CNT-17 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. This Epistle stands by itself, as the only specimen of anonymous writing contained in the New Testament. It is also destitute of local superscription or address; and hence can be referred to no particular church for authen­tication and endorsement. It is not then strange that it was received by some with hesitation, and that questions afterwards arose, not so much regarding its authority, which was admitted, but regarding its authorship, which had been purposely concealed. The fact that this document, without superscription or signature, and containing the name of only one solitary Christian, Timothy, was promptly received by a portion of the primitive church as an authoritative exposition of Christian truth, indicates that those who first received it must have known its origin. It must have been delivered by a trusty messenger, and accompanied by sufficient in­timations of its authorship to insure its acceptance. Of course it was not universally received at once. The Latin fathers, down to the year 300, do not quote it as one of Paul’s Epistles. Tertullian, AD 200, attributed it to Barnabas; and Cyprian does not admit its Pauline origin. But the Epistle was not sent to the Latins, but to the Hebrews, and, lacking the ordinary tokens of author­ity—the signature or salutation of Paul—the Latins were perfectly justified in hesitating, and suspending their judgment until they were fully informed of the facts in the case. On the contrary, the Alexandrian fathers re­ceived it,—Alexandria being famed as a center both of Hebrew and Christian learning—and the concurrent tes­timony of most ancient writers was that this Epistle was written by Paul. The learned Origen, in his Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews, after alluding to certain points wherein it differs in style from Paul’s acknowledged Epis­tles, says, “If I were to express my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but the diction and composition that of someone who recorded from memory the apostle’s teachings, and sought to illustrate with a brief commentary the sayings of his master. If, then, any church hold this Epistle to be Paul’s, we cannot find fault with it for so doing; for it was not without good reason that the men of old time have handed it down as Paul’s. But who it was who wrote the Epistle, God only knows certainly.” Of course no one living in Origen’s time could person­ally know “certainly” who had written a treatise a cen­tury and a half before; but the evidence from antiquity was as clear as it could be, from the nature of the case. And such testimony as this seems reasonably conclusive, unless something besides mere opinion is brought to op­pose it.

It has been suggested that Hebrews may have been written by Barnabas, Apollos, or Zenas. But would such a treatise have been accepted at the hands of Barnabas, Apollos, or Zenas without the signature of the author or the endorsement of any apostle? And would either of those men have been likely to write such a treatise as this, and send forth the sole production of his pen, anony­mously? How could such an Epistle ever have found acceptance among the churches? The epistles of Barnabas and of Clement of Rome were received with much respect in the early church, because their authors were believed to be fellow-laborers with the apostles; but how could an anonymous letter gain admis­sion to the list of the sacred writings of the Christian church, unless those who first received it knew it to be the production of some one of the apostles?

There are modern writers who, from internal evidence, pronounce with great positiveness against the Pauline origin of Hebrews. They declare it impossible that Paul should have been its author. There are other learned men, however, who draw opposite conclusions from the facts in the case; and who claim to see similarities of thought and expression which indicate the Pauline origin of Hebrews. And those who most strenuously oppose this view admit that the Epistle was inspired by Paul, and that it contains and embodies his ideas; but they as­sert that it differs in style from Paul’s writings, and that it exhibits greater eloquence than can be observed in his acknowledged Epistles,

It is not probable that many of the readers of the origi­nal are sufficiently familiar with the diction and style of Paul to pronounce an authoritative judgment on such grounds. The mere fact of a difference of style is by no means a conclusive proof of different authorship. The critic who should read The Metropolitan Pulpit, The Treasury of David, and John Ploughman’s Talks, could readily detect a very marked difference in their style; but he would be a bold theorist who, on such grounds, would deny that Charles H. Spurgeon was the author of either of these works. Nothing would be more natural than that an anonymous writing should be purposely composed in a style peculiar to itself. And it would be reasonable to suppose that a person writing anonymously a treatise designed for general circulation, and destined, perhaps, to endure the most searching criticism, should take much more pains in the construction of his sentences than would a prisoner in writing a familiar letter to some in­dividual with whom he was acquainted, or to some church for whom he felt a loving sympathy. And as Paul in his acknowledged Epistles frequently joins with him Timothy or Silvanus, they apparently sharing the authorship and responsibility of the writing, it would not be at all surpris­ing if, in writing an anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, he availed himself of the aid of Apollos, Barnabas, Timo­thy, or any other of his co-workers. An Epistle designed to be sent forth anonymously would most naturally be subjected to careful revision; and he who could say, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” and who had shown such eminent tact and adaptation in his addresses to Romans, Jews, and Athe­nians, and in the presence of governors, rulers, and kings, would naturally produce a treatise differing both in style and character from the briefer and less elaborate produc­tions which had been written when chained to a Roman soldier, while the burden of the churches lay upon his lov­ing heart.

There can be no doubt concerning the reception of the Epistle to the Hebrews by the early Christians. Clement of Rome in his Epistle quotes or alludes to it again and again. In his first Apology (Chapter 12) Justin Martyr speaks of Christ as both “Son and Apostle of God the Father of all,”—a title of Christ only found in Heb 3:1; the “Apostle and High Priest of our profession.”

According to Dr. Lardner, certain passages in the Epis­tles of Ignatius, about AD 107, are thought by some to allude to the Epistle to the Hebrews. It seems to be re­ferred to by Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, AD 108, and it also seems to be alluded to in the ac­count of Polycarp’s martyrdom, about AD 150. It is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, AD 194. It is received in substance as Paul’s by Origen, AD 230, and by Dionys­ius, Bishop of Alexandria, AD 247. It is referred to by Theognostius of Alexandria, AD 285. It appears to have been received by Methodius, AD 292, and by Pamphilius, AD 294. It was received and ascribed to Paul by Alex­ander, Bishop of Alexandria, AD 313. It is often quoted by Eusebius as Paul’s. It was received by Athanasius, AD 330; by Admantius, AD 380; by Cyril of Jerusa­lem, AD 347; by the Council of Laodicea, AD 368; by Epiphanius, AD 368; by the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions about the end of the fourth century; by Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Didymus of Alexandria, and Ephraem the Syrian, about AD 370; also by Diodorus of Tarsus, AD 378; by Hierax, the learned Egyptian, AD 302; by Serapion, Bishop of Thumis in Egypt, AD 347; by Titus, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia, about AD 362; by Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, about AD 394; by Chrysostom, AD 398; by Severan, Bishop of Gabala, in Syria, AD 401; and by the churches of Syria, as well as by numerous other learned authors mentioned by Lardner, among whom are Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia, in Italy, AD 380, and Jerome, AD 390, who, while referring to Hebrews as one of Paul’s Epistles, testifies that it was generally received by the Greeks and Christians of the East, but not by all the Latins.

Let us now look at the Epistle itself, and see what in­formation it will afford us. From a careful examination we reach the following conclusions:

We can easily conceive why the apostle Paul might choose thus to write. One who from being a furious per­secutor had changed to be a zealous Christian, and who had thus incurred the fiercest hatred of his countrymen; who had been mobbed in Jerusalem, where he had been trained at the feet of Gamaliel and honored with high position; who had heard the shouts of Jewish zealots cry­ing, “Away with him, for it is not fit that such a fellow should live on the earth;” who knew that at one time more than forty men had sworn that they would neither eat nor drink until they had shed his blood; who had been accused and assaulted by his countrymen, who so hated him that to secure himself from assassination at their hands he had appealed unto Caesar; a man who had of the Jews five times received forty stripes save one; who had been persecuted and followed from city to city by Jewish zealots, and whose name must have become a hissing and a curse among them, throughout the world;—such a man, yearning over his erring countrymen, and earnestly desiring to lead them to the knowledge of the truth, but knowing that whatever he might say or do, the mention of his name could only awaken prejudice and fill them with rage, and possibly cause the persecution and death of those to whom his testimony was confided, might, in the exercise of only ordinary wisdom, conclude that, after writing many Epistles in his own name, he could in this instance best serve the cause of truth by suppressing his name, and setting forth in an imper­sonal form those great truths which he so much desired that his brethren according to the flesh should know.

Against the single objection that the style of this Epis­tle differs from Paul’s usual style, we set, then, the facts that it was promptly received as an apostolic production; that it was apparently written before Jerusalem was de­stroyed; that it was written by one familiar with the Jewish religion and deeply interested in the welfare of the Jews; that its author was not one of the first disciples of the Lord, but was one who felt himself an outcast from the Jewish nation; that it was written by one who had been in bonds, and who was in close communion with Timothy; that it was written from Italy; and that, finally, it was written by one who had such reasons as no other person could have had for addressing the Jewish people anonymously. All these indications point to the apostle Paul as the author of the book of Hebrews, and lead us to agree with the learned Origen when he says, “It was not without good reason that the men of old have handed it down as Paul’s."