On the other hand the Epistle was not included among the apostolic writings received by Marcion; nor does it find any place in the Muratorian Canon (comp. p. xxviii.), while by this catalogue it is distinctly excluded from the Epistles of St Paul (
septem
scribit ecclesiis).
Hier.
Praef. in Ep. ad Tit.
Licet non sint digni fide qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem et omnes haereticos qui Vetus laniant Testamentum: tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus si saltem in Novo continerent manus suas...Ut enim de ceteris epistolis taceam, de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant eraserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt, ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum. The last clause evidently refers to Marcion personally. Tertullian charges Marcion with the arbitrary rejection of the Pastoral Epistles, but he is naturally silent on his rejection of the Epistle to the Hebrews on which he agreed with him (
adv. Marc.
v.21).
Towards the close of the second century there is evidence of a knowledge of the Epistle in Alexandria, North Africa, Italy and the West of Europe. From the time of Pantaenus it was held at Alexandria to be, at least indirectly, the work of St Paul and of canonical authority; and this opinion, supported in different forms by Clement and Origen, came to be generally received among the Eastern Greek Churches in the third century.
The Epistle is quoted as St Paul's by Dionysius of Alexandria (Euseb.
H.E.
6.41), by Theognostus, head of the Catechetical School (Routh,
Rell. Sacr.
3.409: Heb. 6:4; Athan.
Ep. ad Serap.
4.9ff. [Migne,
P.G.
26.650f.]), by Peter of Alexandria (Routh,
Rell. Sacr.
4.35) and by the Synod of Antioch c. 264 A.D. (Routh,
Rell. Sacr.
3.299). It seems to have been used by Pinytus, Bp of Gnossus in Crete (Euseb.
H.E.
4.23: Heb. 5:12-14), and by Theophilus of Antioch (
ad Autol.
2.25: Heb. 5:12; 12:9). Methodius also was certainly acquainted with the Epistle (
Conv.
4.1, Heb. 1:1; id. Heb. 5:7, Heb. 11:10;
de Resurr.
5, Heb. 12:5), though he does not quote it as St Paul's (the supposed reference to Heb. 11. in
Conv.
5.7
kata; to;n ajpovstolon
is doubtful). It is quoted as Scripture in the first of the Letters to Virgins which bear the name of Clement (
Ep. ad Virg.
1.6: Migne,
P.G.
1.391); and it is referred to in the Testaments of the xii. Patriarchs (
Test. Levi
§ 18: Heb. 7:22 ff.).
About the same time a Latin translation of the Epistle found a limited public recognition in North Africa, but not as a work of St Paul. So Tertullian speaks of it as being more widely received among the Churches than the Shepherd ( de Pudic. 20 utique receptior apud ecclesias illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum). Cyprian however never quotes it, and, by repeating the statement peculiar to Western writers that St Paul wrote to seven churches