HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
143
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
epistles, especially those of a later date, as has frequent- ly been observed by critics. In fine, while there are such resemljlances of style, etc., as have been referred to between this epistle and the writings of Luke, there are dijfcirnces of a nature so weighty as completely to over- balance these resemblances, and authorize the conclu- sion that the author of the latter could not also be the author of the former. Both Stuart {('oniment. i, 33o, London, 1828) and Eichhorn {Elnleit. iii, 4(;o) justly lay stress on the greater predominance of Jewish feelings in the Epistle to the Hebrews than in any of Luke's writ- ings, and still more on the marked familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools displayed by the ANTiter 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 character on the part of their author; but in tlie Epistle to the Hebrews the former so deci- dciUy (ircdonunates over the latter, while the reverse is the case with the writings of Luke, that it seems to the last degree improbable that the same person could have wTitten both. Luke, moreover, was a convert from heathenism, whereas the author of the Epistle to the Hebre^vs was evidently a Jew. It appears, therefore, that for the theory which ascribes the composition of this epistle to Luke as of his own dictation, there is no evidence of any kind which will bear examination, but, on the contrary, not a little against it. 4. Neverthe- less, the association of Luke with Paul, and the many marked cdin^idences between Luke's pliraseology and that of this epistle, give a strong color of probability to the supposition that the evangelist had something to do with its authorship, doubtless as assistant or under another's authority ; for it cannot be presumed that he would have personally assumed the responsibility of a •work like this, eviilently conceived, written, and sent out as of apostolical authority, and with the personal allusions to the history apparently of Paul which we find in the final salutations. But if Luke were joint author with Paul, what share in the composition is to be assigned to him? This question has been asked by those who regard joint authorship as an impossibility, and ascribe the epistle to some other writer than Paul. Perhaps it is not easy, certainly it is not necessary, to find an answer which would satisfy or silence persons wlio piursue a historical iiupiiry into the region of con- jecture. Who shall define the exact responsibility of Timothy, or Silvafius, or Sosthenes, in those seven epis- tles Avhich Paid inscribes with some of their names con- jiiintly witli his own? To what extent does Mark's language clothe the inspired recollections of Peter, which, according to ancient tradition, are recorded in the second gospel? Or, to take the acknowledged Avritings of Luke himself — what is the share of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke i, 2), or what is the share of Paid himself in that gospel which some persons, not without countenance from tra- dition, conjecture that Luke \vrote under his master's eye in the prison at C^iesarea ; or who shall assign to the follower and the master their portions respectively in tlidse seven characteristic speeches at Antioch, Lystra, Athens, :\Iiletus, Jerusalem, and Ca3sarea? If Luke wrote down Paid's Gospel, and condensed his missionary speeches, may he not have afterwards taken a more im- portant share in the composition of this epistle?
(4.) Barnabas — The hypothesis which claims the au- thorship of this epistle for Barnabas has in its support the testimony of Tertidlian (/>e Pudicitia, c. 20), with whom, as we learn from Jerome {Epist. 129, ad Dardu- nitm), several {plerique) among the Latins conciured. For tliis opinion Tertullian, in the passage referred to, assigns no reasons, and Jerome appears to have treated it as a mere conjecture resting ujjon TertuUian's author- ity alone ; for, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical ^vriters (c. 5), he refers to this ojiinion as one "juxta Tertullia- ninn," whilst he says that the opinion" that Luke was the author was one "juxta quosdam." Hug is of opin-