ences of this kind may be mado too much of as proof of different author- ship; there are a considerable number of u.1rat >..ryoµ,rva in some of St. Paul's undoubted Epistles, and especially in the Pastorals, which are the Jatest. 'l'he same writer may greatly vary his words and phrases in different works and at different times, in accordance with his train of thought, surrounding influence and associations, books lately read, or the subjects treated. Hence the lists that have been made of words or phrases common to this Epistle and St. Luke alone, or to this Epistle and St. Paul alone, or found in this Epistle and in St. Paul's own speeches as recorded by St. Luke, are not, whatever their value, important for the main argument, the essen- tial point of which is that the whole Greek style of the Epistle is different from that of St. Paul's acknowledged writings-more classical in its idiom, as well as more finished and rhetorical; and also that the !!tutlied arrer:.ge- ment of the thoughts and arguments, the systematic plan of the whole work, is unlike the way of writing so characteristic of the great apostle. It may indeed be said that, when St. Paul set himself to the careful compo- sition of e. work which, though in epistolary form, was meant as a lasting treatise on a great subject, he would be likely to depart from his usual epistolary style, and that a man of his learning and versatile powers would, even humanly speaking, be capable of adopting both the language and the arrangement suitable to his purpose. This consideration would have decided weight in the way of explanation if there were any really valid external evidence of his having been the actual writer. In the absence of such the internal evidence retains its force, to be felt by appreciative students rather than explained. If any at the present day are insensible to it, they may at any rate be reminded of the impression it has made on the great scholars and theologians of antiquity, as well as of more recent times. On the whole, the right conclusion~seems to be that the view of St. Paul having written the Epistle as it stands in Greek is decidedly improbable, though still not untenable. 2. That the Greek Epistle is e. translation from e. Hebrew original by St. Paul. '!'his view, as has been already intimated, is certainly untenable. For not only are there, in the Epistle essentially Greek phrases, such as could not well have been the mere equivalents of any Hebrew ones, but the whole has the unmistakable ring, convincing to scholars, of an original composition -that of one who had both thought and expressed himself in the Greek language. Further, in the quotations from the Old Testament the Septua- gint is almost uniformly followed, and this in cases where it varies from the Hebrew text; and sometimes such variations are followed up in such sort that the very argument depends upon them. Such use of the Septua- gint ,seems quite incompatible with the idea of the Epistle having been written originally in Hebrew. 3. That St. Paul supplied the ideas of the Epistle, which another person, with his know]edge and sanction, put into their present form. xii lN'l'RODUC'l'ION 'l'O
This is a fully tenable view, being virtually that expressed, as bas been seen, by Jerome. It is no valid objection to it that St. Paul's undoubted Epistles are not equally coloured by the modes of thought of the Alexan- drian Jewish philosophy, of which Philo is the notable exponent. For they are occasionally so oolourcd, though not to the samo extent (of. e.g. Gal. iv. 22, etc.; Col. i. 15, etc.). And, further, any stronger colour of this kind that may be perceptible in the Epistle might be due in part to the writer himself carrying out in his own way the suggestions of St. Paul, This view is consistent with the supposition that the Epistle was sent to its des~ination by the apostle himself, endorsed by him, and recognized from the first as having his authority ; and thus the Eastern tradition would be fully accounted for and justified. If so, it is also surely possible (though the idea does not appear to have commended itself to commentators) that the concluding verses, from eh. xiii. 18 to the end, in whioh the first person is for the first time used, and~which remind us peculiarly of St. Paul, were dictated by himself in his own name, the final" grace" being, as in other cases, bis authenticating autograph. In this case the expression in ver. 22, "I have written unto you in few words," may refer only to what had thus been appended by himself. 4. That the Epistle was written, independently of St. Paul, by some associate who was familiar with his teaching, and gavo his own expression to it. This is Origen's view, and is also tenable. It does not, however, so fully account as that last given for the tradition of the Epistle being St. Paul's. It may, if it were so, have been composed either during the apostle's life or shortly after his death ; but in the latter case very shortly, if the conclusion arrived at under "Date of the Epistle " be correct. As to who the actual writer might be, if it was not St. Paul, four have been especially suggested, viz. Luke, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, and Apollos. It does not appear that any of their names had been handed down by tradition, or were even more than conjectures on the ground of likelihood, though all, except Apollos, had, as we have seen, very early mention. (1) LuKE. He seems to have been thought of by Clement of Alexandria and others, because of the purer Greek of the Epistle resembling his, and its containing words and phrases which are peculiar elsewhere to his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles; and also, we may suppose, because of his close association with St. Paul as his companion, and the tradition of his Gospel baving been written under St. Paul's direction. These are good grounds for the conjecture, but still, as far as we know, it was conjecture only. (2) CLEMENT OF ROME. He, as we have seen, was thought of in early days, being named by Origen as being, as well as St. Luke, one of the then reputed writers. If there was at that time good reason to believe t.hat the Epistle had been sent from Rome, the name of Clement might uaturally suggest itself ats of one who had been atssociated with the apostle TUE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. xiii