On the other hand, on the supposition that there was originally no tradition of Pauline authorship, the subsequent prevalence of such a tradition is easily explained. It was due simply to the evident apostolic authority of the epistle itself. From the start, Hebrews was felt to be an authoritative work. Being authoritative, it would be collected along with other authoritative works. Since it was an epistle, and exhibited a certain Pauline quality of spirit and subject, it would naturally be associated with the other works of the greatest letter writer of the apostolic age. Being thus included in a collection of the Pauline Epistles, and being regarded as of apostolic authority, what was more natural than to attribute it to the apostle Paul? Such, very possibly, was the origin of the Alexandrian tradition.
This tradition did not win immediate acceptance, because the rest of the Church was still aware that the epistle was not written by Paul. What led to the final conquest of the Pauline tradition was simply the character of the book itself. The question of Pauline authorship, in the case of this book, became connected with the question of apostolic authority. The Church had to choose between rejecting the book altogether, and accepting it as Pauline. When she finally adopted the latter alternative, undoubtedly she chose the lesser error. It was an error to regard the epistle as the work of Paul; but it would have been a far greater error to exclude it from the New Testament. As a matter of fact, though the book was not written by Paul, it was written, if not by one of the other apostles, at least by an "apostolic man" like Mark or Luke. Scarcely any book of the New Testament bears clearer marks of true apostolicity.
(=3=) =Internal Evidence.=--The argument against Pauline authorship which is derived from tradition is strongly supported by the contents of the epistle itself. In the first place, it is exceedingly doubtful whether Paul could have spoken of himself as having had the Christian salvation confirmed to him by those who had heard the Lord. Heb. 2:3. Knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus was indeed conveyed to Paul by ordinary word of mouth from the eyewitnesses; but the gospel itself, as he insists with vehemence in Galatians, was revealed to him directly by Christ. In the second place, the style of the epistle is very different from that of Paul, being, as we shall see, far more carefully wrought. In the third place, the thoughts developed in Hebrews, though undoubtedly they are in perfect harmony with the Pauline Epistles, are by no means characteristically Pauline. It is a little hard to understand, for example, how Paul could have written at such length about the law without speaking of justification by faith or the reception of Gentiles into the Church. This last argument, however, must not be exaggerated. Undoubtedly Paul would have agreed heartily to everything that Hebrews contains. Paul and the author of this epistle have developed merely somewhat different sides of the same great truth.