The fact that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews purposely wrote anonymously made room for a discussion, which began in the second century and has continued to the present day, as to who the author was. Of course, when the epistle first went forth among the disciples, its authorship was known to those into whose hands it was placed for distribution. But the absence of the author's name indicates a purpose to keep it concealed, and those to whom it was first intrusted were doubtless charged to promote this purpose. We have no means of knowing to what extent it was successfully carried out at the time, or during the first hundred years; but the epistle came down to the close of the third century under Paul's name, yet with doubts in the minds of some whether it was named correctly. Eusebius, who lived at this period, says: "Of Paul the fourteen epistles commonly received are at once manifest and clear. It is not right, however, to ignore the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that it is gainsaid by the Church of Rome as not [58] being Paul's." This shows that some doubted the epistle, and that the point of doubt was its authorship. Eusebius himself, however, does not entertain this doubt; for he says that "the fourteen epistles," commonly received as Paul's, "are at once manifest and clear."

      Origen, who was a teacher at the close of the second century, and who wrote about one hundred years earlier than Eusebius, is quoted by the latter as saying: "I would say that the thoughts are the apostle's, but the diction and phraseology belong to some one who has recorded what the apostle said, and one who wrote down at his leisure what his master dictated. If, then, any church considers this epistle as coming from Paul, let it be commended for this; for neither did those ancient men deliver it as such without cause. But who it was that actually wrote the epistle, God only knows. The account, however, that has been current before us is, according to some, that Clement, who was bishop of Rome, wrote the epistle; according to others, that it was written by Luke, who wrote the Gospel and Acts" (Eccles. Hist. VI. 25). A careful inspection of these words brings out the following points of evidence: First, that "the ancient men," those so called in the end of the second century, had delivered this epistle to their successors as having come from Paul. Second, that there had been current, before Origen's day, the belief among some that the composition of the epistle was the work of Clement, and among others that it was the work of Luke. Third, that even those who held the one or the other of the last two opinions, believed that Paul was the author of the thoughts, and that, having dictated these to Clement or Luke as the case might be, he had left the composition in the hands of the latter. In this instance the difference between the work performed by [59] the latter and that of Tertius, who wrote the Epistle to the Romans, is that in the latter case Paul dictated the words, and that in the former he gave utterance to the thoughts, a paragraph or a section at a time, and left the exact expression of it to his trusted fellow-laborer. Fourth, that Origen was himself fully convinced of the correctness of this view of the process, but was undecided as to the person employed as composer. Let it be observed, too, though it is not stated here, but elsewhere, that the ground of this theory, as to the composition, was not some historical information to this effect, but the difference in style between this epistle and those written under Paul's name. It was, indeed, an attempt to account for a difference in style in a document which, with all its differences, has many of Paul's peculiarities of style, and the thoughts of which were so thoroughly Pauline that they could not, with any show of reason, be ascribed to any other.

      Clement of Alexandria was a contemporary of Origen, and was his immediate predecessor as teacher of the catechetical school in his native city. He says nothing of the epistle in his extant writings, but his opinion is quoted by Eusebius from one of his lost works, as follows: "The Epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Hebrews by Paul in the Hebrew tongue; but it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks. Whence one also finds the same character of style and of phraseology in the epistles as in Acts. But it is probable that the title, Paul the apostle, was not prefixed to it. For as he wrote to the Hebrews who had imbibed prejudices against him, and suspected him, he wisely guards against diverting them from the perusal by giving his name" (Eccles. Hist. VI. 14). This is another attempt to reconcile the undoubted Pauline [60] authorship of the thoughts in the epistle with the similarity of the style to that of Luke. The fact that his explanation differs from that of his friend and contemporary, Origen, shows that neither rested on historical information, but on conjecture. To Clement it appeared more reasonable to suppose that Luke's style got into the document by his translating it out of Hebrew into Greek, than by his being left, after hearing Paul express his thoughts, to write them down in his own way. The conjecture, too, that he at first wrote in Hebrew, was not an improbable one, seeing that he wrote especially for Hebrew readers. Finally, the probable reason suggested for the singular fact that no name was attached to the document, notwithstanding its obvious character as an epistle, is thoroughly in harmony with the facts in the case.

      Tertullian, who was a contemporary of both Clement and Origen, and who lived at Carthage, says, without qualification, that the epistle was written by Barnabas; but he does not state the grounds for the assertion, and we find no trace of this opinion in any other ancient writer. Tertullian was a Latin, and not a Greek, scholar, and consequently he was not able to appreciate those differences of style which had arrested the attention of his two famous contemporaries, who were thoroughly educated in Greek from their childhood. These three are the great Christian scholars and writers of their age; and their statements furnish reliable information as to the state of opinion in their day, say one hundred and forty years after the date of the epistle if Paul wrote it or dictated it. After this time doubts were still entertained by many as to its Pauline authorship, until the meeting of the Council of Carthage at the close of the fourth century, when the question seems to have been [61] settled among ancient scholars; for this council ascribed the epistle to Paul without qualification. From that time the question rested until Luther revived it by expressing the opinion that Apollos was the author; but his opinion was allowed to pass almost in silence, until it was revived by Farrar, and supported by elaborate argumentation in his "Early Days of Christianity." Since then it has been quite the style to echo Farrar's opinion, and it has become almost universal to deny that Paul was the author. This modern denial of the Pauline authorship, however, had its origin farther back. It was argued strenuously by Baur and his successors of the Tubingen school of rationalists, and believing critics have very generally succumbed to the arguments of the great unbeliever.

      It appears to me like one of the freaks of criticism that a document whose Pauline authorship is denied chiefly on the ground of its style should be ascribed by those who make this objection to one of whose style these critics know absolutely nothing; for they have not a line from the pen of Apollos, nor even a sentence quoted from any of his speeches; and how, then, can they know anything at all about his style? The scholars of the second century reasoned more sensibly; for they knew the style of Luke, and of Clement of Rome, and consequently they did not strike out in the dark when they ascribed the composition of this document to the one or the other.

      Apart from the question of style, which is a most precarious ground on which to argue the authorship of a document, especially when it is admitted, as in this case, that the document contains many of Paul's peculiarities of expression, Farrar enumerates ten facts by which he identifies the author. I quote them with a remark under each: [62]

      1. "The writer was a Jew; for he writes as though heathendom were practically non-existent."

      But Paul was a Jew; and in writing to the Jews on a question between Jew and Jew, there might be no occasion to make mention of heathendom.

      2. "He was a Hellenist; for he exclusively quotes the Septuagint version, even where it diverges from the original Hebrew."

      But Paul was a Hellenist, and in his acknowledged epistles he usually quotes the Septuagint version. In writing to Hebrews, he, as well as Apollos, might do this; and either might do it with propriety, seeing that the Hebrews of the time were far more familiar with the Greek version than with the Hebrew original.

      3. "He had been subjected to Alexandrian training; for he shows deep impress of Alexandrian thought, and quotes from Alexandrian MSS. of the Septuagint without pausing to question the accuracy of the renderings."

      The latter part of this reason is a repetition from the second; and the first part has no force, seeing that, so far as there is truth in it, Paul might have been impressed with Alexandrian thought by his extensive reading, without having lived in that city.

      4. "He was a man of great eloquence, of marked originality, of wide knowledge of the Scriptures, and of remarkable gifts in the application of Scripture arguments."

      And, pray, was not Paul pre-eminent in every one of the same characteristics? If they belonged to Apollos, much more to Paul.

      5. "He was a friend of Timotheus, for he proposes to visit the Jewish churches in his company."

      And who was a more intimate friend of Timotheus than Paul? Is Mr. Farrar right sure that Apollos ever [63] met Timothy face to face? If he did, there is no hint of it in the New Testament.

      6. "He was known to his readers, and writes to them in a tone of authority."

      But Paul was well known to a vast number of the Hebrews; and although, as Clement suggests, he might have wished to remain unknown as the author of the epistle to many of his expected readers, he might certainly be well known as such in the particular community to which the epistle was first sent. And as for the authority with which he writes, why should this be thought less characteristic of Paul the apostle than of Apollos the evangelist?

      7. "He was not an apostle; for he classes himself with those who had been taught by the apostles."

      This is an allusion to what is said of "the great salvation" (2:3), which, "first spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them who heard him." But this is true of Paul, though lie was an apostle, seeing that, to use his own expression, he was "born out of due time;" for although, as lie said to the Galatians, there was a certain sense in which the gospel was revealed to him by God, and in which he did not receive it from men (Gal. 1:11, 12), yet that which had been "spoken first by the Lord" was confirmed unto him by the apostles. In other words, the personal career of our Lord is the subject of this remark, and Paul did learn this from the older apostles. He learned much of it while he was an unbeliever.

      8. "The apostle by whom he had been taught was St. Paul, for he largely though independently adopts his phraseology, and makes a special use of the Epistle to the Romans."

      Here is a concession which knocks the breath out of [64] all the preceding statements which had my breath in them; for who would be so likely to adopt Paul's preceding phraseology, and to make special use of his other great epistle, as Paul himself?

      9. "He wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem, and while the temple services were still continuing."

      Yes; but this had to be so if Paul was the writer, for the temple services were still continuing when Paul was beheaded.

      10. "It is doubtful whether he had ever been at Jerusalem, for his references to the temple and its ritual seem to apply, not indeed to the temple of Onios at Leontopolis, but mainly to the tabernacle as described in the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch."

      But what is more natural, when arguing from the law of Moses, than to make his references to the tabernacle which Moses built, rather than to the temple built by Solomon, or by Herod? And how can this imply that he had never been in Jerusalem? Does a man have to be in Jerusalem in order to read the last chapters of Exodus?

      I have been led into this discussion partly by a request received in a letter some weeks ago, but more especially by having just read in the Thinker an article on the question by W. M. Lewis. The writer starts out with the statement that "the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews can not be maintained by the arguments hitherto adduced by its advocates. The place, time and circumstances given during the life of Paul to its production, are untenable, and leave its difficulties unexplained." Then he proceeds to tell us that it was written in Cæsarea during Paul's two years' imprisonment there; and that the thoughts and sentiments were given by the apostle to Luke, to be clothed by him, in his [65] style and language in his private study. "The thoughts are those of the apostle; the writer was Luke. The style and language of the epistle belong to the latter, together, with some subsidiary thoughts and an unavoidable coloring, even to the subject-matter."

      I am so unfortunate as not to know W. M. Lewis; and I can not decide with certainty whether the article in the Thinker is his, or a representation of his by the editor; but, at any rate, here is a return to the theory of the Pauline authorship by a writer who says that the old theory, to the same effect, is untenable. The only difference, however, is that this theory locates the writing in Cæsarea instead of Rome, which is not really a new supposition, for it has been held before by some of the advocates of the old theory. Furthermore, the supposed process of the composition is but a revival of Origen's supposition, so that the nineteenth century goes back to the second century for instruction on a question which was settled for us that long ago. If Mr. Lewis' essay is to be regarded as a pointer, it looks as if the authorship of this noble document, which is, and ever must be, the world's only safe guide in tracing the distinction between Judaism and Christianity, is to be settled at last on the only man in the early church who fully understood the subject, the great apostle to the Gentiles. So may it be.

[SEBC 58-66]