<- Previous   First   Next ->

expected that the arguments of the Epistle to the Hebrews would have given it prominence in the first controversies of the Church, but this does not appear to have been the case. Traces of its use occur indeed in the oldest Christian writing outside the Canon, the letter written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, but it is not referred to by name till the second half of the second century. There can be no doubt that Clement was familiar with its contents. He not only uses its language ( ad Cor. 17, 36), but imitates its form in such a way ( ad Cor. 9, 12, 45) as to shew that he had the text before him; but the adaptations of words and thoughts are made silently, without any mark of quotation or any indication of the author from whom they are borrowed (comp. Euseb. H. E. 3.38; Hier. de vir. ill. 15). The fact that the Book was known at Rome at this early date is of importance, because it was at Rome that the Pauline authorship was most consistently denied and for the longest period. In this connexion it is of interest that there are several coincidences of expression with the Epistle in the Shepherd of Hermas, which seem to be sufficient to shew that Hermas also was acquainted with it.


A comparison of the parallel passages leaves no doubt that Clement imitated the earlier text of the Epistle. This seems to be clear if (e.g.,) Clement's references to Noah and Rahab are set by the side of Heb. 11:7,
31.

ad Cor. 9 Nw'e pisto;" euJreqei;" dia; th'" leitourgiva" aujtou' paliggenesivan kovsmw/ ejkhvruxe, kai; dievswse dij aujtou' oJ despovth" ta; eijselqovnta ejn oJmonoiva/ zw'a eij" th;n kibwtovn .


ad Cor. 12 dia; pivstin kai; filoxenivan ejswvqh JRaa;b hJ povrnh ......

The parallel with Heb. 1:3 f. makes it impossible to suppose that both writers are borrowing illustrations from some common source:


ad Cor. 36 o}" w]n ajpauvgasma th'" megalwsuvnh" aujtou' tosouvtw/ meivzwn ejsti;n ajggevlwn o{sw/ diaforwvteron o[noma keklhronovmhken : gevgraptai ga;r ou{tw" : oJ poiw'n tou;" ajggevlou" aujtou' pneuvmata ...

The most striking parallels with Hermas are Vis.
2.3, 2: Heb. 3:12; Sim. 1.1f.: Heb. 11:13 ff.; 13:14.

The other evidence which can be alleged to shew that the Epistle was known by the earliest Christian writers is less clear. Polycarp gives the Lord the title of ‘High-priest’ (Heb. 12 pontifex ), a title which is peculiar to the Epistle among the apostolic writings, but it is not possible to conclude certainly that he derived it directly from the Book. So again when Justin Martyr speaks of Christ as ‘apostle’ ( Apol. 1.12, 63: Heb. 3:1) and applies Ps. 110 to Him ( Dial. 96, 113), he may be using thoughts which had become current among Christians, though these correspondences with characteristic features of the Epistle are more worthy of consideration because Justin has also several coincidences with its language (Heb. 8:7 f., Dial. 34; 9:13 f., Dial. 13; 12:18 f., Dial. 67).


<- Previous   First   Next ->