274 bryan r. dyer
would ascribe the whole to the higher authority.”21 f. J. badcock argued
that 13:23–25 was added by paul to endorse a letter by barnabas written
down by luke.22 edmund Jones put forth the argument that hebrews
13 consists of paul’s severe letter to the Corinthians.23 in his seminal
work on the structure of hebrews, albert Vanhoye could not fit 13:19 nor
vv. 22–25 in his chiastic structure and argued that these verses were later
additions to the epistle.24 in his recent work A Different Priest, Vanhoye
attributes the addition to paul, who, “correctly assessing the worth of the
homily... guaranteed it with his authority by writing the dispatch note in
his handwriting.”25
several scholars have seen the last chapter in hebrews as an attempt
by the author to appear pauline. in 1906, william wrede identified differ-
ences between chs. 1–12 and ch. 13 in terms of vocabulary and content, but
contended that it represented a change in course by the epistle’s author.26
he argued that upon concluding his discourse the author decided to imi-
tate paul’s letter closings in an attempt to garner authority for his writ-
ing. This “fiction,” according to wrede, came to the author while in the
midst of writing and he did not feel it necessary to expand this fabrica-
tion into the earlier, completed composition.27 another argument was put
forward by Knut backhuas, who maintained that hebrews 13 is original
to the epistle and that 13:22–25 do not demonstrate an attempt to appear
pauline but reflect points of contact between the author of hebrews and
a pauline school.28
21 george a. simcox, “heb. viii; 2 Tim. iv,” ExpTim 10 (1899): 430.
22 f. J. badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical
Setting (london: spCK, 1937), 198ff.
23 edmund d. Jones, “The authorship of hebews xiii,” ExpTim 46 (1934–1935): 562–67;
esp. 564. in response, see r. V. g. Tasker, “The integrity of the epistle to the hebrews,”
ExpTim 47 (1935–1936): 136–38.
24 albert Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux (paris: desclée de
brouwer, 1963), 219–21.
25 albert Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. leo arnold;
rhetorica semitica; miami, fl: Convivium, 2011), 435. Vanhoye notes that he is following
the explanation of estius in the sixteenth century.
26 william wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs (göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
ruprecht, 1906).
27 “weshalb führte der Verfasser im schreiben selbst die fiktion in keiner weise durch?
das kann man verstehen, wenn er wirklich erst am ende auf den gedanken der fiktion
verfiel: die schrift war fertig, das bedürfnis, sie zu ändern, brauchte er nicht zu fühlen”
(wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs, 70).
28 “hebr 13,22–25 wie hebr 13 im allgemeinen beabsichtigen nicht, dem hebr einen
‘paulinischen anstrich’ zu geben, sondern verweisen auf tatsächliche Kontakte zwischen
dem hebr-Verf. und der paulus-schule” (Knut backhuas, “der hebräerbrief und die paulus-
schule,” Biblische Zeitschrift 37 [1993]: 194).