Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews

NPNF (V1-14)St. Chrysostomevery educated Jew living in the Levant. 2659 At all events, neither of these considerations seemedto have occurred to any of those early Alexandrian scholars, Pantænus, Clement, or Origen, whoall speak of the authorship, the last at some length and with discrimination. The theory of Apollos’authorship has, however, this great advantage: that no line of his remains to compare with ourEpistle. It has also these disadvantages: that it never occurred to any ancient author, but was firstsuggested by Luther; that there is no evidence of any prolonged personal intercourse between himand St. Paul; and that there is nothing to connect him with any especial interest in, or familiaritywith, the Jewish ritual and temple beyond the simple fact that he was a Jew, as was also almostevery other writer who has ever been suggested. The non-use of the optative is also strongly againstthe authorship of the Alexandrian Apollos. Moreover, it is clear from such passages as vii. 12; x.32–36; xiii. 7, 17–19, 23–25 , that this Epistle was addressed to some particular community, a factnow generally recognized, and that the author was personally and favorably known to his readers.There is a difference of opinion in regard to the locality of that community; but if, as seems altogetherprobable, it was Palestinian, we have no reason to suppose that Apollos was ever known to them;and although this evidence is only negative, it suggests looking for some other names positively inaccord with it.Of the other names suggested in ancient and modern times St. Luke and St. Clement of Romeseem to be sufficiently excluded by a comparison of the Epistle with their acknowledged writings;the former also by the probability that he was a Gentile, the latter by the very use he makes of theEpistle, apparently as quoting words of another. 2660Silas has also been suggested as a possible author. Of him we know even less than of Apollos.He was a prophet in the early Church at Jerusalem ( Acts xv. 32 ), and was the companion of St.Paul on his second missionary journey and subsequently in his labors at Corinth, and was alsoassociated with the work of St. Peter ( 1 Pet. v. 12 ). In all this there is nothing to mark him outas the one likely to have written this Epistle beyond several others of the companions of St. Paul.The only point which really gives plausibility to the suggestion of his authorship is the fact that hewas much associated with Timothy ( 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 19 ), and this may explainthe reference to Timothy in Hebrews xiii. 23 . On that ground the suggestion of his name mightbe adopted if there were not much more to be said in favor of another, and also if there were notthe same very serious objection as in the case of Apollos—that he was never so much as named inall antiquity.There is a person, however, to whose authorship one of the very earliest witnesses, Tertullian,as already noted, positively and unhesitatingly testifies,—Barnabas. 2661 He has the same advantage2659But that the style indicates that the Epistle was not actually written by an Alexandrian may be gathered from thenon-use of the optative mood. See the reference to Dr. Harman on p. 348.2660If the question be asked how Clement of Rome should have been so familiar with this Epistle, the sufficient answer is,that if this Clement be the same with the Clement mentioned in Philip. iv. 3 , as is altogether probable and as is generallyasserted in the fathers, they were both companions of St. Paul, though whether they were with him at the same time is notknown, and so one of them was likely to know and value the work of the other. Moreover, nearly all the varying traditionsabout Barnabas concur in speaking of his preaching at Rome, where he would have become personally known to Clement,and whence he may have written this Epistle. If he planted the Church at Milan, as is asserted in the title and proper prefacefor St. Barnabas Day, in the Ambrosian liturgy, he must have passed through Rome on his way.2661Tertullian De Pudicitia , c. 20, Tom. II., fol. 1021, ed. Migne. It is well known that the Pauline authorship of the Epistlewas rejected by many of the ancients. Eusebius ( Eccl. Hist . vi. 20) mentions that in the list of Caius, Presbyter at Rome (cir.200), only thirteen epistles of Paul are enumerated, and this is omitted. It is also omitted in the Muratonian fragment, if that520