Dating Hebrews

As you might have guessed, this is not a post about romantic entanglements.  We continue on in our study of the marvelous book of Hebrews.  Thank you for journeying with me.

One of the most beautiful characteristics of the book is the way the writer exalts the Old Testament as a divine oracle, from beginning to end. Cockerill calls the OT "the bone and marrow" of Hebrews. The book is filled with 28 quotes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament translated into the Greek language).  Those quotes are not treated as allegories but instead as "types" of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ and of His gospel.  The author delights in showing how the Aaronic priestly system and the Melchizekan priesthood foreshadowed the coming of and the ministry of Christ, who is the fulfillment of Father's Old Testament revelation of Himself.

In fact, the book of Hebrews magnificently, without wavering, affirms the all-sufficiency and sole- sufficiency of Jesus Christ as, not only Savior, but as Son of God and High Priest.  In fully fleshing-out Christ's role as High Priest, Hebrews makes a unique contribution to our biblical canon and our Christian theology.

How is Hebrews similar to other books of the New Testament?  Cockerill points out that there are commonalities with 1 Peter, because both emphasize perseverance in the face of persecution.  The book opens in a way similar to the first few verses of the gospel of John.  Both books emphasize Christ's being the Son of God.  There are parallels between Hebrews and Stephen's speech in Acts 7.

Let's turn now to when Bruce and Cockerill believe Hebrews was written.  Bruce bases his belief on a date of around 65 A.D. on the fact that in 70 A.D., the Jerusalem temple was destroyed.  This cataclysmic destruction ushered in a dispersion of Christians to other parts of the world and also ushered in a time of extreme persecution, neither of which is mentioned in the book of Hebrews.
Cockerill wryly quips that attempts to date Hebrews "have been legion and have appeared to engender almost as much confusion as the biblical demoniac by that name (Mark 5:1-20)".
He then goes on in a more serious manner to offer three possibilities:
Scenario 1
The book was written to Gentile Christians late in the first century.  Due to the fact of the audience being Gentile, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem would have been of scant concern. (Cockerill finds this argument unconvincing.)
Scenario 2
The book was written to Jews, but after the fall of the Temple. Those who hold this position contend that hearers would have been "up in arms" had the writer's claims of the insufficiency of "the old Levitical order" been made while the Temple was still standing.
Scenario 3
(This is the most widely-held position.) The book was written to a largely Jewish-Christian audience before the aforementioned fall.  In support of this date, Bible scholars point out that the book describes the sacrificial rituals in the present tense.  Almost certainly, had the destruction already occurred, the author would have mentioned such a cataclysmic event.  Finally, the writer of Hebrews advocates vehemently that the old sacrificial order has been abolished, in God's scheme of things, and must be abolished in Christian practice.  To fail to abolish it denies the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ. Were the Temple already destroyed, there would be no need for such vehement argument on this point.
Cockerill's position is that it is impossible to date the book more precisely than a range of 50 to 90 A.D.