HEBREWS,
EPISTLE
TO
other
early
description
to
wliich
it
is
necessary
to
refer
in
this
place
is
that
given
to
it
by
TertuUian,
who
ex-pressly
quotes
it
by
the
title
of
'
Barnabas
to
the
Hebrews'
(de
Pud.
20).
It
seems
to
have
been
unanimously
accepted
from
the
very
earliest
period
that
the
objective
of
the
Epistle
was
correctly
described
by
this
title.
Whether,
however,
this
conclusion
was
based
on
sound
traditional
evidence
or
was
merely
arrived
at
from
the
internal
character
of
the
writing
itself,
must
be
left
to
research
or
conjecture;
for
we
must
not
suppose
that
the
words
'to
Hebrews'
form
any
part
of
the
original
document.
1.
Authorship.
—
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
this
writing
was
known
by
the
most
ancient
Christian
writers,
at
all
events
by
those
belonging
to
the
Church
in
Home,
it
is
noteworthy
that
all
traces
as
to
its
author-ship
seem
to
have
been
lost
very
soon.
The
only
information,
with
regard
to
this
question,
to
be
gleaned
from
the
Roman
Church
is
of
the
negative
character
that
it
was
not
written
by
St.
Paul.
Indeed,
the
Western
Church
as
a
whole
seems
to
have
allowed
its
presence
in
the
Canon
only
after
a
period
of
uncertainty,
and
even
then
to
have
regarded
it
as
of
secondary
im-portance
because
of
its
lack
of
Apostolic
authority.
The
Muratorian
Fragment
does
not
include
it
in
its
cata-logue,
and
implicitly
denies
its
Pauline
authorship
('The
blessed
Apostle
Paul
himself,
following
the
example
of
his
predecessor
John,
wrote
only
to
seven
Churches
by
name,'
etc.,
see
Westcott,
Canon
of
the
NT,
App.
C),
as
does
also
Caius.
Of
more
direct
value
are
the
testimonies
of
Hip-polytus
and
Irenseus,
both
of
whom
were
acquainted
with
the
Epistle,
but
denied
that
St.
Paul
wrote
it
(of.
Eusebius,
HE
V.
26,
vi.
20;
see
Salmon's
Introd.
to
NT',
p.
47).
The
Churches
of
North
Africa
and
Alexandria,
on
the
contrary,
have
their
respective
positive
traditions
on
this
question.
The
former,
as
has
been
noted
already,
attributed
the
writing
to
Barnabas
—
a
theory
preserved
by
TertuUian
alone,
and
destined
to
fall
into
complete
oblivion
until
quite
recent
times
(cf.
e.g.
Zahn,
EivXeitung,
ii.
p.
116
f.).
The
Alexandrian
belief
in
the
authorship
of
St.
Paul,
indirectly
at
least,
dates
as
far
back
as
the
closing
years
of
the
2nd
century.
Clem.
Alex,
goes
so
far
as
to
suggest
that
St.
Paul
wrote
it
originally
in
Hebrew,
suppressing
his
name
from
motives
of
expediency,
and
that
St.
Luke
translated
it
for
the
use
of
those
who
understood
only
Greek.
Origen,
who
had
his
own
doubts
as
to
the
reUability
of
the
local
tradition,
never-theless
upheld
St.
Paul
as
the
ultimate
author;
and
his
influence
undoubtedly
had
powerful
weight
in
overcoming
the
Western
hesitation.
At
all
events,
by
the
Sth
cent,
it
was
almost
universally
held
to
be
the
product
of
St.
Paul's
literary
activity;
and
this
belief
was
not
disturbed
until
the
revival
of
learning
in
the
16th
cent.,
when
again
a
wide
divergence
of
opinion
displayed
itself.
Erasmus,
the
fimt
to
express
the
latent
feelings
of
uncer-tainty,
conjectured
in
a
characteristically
modest
fashion
that
Clement
of
Home
was
possibly
the
author.
Luther,
with
his
usual
boldness
and
independence,
hazarded
the
unsupported
guess
that
its
author
was
Apollos
(cf
.
Farrar,
The
Early
Days
of
Christianity,
ch.
xvii.;
and
Bleek,
/7i(rod.
to
NT
ii.
pp.
91
£f.).
Calvin
wavered
between
St.
Luke
and
Clement,
following,
no
doubt,
some
of
the
statements
of
Origen
as
to
traditions
current
m
his
day
(see
Eusebius,
HE
VI.
25).
In
the
midst
of
such
conflicting
evidence
it
is
im-possible
to
feel
certain
on
the
question
of
authorship;
nor
need
we
experience
uneasiness
on
this
head.
The
authenticity
and
inspiration
of
a
book
are
not
dependent
upon
our
knowing
who
wrote
it.
In
the
case
of
our
Epistle,
it
is
the
subject-matter
which
primarily
arrests
the
attention.
The
writer
is
holding
before
the
minds
of
his
readers
the
Son
of
God,
who,
as
man,
has
spoken
'at
the
end
of
these
days'
(1').
It
seems
to
be
suitable
to
his
theme
that
he
should
retire
behind
the
veil
of
anonymity;
for
he
speaks
of
One
who
is
the
'efful-gence'
of
the
Divine
Glory,
'and
the
very
image
of
his
substance'
(v.»).
We
have
thus
no
resource
but
to
appeal
to
the
writing
HEBREWS,
EPISTLE
TO
Itself
in
order
to
arrive
at
a
decision
as
to
the
hind
of
person
likely
to
have
penned
such
a
document
(cf.
art.
'Hebrews'
in
Hastings'
DB,
vol.
ii.
338a).
The
author
seems
to
have
a
personal
and
an
intimate
knowledge
of
the
character
and
history
of
those
whom
he
addresses
(cf.
6"-
10«
13'-
").
It
is
quite
possible,
of
course,
that
this
may
have
been
gained
through
the
medium
of
others,
and
that
he
is
speaking
of
a
reputation
established
and
well
known.
When
we
consider,
however,
the
numerous
instances
in
which
close
ties
of
relationship
betray
themselves,
we
are
forced
to
the
conclusion
that
the
writer
and
his
readers
were
personally
known
to
each
other.
Timothy
was
a
mutual
friend
(132»),
although
it
is
confessed
that
both
the
author
and
those
addressed
belong
to
the
second
generation
of
Christians
(2^).
There
is,
moreover,
a
constant
use
of
the
first
personal
pronoun
(1^
2«-
»
3»-
"
i'-
»
e's*-
8'
9"
lO'"'
19.25.
30
iia
1310),
even
in
places
where
we
should
have
expected
that
of
the
second
person
(e.^.
12"-
"a
13""-).
To
the
present
writer
the
words
translated
'
that
I
may
be
restored
speedily
unto
you'
(13")
seem
to
convey
the
meaning
that
he
had
been
amongst
them
once,
although
Westcott
is
inclined
to
see
here
but
a
suggestion
of
'
the
idea
of
service
wliich
he
had
rendered
and
could
render
to
his
readers'
(Ep.
to
the
Hebrews,
in
toe,
see
also
Introd.
pp.
Ixxv-vi
and
Cremer,
Bibl.-Theol.
Lex.
of
NT
Greek,
p.
312).
If
thus
he
were
a
close
personal
acquaintance,
these
reminiscences
of
their
former
endurance,
and
of
the
faithfulness
of
those
through
whose
instrumentality
they
had
embraced
the
Christian
faith,
gain
force
and
point
(cf.
10»
13').
There
is,
moreover,
a
tone
of
authority
throughout,
as
if
the
writer
had
no
fear
that
his
words
would
be
resented
or
misinterpreted
(12"-
139
102s.
as
sua.
312
etc.).
To
these
notes
of
authorship
must
be
added
the
evidence
of
wide
literary
culture
observable
throughout
the
Epistle.
This
characteristic
has
been,
and
Is,
universally
acknowledged.
The
author
did
not
use
the
Hebrew
OT,
and
in
the
single
quotation
where
he
varies
from
the
LXX
we
gather,
either
that
he
was
ac-quainted
with
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans,
or
that
he
gives
a
variant
reading
preserved
and
popularized
by
the
Targ.
Onk.
(cf.
ID'"
and
Ro
121b).
There
is
no
other
NT
writer
who
displays
the
same
rhetorical
skill
in
presenting
the
final
truths
of
the
Christian
religion
in
their
world-wide
relations
(cf.
l'-*
2»->8
6"-2»
11'-"
etc.).
His
vocabulary
Is
rich
and
varied,
and
in
this
respect
stands
closer
to
the
writings
of
St.
Luke
than
to
any
other
of
the
NT
books.
'
The
number
of
words
found
in
the
Epistle
which
have
a
peculiar
Biblical
sense
is
comparatively
small'
(Westcott,
ib.
Introd.
xlvi.).
For
these
and
similar
reasons
it
is
generally
believed
that
our
author
was
a
scholar
of
Hellenistic
training,
and
most
probably
an
Alexandrian
Jew
of
philosophic
temperament
and
education
(see
Bacon,
Introd.
to
NT,
p.
141).
2.
Destination,
circumstances
ofreaders,
date.—
When
we
ask
ourselves
the
question,
Who
were
the
people
addressed
in
this
Epistle?,
we
are
again
met
with
a
confusing
variety
of
opinion.
The
chief
rival
claimants
to
this
honour
are
three:
Palestine,
which
has
the
most
ancient
tradition
in
its
favour,
and
which
is
countenanced
by
the
superscription;
Alexandria;
and
Borne,
where
the
Epistle
first
seems
to
have
been
known
and
recog-nized.
One
conclusion
may,
at
any
rate,
be
accepted
as
certain:
the
addressees
formed
a
definite
homo-geneous
body
of
Christians.
The
writer
has
a
local
Church
in
view,
founded
at
a
specific
period,
and
suffer-ing
persecution
at
a
definite
date
(note
the
tense
of
the
verbs,
'ye
were
enlightened,'
'ye
endured,'
W").
He
addresses
this
Church
independently
of
its
recognized
'leaders'
(13«).
In
his
exhortation
to
patience
and
endurance
he
reminds
his
readers
of
the
speedy
return
of
Jesus,
as
if
they
had
already
begun
to
despair
of
the
fulfilment
of
that
promise
(lO"*-;
cf.
2
P
Z"-,
Rev
3',
2
Th
2'«)
.
He
had
been
with
them
at
some
period
prior
