<- Previous   First   Next ->

( de exhort. mart. 11), he also implicitly denies its Pauline authorship.

In Italy and Western Europe the Epistle was not held to be St Paul's and by consequence, as it seems, it was not held to be canonical. Hippolytus (Lagarde pp. 64, 89, 118, 149) and Irenaeus (Euseb. H. E. 5.26) were acquainted with it, but they held that it ‘was not Paul's’ (Steph. Gobar ap. Phot. Cod. 232); and if Irenaeus had held it to be authoritative Scripture, he could hardly have failed to use it freely in his Book ‘against heresies.’ Caius also reckoned only thirteen Epistles of St Paul (Euseb. H. E. 6.20; Hier. de vir.
ill.
59); and Eusebius, where he mentions the fact, adds that the opinion was ‘still held by some Romans.’


Phot. Cod. 232 (Migne, P.G.
103.1103); Stephen Gobar (vi. cent.) states o{ti JIppovluto" kai; Eijrhnai'o" th;n pro;" JEbraivou" ejpistolh;n Pauvlou oujk ejkeivnou ei\naiv fasin ...The statement as to Hippolytus is confirmed by a reference which Photius elsewhere makes to Hippolytus himself: Cod. 121 ( P. G. 103.403) levgei de; a[lla tev tina th'" ajkribeiva" leipovmena kai; o{ti hJ pro;" JEbraivou" ejpistolh; oujk e[sti tou' ajpostovlou Pauvlou . With regard to Irenaeus there is no direct confirmation. Eusebius ( l.c. ) simply says that he quoted ‘phrases from the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so- called Wisdom of Solomon’ in his Book of ‘Various Discussions.’ The connexion shews that, if he had quoted it as St Paul's, Eusebius would have noted the fact. Stephen Gobar may have interpreted the silence of Irenaeus in his quotations, or something in the form of it, as a practical denial of the Pauline authorship. So Jerome paraphrases the words of Eusebius as to Caius ( l.c. ) th;n pro;" JEbraivou" mh; sunariqmhvsa" tai'" loipai'" by decimam quartam quae fertur ad Hebraeos dicit non eius esse.

The coincidences with the language of the Epistle, which are quoted from Irenaeus, would at the most prove no more than that he was acquainted with the Book, which is established by other evidence (2.30, 9: Heb. 1:3).

The Epistle is not quoted by Novatian, or Arnobius (yet see 2.65; Heb. 9:6), or Lactantius, who however seems to have been acquainted with it ( Inst. 4.20: Heb. 8:7 ff.; 4:14; Heb. 3:3 ff.; 5:5 f.; 7:21; comp. Lardner, Credibility , lxv. § 6, 4, 14 ff.). They did not therefore, we may conclude, recognise its canonical authority.

Victorinus of Pettau repeats the familiar Western clause that ‘Paul recognises seven churches’ (Routh, Rell. Sacr. 3.459).

It is impossible to decide certainly whether the Epistle formed a part of the earliest Syriac Version. The position which it holds in the Peshito at present shews at least that it was not regarded strictly as one of St Paul's Epistles but as an appendix to the collection. In accordance with this view it is called simply the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’ and not, after the usage in the other Epistles, ‘the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.’


<- Previous   First   Next ->