264 clare k. rothschild
a singular, rather than repeatable event (implicit perhaps in romans 3,
explicit in romans 6); and (3) that, as baptized into Jesus’ death, believers
are predicted not to sin (“For sin will have no dominion over you”) and if
they do, on Hebrews’ elaboration of paul’s argument, cannot be forgiven.
as an important aspect of its program of eliminating ambiguity in paul’s
letter, Hebrews avoids paul’s explanation that sin (power of ) assumes par-
tial blame for the error, rather saddling believers with full responsibility for
their mistakes. the personified power of sin never arises in Hebrews. this
shift is explained by Hebrews’ practical goal of prohibiting post-baptismal
sin, ultimately, perhaps, deterring apostasy. Hebrews, thus, reformulates
paul’s point: Jesus’ sacrificial act, his death, is once-and-for-all; therefore,
believers sinning after baptism (‘enlightenment’) cannot be restored. the
formula is succinctly articulated in Heb 10:26:
For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the
truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful prospect of
judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Media
of final possible interest to this thesis is how media support the interpreta-
tion. Hebrews’ placement immediately after romans in 픓46 hints that, as
early as the Urtext represented by this witness, Hebrews was understood
as an appendix to romans. the letters present in 픓46 arranged according
to length are: romans, First corinthians, Hebrews, second corinthians,
ephesians, Galatians, philippians, colossians, First thessalonians. How-
ever, the order of these letters in the manuscript is: romans, Hebrews,
First corinthians, second corinthians, ephesians, Galatians, philippi-
ans, colossians, First thessalonians. that is, Hebrews is out of order
according to the longest to shortest rule. david trobisch discusses this
issue. He argues that Hebrews’ moveable position in manuscripts (after
second thessalonians in sinaiticus [cf. minuscule 5]; after philemon in
authorized byzantine Version; after Galatians in chapters in Vaticanus
[b 03]; and after both second thessalonians and philemon in minuscule 794
[two times!]), indicates a motivation to incorporate Hebrews on the part
of collections in which it is missing.89 For 픓46, david trobisch qualifies
89 trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection, 20–22. explanation supported by clear later addi-
tion of Hebrews to codex claromontanus.