tioned in the Acts of the apostles, and in the epistles of Paul, is one about which critics are divided. The majority seem to be in favour of the negative. The principal reasons are of an internal nature, viz. the contents of the epistle; which seem to be unworthy of him who stood in such a near and dear relation to Paul. One almost spontaneously adopts this opinion, from the mere reading of the epistle. But whether Barnabas, the companion of Paul, wrote this epistle or not, whoever did write it, he surely was not the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. A greater difference in writing can scarcely be even imagined.

If the apostolic Barnabas were not the author in question, then we have no writing of his with which we can compare our epistle, and of course no means of judging in this way. And as to the testimony of Tertullian in respect to Barnabas, it appears at most only to give the opinion of the churches in Proconsular Africa; inasmuch as Origen and Eusebius know nothing of such an opinion.

§ 36. Was Luke the author?

The first suggestion among the ancient fathers, that Luke had any part in the composition of the epistle to the Hebrews, is found in a fragment of Clement of Alexandria preserved by Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. VI. 14), in which Clement asserts, that "Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke carefully translated it into the Greek ;" see note p. 83. The same opinion or tradition Origen mentions thus: "If I may give my opinion, I should say, The thoughts are the apostle's; but the phraseology and composition belong to some one who relates what the apostle said, and as it were comments on the words of his master. But who wrote [i. e. wrote down] the epistle, God only knows. Report which has come down to us, says, either that Clement of Rome wrote it, or that Luke the Evangelist did," p. 87 supra.

Both Bertholdt and Eichhorn have adduced Origen as asserting, that report attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Luke as the real author; which the context in Origen by no means allows. I cannot but understand him as saying merely, that 'the ancients had a report, that either Luke or Clement wrote down the epistle;' which corresponds with the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, Origen's teacher in early life. We have seen that afterwards, among the Latin churches, either Luke, or Clement, was regarded as the real author of this epistle; for so the testimony of Jerome and Philastrius, cited in the preceding section, would seem to indicate.

We have no historical ground, then, on which we can build the opinion, that Luke was the author of this epistle. An uncertain tradition of the fourth century is surely insufficient. And even if Origen be understood as asserting, that tradition, in his day, assigned the composition of our epistle to Luke; he also asserts, at the same time, that traditionary testimony was at variance with itself, as one party assigned it to Clement of Rome. He evidently credits neither the one nor the other; at least,

not in such a way as to be fully persuaded in his own mind; for he says “Who wrote down the epistle, τὸ μὲν ἀλεθὲς θεὸς οἶδε.”

The same uncertainty both Jerome and Philastrius exhibit, in the testimony to which allusion has just been made.

It is no doubt true, that the style of Luke approximates much nearer to that of the epistle to the Hebrews, than the style of the epistle attributed to Barnabas; so that a comparison in this respect, does not lead to so clear and satisfactory a result in this case as in that. But the situation of Luke, (born and educated abroad, as he was, and never having resided long in Palestine), would hardly lead one to believe that he was so deeply versed in Rabbinical lore, aud in Jewish feelings and modes of thinking, as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews must have been. Besides, it is certain, (at least it would seem to be so), from the whole tenor of our epistle, that the author of it must have been a Hebrew. But from Col. 4: 14, comp. 4: 10, it appears plainly that Luke was a Hellenist.

The main difficulty, however, is the want of any external evidence that Luke was the author. And as there are, at least, no internal circumstances or evidence from style which speak much in favour of such an opinion, it must be abandoned as improbable and altogether unsupported.

§37. Was Clement of Rome the author?

Origen is the first who mentions Clement as the possible writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. In what sense he does this, has been already considered. Jerome and Philastrius, long afterwards, mention that some in the Latin churches attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Clement of Rome. The evidence of this from testimony, then, is not entitled to any degree of credit, sufficient to create serious doubts whether Clement may not have been the author.

The internal evidence, drawn from a comparison of the epistle to the Hebrews with Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians, by no means favours the supposition in question. Clement has often cited the epistle to the Hebrews. The manner in which he does this, seems to afford pretty good evidence, that he did not write that epistle himself; for, as we have already seen, he appeals to it as Scripture, in order to establish and confirm the sentiments which he is inculcating, and in the same manner as he does elsewhere to the other Scriptures.* Is this to be supposed, in case he himself wrote that epistle? Did Clement attribute scriptural authority to his own epistle? Or did the church whom he addressed, attribute scriptural authority to any epistles but to those of an apostle? Does he any where in his letter appeal to other epistles than

Bleek (Comm. Vol. I. p. 411) says, that the relation of the passages in Clement, which are cited from the epistle to the Hebrews, is such that we must regard it as much more probable that he quoted from our epistle, than that he copied himself. Yet in his Review of my work, p. 28, he has appended two interrogation points to the like sentiment quoted from me. He will pardon me for asking, whether a sentiment can pass for correct on the east side of the Atlantic, and need double questioning on the west of it.

such? The obvious answer to these inquiries determines the question, whether Clement wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, in the negative.

But further. The discrepancy of style is so great between the epistle of Clement and that, to the Hebrews, as to make it sufficiently evident that both did not proceed from the same pen. I refer not merely to the choice of words, (although this might be easily shewn to be considerable), but to the general spirit and manner of the execution. There is an energy, originality, vividness of conception, and intensity of feeling, displayed every where in the epistle to the Hebrews, which is wholly wanting in Clement's epistle. This is plain, kind, faithful; but it is moderate, comparatively tame, made up of many extracts from the Old Testament and from Paul, and of imitations as close as they could well be of the latter. But what a wide difference there is, after all, between the original writer and the imitator, every one must feel who reads both. The one is a feeble rivulet gliding gently along, which, but for the occasional contributions it receives from other streams, would become absorbed by the earth over which it passes, and cease to flow; the other a mighty stream, overflowing all its banks, supplying with water and fertilizing all the country through which it passes. It really seems to me, that a man might as well mistake a canal on the banks of the Nile for the noble river itself, as mistake Clement for the author of the epistle to the Hebrews.

§38. Was Silvanus the author?

The belief that such was the case, is recent. Mynster and Boehme, (both living authors I believe), have assayed to defend this opinion.

Mynster grounds it on the supposition, that our epistle was sent to the Galatian church along with the one inscribed to the Galatians, although not written by Paul but by Sylvanus, who was in company with him. In this last respect he differs from Storr, while he agrees with him as to other important circumstances.

If the reader will reperuse § 5, and especially the contents of No. 8 in that section, he will see that the internal evidence of our epistle decides conclusively against such a supposition as that of Mynster.

In regard to Boehme, his opinion is built on the assumed resemblance of the first epistle of Peter to the epistle to the Hebrews. Both of these he regards as written by Silvanus or Silas, who was an intimate friend and companion of Paul, Acts 15: 40 seq. 16:19 seq. 17:14, 15. 18:5. 2 Cor. 1: 19. 1 Thess. 1: 1. 2 Thess. 1: 1; and also of Peter, 1 Pet. 5: 12. But as the alleged authorship is incapable of any satisfactory proof, so it seems also to be destitute of any probability. As to the likeness of style between the two epistles (Hebrews and 1 Peter), I must appeal to what has been said above, and to every unprejudiced reader who is able to judge of such a matter. A hypothesis that has not a better foundation than this, I cannot believe will find much favour among the more intelligent class of critics.

Bleek himself finds the reason alleged by Boehme to be quite insufficient, although he elsewhere asserts, (as we have seen above), the strong

resemblance between the epistle to the Hebrews and the first epistle of Peter. But the principal reason, he says, which renders the opinion of Boehme improbable, is, that Silvanus or Silas was a resident at Jerusalem, Acts 15:22, and must have known better than to commit the mistakes made in Heb. 9:3, 4. On the same ground he decides against Mark as the author of our epistle, Comm. I. p. 408.

The subject of these mistakes has been examined above, § 31, and to this examination I must refer the reader. It would at least have been well, before so many important arguments were built on the alleged mistakes of Heb. 9; 3, 4, to have inquired still further, whether the mistake was in the writer of the passage or in his commentator.

§39. Was Apollos the author?

A supposition never made by any of the ancient churches, and first ventured upon, I believe, by Luther, Comm. in Gen. 48:20. Postill. Ecc. Test. S. Johann. Evang. p. 44. But this opinion has since been applauded or defended by Le Clerc, Heumann, Müller, Semler, Ziegler, Bertholdt, Dindorf, and very recently and at some length, by Bleek.

The difficulties attending the supposition are, (1) We have no external evidence in favour of it; no voice of antiquity being raised to testify, that Apollos has left one single line of any written composition behind him, much less such an epistle as that to the Hebrews. (2) We have no internal evidence of such a fact; for there is no testimony of this nature in the epistle itself; and there can be no evidence drawn from the style of it compared with the style and diction of Apollos, inasmuch as we have no writing of Apollos with which the comparison can be made.

Bleek however urges, (1) That Apollos was a Jew of Alexandria, eloquent, and well versed in the Scriptures, Acts 18: 24. 1 Cor. I-IV. His eloquence will account,' he thinks, 'for the oratorical manner of our epistle in distinction from that of Paul. His being an Alexandrian, will explain his attachment to types, allegory, and mystical explanation, etc.' But was such a mode of explanation, at that time, limited to Alexandria? And as to "being mighty in the Scriptures," how could a man be called so, who committed so gross and obvious a mistake as Bleek attributes to the writer, in 9: 3, 4 of our epistle? (2) Apollos was a very zealous advocate for Christianity in opposition to Judaism, Acts 18: 28.' Ans. So was Paul, and so were many others. (3) 'Apollos appears to have been intimately connected with Paul, Tit. 3: 13.' Ans. So was Timothy and many others.

The paragraph of Bleek, on this subject, is closed by high commendation of Luther, for "correct critical tact" in making the discovery in question; and in his Review, Bleek has expressed the hope that his view of this subject in his Commentary, § 91, may win more of my regard than I have manifested for it in the first edition of my work.

One thing I very readily concede, viz. that of all the men who have been supposed to be the authors of our epistle, (Paul excepted), Apollos appears to have been most peculiarly qualified. The possibility that

Apollos wrote it who will deny? The probability is what most concerns us. How then, among all the conjectures of the ancients, (Barnabas, Luke, Clement of Rome), comes it that none of them should ever have hit upon the fortunate conjecture of Luther; and specially when this would seem to be so obvious a one? Why did not Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, vindicate this honour to a native of their own beloved city? Or if you say that Pantaenus and Clement did not do this because they had a preconceived opinion that Paul was the author; why did not Origen, (whom Bleek represents as so doubtful about the author of our epistle), hit upon this happy conjecture in respect to his native townsman? And how could it be, that not a trace of such a belief can be found ever to have existed at Alexandria, the native place of Apollos, provided he were really the author of our epistle. Of all the places in the Christian world, at that time, this was the one most likely to preserve and perpetuate the honour due to him. And how could it be, that the report of Apollos as being the author should never have reached that place? Somebody certainly did once know who wrote our epistle. The greetings, etc., at the close of it, make it certain that the church to whom it was addressed must have known this. Would not the fame of this have reached Alexandria, the second metropolis of the world? And would not the memory of it have been perpetuated in the noble school there, down to future ages? I do not aver all this to be so; but I must confess, that in the light of such questions, I am obliged to regard the conjecture of Luther as far less probable and happy than it appears to be to Bleek; nay, to believe that it is altogether improbable.

If Bleek should ask, whether the same or the like questions may not be urged in regard to Paul as the author, I answer that for the most part they may. But then the reply to them will be a different one; and this is, that the churches at Alexandria were uniform in their belief that Paul was the author. I hope he will not take it amiss, therefore, that I feel obliged still to regard the happy conjecture of Luther, as without adequate support, and even against probability.

§ 40. In what language was the epistle originally written?

On this question there has been a difference of opinion among critics, both in ancient and modern times. Clement of Alexandria says, that "Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke carefully translated it into Greek," Euseb. Hist. Ecc. VI. 14. Eusebius in the same manner says, that 'Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and that, according to report, either Luke or Clement translated it,' Euseb. III. 28. So Jerome also; "Scripserat ut Hebraeus Hebraeis Hebraicè, (Catal. vir. illust. voc. Paulus);" and then he adds, that 'this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from that of Paul's.' Of the same opinion in respect to this, was Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, Euthalius, Primasius, Johannes Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others. Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that the thoughts contain