HEBREWS
183
HEBREWS
style by saying that the Epistle was written originally
in Hebrew and was then translated by Luke into
Greek. Origen, on the other hand, distinguishes be-
tween the thoughts of the letter and the grammatical
form; the former, according to the testimony of "the
ancients" {oi dpxaloi &v5pes), is from St. Paul; the
latter is the work of an unknown writer, Clement of
Rome according to some, Luke, or another pupil of
the Apostle, according to others. In like manner the
letter was regarded as Pauline by the various ('hurches
of the East: Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia,
Mesopotamia, etc. (cf. the different testimonies in B.
F. Westcott, "The Epistle to the HebreAvs", London,
1906, pp. Ixii-lxxii). It was not until after the appear-
ance of Arius that the Pauline origin of the Epistle to
the Hebrews was disputed by some Orientals and
Greeks.
(b) In Western Europe the First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians shows acquaintance with the text of the writing (chs. ix, xii, xvii, xxxvi, xlv), apparently also the "Pastor" of Hermas (Vis. II, iii, n. 2 ; Sim. I, i sq.). Hippolj'tus and Iremeus also knew the letter but they do not seem to have regarded it as a work of the Apostle (Eusebius, " Hist. Eccl.", xxvi; Photius, Cod. 121, 232; St. Jerome, "De viris ill.", lix). Euseliius also mentions the Roman presbyter Caius as an advocate of the opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not the writing of the Apostle, and he adds that some other Romans, up to his own day, were also of the same opinion (Hist. Eccl., VI, xx, n. 3). In fact the letter is not found in the Muratorian Canon; St. Cyprian also mentions only seven letters of St. Paul to the Churches (De exhort, mart., xi), and TertuUian calls Barnabas the author (De pudic, xx). Up to the fourth century the Pauline origin of the letter was regarded as rloubtful by other Churches of Western Europe. As the reason for this Philastrius gives the misuse made of the letter by the Novatians (Har., 89), and the doubts of the presbyter Caius seem likewise to have arisen from the attitude assumed towards the letter by the Montanists (Photius, Cod. 48; F. Kaulen, " Einleitung in die HI. Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments", 6th ed., Freiburg, 1905, 111,211).
After the fourth century these doubts as to the Apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews grad- ually became less marked in Western Europe. \\ hile the Council of Carthage of the year 397, in the wording of its decree, still made a distinction between Pauli Aposloli epistohc Iredecim (thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle) and eiusdem ad Hebrwos una (one of his to the Hebrews) (H. Denzinger, " Enchiridion ", 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 92, old n. 49), the Roman Synod of 382 under Pope Damasus enumerates without distinc- tion epixtohc Pauli numero quatuordecim (epistles of Paul fourteen in number), including in this number the Epistle to the Hebrews (Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 84). In this form also the conviction of the Church later found permanent expression. Cardinal Cajetan (1529) and Erasmus were the first to revive the old doubts, while at the same time Luther and the other Reformers denied the Pauline origin of the letter.
(2) Internal Evidences. — (a) The content of the letter bears plainly the stamp of genuine Pauline ideas. In this regard it suffices to refer to the state- ments above concerning the doctrinal contents of the Epistle (see II).
(b) The language and style vary in many particulars from the grammatical form of the other letters of Paul, as is sufficiently shown above (see III).
(c) The distinctive characteristics of the Epistle (IV) favour more the opinion that the form in which it is cast is not the work of the author of the other Apostolic letters.
(3) Most Probable Solutioi}. — From what has been said it follows that the most probable solution of the
question as to the author is that up to the present
time the opinion of Origen has not been superseded by
a better one. It is, consequently, necessary to accept
that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the actual author is
to be distinguished from the writer. No valid reason
has been produced against Paul as the originator of
the ideas and the entire contents of the letter; the
belief of the early Church held throughout with
entire correctness to this Apostolic origin of the
Epistle.
The writer, the one to whom the letter owes its form, had apparently been a pupil of the Apostle. It is not possible now, however, to settle his personality on account of the lack of any definite tradition and of any decisive proof in the letter itself. Ancient and modern writers mention various pupils of the Apostle, especially Luke, Clement of Rome, Apollo, lately also Priscilla and Aquila.
VII. ClHCUMSTAN'CES OF THE CoMPCSITION. An
examination both of the letter itself and of the earliest testimonies of tradition, in reference to the circum- stances of its composition, leads to the following conclusions:
(1) The place of composition was Italy (xiii, 24), and more precisely Rome (inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first imprisonment (61-63).
(2) The date of its production should certainly be placed before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), and previous to the outbreak of the Jewish War (67), but after the death of James, Bishop of Jerusalem (62). According to ch. xiii, 19, 23, the Apostle was no longer a prisoner. The most probable date for its composi- tion is, therefore, the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, as Paul after his release from im- prisonment probably soon undertook the missionary journey " as far as the boundaries of Western Europe " (St. Clement of Rome, " I Epistle to the Corinthians ", V, n. 7), that is to Spain.
(3) The reason for its composition is probably to be found in the conditions existing in the Jewish Chris- tian Church at Jerusalem. The faith of the Church might fall into great danger through continued perse- cution by the Jews, who had put James, the head of the community to a violent death. Precisely at this period the services in the temple were celebrated with great pomp, as under Albinus (62-64) the magnificent building was completed, while the Christian commu- nity had to struggle with extreme poverty. The national movement which began shortly before the outbreak of the last Jewish war would increase the danger. These circumstances might lead the Apostle to write the letter.
(4) The Apostle himself declares the aim of his writ- ing to be the consolation and encouragement of the faithful (xiii, 22). The argument and context of the letter show that Paul wished especially to exhort to steadfastness in the Christian Faith and to warn against the danger of apostasy to the Mosaic worship.
VIII. Importance. — The chief importance of the Epistle is in its content of theological teaching. It is, in complete agreement with the other letters of St. Paul, a glorious testimony to the faith of the Apostolic time; above all it testifies to the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, to His heavenly priesthood, and the atoning power of His death.
See the Introductions to the New Testament, also Jacquier in ViG., Diet, de la Bible, g. v. Hebreux, Epftre aiLc: Bruce in Hast., Did. of the Bible, s. v. For the early Christian centuries see especially the expositions of St. .Iohn Chrysostom, Theo- DORET OF Cyrus, fficuMENius, Theoplylactus, St. Thomas Aquinas: for later and modern commentaries: — Cajetan. RiBERA, Salmeron, DE Tena, Klee (Mainz. 1833): Maier (Freiburg, 1861): Bispinq (Miinster, 1864): MacEvilly (3rd ed.. Dublin, 1875): Zill (Mainz, 1879): Schafer (Munster, 1893): Padovani (Paris. 1897). Protestant commentaries: — Owen (1667, new ed,. London, 1840); Stuart (Andover, 1827): Bleek (Berlin. 1828-40): Kuinoel (Leipzig, 1831) : Tholuck (Hamburg, 1836, new ed., 1850); Delitzsch (Leipzig, 1857);
