THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
Hofmann, that they were Jewish Christians of Antioch and its neighborhood has at least this in its favor, that the appropriateness of what is said in ii. 3, v. 12, vi. 10 may be historically demonstrated (see Acts xi. 19 sqq., xii. 25, xiii. 1). But there is no strong probability for any hypothesis except the one first put forth by Wetstein (in his ed. of the New Testament, ii. 386, Amsterdam, 1752), that the recipients are to be looked for in Italy, and especially in Rome. Theodoret argued from xiii. 24 that the epistle was written in Italy; and while one can not positively assert the contrary from the designation of those who send salutations as " they of Italy," it seems the most natural construction. Instead of sending greetings from all the Christians near him (I Cor. xvi. 20) or from the church of the place where he is (I Pet. v. 13), the writer sends them here only from the Christians born in Italy, because they would have a special interest in the dwellers in that country. Moreover, in xiii. 9 we find mention of an ascetic tendency related to that discussed in Rom. xiv. The dispositions of the Jewish-Christian majority in Rome which are combated in Rom. ix. 1, xi. 12, might have developed into a bitterness which is reproved in Hebrews. The first traces of the influence of the epistle are found in the earliest writings that issued from the Roman Church, admittedly in the epistle of Clement, and probably in the Shepherd of Hermas. The fact that until the middle of the fourth century the epistle did not belong to the New Testament as received in Rome would be explained by its not being addressed to the Church as a whole, but to a section of Roman Christians, a group within the larger body. Those who have the rule over them in their narrower circle (xiii. 17) are not identical with " all them that have the rule over you " in xiii. 24, whom they are to salute, and similarly " all the saints " in that verse are not identical with those to whom the letter is addressed. According to x. 32, they have at some fairly remote period suffered severe trials. The statement that these occurred after they were illuminated would be quite superfluous if the writer had not in mind a contrast with other such trials which they had endured before their conversion. Under Claudius, probably about 52, the Jews were banished from Rome, not without loss of property and other sufferings; under Nero, in 64, the Christians of Rome, for the most part of Jewish birth, suffered much more severely. Like Aquila and Priscilla (Rom. xvi. 3), many more of those who left Rome as Jews under Claudius may have returned as Christians under Nero, or have been converted after their return. In another context they are reminded of the deceased preachers and teachers who have sealed their testimony with their blood — thus especially Peter and Paul (xiii. 7; cf. Clement, I Cor. v.).
From the foregoing it follows that the epistle was not written immediately after 64-67, but probably
in 75 at the earliest. On the other 4. Date, hand, the mention of Timothy, and the
indisputable use made of the epistle by Clement of Rome prevent us from placing the date of its composition as late as the closing years of the first century. About SO is the most probable date.
The grounds adduced for a date earlier than 70 are mainly the same as are used to prove a continuance of the temple worship at that time, and fall with them. From the allegorical employment of Ps. xcv. in iii. 7 sqq. it may be assumed that forty years had elapsed since the earthly ministry of Jesus, and that the threatened judgment had fallen on the impenitent part of the Jewish race.
Even less agreement seems to have been reached
as to the identity of the author than as to the
recipients of the letter. It may be
5. Author- hoped that the notion of Schwegler (in ship. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, ii. 304-
Definite 305, Tubingen, 1846), already amply Data. disproved by Kostlin (in Theohgische Jahrbiicher, 1853, pp. 410-428, 1854, pp. 366-446, 463-483), that the writer wished to be taken for Paul without being Paul, will not again be brought forward. This is deprived of all plausibility by the lack of any initial salutation or self-designation, by the lack of emphasis on the allusions to the writer's personality, and by the evidently earnest purpose of guarding a circle of readers whose internal and external circumstances are clearly marked from the danger of apostasy. Equally untenable is Overbeck's theory that the epistle received its present form in Alexandria about 160-170, the initial salutation with the real writer's name having been dropped and the last four verses added, for the purpose of passing it off as an epistle of Paul, and thus getting it included in the canon (Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp. 1-70, Chemnitz, 1881)). The bold forger whom this theory supposes wouid certainly not have stopped short of adding a salutation containing Paul's name, which alone could have made success certain; and it would be impossible to explain on this hypothesis the fact that those parts of the Church (entirely independent of Alexandria) in which the epistle was not thought canonical should also have lost the original salutation, and should have either considered the authorship an unsolved problem or contented themselves with the decision that it was not Pauline. If the epistle originally stood in its present form it seems to follow that the author was a Christian of Hebrew birth, like the recipients; that he owed his conversion to the immediate disciples of Jesus (ii. 3); that he was in relation with Timothy (xiii. 23); that he was not a member of the community addressed but had spent some time among them (xiii. 14), and could speak to them with the authority of a respected teacher.
The Alexandrian Church considered the epistle to
be Pauline. On this supposition, and without a hint
of any contrary opinion, the prede-
6. Tradi- cessor of Clement tried to explain why tion of Paul here, contrary to his custom, did Pauline not address his readers as an apostle; Author- and Clement himself in like manner,
ship. quoting it as unquestionably Pauline, attempted to explain the absence of the name of Paul. When he speaks of Luke as the translator and points to a similarity of style between it and the Acts, he shows that considerations of literary style had aroused doubts among the Alexandrian scholars as to the Pauline authorship. Yet