It is instructive to notice that in the Cambridge MS. of the (later) Harclean Version the title given is The Epistle to the Hebrews, of Paul the Apostle. The Oxford (New Coll.) MS. of the same Version, which White published, has only The Epistle to the Hebrews, comp. p. xxvii.
This meagre account indicates all the independent external evidence which has been preserved by tradition as to the origin of the Epistle. Later writers simply combine and repeat in various ways the views which it represents. To speak summarily, when the book first appears in general circulation three distinct opinions about it had already obtained local currency. At Alexandria the Greek Epistle was held to be not directly but mediately St Paul's, as either a free translation of his words or a reproduction of his thoughts. In North Africa it was known to some extent as the work of Barnabas and acknowledged as a secondary authority. At Rome and in Western Europe it was not included in the collection of the Epistles of St Paul and had no apostolic weight.
In order to decide between these conflicting judgments, and to account for their partial acceptance, it is necessary to examine the evidence more in detail.
The testimony of Alexandria is the earliest and the most explicit. It has been preserved by Eusebius from lost writings of Clement and Origen. Clement, he writes ( H. E. 6.14), says in his outlines ( JUpotupwvsei" ) that the Epistle is Paul's, and that it was written to Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke translated it with zealous care and published it to the Greeks; whence it is that the same complexion of style is found in the translation of this Epistle and in the Acts. [Further] that the [ordinary] phrase Paul an Apostle was not placed at the head of the Epistle for good reason; for, he says, in writing to Hebrews who had formed a prejudice against him and viewed him with suspicion, he was wise not to repel them at the beginning by setting his name there. The last clause only is quoted in Clement's own words, but there can be no doubt that Eusebius has given correctly the substance of what he said, as far as it goes, but much is left undetermined which it would be important to know. There is nothing to indicate the source of Clement's statement, or how far it was the common opinion of the Alexandrine Church at the time, or whether the hypothesis of a Hebrew original was framed to explain the peculiarities of the un-Pauline style. In part this deficiency may be supplied by another quotation from Clement in regard to the Epistle which Eusebius makes in the same place. The blessed presbyter [Pantaenus?] used to say: since the Lord was sent to the Hebrews, as being the Apostle of the Almighty, Paul through modesty, as was natural since he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not style himself apostle of the Hebrews, both for the sake of the honour due to the Lord, and because it was a work of supererogation for him to write to the Hebrews, since he was herald and apostle of the Gentiles. It appears then that the exceptional character of the Epistle had attracted attention at Alexandria in the generation before Clement, and that an explanation was offered of one at least of its peculiarities. It is possible therefore, though not likely, that Clement derived from his master the idea of a Hebrew original. At any rate the idea was