The ending of Hebrews reconsidered

Abstract

Problem statement and hypothesisOpinions regarding the ending of Hebrews differ widely amongst scholars.Most scholars these days are of the opinion that the whole of Hebrews 13 is authentic and that it belongs to the rest of the book. 1 Others, however, have noticed a possible supplement (postscript 2 ) at the end of Hebrews -despite the fact that there is no supporting external evidence from our existing pool of manuscripts.The internal evidence regarding differences in tone, character, and more specifically the format of an early Christian letter ending at the end of the document, enhanced this suspicion.It seems odd that Hebrews does not present itself as a letter and completely lacks a letter opening (prescript), 3 yet it contains, what seems to be, a letter closure.This odd situation could either be the result of a lost letter opening, or an added letter ending.It seems easier to argue in favour of a possible addition of the letter ending, rather than to suggest that a potential letter opening got lost during the course of history.Although not impossible, it would be rather difficult to explain why such a letter opening got lost, especially in light of the fact that letter openings usually contain more important information about the author and the addressees, than what the case is regarding the letter closure which usually consists only of greetings and good wishes.Should this have been the case that such a letter opening got lost, then it might have been deliberately1 So, for instance, W.L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (WBC 47B), Dallas 1998, 497.He based his argument on coherency, saying that "… this section transmits an essential message that can scarcely be separated from the concerns and themes of chaps.1-12".Also C.J. Bjerkelund noticed that παρακαλ is used in a distinct epistolary manner without separating these verses from the rest of Hebrews" (Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen, Oslo 1967, 31f.). 2 Übelacker has shown that the personal note appended to the homily reflects the conventions of a postscript (W.G.Übelacker, Der Hebräerbrief als Appell.I. Untersuchungen zu exordium, narratio, und postscriptum (Hebr 1-2 und 13,22-25) [ConBNT 21], Stockholm 1989, 197-223).P. Ellingworth, in turn, reckons that "It is simpler, in the absence of manuscript evidence to the contrary, to consider vv.22-25 as an integral part of Hebrews" (The Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids 1993, 732).3 Ancient authors, such as Lucianus of Samosata in Syria clearly distinguished between the preface as head, the postscript and marginal notes, as well as the body (σ μα) of a work.For examples, see E.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.