Chris Weimer

And the follow-up to Ted. These are my sentiments exactly.

===========================

EarlDoherty

Wow! Talk about bringing on the big guns! Chris called me on my statement but couldn't back up his challenge on his own (he still refuses to acknowledge that the ball was in his court), so he called in the Big Daddy Howitzer himself.

First of all, Jeffrey is reading a hell of a lot into a short informal comment. I never claimed to go back to 1890! Jeffrey has provided us with a huge list (something he's very good at) of seemingly just about every scholar on record who ever spoke the word “Hebrews” in conversation. And as usual, in his typical bulldozer, take-no-prisoners style, the supposed inaccuracy of that comment indicates not only that I am a faux scholar of worldwide disrepute, completely undependable in everything I say, but that I surely beat my (non-existent) wife as well.

OK, that’s typical and to be expected, and not only from him.

I find it hard to believe that in the short time since Chris made his appeal, that Jeffrey actually was able to survey the texts of all the scholars he lists and verified that in fact they disagree with my statement, or in what manner and to what extent. One he missed, however, does not. And just to show that the idea isn’t so crazy that no one today would be caught dead regarding the final verses as inauthentic, here’s what G. W. Buchanan, discussing 13:22, has to say in the Anchor Bible series (Vol. 36, p. 242):

Buchanan’s view of inauthenticity encompasses more than just the last 4 verses, but the principle is the same. Also, Attridge thinks those verses were added later, presumably because he recognizes that they don’t belong as a natural part of the rest of the document, and that the benediction 13:20-21 would have been the originally intended ending. (The fact that he rather naively suggests that they were added by the original author before sending off the “letter” certainly compromises that sensible presumption.).

Another Jeffrey missed, Jean Hering, also voices the possibility that “the question arises whether the postscript is from another hand” (Hebrews, p.126), but he rather extravagantly suggests that it was Paul who made the postscript “to the writing of his friend and disciple Apollos”!

And Paul Ellingworth at least calls it into question. (I am checking my notes to see if Graham Hughes and Suzanne Lehne have anything to say on the matter; their books are not commentaries, and I don’t have any indexes for them.)

Moffat also has some telling comments, which I will detail below.

I would be thoroughly amazed if every commentator on Chris’s and Jeffrey’s list had no qualms about regarding 13:22-25 as authentic to the original piece of writing. Perhaps I am guilty of giving modern scholars more credit than they deserve. And that goes beyond the major consideration that Jeffrey offers, namely,

Most think that the “postscript” comes from Paul? Jeffrey is right, I was not aware of this, even though I mentioned Hering as one who thinks so, but I hardly thought that a dubious idea like that could be widespread. The scholarly situation is worse than I realized! Let’s look at the available logic of this whole question of who wrote the postscript:

First, the postscript (in my view, that's the 4 verses after the benediction) starts out by saying “I beg you, brothers, bear with this exhortation; for I have written only a few words.” Right off the bat, this hardly rings true. Hebrews is only a little shorter than Romans, and who would call Romans "a few words"? I won’t bother detailing the ‘explanations’ I’ve since noted by some scholars to dismiss this anomaly in order to keep the postscript’s authenticity, rather than seeing it as simply a bit of dull-wittedness on the part of the later editor.

Second, the postscript mentions Timothy. This hardly refers to any other than the Pauline Timothy. Assuming that by now we ought to reject a priori any authorship by Paul himself, are we to believe that the writer of Hebrews knew this Timothy? That, and if Paul wrote the postscript for him, would mean that he moved in Pauline circles (which is undeniably the intended implication of everything in the postscript). Pauline circles believed, more or less, as Paul did. But there is nothing identifiably Pauline in the principal strands of the Hebrews thought-world (I am not talking about incidental notes, like using the phrase “sons of Abraham”). It in no way reflects the kind of soteriological system put forward by Paul, let alone his mode of expression—and vice-versa. (I have yet to see any commentator draw a decent parallel between the two; I can’t even recall anyone attempting to do so.) This in itself casts strong doubt that the postscript can be the product of the author, or of anyone closely associated with the author. If all critical scholars today reject Hebrews as authored by Paul, we must, by corollary, reject it as authored by anyone in the Pauline circle. Therefore, the postscript cannot be the product of the original author, or of someone associated with him in the Pauline circle, let alone Paul himself standing over the author's shoulder and dictating the postscript as an afterthought. (I guess I have to beg forgiveness for assuming that modern scholarship would be capable of such basic logic.)

Third, the language and style of the postscript strongly suggests that whoever wrote it is attempting to associate the document with Paul or the Pauline circle—quite probably the former, since “our brother Timothy” echoes the way Paul speaks of Timothy in his letters (2 Cor. 1:1, Phil. 1). Moreover, it speaks of the newly-released Timothy as being with the speaker when he next sees the readers. This is clearly meant to suggest an association with Paul, who historically (we presume) was known to have been accompanied by Timothy in his missionary journeys. And Timothy may further have been chosen because of the pseudonymous letters to him, indicating to the postscript author that Timothy and Paul were closely associated and this would serve his purpose of insinuating Pauline authorship of the document. If so, the fact that the Pastorals are 2nd century products might suggest that the postscript comes from that period, too.

Fourth, we have a postscript but no superscript. (Wilson [p.17] makes a good case for rejecting the idea that there originally was one but it was deleted or lost.) If it was natural for the original author (or his secretary or some other associate) to add the typical epistolary ending, why not the typical epistolary opening? Especially if done at the time it was originally sent, when (to judge by the care taken in the writing of the document as a whole) sloppiness or oversight would hardly be likely. It is the later postscript author who would be more likely to overlook putting on a salutation, or choose for some reason pertinent to a later time not to do so.

Fifth, Moffat, whom I highly respect (more than most of those today) for his always sensible and clear-eyed approach to the text, was quite honest in saying that attempts even in his day to identify the author of Hebrews as among the characters mentioned in the New Testament, were “in the main due to an irrepressible desire to construct NT romances” (ICC, Epistle to the Hebrews, p.xx). He concluded with admirable clarity of mind that “the author of (To the Hebrews) cannot be identified with any figure known to us in the primitive Christian tradition. He left great prose to some little clan of early Christians, but who they were and who he was (God alone only knows). To us he is a voice and no more. The theory which alone explains the conflicting traditions is that for a time the writing was circulated as an anonymous tract.” If this conclusion, based on the text itself, is indeed true, it is hardly likely that it could have done so with the postscript present. With a postscript like that from the beginning, there would have been no doubt in anyone’s mind that it was the product of Paul, and the idea of anonymity would never have arisen. Moffat points to the fact that Hebrews continued to be ignored by “some Western churchmen (who) still clung for a while to the old tradition of its anonymity.” Even if this were true even after the postscript was added, it only shows that in ancient times there were many who could still doubt the authenticity of the postscript—in rather stark contrast to modern scholars who, so Jeffrey maintains, almost universally do not doubt that authenticity in one way or another.

Sixth, some commentators find no difficulty in going so far as to suggest that the “letter” was being sent off to some distant community to which the writer does not belong. The postscript itself, as noted, paints the picture of an author who is a traveling apostle. It also says, “Greet all your leaders,” as though their leaders are not the writer’s leaders, let alone that he is one of them. Yet this cannot be aligned with the tone and content of the rest of the document, which very much conveys the impression that the author is part of the community he is addressing, that he has much contact and discussion with them: for example, 10:24-25, which says: “Let us spur one another on to love and good deeds, not give up meeting together, as is the habit of some…” Clearly he is not some outsider, let alone a roving apostle who infrequently visits and who has ties with all sorts of other communities—in contradiction to the clear implication of the postscript. (Another example of the sloppiness of the postscript writer, who wasn’t perceptive enough to realize that his added verses could not be aligned with the content of the document itself.) Therefore, logic dictates that the author of the postscript cannot be the author or associate of the author of the epistle proper. Furthermore, preaching ties to other communities on the part of the one on view in the postscript would surely have led to comparisons by the author between the community he is addressing, its sufferings and its perils of apostasy, with those of other communities. (Again, woe is me for thinking that modern scholars would be capable of this sort of logical analysis.)

Seventh, if the writer were an outsider, a traveling apostle or someone associated with the Pauline circle (which is what the postscript conveys), the identification of “the religion we profess” as one in which the High Priest Jesus performs a sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary (see, e.g., 4:14) would mean that such a faith was something held and being preached to other communities as well. But no such christological system as is put forward in Hebrews is to be found anywhere else, in any other document, let alone in anything produced by Paul or the Pauline circle. Ergo, the postscript, being blatantly ‘Pauline,’ is thoroughly at odds with the content of the document, and thus cannot have been written (a) by the original writer, or (b) by anyone associated with him or his community. (Give me 20 lashes for presuming that today’s critical scholarship could possibly have overlooked this kind of deductive logic.)

Eighth, if the postscript cannot be associated with the writer or his community, then the next logical Sitz im Leben for the addition of it would almost certainly be the attempt to bring this lonely-child piece of writing into the fold and making it part of the Pauline corpus. Such a time is to be located in the 2nd century, at the time when the Roman Church was assembling documents from all and sundry and attempting to cast them into a picture of a unified movement, just as Acts, written at that time, was also designed to do. The final trick, verse 24’s “The ones from Italy send you their greeting,” is just a little too obvious, meant to explain how the Roman Church got this letter—it was sent to them! (Clearly, the only recourse left to me is to withdraw into a monastery for assuming that a lowly and disreputable amateur like myself would surely not be the only one see all this logic in regard to the final verses of the epistle.)

But apparently I am, or nearly so. If the majority of all the commentators Weimer and Gibson list do not see the postscript as a necessary, and probably considerably later, addendum to the main document (regardless of where they choose to draw the dividing line), then I have indeed been guilty of a groundless hyperbole (sorry, Ted, but I appreciate it anyway), basing my claim on only a few clearer-eyed scholars--and, I see on rechecking, misinterpreting another’s comments on the topic--but also on my presumption that intelligent, critical (and surely unbiased) “historians” would never miss what was logically obvious to my hopefully rational mind. The fact that I threw this ‘claim’ out in a rather alacritous, informal and tangential comment about the completely unknown author of the document (disingenuous scholarly guesses based entirely on the tunnel-vision concept that everything had to be the product of somebody known in the orthodox picture of a single Christian movement was the actual target of my posting) is, of course, no excuse whatever. Nor is the fact that I had not yet reached those final verses in my present analysis of the document (see below) and was yet to check all the views on them in the eight or so works I currently have on hand in doing that analysis any excuse for jumping the gun. (Well, maybe a little.)

But now, Chris and Jeffrey, having caught me out in such a thing, I’m sure you do not want to rest on your laurels. In about a week or so, I will be posting on my website (and perhaps will offer some excerpts here) a new and very thorough analysis of the whole Hebrews document, involving much more significant points than whether a majority of today’s scholars consider the ‘postscript’ authentic or not. I address the views of several prominent commentators (which I have no doubt totally misjudged and misunderstood). Considering that I have proven myself to be a thorough-going dunce and charlatan (one of your favorite appellatives, Jeffrey), and thus an easy pushover, you will no doubt be eager to engage me in that study of Hebrews. (And maybe Chris will actually contribute some ideas of his own.) I’ll invite Ben and TedM to do so as well. In my typical ‘hyperbolic’ fashion, I have referred to Hebrews as “The Cornerstone of the Mythicist Case,” and no doubt you will be keen to discredit my analysis on that basis. By the way, this study also serves as a response to Christopher Price’s critique of my earlier views on Hebrews, which he posted on Bede’s site in 2003, and which regrettably I did not get around to answering earlier. I note that Layman put in a brief appearance on a thread here recently (until it became too hot for him), so perhaps he would like to weigh in on this new study of Hebrews as well, and demonstrate where I am still out to lunch.

However, if you are going to challenge me, I do expect you to read the whole thing. You might find it an eye-opening experience.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Oops, I just realized I should have called 13:20-21 a "benediction" instead of a "doxology". Got to be careful about those little mental slips, especially with Jeffrey on the prowl.

(They have now been changed.)

Earl Doherty

Ted Hoffman

What we learn from this little fiasco is that Chris had no idea what he was talking about, so he asked Gibson, his rapid-response one-man team, for assistance.
Jeff had no idea either so he pulled out commentaries and listed all the dead and alive scholars who he could find in his "survey". Note that he only presents a list. He does not indicate what the scholars actually say. For example, what exactly does A.M. Wedderburn (2004) write about the subject?
He does not tell us. He expects us to take his word for it and believe that since he can give a long list, he knows what he is talking about.

What Gibson should do, instead of this hurried hack-job, is cite what each of those scholars states. Pulling a list from a commentary or any other source is a thoughtless task that can be done by anybody in a reclining position. It does not clarify anything.

Chris Weimer

Fiasco? More than one person asked Earl to back up his claim that a consensus existed, and Earl pulls the creationist tactic and tries to say that the burden of proof does not lie on the one making the claim. The burden of proof did not lie with me. It's dishonest to make it seem so.

We also see Earl with his usual strawman and inability to cope with others' arguments.

Neither Jeffrey nor I said that the minority position is "crazy". Simcox himself is a respected Classicist.

At least he has admitted it is not the mainstream position, even though his custos fidus still tries to defend the sunken ship.

EarlDoherty

I agree. The burden of proof did lie with me. But Chris is confusing that with the 'burden of the challenge', which comes first. He essentially said, "You're wrong, other scholars show that." But instead of supplying the demonstration of what those other scholars said which would back up his claim of what they "show"--and which it was perfectly reasonable for me to ask for, and why the ball was in his court--he demanded that I instead quote from every scholar he listed to show that his claim was wrong. As I said, this was not only shirking his responsibility, it was asking me to do all the work. (And it probably showed that he in fact did not know what those other scholars were actually saying--he had to go to Gibson to find out. Of course, even Jeffrey to some extent pulled the same stunt.)

Chris doesn't seem to be able to understand this. Anyway, that is tangential to the issue and I will not waste any further time discussing it.

Chris latches on to a single word ("crazy") used in ironic tone and fashions out of this a "strawman" and claims that this demonstrates an "inability to cope with others' arguments". How so? Does he call providing a lengthy discussion of eight "points of logic" on the central question of who wrote the postscript--which is what those "others' arguments" are all about--in which I demonstrate the insupportability of the "mainstream position" an inability to cope?

Rather, the "inability to cope" lies on his side, in failing to offer a single glance in the direction of those eight points of logic, let alone anything to rebut them.

Chris, as always, demonstrates his woefully amateur character, and the fact that he is out of his depth on this board. I do not put much hope in his ability to offer anything in the way of substantive response to my upcoming Hebrews study.

Earl Doherty

Chris Weimer

Not true, Earl. I asked which scholars backed up your positions. I offered various scholars to see if any ring a bell.

That is your inability to cope with others' arguments.

I'll be looking forward to your "Hebrews study", just like the rest of the scholarly community.

Cheers.

Ben C Smith

What Chris wrote:

Ben.

Chris Weimer

From Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

He tells us enough about Wedderburn to let us know that Wedderburn sided against authenticity:

I think he expects us to check his sources. That is one reason to give a bibliographic list.

Ben.