Last month I relayed evidence for Luke's knowledge of "to the Hebrews". The Polumeros blog links two 1978 articles as may constrain that: Ceslaus Spicq, and George Wesley Buchanan's evaluation.
Buchanan argues that "Hebrews" has a core, starting chapters 1-12. For him, at least 13:22f was appended in antiquity to give it the appearance of a letter; likewise, its first paratext which would be its title. Whatever ascriptions, to saint Paul or (in Luke's case) to saint Stephen, came later still. Hence why there remains no agreement between Tertullian (mooting Barnabas), Origen (Clement or Luke), and the late-antique guesswork (usually Paul). Spicq for his part mooted Apollos. Buchanan on his face dismisses all Hebrews 13 - which Spicq did not do, quoting even up to 13:22 (for "brothers").
Luke's Stephen story depends on a narrow part of the whole. That part does not include Hebrews 13 (any of it) and also has no knowledge that Stephen has his lore from a letter. If, then, Luke be responsible for any part of the transmission; Luke restricted himself to writing - forging, rather! - that epistolary ending, and maybe its heading too. I'd not put it past Luke, because I think he was a liar; however, we'd have to ask why he would bother, since his followers like Marcion didn't take him up on it.
As you might tell, I split the difference: yes Hebrews-as-homily up to 13:21, no 13:22f. The thirteenth chapter commends obedience to the Christian leaders (not named as bishops, although assuredly they are), not to Roman authority as Luke might commend. This gives Luke something he can use, but not all of it; like Luke had no use for the ending of Paul's manifesto to the Romans, which actually was epistolary. Since Luke has "Hebrews" in its draught-edition, it allows for Luke to be writing fairly early. For me that means Flavians.
No comments:
Post a Comment