HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO TIIE, one of the epistles of the New Testament. Much dis cussion has arisen both as to its canonicity and authorship, the absence of the customary superscription rendering it impossible to attain certainty in regard to the latter, and natu rally enough tending to throw doubt on the former also. In reference to the first and more important of these points, the canonicity, the ease stands as follows: The earliest Post-apostolic writer, Clemens Romani's, quotes from it in the same way, as from the other books admittedly canonical. Justin Martyr, Pinytus CO, the Cretan bishop, the predecessors of Clemens Alexandrines and Origen, and the framers of the Peshito ver sion of the New Testament, accept it as authoritative; while the Gnostic heretics, Basilides and Marcion. are spoken of as distinctly rejecting it. No disbelief of its canonicity is expressed by any section of the orthodox church until after the middle of the 2d c.—though many writers are silent altogether about it—after which period, for the next two centuries, the Roman and north African churches reject its authority. Tertullian speaks of it as a good sort of apocryphal book; Cyprian does not include it in Paul's epistles; Irenceus, even while defending the divinity of Christ, declines to strengthen his argument, which lie could very effectively have done, by borrowing armor from its stores; while the Muratorlan Fragment on the Canon, Canis, Hippoly tus and Victorians of Pannonia, also leave it out of the Pauline epistles. During the 4th c., however, its authority again began to revive, and it was received by Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, and later by Jerome. who, though frequently too hasty in his con clusions, was certainly the most learned and accomplished of the Latin fathers. The immense authority of Augustine was thrown into the same scale; others soon followed, and in 416 A.D., a decretal of pope Innocent III. placed its canonicity beyond cavil. In modern times, cardinal Cajetan, the opponent of Luther, reopened the ancient con troversy. lie rejected the authority of the epistle. The great reformer did the same, affirming that it was the work of some disciple of Paul's, who had not been thoroughly grounded in his master's teaching, and had built hls own "wood, hay, and stubble," upon the apostle's "gold, silver, and precious stones." This opinion, however, met with small approval, and has never been adopted bybany Protestant church.—Authorship. As we have already said, the author of the epistle i3 but is commonly sup posed to be St. Paul. This appcart been the Opinibn of the Eastern church from the first; but the Alexandrian fathers—the most critical and scholarly of the early Christian theologians—struck with the entire dissimilarity of style, phraseology, and mode of thought which it presents to the Pauline epistles, and which is abundantly mani fest even in the English version, sought to fix its authorship on sonic oilier person, Luke being the favorite. Tertullian, again, states that, according to the traditional belief of
the north African school, Barnabas was the author. The Roman church, down to the middle of the 4th c., contented itself with a negative position, denying its Pauline authorship. The opinion of the Alexandrian school may be said to have prevailed, viz., that though Pauline in essence, the epistle was not Pauline in form. Thus the matter remained till the time of Luther, who suggested Apollos as the likeliest author. Since then the great majority of scholars, including many of the orthodox, have denied the. Pauline authorship.
Who were the "Hebrews" to whom the epistle was sent, is also a matter of doubt; but the preponderance of probability is very strongly on the side of the church at Jeru salem, composed of those who were "Hebrews of the Hebrews." The date of the epistle can only be inferred from its contents. It must have been before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), because the overthrow of the temple is not alluded to, which would have been one of the strongest links in the chain of argument to prove the tem porary nature of the old national faith.
The purpose of the writer of the epistle is apparently to encourage the Jewish Chris tians of Jerusalem—fferhaps of all Palestine—to persevere in the of. their faith. In their own "Holy land," and in the perpetual presence of services that time had hallowed, and which were associated with all that was glorious and dear in their national history, they were apt at times to look back with a melancholy yearning on the past, and thus were often tempted to apostatize from motives which they hardly dared to condemn. The writer, conscious, it would seem, of the existence of this feel ing, opens up with bold unflinching eloquence the whole question of Judaism versus Christianity; exhibits the contrast between the two with sharp, incisive analysis, strips the former of all its accidental and superstitions attractions, and shows that what is really deep and valuable in it is its prophetic character; it is but the shadow of a " better hope," viz., " the hope of the gospel ;" and the great fathers and heroes of Judaism, from Abel downward, illustrate the truth of this, for " these all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off." But so vital and strong was their faith, that it may almost be said to have put them in spiritual possession of the realities to which they looked forward, for "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Thus they were "Christians before Christianity," and now that the things which they hoped for had come, the Jewish believers ought not to be grieved at parting with the old national worship, however dear, for the new worship really embraced the substance of the old, and thus bestowed upon it its own immor tality. Such is, in the main, the course of thought. The style of the epistle in several passages is richly rhetorical.