ion {Tntrod. p. 596, Fosdick's transl.) that in this i we have not TertuUian's own view so much as a conces- sion on his part to those whom he was opposing, and who, because of the very passage he is about to ipiote from the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi, 4-8), were inclined to reject the claims of that epistle to be esteemed the production of Paul. This conjecture is of use, as it tends to show that Tertullian might have another reason for ascribing this epistle to Barnal)as than his total igno- rance 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 up- hold the Paidine origin of this epistle had he been aware of it. In recent times the ablest defender of this hy- pothesis is Ullmann, who has devoted to it an article in the first volume of his journal, the Studien und Kritikm; but the evidence he adduces in favor of it is very feeble. After enlarging on the testimony of Tertullian, he pro- ceeds to the internal evidence in favor of Barnabas ; but of the six reasons he assigns for ascribing the epistle to him, none possesses 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 applj' par- ticularly to Barnabas, who was a native of Cyprus, and who, though Ullmann says " he \\&A perhaps been in Al- exandria," for aught we know had never seen that seat of allegorical learning. The second, viz. that Barnabas, being a Levite, was more likely, on that account, to un- derstand the Jewish ritual, as we see the author of this epistle did, is of no Aveight, 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 con- cerning 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 Barnabas', the fifth, viz. that the writer of this epistle speaks of the Saviour very frequently by the appellation o 'Ijjirofic, which Dr. Ullmann thinks indicates that the writer must have known our Lord during his personal mmistry, which was probably the case with Barnabas ; and the sixth, viz. that the names of persons mentioned in this epistle are names which Barnabas 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 learning and vigor should have grave- ly adduced them. With regard to the fifth also, Olshau- sen has justly observed (jOpnsc. Thvolxfica, p. 115) that if it were certain that Barnabas had enjoyed the advan- tage 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 af- forded by this epistle to the extant epistle which passes under the name of Barnabas, with respect to style, tone, and general character, as supplying indubitable evidence 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 Bar- nabas was really his production, the argimient woidd be conclusive. But, though some very distingiushed names may be cited in sujiport of its authenticity, the greater weight, both of authority and evidence, is against it. See Barnabas, Epistle of. The total absence of any reason in favor of imputing the authorship of the Epis- tle to the Hebrews to Barnabas affords sufficient groiuid for rejecting tMs hj^Jothesis without our attemptuig to adduce dubious and uncertain reasons against it.
(5.) Some Alexamlrian Christian.— This hypothesis rests on certain features of the epistle which are said to betray Alexandrian cultiu-e, habits, and mc-;les of thought on the part of the writer. These have been much in- sisted upon by Eichhom, Schulz, Bleck, and others; but they are not such, we think, as carry with them the weight which these -writers have allowed to them. The
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO 144 HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO