Aspirin99

Epistle of Hebrews Gospel Aware?

I’m reading G.A. Well’s book, Can We Trust the New Testament? In it, he makes the case that the Epistle of Hebrews contains more about the life of Jesus than any other NT, non-Gospel writing, yet it is glaringly unaware of the Gospels.

Wells makes the point that when the author of Hebrews wanted to put words into the mouth of Jesus regarding how Jesus would call the audience of the Epistle of Hebrews “brothers,� that the author has Jesus quoting the OT (Psa.22:22; Isa.8:17-18) instead of something from the life of Jesus. I would add –the author of Hebrews could have quoted Jesus from the Gospels Matt.12:46-50 "...For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Wells mentions that when the author of Hebrews wants to make a point about turning your back on God, his example is from the OT where Esau sells his birthright for a single meal and gives up his inheritance forever. Wells asks, “What better example in the life of Jesus than to mention Judas giving up his Apostleship for 30 pieces of silver.� Yet, it goes unmentioned by the author. Therefore, per Wells (with other examples not mentioned), Hebrews is not aware of the Gospels.

I was thinking that Wells has a good point. I decided to read the whole epistle and find more examples. I did. I found in chapter 7, that the death of Christ, he was crowned with glory, but no mention of the crown of thorns. In Heb. 8, like a high priest he enters the sanctuary, yet there is no mention of the rending of the Temple vail at his death, which is often quoted as allegorical proof of Jesus being our high priest mediator.

However, in Heb. 7, the author of Hebrews shows how Jesus is the antitype of Melchizedek. How that Melchizedek’s genealogy was unknown and not Leviticial, yet he was the most powerful high priest in the OT. Similarly, according to Hebrews, Christ’s genealogy could not be traced back to Levi, yet he was the greatest high priest ever.

Here’s my main point. Part of this laborious lineage discussion presented by the author of Hebrews is to assert that the author knew that Jesus was from the line of Judah (Heb.7:14). This is a very detailed piece of information that can be found in the Gospel of Matthew.

From this, I draw a couple of possible conclusions:

1. The author of Hebrews did not have a completed version of Matthew. The genealogy section of Matthew is not from Mark or Q. Could the first couple of chapters of Matthew have been circulated prior to later redactions? Or…
2. The author of Hebrews has the Gospel of Matthew and chooses to minimize its use in favor of OT analogies to impress his targeted audience: traditional Jews.

Thoughts?

Peter Kirby

This is consistent with an assumption that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in the 60s or earlier.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Aspirin99

On the other hand, it also does not prohibit a later date.

Best regards,

Kenny

Peter Kirby

On the first hand, a date in the 60s or earlier for Hebrews strongly predicts that it would not know the Gospels.

Nevertheless, this is certainly not the primary criterion with which I would date Hebrews.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

Perhaps I'm over-analyzing this a bit, but my recent analysis of the genealogy of Matthew supports this. Overall in Matthew we find pro-Gentile references, especially the inclusion of Ruth in the branches. However, Zerubabel is mentioned as an ancestor as well, and that spells particular trouble for foreigners. I think that part of the genealogy of Jesus was already well in circulation before the gospels were written, which is why both Matthew and Luke have Jesus from the line of Judah, and why both Zorobabel and Salathiel are mentioned.

Matthew's Genealogy Analysis here

Aspirin99

Interesting thoughts. I know others have suggested that Matthew took the genealogy from another source. I wonder when it was tagged onto Matthew? Originally or later? If Luke had Matthew, why would he develop such a conflicting genealogy? I have a hard time with the idea that he was using Mary's.

yummyfur

To be honest all that Hebrews says is that the Lord is from the tribe of Judah, no laborious geneologies(for the Lord or anyone) are given anywhere in this section of Hebrews. The point of this section of Hebrews is that the Levitical priesthood is not perfection, or a new priest from the order of Melchizedek , especially outside of descent from Aaron, would not be necessary. The thought that there would be another person that would be a priest from the order of Melchizedek, and also from the tribe of Judah comes from Psalm 110 which Hebrews qoutes in this section "You are a priestforever according to the order of Melchizedek." The point of Hebrews author, is that this psalm proves that the Levitical preisthood is not perfection and that there will be a change in the priesthood again to the order of Mechizedek, outside of Levitical origins, which will last forever.

So there is no connection to the Gospels at all, the source for all of Hebrews arguments and the idea that the Lord would be from the tribe of Judah are from the OT, specifically Psalm 110.

Chris Weimer

Notice that both Matthew and Luke had Jesus from the tribe of Judah. Actually, thinking about it, he was from the tribe of Judah because that was who David was from. But as for the genealogy being "tacked on" to Matthew, it's not so much that he actually took a whole genealogy and merely tacked it on (which he did, 1st Chronicles 1-3), but that certain traditions were present in Matthew, Luke, and Hebrews that gives evidence to what the earliest Christians thought. Another one was Zorobabel and Salathiel (Zerubbabel and Schealtiel), who was the Zerubbabel with Jeshua (Jesus) son of Jozadak who helped build the temple after the return from Babylon. However, he explicitly denied foreign help. This would lead to the assumption that the Earliest Christian Tradition was still wholly Jewish, that the Messiah would "rebuild" the temple and exclude the foreigners, or Gentiles. Matthew and Luke both seem to be largely unaware of this, or at least didn't agree.

Chris Weimer

The connection would be in how they are related, not necessarily that one knew the other.

yummyfur

I was answering the OP, who's point was that chapter 7 of Hebrews, and specifically 7:14 shows that the author of Hebrews had some portion of the Gospel of Mathew. My point was that it does not show this at all, and in fact shows what Well's states, that the source of information is the OT.

I guess if one is just looking for a shared source, it would have to be Psalm 110, though it's quite possible they don't have shared source for making Jesus from Judah. But I don't think that there is any controversy that both Mathew and Hebrews were aware of Psalm 110. Matthew qoutes it in 22:44 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'? So we know he thinks it is a somewhat important psalm, but we don't see that he necessarily interprets it the same way as Hebrews, as he doesn't seem intersted in the order of Melchizedek, which Hebrews is very interested in.