temple in Jerusalem. The picture he gives of the church he is addressing does not at all fit Jerusalem; though as we have seen it is strikingly appropriate to Rome. To say that the church at Jerusalem had not taught the churches would be at variance with all the familiar facts, 5:12. The Jerusalem church ceased to exist in the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70, and to seek to push Hebrews back into the period before that war would be fantastic.
Moreover, it is at Rome that the letter is first reflected—in I Clement, a letter written to Corinth in the name of the Roman church. It reflects Hebrews a score of times, especially in chapter 36, and indeed much of its plan is copied from that of Hebrews. This is altogether natural if, as seems probable, I Clement was written in response to the demand of Hebrews that the Roman church begin to instruct the other churches.
The letter as we have it is anonymous, and of its author little can be said. We cannot even be sure he was of Jewish blood. If he knew Hebrew at all, he preferred to use the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, as in Ps. 40:6—”You have provided a body for me” instead of “You have opened my ears.” He is very familiar with the Greek Bible, but so was Clement of Rome, his contemporary. While the Alexandrians identified him with Paul (perhaps in part because of his mention of Timothy, 13:23), Tertullian called him Barnabas (De pudicitia 20), and the western church did not accept his letter as Paul’s or as Scripture until the middle of the fourth century (Hilary of Poitiers, †A.D. 367). The words, “The brothers from Italy wish to be remembered to you,” 13:24, suggest that the letter was written to an Italian—that is, Roman—congregation from outside of Italy, but of course this latter is not certain.
━━━━━━
Authorship 📜

1. Reasons for Doubting that Paul is the author:
2. 1. The linguistic style of Hebrews is radically different from that of Paul, and many of Paul’s characteristic expressions cannot be found here (e.g., “Christ Jesus,” used over ninety times in Paul’s letters, never appears in Hebrews).
3. 2. Paul regarded himself as “an apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:8). 3. Paul claimed that he was an eyewitness to the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8); contrary to what is suggested in 2:3–4, he would not have described himself as someone who had come to faith through the preaching of others or as someone whose authority as an apostle was dependent on the testimony of others (see Gal. 1:11–17). 4. Many of Paul’s most prominent themes are not found here, and conversely, the dominant theme of Hebrews (the high priesthood of Jesus) is never mentioned by Paul.
4. Alternatives:
5. Barnabas: As an alternative to Paul, some scholars have suggested one of Paul’s closest companions: Barnabas, who worked with Paul in his early years. Barnabas would have known Timothy, and he had a Levitical background (Acts 4:36). This suggestion was first offered by Tertullian in the early third century (On Modesty 20). Luke: Quite a few interpreters have suggested that Hebrews might be the work of the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke’s Greek is more polished and closer in style to the Greek of Hebrews than any other writer in the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria (150–215) thought that Luke was translating a letter into Greek that Paul had written in Hebrew. This same view was espoused later by Thomas Aquinas. But modern scholars note that many of the rhetorical wordplays used in Hebrews would only work if the letter were written originally in Greek. John Calvin thought that either Luke or Clement of Rome was the most likely author of Hebrews. Philip: Many scholars have suggested Philip or one of the other Hellenists who were colleagues of Stephen (Acts 6:5; 8:5–40; 21:8–9). The reason for this is that Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:2–53 is said to recount Jewish history and deprecate Jewish shrines in a manner similar to Hebrews (cf. Acts 7:2–34 with Heb. 11; Acts 7:44–50 with Heb. 9). Since Stephen himself cannot be the author (having been martyred immediately after delivering that speech), the “next best thing” may be to ascribe the book of Hebrews to one of his colleagues, who presumably would have thought in a similar vein. Philip was the most prominent of those colleagues. One problem with this thesis is that Hebrews deals with the tabernacle, not the temple, and it does not question the historical legitimacy of either institution (cf. Acts 7:48) but merely claims that sacrificial institutions have now been rendered obsolete (Heb. 8:13; 9:25–26).
6. Apollos: The suggestion that Apollos might be the author of Hebrews was put forward by Martin Luther. Apollos had Alexandrian connections, he was said to be well versed in the scriptures, and he was famous for his eloquence (Acts 18:24–28; 19:1; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4–22; 4:6; 16:12; Titus 3:13). This view continues to attract support. Paul Ellingworth calls it the “least unlikely of the conjectures that have been put forward” (see Ellingworth, The Epistle to Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 21). Luke Timothy Johnson is intrigued by the possibility that Apollos might have written Hebrews to Corinth prior to Paul’s writing of 1 Corinthians to that same city (see Johnson, Hebrews, NTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006], 42–44). Priscilla: Some modern scholars have favored Priscilla (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; cf. Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19), whose name would have been subsequently removed to avoid the scandal of instruction being offered by a woman. This view was first put forward by Adolf von Harnack in 1900. It was more recently championed in Ruth Hoppin, Priscilla: Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Exposition Press, 1969). An obstacle for many is that Hebrews 11:32 employs a masculine construction in Greek implying that the “I” who is speaking is male; this probably requires an assumption that Priscilla is intentionally hiding her identity.
7. Clement of Rome: A number of scholars have thought that the letter could be the work of Clement, a bishop of Rome who is probably the author of at least one letter utilizing much of the same language employed here (1 Clement). According to Origen (third century), some Christians in his day thought that Clement had written the letter based on notes from things that Paul had said (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.13). This possibility was taken seriously by John Calvin. There are many undeniable parallels between the letter known as 1 Clement and the letter to the Hebrews, but those similarities usually are explained as the result of Clement having a copy of Hebrews and quoting from it. Furthermore, modern scholars note that 1 Clement espouses a positive attitude toward Levitical sacrifices that may be incompatible with the attitude taken toward those sacrifices in Hebrews.

Mary the Mother of Jesus: This proposal was put forward in a journal article by Josephine Massyngbearde Ford (The Bible Today 82 [1976]: 673–94). Raymond Brown averred that this proposal wins “the prize for dubious ingenuity” (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, ABRL [New York: Doubleday, 1996], 695).
Others: Other suggestions include Silas (Acts 15:22–18:17; cf. 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12) and Epaphras (Col. 1:17; 4:12; Philem. 23).

What we know about the Author of Hebrews:

The author of Hebrews was a person of prominence in the early church. He knew people who had known Jesus (2:3). He was well educated with regard to both Greek rhetoric and the Jewish scriptures. He knew the readers personally. He assumes a mandate to speak to these readers authoritatively, even though he does not appear to have been the founder of their community. He is planning to visit the readers soon (13:19, 23), which may indicate that he exercises a supervisory role for the congregation beyond that of its local leaders (13:7, 17, 24).

Raymond Brown’s summary of the epistle:

1. Raymond Brown on the authorship:

The evidence against Paul’s writing Hebrews is overwhelming. In its style, common expressions, major theological themes, and outlook, Heb is very different from Paul’s letters. Perhaps above all, Paul denied receiving his gospel from any other human being—God revealed the Son to him (Gal 1:11–12); Heb writes that the message was declared first by the Lord “and attested to us by those who heard it” (Heb 2:3). Despite the evidence (or lack thereof), some have made suggestions for authorship of Heb. Origen left anonymous the actual author, while others made specific guesses: for example, Tertullian suggested Barnabas; some posited either Luke or Clement of Rome; Luther attributed it to Apollos; and still others have suggested either Priscilla, Aquila, Silas, or Philip. The suggestion by J. M. Ford that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is responsible for the content of Heb may qualify for the prize for dubious ingenuity.

Harold W. Attridge writes of the Epistle to the Hebrews (op. cit., p. 97):

Although Hebrews is included in the Pauline corpus and was part of that corpus in its earliest attested form (p46), it is certainly not a work of the apostle. This fact was recognized, largely on sytlistic grounds, even in antiquity. Some patristic authors defended the traditional Pauline attribution with theories of scribal assistants such as Clement of Rome or Luke, but such hypotheses do not do justice to the very un-Pauline treatment of key themes, particularly those of law and faith. Numerous alternative candidates for authorship have been proposed. The most prominent have been Barnabas, to whom Tertullian assigned the work; Apollos, defended by Luther and many moderns; Priscilla, suggested by von Harnack; Epaphras; and Silas. Arguments for none are decisive, and Origen’s judgment that “God only knows” who composed the work is sound.

1. The book is anonymous, and its author is unknown. Perrin writes about the provenance of Hebrews (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 138): “To whom was Hebrews originally addressed? The writer is a Hellenistic Jewish Christian, and his arguments presuppose that he is writing to others who think as he does, i.e., to a Hellenistic Jewish Christian community. Since Clement of Rome knows and quotes the text within what could only have been a few years of its writing, that community may well have been in Rome. This view is supported by the greetings from ‘those who have come from Italy’ in Heb 13:24.”

━━━━━━
Contents 📜
Hebrews opens with a bold contrast between the new revelation and the old. The revealer of the new religion is no mere prophet or angel like those of the old but the Son of God, in whom the writer sees the divine wisdom personified. As such he becomes the agent of creation, the reflection of the glory of God, and the sustainer of the universe, chapter 1. The Book of Wisdom (first century B. C.) has strongly influenced him here. A warning follows against being indifferent to such a salvation, 2:1-4 Resuming his first subject, the writer proceeds to interpret the sufferings of Christ as a preparation for his high priestly task, 2:5-18. The argument showing the superiority of Christ the Son, to Moses, the servant, of God, 3:1-6, is followed by another warning against repeating the error of the Israelites, who, though they followed Moses out of Egypt, were refused permission to enter the promised rest, 3:7-4:13. Returning to the priesthood of Christ, the writer urges his readers to hold fast to their religion, 4:14-16. Christ is a true high priest by virtue both of his divine appointment and of his human experience, 5:1-10. An extended exhortation, 5:11-6:20, laments the readers’ backwardness, warns against apostasy, and proclaims the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus. This, he explains, 7:1-28, is an older order, far superior to that of Aaron in its permanence, efficacy, and dignity.
Hebrews is pervaded by the a fortiori argument:
Good as the old covenant was, the new everywhere excels it. The new high priest performs a service immeasurably better than that of the old Aaronic priests, 8:1-10:39. That was but a shadow; his is the reality. His priesthood carries with it the new and better covenant foretold in Jer. 31:31-34, Heb. 8:1-13. His is a better sanctuary, a better sacrifice, and a better ministry, 9:1-28. In place of the old, futile, daily butcherings, which never had any real spiritual value, he has once for all offered himself in a sacrifice of eternal efficacy, 10:1-18. A fresh warning against apostasy follows, 10:19-31: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!” Stirring reminders of their former heroism recall the steadfastness of the Roman church in the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. They must not lose that courage now, 10:32-39. In a brilliant passage, reminiscent of the glowing account of Israel’s heroes in Ecclessiasticus, chapters 44-50, the writer shows that the Jewish saints had not lived to see the fulfillment of their hopes, but all died “in faith, without having received what has been promised them.” Faith was the power through which they had done their heroic work and gained God’s approval, 11:1-40.
This great survey of the heroes of faith is followed by an exhortation to follow their great example and particularly that of Christ, their leader and example in faith, and to accept the trials of life as a spiritual discipline, 12:1-13. They should be warned by the fate of Esau against moral failure with its terrible penalty, 12:14-17. In a final, sweeping comparison the old revelation, with all its repellent, material aspects, is contrasted with the new—heavenly, ideal, and eternal, 12:18-29. Theirs is a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Varied exhortations—to hospitality, charity, morality—with personal matters and farewells complete the letter, 13:1-25. The Christians must be hospitable and charitable. They must keep the marriage relation sacred and be free from avarice. The memory of their martyred leaders (Paul and Peter, as Clement of Rome clearly saw, obeying this command to remember them in his chap. 5) should nerve them to imitate their faith. They are warned against the sects, 13:9; Jesus is their great sin-offering. They must be loyal to their Christian leaders. (This point really became the text of I Clement.)
━━━━━━
Problems 📜
Much of the difficulty felt by scholars in explaining Hebrews is due to failure to perceive its indebtedness to the published Pauline letters. Though written in imitation of the Pauline letter-type established by that collection, it was not simply a private letter to a church but probably from the beginning was given a wide circulation; in fact, it was published. The fact that it was addressed to the Roman Christians would not interfere with this circulation at a time when Paul’s letters to individual churches were being accepted as having a message for all Christians everywhere. Its address to Rome was hardly more than a dedication; it was meant for the churches. Its great warnings against apathy and apostasy would have immense value for them all, as Revelation and I Peter show, and its demand that the Roman church begin to instruct the other churches would tend to make them look to Rome for what it had to teach. There is a deep Platonic strain in the thought of Hebrews, derived no doubt by way of Alexandria, where Philo had so thoroughly allegorized Old Testament figures like Melchizedek, making him a symbol of the Logos. The writer of Hebrews is no mere follower of Philo, however, though he owes much to this type of thought, building on slight suggestions of language like King of Peace (Salem), and King of Righteousness (Melchizedek) and piecing together texts from Genesis and Psalms 110 to build up his doctrine of a permanent pre-Levitical priesthood. Of course allegory was not unknown to Paul (cf. Gal. 4:21-31), but it makes its most impressive showing in New Testament literature in Hebrews. Allegory was in wide use in antiquity, having been long and successfully applied to Homer by his Stoic interpreters. There is a splendid passage in Epictetus which shows its power:
Who would Hercules have been, if he had sat at home? He would have been Eurysthcus and not Hercules! Well, and in his travels through the world, how many intimates and how many friends had he? But none more his friend than God, for which reason he came to be considered the . son of God, and so he was! It was in obedience to him that he went about purging away injustice and violence.
source: Discourses ii. 16.
In such terms Stoic preachers were allegorizing the heroes of Greek mythology in the very days in which Hebrews was written. The personal touches in 13:18-25 certainly create a very Pauline atmosphere and owe much to Paul’s collected letters. Wrede thought they were part of a Pauline disguise and were meant to make the letter sound like Paul. The mention of Timothy, wiiom Paul mentions so often, even oftener than Titus, suggests that the writer is trying to write like Paul. And if the letter at first claimed to be the work of Paul, striking facts about it would be explained:
(1) its use of these Pauline touches in 13: 18-25; (2) its manifest acquaintance with the collected letters of Paul; (3) its need of a name, for, as long as it claimed to be by Paul, it could not be called Romans as there was already in the corpus a well-known letter of Paul to Rome; (4) its ascription to Paul by the Alexandrians, from Pantaenus down, which would have been natural if it originally bore Paul’s name. Pseudonymity was already coming into use at this very time, as Ephesians just before and I Peter just after clearly show. But the Ann Arbor papyrus, our most ancient witness to the text of Paul, while it includes Hebrews among his letters and even places it second, immediately after Romans, has no mention of Paul at the beginning of the epistle.
━━━━━━
Patristic error 📜
Lots of church fathers get authorship wrong on this epistle apart from a few. Some say Origen doubted Paul’s authorship of Hebrews, but this is wildly misrepresented: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/origen-on-pauls-authorship-of-hebrews/EE7CB61DBFC2EF4C7667E1B3B03D8654 Still, it shows a patristic tradition that is still widely incorrect on authorship.
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) believed the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul in the Hebrew language, then translated into Greek by Luke.
This is extremely wrong which again, shows how patristic tradition gets so much wrong on this letter. Decisive evidence against this can be found in the extensive use of the Septuagint throughout the book (see the article by Kenneth J. Thomas in NTS, 1965), with the author using the Greek version of the OT. Also there is the pun in Hebrews 5:8 (ἔμαθεν ἀφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν), and similar μαθεῖν/παθεῖν wordplay can be found in Aristotle, Herodotus, Aeschylus, and Plato (see Heinrich Dörrie’s article in Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1956, which was reviewed in TCR, 1958). The author of Hebrews reproduces the same translation choices found in the LXX/OG, or even bears familiarity with particular recensions of the Greek OT. Thomas’ article goes through the allusions and quotations one by one, so I’ll mention an example. Hebrews 13:5 quotes God as saying that he would never leave or forsake you (οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ, οὐδ’ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω), and this quotes לא ארפך ולא אעזבך found in Joshua 1:5 (cf. לא אעזבך in Genesis 28:15) which also occurs in the third person (לא ירפך ולא יעזבך) in Deuteronomy 31:6, 8 and 1 Chronicles 28:20. See:
οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω (Genesis 28:15 LXX)
οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε (Joshua 1:5 LXX)
οὐ μή σε ἀνῇ οὔτε μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ (Deuteronomy 31:6 LXX)
οὐκ ἀνήσει σε οὐδὲ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃ σε (Deuteronomy 31:8 LXX)
οὐκ ἀνήσει σε καὶ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ (1 Chronicles 28:20 LXX)
οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ, οὐδ’ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω (Hebrews 13:5)
These examples show variations in word choice (ὑπεροράω “overlook” vs. ἐγκαταλείπω “forsake”), use of μή with οὐ, and word order with the placement of σε before or after the verb. The wording in Hebrews 13:5 closely matches Deuteronomy 31:6 LXX and modifies it by adding another οὐ in the second clause and changing the verbs from third person to first person. There was a much wider set of options than found in just these examples from the LXX. Field show that in Deuteronomy 31:6, Aquila had παρήσει (a form of παρίημι “disregard”) in place of the LXX’s ἀνῇ (a form of ἀνίημι “desert, leave”) for Hebrew ירפך (which shares with both παρίημι and ἀνίημι a connotation of loosening up or making something go slack). What is really interesting about this example is that we have a pre-Hexaplaric attestation of the verse in Philo of Alexandria (De Confusione Linguarum, 166) who gives exactly the same form that is found in Hebrews 13:5: “And therefore the merciful God has delivered an oracle full of loving-kindness which has a message of good hope to the lovers of discipline. It is to this effect: ‘I will not let you go nor will I abandon you’ (οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ, οὐδ᾿ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω)”. This suggests that the author of Hebrews was either dependent on an Alexandrian form of the Greek OT or perhaps on Philo himself (who of course wrote in Greek).

1. ━━━━━━
2. Where?
3. Raymond Brown: