Theodoret (
Praef. in Ep. ad Heb.
) exaggerates, when he says of Eusebius,
ou|to" tou' qeiotavtou Pauvlou thvnde th;n ejpistolh;n wJmolovghsen ei\nai kai; tou;" palaiou;" a{panta" tauvthn peri; aujth'" e[fhsen ejschkevnai th;n dovxan
.
It will be evident from the facts which have been given how slender is the historical evidence for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle when it is traced to the source. The unqualified statements of later writers simply reproduce the testimony of Clement or Origen as interpreted by their practice. But it is not clear that any one among the earliest witnesses attributed the Greek text to St Paul. It is certain that neither Clement nor Origen did so, though they used the Epistle as his without reserve. What they were concerned to affirm for the book was Pauline, or, we may say more correctly, apostolic authority.
Viewed in this light the testimony of Alexandria is not irreconcilable with the testimony of the West. The difference between the two springs from the different estimate which they made of the two elements of the problem, canonicity (apostolicity) and authorship. The Alexandrines emphasised the thought of canonicity and, assured of the canonicity of the Epistle, placed it in connexion with St Paul. The Western fathers emphasised the thought of authorship and, believing that the Epistle was not properly St Paul's, denied its canonical authority. The former were wrong in affirming Pauline authorship as the condition of canonicity. The latter were wrong in denying the canonicity of a book of which St Paul was not recognised as the author. Experience has shewn us how to unite the positive conclusions on both sides. We have been enabled to acknowledge that the canonical authority of the Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship. The spiritual insight of the East can be joined with the historical witness of the West. And if we hold that the judgment of the Spirit makes itself felt through the consciousness of the Christian Society, no Book of the Bible is more completely recognised by universal consent as giving a divine view of the facts of the Gospel, full of lessons for all time, than the Epistle to the Hebrews.
In deciding the question of the authorship of the Epistle the uniform testimony of the Roman Church, in which the Epistle was known from the earliest times, is of decisive importance. If St Paul had written it, it is difficult to understand how Clement could have been unacquainted with the fact, and how it should have been persistently denied or disregarded by all the later writers of the Church, so far as we know, for more than two centuries. On the other hand, if the Epistle was added as an appendix to St Paul's Epistles in an Eastern collection of apostolic writings made about the same time as Marcion's, it is easy to see, from the example of the Syriac Versions, how naturally St Paul's name would be extended to it, and then how various explanations would offer themselves to account for its peculiarities. For the distinct theories of Clement and Origen shew that these were no part of an original tradition.