246 clare k. rothschild
the latter.2 the debate did not begin with these publications, but traces
back at least as far as the beginning of the last century to edgar J. Good-
speed who argued that the pseudonymous author of ephesians collected
paul’s letters, affixing ephesians as an explanatory introduction to the col-
lection.3 the present essay supplements these proposals with a related
thesis about Hebrews. namely, it explores the possibility that originally
Hebrews served as a reading guide or instructional appendix to romans.4
more than one observation commends the theory.5 For example, despite
a long list of lxx citations popular generally among early christians (e.g.,
pss 2:7, 109:1), Hebrews cites a significant number of passages decisive
to paul’s argument in romans,6 in particular Hab 2:4, a seminal piece
of romans’ “thesis” statement (rom 1:17; cf. Gal 3:11). the context of this
and other such recitations suggests Hebrews’ specific intention to clarify,
correct, and develop paul’s interpretations.7 also, Heb 13:20–25 borrows
important elements of romans’ postscript, most likely indicating deliber-
ate alignment with romans at the place in the text where authorial ἦθος
2 margaret m. mitchell, “corrective composition, corrective exegesis: the teaching on
prayer in 1 tim 2,1–15,” in Karl p. donfried (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered (leuven: peeters,
2008), 57–62. mitchell writes, “building on merz’s conclusions about 1 tim 2,9–15, I would
like to turn my attention to the first half of the chapter, 1 tim 2,1–8. are there fictional
self-references to pauline passages in 1 tim 2,1–8, also, and, if so, what elements in paul’s
own teaching on prayer did this author think required correction (both emendation and
emphatic underscoring) for his present context?” (47–48).
3 e. J. Goodspeed, The Meaning of Ephesians (chicago: university of chicago press,
1933). Goodspeed traces the first perception of this idea to adolf Jülicher, although Jülicher
rejected the possibility on the basis of ephesians’ reliance on colossians (adolf Jülicher,
Einleitung in das Neue Testament [Freiburg: mohr, 1894]; et: An Introduction to the New
Testament [trans. Janet penrose ward; london: smith, elder, 1904]).
4 not popular, this thesis is also not new. see william manson, The Epistle to the
Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration (2nd ed.; london: Hodder &
stoughton, 1953); dieter Georgi, “Hebrews and the Heritage of paul,” in Gabriella Gelardini
(ed.), Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights (bIs 75; leiden: brill, 2005), 239–44.
Furthermore, it has been argued that Hebrews demonstrates literary reliance on diverse
parts of an early pauline corpus and was in fact written deliberately to amplify such a
corpus (clare K. rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of
the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews [wunt 235; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2009]). this short
paper focuses not on literary reliance but Hebrews’ specific goal of elucidating romans.
5 numerous direct literary correspondences between Hebrews and an early collection
of paul’s letters have been catalogued. a thorough comparison of Hebrews 13, treating
the postscript (vv. 20–25) and the rest of the chapter separately, as well as major themes
and stylistic similarities between Hebrews and an early corpus Paulinum, is the subject of
Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, ch. 4.
6 see rothschild, “Hebrews as a Guide,” 541.
7 see rothschild, Hebrews as a Pseudepigraphon, ch. 4.