composition to Luke.^1229 Origen observes the greater purity of the Greek style,^1230 and mentions
Luke and Clement, besides Paul, as possible authors, but confesses his own ignorance.^1231
(b) The mention of Timothy and the reference to a release from captivity (Heb. 13:23) point
to Paul. Not necessarily, but only to the circle of Paul. The alleged reference to Paul’s own captivity
in 10:34 rests on a false reading (δεσμοῖς μου, E. V., "in my bonds," instead of the one now generally
adopted, τοῖς δεσμίοις, "those that were in bonds"). Nor does the request 13:18, 19, imply that the
writer was a prisoner at the time of composition; for 13:23 rather points to his freedom, as he
expected, shortly to see his readers in company with Timothy.
(c) The agreement of the Epistle with Paul’s system of doctrine, the tone of apostolic
authority, and the depth and unction which raises the Epistle to a par with his genuine writings.
But all that can be said in praise of this wonderful Epistle at best proves only its inspiration and
canonicity, which must be extended beyond the circle of the apostles so as to embrace the writings
of Luke, Mark, James, and Jude.- The Non-Pauline Authorship is supported by the following arguments:
(a) The Western tradition, both Roman and North African, down to the time of Augustin,
is decidedly against the Pauline authorship. This has all the more weight from the fact that the
earliest traces of the Epistle to the Hebrews are found in the Roman church, where it was known
before the close of the first century. Clement of Rome makes very extensive use of it, but nowhere
under the name of Paul. The Muratorian Canon enumerates only thirteen Epistles of Paul and omits
Hebrews. So does Gaius, a Roman presbyter, at the beginning of the third century. Tertullian
ascribed the Epistle to Barnabas. According to the testimony of Eusebius, the Roman church did
not regard the Epistle as Pauline at his day (he died 340). Philastrius of Brescia (d. about 387)
mentions that some denied the Pauline authorship, because the passage 6:4–6 favored the heresy
and excessive disciplinary rigor of the Novatians, but he himself believed it to be Paul’s, and so
did Ambrose of Milan. Jerome (d. 419) can be quoted on both sides. He wavered in his own view,
but expressly says: "The Latin custom (Latina consuetudo) does not receive it among the canonical
Scriptures;" and in another place: "All the Greeks receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, and some
Latins (et nonnulli Latinorum)." Augustin, a profound divine, but neither linguist nor critic, likewise
wavered, but leaned strongly toward the Pauline origin. The prevailing opinion in the West ascribed
only thirteen Epistles to Paul. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the third Synod of Carthage (397),
under the commanding influence of Augustin, marked a transition of opinion in favor of fourteen.^1232
This opinion prevailed until Erasmus and the Reformers revived the doubts of the early Fathers.
The Council of Trent sanctioned it.
(b) The absence of the customary name and salutation. This has been explained from
modesty, as Paul was sent to the Gentiles rather than the Jews (Pantaenus), or from prudence and
the desire to secure a better hearing from Jews who were strongly prejudiced against Paul (Clement
of Alexandria). Very unsatisfactory and set aside by the authoritative tone of the Epistle.
(^1229) Dr. Biesenthal has, by a retranslation of the Ep. into Hebrew, endeavored to prove this theory in "Das Trostschreiben des
Ap. Paulus an die Hebraeer,"Leipz., 1878. But, of course, this is no argument any more than Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation of
the entire New Testament. Such happy phrases as πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως (Heb.1:1) and ἔμαθεν ἐφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν
(5:8) cannot be reproduced in Hebrew at all.
(^1230) συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως ἐλληνικ–ϊωτέ–ͅϊρα. Ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.
(^1231) τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἷδεν.
(^1232) "Pauli Apostoli epistolae tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebraeos una."
A.D. 1-100.