(11 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)
Loading...Now that I have discussed the overarching themes and emphases of the letter to the Hebrews, I can turn to the historical question of who actually wrote it, when, and why.
******************************
The authorship of the book has been debated for nearly as long as the book has been in circulation; and part of that question involves the issue of what kind of writing it actually is.
Although Hebrews is normally labeled an epistle, this designation is not particularly apt. The book has an epistolary closing – where the author gives a final exhortation, gives some personal greetings, and signs off by wishing his readers the best (Heb 13:20–25). That is, it ends the way letters tend to end. But there is no epistolary prescript. That is,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
What is your perception of the Christology of Hebrews? Jesus is greater than the prophets or the angels but Hebrews quotes Psalms 2:7, You are my son; today I have begotten you. and in v6 it sounds like Jesus was not pre-existent, that the angels were present before Jesus and that Jesus was not one of them. (Rather than being Pauline doesn’t 1:6 actually contradict the view in Philippians 2?)
Some form of Adoptionism?
Thanks!
Good question!
While waiting for Bart’s response, I’d like to share some thoughts on the Christology of Hebrews that puzzle me—particularly regarding Jesus’ status in relation to the angels.
In chapter 1, the author writes:
“So he BECAME as much SUPERIOR to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.” (Hebrews 1:4)
Jesus “became” superior—so apparently, being superior to the angels is something he was not originally. Somehow, he achieved that “superiority.”
When and how did he gain that superiority?
The next verse (Hebrews 1:5) suggests that this superiority is the result of him being declared God’s Son.
But when, according to the author, did Jesus become God’s Son?
Was it after his baptism, as in Mark 1:11?
The New Testament states that we can all become or be God’s children, ie. sons and daughters.
When does this happen for any of us?
Is it different for different people?
Are we all just born that way, and that’s the way it is?
Are we born that way, but sometimes, maybe often, we don’t realize it?
Thanks for reading
Yup, in passages like Galatians 3:26, believers are considered “all sons of God, through faith.”
But the author of Hebrews refers to Jesus as God’s Son “whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Hebrews 1:2).
This is not the same as being God’s son in the sense that Paul uses the term in Galatians 3:26 or Romans 8:14.
Good point. I’d much rather stick with a ‘created lower’ explanation since it is much easier to understand.
The author of Hebrews says that he “was made lower,” which makes me think of the famous Philippian “hymn”:
“Though he was in the form of God… he emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:7)
For Paul, Christ was “in the form of God” but then “emptied himself… being born in the likeness of men.”
In Hebrews, Christ is considered “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3), but then he “was made lower.”
I think the Christology is basically the same, but while Paul considers that Christ “emptied himself,” the author of Hebrews seems to suggest that this was something performed by God, since Christ “was made lower.”
Check out Sirach 24:23 and then read 1-22. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach%2024&version=RSV
The book of Hebrews was taking theological inspiration from the LXX:
Psalm 8:5, Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Sirach 24:9.
ΙΑΩ was the angelic Lord of Israel. All the other foreign nations had their own unique angelic Lord. ΙΑΩ and Israel never had an Empire and so were considered to be inferior to the angelic Lords of the other Mesopotamian and Asian Empires.
The complete Jewish Cannon, Masoretic Text, was possibly censured in places by Rabbis after the Jewish Roman Wars to remove anything that agreed with the newer early Christian theology.
On the other hand, in chapter 2 we read:
“But we see him who for a little while WAS MADE LOWER than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death.” (Hebrews 2:9)
In stark contrast with Hebrews 1:4, the author now says that Jesus “was made lower than the angels”… but only “for a little while.”
Lower than or superior?
Apparently, Jesus was first made lower and then became superior.
The fact that he was “crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death” suggests that it was through his death on the cross that he gained this superiority.
But why does the author say that Jesus “was made” lower?
Things get more complicated… Jesus was not lower, then was made lower, and finally became superior?
How can that be?
A possible explanation is that Jesus was a preexistent divine being,
then “for a little while” (that is, during his life as a human) he was made lower than the angels,
and finally was exalted due to his suffering on the cross.
Something that occurred to me while reading this post.
Could the Romans have been particularly ticked off that some of the ideas inherent in Judaism were now spreading to the Gentiles?
It was one thing that the people in Judea didn’t worship the Roman gods or the Roman emperor. The Romans made special allowances for this and for Judea alone. But when this started spreading to the Gentiles as well, could this have gotten them worried and more upset about things?
It doesn’t appear that the Romans gave a thought to it, at least in terms of Xty being an outside imposition on Judaism. Where it did matter is where you suggest: Gentile Christians did not have an exemption from worshipping the gods. That’s largely what led to their persecutoin in the second century, and probably earlier.
Hello. I joined the blog about 3 days ago and my comment is just sitting stuck on ” awaiting moderation”.
Is something wrong?
Thanks.
Ah, sorry. the only thing wrong was that I went on a meditation retreat and was ignoring the rest of my life. (I announced it probably before you came on board). But welcome!
I have a basic beginner question for Professor Ehrman. Over time peoples writing styles change. They usually tend to improve with practice. Why wouldn’t we expect the same with Paul?
Do you think the similarities between Hebrews and 1 Clement might offer clues about the authorship of Hebrews? Both are anonymous works claiming to come from the same region, and both follow a similar epistolary structure—with an opening, a developed argument, and a closing that includes greetings to significant individuals. The way Hebrews highlights heroes of the Old Testament for their faith closely parallels how 1 Clement catalogs Old Testament figures known for their envy. Both letters feature sophisticated Greek, complex sentence structures, and skilled use of rhetorical devices. Notably, 1 Clement even draws on Hebrews when describing Christ’s superiority to the angels. Could this point to a shared author—or at least a common theological and literary community behind both texts?
In Hebrews 1:2 we find mention of it being in the last days (eschaton). In other words, the end was at hand, coming soon and imminent which is precisely what Jesus had prophesied over and over again was to soon come to pass and his disciples all believed would happen. Mark 13:30, “Good News For Modern Man”, American Bible Society (1966), recounts it this way: “Remember this! All these things will happen before the people now living have all died”. The people then living were those in that first-century generation Jesus called an evil and adulterous one. Moreover Mark 14:62 reports that Jesus told the High Priest he would see (witness) the Parousia. So I ask: if history and the passage of time reveal that this so-called “eschaton” failed to come to pass does this not mean Jesus was a prophet who had prophesied presumptively and his fate was sealed by Deuteronomy 18:18-22 which says that such a prophet would die and presumably it would be an early and unnatural death? Also, if Hebrews contains what history and the passage of time reveal to be a failed prophecy does this not destroy its credibility? Thanks.
Yes, some have used that argument. Most Christians say either that he didn’t mean it literally or that the end did come with the Spirit, or the church, or in some secret way in heaven unknown to those on earth.
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
I read about Dr.Dale Alison and he seems like a great scholars but i feel like his work on the ressurection of jesus comes down to do you belive miracles or not.
Well he makes a argument for the ressurection and against it. Well for almost any historian if there are 2 opitions a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic then its the naturalistic one.
Later rabbinic texts refer to temple practices in the present tense either nostalgically or to explain pre-70 rituals. Hebrews, by contrast, uses present-tense references as a rhetorical appeal. The author urges the audience not to return to the sacrificial system—something that only makes sense if that system was still active and accessible.
If the temple had already fallen, the author could have simply pointed to its destruction as proof of the system’s obsolescence. Instead, he reasons from theology and Scripture to persuade the audience to leave behind a still-operating cultic system. This makes best sense in a pre-70 context.
As for the theological sophistication of Hebrews—its high Christology, typological reasoning, and literary polish—this does not require a late date. It reflects the education and rhetorical training of the author, not necessarily the maturity of the Christian movement.
The author’s labeling of the teachings in Hebrews 6:1–2 as “elementary” suggests prior familiarity. For Gentiles, doctrines like bodily resurrection and final judgment would have been unfamiliar and complex. But for Jews, these ideas were foundational.
Yet the author says, “not laying again the foundation,” implying these teachings had been reintroduced—not rejected—but retaught through the lens of Christ. For example:
• “Repentance from dead works” may now mean turning from reliance on the Law.
• “Faith in God” becomes faith in God through Christ.
• “Baptism(s)” are reframed as identification with Christ’s death and resurrection.
• “Resurrection” and “judgment” are now centered on Jesus as the firstfruit/judge.
This reinterpretation presumes a Jewish frame of reference.
Hebrews 5:12 supports this: “Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles…” This implies long exposure to foundational truths. Such a rebuke fits poorly with Gentile converts still learning the basics, but fits Jewish Christians who were expected to mature beyond initial instruction.
Moreover, Hebrews assumes familiarity with priesthood, covenant theology, and tabernacle symbolism—ideas unlikely to resonate with Gentiles.
The warning passages suggest a temptation to return to Judaism—not paganism—perhaps to avoid persecution. Paul even refers to Jewish Christians in Judea suffering persecution (1 Thess 2:14–16).
One of the things I find intriguing in the epistolary part of the NT is the indications the letters implicitly give about whomever they are addressed to. Often they are mostly gentile converts; probably in Hebrews too, fine.
But I find it unlikely that regular Roman pagans would find much appeal in the message that some guy in a rural backwater was resurrected by his god they never had heard of before; that this god was superior to all pagan gods which by the way did not exist; that this resurrection shows that this god would soon come to wipe out everything displeasing him, but would spare and elevate those that accepted the sacrifice of mentioned guy’s death. In other words I don’t see how a gospel would have any traction on those previously ignorant of Judaism.
Certainly Hebrews makes no sense unless its public was well acquainted with Judaism and (probably) the Septuagint. Why would recruits to a doomsday cult be tempted by Judaism when the day of reckoning takes longer than expected? And certainly the numerous biblical citations would fall flat for people without thorough knowledge of those texts.
So maybe the public consisted of converted gentiles, but definitely not pagans.