Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

Barnabas and the Epistle to the Hebrews

A Paper Submitted to Dr. Tom Campbell

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Course NBST 654

By

Robert C. Stilwell, Jr.

Lynchburg, Virginia

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

What the Author Reveals 3

Authorship of Paul 5

Luke: Background and Relationship with Paul 9

Luke: Author or Amanuensis 10

Barnabas: Background and Relationship with Paul 12

Authorship of Barnabas 14

Conclusion 16

Bibliography 17

2

Introduction

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews has been debated since the early second

century. Although Paul’s name is included in the title in some manuscripts, the text itself

remains anonymous, as the author never mentions his name. Both Clement of Alexandria and

Origen recognized that the content of the letter was connected to Paul or someone closely

associated with him. However, the vocabulary and style of writing are very different from those

of Paul. Origen suggested that the concepts were Pauline but that they were transcribed by

someone else.1 Many names have been speculated for the authorship of the Epistle to the

Hebrews, but the question remains unanswered. Among the approximately fifteen proposed

authors, only three are supported by any significant argument; Paul, Luke as an author or

amanuensis for Paul, and Barnabas. The early church historian Eusebius quoted Origen as

saying, “But as to who actually wrote the epistle, God knows the truth of the matter.”2 However,

an examination of the arguments for authorship of the most plausible of these proposed writers

of Hebrews shows, that although evidence indicates no indisputable conclusion as to the author’s

identity, the data strongly supports the assertion that the author was most likely Paul’s former

mentor, long-time ministry partner, fellow missionary, and first-century evangelist and church

leader, Barnabas.

What the Author Reveals

All that can be understood as to the author’s identity must be gleaned from what he

reveals about himself in the text, by way of personal comments, as well as literary and linguistic

style and technique. The writer identifies himself as a second-generation Christian, having heard

1 Trent C. Butler ed., “Letter to the Hebrews,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 737 2 David S. Dockery ed., Holman Concise Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 619

3

the gospel message from those who received it directly from Jesus (Heb. 2:3). The repeated use

of the term “we” implies that his background is the same as the recipients of the epistle, who, as

the textual content demands, are Jewish Christians of the Diaspora (cf. Heb. 2:1, 3). The original

readers of the epistle apparently knew his identity, as suggested by his request for prayers that he

might be able to visit them (Heb. 13:18–19), as well as the expression of hope that Timothy

would come with him (Heb. 13:23).3

He was well-educated and highly skilled in the use of language. His sentence structure

and rich vocabulary demonstrate literary elegance and creativity. His unique proficiency in the

use of the Greek language indicates that he possessed a high degree of literary skill, perhaps

superior to that of any New Testament writer.4 The first four verses of the epistle have been

called “the most perfect Greek sentence in the New Testament.”5 He was also well-trained in the

art of rhetorical argumentation. A single artistically crafted argument runs from beginning to

end, masterfully employing oratory techniques and imagery.

The author reveals an extraordinary knowledge of the Old Testament, being well-versed

in the study of the Greek translation. The epistle contains over thirty direct quotes from the

Septuagint, as well as numerous allusions and indirect references. He utilizes passages, people,

and events from the Old Testament, and molds them into a cohesive sustained argument for the

superiority of Jesus.6 The overall flavor of Hebrews is definitely of a Jewish nature.

3 Thomas D. Lea, Holman New Testament Commentary: Hebrews & James Vol. 10 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 1

4 Floyd V. Filson, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of Bible and Religion 22, no. 1 (Jan. 1954): 20

5 Ceslas Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977), 56

6 Butler, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 737

4

The author was a gifted expositor as well, employing numerous hermeneutical

techniques, most significantly those of verbal analogy and argument from the lesser to the

greater. Interwoven with profound biblical exposition is a passionate plea to his readers to stand

fast in their faith, demonstrating a deep pastoral love and concern for his audience. These

details, as revealed by the author himself, must be considered as primary evidence when

discussing any proposed authorial candidate.

Authorship of Paul

The earliest references to the Epistle to the Hebrews were seen in Clement of Rome’s

first epistle to the Corinthians at the end of the first century, but he offers no name for the author.

Eastern Christianity viewed Paul as the author, even though supporters of Pauline authorship

recognized that the language in Hebrews was decidedly different from Paul’s known letters. In

the second century, Clement of Alexandria, on the authority of Pantaenus, expressly referred to

Paul as the author of Hebrews. He claimed that Paul intentionally omitted placing his name in a

greeting at the beginning of the epistle because the Hebrews were prejudiced against him. He

further asserted that the epistle was originally written by Paul in Hebrew for the Hebrews and

Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, thereby explaining the literary style similar to that

of Acts. Western Christianity did not officially accept Pauline authorship until the fourth

century, and this was with reluctance in order that it may receive its proper place within the New

Testament canon. They felt that the letter had great authority, but many saw it as anonymous

and non-Pauline.7

Hebrews contains statements comparable to Paul’s view of the preexistence and

creative work of Christ (cf. Heb. 1:1–4; Col. 1:15–17). Additionally, both Hebrews and 2

7 Lea, Holman New Testament Commentary: Hebrews & James, 1

5

Corinthians discuss the New Covenant (cf. Heb. 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:4-11). These factors, as well as

others, inclined some to consider Paul as the author.8 The case for Pauline authorship seems to

rest on three main arguments:

1) The traditional view of the Eastern church, part of which the intended recipients of

the letter were most likely members, favored Pauline authorship. However, this testimony is

greatly weakened by the widely acknowledged observation of a difference in style from Paul’s

known letters and consequent proposal of an original Hebrew text, for which there is absolutely

no historic foundation. Additionally, tradition from both Western Rome and North Africa, up

until Augustine’s day, is unquestionably against Pauline authorship. The fact that the earliest

appearances of the epistle are found in the Roman church, where it was known before the close

of the first century, further erodes this argument. Clement of Rome employs it extensively, but

not once does he cite Paul as the author. The Muratorian Canon, dated ca. 170, includes only

thirteen letters from Paul and omits Hebrews completely, as does the Roman church leader,

Gaius, at the beginning of the third century. Tertullian ascribed the epistle to Barnabas.

Eusebius states that the Roman church did not regard the epistle as Pauline in his day, the first

half of the fourth century. Not until the Synod of Hippo and the third Synod of Carthage, under

the power of Augustine’s influence at the end of the fourth century, did the scales begin to tip in

favor of fourteen Pauline epistles. This opinion then prevailed until Erasmus and the Reformers

revived the original doubts of the early Fathers. As far as early church tradition, the argument is

overwhelmingly one-sided against Paul’s authorship.

2) The mention of Timothy (Heb. 13:23) and the reference to release from

imprisonment (Heb. 10:34) point to Paul. This does not necessarily refer to Paul, but rather,

8 Dockery, Holman Concise Bible Commentary, 619

6

others who were being persecuted. The assumed reference to Paul’s own captivity stands on a

misreading of the Greek text. The Textus Receptus, among other texts, incorrectly interprets the

Greek as δεσμοι̂ς μου, “in my chains,” rather than the understanding which is now widely

accepted, τοι̂ς δεσμίοις, “to the prisoners.”9 Neither does the prayer request from the author

(Heb. 13:18-19) suggest that the writer was imprisoned when the epistle was written. To the

contrary, remainder of the passage makes quite clear that the writer is free and awaits Timothy’s

arrival (Heb. 13:23).

3) The agreement of the epistle with Paul’s theology, its nature of apostolic authority,

and the depth and fervor which places the epistle alongside known Pauline writings. The

strengths and qualities of the epistle only serve to prove its divine inspiration and justified

canonicity, not the author’s identity.

Several more evidences serve to refute Pauline authorship:

1) The form of Hebrews is unlike that of the typical Pauline letter of the New

Testament. The inexplicable absence of Paul’s customary name and greeting is quite telling,

although the attempt has been made to explain this from the point of humility or Jewish prejudice

against Paul. However, these allegations are quite weak and are deemed moot by the

authoritative tone of the epistle. Additionally, there are far fewer personal references and

greetings compared to Paul’s known epistles (Heb. 6:9–10; 12:4).10

2) While the apostolic teaching is similar to Paul’s, the literary style and structure is

remarkably different and unique to the New Testament. Paul’s letters have a more apologetic

flavor, but Hebrews is sermon-like in its form and function. Of further note, the magnificent

9 Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1(Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997)10

Lea, Holman New Testament Commentary: Hebrews & James, 1

7

Greek style of Hebrews in no way resembles the explosive, confrontational style of teaching and

argumentative persuasion that is found in most of Paul’s writings.

3) Hebrews 2:3 plainly states that the writer was not an apostle who received the gospel

directly from Jesus, but rather a second-generation Christian who heard the message from the

apostles. This fact alone disqualifies Paul.

4) The author of Hebrews consistently cites the Septuagint, including its variations from

the Hebrew, while Paul is unashamedly free to paraphrase either text and often corrects the

Septuagint from the Hebrew. Also of note is the fact that the writer of Hebrews preferred the

Greek text of Codex Alexandrinus, while Paul cited the Codex Vaticanus.11

The language, style, and internal characteristics of Hebrews definitively rules out Paul

as the author. However, arguments built on such observations are notoriously subjective and

have also been used as proofs for extremely unsound propositions. Nevertheless, it must be

readily admitted that when Hebrews is read correctly in Greek and compared with the known

letters of Paul, the overall impression is that the author is spiritually in sync with Paul, but

remarkably different in subtle ways. This subjective impression, however, would not have been

made way for if the early church’s tradition had overwhelmingly asserted Paul as the author.12

Modern scholars, however, almost unanimously believe that the internal evidence confirms it as

non-Pauline. Donald Guthrie notes, “Most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how

this epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory.”13 It is quite clear that the

11 Schaff and Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1. Schaff cites the classic commentary on Hebrews by Friedrich Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebraer erlautert durch Einleitung, Uebersetzung, und fortlaufenden Commentar. Vol. 1 (Berlin: 1828), 338-375 as the source of this extensive study on the respective Greek texts quoted by Paul and the author of Hebrews.

12 John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck ed., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 777

13 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 671

8

writer of Hebrews is not Paul, but bears a striking theological resemblance, suggesting that he

emerged from Paul’s inner circle of associates. Whoever he was, he knew Paul well and

possessed a great pastoral concern for his audience.

Luke: Background and Relationship with Paul

Irenaeus is the first person to clearly name Luke as the author of the third Gospel and

Acts. This tradition is also found in the Muratorian Canon and the so-called anti-Marcionite

Prologue to the Gospel of Luke. The latter document states that Luke came from Antioch in

Syria, and served the Lord without the diversions of a wife and family until he died in Boeotia at

the age of 84, however, the date and credibility of this writing are uncertain. It is likely that the

tradition of Luke’s authorship of the Gospel which bears his name and Acts can be traced back to

earlier in the 2nd century. The fact that Marcion, a zealous follower of Paul’s theology, chose to

recognize Luke’s Gospel suggests that he considered it the work of a companion of Paul.14 Acts

contains several passages written in the first person plural, i.e., “we,” which describe events from

the viewpoint of an associate of Paul (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16). The writer of

Acts identifies himself as Luke in a variant reading of Acts 20:13 which may be dated as early in

the second century: “But I Luke, and those who were with me, went on board.”15 The literary

style of Luke and Acts demonstrates that the author was well-educated with extensive talent in

literary communication. Luke’s abilities as a historian have been judged to be among the best of

ancient historians by many scholars.

Paul mentions Luke “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14) among his companions in his

epistles, suggesting that he had provided medical care for Paul during his imprisonment. He is

also described as a “fellow-laborer” of Paul (Phm. 24), which implies that he also aided in the 14 I. Howard Marshall, “Luke,” in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., I. Howard Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 703

15 Ibid.

9

spread of the gospel. There is a third reference to Luke in what may have been one of Paul’s last

messages, “Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. 4:11), which confirms the closeness of the

relationship between the two. But unlike Paul, Luke was a Gentile. Luke’s esteem for Paul

shines forth throughout the Pauline events of Acts. Through his recurring interaction with Paul,

as well as other early Christian evangelists and teachers, Luke had numerous opportunities to

hear first-hand teaching of Paul’s theology.

The picture of Luke which can be seen by his service, dedication to his faith, and

devotion to his friend Paul is that of a modest man with considerable sympathetic tendencies

who regarded himself as a servant of the Gospel of Jesus. With his substantial literary,

historical, and theological gifts, he was well-able to recount the beginnings of Christianity, as

well as the message of the Gospel, in a unique fashion, tailored to the needs of second-generation

believers.16

Luke: Author or Amanuensis

Some have suggested Luke as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well. As

previously noted, Clement of Alexandria believed Paul had written an original Hebrew text and

Luke translated it into Greek, accounting for the similar of style to Acts. Likewise, Origen, in

his Homilies, regards the style as distinct and “more Grecian” than Paul’s, but views the thoughts

as the apostle’s. He adds that the “ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline

authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty of

who was the actual writer,” likely suggesting “transcriber” of the apostle’s thoughts.17

16 Ibid.17

A. R. Fausset, “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews,” in A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997)

10

Luke’s literary abilities and knowledge of pure Greek certainly seem to support his

candidacy as the author or amanuensis of Hebrews. He also appears to fits the description of

Hebrews 2:3 as a second-generation Christian. However, a closer examination of the language

and literary style, as well as the overarching theme of Hebrews is indeed warranted.

As addressed earlier, all of the Old Testament quotes in Hebrews, aside from two (Heb

10:30; 13:5), are from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are

interwoven into the argument serves to prove that the Greek text is an original, not a translation.

Had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would surely have come from the Hebrew Old

Testament. It follows that the wordplay with similarly sounding Greek terms and alliterations, as

well as rhythmically constructed portions of Hebrews would demand the use of Hebrew terms,

had the original text been written in Hebrew. John Calvin observes that if the epistle had been

written in Hebrew, Heb 9:15–17 would lose its entire meaning, which is built around the play

upon the double meaning of the Greek diathece, “covenant” or “testament,” whereas the Hebrew

berith means only “covenant.”18

There is also a significantly greater accent on the Jewish culture in this epistle than in

Luke’s writings. Hebrews is focused on the theme of Christ’s superiority to the Law,

particularly as a substitutional sacrifice for sin, but this doctrine seems to be nearly nonexistent

in Luke’s writing. Daniel Wallace suggests that this is intentional, referring to the “non-parallel”

in Luke (cf. Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45).19

Another argument against Luke’s authorship, and probably the most damaging, is the

fact that the author of Hebrews was undoubtedly a native Jew preaching to a Jewish Christian

18

Ibid.19

Daniel B. Wallace, “Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline”; available from http://bible.org/seriespage/hebrews-introduction-argument-and-outline#P31_4272; Internet; accessed March 5, 2010

11

church community, but Luke, however, was a Greek Gentile (Col. 4:11, 14). A non-Jew, or for

that matter, even a Jew, speaking negatively about Jewish culture, tradition, and faith would most

assuredly be met with indignation at the very least. Jesus was crucified for preaching the

obsolescence of the Law and the Old Covenant!

There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship of Hebrews to Luke, nor is

there any sound reason to believe that the Greek text is a translation of an original Hebrew text.

It seems appropriate to state that Luke could have had no part whatsoever in the production of

the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Barnabas: Background and Relationship with Paul

More is known of Barnabas than any other of Paul’s close associates. Barnabas,

meaning “son of encouragement,” is the name given by the apostles to Joseph, a Levite from

Cyprus (Acts 4:36). Luke describes him as “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith”

(Acts 11:24). Barnabas became a Christian as a young man and one of his first gestures as a

believer and member of the Jerusalem church was to sell some property and give the money to

the church for the common welfare (Acts 4:37).

When the converted Saul arrived in Jerusalem, only to discover that the Christians had

serious apprehensions concerning his motives, it was Barnabas who introduced him to the

apostles and convinced them of his conversion and sincerity (Acts 9:27; cf. Gal. 1:18). This was

the beginning of a long and productive ministry partnership between the two men.

It was Barnabas who represented the apostles at Antioch when Gentiles had been

evangelized in significant numbers for the first time (Acts 11:19ff.). He recognized the growing

Christian community as the work of God and a fitting environment for the misplaced Paul, whom

12

he brought back from his home in Tarsus to Antioch in order to share in his ministry efforts for

an entire year (Acts 11:25–26).

When visiting Jerusalem with famine-relief gathered in Antioch (Acts 11:29–30), both

Barnabas and Paul were personally commissioned by the Holy Spirit to take the Gospel to the

Gentiles (Acts 13:2; cf. Gal. 2:9). The journey with Paul (Acts 13–14), beginning in his own

Cyprus, resulted in numerous predominantly Gentile churches deep into Asia Minor, as well as

growing opposition from the Jews. This journey was a significant milestone for the church, for

Barnabas, and especially for Paul. Barnabas had been the leader and chief spokesman

throughout their labors in Cyprus, with Paul as his protégé. However, that would change on the

final leg of the journey into Asia Minor, when Paul, with a new boldness of spirit and purpose,

assumed the leadership role. Up until their departure from Cyprus, Luke consistently names

them as “Barnabas and Saul,” but thereafter, the order is reversed (Acts 13:43, 46, 50; 15:2, 22,

35).

Back in Antioch, the issue of circumcision became so intense that Barnabas and Paul

were appointed to take the matter before the Jerusalem Council, where their policy was

overwhelmingly supported (Acts 15:1–29). Quite interestingly, Barnabas speaks before Paul in

both the proceedings (Acts 15:12) and in the Council’s letter (Acts 15:25), although Luke

continues to name Paul first in his narrative (cf. Acts 15:22). Most likely, the authority of the

original apostolic representative to Antioch was considered greater by many in the Council.

The only noted point of contention between Barnabas and Paul concerned taking Mark,

who had previously deserted them, on a future second journey. Barnabas insisted, but Paul

refused, so the itinerary, as well as the partnership, was divided (Acts 15:36–40).

13

The close relationship may have ended, but not the friendship. When Paul mentions

Barnabas, his words imply love and respect (cf. 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13). Barnabas’ devotion

to speaking the truth of Christ and unwavering service in ministry garnered him seemingly

universal respect and had a profound impact on those around him, as well as the church. In

principles and practice Barnabas and Paul were identical, and it cannot be known how much Paul

owed to Barnabas.20

Authorship of Barnabas

Tertullian ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to Barnabas as matter of fact. In On

Modesty XX, he writes, “I wish, however, redundantly to superadd the testimony likewise of one

particular comrade of the apostles,—(a testimony) aptly suited for confirming, by most

proximate right, the discipline of his masters. For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews

under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has

stationed next to himself…”21 Tertullian does not speak as if this were merely his opinion, but

rather common knowledge. The view that Barnabas wrote Hebrews was also supported in the

fourth century by Jerome as well as writers Gregory of Elvira and Filaster. There is good reason

to believe that in the ancient Western canonical manuscript, Codex Claremontanus, the Book of

Hebrews bears the name of the Epistle of Barnabas.22

The arguments supporting Barnabas as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews are

concise and agree with that which Scripture reveals about him, as well as the writer of Hebrews:

20 A. F. Walls, “Barnabas,” in Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Allen C. Myers ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 12321

Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 97.

22 Walvoord and Zuck , The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Vol. 2, 778

14

1) He was a Levite and would naturally be interested and well-schooled in the Levitical

sacrificial system.

2) Due to his extended time in ministry with Paul, the similarities of the theological

teaching in Hebrews to that of Paul’s are easily justified.

3) Timothy had been converted in the area of Barnabas and Paul’s first missionary

journey (Acts 16:1-3), so is probable that Timothy was acquainted with Barnabas. Additionally,

as they were both within Paul’s inner circle, it is quite possible that they had been with Paul at

the same time.

4) Since Barnabas was from Cyprus, most likely he would have been influenced by

Hellenism and Alexandrian thought, which is expressed throughout the epistle.

5) Possible repeated contact with Alexandria may account for a proficiency in Greek.

6) Barnabas was converted shortly after Pentecost and could have been influenced by

Stephen’s teaching. Parallels of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 can be found throughout Hebrews.23

7) There is no reason to believe that Barnabas continued on a Gentile mission following

the split with Paul prior to the second journey. He could very well have ministered to the Jews.

8) Barnabas mediated between Paul and Jewish Christians in Acts 9 and perhaps

continued to do so afterward.24

9) The undeniable written affirmation of Tertullian is unequalled among all of the

proposed authors.

10) If Hebrews was indeed authored by Barnabas, then it can truly claim apostolic

authority since Barnabas was considered by the apostles as one of their own (Acts 14:4, 14).

Regardless of the preponderance of evidence, the authorship of Barnabas cannot be

23 Wallace, “Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline”

24 Ibid.

15

undeniably proven, any more that of any other suggested writer. It does, however, enjoy

substantially more indisputable evidence than any other plausible suggestion.

Conclusion

Examination of the three most reasonable proposals for the authorship of the Epistle to

the Hebrews has shown that Paul, in no way, could have been the writer. It has been clearly

refuted that Luke did not author Hebrews, nor is it possible that an original Hebrew text could

have existed, which he could have translated into Greek. And finally, the abundance of

corroborating evidence points to Barnabas as the most likely writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

As the “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36), Barnabas very well may have written the “word of

exhortation” (Heb. 13:22). As Filson summarizes, “The only ancient tradition worth considering

is that of Tertullian, who said that Barnabas wrote Hebrews.”25

25 Filson, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 21

16

BibliographyButler, Trent C., ed. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible

Publishers, 2003.

Dockery, David S., ed. Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998.

Fausset, A. R. "The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews." In A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research systems, 1997.

Filson, Floyd V. "The Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of Bible and Religion 22, no. 1 (Jan. 1954): 20-26.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976.

Lea, Thomas D. Holman New Testament Commentary: Hebrews & James. Vol. 10. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999.

Marshall, I. Howard, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman, ed. New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Oak Harbor, WA:

Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Schaff, Philip, and David S. Schaff. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 1. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Spicq, Ceslas. L'Epitre aux Hebreux. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977.

Wallace, Daniel B. "Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline." available from http://bible.org/seriespage/hebrews-introduction-argument-and-outline#P31_4272 (accessed March 5, 2010).

Walls, A. F. "Barnabas." In The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, edited by Allen C. Myers, 126. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.

Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, ed. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Vol. 2. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.

17