the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 273
epistle appear pauline.14 That these verses, or ch. 13 altogether, was a later
addition by someone other than the author has been argued by many oth-
ers since overbeck—including C. C. Torrey,15 J. héring,16 e. grässer,17 and
a. J. m. wedderburn.18 george buchanan is illustrative of this view as he
argues that ch. 13 is a later addition by a different author and for a differ-
ent audience than the first twelve chapters.19 13:1–19, buchanan argues, is
a “scissors-and-paste composition of collected bits of literature,” followed
by a benediction in vv. 20–21. The postscript in 13:22–25 was included—
possibly later than 13:1–21—to appear pauline. buchanan concludes that
the addition of ch. 13 may have been “partially to give a homily the appear-
ance of a letter to allow its admission into the canon.”20
some have argued that paul wrote hebrews’ postscript—either in the
form of a separate letter attached to the epistle or as an endorsement
of the epistle’s authority. in 1899, george simcox argued that ch. 13 is a
“letter of commendation” by paul to give approval of the epistle’s con-
tent. in response to the entire epistle’s attribution to paul, simcox writes:
“if the work in the oldest form known had one or more letters of com-
mendation... written by an apostle or apostles attached to it, tradition
14 overbeck also argued that hebrews had a beginning that was removed for the same
purpose: “um den brief dem apostel paulus unterzulegen, ist jener anfang beseitigt und
der schluss des briefes hinzugefügt worden. so würde sich das isolierte dieses schlusses im
briefe erklären und auch die eigenthümliche unverständlichkeit von Vs. 23, das eben alles
was hier zu verstehen ist auch verstanden wäre, wenn man daraus entnommen hätte, dass
der, welcher hier rede, paulus sei” (franz overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons [Chemnitz:
e. schmeitzmer, 1880], 16–17).
15 Charles C. Torrey, “The authorship and Character of the so-called ‘epistle to the
hebrews,’ ” JBL 30 (1911): 137–56. Torrey argued that hebrews began as an anonymous ser-
mon that was transformed into an apostolic letter, most likely of paul. “The alteration was
effected by means of slight additions and insertions made in the closing portion, and its
purpose was to gain for the work the authority which it merited, but which it could be
given in no other way” (147–48).
16 Jean héring, L’ Epître aux Hébreux (neuchatel: delachaux et niestlé, 1954), esp. 121–
- héring understood the homily of hebrews to officially end with ch. 12 and 13:1–21 as a
letter that the author sent with his homily. 13:22–25, he argued, was most likely the addi-
tion of a second hand—possibly paul.
17 enrich grässer, An die Hebräer (eKK 17; 3 vols.; Zurich: bensiger, 1990–1997), esp.
1:17–18.
18 alexander J. m. wedderburn, “The ‘letter’ to the hebrews and its Thirteenth Chap-
ter,” NTS 50 (2004): 390–405. it is wedderburn’s argument that ch. 13 was written by a
different author but with the knowledge of chs. 1–12. in response, see rothschild, Hebrews
as Pseudepigraphon, 51–55.
19 george w. buchanan, To the Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (ab 36; garden City, ny: doubleday, 1972), esp. 267–68.
20 buchanan, To the Hebrews, 268.