The Secrets of Hebrews

Everybody wants to know the secrets of Hebrews. Who was the author? Where was it written from? Who was it written to? When was it written? Why was it written? We cannot speak of definitive answers about any of these questions, even if we can peck at a few.

At the beginning of the summer, I felt convinced the author was a male (masculine singular self-referential participle at 11:32) and probably a Jewish male (although I can't prove it). Apollos is tempting, but really we just can't know, other than no one thinks it was Paul. I felt pretty good about it being written after the destruction of the temple in AD70 and probably to a Gentile community of believers at Rome. Already here I was in the minority of English speaking scholarship, who generally vote for Jews before 70. Rome remains the most popular vote for destination and still gets my vote (13:24).

When I wrote my little book on Hebrews, I guessed that there might be something going on in the synagogue that claimed to be an atoning replacement for the absent temple. Big guess of course. I still think that might be what stands behind 13:9-10. Of course the old standard is that a Jewish audience is contemplating a return to mainstream Judaism.

A little over a year ago I noticed that Hebrews (in its main argument) never tells its audience not to rely on the Levitical system. This seemed peculiar to me if the point of Hebrews is to argue for them not to rely on the Levitical system. It is really peculiar if Hebrews was written before 70 to dissuade an audience from reliance on the temple. Of course Hebrews never uses the word temple and you could argue that a bit of secrecy is going on because "the walls have ears." But I began to wonder if Hebrews is more a consolation in the temple's absence than an argument against reliance on the Levitical system per se.

I was having these thoughts last year as I was editing my dissertation (by the way, I got my first word back on it today and, with fingers crossed and hands assuming the prayer position, it's looking good for it to get published). Then surprise, surprise, Pamela Eisenbaum says something very similar at SBL. Then surprise, suprise, Richard Hays gives a paper something like this in Scotland. It's bubbling up and who knows that I've had some of these thoughts too on my own?

But it was a couple weeks before the conference that I had my big thought--in the sense that my degree of certainty went up considerably. If you read the situation chapter of my book, I am very tentative and uncertain in what I conclude.

The problem with my answers so far has been that while 6:1-2 lead me to think the audience was Gentile (these are not "beginning words about the Christ" for Jews, not "ABCs of the beginning oracles of God" for a Jew that is the foundation laid when they became enlightened about the Christ), I had not been able to explain why Gentiles might be tempted to abandon Christian faith for mainstream Judaism, in that scenario. Or how would an argument that Christ replaces the Levitical system convince Gentiles to continue in faith?

My aha moment was when several of these developing threads came together for me. And I should mail off tomorrow an article submission with my idea to New Testament Studies. Here is the formula:

1. Christians at the time of Hebrews considered themselves Jews, whether "Gentile Jews" or ethnic Jews. They were all Christian Jews. To speak of Christians and Jews in distinction from each other is anachronistic. There was as yet no "parting of the ways."

2. Many Christians probably didn't expect God to let the Romans destroy Jerusalem and the temple and then for it just to sit there. Whatever happened to the second coming of Christ who destroys the lawless one after he sets himself up in the temple as God? What about my house will be a house of prayer for the nations? There's no house there. What about the rebuilding of the temple after the destroying part? Most if not all of the early Christians in Acts don't seem to have a clue that the temple is about to be destroyed. Paul even makes an offering in the temple in Acts 21, a little more than 10 years before it was destroyed!

3. Maybe Hebrews is an apology rather than a polemic. That is, maybe the audience needs an explanation for how Christian Judaism can be true in the absence of a temple, rather than an argument against reliance on the Levitical cultus. If Paul argues with other Christians that "faith of Christ" justifies apart from "works of law," maybe Hebrews argues "Christ's sacrifice" atones apart from the need for any other atonement.

4. A Gentile might be tempted to give up on the whole thing under these circumstances. They might want to believe the Jewish Scriptures, but not see how. What would be at stake would be Judaism for them, a tendency to turn away from the "living God."

I think I can account for pretty much all of Hebrews' argument on this scenario. We'll see if I convince anyone.