Conceptual Background
The question of the conceptual background of Hebrews concerns the identification of the cultural and intellectual milieu from which the ideas and themes of the discourse derive. The positing of a particular conceptual background is intended to clarify the distinctive features of the document. During the past century Hebrews has been identified with a variety of widely differing backgrounds. For the sake of clarity and convenience of reference, it will be useful to present the relevant bibliography under headings that identify the dominant influences that have been detected in Hebrews. It will also be practical to differentiate between proposals that locate the conceptual background in a non-Christian setting and those that have tended to identify Hebrews with the mainstream of the Christian tradition or with a particular school of thought within early Christianity. The works listed under each heading include both proponents of a proposal and those who have been critical of the proposal. In the preparation of this commentary, I have enjoyed access to the investigation of the several proposals for the conceptual background of Hebrews completed in 1981 by L. D. Hurst (“The Background and Introduction of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Dissertation, Oxford University, now published as The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, SNTSMS 65 [Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990]; references are made to Hurst’s dissertation, since I had access to his work only in this form).

Proposals of Non-Christian Backgrounds
Bibliography

Philo, Alexandria, and Platonism
Bietenhard, H. Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum. WUNT 2. Tübingen: Mohr, 1951. Braun, H. “Das himmlische Vaterland bei Philo und im Hebräerbrief.” In Verborum Veritas. FS G. Stälin. ed. O. Böcher & K. Haacker. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970. 319–27. Burtness, J. H. “Plato, Philo and the author of Hebrews.” LQ 10 (1958) 54–64. Cabantous, J. Philon et l’Épître aux Hébreux ou Essai sur les Rapports del la Christologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux avec la Philosophie Judéo-Alexandrine. Montauban: Granié, 1895. Cambier, J. “Eschatologie ou héllenisme dans l’épître aux Hébreux: Une étude sur μ�*νειν et l’exhortation finale de l’épître.” Sal 11 (1949) 62–96. Carlston, C. “The Vocabulary of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews.” In Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology. FS G. E. Ladd. ed. R. A. Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. 133–60. Cody, A. Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspective. St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960. Dey, L. K. K. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBLDS 25. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975. Dibelius, M. “Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief.” TBl 21 (1942) 1–11. Eagar, A. R. “Hellenistic Elements in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Her 11 (1901) 263–87.Fairhurst, A. M. “Hellenistic Influence in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” TynBul 7–8 (1961) 17–27. Gamble, J. “Symbol and Reality in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 45 (1926) 162–70. Gilbert, G. H. “The Greek Element in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” AJT 14 (1910) 521–32. Hanson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event. London: SCM, 1959. Héring, J. “Eschatologie biblique et idéalisme platonicien.” In The Background to the New Testament and Its Eschatology. ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1954. 444–63. Hurst, L. D. “The Background and Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, University of Oxford, 1981. 5–68 (now published as The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, SNTSMS 65 [Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990]). ———. “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” SBLASP (1984) 41–74. Luck, U. “Himmlisches und irdisches Geschehen im Hebräerbrief: Ein Beitrag zum Problem des ‘historischer Jesus’ im Urchristentum.” NovT 6 (1963) 192–215. Maar, O. “Philo und Hebräerbrief.” Dissertation, University of Vienna, 1964. Ménégoz, E. La théologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux. Paris: Fischbacher, 1894. Nash, R. H. “The Notion of Mediator in Alexandrian Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” WTJ 40 (1977) 89–115. Nikiprowetsky, V. “La spiritualisation des sacrifices et le cult sacrificial au temple de Jérusalem chez Philon d’Alexandrie.” Sem. 17 (1967) 98–114. Nomoto, S. “Die Hohenpriester-Typologie im Hebräerbrief: Ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und ihr religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund.” Dissertation, University of Hamburg, 1965. Schmitz, O. Die Opferanschauung des späteren Judentums und die Opferaussagungen des Neuen Testaments: Eine Untersuchung ihres geschichtlichen Verhältnisses. Tübingen: Mohr, 1910. Sowers, S. G. The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Richmond: Knox, 1965. Spicq, C.“Alexandrinismes dans l’Épître auxHébreux.” RB 58 (1951) 481–502. ———. “Le Philonisme de l’Épître aux Hébreux.” RB 56 (1949) 542–72; 57 (1950) 212–42. Staples, A. F. “The Book of Hebrews in Its Relationship to the Writings of Philo Judaeus.” Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1951. Thurston, R. W. “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” EvQ 58 (1986) 133–43. Wenschkewitz, H. “Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament.” Angelos 4 (1932) 70–230. Wette, W. M. L. de. “Über die symbolisch-typische Lehrart des Briefes an die Hebräer.” TZ 3 (1822) 1–51. Wikgren, A. “Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” NTS 6 (1959–60) 159–67. Williamson, R. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. ALGHJ 4. Leiden: Brill, 1970. ———. “Philo and New Testament Christology.” ExpTim 90 (1980) 361–65. ———. “Platonism and Hebrews.” SJT 16 (1963) 415–24.

Qumran
Batdorf, I. W. “Hebrews and Qumran: Old Methods and New Directions.” In FS F. W. Gingrich. ed. E. H. Barth and R. E. Cocroft. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 16–35. Betz, O. “The Eschatological Interpretation of the Sinai-Tradition in Qumran and in the NT.” RevQ 6 (1967) 89–108. Braun, H. “Qumran und das Neue Testament: Ein Bericht über 10 Jahr Forschung (1950–59): Hebräer.” TRu 30 (1964) 1–38. Bruce, F. F. “ ‘To the Hebrews’ or ‘To the Essenes’?” NTS 9 (1963) 217–32. Buchanan, G. W. “The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews.” In Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. FS M. Smith. ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1975. 1:299–330. Carmignac, J. “Le document de Qumran sur Melkisédeq.” RevQ 27 (1970) 348–78. Coppens, J. “Les Affinitiés Qumraêniennes de l’Épître aux Hébreux.” NRT 84 (1962) 128–41, 257–82. Delcor, M. “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” JSJ 2 (1971) 115–35. Fensham, F. C. “Hebrews and Qumran.” Neot 5 (1971) 9–21. Fitzmyer, J. A. “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11.” JBL 86 (1967) 25–41. ———. “Now this Melchizedek … (Heb. 7:1).” CBQ 25 (1963) 305–21. Gemés, I. “Alianca no Documento de Damasco e na Ep�*stola aos Hebreus. Una contribuicão a questão: Qumran e as origens do Christianismo.” RCB 6 (1969) 28–68. Gnilka, J. “Der Erwartung des messianisches Hohenpriesters in den Schriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament.” RevQ 2 (1960) 395–426. Grothe, J. F. “Was Jesus the Priestly Messiah? A Study of the New Testament’s Teaching of Jesus’ Priestly Office against the Background of Jewish Hopes for a Priestly Messiah.” Dissertation, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1981. Higgins, A. J. B. “The Priestly Messiah.” NTS 13 (1967) 211–39. Hurst, L. D. “The Background and Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, University of Oxford, 1981. 69–114 (see under “Philo, Alexandria, and Platonism” above). Jonge, M. de, and Woude, A. S. van der. “2Q Melchizedek and the New Testament.” NTS 12 (1965–66) 301–26. Kosmala, H. Hebräer, Essener, Christen: Studien zur Vorgeschichte der frühchristlichen Verkündigung. SPB 1. Leiden: Brill, 1959. LaSor, W. S. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Qumran Writings.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. 179–90. Spicq, C. “L’Épître aux Hébreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumran.” RevQ 1 (1958–59) 365–90. Woude, A. S. van der. “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundeneschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI.” OTS 14 (1965) 354–73. Yadin, Y. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” ScrHier 4 (1958) 36–55.

Apocalyptic Judaism
Barrett, C. K. “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1954. 363–93. Hofius, O. Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief. WUNT 11. Tübingen: Mohr, 1970. Lueken, W. Michael: Eine Darstellung und Vergleichung der jüdischen und der morgenländisch-christlichen Tradition vom Erzengel Michael. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898. MacRae, G. W. “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews.” Semeia 12 (1978) 179–99. McNicol, A. J. “The Relationship of the Image of the Highest Angel to the High Priest Concept in Hebrews.” Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1974. McRay, J. “Atonement and Apocalyptic in the Book of Hebrews.” ResQ 23 (1980) 1–9. Schmidgall, P. “The Influence of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature on the Book of Hebrews.” Dissertation, Western Kentucky University, 1980. Zorn, R. “Die Fürbitte und Interzession im Spätjudentum und im Neuen Testament.” Dissertation, University of Göttingen, 1957.

Merkabah Mysticism
Hurst, L. D. “The Background and Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, University of Oxford, 1981. 133–39 (see under “Philo, Alexandria, and Platonism” above). Hofius, O. Der Christushymnus Philipper 2.6–11. Tübingen: Mohr, 1976. 87–88. ———. Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6, 19f. und 10, 19f. WUNT 14. Tübingen: Mohr, 1972. Schenke, H.-M. “Erwägung zum Rätsel des Hebräerbriefes.” In Neues Testament und christliche Existenz. FS H. Braun. ed. H. D. Betz & L. Schrottroff. Tübingen: Mohr, 1973. 421–37. Scholem, G. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: KTAV, 1954. Williamson, R. “The Background to the Epistle to the Hebrews.” ExpTim 87 (1975–76) 232–37.

The Samaritans
Bowman, J. “Early Samaritan Eschatology.” JJS 6 (1955) 63–72. Cullmann, O. “Samaria and the Origins of the Christian Mission.” In The Early Church. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956. Hurst, L. D. “The Background and Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, University of Oxford, 1981. 125–32 (see under “Philo, Alexandria, and Platonism” above). Knox, E. A. “The Samaritans and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” TCh 22 (1927) 184–93. MacDonald, J. “The Samaritan Doctrine of Moses.” SJT 13 (1960) 149–62. Plummer, R. “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament.” NTS 22 (1976) 441–43. Scobie, C. H. H. “The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity.” NTS 19 (1972–73) 390–414.

Pre-Christian Gnosticism
Bornkamm, G. “Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief.” TBl 21 (1942) 56–66. Colpe, C. “New Testament and Gnostic Christology.” In Religions in Antiquity. FS E. R. Goodenough. ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968. 227–43. Eccles, R. S. “Hellenistic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, Yale University, 1952. ———. “The Purpose of Hellenistic Patterns in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In Religions in Antiquity. FS E. R. Goodenough. ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968. 207–26. Friedländer, M. “La sect de Melchisédech et l’Épître aux Hébreux.” RÉJ 5 (1882) 1–26, 188–98; 6 (1883) 187–99. Giversen, S. “Evangelium Veritatis and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” ST 13 (1959) 87–96. Grässer, E. “Das wandernde Gottesvolk zum Basismotiv des Hebräerbriefes.” ZNW 77 (1986) 160–79. ———. Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief. Marburg: Elwert, 1965. ———. “Zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Herbert Braun.” In Neues Testament und christliche Existenz. FS H. Braun. ed. H. D. Betz & L. Schrottroff. Tübingen: Mohr, 1973. Hurst, L. D. “The Background and Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, University of Oxford, 1981. 116–25 (see under “Philo, Alexandria, and Platonism” above). Käsemann, E. Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief4 . FRLANT 55. 1939. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961 [ET: The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews. tr. R. A. Harrisville and I. L. Sandberg. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984]. Koester, W. “Platonische Ideenwelt und Gnosis im Hebräerbrief.” Schol 4 (1956) 545–55. Maxwell, K. L. “Doctrine and Parenesis in the Epistle to the Hebrews, with Special Reference to Pre-Christian Gnosticism.” Dissertation, Yale University, 1952. Pearson, B. A. “The Figure of Melchizedek in the First Tractate of the Unpublished Coptic-Gnostic Codex IX from Nag Hammadi.” In Proceedings from the XIIth International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions. ed. C. J. Bleeker, G. Widengren, and E. J. Sharpe. Leiden: Brill, 1975. 200–208. Theissen, G. Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief. SNT 2. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969. Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. CBQMS 13. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. ———. “The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews VII.” NovT 19 (1977) 209–23. ———. “Heb. 9 and Hellenistic Concepts of Sacrifice.” JBL 98 (1979) 567–78. ———. “‘That Which Abides’: Some Metaphysical Assumptions in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1974. ———. “That Which Cannot Be Shaken: Some MetaphysicalAssumptions in Heb. 12:27.” JBL 94 (1975) 580–87. Waal, C. van der. “The ‘People of God’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Neot 5 (1971) 83–92. Wilson, R. McL. Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968.

Mystery Religions
Riggenbach, E. “Der Begriff der ΤΕΛΕΙΩΣΙΣ im Hebräerbrief: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Einwirkung der Mysterienreligion auf Sprache und Gedankenwelt des Neuen Testaments.” NKZ 34 (1923) 184–95.

Once the Pauline authorship of Hebrews was considered indefensible, it was necessary to inquire concerning the conceptual background that made Hebrews intelligible. The dominant proposal during the first half of the twentieth century was that Hebrews is clarified when read against the background of Philo, Alexandria, and Platonism. When C. Spicq lent the weight of his erudition to this proposal (RB 56 [1949] 542–72; 57 [1950] 212–42; RB 58 [1951] 481–502) and demonstrated its cogency in his massive two-volume commentary on Hebrews, it attained the status of a critical consensus. Some form of affinity with Alexandria, Platonism, and Philo provided the explanation for the distinctive features of Hebrews. (For a helpful summary of the arguments mounted in support of Philonic influence on Hebrews, see Hurst, “Background,” 6–14.)

Two quite independent developments dismantled the consensus. First, the publication of the sectarian Jewish documents from Qumran was greeted with enthusiasm and diverted the attention of the academic community away from the dominant proposal in an insatiable quest to find a new key for unlocking old riddles. Even C. Spicq was sufficiently impressed by the new evidence to modify his own proposal that Hebrews was the work of a Philonist who had been converted to Christianity. He now argued that the author was Apollos, whose background in Alexandria clarified the contacts with Philo he had early demonstrated. But he was writing to a group of Jewish priests who had enjoyed contact with Qumran and who had recently fled from Jerusalem to Antioch (RevQ 1 [1958–59] 365–90).

The second development would prove to be more devastating. C. Spicq’s arguments in support of Philonic influence on Hebrews began to be sifted by R. P. C. Hanson (Allegory, 83–86) and F. Schröger (Verfasser, 301–7). They showed that the purported similarities between Philo and Hebrews could be satisfactorily explained by reference to other forms of Judaism unrelated to Philo. The sharpest blow was delivered by R. Williamson in a meticulous study of the evidence that had appeared to be impeccable when presented by Spicq (Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews [1970]). Williamson demonstrated that Spicq’s research was flawed and that he had overstated his case. He concluded that the differences between Philo and the writer of Hebrews were so striking and fundamental, both in outlook and exegetical method, as to demonstrate that the two writers “belonged … to two entirely different schools of O.T. exegesis” (PhiloAbr, 576–79; for a review of the case against Philonic influence on Hebrews, see Hurst, “Background,” 14–22).

Williamson’s argument has now been strengthened by L. D. Hurst’s extensive analysis of terms not treated by Williamson and by his fresh investigation of Jewish apocalyptic as the proper background against which to read elements in Hebrews that previously had been judged to be Platonic (“Background,” 22–68). Hurst concludes that Philo and the writer of Hebrews shared a common conceptual background rooted in the Old Greek version of the Bible. Philo chose to develop certain OT themes Platonically. The writer of Hebrews, under the influences of Jewish apocalyptic and primitive Christian tradition, chose to develop them eschatologically. This conclusion is supported by the research underlying the present commentary (see Comment on 1:1–2α; 2:5; 6:5; 8:5; 9:8, 11, 23–24; 10:20; 11:10, 16; 12:22, 26–28; 13:14).

The publication of the scrolls from Qumran brought to light an expression of sectarian Judaism that has been identified with the Essenes. The first serious attempt to propose Qumran as the conceptual background of the intended audience in Hebrews, which clarifies distinctive features of the argument of Hebrews, was published in 1955 by Y. Yadin (ScrHier 4 [1958] 36–55). He suggested that those addressed in Hebrews had formerly been members of the Qumran community and that they continued to hold some of their prior beliefs (38). In support of this proposal, Yadin identified several points of contact between the argument in Hebrews and the sectarian beliefs at Qumran. Yadin’s proposal was quickly followed by others who found in Qumran the conceptual basis for regarding believers as the community of the new covenant, for the conception of Jesus as a priestly Messiah, and for the distinctive interest in the person of Melchizedek in Hebrews. This construction of the conceptual background is the basis for the commentaries of G. W. Buchanan and P. E. Hughes. Hughes referred to Yadin’s article as “the best theory yet advanced to explain the occasion and purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews” (14).

Little consideration seemed to have been given to the striking linguistic and conceptual differences between the scrolls and Hebrews. The scrolls from Qumran were written in Hebrew and Aramaic and are Semitic in conception; Hebrews is written in exceptional Greek and is hellenistic Jewish in conception. Detailed consideration of the arguments offered by Yadin and others in support of their proposal have shown them to be capable of other, more plausible explanations (cf. F. F. Bruce, NTS 9 [1963] 217–32; Coppens, NRT 84 [1962] 128–41, 257–82; Hurst, “Background,” 72–114). Moreover, the differences in the OT text to which an appeal is made and to the conception of the role of Melchizedek in 11QMelch and Hebrews are so fundamental as to preclude any influence of 11QMelch upon the argument developed in Hebrews (see Comment on Heb 7:1–25). There is no sound basis for affirming that Qumran provides the conceptual background for Hebrews. Similarities because of traditional exegesis of the OT are insufficient to offset the striking differences between Qumran and Hebrews.

The proposal that the conceptual background for Hebrews may be found in Jewish Merkabah mysticism was advanced in 1973 by H.-M. Schenke (“Erwägung zum Rätsel des Hebräerbriefes,” 433–34). Jewish mysticism in this tradition displays a fascination with God’s throne as the focus for emphasizing God’s majesty, holiness, and transcendent glory. Hebrews, with its interest in the heavenly cultus, seemed to reflect these vital interests (e.g., Heb 1:3, 6; 2:10; 4:16; 8:1; 12:2, 10, 14). This suggestion was taken up and developed by R. Williamson in 1976 (ExpTim 87 [1975–76] 232–37). He marshalled ten arguments in support of this proposal and appealed to their cumulative weight. He recognized that the evidence to which he had to appeal for the reconstruction of Merkabah mysticism was late and openly acknowledged that the similarities he had shown between this form of piety and Hebrews could be explained on the basis of a common indebtedness to the OT.

An objection that tends to vitiate Williamson’s proposal is the absence in Hebrews of any appeal to those passages in the OT that became central in later Merkabah mysticism (e.g., Dan 7; Isa 6; Ps 97; Ezek 1). In his own evaluation of the proposal, Hurst demonstrated that the purported parallels to which Williamson appealed were susceptible of other explanations and that the influences could have entered Hebrews from other expressions of Judaism, or even from Christian tradition reflected elsewhere in the NT (“Background,” 136–37). Many of these parallels have their source in the Psalms and in apocalyptic Judaism.

More influential has been E. Käsemann’s proposal that the conceptual background for Hebrews should be located in pre-Christian Gnosticism (Das wandernde Gottesvolk [ET: The Wandering People of God]). Käsemann detected behind Hebrews the gnostic motif of the heavenly pilgrimage of the self from the enslaving world of matter to the heavenly realm of the spirit. He provided a thorough exposition of Hebrews against this background and identified the motif of pilgrimage as central to the development of Hebrews. (For a review of his argument and evaluation, see Hurst, “Background,” 116–25.) Käsemann’s proposal has been supported and developed in the important work of E. Grässer (see especially his monograph Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief, and now An die Hebräer: 1. Teilband: Hebr 1–6, EKKNT 17/1 [Zürich: Benziger, 1990]), G. Theissen Untersuchungen zur Hebräerbrief), and J. W. Thompson, who finds evidence for a gnostic-Platonic background for Hebrews (see especially The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy).

Despite the strength of the support for this proposal in the academic community, it is hampered by a number of crippling objections. Chief among them are the following. The sources to which Käsemann appealed (Mandaean, Manichaean, Rabbinic, Hermetic, the Acts of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, 3 Enoch, the Odes of Solomon) are late; it cannot be demonstrated that they reflect traditions that antedate Hebrews. Moreover, there is no documentary support for the existence in the first century of a myth of the redeemed redeemer, who descends from heaven to lead those enslaved in the material realm on pilgrimage to the heavenly realm of light (see especially Colpe, “New Testament and Gnostic Christology,” 227–43). The gratuitous assertion that Melchizedek was considered an incarnation of the primal Man in Jewish sources is without support. Finally, the existence of any first-century Gnosticism, or proto-Gnosticism, that could have supplied the conceptual background for Hebrews has not been established.

The components of the conceptual background that illumines Hebrews from a non-Christian background consist of influences from the interpretation of the OT in Greek, the traditions of hellenistic Judaism (which is not to say Philonic or Platonic), and of apocalyptic Judaism. It is obvious that all of these components could have been filtered through the mainstream of early Christianity to which the writer of Hebrews was exposed at the formative period in his experience as a Christian.

Proposals of Christian Backgrounds
Bibliography

Primitive Christian Tradition
Barrett, C. K. “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1954. 363–93. Dukes, J. G. “Eschatology in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1956. Feuillet, A. “Les points de vue nouveaux dans l’eschatologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux.” SE 2 (1964) 369–87. Gordon, V. R. “Studies in the Covenantal Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews in Light of Its Setting.” Disseration, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1979. Klappert, B. Die Eschatologie des Hebräerbriefs. Munich: Kaiser, 1969. Peterson, D. G. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews.” SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. Silva, M. “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews.” WTJ 39 (1976) 60–71. Terra, J. E. M. “A Libertação Eschatológica na Ep�*stola aos Hebreus: O Povo de Deus a Caminho do Santúario.” RCB 2 (1978) 325–43.

Paul
Anderson, C. P. “Hebrews among the Letters of Paul.” SR 5 (1975–76) 258–66. ———. “The Setting of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, Columbia University, 1969. Badcock, F. J. The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical Setting. London: SPCK, 1937. Burch, V. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Sources and Message. London: William & Norgate, 1936. Hurst, L. D. “The Background and Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, University of Oxford, 1981. 175–236 (now published as The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, SNTSMS 65 [Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990]). Schröger, F. “Der Hebräerbrief—paulinisch?” In Kontinuität und Einheit. FS F. Mussner. ed. P. G. Müller & W. Stenger. Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1981. 211–22. Taylor, C. D. “A Comparative Study of the Concepts of Worship in Colossians and Hebrews.” Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957. Vanhoye, A. “L’Épître aux Ephésiens et l’Épître aux Hébreux.” Bib 59 (1978) 198–230.

John
Cothenet, E., LeFort, P., Prigent, P., and Dussaut, L. Les écrits de Saint Jean et l’Épître aux Hébreux. Paris: Desclée, 1984. Henderson, M. W. “The Priestly Ministry of Jesus in the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1965. Hickling, C. J. A. “John and Hebrews: The Background of Hebrews 2:10–18.” NTS 29 (1983) 112–16. Spicq, C. “L’Origine johannique de la conception du Christ-prêtre dans l’Épître aux Hébreux.” In Aux Sources de la Tradition Chrétienne. FS M. Goguel. Neuchâtel/Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1956. 258–69.

Other Influences
Ferris, T. E. S. “A Comparison of I Peter and Hebrews.” CQR 3 (1930–31) 123–27. Graham, A. A. K. “Mark and Hebrews.” SE 4 (1968) 411–16. Jones, C. P. M. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Lucan Writings.” In Studies in the Gospels. FS R. H. Lightfoot. ed. D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1957. 113–43.

Among the primary influences to which the writer was exposed as a Christian was the eschatological perspective of the early Christian movement. He shares with primitive Christianity the understanding that the ministry of Jesus introduced the final phase of history (Heb 1:2a). That insight had been validated by the experience of the powers of the age to come breaking into the structures of the present age (see Comment on 2:3–4; 6:5). The writer was convinced that the next event on God’s agenda was the consummation, when Jesus would appear to bring the realization of salvation to all who were waiting for him (see Comment on 9:28; cf. 10:25, 35–39). He shared with others in the early Church in an earnest expectation of the apocalyptic manifestation of the city God has prepared for his people (11:10, 16; 12:22–24; 13:14). The conceptual background of Hebrews is richly informed by primitive Christian eschatology and by the perspectives of Jewish apocalyptic.

A second primary influence upon the writer is the tradition associated with Stephen and the early Christian Hellenists (see below, “Hebrews and the Theology of the Hellenistic Church,” with bibliography). In his own assessment of this influence upon the conceptual background of Hebrews, L. D. Hurst has strengthened the case for Christian Hellenism as a formative influence upon the writer of Hebrews (“Background,” 140–74).

A third influence may have been exerted through the writer’s association with Paul or with one or more of his associates. The reference to Timothy in Heb 13:23 lends plausibility to the suggestion that the writer was a member of the Pauline circle. It is the merit of Hurst to have investigated this question from a fresh perspective (“Background,” 175–236). Although there is no evidence in Hebrews of a literary dependence upon the letters of Paul, it is certainly possible that the apostolic tradition upon which the writer drew had been influenced at certain strategic points by Paul. It is this possibility that Hurst has explored by selecting five sample motifs that permit a comparison between the theology of Paul and that of Hebrews. For example, both Paul and the writer of Hebrews appear to interpret Ps 8:4–6 in terms of the promised human destiny rather than from an exclusively christological perspective (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22–28; Rom 8:20; Heb 2:6–9). For both writers, human destiny and vocation are realized in the man Jesus (Hurst, “Background,” 181–89). Hurst posits some form of preliterary contact between Paul and the author of Hebrews.

Hurst pursues this line of inquiry in reference to Christ’s glory and role in creation and in sustaining the cosmos, his humbling as man, his obedience and subsequent exaltation, the idea of faith, and the concept of union with Christ. In each instance he finds striking similarities and differences. The similarities are sufficient to establish some form of contact. Yet the differences are sufficiently numerous to preclude literary contact. Hurst suggests that the writer of Hebrews may have discussed his ideas with Paul or with one or more of Paul’s associates who had been influenced by the Apostle. The development of the ideas is his own, but a formative influence upon the conceptual background of Hebrews is Paul. If this conclusion can be sustained, it will do much to locate Hebrews within the mainstream of Christian tradition.

The primary concern in this commentary has been to interpret the statement of Hebrews from the rich perspectives developed in Hebrews. The distinctiveness of the writer’s own theological understanding to that of Paul’s or others within the early Church has sometimes been stressed (see, for example, on the writer’s use of “promise” in 4:1; 6:12, 13–20; 10:23, 35–36, or his use of “faith” in 4:2; 6:12; 10:22; 11:1). This should not obscure the fact that the conceptual background of the writer of Hebrews was indelibly informed by the early Christian tradition, particularly as this was transmitted in the hellenistic wing of the Church.

Hebrews contains many references to a historical, earthly Jesus. According to Hebrews, Jesus 1) came "into the world," 2) "took part" "in all things" human in "flesh and blood" form, 3) was of the "the seed of Abraham," 4) was born of "the tribe of Judah," 5) "cried out to God" during "his days on earth," 6) was "crucified" at a geographical location "outside the gates" of a city, 7) suffered and died as a result of his crucifixion, 8) was resurrected from the dead, and 9) ascended into heaven.

Hebrews 12
1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself