276 bryan r. dyer
The first argument—that a clear break occurs in the discourse point-
ing toward an interpolation—rightly identifies a tension that exists within
hebrews. undoubtedly, the majority of the epistle reads quite unlike an
epistle. as noted above, there is no epistolary opening but hebrews rather
reads like a sermon or homily.32 it is also rightly pointed out that at cer-
tain places in ch. 13 (possibly v. 1 or v. 22) a clear shift occurs in the text.33
Comparing the final chapter to the rest of hebrews, wedderburn identi-
fies differences in four categories: style, vocabulary and motifs, the presup-
posed setting, and attitudes toward Judaism.34 wedderburn’s categories
are representative of the various arguments for understanding ch. 13, or
vv. 20–25 specifically, as a later addition to hebrews.
stylistically, wedderburn argues that while the first twelve chapters
demonstrate high rhetorical skill with intricate interweaving of exhorta-
tive and expositional material, the last chapter is “far more tersely formu-
lated, almost staccato in its string of direct or implied exhortations and
commands.” This leads him to ask, “has the author who has so skilfully
composed the preceding 12 chapters suddenly dropped a stitch?”35 how-
ever, as rothschild has demonstrated, sections of paraenesis often display
a rupture in style.36 as lane points out, paraenetic instruction contains
common elements (such as the appeal to example) and takes the form of
admonition. Thus, 13:1–19, in both form and content, adheres closely to
other examples of paraenesis.37 further, epistolary closings are often set
apart from the previous discourse and consist of conventions not found in
32 This is certainly how the reference in 13:22 (λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως) identifies the
discourse.
33 Torrey is an interesting example as he argues that a later author imposed material at
multiple places in the final chapter. Thus, for Torrey, 13:8–15 and 20–21 are authentic but
the rest are later additions (“authorship and Character,” 149–50).
34 wedderburn, “ ‘letter’ to the hebrews,” 393.
35 wedderburn, “ ‘letter’ to the hebrews,” 394. Torrey similarly points out the shift in
style: “from the first words of the high-sounding exordium on to very nearly the end of
the book, we have only the carefully prepared address of a learned and gifted orator to his
small and intimately known congregation. it is only when the last chapter is reached that
we see introduced, most incongruously, matter of another sort; namely, passages belong-
ing of necessity to epistolary correspondence” (Torrey, “authorship and Character,” 146).
36 rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 52: “wedderburn’s apparent lack of aware-
ness that epistolary parenesis virtually always constitutes a distinct rupture in style, vocab-
ulary, motifs and setting within a letter’s body is surprising.” on the difficulty of describing
material in hebrews as “paraenesis,” see walter Übelacker, “paraenesis or paraclesis—
hebrews as a Test Case,” in J. starr and T. engberg-pedersen (eds.), Early Christian Parae-
nesis in Context (berlin: walter de gruyter, 2006), 319–72. Übelacker prefers the term
“paraclesis” (from heb 13:22—παράκλησις) which lays out a theoretical foundation for
moral exhortation.
37 william l. lane, Hebrews (wbC 47; 2 vols.; dallas: word, 1991), 499.