2. Authorshift.—From the above testimonies it will be perceived that the assertion of the canonicity of this book is mostly identified with the assertion of its Pauline authorship. The former of these posi tions does not, it is true, necessarily depend upon the latter, for a book may be canonical yet not be the production of any individual whose name we know ; but as the case stands, the external evi dence for the canonicity of the book is so nearly commensumte with that for the Pauline authorship of the book, that we cannot make use of the one unless we admit the other. This gives immense importance to the question on which we now enter ; for if it could be shewn that this epistle is not Paul's, the entire historical evidence for its canonicity must be laid aside as inciedible.
Before entering on the considemtion of the evi dence bearing directly on this point, we shall glance at the different hypotheses which have been ad vanced by those by whom the Pauline origin of the epistle have been derived. Of these some have advocated the claims of Barnabas, others those of Luke, others those of Clement of Rome, others those of Silas, others those of Apollos, others those of some unknown Christian of Alexandria, and others those of some apostolic man,' whose name is no less unknown.
(1.) Sitas.—The claims of this cornpanion of St. Paul to the authorship of one epistle find no sup port from the testimony of antiquity. The sugges tion of them is entirely modem, having been first advanced by Bohme in the introduction to his commentary on this epistle (Lips. 1825), and by Mynster in the Studien und Kritiken, bd. ii., s.344; but they have adduced nothing in support of these claims which might not with equal plausibility have been urged on behalf of any other of the apostle's companions.
(2.) Clement of Rome.—Origen tells us that the tradition which had reached bim was, that some held this epistle to have been written by Clement, bishop of Rome, whilst others said it was written by Luke, the evangelist (ap. Euseb. Hist. .Ecel. vi. 25). Erasmus espoused the claims of Clement, and Calvin inclined to the same view. Some evidence in favour of this hypothesis has been thought to be supplied by the resemblance of some passages in Clement's first epistle to the Corin thians to passages in one epistle ; but these have much more the appearance of quotations from the former or reminiscences of it on the part of the author of the latter than such similarities of thought and expression as would indicate a community of authorship for the two. A close comparison of the one with the other leaves the impression very strongly that they are the productions of different minds ; neither in style nor in the general cast of thought is there any pervading affinity between them. Clement, also, was in all probability a convert from heathenism, whereas the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was undoubtedly by birth and education a Jew. Perhaps what Origen records naeans nothing more than that Clement or Luke acted as the party who reduced the epistle to writing, leaving the question of the authorship, properly so called, untouched. His whole state ment is-4 not heedlessly (otm dig)) had the ancients handed it down as Paul's ; but who wrote the epistle God truly knows. But the story which has come down to us from some, is, that Cle ment who was bishop of Rome wrote the epistle ; from others that it was Luke who wrote the Gos pel and the Acts.' Jerome, also, in referring to the tradition explains it thus—' quern [Clemen tem] aiunt ipsi adjunctum sententias Pauli pro prio ordinasse et omasse sermone' (De Viris illust. c. 5).
(3.) Luke.—The claims of Luke apparently rise a degree higher from the circumstance that, besides being named by Origen and Jerome, as dividing with Clement the honours which, as these writers testify, were in certain quarters assigned to the lat ter, there is a character of similarity in respect of language and style between this epistle and the acknowledged productions of the evangelist. This
has led several eminent scholars to adopt the hypo thesis that, whilst the thoughts may be Paul's, the composition is Luke's. But on this circumstance no stress, we think, can legitimately be laid towards such a conclusion. For, 1st, where there is no other evi dence, or at least none of any weight, in favour of identity of authorship, mere general similarity of style cannot be allowed to possess much force. 2dly, As suming the epistle to be the production of Paul, it is easy to account for the resemblance of its style to that of Luke, from the fact that Luke was for so many years the companion and disciple of Paul ; for it is well known that when persoms for a long time associate closely with each other, and espe cially when one of the parties is an individual of powerful intellect whose forms of thought and modes of speech imperceptibly impress themselves on those with whom he associates, they fall insensi bly into a similarity of tone and style both of speak ing and writing. To this, indeed, Chrysostom, whose authority in all such matters must be allowed to stand very high, expressly ascribes the similarity of Luke's style to that of Paul, when, contrasting the language of the former with that of Mark, he says, bcao-ros Ogoiws 1-61, SiadencaToy Adv [.6 Aoutcas] Tt'w IlaiMov in* Taos rorap,o6s 15eovra• [6 MdpKos] Toy flpaxuXoyios err 1 AcNo0/.4epov (Ham iv. zn Matt., quoted by Forster, Apostolieal Authority of the .Epistle to the Hebrezvs, p. 648). 3dly, It is not in the epistle to the He brews alone that a resemblance to the style of Luke may be detected : the same feature pervades all Paul's epistles, especially those of a later date, as has been frequently observed by critics. This argument, then, if used against the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews would prove too much, as it would go to invalidate the claims of almost all the acknowledged writings of the apos tle. In finc, whilst there are such resemblances of style, etc., as have been referred to between this epistle and the writings of Luke, there are differ ences of a nature so weighty as completely to over balance these resemblances, and authorise the conclusion that the author of the latter could not also be the author of the former. Both Stuart (Comment. vol. i. p. 333, Lond. 1828) and Eich horn (Einleit. bd. iii. s. 465) justly lay strcss on the greater predominance of Jewish feelings in the Epistle to the Hebrews than in any of Luke's writings, and still more on the marked familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools dis played by the writer of the epistle, but of which no traces are apparent in any of the writings of the evangelist. Both writings display the combined influence of the Palestinian and the Hellenistic cha racter on the part of their author ; but in the Epistle to the Hebrews the former so decidedly predominates over the latter, whilst the reverse is the case with the writing,s of Luke, that it seems to the last degree improbable that the same person could have written both. Luke, moreover, was a convert from heathenism ; whereas the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was evidently a Jew. It appears, therefore, that for the theory which ascribes the composition of this epistle to Luke, there is no evidence of any kind which will bear examination, but, on the contrary, not a little against it.