The theory of Pauline authorship being therefore necessarily abandoned, all attempts to discover the author's name are reduced to mere conjecture. Such conjectures have usually started from the assumption that his acquaintance with Timothy (13-'*) places the writer of the Epistle amongst the circle of St. Paul's friends. The early Church sug- gested, as having at least a share in the authorship, St. Luke (Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. HE vi. 14), or Barnabas (TertuUian, de Pudicitia, xx. ), or Clement of Rome ( ' some ' known to Origen [ap. Euseb. HE vi. 25]). _ Luther [e.g. Enarr. in Gen. 482", Op. Exeg. xi. 130) supported the claim of Apollos. More recent conjectures have been Silas (e.g. C. F. Boehme, Ep. ad Heb., 1825) ; Aquila (suggestion mentioned but not approved by Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebrder, i, 42) ; St. Peter (A. Welch, The Authorship of Hebrews, 1898) ; Prisca and Aquila in collaboration, Prisca taking the lion's share (Harnack, ZNTW, 1900); Aristion, the Elder known to Papias (J. Chapman, Eevue B6n6dictine, xxii. [1905], p. 50) ; and lastly, Philip the Deacon (Ramsay, Expositor, 5th ser, ix, 401-422). The evidence in favour of any of these conjectures is of the flimsiest description. The affinities of language and style between the Epistle and the Acts, or the resemblances of thought between the Epistle and 1 Peter, are quite insufficient to prove com- munity of authorship. The quotation of long pas- sages from the Epistle by Clement of Rome serves only to emphasize their difference from his own way of thinking and writing, Barnabas, Silas, Aquila, Philip, Aristion remain as possible authors chiefly because next to nothing is known about them. Apollos, the learned Alexandrian Jew, mighty in the Scriptures (Ac 18^), companion of St. Paul, is the sort of man who might have written the Epistle, but no shred of positive evidence exists which would justify the assertion that he actually did write it.
That a leaf has been accidentally lost from the beginning of the Epistle which would perhaps have told of its authorship and destination (Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das NT-, 1911, p. 114), is a hypothesis which cannot be verified. It is at least more probable than the suggestion that the author's name was intentionally removed by the prejudice of a later generation which demanded that all
canonical Epistles should be of apostolic origin. But it is not necessary to assume that the Epistle ever had a formal address. It is clear from the contents that the readers knew who was addressing them and by what authority, and many reasons for the omission of any formal superscription can be easily imagined (cf. Jiilicher, Introd. to NT, Eng. tr., p. 153).
7. Affinities of thought and language.— (1) The OT. — The Epistle makes extensive use of the OT, Twenty-nine distinct quotations occur, twenty-one of which are not found elsewhere in the NT, and there are frequent allusions to passages of the OT which are not definitely cited. The writer shows no acquaintance with the Hebrew text, but follows the LXX even where it differs materially from the Hebrew {e.g. Ps 95i», Jer Spi^-, Ps 40«-«, Hab 2^-*, Pr 3", quoted in He 3^ S^-i^ io^-t- 37-39 i25- % Three of his OT quotations differ both from the LXX and from the Hebrew (Gn 22i«-, Ex 24^, Dt 32^5; cf. He 6^»'- 92» 10^"). The last of these occurs in the same form in Ro 12^^. Amongst the more general allusions to the language of the Greek Bible may be noticed the reference to stories contained in 1 and 2 Mac. (He U^-^; cf. especially 2 Mac 6, 7), and the possible reminiscence in He P of the words of the Book of Wisdom in which Wisdom is de- scribed as d7ratjya(TiJ.a . . . (poorbs di'dlov ... Kal elKdv TTJt dyaOdTrjTos avToO (sc. tov deov. Wis 7"®).
The mode of citation employed in the Epistle is worthy of note. The name of the individual writer is never mentioned, but in every case (except 26ff.^ where God is directly addressed), the words of the OT are ascribed to God, or to Christ (2"- ^^ lO^s'-), or to the Holy Spirit (S^*- 10i»), In striking contrast to the allegorical method of Philo, and to St. Paul's custom of adopting OT phrases to express ideas different from those of the original writer (e.g. 'The just shall live by faith'), the author of the Epistle is true to the historical method of inter- pretation, and uses OT passages in the exact sense which the first writer himself put upon them. This is true even of the chapter dealing with Melchizedek (He 7), where the Epistle seems to approximate most closely to the Philonic method of exegesis, Melchizedek remains the priest-king of Salem, He is not a mere symbol, still less is he identical with Christ. Lastly, it may be observed that the Epistle lays stress on the continuity of revelation. The same God who spoke by means of the prophets speaks in the Son, and the principles which the prophets revealed in part are the same principles which He reveals in full perfection. Thus, it appears to the writer, Christhood is not a new thing. The eternal Son ' inherited ' the name of * Christ ' from partial and imperfect Christs who went before Him(l^; cf, Nairne, op. cit. pp, 16 f,, 153, 249 ff".). Words, therefore, which in the first place were spoken of God's anointed ones of past ages— the king (is-e. 8. 9. js)^ ^j. ^^]^q nation (2''^), or the prophet (2^^)— are unhesitatingly applied to ' the Christ ' in whom that which they dimly shadowed is at last fully realized. (On the use of the OT in the Epistle, see Westcott, op. cit. pp, 471-497 ; Nairne, op. cit. pp. 248-289,)