But the question of the Epistle's destination must remain without a final answer. It seems clear that it was addressed not to a mixed com- munity, but to Jews, and the general impression it gives is of a limited circle of readers ratlier than of a large and miscellaneous gathering (Zahn, op. cit. ii. 349ft'.). Whether that circle was 'the church in so-and-so's house,' or ' a group of scholarly men like the author' (Nairne, op. cit. p. 10), cannot be finally determined.
6. Author. — 'But who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly ' (ris di 6 ypdxpas tt]v ewicTToXriv t6 /j.h d\T]dh Qebs oldev, Origen, ap. Euseb. HE vi. 25). These words were originally spoken with reference to the amanuensis or translator of the Epistle. Most modern scholars are content to ex- tend their reference to the actual author. The writer keeps himself in the background, and later research has never finally discovered his identity. In this respect students of the 2nd cent, were as much in the dark as those of the present day. It is significant that the Roman Church, which Avas the first to make use of the Epistle, refused for more than three centuries to grant it a place amongst the NT Scriptures, on account of the un- certainty of its authorship (Euseb. HE iii. 3). If Eusebius is to be trusted, Roman opinion on the subject did not go beyond a denial of the author- ship of St. Paul. The only positive statement made by any early Latin writer occurs in a work of Tertullian, Avho attributes the Epistle without question to Barnabas (de Pudicitia, xx.). This belief may perhaps represent a Montanist tradition generallj' current in North Africa. It is difficult to see why it vanished so completely from the other churches, if it had ever been more widely circulated.
It was in Alexandria, after the Epistle had already been accejited as canonical on its own merits, that the theory of Pauline authorship gradually arose. The writings of Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200), Origen (c. A.D. 220), and Eusebius (c. A.D. 320), display the theory in process of formation. Clement put forward the suggestion that St. Paul wrote the Epistle in Hebrew, and St. Luke afterwards translated it into Greek. The latter conjecture is based on the resemblance of style between the Greek of the Epistle and that of the Acts (Euseb. HE vi. 14). Origen expresses his own opinion thus : • The thoughts are the thoughts of the Apostle, but the language and composition that of one who recalled from memory, and, as it Avere, made notes of Avhat was said by the master' (aTro/j.vrjfxoi'eljaavTds nvos to, diro<rTo\tKa Kal diffTrepel o'%oXto7/)a077(jaj'7-osTa elprj/j.(va inrb rod di8a<T- KdXov, ap. Euseb. HE vi. 25). Eusebius himself, while admitting that the Roman Church did not accept the Epistle because it was not St. Paul's {HE iii. 3), yet declares that it is reasonable ' on the ground of its antiquity that it should be reckoned Avith the other writings of the Apostle' (iii. 37). Clearly, none of the three Avriters regarded the Epistle as being Pauline in the full sense, yet for the sake of convenience it was their practice to quote it as 'of Paul.' Later Alexa,ndrian Avriters adopted this title as being literally true, and from Alexandria belief in the literal Pauline authorship of the Epistle spread throughout the Church. In this, as in other matters, the Western Church folloAved the lead of St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine.
It is easy to imagine how the Epistle became connected Avith St. Paul's name. When once an anonymous letter bearing the simple title n-pbs 'Ej3paiovs Avas appended to a collection of acknoAV- ledged Pauline Epistles, the addition to the head- ing of the words tov UaiJ'Kov would only be a matter of time.
Nevertheless, as Origen already felt, internal
540 HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
evidence makes the theory of Pauline authorship untenable. It is incredible that St. Paul, who in- sisted so strongly that he received his gospel by direct revelation (Gal 1), could have written the confession of second-hand instruction contained in He 2^. Nothing, again, could be more unlike St. Paul's method of expression than the elegant and rhythmical style of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and behind the difference of style lies a real difference of mental attitude. The characteristic Pauline antitheses 'faith and works,' 'law and promise,' 'flesh and spirit,' are replaced by new contrasts — 'earthlj' and heavenly,' 'shadow and substance,' ' type and antitype.' The difference of thought which separates the two writers becomes apparent when they meet on common giound. ' Faith ' and ' righteousness ' are key-words in St. Paul's theology. The Epistle to the Hebrews also speaks often of ' faith ' and sometimes of ' righteous- ness' (P 5'^ 7^ 11"- ^^ 12^'), but the words have lost their special Pauline sense. ' Faith ' no longer means intimate personal union with Christ, but expresses the more general idea of ' grasp on unseen reality.' ' Righteousness' is stripped of its forensic associations. It simply means ' ethical righteous- ness,' not ' right standing in the eyes of God.' The same contrast is visible in the different applications made by the two writers of the only two OT pas- sages quoted by both (Dt 32^^, quoted in Ro 12^^ He 10^0 ; Hab 2» quoted in Ro 1", Gal 3", He lO^''- 38).