Abstract
Associating the Letter to the Hebrews with Rome is not a new phenomenon within NT studies; there is a long-established scholarly tradition pointing to Heb. 13:24 as evidence of either a Roman destination or provenance for the letter. However, Jason Whitlark’s volume, a recent addition to the Library of New Testament Studies series, does move this debate onto new ground, particularly in seeking to uncover the anti-imperial rhetoric that the letter purportedly displays. Whitlark avers that the letter purposes to warn its audience from defecting to a (Roman) pagan, religious context (not, therefore, a falling away back to ‘Judaism’). Methodologically, this involves reading with the ‘authorial audience’—i.e. taking seriously the persecution and pressures faced by Roman Christians, specifically within the Flavian era. In particular, Whitlark draws out how Hebrews may be using ‘figured speech’ to offer both a critique of the Roman context and also an affirmation of the new Christ-centred covenantal institution. He contends, therefore, that Hebrews should be read as addressing a Gentile audience in Rome in the Flavian era; the temporal argument is made by setting the claims of Jesus as a challenge to the contemporary, triumphal claims articulated by the Flavian emperors. On the one hand, Hebrews encourages its readers not to assimilate to pagan religious idolatry—a better hope, land, and oikumene are set forth. On the other, the letter seeks to challenge Roman imperial assertions—be it Rome’s claim to be the eternal city, or be it the quasi-Herculean depiction of the Roman Emperors.
Whitlark offers a very interesting, thoughtful analysis of the letter, and encourages a fresh and distinctive reading. For this reader, the best aspect of the volume was its consideration of Jesus’ defeat of the devil (2:14-15) as an anti-imperial claim. In making such an argument (and in the volume as a whole), Whitlark’s familiarity with, and usage of, contemporary classical sources is impressive. Indeed, one of the strengths of the volume is the usage of such material, and the book is as much a ‘classics’ text as it is an ‘NT studies’ one. Some aspects of his argument could be developed perhaps (one wonders why the concept of Pontifex Maximus is not explored further), but, overall, this is a significant contribution to Hebrews studies.