(c) In 2:3 the writer expressly distinguishes himself from the apostles, and reckons himself
with the second generation of Christians, to whom the word of the Lord was "confirmed by them
that heard" it at the first from the Lord. Paul, on the contrary, puts himself on a par with the other
apostles, and derives his doctrine directly from Christ, without any human intervention (Gal. 1:1,
12, 15, 16). This passage alone is conclusive, and decided Luther, Calvin, and Beza against the
Pauline authorship.^1233
(d) The difference, not in the substance, but in the form and method of teaching and
arguing.^1234
(e) The difference of style (which has already been discussed). This argument does not rest
on the number of peculiar words for such are found in every book of the New Testament, but in
the superior purity, correctness, and rhetorical finish of style.
(f) The difference in the quotations from the Old Testament. The author of Hebrews follows
uniformly the Septuagint, even with its departures from the Hebrew; while Paul is more independent,
and often corrects the Septuagint from the Hebrew. Bleek has also discovered the important fact
that the former used the text of Codex Alexandrinus, the latter the text of Codex Vaticanus.^1235 It
is incredible that Paul, writing to the church of Jerusalem, should not have made use of his Hebrew
and rabbinical learning in quoting the Scriptures.
3 Conjectures concerning the probable author. Four Pauline disciples and co-workers have
been proposed, either as sole or as joint authors with Paul, three with some support in
tradition—Barnabas, Luke, and Clement—one without any Apollos. Silvanus also has a few
advocates.^1236
(a) Barnabas.^1237 He has in his favor the tradition of the African church (at least Tertullian),
his Levitical training, his intimacy with Paul, his close relation to the church in Jerusalem, and his
almost apostolic authority. As the υἱὸς παρακλήσεως(Acts 4:36), he may have written the λόγος
παρακλήσεως(Heb. 13:22). But in this case he cannot be the author of the Epistle which goes by
his name, and which, although belonging to the Pauline and strongly anti-Judaizing tendency, is
yet far inferior to Hebrews in spirit and wisdom. Moreover, Barnabas was a primitive disciple, and
cannot be included in the second generation (2:3).(^1233) Calvin: "Scriptor unum se ex apostolorum discipulis profitetur, quod est a Paulina consuetudine longe alienum." And on
Heb. 2:3, "Hic locus indicio est; epistolam a Paulo non fuisse compositam,"etc.
(^1234) As Calvin expresses it: "Ipsa docendi ratio et stilus alium quam Paulum esse satis testantur." On this point see especially
Riehm’s valuable Lehrbegriff, etc., and the respective sections in the works on the N. T. Theology; also Kurtz’s Com., pp. 24
sqq. The parallelisms which Dr. Kay sets against this argument in the Speaker’s Com., pp. 14 sqq., only prove what nobody
denies, the essential agreement of Hebrews with the Pauline Epistles
(^1235) See the proof in Bleek, vol. I. 338-375. Conveniently ignored in the Speaker’s Com., p. 13.
(^1236) Of the other friends of Paul, Timothy is excluded by the reference to him in Heb. 13:23. Mark, Demas, Titus, Tychicus,
Epaphroditus, Epaphras, Aristarchus, Aquila, Jesus Justus have never been brought forward as candidates. Silvanus, or Silas, is
favorably mentioned by Böhme, Mynster, and Riehm (890 sqq.), on account of his prominent position, Acts 15:22, 27, 34, 40;
16:19; 1 Pet. 5:12.
(^1237) Tertullian, Ullmann, Wieseler, Thiersch, Ritschl, Renan, Zahn. W. R. Smith (in the "Enc. Brit.") likewise leans to the
Barnabas hypothesis.
A.D. 1-100.