(4.) Barnabas.—The hypothesis wbich claims the authorship of this epistle for Barnabas has in its support the testimony of Tertullian (De Pudicitia, c. 2o), with whom, as we learn from Jerome (Abist. 129, aa' Dordanum), several (filerique) among the Latins concurred.* For this opinion Tertulhan, in the passage referred to, assigns no reasons, and Jerome appears to have treated it as a mere con jecture resting upon Tertullian's authority alone ; for, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers (c. 5), he refers to this opinion as one juxta Tertullia num,' whilst he says that the opinion that Luke was the author was one juxta quosdam.' Hug is of opinion (Introd. p. 596, Fosdick's transl.), that in this passage we have not Tertullian's own view so much as a concession on his part to those whom he was opposing, and who, bccause of the very passage he is about to quote from the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi. 4-8), were inclined to reject the claims of that epistle to be esteemed the pro duction of Paul. This conjecture is of use, as it tends to show that Tertullian might have another reason for ascribing this epistle to Barnabas than his total ignorance that it had ever been imputed to Paul, as has been confidently inferred by several writers from the fact that it was obviously to the interest of his argument to uphold the Pauline origin of this epistle had he been aware of it. In recent times the ablest defender of this hypothesis is Ull mann, who has devoted to it an article in the first volume of his journal, the Studien und Kritiken ; but the evidence he adduces in favour of it is very feeble. After enlarging on the testimony of Ter tullian, he proceeds to the internal evidence in favour of Barnabas ; but of the six reasons he assigns for ascribing the epistle to him, none pos sesses any force. The first, viz., the traces in the epistle of an Alexandrian education on the part of the author, supposing it granted, would not apply particularly to Barnabas, who was a native of Cyprus, and who, though Ullmann says he had perhaps been in Alexandria,' for aught we know had never seen that seat of allegorical learning. The second, viz., that Barnabas being a Levite was the more likely, on that account, to understand the Jewish ritual, as we see the author of this epistle did, is of no weight, for there is nothing stated in the epistle on that head which any intelligent Jew might not have known, whether a Levite or not. The third, viz., that what the author of this epistle says concerning the law, divine revelation, faith, etc., is very Pauline, and such as we might expect from a companion of Paul, such as Barnabas was ; the fourth, viz., that the tenor of the epistle is worthy such a man as Bamabas ; the fifth, viz., that the writer of this epistle speaks of the Saviour very frequently by the appellation .5 'Incoris, which Dr. Ullmann thinks indicates that the writer must have known our Lord during his personal ministry, which was probably the case with Barnabas ; and the sixth, viz., that the names of persons men tioned in this epistle are names which Bamabas might have referred to had he written it—are reasons such as it would be idle to refute, and such as fill us with surprise that a man of Ullmann's leaming and vigour should have gravely adduced them. With regard to the fifth also, Olshausen has justly observed (Opzisc. Theologica, p. 115) that if it were certain that Barnabas had enjoyed the advantage of our Lord's personal ministry, it would clearly prove that he was not the author of this epistle, for the latter distinctly classes himself with those by whom this advantage had not been enjoyed (ch. ii. 3). Stuart and some others have laid great stress on the contrast afforded by this epistle to the extant epistle which passes under the name of Barnabas, in respcct of style, tone, and general character, as supplying indubitable evi dence that the former is the production of a different and a far superior mind. Of this there can be no question, and, were we quite certain that the epistle ascribed to Barnabas was really his production, the argument would be conclusive. But though some very distinguished names may be cited in support of its authenticity, the greater weight, both of authority and evidence, is against it [BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF]. Thc total absence of any reason in favour of imputing the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews to Barnabas affords sufficient ground for rejecting this hypothesis without our attempting to adduce dubious and uncertain reasons against it.
(5.) Some Alexandrian Christian..—This hypo thesis rests on certain features of the epistle which are said to betray Alexandrian culture, habits, and modes of thought on the part of the writer. These have been much insisted upon by Eichhorn, Schulz, Bleek, and others ; but they are not such, we think, as carry with them the weight which these writers have . allowed to them. The standard of comparison by which the supposed Alexandrian tone of this epistle is evinced, is supplied by the writings of Philo, between which and this epistle it is affirmed that there is so close a resemblance that it can be accounted for only on the supposition that the author of the latter was, like Philo, an Alex andrian Jew. Now before this reasoning can be so much as looked at, it behoves those who use it to point out clearly how much of Philo's peculiar style and sentiment was owing to his Jewish, and how much to bis Alexandrian, education or habits of thought ; because, unless this can be done, it will be impossible to show that any alleged pecu liarity necessarily bespeaks an Alexandrian origin, and could not possibly have appeared in the writ ings of a pure Jew of Palestine. No attempt, how
ever, of this sort has been made ; on the contrary, it has been assumed that whatever is Philonian is therefore Alexandrian, and hence all resemblances between the writings of Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews have been urged as certain proofs that the latter must have been written by a converted Jew of Alexandria. Such an assumption, however, we would by no means concede ; and we feel con firmed in this by an examination of the evidence adduced in support of the alleged Alexa.ndrian character of this epistle. As Stuart has, we think, clearly shown (i. 321), and as even Tholuck, though obviously inclining the other way, has candidly admitted (Comment. on the Hebrezvs, p. 6S, sec. 7), there is nothing in this evidence to shew that this epistle might not have been written by a Jew who had never left the bounds of Palestine. It is worthy of notice that several of the points on which Eichhorn chiefly insists as favouring his view, such as the prevalence of typical expositions of the Mosaic ritual in this epistle, and the greater ele gance of its lang,uage and style (Ein/eit. iii. 443, ff.), are given up by Bleck, and that of the two chiefly insisted upon by the latter, viz., the close affinity between this epistle and the writings of Philo, and the alleged mistake in regard to the furniture of the tabernacle which Bleek charges upon the author of this epistle in ch. ix. 3, 4, and which he thinks no Jew of Palestine could have committed, both are relinquished by Tholuck as untenable (comp. the valuable remarks of Hug, Introd. p. 584, note, Fosdick's transl.) With regard to the latter, it may be remarked that, even supposing it proved that the writer of this epistle had erred in asserting that the pot containing the manna and Aaron's rod were placed in the ark of the testimony, and that, supposing euutarhpcos, to denote the altar of incense, and not the censer, he had fallen into the mistake of placing this within instead of without the vail, nothing could be thence deduced in favour of the Alexandrian origin of the author. For, with regard to the former of these, it was a matter on which the Jews of Palestine had no better nieans of informa tion than those of any other 'place, since, in the Temple as then standing, none of the furniture of the Holy of Holies had been preserved ; and with regard to the latter, as it could not be the result of ignorance either in a Jew of Palestine or in a Jew of Alexandria, but must have been a piece of mere inadvertence on the part of either, it seems ratber too much to conclude that it was such as the latter alone was capable of committing. That, however, there is no blunder in the case, has, we think, been very satisfactorily shevvn by Deyling (Obs. Sac. tom. ii. No. 47) and others (comp. Stuart, Tholuck, and Delitzsch, in /on) (6.) Apollos.—The first to suggest Apollos as the probable author of this epistle was Luther ( Werke, ed. Walch, xii. 2o4, 1996, etc.) He has been fol lowed by the majority of recent German scholars, many of whom have supported his conjecture with much ingenuity. It has been undoubtedly shewn by them that Apollos may have been the writer ; and they have, we think, proved that of all Paul's companions this is the one who was most fitted by education, life-circumstances, modes of thought, and religious stand-point, to have accomplished such a task had it fallen to his lot. Beyond this, however, their arg,uments seem to us signally to fail. What weight they have is derived almost entirely orn the assumed Alexandrian tone of the epistle ; so that in setting aside this we of necessity invali date what has been built on it. But it may be permitted us to remark that, even supposing the former established, the latter would by no means follow, any more than because a work produced in Germany in the present day was deeply tinctured with Hegelianism, it would follow from that alone that it must be the production of some certain in dividual rather than of any other disciple of Hegel's school. The adoption of this theory by Dr. Tho luck, after his exposure of the unsoundness of Bleek's reasonings, ha.s filled us with surprise. 4 Still,' says he (i. 69), 4 could it be rendered pro bable that any distinguished person having inter course with Paul, were an Alexandrian, and of Alexandrian culture, we might, with the greatest appearance of truth, regard him as the author of the epistle. Now such an one is found in the person of Apollos.' What is this but to say, `The arguments for the Alexandrian origin of this epistle, I must confess, prove nothing ; but shew me an end to be gained by it and I will admit them to be most conclusive !' Such a statement affords, we think, very clear evidence that the disposition to ascribe this epistle to Apollos is to be traced not to any constraining force of evidence, but ex clusively to what Olshausen in his stlictures on Bleek (Opusc. p. 92) justly denounces as the mam source of that able writer's errors on this question —4Quod non ab omni partium studio alienum animum servare ipsi contigit.' It may be added that if this epistle was the product of Apollos or any other Alexandrian convert, it is very strange that no tradition to this effect should hawe been preserved in the church at Alexandria, but, on the contrary, that it should be there we find the tradi. tion that Paul was the author most firmly and from the earliest period established.