<- Previous   First   Next ->

The Colophon of the Commentary is interesting. Caietae die 1 Junii M.D.XXIX. Commentariorum Thomae de Vio, Caietani Cardinalis sancti Xisti in omnes genuinas epistolas Pauli et eam quae ad Hebraeos inscribitur, Finis.

The review of the historical evidence as to the authorship of the Epistle will have shewn sufficiently that there was no clear or uniform tradition on the subject in the early Church. Obvious circumstances are adequate to explain why the names of St Paul, and St Luke, of Barnabas, and Clement were connected with it; and in no case is the external testimony of such a character as to justify the belief that it was derived from a tradition contemporary in origin with the Book. It remains therefore to consider how far internal testimony helps towards the solution of the question.

The direct evidence furnished by the Epistle is slight, though there is not the least indication that the author wished to conceal his personality. He was intimately acquainted with those to whom he writes: Heb. 6:9 f.; 10:34
(
toi'" desmivoi" sunepaqhvsate ); 13:7; 13:19 ( i{na tavceion ajpokatastaqw' uJmi'n ), but the last clause does not necessarily imply that he belonged to their society, or that he was in confinement. He speaks of Timothy as a common friend: 13:23 ( ginwvskete to;n ajdelfo;n hJmw'n T. ajpolelumevnon ...compare note on the passage), and there is no reason to question the identity of this Timothy with the companion of St Paul. He places himself in the second generation of believers, as one who had received the Gospel from those who heard the Lord (2:3).

This last statement has been justly held to be a most grave (or indeed fatal) objection to the Pauline authorship. It is not possible to reconcile it without unnatural violence with St Paul's jealous assertion of his immediate discipleship to Christ (contrast Gal. 1:1; 11 f.). On the other hand these few notices might all apply equally well to St Luke or Barnabas or Clement.

The language and the teaching of the Epistle offer materials for comparison with writings of the four authors suggested by tradition. With St Luke the comparison is practically confined to the language: with Barnabas, if we assume that his letter is authentic, Clement and St Paul, it embraces both language and teaching.

It has been already seen that the earliest scholars who speak of the Epistle notice its likeness in style to the writings of St Luke; and when every allowance has been made for coincidences which consist in forms of expression which are found also in the LXX. or in other writers of the N. T., or in late Greek generally, the likeness is unquestionably remarkable. No one can work independently at the Epistle without observing it (comp. p. xlvii.). But it is not possible to establish any sure conclusion on such a resemblance. The author of the Epistle may have been familiar with the writings of St Luke themselves, or he may have been in close connexion with the Evangelist or with those whose language was moulded by his influence. In any case the likeness of vocabulary and expression is not greater than that which exists between 1 Peter and the Epistles of St Paul. If indeed it were credible that the Epistle was originally written in ‘Hebrew,’ then the external and internal evidence combined would justify the belief that the Greek text is due to St Luke. If that opinion is out of the question, the historical evidence for St Luke's connexion with the Epistle is either destroyed or greatly weakened,


<- Previous   First   Next ->