15. On the style of Hebrews, see Alexander Nairne, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1917), pp. cxlv–clxv; William Henry Simcox, The Writers of the New Testament: Their Style and Characteristics (Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1980 reprint), pp. 39–59, 92ff.
16. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., Bk. VI.xiv.2–4.
17. Ibid., Bk. VI. xxv.1l–14.
18. Ibid., Bk. VL.xli.6
19. Tertullian, “On Modesty,” chapter XX, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1925), p. 97.
20. For an extended treatment of the case for Barnabas as author of Hebrews, see F. J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles: and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical Setting (London: S.P.CK, 1937), especially pp. 183–84, 198–99.
21. For an excellent survey covering Hebrews research across most of the sixteenth century, see Kenneth Hagen, Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Beze: 1516–1598 (Tuebingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981).
22. See Martin Luther, “Lectures on Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews,” Luther’s Works, vol. 29, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing Co., 1968), especially pp. 109–241; Kenneth Hagen, A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther: The Lectures on Hebrews (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1974), especially pp. 19–30; Martin Luther, Weimar edition of his works, vol. 45 (Weimar, Germany: Hermann Boehlau, 1911), p. 389.
23. See William Leonard, The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1939).
24. For the treatment of the Greek style and diction in Hebrews, see James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (International Critical Commentary) (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1924), especially pp. lvi–lxiv.
25. See E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), especially pp. 156–57,160–61, 170–71, 176–77,178–79, 187.
26. William M. Ramsey, Luke the Physician: and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), see pp. 301–28.
27. Philip the Evangelist is to be distinguished from Philip the Apostle. The Evangelist was at first one of seven deacons of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5) and was a Hellenist (Greek-speaking Jew), while Philip the Apostle was a Galilean (John 1:44) who probably used Palestinean-Aramaic mainly.
28. “Probabilia uber die Adreesse und den Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes,” in Zeitschrift: fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 1 (1900), pp. 16–41.
29. For a recent feminist statement to reestablish the case for a woman writer of Hebrews, see Juliana Casey, Hebrews (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier,Inc., 1980), pp. xiii, xvii.
30. See Charles P. Anderson, “Who Wrote ‘The Epistle From Laodicea’?” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXV (1966), pp. 436–40; idem., “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter Collection,” Harvard Theological Review, LIX (1966), pp. 429–438; idem., Hebrews Among the Letters of Paul (Studies in Religion), vol. V [1975–76], pp. 258–66.
31. Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981), p. 10.
32. On Timothy as possible author, see J. D. Legg, “Our Brother Timothy: A Suggested Solution to the Problem of the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Evangelical Quarterly, vol. 40, (October–December, 1968), pp. 220–30. On Silas as the author, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction: Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1947, 2nd ed.), pp. 463–66. Thomas Hewitt also favors Silas as author in The Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale Press, 1960), pp. 29–32.
33. According to 1 Peter 5:13, that epistle was written at “Babylon,” the Christian code-name for Rome. See also the similar usage in the Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21.
34. See especially the strong statement for Apollos as writer that Ceslas Spicq has supplied, L’ Epitre aux Hebreux, vol. 1 (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1952), pp. 197–219.
35. On the major members of the Pauline circle, see F. F. Bruce, The Pauline Circle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmaus Publishiug Co., 1985). For Silas, see pp. 23–28; for Apollos, see pp. 51–57.
Acts 18:24–28 reports the background of Apollos. The aner logios in verses 24 is usually translated “an eloquent man,” but it should be understood to include the sense of “cultured, learned.” On Silas as a Hellenist, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction: Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1947, 2nd ed.), pp. 9–17.
36. On this, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction: Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1947, 2nd ed.), p. 11.
37. On midrash as a genre commonly used in the early Christian preaching, see Bo Reicke, “A Synopsis of Early Christian Preaching,” in The Root and the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology, written by Anton Fridrichsen and others (London: A. & C. Black, Ltd., 1953), p. 133. See also George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (The Anchor Bible) (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co., 1976, 2nd ed.), pp. 246ff. 36.)
38. The debate continues over the extent to which the writer of Hebrews knew or was influenced by Alexandrian thought as represented in the works of Philo Judaens. The issue has been explored by many, but the following works are recommended: Sidney G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews (Zurich, Switzerland: Evz-Verlag, and Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1965); Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1970); Charles Carlston, “The Vocabulary of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd, edited by Robert A. Guelich (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 133–60.
39. If the author of Hebrews wrote after the destruction of the temple, mentioning that destruction would have strengthened his argument as found in chapters 7–10. See the treatment of this and