compatible with what he had learnt from Pantaenus as to the authorship of the Greek text.
The whole passage of Eusebius (
H.
E.
6.14) deserves to be quoted at length:
th;n pro;" JEbraivou" de; ejpistolh;n Pauvlou me;n ei\naiv fhsin
[
ejn tai'" JUpotupwvsesi
]
gegravfqai de; JEbraivoi" JEbrai>kh'/ fwnh'/
:
Louka'n de; filotivmw" aujth;n meqermhneuvsanta ejkdou'nai toi'" {Ellhsin
:
o{qen to;n aujto;n crw'ta euJrivskesqai kata; th;n eJrmhneivan tauvth" te th'" ejpistolh'" kai; tw'n Pravxewn
:
mh; progegravfqai de; tov JPau'lo" ajpovstolo"j eijkovtw"
:
JEbraivoi" gavr
,
fhsin
,
ejpistevllwn, provlhyin eijlhfovsi katj aujtou' kai; uJpopteuvousin aujtovn, sunetw'" pavnu oujk ejn ajrch'/ ajpevstrefen aujtou;" to; o[noma qeiv"
.
Ei\ta uJpoba;" ejpilevgei
[Hdh dev, wJ" oJ makavrio" e[lege presbuvtero", ejpei; oJ kuvrio" ajpovstolo" w]n tou' pantokravtoro" ajpestavlh pro;" JEbraivou", dia; metriovthta oJ Pau'lo", wJ" a]n eij" ta; e[qnh ajpestalmevno", oujk ejggravfei eJauto;n JEbraivwn ajpovstolon diav te th;n pro;" to;n kuvrion timhvn, diav te to; ejk periousiva" kai; toi'" JEbraivoi" ejpistevllein ejqnw'n khvruka o[nta kai; ajpovstolon
.
There is no direct evidence to identify Pantaenus with the blessed elder, for Clement appears to have derived his information from more than one of his generation (comp. Euseb. H. E. 5:11), but the identification appears to be natural from the position which Pantaenus occupied (comp. H. E. 5:11; 6:13).
The use of h[dh in the second (verbal) quotation from Clement seems to imply that Clement is meeting a difficulty which was freshly urged in his own time. It had been, he seems to say, adequately met before.
If Pantaenus had spoken of a Hebrew original it is most likely that Clement would have noticed the fact. The argument from style may naturally mark a second stage in the controversy as to the authorship of the Epistle.
The judgment of Origen is quoted by Eusebius ( H. E. 6.25) in his own words. After remarking that every one competent to judge of language must admit that the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not that of St Paul, and also that every one conversant with the apostle's teaching must agree that the thoughts are marvellous and in no way inferior to his acknowledged writings, Origen, he tells us, after a while continued, If I were to express my own opinion I should say that the thoughts are the thoughts of the apostle, but the language and the composition that of one who recalled from memory and, as it were, made notes of what was said by his master. If therefore any Church holds this Epistle as Paul's, let it be approved for this also [as for holding unquestioned truths], for it was not without reason that the men of old time have handed it down as Paul's [that is, as substantially expressing his thoughts]. But who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly. The account that has reached us is twofold: some say that Clement, who became bishop