tles employed,
such as "our Lord Jesus Christ."

(5) The theological differences are important. The teaching of the
author harmonizes with that of St. Paul, but throughout the Epistle we
feel that the truths of Christianity are being expounded to us by one
whose personal history is different {211} from that of St. Paul. The
author starts from the fact of the perfection of Christ's sacrifice,
and in his doctrine about the Law he looks at it from that fact. St.
Paul, on the other hand, starts from the doctrine of justification by
faith, and looks at the Law from the point of that doctrine. Again,
the author takes a general view of faith as heroic belief in unseen
facts; while St. Paul, though he sometimes does the same, prefers to
use the word "faith" in the sense of devoted, personal, adhesion to
Christ.

(6) In ii. 3, 4 the author seems to imply that he had not personally
seen the Lord.

Many conjectures have been made as to the real author. Few of these
conjectures deserve serious consideration. Luther suggested Apollos,
and the suggestion has been accepted by many writers. In favour of it
are: (1) he was a friend of St. Paul; (2) he was "mighty in the
Scriptures," and Hebrews deals with the Old Testament in a masterly
way; (3) he was an Alexandrian Jew, and Hebrews was plainly written by
a Jew, and apparently by one acquainted with Philo and other
Alexandrian authors.[3] Against this theory is the complete absence of
traditional support, and the fact that Apollos was taught by Aquila and
Priscilla, whereas the author of Hebrews implies that he was taught by
a personal disciple of Christ. On the whole, _St. Barnabas_ seems to
have the best claim. Tertullian not only speaks of it as the work of
Barnabas, but also shows by his words that the Church of North Africa
regarded it as his work.[4] He is not, therefore, making a conjecture,
but assuming a tradition. His evidence is the more valuable, because
the Church of North Africa was important and was in close contact with
Rome, where the Epistle was venerated at least as early as A.D. 95. In
favour {212} of the tradition we can note: (1) St. Barnabas was an
influential companion of St. Paul; (2) he was a Levite, and would be
interested in Levitical worship; (3) he was a native of Cyprus, which
was in close communication with Alexandria; (4) he had been in the
regions to which the Epistle was probably addressed.

Against the theory that St. Barnabas was t