1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
______________________
1. Here's the hypothesis. Argument to follow. We, of course, don't know for certain.
Apollos is at Corinth or Ephesus. Timothy has just been released from jail somewhere not far away. Priscilla and Aquilla are there with Apollos. The churches of Ephesus have become more diverse in the last ten years with the arrival of refugees from Jerusalem during the Jewish War -- including John the son of Zebedee.
Some of this cadre had probably visited Rome in the meantime. It makes sense that while Paul was under house arrest in Rome for two years, Timothy and others would have made their way there to visit him. The audience knows this group of church leaders based in the Greece/Ephesus area.
These last two years have been hard. Jerusalem was destroyed. The temple burned to the ground. John was martyred at Ephesus. About the only original follower of Jesus now left standing is John the elder, who wasn't one of the twelve.
Apollos and Timothy plan to visit the churches of Rome soon. But given the drama of watching Rome kill all the captives from Jerusalem, Apollos worries that their faith might be wavering. He sends this sermon, this "word of exhortation" ahead of them to prepare the way.
What if this is the context of Hebrews 13:22-25?
Of course, there are seemingly endless other possibilities. More than any other part of Hebrews, these verses sound like Paul (see the previous post for arguments against Paul as author). Some suggest the author is Priscilla and that she is somewhat obscuring her identity (I don't see it, although it would be great). A couple key scholars think it is being written from Ephesus to Corinth. [1]
I get it. Apollos to Corinth. Would make sense. But also notice that Timothy doesn't seem to be in the same place as the author. If Timothy was at Ephesus -- as 1 and 2 Timothy seem to imply -- then a little journey to join Apollos at Corinth would fit our traditions.
In any case...
2. And now the argument. The first twelve chapters of Hebrews are a sermon, a "word of exhortation" (13:22). But they were a "sent sermon." The author was in another location, maybe Corinth or Ephesus. He knew the audience, possibly in Rome. He planned to visit them soon. He was sending this letter ahead because he felt like they needed it to bolster their faith.
The audience also knew Timothy (13:23). At that time, he had just been released from jail -- perhaps at Ephesus. This is after Paul's time. Paul probably died around 62 in Rome at the end of his house arrest in Acts. [2] That was now almost ten years now in the past.
In the years since Paul died, surely much had happened at Ephesus. There are traditions that some of the apostles came to Ephesus, most notably John the son of Zebedee. [3] I personally suspect that the earliest part of the book of Revelation dates to the last days of the Jewish War, just a year or two before the Gospel of Mark and the sermon of Hebrews. John was then probably martyred in the environs of Ephesus, maybe on the isle of Patmos. [4]
Ephesus would soon become a somewhat theologically diverse set of churches. You had the earliest Pauline layer. Hebrews reflects it. You had a rising Jerusalem oriented layer, strengthened by the presence of John the son of Zebedee there. Revelation represents it.
Another John, the elder, possibly the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John, would have great influence there in the last part of the century. [5] The Gnostic movement at Ephesus would grow to power in the midst of his ministry (cf. 1 John 2:19). It was a very Hellenistic -- Greek influenced -- branch of Christianity.
2. "Those from Italy greet you" (Heb. 13:24). It is very tempting to think this refers to Priscilla and Aquila. Wherever we think they were in Romans 16, 2 Timothy 4:19 has them at Ephesus at the end of Paul's life. They were of course from Rome (cf. Acts 18:2), so a letter to Rome might easily mention them.
3. We've already mentioned that Hebrews was a "word of exhortation." It's a homily or a short sermon. It has no letter introduction. Its beginning is far too magnificent to cloud with a mundane greeting.
Besides, the letter would be sent with someone who would make it abundantly clear who it was from.
Apollos is only a guess since we don't know. His name was not suggested in writing by the early church. Martin Luther in the 1500s is the first he is mentioned as a possibility.
But there is a reason, chiefly the cumulative (superficial) parallels with the writings of Philo. Apollos was from Alexandria and Philo taught at Alexandria. Apollos has the level of education that the author of Hebrews surely had.
Luke is sometimes suggested. On writing style, this is very possible. However, Luke's theology seems quite distinct from that of Hebrews. Acts 7 comes the closest to Hebrews' theology, and it is generally an outlier in the general attitude of Acts toward Jerusalem. In general, Luke-Acts is strongly oriented around the future kingdom of God on earth while Hebrews demonstrates much more of a dualism.
It is interesting to see Hebrews on a continuum that moves to the dualism of John and then on to the dualism of Gnosticism. Just maybe, this was in the water at Ephesus.
[1] Chiefly, Hugh Montefiore and Luke Timothy Johnson.
[2] This is not the most popular reconstruction, but it is the most likely. The last nine chapters of Acts repeatedly foreshadow Paul's death. He tells the Ephesians he'll never see them again (Acts 20:25). Agabas warns him not to go to Jerusalem, and Paul says he is ready to die (21:10-14). Agrippa II and the Roman governor Festus both agree it is a shame he appealed to Caesar because he was clearly innocent (26:31-32). These do not prove that Paul died in Rome, but the most likely way to take these comments is that they are foreshadowing a bad outcome.
The dating of Luke similarly is not really ambiguous. Both Matthew and Luke give hints that they were written after the temple's destruction. Matthew does it in the way he tells the Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matt. 22:7). Luke does it in the way he paraphrases Jesus' abomination of desolations statement (Luke 21:20). The fact that they both use Mark is another prong in this argument, since Mark also was also likely written around the time of Jerusalem's destruction (cf. Mark 13:14 -- "let the reader understand").
It is often protested, "Then why doesn't Acts tell us what happened to Paul. Don't you think he would have told us?" This is a narcissistic answer. Acts wasn't written to us. The original audience knew. He didn't need to tell them.
Acts is not some mere history book. It has clear theological and ideological tendencies. Acts is making an argument, and a key piece of that argument is that Christians -- and Paul -- were not troublemakers. Rather, their opponents oppressed them and stirred up problems all around them. The way Acts ends fits beautifully with this purpose. He implies Paul's innocence without saying Caesar was wrong. He stays far away from that puppy!
None of the above items are particularly ambiguous to me. They seem the obvious and most natural way to interpret this data. Why would anyone question these conclusions? Sentimentality. I recognize the impulse because it once was me. It is an intellectually perverse drive to find alternative interpretations to fit a narrative that feels better -- even though no item of faith is at stake.
[3] One tradition is that John brought Mary, Jesus' mother there, but I consider it far more likely that she was dead by this time. The tradition probably grew out of John 19:27.
[4] The reason to suspect his martyrdom is because Mark seems to allude to it (Mark 10:39). The confusion is because the Beloved Disciple was possibly another disciple of Jesus who was also named John -- John the elder. Papias, writing in the early second century, mentions a "John the elder" at Ephesus (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4).
Given the style and theological differences between the Gospel of John and Revelation, it has been suggested since the early church that these were two different Johns (cf. Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.24–25). To me, Revelation sounds like it came from a "son of thunder" (cf. Mark 3:17). So it seems reasonable to think that the bulk of the Johannine corpus grew from the ministry of John the elder at Ephesus. See Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (SCM, 1989).
[5] See note 4 above.
No comments:
Post a Comment