(b) Luke.^1238 He answers the description of 2:3, writes pure Greek, and has many affinities
in style.^1239 But against him is the fact that the author of Hebrews was, no doubt, a native Jew, while
Luke was a Gentile (Col. 4:11, 14). This objection, however, ceases in a measure if Luke wrote in
the name and under the instruction of Paul.
(c) Clemens Romanus.^1240 He makes thorough use of Hebrews and interweaves passages
from the Epistle with his own ideas, but evidently as an imitator, far inferior in originality and
force.
(d) Apollos.^1241 A happy guess of the genius of Luther, suggested by the description given
of Apollos in the Acts 18:24–28, and by Paul (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6; 16:12; Tit. 3:13). Apollos
was a Jew of Alexandria, mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit, eloquent in speech, powerfully
confuting the Jews, a friend of Paul, and independently working with him in the same cause at
Ephesus, Corinth, Crete. So far everything seems to fit. But this hypothesis has not a shadow of
support in tradition, which could hardly have omitted Apollos in silence among the three or four
probable authors. Clement names him once,^1242 but not as the author of the Epistle which he so
freely uses. Nor is there any trace of his ever having been in Rome, and having stood in so close a
relationship to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine.
The learned discussion of modern divines has led to no certain and unanimous conclusion,
but is, nevertheless, very valuable, and sheds light in different directions. The following points may
be regarded as made certain, or at least in the highest degree probable: the author of Hebrews was
a Jew by birth; a Hellenist, not a Palestinian; thoroughly at home in the Greek Scriptures (less so,
if at all, in the Hebrew original); familiar with the Alexandrian Jewish theology (less so, if at all,
with the rabbinical learning of Palestine); a pupil of the apostles (not himself an apostle); an
independent disciple and coworker of Paul; a friend of Timothy; in close relation with the Hebrew
Christians of Palestine, and, when he wrote, on the point of visiting them; an inspired man of
apostolic insight, power, and authority, and hence worthy of a position in the canon as "the great
unknown."
Beyond these marks we cannot go with safety. The writer purposely withholds his name.
The arguments for Barnabas, Luke, and Apollos, as well as the objections against them, are equally
strong, and we have no data to decide between them, not to mention other less known workers of
the apostolic age. We must still confess with Origen that God only knows the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews.
Notes.(^1238) Clement of Alexandria (who, however, regarded Luke only, and wrongly, as translator), Calvin, Grotius, Crell, Ebrard,
Delitzsch, Döllinger. Ebrard supposes that Luke wrote the Epistle at the request and in the name of Paul, who suggested the
general plan and leading ideas. This is the most plausible form of the Luke hypothesis, but does not account for the doctrinal
differences.
(^1239) This linguistic argument has been overdone by Delitzsch and weakened by fanciful or far-fetched analogies. See the strictures
of Lünemann, pp. 24-31.
(^1240) Mentioned as a subjective conjecture by Origen (Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοποσ Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν) alongside
with Luke. Renewed by Erasmus and Bisping.
(^1241) Luther, Osiander, Norton, Semler, Bleek, Tholuck, Credner, Reuss, Bunsen, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Moll, Kendrick, Alford,
Lünemann, Kurtz, Samuel Davidson, A. B. Davidson. The Apollos hypothesis has been the most popular until, within the last
few years, Renan, Zahn, and W. Robertson Smith have turned the current again in favor of the Barnabas hypothesis. Riehm,
after a full and judicious discussion, wavers between Apollos and Silvanus, but ends with Origen’s modest confession of ignorance
(p. 894).
(^1242) Ep. ad Cor., c. 47.
A.D. 1-100.