HOME | Contents | Introduction | the book | who to? | where to? | Rome? | a story |
"WHO it was that wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews God only knows." Eusebius quotes the words from the great Alexandrian, Origen. And the letter is just as title-less as it is anonymous. There is no basis for the tradition that St. Paul was the author, though the conjecture was floated early, and Western Christendom came to acquiesce in uncritical acceptance. The authority of Pope and Council, however, must give place to the authority of truth. The doubt about this tradition existed and was freely expressed before the first Christian century was ended. It found a voice for itself in all the great Christian Fathers: not Origen alone, but Clement of Rome, Tertullian, and even Jerome and Augustine. Luther voiced it; and the unanimous voice of modern Christian scholarship has turned the doubt into a practically certain negative.
"The writer cites differently," says Dean Farrar, "he writes differently ; he argues differently; he thinks differently; he declaims differently; he constructs and connects his sentences differently; he builds up his paragraphs on a wholly different model. St. Paul is constantly mingling two constructions, leaving sentences unfinished, breaking into personal allusions, substituting the syllogism of passion for the syllogism of logic. The writer is never ungrammatical, he is never irregular, he is never personal, he never struggles for expression, he never loses himself in a parenthesis, he is never hurried into an anacoluthon. His style is the style of a man who thinks, as well as writes, in Greek, whereas St. Paul wrote in Greek and thought in Syriac."
There are two different types of logical mind, the type that thinks in antithesis, states clear-cut contraries and contradictions; and the type that treats thought as something that develops and progresses organically. These types are well represented in St. Paul and the writer of this letter. They spring from different temperaments, the temperament of moral intensity, and that of philosophic repose. There is no clearer conclusion of literary criticism than that St. Paul was not the author of the so-called Epistle to the Hebrews.
It is a fascinating document, written by a forceful and able mind. It turned up first in the city of Rome - as, according to a letter of Clement of Rome, it would seem - within thirty years after it was written. There must have been people alive who knew the author. Why is the name withheld? The letter bears on the face of it that it was sent to a definite destination; and the author writes as one well known to the recipients. It is not as though false authorship was claimed for it, at the outset. The earliest suggestions made are but guesses. It is the unique case of a nameless letter, author and destination of which are alike unknown. Yet when men began to quote it first, both must have been known. The mystery raises in us the suspicion that the name of the writer has been deliberately suppressed. And we wonder why.
Something can be learned about the author from the merest surface examination of the document. Undoubtedly it is a convert from Judaism, not from Paganism, who writes. It is perhaps the most convincing attempt that has ever been made to show that Christianity is the true and only fulfilment of the ancient Jewish faith. From the references to the persecution of the Chasidim and the sufferings of the patriots of the Maccabean days (xi.38), the writer has obvious sympathy with those defenders of the ancient covenant, and may have belonged to them by descent. The author is obviously a Christian who had never lost the longing to win the Jewish race for Christ.
A second undoubted fact is that the author was acquainted with, and indeed accepted the fundamental truth of, a certain type of Greek philosophy that was current at the time. It was a philosophy which owed its origin to Plato, and which was developed later in the Jewish University of Alexandria, notably by Philo. Yet this letter is not the work of a strenuous advocate of that view, only of one who had had intercourse with Philonists, for there is, as Bruce points out, "a very free and independent use of words and ideas hailing from that quarter." This philosophy was that view of the world which said that the visible created things are only the appearances; the shadows of invisible spiritual realities. The things that we see are fleeting and transitory; the unseen realities are eternal. This distinction of shadow and substance runs throughout the thought of the epistle. The ancient tabernacle was the shadow of the invisible Temple, the building not made with hands, the worshipping fellowship of all believers. Jerusalem was no continuing city, it was a type of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, whose Builder and Maker was God. The ancient sacrifices were but symbolic of the eternal sacrifice made once for all by Christ. The long succession of the Jewish priesthood was just the shadow of the eternal priesthoodafter the order of Melchisedec, who was without father, without mother, without beginning or ending of daysthe eternal priesthood which was at length perfectly and finally fulfilled in Christ.
The author, then, was a Jewish Christian, deeply skilled in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, a highly cultured mind, acquainted with what was best in one of the most influential philosophies of the age. We gather also that the author held a leading place in the community to which the letter was sent, was for some reason absent from them, and was longing to be back among them again (i.18f.).
A pathetic feature of the document, too, is that the writer assumes the attitude and outlook of a pilgrim, a wanderer, a refugee, conscious of possessing no earthly resting-place, consciously bearing the reproach of Christ (i.131.), one who has had to seek safety in flight (vi.18). These things are painted rather by suggestion than directly; and along with them there is the constant recurrence of nautical and semi-nautical terms, the fruit of the experience of one who had done much voyaging, and possibly also the experience of one whose occupation led to contact with sea-faring folk. It is immediately after the writer speaks of us "who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us," that the figure is used of hope as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and entering into that which is within the veil. It is this writer who quotes as an example of faith the building of a boat. (xi.7.) And how often is use made of words like "holding fast" (iii.6, 14 ; iv.14; vi.18), or "drawing near" (vii.19), almost in the sense of a ship approaching land (x.22). We read also of "drifting" from a course (ii.1), as a metaphor for faith in danger; of being "swept about," as in a current (i.9); of "loosing from the moorings of death" (i.20), as a description of the resurrection; of "shortening of sail" (x.38, 39), as a description of hesitation or timidity in religion; of "driving on," or "being borne on" (vi.1) unto perfection; of "casting away" our confidence (x.35), as if it were ballast; of "looking" with the fixed gaze of the pilot (xi.26); of "being on the outlook" (xi.10) as if for sight of the approaching haven; of "seeing from afar" (xi.13), as if one had caught sight of the shore; of "greeting the promises" (xi.13), a word reminiscent of friends on deck, waving to friends on the shore; of "holding on one's course, as seeing the invisible" (xi.27). These and other phrases and metaphors have about them the salt tang of much sea faring.
Another curious feature of the document may be noted ere we pass from this preliminary enquiry about the writer. The author often talks in the first person singular, often says "I"an indication that one mind is mainly responsible for the work. But sometimes we come across a first person plural "we," where it cannot mean that the writer is claiming association with the readers, nor yet talking with editorial dignity, but that there was another at least, with whom the writer was in constant consultation when preparing the letter.
It may carry us a further stage in the solution of the mystery, if we turn now to make enquiry of the letter as to the identity of the recipients. The title "Epistle to the Hebrews" is as old as the first recognition of the letter in the New Testament Canon. But it is not from the hand of the author; probably the contents of the letter suggested it to some transcriber. The validity of the title has been challenged, but not seriously. It has been thought that the phrase "falling away from the living God" implies that the recipients were in danger of lapsing back into their earlier paganism. But the whole argument of the Epistle, the contrasting of Christianity with Judaism, would be an irrelevancy, unless the danger was that of a relapse to Judaism. Why be at such pains to prove that Christianity was the perfection of Judaism if the danger was a lapse not only from Christianity but from Judaism itself? What the writer fears is a falling from the living God of progressive revelation to the God of dead tradition. While the writer recognises Christianity as a universal religion, there are phrases that suggest that the recipients were exclusively Jews. When the writer tells that Christ did not identify Himself with angels in order to rescue them - instead of saying it was with the race of men He identified Himself, he says it was with the "seed of Abraham" (ii.16). And when the exhortation is addressed to the readers, "let us go forth unto Him without the camp" (i.13), the implication is that the recipients were Jews who were being called upon to cut themselves free from Judaism. It was therefore to a Jewish community the letter was sent.
But was it to all Hebrew Christians everywhere throughout the world, or only to a definitely localised group? Once more the answer seems quite certain. It was to some particular local community of Hebrew Christians; and certain facts about them are clear. The great salvation which had "at the first been spoken through the Lord was confirmed unto us by them that heard" (ii.3). They were not Jews who had themselves been eyewitnesses and ear-witnesses of Jesus, but their first teachers had been such. Yet the recipients still belonged to the generation that had listened to these teachers, though it is obvious that they had been Christians for some considerable time now, and that these first teachers were probably dead (i.7).
"For," says the writer, "when by this time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God" (v.12)
- a sentence which not only proves that the recipients had been Christians for a time, but that they were beginning to lose grasp of the essentials of the faith, in some measure. Not that they were apostates: the writer can still describe them as "holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling" (iii.1), and "not of them that shrink back into perdition, but of them that have faith, ..." (x.39). And the writer can recall their "work and the love which they showed toward His (Christ's) Name for that they ministered unto the saints and still do minister" (vi.10).
Yet the author is aware that they were in danger of drifting away (ii.1); of being neglectful (ii.3); of developing the hard and evil heart of unbelief (iii.8,12); of contempt and despite (x.29); of refusing to listen to the voice of the Christian revelation (.25); of spiritual dullness (v.11); of waxing weary and fainting (.3); of shrinking from the reproach of Christ (i.13); of disaffection (i.17); of crucifying the Lord afresh (vi.6). It is not easy to specify with any precision what particular form the apostasy of which they were in danger seemed likely to take, for the verse which speaks of diverse and strange teachings, and of meats, is one of the most difficult to interpret in the whole epistle. But probably they were in danger of being drawn away by the revival of Judaism which was following the diffusion of the Alexandrian teaching, a Judaism which tempted them to surrender belief in the historical Jesus, speciously suggesting they might retain the Christ-idea (i.9).
More interesting still for our present purpose are certain other facts about this community which we can gather from the letter. Their first reception of Christianity seems to have been accompanied by the spiritual phenomena that we are familiar with in revival movements (ii.4). And a certain nagging opposition on the part of those who refused to be persuaded by the new propaganda, and apparently also by state officials followed these.
"Call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great conflict of sufferings; partly being made a gazing stock, both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, becoming partakers with them that were so used. For ye both had compassion on them that were in bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions" (x.32f.).
This great initial spiritual awakening had made a commotion in the place; the believers had suffered mockery, insult, rough handling; and the legal authorities had apparently interfered, and put a veto on the movements of some of them, including, according to some MSS., the writer; and had even distrained some of their property, as a fine for the disturbance, probably.
To this must be added a still more interesting reference: "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against the iniquity" (.4). Some commentators refuse to admit that this is a reference to the persecution. "Striving against sin" is to them the stumbling block. They would take it to mean, "ye have not yet resisted sin in deadly earnest." But the context surely demands a different interpretation. Just before these words, the author has referred to the enduring of the Cross, and the gainsaying of sinners by Jesus, and immediately after the words, proceeds to speak of enduring chastening. So that we are entitled to infer that these words reveal the writer's knowledge that there had been no martyrdoms in this first persecution, bad though it was. "Striving against sin" is another way of saying "enduring the gainsaying of sinners" the "wearing persecution of taunt and sneer, of social ostracism, and petty annoyances."
It is evident also that the writer is addressing an exhortation to the recipients, in view of a time, which seemed imminent, when they might be called upon to put their faith to the dread proof of martyrdom. "Ye see the day drawing nigh" (x.25), a day in which there is to be another "shaking of heaven and earth" (.26). This seems evident also from the number of cases of ancient and horrible martyrdom, yet faithful endurance, which the writer quotes for their encouragement and example.
One other inference may be made about this community. When the writer urges them " not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together" (x.24f), the meaning apparently is, not that they were to maintain their Christian fellowship in general, but that they were to stick to their own congregation. The letter is addressed, therefore, not to all the Hebrew Christians in one town even, but to one little company, mainly Jewish, one of the many little house-churches, in fact, which were so characteristic of the early beginnings of Christianity. They were evidently a small and homogenous community, all the members of which came under the same description (v.12). They were Jews, and it seems as if part of their persecution had been from the unbelieving Jews in the same town. They are exhorted to go forth unto Christ without the camp, bearing His reproach, for He also had suffered without the gate (i.12, 13), as though their stand for Christ had alienated them from the Ghetto in this town. And while they did at one time show compassion to Christian leaders in bonds (x. 331), even as Christians in Rome had befriended Paul the prisoner, yet it seems also as if they had failed to pay respect to these venerable teachers on some occasion, even as the Jewish Christians in Rome had failed to stand by Paul at his first trial in the Roman capital (cf. Heb.i.3. 7 with 2 Tim.iv.16).
The letter, then, was written to one little gathering of Jewish Christians who met in a certain house in a certain town; a community with which the writer was once intimately associated in the early days of their Christian life, sharing indeed their experiences in a conspicuous degree.
With all this definite and detailed information about the history and circumstances of the congregation before us, can we identify the town or the community? Five towns have been suggested at one time or another: Jerusalem, Antioch, Caesarea, Alexandria, Rome. Let us examine the claims of these cities in the light of the information just presented.
Can we say of the Christians in Jerusalem that none of them had been hearers of Jesus? (ii.3). The Hebrew-Christian community in Jerusalem at the beginning contained many who had themselves heard the Lord. The Church we are seeking to identify had been founded by Apostolic missionaries (ii.3, i.7). It had been a distinct event (x.32), and these things are not true of the Church in Jerusalem. This congregation had not as yet done much, if anything, in the way of propagating the Faith (v.12); whereas the Jerusalem Church had already done a great deal in the way of teaching others. This Church had taken its share in Christian hospitality, in ministering to the saints (vi.10): they had a sufficient share of this world's goods to have suffered spoliation (x.34). The Christians in Jerusalem were poor and had to be supported. Further, Greek is undoubtedly the original language of this Epistle. If the Epistle had been sent to Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem, it would have been written first in Syraic. That it was sent to Greek-speaking Jews of the Dispersion is borne out by the fact that it is always the LXX. that is quoted. Moreover, it is not true of the early Jerusalem Church that it had "not yet resisted unto blood." And a writer to these Judaistic Christians of Jerusalem could not have written so disparagingly of the ancient ceremonial (ix.10, .18). We might add that the Jerusalem Christians would not regard Timothy's coming (i.23) as an event.
Was it Antioch? The supposed authorship by Barnabas has suggested this town. No doubt Barnabas was a Hebrew Christian, an educated man, a Levite, familiar with the ancient Jewish ceremonies. But a Levite could never have so ignored the Temple ritual. A certain resemblance between "Hebrews" and the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas" has in part been made the basis for this identification of authorship. But the epistle of Barnabas is a late document, not written by Barnabas at all. In all probability Barnabas had attended the University at Tarsus, where he would come under the influence of the Stoic philosophy, not the Alexandrian, with which the writer of " Hebrews " was familiar. And if the author had been this man of Apostolic rank and influence, it would be strange indeed if the fact had been forgotten. But apart from the identification of the author, it may be pointed out that the Church at Antioch had been one of the great centres of early Christian propaganda. They would hardly be reproached for not by this time being teachers of others. And it was largely a Gentile Church, and its missionary work was directed to Gentiles. Nor can we point to any persecution of the Church in Antioch, such as this congregation endured.
The claims of Caesarea to be the destination of this letter are almost negligible. They have apparently been put forward partly on the ground that Luke was the author, writing a free translation of the thoughts of Paul, perhaps during his imprisonment there, or soon after. But we have already seen how little the thought resembles Paul's. And Luke the Gentile could not have the familiarity with, or interest in, the ancient Jewish ritual, which this writer displays. And the little we know of the Christians in Caesarea militates against the theory that they had endured the experience which the recipients of this letter had suffered, or that the character of this church was at all like that of the congregation whose identity we are attempting to trace.
As for Alexandria, this letter was much appreciated there, but the great Alexandrian Origen says the author was quite unknown. Had it been sent there, it is extremely improbable that the name of its sender would have been so completely forgotten. There could not have been such a violent break in the history of the Alexandrian Church as this implies. Indeed, the Alexandrians were under the impression that its recipients were Palestinian Jews; not that they had any tradition to that effect; it is merely their interpretation of the facts contained in the letter. Alexandria has been suggested because of the undoubtedly happy conjecture that Apollos was the author. But the facts of Apollos' history are all against the view that he had experienced an enlightenment in which there were outward manifestations of the Spirit (ii.4, x.32), when Christianity came to Alexandria.. Apollos was only a half Christian, a follower of John the Baptiser, when he came to Ephesus. He certainly did not receive the faith from ear-witnesses of the Lord in Alexandria. Indeed his enlighteners in Ephesus were not ear-witnesses of the Lord. We read of a persecution of Jews in Alexandria in the year 38 AD, but they were not Christian Jews.
The claims of Rome remain to be considered. And the first cursory glance at the letter reveals something which awakens our interest. Just before the parting benediction with which the writer ends the letter, come the words "They of Italy salute you." And at once our conjectures are confined to a narrow range; either the writer is writing from Italy, or to some place in Italy. But if the writer had been in Italy at the time, it would not be the greetings of the Christians of all that country that would have been sent, but only those of the particular town in Italy from which the letter was written. The conclusion that the writer is beyond Italy is the more probable, and the form of the words themselves bear this out. They mean "those away from, or hailing from, Italy." When the same word is used elsewhere in similar phrases in the New Testament, it seems to have this implication (cf. Matt. xv.1; Acts xxi.27, xxiv.18). But it is clear also that there were certain Italian Christians in the writer's company when the letter was sent. And why send their greetings more than those of any of the other Christians of the place? There can be only one reason. The letter was being sent to a community in Italy. The fact that there are Italian Christians associated with the writing of the letter indicates surely that the author had an Italian connection. And naturally exiled Italians in the place where the writer was would have a special interest in sending greetings to Christians in their native land. We may add here also that the ^reference to the possibility of Timothy's accompanying the writer on a visit to the place would have point if that town were Rome. The verse is not easy to translate with definiteness, but it is certainly not necessary to suppose that Timothy had been imprisoned in Rome, nor indeed that he was in prison at all. The words might mean "Know ye that our brother Timothy is loosed from his charge," (or from some task he had in hand), "with whom, if he come soon, I will see you." The interest of a congregation in Rome concerning a visit of Timothy is easily understood. He had been there a considerable time with Paul. Was it to the Hebrew Christians in Rome then, that this letter was sent? The first Christians we hear of in Italy were in Rome. And the first time we ever hear of the letter, it is in the possession of Christians in that city. Clement of Rome makes frequent use of it as early as 95 AD.
Here, however, a question we have not hitherto considered thrusts itself before us. When was the letter written? It must have been a considerable time before 95 AD, since Clement quotes it as a document whose authority was recognised. It would seem, too, that although it is the ritual of the Tabernacle, not of the Temple in Jerusalem, that the writer refers to, nevertheless the Temple was still standing, and its sacrifices still in vogue. It is true that the pious compilers of the Mishna, down in Jamnia, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, did regard it as a sacred duty to preserve minute records of the Temple ritual, to talk of it as still authoritative, and to expect its restoration. But a Jewish Christian would hardly talk as this author does, unless the Temple were still standing although perhaps there was hanging over it a menacing cloud of doom (viii.13). Had the Temple fallen, the necessity for arguing against a lapse to Leviticism on the part of Jewish Christians would scarcely exist. Indeed, if Jerusalem had fallen, the writer could not have failed to refer to so stupendous a judgment on the ancient Hebrew ritual. It would seem, therefore, that we are led to postulate a date for the letter prior to 70 AD. But by the year 65 AD, the disturbances in Jerusalem had begun, which led ultimately to its overthrow. And the writer seems conscious of writing on the eve of a crisis, a day of judgment fast approaching for the Jewish people (x.25, .26f.).
A parallel is drawn in this letter between the case of the Israelites in the wilderness and the present situation. He speaks of the "day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers tempted me, proved me and saw my works forty years " (iii.8f.). And the suggestion seems to be that a similar period of time had well-nigh elapsed since the day of the first manifestation of the risen Christ. This again would suggest some time not long prior to 70 AD.
Was there ever a persecution of Christians in Rome such as is referred to in this letter? The reign of , Domitian extended from 81 to 96 AD. And the severe policy against the Christians began in 83. But this is subsequent to the fall of the Holy City. The Neronian persecution began in 65, but there were soon many cases "unto blood" at this time. And since the writer says that those to whom the letter was sent had "not yet resisted unto blood," it must have been prior to the blood-shedding time of the Neronian persecution. A sore time of persecution was evidently approaching, but in the early part of 65 AD, although opposition was fermenting, there had as yet been no active outbreak. This may have been the approaching persecution the writer was contemplating, but it is not the actual persecution that the letter refers to; for that took place soon after the enlightenment (x.32), and the Neronian persecution was long after that time. Was there any persecution in Rome before the time of Nero? Only one, and that not unto blood. We are led therefore to fix as the probable date of the writing of the letter sometime about the middle or the early part of 65 AD. For Rome fulfils in every particular all the conditions implied in this letter. There were Hebrew Christians in Rome. Paul's letter to Rome confirms us in this. We have evidence too, that they formed a separate community in Rome. Moreover, Christianity came to Rome some considerable time before the probable date of the writing of the letter. And there were certain heterodox tendencies troubling the Christians in Rome. Paul's letter indeed informs us that the question of "meats" was one of them (cf. Heb.i.9 with Rom.xiv.). And there was a persecution of Jewish Christians there in the early days, though not unto blood. This leads us to the story we have now to tell.
In the year 50 ADthere arrives one day in the streets of Corinth a bald-headed, bandy-legged, sturdily built little man with red-lidded eyes and the marks of suffering on his face. He is a foreigner, a Jew, and he is evidently in search of a job. So at least the casual passer-by would conclude. He wanders down to the neighbourhood of the harbour, and enters the Jewish quarters, eagerly scanning the sign-boards as he goes along. At length he sees swinging above one of the doors a placard bearing the freshly-painted letters Ἀκύλα σκηνοποιός. He will make enquiries here. So he approaches the bench where the owner of the shop is sitting stitching away at the canvas. "Greetings, brother," says the man in a welcoming, kindly tone: "Peace to thee!" "And to thee peace!" answers the wandering workman; "I am a tent-maker by trade. Have you any work for an extra hand?" And the man paused to scrutinise the new-comer up and down with gently smiling eyes. "I see you are a Jew, like myself," he says. "But you don't wear the zizith any more than I do. How is that?" "To be quite frank with you," answers the other, "I've given up the ancient faith. I am a follower of the Prophet whom men call the Nazarene." "Now, here is an astonishing thing," says the suddenly excited tent-maker. "It chances that I am also a follower." "And I thought," says the new comer, with a whimsical look of mingled delight and disappointment, "that the Gospel had never been in Corinth till I set foot in it today. But perhaps you are a stranger, too? It seems that you have recently come." "You are right," says Aquila the tent-maker. "Except for my wife and myself, I know of no other followers of the New Way here. Not many Sabbaths have passed since we came to the place. We have but recently established our business. And you are the very man I want, for the work has speedily grown to be more than I can undertake alone. You can stay. You are the first man in this place to whom we have revealed our opinions. We have kept them to ourselves. We have a reason.
"From whence, then, have you come?" asked Paul, for it was he. "We have come from Rome, driven out by an edict of the Emperor." "But why?" "Ο, why, but for being too zealous in our new faith!" And so Paul joined himself to the tent-maker, as fellow-craftsman and friend.
The words from the Book of Acts (xviii.1ff.), which tell us of this forgathering of Christian strangers, may be recorded here:
"After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome), and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought, for by their occupation they were tent-makers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks."
What was the reason for this command of the Emperor Claudius? A deeply significant sentence in contemporary secular history informs us. Suetonius, the Roman historian (Claudius, xxv.) writesand betrays his half-informed indifference, when he says "Judeaos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit" (He - that is Claudius - expelled the Jews from Rome, because they were persistently creating disturbances, a certain Chrestus being the moving spirit). The word "Chrestus" betrays signs of imperfectly reported hearsay. It should be Christus - Christ. There can be little doubt that we are here listening to echoes of the dim story of the first moving of the Spirit of the Risen Christ, down in the Jewish Ghetto in Rome. We know that not all Jews were expelled at this time from the Imperial City, and that the edict by and by fell into abeyance. It is clear, therefore, that Aquila and Priscilla had been leaders in the new movement, since they were among the number who had been expelled. They had been eagerly trying to spread the Gospel Message among their own compatriots, and through their zeal and ability had been marked out as ringleaders. The enmity of rigid and prejudiced Jews had been stirred against them. Christ was the moving Spirit in their hearts; and the riots gathered about them as storm-centres.
We are in search for an author. Have we found himor her? They are Jewish Christians. They became exiles from the city and the Church where their new faith began. If they had ever had occasion to write to their first Christian associates it would be to a community consisting mainly of Christian Jews and proselytes, and it would be to the city of Rome. They could recall having suffered with that church in the days following its spiritual illuminationsuffered, but not to the shedding of blood. And from what we know of them elsewhere in the sacred record, their main interest was how to make the new Faith attractive to their compatriots. They seem to have agreed with Paul in his endeavour to carry the Gospel first to Jews. When he stayed with them at Corinth they probably accompanied him to the synagogue, where he argued Sabbath by Sabbath with his fellow-countrymen. And when the two accompanied Paul to Ephesus once again his first appearance was in the synagogue. And there, it is evident, Aquila and Priscilla continued to worship after Paul had gone. For when Apollos, the follower of the Baptiser, came to Ephesus from Alexandria, his addresses were delivered in the synagogue (Acts xviii.26), and Aquila and Priscilla were among his hearers.
When we consider the other references to the canvas-worker and his wife, an interesting fact comes to light. They are mentioned some six times in the New Testament, and when the readings in the various MSS. are compared, we find that on the majority of occasions it is Priscilla or Prisca who is mentioned first. It is probably due to the longer Western Text that Aquila's name comes first when their names are first mentioned (Acts xviii.2). Aquila certainly is never mentioned alone; and that fact by itself justifies the inference that Priscilla took an equally important part with her husband in all their Christian activity. On one, if not two, of the three occasions when Luke mentions them, Priscilla's name comes first. And of the three occasions on which Paul mentions them, only once, and there probably for reasons of etiquette, does Aquila's name come first (1 Cor.xvi.19). It is when their greetings are being sent to the Church in Corinth. The other two occasions are when Paul is sending his greetings to them. And Paul, who took a severe and rigid view of the place of women in Christian assemblies, always thinks of Prisca first (Rom.xvi.3; 2 Tim.iv.19). It seems practically certain that she was the more forceful and brilliant personality of the two. And when Christianity began to win its way in the places where they settled, they seem to have formed a house-congregation of their own. Not immediately, indeed, in Ephesus, for not only did Paul preach the Gospel, but Apollos proclaimed the way of the Lord, in the Jewish synagogue first. When Paul returned to Ephesus some considerable time afterwards, he still, for a time, conducted his propaganda in the synagogue. And even when he was banned therefrom, it was in the classroom of Tyrannus that he continued his campaign. Aquila and Priscilla were strangers in Ephesus, of course, when the good news was first proclaimed there. But it is evident that by-and-by they became leaders of the new Christian community. For when writing to Corinth Paul says: "Aquila and Prisca, with the church that meets in their house, salute you warmly in the Lord" (1 Cor.xvi.19).
It has been widely held in recent years that the destination of the sixteenth chapter of the letter to Rome was not Rome but Ephesus. For there Paul says: "Salute Prisca and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, who have risked their lives for me; I thank them, and not only I, but all the Gentile Churches as well" (Rom.xvi.3f.). When Paul first met them, they were in Corinth, refugees from Rome, and they accompanied him to Ephesus, where they seem to have settled for a time at least. But further, in a greeting, in what is no doubt a genuine fragment of a letter of Paul's (2 Tim.iv.19) a letter sent to Timothy, who was in Ephesus - he says: "Salute Prisca and Aquila." At first sight, it would seem natural to suppose that the two had remained during all the interval, of some eight years at least, in Ephesus. But it is noteworthy that the remaining words of the verse in this latter reference are: "And the household of Onesiphorus." The probable inference is that these two had no longer a house-church there in Ephesus. May it not well have been that they had been absent from Ephesus for a considerable time and the congregation which met in their house had been broken up?
Certain facts strongly support this view. The edict of the Emperor Claudius, which had compelled them to leave Rome, had proved impracticable, and fallen into abeyance. Surely there must have been a strong desire in the hearts of Prisca and Aquila to revisit the home where they had first, and doubtless for long years, been citizens, and to resume the intercourse with their earliest brethren in Christ as soon as the way was clear, perhaps even to settle in their old home again. Further, when Paul mentions (Rom.xvi.4) that they had risked their lives for him, it is almost certain that he means in Ephesus. Surely the danger which they had incurred there would be a strong reason for their quitting that city for a time. To this we shall return in the next chapter.
But let us go back now to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Have we not already seen strong reason to believe that the writer, or writers, had experienced much voyaging in their timepersons with no continuing city, frequently pilgrims and refugees? It lends considerable support to our attributing this letter to one or other of these two, to remember this. It may be a mere chance that the writer speaks of the sacred Tent, employing the word as many times as in all the rest of the New Testament, and that the veil (woven of goat's-hair canvas) is frequently spoken of, for of course a large part of the argument gathers round a comparison of the ritual of the Tabernacle with the features of the new faith. But surely there is a certain pathetic interest in the phrase with which the writer once describes the faith of Abraham"residing in tents" (xi.9). Frequently, too, the writer uses a word which is rare in the New Testament (καταρτίζειν - to repair, literally, to weave togetherx.5, xi.3, i. 21, perhaps a familiar word in the writer's craft). In the peculiar word "thou shalt roll them up" (i.12, the best attested reading), which is an unusual translation of the Hebrew Scriptures quoted, we may have another hint of the writer's professional interest. And we have already referred to the metaphor for "shrinking back," namely "shortening sail," which may - indirectly - betray the same interest.
It is evident that one main authority lies behind the letter (xi.32, i.19, 22,23, cf. x.24, 38). And if we are to choose between the two, it is no objection to our attributing the letter mainly to Priscilla to say that there are few, if any, traces of a woman's hand in it. Even these are perhaps not lacking. The writer is deeply interested in facts concerning parenthood and childhood (v.l2f., vii.3, xi.11f., xi.23f., 28, 32, .7f., etc.). Many of these would be equally appropriate from the pen of a man, but a certain pathos attaches to some of them. Melchisedec is described as "without father, without mother." It is not usual to describe Sarah's motherhood as an act of faith. The tenderness of the reason given for the hiding of the infant Moses by his parents is striking"because they saw he was a beautiful child." So also is the description of Moses' act of faith"he refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter." And the pathetic sacrifice of Jephthah is also one which would appeal to a woman. Still more suggestive of a woman's hand among the catalogue of faith's achievements is this reference: "Women received their dead raised to life again" (xi.35). Even the omission of Deborah and Jael from among the heroines of faith, may have its own significance. The barbarous nature of their deeds may not have appealed to a womanly mind. Rendel Harris would detect a woman's hand in one of the closing remarks: "I have written a letter unto you in few words " (i.22). Interesting though the letter be, it can hardly be termed brief! And when in addition to all these things, we remind ourselves once again of the suspicious fact of the suppression of the writer's name, the suggestion that it was Priscilla's hand that wrote it, begins to appeal to us with a special strength. It seems the best and the likeliest reason that can be offered for the early reticence about the authorship. The silence of women in matters of religion came early, through the influence of Paul, to be regarded as a dogmatic rule in the Church. And when Clement of Rome wrote to Corinth quoting more than once this letter as authoritative, he was writing to the very church to which Paul had given his strict injunctions about the place of women in the Ecclesia. The authorship could not have been forgotten in Rome at this very early date (95 AD). Was it because the author was a woman, that he is dumb?
One more point remains to be considered. It was Luther who first made the plausible conjecture that Apollos was the author. This would certainly explain the influence of the Alexandrian philosophy apparent in the letter. But if Apollos were writing to the church and the city where he first learned Christ in all His fulness, it would be to Ephesus (vid. p.168). And he could not have written in the tone of authority and rebuke that is characteristic of this letter, to Ephesus where he himself had blundered through ignorance at the beginning. The likelihood, however, is that the letter was written from Ephesus, since Timothy is mentioned as a colleague. Moreover, Apollos was away from Ephesus before the days of the riots there. He had really no church to which he could write, calling to mind the sufferings which he had endured with them immediately after their illumination. He might have written to Alexandria, where he received the first dim beginnings of his new faith; but Timothy, whose projected visit the writer mentions as a matter of deep interest to the recipients of the letter, was not known in Alexandria. He was known in Rome, but Apollos apparently had had no intercourse with Rome.
But think for a moment of Apollos' story. He had come from Alexandria, fresh from the school of Philo, the adherent of a group of followers of the Baptiser, who still carried on the prophet's reformation propaganda there. He can hardly be called a Christian at this stage of his career. He was thoroughly cognisant no doubt of the Baptiser's teaching, and he and his sect were still full of the expectation of the imminent advent of the Messiah. The theme of John's message had been "Prepare ye the way of the Lord," and Luke tells us that this eloquent man, mighty in the scriptures, spoke in the synagogue at Ephesus on this theme - "the way of the Lord," knowing, he adds, only the baptism of John. It was Priscilla and Aquila who were the means of leading him to the light. And think of what happened afterwards when Paul arrived in the city. He found about a dozen converts of Apollos to this "way" of John. They had not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Spirit. They had only been baptised into John's baptism. And Paul first baptised them, and then, with the laying on of his hands, the Holy Spirit came upon them. Is there no echo of this very incident in this letter to the Hebrews?
"Therefore leaving the elementary parts of the doctrine of Christ behind, let us go on to what belongs to the initiates, instead of laying the foundation over again with repentance from dead works, with faith in God, with instruction about baptisms and the laying on of hands. ..." (cf. Acts xix.1-7 with Heb.vi.1f.).
Why, it is evident that it was precisely in these elementary things of the Christian faith that Apollos had been lacking. He also had need to be instructed. Does there not arise here the strong impression that this letter is just the deliberate and finished committal to writing of the teachings and discussions which Priscilla and Aquila had had with Apollos? The whole line of the argument is just such as might be used with a learned Jew to show him how the new faith in its depth and wonder was the completion of the old. The idea of writing the letter in fact may have occurred to them through these discussions. This would help to explain the homiletic form, to some extent. The evidence all points to these two as the authors. (The story referred to in Acts (xviii.24-xix.7) probably came to Luke from them).
But we have already noted that certain features of the letter imply that one mind is mainly responsible for it. It is no disparagement of Aquila to suggest it was his wife. The lady seems to have been a Roman, highborn and well-educated, but in all probability she had become a proselyte of the Gate when she met Aquila and found her affinity in him. So deeply absorbed had she become in her new faith that it was quite natural for her to marry a Jew. The synagogue to which she had been attached in Rome may have had members who had been influenced by the Alexandrian philosophy. But surely, without that, her quick, earnest, enquiring mind would have absorbed the main truths of it readily enough in her discussions with Apollos. Certainly Luke does not hesitate to say that she had a share in persuading him to pass beyond the faith of the Baptiser. The letter betrays no more than just this amount of acquaintance with that philosophy. And her chief glory was that she had learned Christ. Qui Jesum Christum novit, says Bengel, potentes in scriptura docere potest.