Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

APPENDIX. 615
Paul generally adduces his proofs immediately, by appealing to the
inner experience (for example Kom. vii.), or when he actually deduces
propositions from propositions, he simply makes one proposition
follow another with a " because," and carries forward the chain
of ideas without logical arrangement, now looking backwards now
forwards (comp. for example, Rom, i. 19, 20 ; ii. 14-16 ; iii. 4-8),
and often interrupts himself by accessory ideas (for example, Rom.
V. 13-17). In the Epistle to the Hebrews we find everywhere a
strictly syllogistical arrangement of the members composing the
proof, and that generally in such a form as that the conclusion is
forthwith inferred from one of the two premises, while the other
connecting premiss is brought in afterwards (comp. our remarks on
Heb. xii. .10).
All these considerations are so forcible and conclusive that we
can say nothing else than this : While the spirit and doctrine of the
epistle is Pauline, we yet cannot suppose that this diction should have
comefrom the hand of the Apostle.
CHAPTER SIXTH.
CONCLUSION.
THE PARTICULAR HYPOTHESES.
After having without prejudice ascertained the particular phenomena
external and, internal, which fall to be considered in the
question respecting the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
after having carefully examined every one of them, it will now be
an easy matter to test the different opinions which have been put
forth concerning the person of its author. We may divide these
opinions into iliree classes. First, that of those who hold the apostle
Paul to be the immediate and proper author of the epistle (as
Gelpke, Hug, Klee, Paulus, Stein) ; a second class embraces the
views of those who exclude the Apostle Paul from all share in the
production of the Epistle to the Hebrews ;
a third class is formed
by the conjectures of those who, as already Origen, hold that the
epistle was written in the name of and by commission from the
Apostle Paul, under his authority, nay, under his special influence,
but not written with his own hand nor verbally dictated by him.
The view which belongs to i\iQ first class has commonly been too
roughly handled, and set aside as insipid. That no argument against
it can be drawn from the external testimonies, we have already seen
at the end of the fourth chapter of this
inquiry, and have come to
the conclusion, that precisely in the supposition of a Pauline authorship
does the positive tradition of the East, in like manner as the