The Epistle to the Hebrews and its historical tradition

Contents The current state of the issue of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the fate of the latter in the ancient Church I Historical evidence about Paul's origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews II II. The apostolic dignity of the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews and the Paulinian origin of the latter from the side of the content itself in the disclosure of dogmatic questions I. The apostolic dignity of the writer The current state of the issue of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the fate of the latter in the ancient Church The prevailing scientific denial of Paul's origin of the letter - Evidence of it from the ancient Church - in the east (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Council of Laodicea 360, Dionysius Al., Peter Al., Alexander Al., St. Athanasius, Didymus, Cyril Al., Euphaly, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Cyprus , Gregory the Theologian, Basil V., Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochius of Iconium, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Blessed Theodoret, Aphraates, James of Nizib, Ephraim the Syrian, Junilius) and their authority, certified by the dissemination of the message and use (in 1 Clem., in Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, Valentinian Ptolemy). – Irenaeus of Lyons and St. Hippolipus and Western church tradition (Melchizedekians, Marcion, Presbyter Caius, Biktor of Pictavia, "Ambrosiastes", Codex Momsenus, Optatus of Milevia, Donatist councils, St. Cyprian, Blessed Jerome, Hilary of Pictavia, Lucifer of Sardinia, C. M. Victorinus Africanus, Pacian, Priscillian, Faustin, Ambrose of Milan, Rufinus, Pelagius, Philostorgius, Blessed Augustine, Council of Hippo 393 and Carthage 397, Innocent I, Council of Carthage 419), the reasons and real meaning of the hesitation of Western traditions on the issue of the letter to the Jews (and the silence about it in the Muratorian fragment). – Tertullian and the subjectivity of his testimony about the authorship of Barnabas for the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as the dubiousness of this kind in relation to the Codex Claromontanus and Tractatus Origenis de libris ss. scripturarum. - The general result of the ancient church tradition about the belonging of the letter to the Jews by St. Apostle Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most controversial in its apostolic affiliation among the New Testament writings 1 . But such gloominess is bequeathed by historical tradition and requires clarification precisely on historical grounds. It is obvious in advance that there is no desired certainty of information and its actual irresistibility if the result turned out and remains so hopeless. From here even a methodological principle is formulated that the question of the message under consideration must be resolved on internal grounds (par ces raisons intrinseques) due to the contradictory nature of external evidence 2, which supposedly convinces that none of the ancients had traditional news, which is why they will necessarily build everything according to the principles of internal criticism 3. However, such a thesis can only be as a result of historical analysis, as absolutely inevitable, and at the head or in its elimination it would be a direct preoccupation, arousing a fair suspicion of the tendentiousness of the negative coverage of factual data with destructive verdicts about them. This is also inconsistent with the essence of the subject itself, because the New Testament writings originally had a more private purpose and can accurately reveal their origin only by the succession of messages from the first recipients, as we accept this criterion for all personal correspondence. It is necessary to establish in advance, at least, the fragility of the historical tradition, so that turning exclusively to internal foundations is not subjective or biased. But as a result of the historical process of the patristic era, the prevailing opinion was that Pauline authorship for the epistle to the Hebrews ensured its equal position in the New Testament canon as an apostolic document. It is for us apostolic writing only in the dignity of Paul's work. This means that the historical-critical examination should begin from this thesis. But here we come across a new disagreement - from confessional historical science. She categorically asserts that the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not in the least shaken by the denial of Paul's writing, and to condition both of these elements would be a gross theological error (une erreur theologique des plus grossires) 4 . Then the Paulinian doubtfulness of the epistle will not be fatal to its canonical dignity, since the latter was not rejected in ancient times and is in fact indisputable 5 . Canonicity is considered to be unrelated directly to authenticity. This gives room for the opposite conclusion, that the instability of perplexities regarding the first allows us to freely keep the epistle to the Hebrews in the canon among Paul's writings 6, even if the second was not so unshakable. The Pontifical Biblical Commission even decreed (June 24, 1914) the possibility of assimilating the literary treatment of the Epistle to the Hebrews to another person 7 , as was often allowed by Catholic writers 8 , despite the decree of the Council of Trent in its fourth meeting on April 8, 1546 on the apostolic dignity of this scripture 9 . These considerations seem to quite conveniently provide a happy way out of historical conflicts that gave rise to both scientific and dogmatic difficulties. Indeed, in the patristic tradition the Paulinian authorship of this New Testament monument was quite controversial. Scientific logic hence concludes that if he is not Pavlov, then he is also canonically doubtful, 10 and dogmatic thinking necessarily faces the question of how can a work that is not authentic by such authorship be preserved in the canonical collection among Paul’s epistles? It is impossible not to state that the Catholic formula facilitates the resolution of difficult historical problems, but only at the expense of their very historical essence, which actually causes all the complications. An impartial observation forcibly convinces us that Christian antiquity protected the canonicity of the New Testament writings precisely with authenticity and connected them in a conditional manner 11 to such an extent that everything that was not authentic on the part of the apostolic origin was ready to be directly adopted by the heretics 12 . In these interests, she accepted the second gospel as a reproduction of Peter’s sermon, and awarded the third with the sanction of Paul, not even content with the titles of famous apostolic disciples and, apparently, not allowing anonymous canonicity, as it was really dark and therefore controversial. There were unshakable fundamental reasons for this. The written gospel was only a reflection and consolidation of the oral one, arising according to the needs of external historical circumstances. Evangelical enlightenment required only factual knowledge, and this was given by oral announcement. Only those who heard and assimilated all the contents of the Gospel were authorized to do the latter, i.e. some selected persons of special apostolic dignity, who were bearers of the true teaching of Christ, regardless of their specific individuality, since only under these preconditions did the preaching turn out to be truly Christlike and divinely saving. This affirms the principle of the apostolic construction of the Church of Christ on earth and the apostolic succession in it. Such principles were rightly applied to the New Testament writings, where canonical obligation was motivated by apostolic origin. In particular, the same is true for the epistle to the Hebrews, which has always been accepted in the East and was finally tested in its canonical authority under the name of Pavlov 13. Therefore, historical criticism of it as a New Testament canonical document must proceed from this point. And for the historical assessment of a literary monument, authorship is most and above all valuable, because its very influence in its importance is determined by the latter, as legal or usurper, beneficial or harmful. For all these reasons, it is primarily necessary for science to accurately state and weigh objectively in advance. Historical Evidence for Paul's Origins of Hebrews The first in a series of these is the testimony of Clement of Alexandria († before 215). Eusebius of Caesarea, who carefully collected data on the New Testament apostolic writings, certifies (Hist. eccles. VI, 14) that this Alexandrian teacher “in his Inscriptions (ἐν ταῖς ὑποτυπώτεσι) ... says about the epistle to the Hebrews that it belongs to Paul and was written by him for the Jews in the Hebrew language φησι, γέγραφθαι δὲ Εβραϊκῇ φωνῇ), but Luke carefully translated it and published it for the Greeks; whence - the shades of expression in it are the same as in the Acts Ἕλλησιν, ὅθεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶντα εὑρίσκεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τε ἐπιστολῆς καί τῶν Πράξεων). And that he does not have the inscription “Paul the Apostle,” then this should be so: for he, says (Clement), wrote a letter to the Jews, who had prejudice against him and were suspicious of him, which is why he acted very wisely, not alienating them from the very beginning by announcing his name. Then a little lower (Clement) adds: “And the blessed presbyter has already said (ἤδη δὲ ὡς ὁ μακάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος) that so is the Lord, being the apostle of the Almighty (cf. Heb. III, 1), was sent to the Jews, then Paul, being sent to the pagans, did not become an apostle of the Jews - partly out of reverence for the Lord, partly because out of excess (beyond what was obligatory for him, ἐκ περιουσίας) he also wrote (the epistle) to the Jews, being an evangelist and an apostle to the Gentiles." The testimony of Clement of Alexandria is quite thorough and quite clear in its essential elements 14 . The main one is that the epistle is undoubtedly the writing of St. himself. Pavel. This is expressed as an axiomatic thesis and therefore presupposes a strong objective support in independent and convincing authorities. Below the “blessed presbyter” is mentioned, who is usually understood there as referring to the deceased († shortly before 200) Panten. This identification is quite undeniable for us, if then it is precisely this person in his dignity who closely approaches Clement, and the latter, in matters of the New Testament canon, could not refer to an indefinite value. Therefore, it is impossible to agree that, besides Panten, anyone else could be considered in such a qualified title 15. Nevertheless, we think that it would be illegal to reduce everything to this single guarantor. Panten is involved in illuminating only one particular point, but the basic principle is obviously taken not only from him, although it is accepted by him. For such broad constructions, Clement also used a scale corresponding in volume, for regarding the order of the Gospels he noted the tradition of the most ancient presbyters (Eus. Hist. eccl. VI, 14.5: ὁ Κλήμης περὶτῆς τάξεως τῶν Εὐαγγελίων πάραδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων τέθειται). It is fair to assume this provision in Clement and for the Epistle to the Hebrews, since Euseius does not introduce any special motivation. Of course, Panten was among the others, but he was important as a “presbyter” who preserved and defended the tradition bequeathed by the ancients and himself served as a traditional authority for subsequent teachers, as having the prerogatives of the presbytery (Eus. Hist. eccl. VI, 14, 8–9). From all these points of view, Clement's cardinal formula on the Epistle to the Hebrews appears traditionally sanctioned. Naturally, the catechist himself directly quotes this monument among the letters of Paul (ἐπεὶ καὶ Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς Ἐπιστολαῖς), giving Heb. V, 12 along with Col. II, 8 16. Our conclusion is confirmed by other observations. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Clement emphasizes the features of the language, similar to the speech of Luke, not Paul, and the absence of authorial-literary designations for the second at the beginning. But with such obvious negative authorities, no thought could have arisen about the Peacock origin of the document in question, if this had not been firmly confirmed before them and in spite of them. Because of this, we must accept that Paul’s authorship has been attested for a long time and was considered indisputable, and now only the justification of this primordial belief begins with well-known critical techniques. The need for this justification arose due to some external disharmony with other Pauline writings and was aroused solely by this comparison, beyond which there was no doubt for the Epistle to the Hebrews 17. Therefore, it seems that the epistle under review was accepted by the Alexandrians in the dignity of Paul's writings according to traditional succession, where - in itself - it was not associated with serious disputes or denials, for the latter affirm the early dominance of the rejected as a general opinion. Formulated considerations follow with logical legitimacy from the words of Clement of Alexandria and are important for the dosage of opposite judgments. It is said that the testimony of Panten and Clement cannot be considered inherited to any extent, and this is the result of their personal research 18, which is why it is a subjective judgment and is not at all extracted from tradition 19. But since the Alexandrian Church owes its faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews to these catechists, then for it there will be simply a school opinion 20, which has no support in the general belief and arose from guesses 21. However, what motives and justifications could there be for such a desire and decision if there were already deniers of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews? 22 Then there would not be the very point of departure for attempts to establish without this presence in the church judgment. It is not surprising from this that the advocates of the “school” origin of the Alexandrian thesis do not dare to insist that it was invented precisely in Alexandria 23 . In this case, one cannot think of this as canonicity. True, it is possible that the Epistle to the Hebrews acquired it here for the first time 24 rather mechanically, for first, from the collection of 13 messages of Pavlov, Παύλου was added to the hitherto anonymous, Πρὸς Ἑβριαόυς - and only then they began to look for evidence 25 . And again there are no sufficient reasons for this. They refer to a well-known predisposition in favor of the content 26, which was originally canonized, perhaps in Alexandria, by the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the most “Alexandrian” scripture in the entire New Testament 27. But why did this happen, since by its origin it did not have the slightest claim to acceptance into the canon 28? And why did the latter have to happen under the auspices of Paul, if he was never associated with Alexandria by anyone, either directly or indirectly, and if all external signs clearly spoke against him? Even if Panten and Clement liked the “Alexandrinism” of the monument, it was precisely this typically sharp feature that would seem completely inappropriate for the Hellenic evangelist, given the wide popularity of his other messages, which were clearly not “Alexandrinism.” And since, in spite of this obvious contrast, Pauline authorship is accepted and defended for the epistle to the Hebrews, it is obvious that it was such from an independent conviction, traditionally inherited and sanctified. As a result, and on the negative side, the previous conclusion is confirmed that the testimony of Clement of Alexandria was not his personal or just a “school” opinion, but served as a strong hereditary property that remained unshakable even when perplexities arose. This confirms the long-standing existence of a solid tradition about the Pauline origin of the letter to the Hebrews, providing it with canonical sanction. Origen († 254 or 255) also points to the same conclusions. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccles. VI, 25), in his special conversations this famous Alexandrian said that “in the epistle written to the Hebrews, the character of the speech (ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως) does not have that verbal simplicity of the Apostle, who himself called himself an ignorant word ( 2 Cor. XI, 6), i.e. in its phrasing (τῇ φράσεί), meanwhile, everyone who knows how to comprehend the differences in phraseologies must agree that this message in terms of expression (σύνθεσει τῆς λέξεως) is the most Greek. But, on the other hand, every attentive reader of the apostolic writings will find it true that the thoughts of the epistle are amazing, in no way inferior to those contained in the generally accepted epistles” (Pavlov). On this subject, Origen held the conviction that “the thoughts are undoubtedly those of the Apostle (Paul), and the phrasing and presentation (ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις) belong to someone who remembered the apostolic teachings and, as if in a student’s (accurate) manner, wrote down (ὡσπέρεὶ σχολίογραφήσαντος) said by the teacher. So: if any church accepts this epistle as Paul's, it is worthy of praise in this too, for the ancient men did not in vain convey it in the dignity of Paul Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι). But who exactly wrote the letter (τίς δὲ ὁ γράφας τὴν ἐπιστολήν) - only God knows about this, in truth, and - according to the information that has reached us - some say that Clement, the former bishop of Rome, wrote this letter, others say that it was Luke who wrote (ὁ γράφας) Gospel and Acts." Origen begins by explaining the relationship of the Epistle to the Hebrews to the rest of Paul's epistles and tries to preserve and justify his own Paulinism for the first. He proceeds from establishing the difference in order to affirm the sameness possible for him. But the recognition of differences alone could not even serve as a pretext for Paulinistic research about the Epistle to the Hebrews, and - still less - lead to a positive decision. In general, difference never gives identity, and if in the case under consideration it was otherwise, then there could be no other reason except that the second was accepted in advance unshakably and is now only revealed in its real force. Negation certifies the existence of the opposite statement. And Origen later notes that the latter was adopted from the “ancient men” who had such grounds that the famous Alexandrian considered quite reasonable, despite the sufficient disharmony of his views. At the same time, tradition certified the Epistle to the Hebrews ὡς Παύλου not in the sense that Origen accepted, and then there is no doubt that this was evidence in favor of the full authorship of Pavlov, without any restrictions. Finally, referring to tradition, the Alexandrian teacher had to understand, first of all, the local. Therefore, the phrase about any church accepting the Epistle to the Hebrews as Pavlovo does not refer at all to the Alexandrian Church and does not in the least emphasize the conventionality of its opinion, but allows for the legality of such a judgment in church circles outside Alexandria. The totality of all these observations convinces that Origen resolves the conflict between the inherited tradition and scientific views 29, since it was objectively stable 30 and spoke of the canonical adoption of the letter to the Hebrews in Alexandria and (some) other churches 31. Along with Clement, Origen only justifies the traditional evidence 32, bringing to it his own clarifying interpretations. Therefore, in fact, it is completely wrong, as if this were not a traditional theses, but a “school” Alexandrian opinion 33, which was shared only by rare, exceptional communities. It is no less erroneous 34 that Origen reproduces the successive judgment not of the Alexandrian Church, but of one of his catechetical schools, and in this school only the distant, indirect participation of Paul for the Epistle to the Hebrews was asserted. On the contrary, it is more certain that in Alexandria it was Paul who was recognized as the author and no one allowed any other person as a competitor 36 . Therefore, we cannot agree that there was a simple assumption here, and not a traditional heritage 37. The exact opposite is indisputable, and the whole question now is the dignity of tradition. For her, they emphasize that Origen’s apparent homilies were compiled around 240 and their data do not extend beyond Panten 38, embracing exclusively him and Clement Al. 39, or in general several individual authoritative writers of earlier times 40. But the voice of the “ancient men” justifies the confession of Pauline authorship for the Epistle to the Hebrews in other churches besides Alexandria and, obviously, is not covered by the latter 41. In this case, it is unlawful to think only of these two persons 42 and limit ourselves to the framework of their era, although not extending directly to the apostolic age 43. As a result, we have that Origen states a long-standing church tradition in favor of the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews. How did he himself relate to it and what importance did he attach to it? There is considerable disagreement on this subject due to the different understanding of the phrase: τίς δὲ ὁ γράφας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οῖδεν. Some in this “writer” see the author himself, as the unconditional creator of the work 44 , and naturally see here in Origen a denial of Pavlov’s authorial complicity 45 . The external justification for this is that, a little later, Luke is also called ὁ γράφας for the third Gospel and the book of Acts, of course, in the dignity of their literary creator. But the mechanical relationship must be assessed by its correspondence to the subject of speech. And in our context, it is quite clear that Origen respectfully accepts even the tradition of the complete authorship of Paul and admits it to church recognition without any reservations. Therefore, deviation from this norm was possible for him only for the outer literary shell. And the words cited by Eusebius decisively express that Origen certainly assimilated all the content from the Apostle Paul, and the question could only be about the literary form, which owed it to someone else 46 . Here ὁ γράφας points to the apostolic disciple 47, who outlined the thoughts of the evangelist in his own stylistic treatment 48. But since from this side the matter appears unclear, it is not without reason that the idea of ​​some direct authorship by Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews and for Origen himself is found plausible 49 . The latter notes two views on the Epistle to the Hebrews: the traditional one - about the direct literary origin from the Apostle Paul - and his own - about the literary finishing by Pavlov’s student of the finished apostolic material, preserved intact. It is important to understand their mutual proportionality from the view of this great Alexandrian. But for him it is certain that he attributed 14 epistles 50 to the Apostle Paul and among them for the Epistle to the Hebrews he did not approve of denials, citing him under the name of Pavlov 51 . So, for example, in the interpretation of the book of Numbers (hom. III, 3) Heb. XII, 18, 22, 23 as the testimony of Paul the Apostle in the letter to the Hebrews 52. And this conviction was so strong that Origen defended it resolutely against all attempts. He reinforces the tradition of sawing Isaiah with the mention of Heb. XI, 37, adding that if some see apocryphal information here and reject the writing of this epistle by Paul (τῶν ἀθετούντων τὴν Ἐπιστολήν, ὡς οὐ Παύλῳ γεγραμμένην), then Origen himself intends to specifically reveal with other arguments that this epistle is Paul’s (πρὸς ὃν ἄλλων λόγων κατ́ ἰδίαν χρῄζομεν εἰς ἀπόδειξιν εῖναι Παύλου τὴν ἐπισιολὴν) in the indicated sense 53 - direct apostolic composition. It is indisputable that Origen considered this theory to be essentially correct and practically completely shared it, 54 which is why his own considerations could only have the hypothetical nature of a personal guess regarding the external features of the message, which for him was always Pavlov’s. This means that Origen’s faith and conviction were on the side of Paul’s origin and the canonical dignity of the Epistle to the Hebrews 55, and on this point he agreed with Clement of Alexandria, equally trying to illuminate its literary originality in some features. But for both, Paul’s authorship was unshakable as an ancient tradition, so venerable and impressive that its ecclesiastical obligatory nature throughout the Christian world and outside Alexandria was fully acceptable. Clement and Origen appear before us as competent witnesses to the wide and prevailing tradition of the Church. Naturally, the latter could not be limited to the knowledge of these two persons, but had to be accurately reflected in those who studied it specifically on the issue of the New Testament canon. Otherwise, the authority of the legend in question would waver and its prevalence would be questionable. From all these points of view, the view of Eusebius of Caesarea († 340), who is the leader of both Alexandrians and is a representative of the scientific church-theological knowledge of the 4th century, is very important. He says about Clement of Alexandria (Hist, eccles. VI, 13, 6) that in his “Stromata” he uses evidence from the disputable scriptures (κέχρη ται... καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων γραφῶν μαρτυρίας): the so-called Wisdom, Solomon and Jesus son of Sirach, the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistles of Barnabas, Clement and Jude. From this it is sometimes concluded that the message in question was controversial for Eusebius himself, but such a conclusion is erroneous and rests on a misunderstanding 56. It is necessary to find out in what sense this document is called “disputed” and how the historian relates to this. On the first point, Eusebius does not consider it fair to hide that some rejected the letter to the Hebrews, citing the Roman Church, which argued (in favor of the fact that) it was not Paul’s (I list. eccl. III, 3, 5: τινὲς ἠθετήσασι τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους πρὸς τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίας ὡς μὴ Παύλου οὖσαν αὐτὴνἀντιλέγεσθαι φήσαντες). But here - just a historical reference - more - of an archaeological nature, for before this it is categorically mentioned that Paul clearly and obviously owns fourteen epistles (τοῦ δε Παύλου πρόδηλοι καὶ σαφεῖς αἱδεκατέσσαρες). The epistle to the Hebrews is also included among them, since only by removing it was this sum reduced by Kai to 13 (Hist. eccl. VI, 20.3), and then it is obvious that completeness was achieved by introducing this epistle. And in his treatise on the therapists, Eusebius suggests (Hist. eccl. II, 17, 12) their interpretations of the ancient prophets, which are contained in the epistle to the Hebrews and which are many in other epistles of Paul (... ἄλλαι πλοίους τοῦ Παύλου περιέχουσιν ἐπιστολήν). All these writings were completely equal in authority in the eyes of Eusebius, and he then directly notes Paul’s epistles, leaving no room for doubt about this to the Hebrews, for he singles out only the book of the Acts of Paul and “The Shepherd” (III, 25:2–4), the controversy of which the historian had previously stated along with the reservation about the epistle to the Hebrews (III, 3, 5–6). Based on all that has been said, it is unshakable that Eusebius considered the latter to be Paul’s creation in equal dignity with the others 57 and ranked it among the ὁμολογούμενα 58 . Therefore, in his apologetic work he quotes Heb. VII, 7. VI, 17, 18. VII, 21, 23–25. III, 14. VIII, 5. X, 1. XII, 22. IX, 11, as the words of the divine and sacred Apostle Paul speaking about Ps. II, 7, which τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα ἐχρήσατο 59 . But Eusebius does not express his personal opinions on his own scientific research, but simply sums up the prevailing church traditions and the most important judgments. We are obliged to admit that by his time there were no church disagreements about the Epistle to the Hebrews, and therefore any doubts received a heretical connotation; naturally, the Council of Laodicea in 360 officially sanctioned (in canon 60) the canonical dignity of this epistle as Paul's writings (in eighth place between the epistles to the Thessalonians and Timothy), and the fathers of the first Council of Antioch (268) used it (II, 14. IV, 15. XI, 26) as apostolic authority against Paul of Samosata 60. The indisputability of the message was apparently considered and was indisputable, giving room for the categorical formula Παύλου ἐπιστολαὶ δεκατέσσαρες in the 85th Apostolic Canon. This confirms all the immediate literary history of the epistle, which is sufficiently illustrated by its actual ecclesiastical position. It is only in this direction that brief references of the indicated property are important. Dionysius of Alexandria († 264 or 265) extracts the testimony of Paul from Heb. X, 34 61; Peter of Alexandria († 311) relies on the words of the Apostle in Heb. XI, 32 62; Alexander of Alexandria († April 17, 373) assimilates to the loudest Paul (μεγαλοφωνότατος Παῦλος) Apostle Heb. I, 2, (I, 3), X?II, 8, I?, 10 63; St. Athanasius († May 2, 373) calls Heb. I, 4. III, 1, 2 together with Philip. II, 7 belonging to Paul, including him (for III, 2) among the “holy” (οί ἄγιοι) writers 64, as the entire epistle is declared canonical (in tenth place) in the 39th Easter Epistle of 367 65 and in the pseudo-Athanasian synopsis 66. Didymus of Alexandria († 395) for Heb. II, 10 and VII, 3 directly indicate the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews 67; St. Cyril of Alexandria († June 27, 444) Heb. I, 2 and 3 notes taken from what was written by blessed Paul 68. The whole tradition of the Alexandrian Church was in favor of the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, and this is supported by Euphaly (in the second half of the 7th century) 69, saying (see † Prof. Hermann von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments I, 1, Berlin 1902, S. 637 ff., 648-649) that the latter was sent by the Apostle Paul from Italy, and if may raise doubts about the literary method of presentation, the absence of the name of the author at the beginning and the verse of the 3rd second chapter, then the first is explained by a translation from the Hebrew original, made - according to some by Luke, according to the majority - by Clement (ὡς μέν τινες ὑπὸ Λοοκᾶ, ὡς δὲ οἱ πολλοὶ ὑπὸ Κλήμενιος), more similar in style; the second was conditioned by the fact that Paul was an evangelist among the pagans and did not find it appropriate to be called the Apostle of the Jews, to whom he wrote to dispel their agitation, as if he were teaching apostasy from the law, and his authorship is confirmed by evidence X, 34. XIII, 19, 23 and many other arguments 70 . The mention of possible perplexities in Euphalius is of a purely theoretical nature Παύλου διά τε τὸν χαρακτῆρα, καὶ τὸ μὴ προγράφειν, ὡς ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς Ἐπίστολαῖς...) archaeological reminiscence, for there is not the slightest hint that such questions worried or even occupied modern church circles in Alexandria and Egypt. But this is also true for other “Eastern” churches. For Jerusalem, the certifier is St. Cyril († March 18, 386), who states that Paul has 14 epistles and appeals to their interpretations for Ps. XLIV, 7–8 and CIX, 26–27 in Heb. I, 8–12 71 . St. Epiphanius of Cyprus († May 12, 403) in a special speech on the Marcion canon does not provide any objections when he states that in some In the lists, the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed in 13th place, in others - in tenth 72, and in another association, all denials of authenticity are explained by Arian tendentiousness 73. From the Cappadocians of St. Gregory the Theologian (I in 389 or 390) also counts the 14 epistles of Paul 74, and Basil the Great († January 1, 379) quotes Heb. XI, 6. I, 3 under the name of this Apostle 75, as did Gregory of Nyssa († shortly after 394) Heb. I, XXI, 3 76; Amphilochius of Iconium († after 394) notes the rejection by some of this message, supposedly apocryphal, but calls this opinion false due to the apostolic authenticity of the document 77. From Antiochians St. John Chrysostom († September 14, 407) without any hesitation accepts Paul's authorship of the letter to the Hebrews and explains it in detail, affirming its Italian origin and Palestinian destination 78 . Theodore of Mopsuestia († 428), strongly attributing this epistle to the Hellenic evangelist, justifies the omission of his name in the title by the fact that he was not the Apostle of the Jews, and presents a systematic commentary 79 . Blazh. Theodoret († 458) motivates the exclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews from some of the canon only by the fury of the Arian illness and, with remarkable expressiveness, confidently relies on the inviolability of historical tradition. According to him, “the heretics should have respected, if nothing else, then the length of time from which the pupils of the Church did not stop reading this message in churches. For the churches of God, from the very time they began to use the apostolic writings, also benefit from the epistle to the Hebrews. But if this is not enough to reassure them, then they should believe the Palestinian Eusebius, who is called the defender of their own teachings. And he admitted that this epistle belonged to the divine Paul, and argued that all the ancients had this opinion. But the heretics, ignoring all this without attention, shamelessly argue with the truth, not tolerating the luminosity of the apostolic theology with which Paul adorned the beginning of the epistle... The pretext for the accusation is that at the beginning of this epistle the apostolic title is not written, as in other epistles. But they should have known that Paul was appointed an apostle to those who believed, not from among the Jews, but from among the pagans...; and when he wrote to the Jews, the care of which was not entrusted to him, then, not without reason, he proposed a teaching without indicating (his) merits: because the other Apostles were looking after them... He wrote it in the Hebrew language; and it was translated, as they say (φασίν), by Clement” 80. The church tradition about Paul's origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews is drawn from Blessed. Theodoret unanimously, firmly and everywhere. For the Syrian Church they say that in it this scripture was considered private 81, was not learned by the Apostle Paul and initially did not belong to the canon there 82, being undoubted in it for the time only around 400 83. But precise research shows something completely different 84, convincing that all Syrians recognized him as Paul’s, as Aphraates also quotes († around 367) 85, why the epistle to the Hebrews was accepted in Syria, at least in the 3rd century, although perhaps a little after Paul’s other 86 writings. The somewhat late date should not be confusing if only because it has equal validity for the entire Pauline collection, according to its canonical approbation in the Syrian Church, where the Epistle to the Hebrews with the name of Paul and Jacob of Nizibia († about 338) 87 and Ephraim the Syrian († June 9, 373) 88 are included, and for the later Nizibi school it also certifies (circa 551) Junilius 89, calling it 14th among the “canonical” letters of Paul 90. In view of all the stated facts, the result of the blessing is indisputable. Jerome that, being the creation of a “chosen vessel,” “the epistle to the Hebrews is accepted as Paul’s not only by the churches of the East, but also by all the early church authors who wrote in Greek; although many consider it either Barnavin or Clement, it does not matter whose, since it belongs to a churchman and is solemnly read in churches every day. And if it has not become customary for the Latins to accept it among the canonical writings, and the Greek churches do not accept the Apocalypse of John with equal determination, nevertheless we accept both, following not the custom of our time, but the authority of the ancient writers, who make much use of the testimonies of both - not as apocryphal, as they occasionally borrow examples from pagan writings, but as canonical and ecclesiastical." So, in the eyes of bliss. Jerome, the entire church and scientific-literary tradition was in favor of the canonical dignity and Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, while the disagreements concerning the “authorship” of Barnabas and Clement were only exceptions and related entirely to the Greek presentation, which was not accepted by everyone by the Apostle himself. There is not the slightest reason to understand the matter differently, for there are no surviving echoes of this message being attributed to Barnabas or Clement in full, proper copyright. Could Jerome say so boldly that many people think so if it were difficult for him to point out even isolated evidence? On the contrary, his words were too broad and loose a generalization of the actual state of affairs when we understand them in application to the Greek interpretation. But in any case, the second seems to be a private, personal conviction, even if widespread, and the original and continuous tradition was for Paul. We find the same thing when reviewing surviving monuments, where the principle of traditional identification is put forward everywhere on the subject under consideration. Therefore, extreme judgments strongly contradict objective history, as if the Paulinian affiliation of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not drawn in the East from traditional sources and rested only on its own subjective assumptions 92, having received special support and theoretical justification in Alexandrian circles - according to the authority of Origen 93. For this, we must agree that this writing did not have any tradition with it and - as some scientists put it - was ἀγενεαλόγητος, a kind of Melchizedek phenomenon without any genealogy 94, which arose from complete obscurity already by the Middle Ages and necessarily required subjective fortune-telling 95. In turn, it will be further necessary to admit that before the time of the hypothetical search it was unknown or little used, because with widespread use it must necessarily be associated with certain legends. The facts here also indicate that only the second is true. Here are the documentary evidence. The phrase of Barnabas (V, 1) ἐν τῷ ῥαντίσματι αὐτοῦ τοῦ αἵματος undoubtedly recalls αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ Heb. XII, 24 with special application to the atoning blood of Christ for the “remission of sins” 96. We read from Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. III, 38, 1–3) that in his letter to the Church of Corinth, Clement, Bishop of Rome (92–101), “brings many thoughts from the Epistle to the Hebrews, even borrows from there literally (αὐτολεξεί) and all the more clearly shows that this scripture is not new, which is why rightly ranked among the other epistles of the Apostle. Since Paul talked with the Jews in the language of his fathers, some say that his message was interpreted (in Greek) by Luke, and others that this same Clement. And the last opinion seems correct both due to the similarity of the way of expression in the Epistle of Clement and to the Hebrews, and due to the slight difference in thoughts.” Blazh. Jerome († September 30, 420) says (De viris illustribus 15) that Clement “wrote an extremely useful letter on behalf of the Roman church to the Corinthian church, which in some places is even read publicly, and it seems to me similar in the nature of the presentation to the letter to the Hebrews, going by the name of Paul. And Clement uses from this epistle (to the Hebrews) not only thoughts, but also regarding the very order of words. And in general there is a very great similarity in both messages” 97. According to these testimonies, it has long been and is still accepted that Clement knew the epistle to the Hebrews and took a lot from it 98, and the widespread use is undeniable 99 and has the properties of an authoritative quotation 100, which convinces that the source being utilized then had sacred competence, if the Clement epistle was issued ex persona Romanae ecclesiae and directly presupposes its consent and recognition 101. Here it is in vain to emphasize that from this correspondence it is not clear that the Epistle to the Hebrews was known to the Corinthians, 102 because at every time it is thought of as a document of indisputable impressiveness, and such an unknown monument could not be in their eyes. Otherwise, one would have to expect argumentative speeches about this, but this is not the case at all, and Clement in advance assumes solidarity with him among readers on this point, without naming either the message itself or its writer 103. The latter circumstance, of course, can be applied in reverse, but we must not forget that Clement does not designate his authorities at all 104 and only once calls Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 105 according to the unity of addressees for both. A much more significant remark is that allegedly - with the exception of the interpretations about the superiority of Christ - in the entire Clementine Epistle there are no clear traces of influence on it from the Epistle to the Hebrews 106, Christology could also be independent for two persons - as an accepted church belief, or church language 107, because both writers (together with 1 Peter) belonged to the same circle 108. But this statement is not actually justified. Clement, revealing in (chapter 36) the divine dignity of the Lord as the high priest of our offerings (Heb. II, 18, III 61), and his superiority over the Angels according to Heb. I, 3, 4, 7, 5, 13 109, also borrows biblical examples - Enoch and Noah (in chapter 9: 3-4 from Heb. XI, 5, 7) 110 and Raavi (in chapter 12: 3 from Heb. XI, 31) 111, wanderers in mantles and goatskins (in chapter 17: 1 from Heb. XI, 37) 112, states for God the impossibility of only one lie (in chapter 27: 2 from Heb. VI, 18) 113 and His desire for people to taste immortal knowledge (in chapter 36: 10 from Heb. VI, 4-5) 114. Coincidences in particular parallels are the most difficult to achieve, and in our case they are especially significant, because all accommodations are completely identical, even where specific names are omitted and generalizations are presented. By all accounts, it is unshakable that the Epistle to the Hebrews was well known to Clement and was used by him with respect on a wide scale (up to 47 times) 115. In this light, another hypothesis is much more plausible, that the epistle to the Hebrews served for Clement as an indirect but imperative reminder of the duty of teaching of teachers towards wavering brothers and frustrated communities, why the Bishop of Rome was called to his pastoral address to the Corinthians by the apostolic scripture 116 and, naturally, imitated it as an obligatory model 117, copying almost to the point of plagiarism 118. However, this guess only highlights the undoubted similarity of both ancient Christian works, testifying to the authoritative prevalence of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is also suggested by St. Polycarp of Smyrna († February 22, 156), calling (XII, 2) Christ sempiternus pontifex according to Heb. IV, 14 119. Justin Martyr († about 165), agrees with Heb. III, 1 in naming the Savior the Son of God and the Apostle 120 and confesses His dignity according to the order of Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God 121 - respectively Heb. V, 9, 10; VI, 20; VII, 12. The last coincidence is the most striking, because by its singularity it excludes any possibility of accidental consonance and forces the recognition of direct borrowing 122. Rather, one can think that in the interests of the success of his apology among the Jews, St. Justin studied competent experience of this kind in the Epistle to the Hebrews in order to have in it support for a favorable reception for his dialogue in the Jewish environment 123. And if Paul’s authorship is not noted, then in general Justin does not have such exact instructions even for the Gospels 124. Hints of the Epistle to the Hebrews are found in Theophilus of Antioch (about 180) 125 and in the contemporary of Irenaeus (about 140 - about 202) the Valentian Ptolemy 126 . We have now reached the times of Panten († shortly before 200) and Clement’s “presbyters” and have no need to extend further. For our purposes, it is enough to state that the use of the Epistle to the Hebrews begins almost from the apostolic era itself and is found already in the oldest monuments of church writing. This position is quite obvious, and only a few fanatics of bibliological denial risk challenging it, declaring our scripture an ecclesiastical forgery of the 4th-5th centuries. 127. But this incongruous extreme only convinces more irresistibly of the extent to which the long-standing use of the Epistle to the Hebrews in wide church circles is undeniable, with the assimilation of authoritative significance to it next to other documents of a canonical nature. Under these conditions, is it possible to agree that this work should go around anonymously, and no one would take an interest in its history? Is this possible for those times when all sorts of pseudo-epigraphs, sometimes downright ridiculous, were deliberately created? Isn’t it more likely that the opposite is true, that our message appeared everywhere in the dignity of the original church scripture, i.e. apostolic? And then is it conceivable that this apostolic guarantee should not be mentioned anywhere at all and should not encourage anyone to carefully search and define it precisely? It is difficult here, too, to evade an affirmative answer, or at least to weaken the latter by referring to the nameless application of the epistle to the Hebrews in the ancient patristic period, since this was the practice of quoting for New Testament works in general, 128 as it is no less true that along with this, successive traditions about them were preserved, which later received literary expression and justification. By analogy, we should think something similar about the book of Hebrews. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the question of its authorship was first raised around the end of the 2nd century and only in Alexandria, and there it was resolved solely on the basis of theoretical guesses, devoid of any traditional support, as if the document in question was affirmed on the Platonic doctrine of ideas 129 in the light of philonism 130. To a remote extent, this would still be acceptable to some partisans as a tolerable hypothesis if the Epistle to the Hebrews was hitherto unknown and emerged from the darkness onto the historical horizon along with esagogical experiments regarding its composition. But in fact, it was the case that this work had long possessed the widespread authority of an apostolic work; it was natural that the individualization of this apostolate could be acquired in generally accepted, inherited associations, so as not to immediately turn out to be non-ecclesiastical due to the lack of traditional roots for it. For all these considerations, we are obliged to believe that the Alexandrian judgment is based on solid evidence of tradition, as it indeed categorically appeals in its favor to the “presbytery” succession, certifying that it is affirmed solely on traditional soil, and not at all on subjective presumptions. The Alexandrians do not have the slightest hint of their own rational justifications, and everything is exhausted by references to the ultima ratio in the traditional voice of church antiquity. As a result, it is formulated that in the East the Epistle to the Hebrews had been widely and authoritatively used from time immemorial, and by the 4th century it was traditionally adopted everywhere only by the Apostle Paul 131, so that to justify doubts about this it was necessary to appeal to Rome 132. Given the universality of this phenomenon, it would be most natural to see in it an initially commanded and therefore obligatory church opinion, but the isolation of the West is sharply opposed to this. For him, they deliberately emphasize that here the Epistle to the Hebrews was accepted into the canon already at the beginning of the 5th century 133, meanwhile, either ignorance or denial of Pavlovian authorship had previously prevailed 134. The ignorance of the latter by the Roman Church is extremely important, which serves as a direct negative instance 135 no less than another property of this kind - in the recognition of a completely different writer. There is much that is factually correct in all this, and all that is required is proper illumination from documentary evidence that allows for different interpretations of equal persuasiveness, if - contrary to skeptical applications - they say that in the entire West until the beginning of the 3rd century there was no disagreement about the Epistle to the Hebrews 136 and from the middle of the 2nd century until the 4th it was read in churches without encountering any objections or rejections 137 . It is clear that the facts require the strictest revision. The link between the West and the East was Irenaeus of Lyons († around 202), but St. Hippolyte († around 235) expresses doubt about the canonical recognition of the scripture they are analyzing 138. This skepticism is too exaggerated 139 . Eusebius of Caesarea records without any hesitation (Hist. eccl, V, 26) that Irenaeus “also has a certain book of various discussions in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews (καὶ βιβλίον τι διαλέξεων διαφόρων, ἐν ῷ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς μνημονεύει) and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon and cites some sayings from them.” This is reported as a direct reference and presupposes direct acquaintance with the intended document - especially since the latter is characterized with specific clarity, if in order to eliminate this they point out that in the extensive hereseological work there are no echoes of the Epistle to the Hebrews among other works of Pavlov 140, then this circumstance, well known to Eusebius, did not prevent him from speaking categorically, which is why it cannot authorize us to think about denial Irenaeus is even of Paulinian authorship, for a church historian occupied with this issue would hardly be silent about such an important point. Then the words of Stephen Gobar (about 600) are quoted, allegedly “Hippolytus and Irenaeus say that the epistle to the Hebrews does not belong to that Paul (ὅτι Ἱππόλυτος καὶ Εἰρηναῖος τὴν πρὸς and Clement (of Alexandria), Eusebius and other great hosts of God-bearing Husbands classifies them with other writings (Pavlov), claiming that it was translated from the Hebrew language by Clement" (Roman) 141. However, this monophysite of the tritheistic trend is a witness both too late and very vague, for from the literal meaning of his note it appears that both persons named by him learned the Epistle to the Hebrews not by that Paul, but, perhaps, that means, by some other one. Such an original opinion, which does not find the slightest echo, is extremely incredible for these writers and rather forces us to accept that - according to the sources of Stefan Gobar - they to a certain extent assumed Peacock authorship. Here, in refutation, they refer to the testimony of Patr. Photius, that in his syntagma against the 32 heresies, Hippolytus “says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the Apostle Paul” 142. They usually agree with this, explaining this position of the hereseologist as a polemic against the Theodotians 143, who mistook this writing for Paul's 144, but it must be added that in his commentary on the book of the prophet Daniel, Hippolytus uses the epistle to the Hebrews no less than other Pauline writings and applies them in equal dignity 145. Therefore, it is unfounded to make an exception for the Epistle to the Hebrews and claim that Irenaeus and Hippolytus denied Paul's origin 146. In any case, the latter was known in Rome at the beginning of the 3rd century, judging by the fact that the Melchizedekians tried to justify their delusions about the superiority of Melchizedek over Christ from Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews 147, and they would hardly have dared to do this in view of the prevailing denial, meanwhile, their whole policy is understandable given the conviction of the indisputability of the utilized authority for the surrounding Christian society. They further argue that around the middle of the 2nd century, Marcion eliminated this message from Pavlov’s collection 148 with such decisiveness that complete agreement was expected on the part of Roman Christians rather than an indignant protest of the generally accepted belief 149 . Such argumentation is fictitious, since otherwise one would have to assume its validity for the entire set of Marcion’s exceptions from the New Testament canon. It is true no more than that Paul's affiliation with the epistle to Hebrews was not proclaimed in Rome with sufficient impressiveness even by the third century. To begin with, Eusebius testifies (Hist. eccl. VI, 20.5) that under Zephyrinus, the presbyter Guy (Caius) in a dialogue against the Montanist Proclus mentions only 13 letters of Paul, without counting the letters to the Hebrews among others, just as some of the Romans still do not attribute it to Paul (τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀποστόλου δεκατριῶν μόνον ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει τὴν ????? παρὰ Ῥωμαίων τισὶν οὐ νομίζεται τοῦ ἀποστόλου τυγχάνειν). The only thing that follows from this is that Caius only kept silent about the Epistle to the Hebrews in the list of Paul's writings, although he may have known about it 150. This last is unclear from the words of Eusebius, who then presents his own findings and conclusions. According to them, it turns out that the Pauline authorship of the epistle under review was not indisputable in Rome in the first quarter of the 4th century. All other observations regarding the ancient West incline towards the same opinion. Victorinus of Pictavia († c. 303) does not mention Hebrews 151, but "Ambrosiastes" used it without calling it Pavlov 152; The Momsen Codex, originating from Africa from the end of the 4th century (about 360), omits this scripture in its listing of canonical books and notes 13 Pauline epistles 153); There are no allusions to it in Optatus of Milevia (370, 385), and it was not used at the Donatist councils, just as it is not used in St. Cyprian († September 14, 258), speaking only of Paul's epistles to the seven churches 154, which equates the epistle to the Hebrews with the pastoral ones. But so far we have data that is vague in its vagueness and negativity. Bl. interprets in more detail. Jerome († September 30, 420), from whom we have heard that the Epistle to the Hebrews Latinorum censuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas 155. However, it would be hasty to think of any kind of rejection and denial of all sacredness in this scripture. According to Jerome, there was only uncertainty regarding the exact origin of the author, and he himself did not perceive this to be of particular importance, believing that for canonical recognition it was enough if the writer was a churchman. In this case, the opposite will be the proposition that for such purposes there is little such belief, which we must assume was shared by everyone. Then we get that the Epistle to the Hebrews was considered by the Latins to be an authoritative ecclesiastical document, but the apostolic name was not assigned to it. Further, it is clear and inevitable that it was not included in the canonical catalog, since anonymous works could not be included there, which is why we see that the Western Church also linked the canonicity of the writings with apostolic affiliation. Jerome's note about Caius also leads to this conclusion that in his treatise against Proclus he lists only 13 epistles of Paul, and about the fourteenth - to the Hebrews - he says that these are not his writings, but even among the Romans the latter is not considered to be Paul's (decimam quartam quae fertur ad Hebraeos dicit non ejus esse, sed apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli non habetur) 156 . In this sense, Jerome warns: licet de ea (– epistola Pauli quae scribitur ad Hebraeos –) multi Latinorum dibitent 157. The “doubt” of many in the Latin West related precisely to the apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which for this reason alone 158 was not ranked among the canonical collection of Paul 159 and only as a “Latin custom,” but the latter is simply a local practice and must yield to church “tradition” 160 . The dependence of Jerome's message about Caius on Eusebius 161 does not change the matter in the least, for the former, with his exaggerations 162, serves to confirm it on the issue under consideration, that in the Latin world uncertainty reigned in the actual Pauline authorship 163 . Therefore, it is biased and incorrectly emphasized that, according to the testimony of Jerome, the West did not recognize the Epistle to the Hebrews at that time 164; in fact, the bewilderment concerned only Pavlov’s writing, and this circumstance alone prevented its canonical sanction. Jerome himself did not profess such a decisive conditionality and cites our epistle as a sacred monument, even if it was not indisputably Paul’s for others 165, as he personally accepted according to the voice of church antiquity - especially the East. In any case, in the West the Epistle to the Hebrews was considered an authoritative document of ecclesiastical dignity, 166 and all hesitation was exhausted by its Paulinian claims. There are further divisions in this direction. True, Hilary of Pictavia († 366) 167 , Lucifer of Sardinia († 370 or 371) 168 , C. M. Victorinus Africanus (converted to Christianity around 355) 169 , Patian, Bishop of Barcelona, (360–390) 170 , Spaniard Priscillian († 385) 171 , Faustinus, presbyter of Rome († after 380) 172 , Ambrose of Milan († April 4, 397) 173 , Rufinus († 410) 174 adopted the letter to the Hebrews to the Apostle Paul - along with all others 175, but this opinion was not universal even by the end of the 4th century. At least Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia († before 397), mentions that statutum est ab Apostolis (beatis), et eorum successoribus, non aliud legi in Ecclesia debere catholica, nisi... Pauli tredecim Epistolas, and about the Epistle to the Hebrews he says: Sunt alii (quoque), qui Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non asserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse Apostoli, aut dementis de urbe Roma episcopi. Alii autem Lucae evangelistae aiunt: Epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptum. Et quia addiderunt (var.: scriptam beati Apostoli quidam volunt legere. (Sed) quia addiderunt) in ea quaedam, non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in Ecclesia, et si legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in Ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim Epistolae ipsius, et ad Hebraeos interdum. Et in ea quia rhetorice scripsit sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse ejusdem Apostoli. Et quia et factum Christum dicit in ea, inde non legitur, de poenitentia autem propter Novatianos aeque. Cum ergo factum dicit Christum (III, 2), corpore non divinitate dicit factum, cum doceat ibidem, quod divinae sit et paternae substantiae Filius: qui est splendor gloriae, inquit (I, 3), et imago substantiae ejus. Poenitudinem etiam non excludit docendo, sed diversum gradum dignitatis ostendit inter hunc, qui integrum (se) custodivit, et ilium, qui peccavit. Dignitatis est igitur detrimentum in eo qui peccavit, non damnum salutis. Nam si fortiter quis pugnaverit per martyrium, recipiet pristinam sanitatem (dignitatem), aut si corigne in hoc saeculo vixerit, impetrat quod desiderat adipisci. Nam in ipsa Epistola rebaptizatores exludit, non baptismum poenitentiae abnegat 176 . All this evidence is quite elusive and does not allow precise conclusions in detail, providing only general provisions. At the beginning, we are undoubtedly talking about liturgical reading in churches for the edification of the people, along with all the other apostolic epistles and, therefore, in equal dignity with them, or under the name of Paul. This interpretation is directly suggested by the further speech that some call the author not him, but other persons - contrary to previous judgments. And Philastrius himself could hardly help but sympathize with the latter, since he not only quotes this message among various biblical excerpts 177, but with categorical prefaces: cum apostolus doceat for Heb. IX, 27 178, Apostolus... inquit in Heb. XIII, 8 179, seeing in them the sayings of 180 Scriptures 181. Therefore, from the point of view of Philastrius, the same ecclesiastical use of the Epistles to the Hebrews was quite legitimate, and then the special emphasis that the Apostles established this only for 13 is not entirely clear. We think that this simply states the dominant church-liturgical usus, which was naturally considered apostolic. It follows from this that it coincided with Latinorum consuetudo and was against the liturgical application of the Epistle to the Hebrews, although private exceptions were possible. And then it is noted that sometimes the Epistle to the Hebrews was read in churches - of course, Orthodox and with the permission of the Orthodox authorities. At the same time, the question necessarily arose about the reasons for such illegality, and Philastrius tries to reveal and justify them without sacrificing his convictions. The latter boiled down to the fact that this was an apostolic document and it was Pavlov, but not everyone had such firm confidence on this subject due to some fluctuations in the legend about the author and due to formal and stylistic differences. For Philastrius, these considerations were not decisive, but the prevailing ecclesiastical practice is not condemned or disputed by him under the just pretext that if a slightly controversial scripture is sanctioned, then wide doors will be opened for the penetration of various apocryphal falsifications into the ecclesiastical environment. The basis for church restraint regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews lay in precautions against heretics and sectarians, and not in itself, why, outside of these dangerous combinations, it was freely and legally admitted into liturgical readings. For this purpose, the principle of undoubted apostolic authorship was used for canonization, which was not universal to such an absolute extent for this New Testament monument. For him, other persons were also named besides Paul, and in fact there were Arian-Novatian reinterpretations that could seduce listeners. For these reasons, the Epistle to the Hebrews under Philastrius was not a generally accepted church and liturgical book in the West, but was considered a work of high, apostolic dignity and was adopted by many as a holy book. Pavel. At least, the hereseologist himself completely shared this opinion, considering himself an exponent of the Orthodox voice itself. The whole matter remained for final church approbation, without which anyone could use the epistle even as Paul’s writing, but no one had the right to declare it canonized or canonical by the church. An example and confirmation of this is, at least, Blessed. Augustine († 28 August 430). Usually he always treats our message as Pavlov’s canonical writing 182 , but still does not completely equate it with others 183 . The initial apostolic greetings are understood by him in the sense of testimony to the Trinity and unity of the deity. And the Western teacher believes this especially because all the epistles had such an appeal, without any doubt assimilated by the Church to the Apostle Paul - except for the epistle to the Hebrews, where the welcoming beginning is omitted, as they say, intentionally, so that the Jews, who fiercely rebelled against him, would not be irritated by his name and would not begin to read with a hostile disposition, or even refuse to read at all, if such a greeting were placed. Due to these observations, some were afraid to accept it into the canon of sacred writings (unde nonnulli earn in canonem Scripturarum recipere timuerunt), and it did not fall into the category of apostolic epistles that church custom accepts (... aliae Apostolorum Epistolae, quas usus ecclesiasticus recipit...) 184. All importance lies solely in usus ecclesiasticus, and it is created by apostolic-ecclesiastical approbation. Therefore, for Augustine, the authority of the Eastern churches was decisive, which included this scripture among the canonical (magis me movet auctoritas Ecclesiarum orientalium quae hanc - Epistolam - etiam in canonicis habent) 185. This was also required for the West, where the issue could not remain indefinitely in unreconciled duality. In this direction, two paths were theoretically equally accessible and equal for the Western Church - recognition and rejection, but, of course, it had to follow the line of least resistance. Her verdict indisputably shows where the prevailing church usage was heading, which could not be fought due to the principled view of the primacy of tradition in such matters. And so, at the Council of Hippo in 393, it was decided that “nothing beyond the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of sacred scriptures,” among which Pauli apostoli tredecim are named. Eiusdem ad Hebraeos una - with a general reservation: ita ut de confirmando isto canone transmarina ecclesia consulatur. This condition remained binding even when the Ipponian rules were confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 186. And regarding “overseas” Rome, there was a belief in a favorable opinion about the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the so-called decree of Pope Gelasius (492–496) de libris recipendis et non recipiendis is mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the 14th place ad Hebraeos una 187, meanwhile this list is still by many traced back to the Roman Council of 382 under Pope Damasus († 384) 188. True, others categorically deny the last guess, seeing it as a reflection of the practice of even the 6th century, 189 but for us the later evidence of the views of the Roman Church on the subject under consideration is also valuable. From this side, this tradition has sufficient guarantees, since in February 405 Pope Innocent I states Exuperia of Toulouse among the canonical books Pauli apostoli epistolae quatuordecim 190. It is not surprising that the Council of Carthage in 419 directly speaks of Pauli apostoli episiolae (numero) quatuordecim 191. This confirmation actually ended all disputes in the West, where later the Epistle to the Hebrews was everywhere recognized and applied in the dignity of Pavlov’s church-canonical writings. The previous history contains many different details that require a fundamental generalization on the most significant points. The most important of them is that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not accepted into the canon for church and liturgical use for a long time. Along with this, it is extremely important that no one declared it an apocrypha of dark or malicious origin, but everyone considered it a venerable monument of apostolic times. In this case, the reason for the noted restraint could only be imperfect clarity regarding the exact apostolic origin, which was determined by the authorship of one or another Apostle of Christ. And the Western Church determined the canonicity of the writings precisely by this factor - except perhaps the blessed one. Jerome, who was satisfied with its general sign of connection with apostolic sources (p. 20). In turn, this predicate was provided by a traditional identity and was measured in its strength by the degree of prevalence. Blazh. Augustine formulates the following norms on this subject: In canonicis scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quamplurimum auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae sint, quae apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiunt; in eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecdesiae tenent. Si alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quamquam hoc facile invenire non possit, aequalis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto 192 . According to this rule, we have that the Epistle to the Jews did not have the majority of churches in the West in favor of canonicity by recognizing its undoubted origin from the Apostle Paul. Naturally, it was not used in liturgical readings everywhere, but only where Paulinian authorship was firmly established. The whole debate was actually about the latter, which had nothing to do with generally accepted internal dignity. Here everything was focused on external features - and some found them (for example, the lack of a personal designation of the writer and greeting) compatible with the fact of composition by Paul, others saw a serious obstacle here. In the end, all the Western vicissitudes were caused by the fact that the true authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews was unknown, while the Paulinian one turned out to be not entirely clear and was accepted sporadically. With all this, the last result was certainly favorable to the apostolic assimilation of the message. The question now is, under what conditions is this result understandable? Is it because this message is really Paul's, but only circulated anonymously for solid reasons, which should be quite reasonable historically and completely convincing theoretically? Or is it more likely that a forged scripture was approved, and wouldn’t this require even more impressive reasons? Let's weigh both of these possibilities objectively. The second of them actually asserts the origin from nothing and must be protected in the most durable way. Where, in fact, did the need arise and create the need to approve a dubious document? Was he really so important for church-catholic interests and constituted a necessary link in the justifying chain? But what speaks against this is the comparatively very rare use of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which nowhere and has never been put forward as at least the main guarantor of any special dogmatic-ecclesiastical goals? We do not encounter this at all in the slightest degree and, on the contrary, we see a sectarian predilection for it, which caused church caution. Can we now agree that the Church had a need to sanction a dark monument that served more sectarianism than itself? Is this conceivable given the ongoing sectarian and heretical complications in the West? A negative answer is inevitable by itself and is in no way weakened by explanations of why and on what grounds the church canonization took place. They usually say that this step was taken for the sake of the East, out of respect and authority 193. But then it is necessary to assume that the West recognized the Eastern voice as catholically convincing and submitted due to its ecclesiastical indisputability. From this side, Western consent does not increase the number of witnesses materially - in the sense of adding independent allies, but it significantly aggravates the internal value of the Eastern tradition. And such a conclusion is all the more certain because the intended annexation of the West did not occur immediately and, therefore, based on sufficient consideration of all the circumstances. We know that Jerome and Augustine referred to Eastern practice, without at all considering it a categorical authority, if it was later accepted in this particular dignity - it follows from this that the latter turned out to be objectively strong in factual guarantees in accordance with the principle of traditional church authority. In the era around the time of the blessed one. Augustine could not have any other standard for these cases except the primacy of the most reliable and widespread church tradition. This means that if it is denied, it is impossible to rationally comprehend the entire process and final outcome of Western development in the area under discussion, where at first the recognized authorship of Pavlovo was especially emphasized, but then it was no longer indicated. How satisfactorily is the matter explained under the other assumption that the Epistle to the Hebrews, being Paul's, was simply not called by this name, which, however, was not at all rejected by such silence, for it was forgotten or not put forward due to various historical conditions? Let's look at the most important historical moments. The first of these is long-term anonymity, but it is all the less surprising for the West because it also dominated the East for a short time. Then the only question is why was it resolved there more slowly and not so successfully? On this subject it must be remembered that at first the Epistle to the Hebrews was used without any precise qualifications and immediately acquired the character of an anonymous document. This practice was then quite common, but in this example it had deeper consequences, contributing to the fact that the not entirely clear and not widespread tradition about the origin of scripture was smoothed out and faded into the background even in its very importance. And since this influence immediately prevailed in Rome, it is natural that in other centers of Western Christianity no special interest was aroused where there had been no lasting news from time immemorial. Untitled at first, the epistle began to be circulated simply as an apostolic work. Of course, this could not continue indefinitely due to the needs of canonization, which was based on the copyright merits of ancient monuments. But from this side, Peacock authorship was complicated in the West by the fact that it was proclaimed earlier and stronger than others in heretical sectarian circles. Given the lack of clarity of tradition, there was a kind of heretical discovery here - and it is not surprising that the Church was in no hurry to dogmatize it 194. And then directly tendentious dogmatic abuses arose for extreme heretical purposes, which is why it is clear that such a document, which was compromised by sectarian appropriation and heretical application, could not soon acquire Peacock sanction in the West 195 . It was dangerous for the Church to exalt a controversial monument directed against itself, 196 and it left it in a state of some doubt, so as not to unnecessarily complicate its accounts with its opponents and not to slow down the success of its positive construction. These considerations motivated Western practice even by Philastrius, who is joined by many new scientists 197 . It is objected that this interpretation needlessly casts a shadow on Western churchmen, who allegedly hid the truth by paying attention to their own enemies, heretics and sectarians 198 . This argument gains some credibility only from the harshness of its formulation, but the latter is devoid of historical justification and theoretical plausibility. The Church was slow to distinguish the controversial monument so as not to strengthen the position of opponents to a significant disadvantage to the Catholic cause. Is there anything blessed in this? And aren’t there historical analogies of the closest kind for this? We know that the Arminians and Socinians have always and persistently rejected the authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In opposition to this trend, Paulinian authorship was asserted with such categoricalness 200 that any denial of it was considered heretical not only among Catholics, but also among Protestants 201 . Why couldn’t something similar have happened much earlier for more serious reasons, because then the Church had not completely ensured its dominance in the Western world and had to observe special precautions? There is nothing unworthy or impermissible in this, but there is much that is necessary and expedient. One would have to reason differently if polemical motives had led one to sacrifice traditional church property, but this was not allowed in the slightest degree. On the contrary, it is factually true that from the half of the 2nd century to the 4th there is not a single reliable evidence that any Orthodox Church in the West condemned, discredited or rejected the epistle to the Hebrews 202, and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians attests to its ecclesiastical authority in Rome already at the end of the 1st century. For all the above reasons, we believe that the long silence about this in the Christian West, where the anonymity of the message did not have strong objective foundations and cannot shake Eastern confidence 203, does not speak against Paulinistic authorship. At the same time, some slowness in the church recognition of this fact is sufficiently explained, and from here the characteristic details of the canonization itself are better illuminated. We know that for a long time only 13 Pauline epistles were considered, and that which was addressed to the Hebrews was first added to them as an additional appendage until it penetrated into their sacred circle. On this basis, too broad conclusions are sometimes made about the non-Paulinistic origin of the document. They emphasize the silence about him in the Muratorian fragment in the sense that the compiler’s supposed conviction was such that in Rome they knew well that the Epistle to the Hebrews had no claim to be Pavlovian 204 . This consideration has an external historical probability, but ignores the historical conditions of canonization. The gradual formation of the church collection of apostolic writings was accomplished by preserving them in different churches as they were found and became known. Naturally, these monuments were arranged according to well-known headings in terms of their general character or special external differences. Thus, first of all, a canonical quaternity of Gospels arose, similar in content, with which the book of Acts inevitably stood out from them as a continuation of the Gospel story. Then the epistles naturally became isolated, where all classifications could be made only according to the scale of a certain apostolic authorship. Only this rationally reveals the relation of the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John to the corpse of the cathedrals, for in no other way could they find a place for themselves in the canonical code. All this is also true for Paul’s epistles, which were early united into an independent group (2 Peter III, 15–16), equal in rights with other church-binding “books” 205. Each of them acquired a canonical position precisely in the dignity of Pavlov’s undoubted work, along with all other works of this kind. This means that anything could fall into the canon solely through preliminary inclusion in the certified Paulinian cycle. It is clear how all these factors of canonization should have been reflected in the fate of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Anonymous documents were not allowed there at all, since canonicity was ensured by the indisputability of exact apostolic authorship 206 . And since the latter was not known or undoubted for the Epistle to the Hebrews and was established with slow gradualism, it is quite natural that this monument was not at all included in the canonical catalog at first and then was not immediately installed in it with complete Paulinian indisputability 207 . Therefore, the facts from the field of canonization do not at all indicate any church rejection of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of which not even the most distant hints are found anywhere. They simply confirm previous observations that the scripture in question was circulated for a long time without assimilation of Paul's name. This was caused by many conditions of its church use and was supported by typical features. Among the latter, there were some Paulinistic qualities missing, for example, in the absence of an introductory greeting, but there was a lot of extraordinary in the external, literary treatment, in the biblical citation, even in the very purpose to the Hebrews from the Apostle of Languages, which was very unexpected and made specific references extremely difficult due to such an indefinite community of addressees. The totality of all the noted circumstances and data prevented the predominance of the truth about the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, in turn, slowed down its canonical legalization. Ultimately, the historical fate of the reviewed scripture in the ecclesiastical West is, in any case, an indecisive factor, for the anonymity that prevailed there does not deny the Paulinian origin, although it does not directly affirm it. Nevertheless, the final chord was the categorical sanction of Paul's authorship, and he must be considered the voice of the entire Western church, unless there is a stronger or equal contender there. It is this last point that now deserves a special analysis. Tertullian provides the actual support for such reasoning. In the work of the Montanist period De pudicitia, published around 220 (regarding the lenient order of Pope Gelasius: 217–222), he writes (cap. XX): Volo tamen ex reduntantia alicujus etiam comitis Apostolorum testimonium superducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. Extat enin et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctoritatis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituent in abstinentiae tenere (1Cor. IX, 6). Et utique receptior apud Eclesias Epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore. Monens itaque discipulos, omis si omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere, nec rursus fundamenta poenitentiae jacere ab operibus mortuorum (VI, 1): “impossibile enim est, inquit (VI, 4–8), eos qui semel illuminat” etc. Hoc qui ab Apostolis didicit et cum Apostolis docit, nunquam moecho et fornicatori secundam poenitentiam promissam ab Apostolis norat; optime enim legem interpretabantur, et figuram ejus jam in ipsa veritate servabat 208 . It is impossible to doubt or object that these words refer exclusively to our Epistle to the Hebrews 209. For him, there now appears in the West a new author in the person of Barnabas, the apostolic companion, who learned what he communicated from the Apostles. The strength of this strong statement must be determined by its historical origin and factual significance. On the first point, one finds here “excellent evidence” of the prevailing beliefs of the African Church 210 . But if it was this voice 211 that was the “general opinion” 212 in it, then it is necessary to assume an exact historical tradition 213 behind it - in high probability in the direction that manuscripts with the title Barnabae ad Hebraeos 214 were then circulating in Africa. And the North African church followed the traditions and norms of the Roman 215. For the present example, this genealogy from Rome is all the more indisputable 216 because Tertullian says so in a polemical work against the Roman Church and, obviously, is not afraid of exposure, stating its complete solidarity with himself 217 . The direct conclusion is that at the beginning of the 3rd century our message to the Hebrews was assimilated by Barnabas both in Africa and in Rome 218. The latter knew better about its origin, that it was not Paul’s, but Barnabas’s 219, and that is precisely why the Western Church suspected this scripture, preserving the primordial ecumenical church tradition, where initially in the canon there was only a collection of 13 Pauline books without the epistle to the Hebrews 220, devoid of historical claims to penetrate there 221. In any case, we have before us the African tradition 222, which - most likely - goes back to Rome 223 and in such dignity has nothing against itself 224. Tertullian only verified it well 225, but could not invent Barnabas himself, for this did not give the message in question special authority 226, and he reproduces the direct tradition of the West about this letter 227, which circulated with the designation Βαρνάβα πρὸς Ἑβραίους 228. Along with this, the following is also significant. The Carthaginian presbyter wrote the work we quote during the period of Montanistic passions (between 217–222) 229 . From here a natural guess arises that he obtained his information from the Montanists, or found reinforcement for him there. Then we should see in Tertullian a reflection of the views of Asia Minor Montanism 230. It is not surprising if they further state that here we have a tradition of both Africa and, perhaps, Asia Minor 231. In our country there is already a widely known opinion 232, although not universal 233, but in the West it was so universal in different churches 234 that Blessed. Jerome, evading it, still mentions 235 in the first place. But with such prevalence, it is necessary to expect that its echoes will be far from isolated, since from this point of view it was rightly opposed that for now Tertullian here remains a completely lonely guarantor 236. On this subject they are now called confirming allies in the Latin Codex Claromontanus 237 and in the one published under the title “Tractatus Origenis de libris ss. scripturarum” 238, why Barnabas’s authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews loses the character of the individualistic hypothetical character of the Carthaginian fighter and acquires the property of inherited tradition 239, which is still the most probable. In questions about the origin of ancient monuments, the most important thing is the accepted legends, which take us to the very original sources through the direct succession of the perception of factual messages by descendants from their ancestors. The certainty of this factor should be the most important element in solving such problems and cannot be eliminated by any other arguments until the objective power of impartial traditional testimony is destroyed. Let us first turn our attention to this side. In the previous references to the Codex Claromontanus, or Greco-Latin manuscript of the Pauline Epistles No. 107 in the Paris National Library (with the usual designation Dp), of course the sacred books are listed with the mark “verses” for each of them (versus scripturarum sacrarum) 240 . And in it, under the heading “Epistulas Pauli”, there is no Epistle to the Hebrews, while the latter exists in the manuscript itself, immediately following this stichometric catalogue. Therefore, it is necessary to look for a mention of this message under some other name. This requirement is best met by “Barnabaeepist. ver. DCCCL" (850), placed between Judae epistula vers. LX and "Joannis revelatio ICC" 241. This figure does not at all fit the well-known epistle of Barnabas and forces us to assume something else, proportional to it and connected with this apostolic man, and this was the only epistle to the Hebrews, sometimes mistaken for Barnabas’ creation. Now we see that the code itself does not say anything like the formulated hypothesis in the slightest degree, and under its banner only scientific conclusions are presented to us. In such cases, there is always a great danger, if not of forgery, then of imposition. This is more similar in our case. The entire argument rests on the fact that the epistle of Barnabas is much larger in length than 850 verses in length, and the epistle to the Hebrews approaches this norm. But the question is: what scale was the anonymous meter? To do this, let us recall that the figures he gives are generally inapplicable to the text of the New Testament books contained in the codex itself and invariably reduce the actual number from 1 1/2 times (2 Tim. 289 instead of 391, Tit. 140 m. 233) to two or more (Rom. 1040 m. 1929, 1 Cor. 1060 m. 1945, Col. 251 v. 461, Phil. 350 v. 728, Eph. 375 v. 528); in particular - the letter to the Hebrews - from 1364 verses, compared to 850 in the “epistle of Barnabas” of codex 242. It is clear that calculations of the metrical list allow for significant increases, which can be taken even far beyond the boundaries of Barnabin’s actual epistle 243, if we take into account that for 2 Cor. only 70 verses are assigned instead of 1440 such in space in the manuscript itself 244. Therefore, it is impossible not to express directly that the stichometric dates of the Claromontan manuscript do not in the least convince us that our Epistle to the Hebrews was conceived in it under Barnabae epistula 245. It would be somewhat more likely in this direction if the latter had to appear there, but this reason also disappears, because the list does not yet include Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians and 1–2 Thessalonians. Equally, in the series of “scripturarum sanctarum” it names not only the sacred writings, for we find there Pastor, Actus Pauli and Revelatio Petri. Finally, in the manuscript itself, Paul's epistles are accurately titled according to their authorship. It was natural to expect this for the Epistle to the Hebrews, referring it to Barnabas, since it was supposedly already titled by his name and addressed in this form. Apparently, the scribe did not at all share such a conviction, which is generally devoid of any factual support in the considered stichometry. Then learned syllogisms turn out to be only tendentious and not at all serious. The matter regarding Tractatus Origenis de libris ss is portrayed differently. scripturarurn, where after the quote Rom. XII 1 added: Sed et sanctissimus Barnabas: Per ipsum offerimus, inquit, Deo laudis hostiam labiorum confitentium nomini eius, and these words almost literally reproduce Heb. XIII, 15 246. But it is necessary to be careful in drawing too categorical conclusions simply because the document involved is too dark. It was originally adopted by Origen, and is now attributed to Novatian (around the middle of the 3rd century) 247, although others reject it 248 and consider it the work of the Luciferian, Bishop of Elyberia (in Elvira near Grenada) Gregory 249. It is necessary that in such a mysterious monument much remains vague, and we cannot clearly establish the true energy of the extract of interest. In this regard, we must be guided by undoubted considerations and judge by them what is controversial or vague. For our case, the following is important. In ancient times, there was an opinion that the Greek treatment of the Epistle to the Hebrews belongs, among other things, to Pavlov’s companion Barnabas. In this understanding only, this belief was known to the blessed one. Jerome, and yet in him we read: illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibns retro ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli apostoli suscipi, licet plerique earn vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur 250. One gets the impression that the epistle to the Hebrews was attributed to Paul, Barnabas and Clement in the sense of their own authorship by each of the defenders of these views, but Jerome could not think so, for he knew well the factual position of the question, in which there were no votes at all in the sense of direct descent from the Bishop of Rome. The whole point here, obviously, is in the reciprocity of expression without observing subtle shades, since it was clear to everyone what kind of authorial participation we are talking about in relation to the named ancient men. The same is true for Philastrius, for whom it was impossible to talk about opinions about the equal authorship of Barnabas, Clement and Luke with Paul, because no one in ancient times claimed this about the last two, while the phrase of the hereseologist in appearance speaks of the identity of all four persons for the origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews 251. It must be admitted that all these speeches were not taken with strict literalism, and the degree of “author’s” influence was determined not by bare words, but by existing legends. We are accustomed to talking about different “authors,” but we associate them with different ideas despite the complete identity of verbal expressions. This opened up room for misunderstandings and reinterpretations with the transformation of conventional terms into categorical theses. Something similar could have happened to Tertullian. In this association, the testimony of the blessed one is very valuable. Jerome. In a review of Pavlova’s life, where positive objective evidence is expected, he writes that - contrary to the other 13 epistles - “that which is to the Hebrews is not considered to be Paul’s because of the difference in style and style, but it is either Barnabas, according to Tertulian, or Evangelist Luke, according to some, or Clement, after the bishop of the Roman Church, about whom they say that he gave the received thoughts of Pavlova in his routine and with his embellished speech. Or it happened that, writing to the Jews, Paul, due to their hatred of his name, omitted the title at the beginning of the greeting. And he wrote as a Jew to Hebrews, i.e. in such a (Hebrew) original presentation it is very eloquent why what was written in Hebrew elegantly was even more elegantly translated in Greek - and this is the reason for the external difference from other Pauline epistles 252. What is characteristic of this essay is, first of all, that the assimilation of the epistle to the Hebrews by Barnabas is completely equated with that of Luke and Clement, and about the latter it is emphatically noted that he was credited with only a literary processing of the independent content received from the Apostle Paul in the finished Hebrew text. Personally, Jerome himself seems to be inclined to think about the translation of Pavlov’s Hebrew original and could single out only the translator among the named persons. From this point of view, it is permissible that, according to the rights of Tertullian authorship, Barnabas is parallel with Luke and Clement of others and - therefore - relates simply to the external literary form. And if this opinion is adopted by Tertullian alone, although it has been shared by many for a long time, then a completely sufficient reason for this is that it was the Carthaginian presbyter who expressed it especially apodictically without any restrictions, as the only formula, and from this side he is naturally the best representative of this theory, which was associated with him both legally and inextricably. Of course, the analyzed Jerome formula can also be interpreted in the sense of the direct authorship of Barnabas: - then we get that the wide awareness of Jerome did not find any other defenders for him except Tertullian. It is impossible to agree that Jerome's thoroughness betrayed itself here, and other supporters of the views of the Carthaginian Montanist, who did not have exceptional competence, were omitted. Since only Tertullian is mentioned, it is clear that he had no known allies. This result completely coincides with previous observations and convinces us of the historical probability that the hypothesis being analyzed is most likely due to the fiery Carthaginian 253 and represents the fruit of some kind of confusion 254 , and was not at all a widespread 255 proof of Varnavin’s authorship 256 . And such an interpretation is all the more unshakable because there is no support for it even among the most favorable witnesses of antiquity, while in Tertullian it is easily explained with great naturalness. The first accurate news on the issue of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews comes from Alexandria, but Barnabas was already mentioned there early to eliminate the difficulties and perplexities caused by this New Testament book. It would seem that it is here that it is easier and simpler for the guess about Barnabas to arise as a writer, but in fact there are not even hints of this kind found. In explanation of this, they cite that this was prevented by the early acceptance (from 130) in Egypt of the Epistle of Barnabas, during which a second scripture of the same origin seemed unthinkable 257 because it was not distinguished by the cruel anti-Judaistic character of the patristic monument 258 . In addition to the arbitrary, although almost generally accepted, inauthenticity of Barnabas' epistle 259, the instability of these considerations is exposed by their reverse application, since other scholars claim that the reason they did not assimilate the epistle of Barnabas to Paul was because they had previously recognized the Apostle's epistle to the Hebrews 260. From this side, the whole matter remains incomprehensible, if the church tradition were in favor of the genetic relationship of this New Testament book to Barnabas. Contrary to this, Tertullian's theory is revealed very satisfactorily from the totality of historical premises. We are not talking about the possibility of unintentional confusions 261 like St. John Chrysostom 262 and Patriarch Photius 263 repeat that some attributed the Acts of the Apostles to Clement of Rome, others to Barnabas, and others to Luke, although such disagreement is known to us exclusively about the Epistle to the Hebrews. Apart from these occasional mistakes, the latter had favorable conditions for misunderstandings. The active participation of Barnabas in the composition of the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews has long been asserted. Sometimes, due to the commonality of expressions, the “authorship” of this person was directly stated. Such reciprocity freely and imperceptibly turned into categoricalness, for such a venerable document required a worthy guarantor, and he was not listed among Paul’s writings. And since Tertullian does not reproach Marcion for denying the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are obliged to think that he was not then in the canonical list 264, among the arostolica instrumenta 265, and this gave the Carthaginian presbyter the right to assert the “authorship” of Varnavino, which had previously been proclaimed in church circles. There were sufficient reasons to take this step with complete conviction, even with perfect faith in the tradition about Paul. The Apostle’s influence extended only to the material, and all processing was entrusted to the employees, who used the ready-made content for independent reproduction. Then the message as a literary work was no longer Pavlov’s, but someone else’s. Barnabas was known for his anti-Jewish allegorization and in appearance was well suited for an editor-writer. It turned out that he was the literary owner of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which acquired double authority, being both Pavlov and Barnavin. The analogy made it possible to forget the first and bring forward the last. The second and third Gospels were revered as the works of Mark and Luke, although their content was entirely due to Peter and Paul. It was legitimate to argue in a similar way about the Epistle to the Hebrews, for which Barnabas is more convenient simply because Luke in this mission has long been assigned to the Gospel narrative. For all these reasons, Tertullian’s opinion does not require factors unknown to us and in no way encourages us to assume or search for them, for it is quite understandable given the available data. Therefore, it will simply be a personal hypothesis 266, even an ancient one, and does not at all state the historical tradition 267. Hence it is not surprising that this view was isolated and did not have the slightest church spread, 268 remaining alien to Rome. This means that the Western tradition about the Epistle to the Hebrews does not name a competing author with Paul, and his hesitation, without asserting Paulinian origin, does not at all indicate a denial of the latter by the Western Church, which in conclusion firmly accepted and finally sanctioned Pauline authorship. This voice does not have independent, independent force, but it reinforces eastern judgments with its agreement and speaks in favor of their universally binding nature. Decisive importance belongs to the East, and there only Paul alone was always and everywhere called the author in the proper sense, as the primary author of the written teaching of the apostles. This point is a historically proven thesis and should serve as the initial support for all further scientific constructions. They are trying to eliminate it with the heroic thesis that fifteen centuries of church belief on this issue only testifies to the absence in it of any critical value regarding the canonical New Testament writings 270. Such a radical measure is unsuitable because it is disastrous for science and is not at all tolerable for it. All information about ancient literary monuments is gleaned from historical legends, which are the primary sources and do not allow any other constructions until they are absolutely refuted. Before this moment there is not the slightest right for the latter, and they will then be idle dreams of anti-scientific or tendentious fantasists, inventing reality apart from it and even in spite of it. It is necessary to start from the historical tradition and, through strict critical analysis, highlight the original basis in order to have here a factual basis for comprehensive verification and scientific generalizations. II. The apostolic dignity of the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews and the Paulinian origin of the latter from the side of the content itself in the disclosure of dogmatic questions On the issue of the Epistle to the Hebrews, traditional continuity leads to the long-standing, inherited church conviction that its author was recognized as St. Apostle Paul. According to traditional data, this position seems to be the only strong one and now only needs to be thoroughly tested at the beginning of scientific criticism from the side of its solidity under any unfavorable influences. This imperatively calls for the systematic use of the negative method with the use of appropriate experiments. Such tactics are dictated by the comparative vagueness of the surviving traditions, which necessarily require rational support, and are even more inevitable due to scientific prejudices, which do not come from the environment of biased skeptics, if we hear them from the most conservative lips. It is enough to give here some characteristic judgments. It is said that it is not worth interpreting that the Apostle Paul was not the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 271, for this is now so generally accepted 272 as an axiom 273, as a long-standing and lasting result of biblical-historical criticism 274, that there is hardly a solid defender of the direct authorship of Pavlov 275. In Protestant theology there is no longer a single such knight 276, and in practice this opinion has been completely abandoned by general scientific consensus 277. Here is simply an uncritical age-old delusion 278, completely rejected by science 279, where the anti-Paulinistic hypothesis 280 is considered the most solid by all specialists 281, that the Apostle is neither directly nor indirectly innocent in the New Testament document under consideration 282 and is absolutely unthinkable in this role 283. The idea of ​​a Peacock origin is the most conceivable 284 and is beyond all probability 285 . It is only a “strange irony of fate” that the Hellenic evangelist adopted the exact opposite scripture 286, which is subject to decisive exclusion from the cycle of Paulinistic creations 287. The actual author is not Paul and not Paul’s disciple 288, not a person from his followers in general 289, not an Apostle and not an apostolic disciple 290), since he was neither a witness nor a listener of the Lord Jesus 291 and did not receive his teaching directly from Christ 292. Catholic theory distinguishes canonicity, in the sense of sacred apostolic dignity, and authenticity or factual writing as mutually unrelated 293 - and in relation to the historical process others also share this point of view 294 . In its spirit, Catholics declare that the decisions of the Church should not be interpreted, but accepted in all severity, and this is not the case in the present case, where tradition only in a broad sense (dans un sens large) named Paul 295, who could not actually be the author of 296 according to Catholic judgment, 297 which allows no more than that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the thoughts of the teacher were literary processed by some collaborator 298. All these statements are too categorical and encourage special investigation, even because opposing voices are also heard from the critical camp. For example, it is stated that the analogies with the Pauline Epistles are so numerous and so striking (si nombreuses et si frappantes) in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the traditional assimilation of languages ​​by the Apostle 299 is quite understandable. Obviously, the matter here is far from indisputable and requires scientific revision. Walking the intended path, we must first check for this monument. I. Apostolic dignity of the writer It is denied primarily on the basis of the latter’s own testimony in II, 3, where the author completely identifies himself with the readers in whom salvation was confirmed by those who heard the Lord. This means that these are persons of the second or third generation 300, if not chronologically, then genealogically, who did not have a direct relationship with the Redeemer, and along with them the writer himself turns out to be far from the circle of the apostles 301, as a person of the second generation (II, 3 ff.), an old and experienced teacher (V, 12 and cp. V, 11-VI, 9), who lived far from the communities implied in the letter (XIII, 19) and himself caught up in persecution 302. In this case, it is impossible to operate with bare and general terms regarding generations, the beginning of which is not fixed punctually 303. Here the whole task comes down to objective exegesis in the true context of speech. And it treats the attitude of believers to the New Testament revelation in comparison with Old Testament legalism. Both of them were the fruits of divine speech - only one through the Angels, the other through the Son. Therefore, here and there we have something heard, which continues to spread through hearing. In the proper sense, all people could not be direct recipients of God 304 and from this side are equal to each other in their incapacity. The importance lies solely in the very principle of the traditional transmission of the words of God from their original source, that, having first been proclaimed by the Lord, they were then communicated by those who heard them. This is the fundamental law of the saving Christian gospel, that speaking comes from God, and listening is necessary for people. In this respect, all regenerates are exactly the same. Apostleship is not affected here at all, either positively or negatively, since an obligatory Christian status is depicted - like how all “we must be especially attentive to what we hear” (II, 1), from which it does not in the least follow that something else seen is allowed and distinguished. It is only necessary to determine whether the fundamental equation does not transform into an actual identity, in which direct hearing from Christ, unthinkable for all readers, would be unacceptable for the author, eliminating him from the apostolic host. At this point it is very significant that now we are no longer talking about hearing, but about the establishment of what was heard through actual domination among people, when it acquires the real strength of living possession, ensured in its being by its divine planting through extraordinary signs and wonders. Of course, there is a second moment accompanying hearing, which is the same for everyone, although there were individual differences in the first. By the force of this, it is indisputable that the identity of the “statement” does not at all indicate a coincidence in hearing. On the contrary, it is historically natural that the self-witnesses merged with their disciples in equal Christian rank, being disparate in their perception of the Christian gospel. And in fact, this is all the more possible for the example under consideration, since the unity of those who heard the Lord with the “established” is assumed, and a similar situation is acceptable for every Apostle. Naturally, it in no way excludes St. Paul. He was not a witness and did not hear the Savior directly. It required the indirect participation of those who heard, who could acquaint the closest witnesses with the reliability of everything. Paul not only did not shy away from this, but had to strive for this in every possible way, for he denied all his own originality and placed all his dignity in the most accurate reproduction of the Redeemer. Under such conditions, the theory of Pavlov’s deliberate alienation from the historical Christ 305 is simply unnatural and, on the contrary, detailed information 306 is quite normal. However, the latter gave only good knowledge, without at all endowing apostolic prerogatives, which were obtained exclusively through a gift from the Lord. Assimilating the second, St. Paul confirmed for himself the personal authority of Christ, which granted him the apostleship. In this very sense and with such goals, he persistently put forward his own vision of Christ (1 Cor. IX, 1. XV, 8), who sent the Lord’s messenger to the Gospel ministry with all the advantages. On the same side, independence from the “previous ones” was also asserted, for they could not provide the apostolic title, since this was equally obtained for everyone in the will of Christ. This independence in Paul's apostolate stated perfect identity with those who preceded him, forcing him to strive for equal application in full accordance with the genuine historical event. It is hardly permissible to talk about teaching from above, since authoritative ordinary paths are available, and deviation from them was unnatural by the very essence of the matter, since it would border on undermining the prestige of those with whose identity Paul’s very apostolic superiority was ensured. The pomp of his autonomous self-awareness relates entirely to the origin of the apostolate and, rather, requires actual acquaintance with the historical Christ through the medium of those “before.” In Paul, apostolic identity with “self-witnesses” and factual information from them are equally obligatory 307 . Therefore, the author’s identification with the secondary hearers of Christ’s verbs does not deny either the apostolic title of the writer or his unity with the Hellenic evangelist, being a special, rhetorical turn of communicative fusion (ἀνακοίνωσις) 308, where the readers themselves are actually understood and characterized 309. It is also true, of course, that the analyzed instruction does not at all affirm any apostleship and in itself is certainly insufficient for categorical conclusions. But from here it is only certain that the latter arose in addition to the mention under discussion and have their basis no longer in the message, but in connection with it, or in the historical tradition. Then all scientific work should be limited to checking its agreement with the text, and here for the epistle to the Hebrews its origin, reported by historical tradition and requiring only unhinderedness, is not directly refuted. On this subject, the favorable result is absolutely indisputable, that the author's apostolate is not undermined by the words analyzed 310. † Prof. Dr. Adolf von Harnack says that for the Epistle to the Hebrews the circumstances of its origin are in every respect (Chronotogie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius I. Leipzig 1897, S. 475). According to Rev. Praf. Moses Stuart, it is the most controversial in general and in all particulars (A Commentary on the Epistle to Hebrews, republiched under the Care of E. Henderson, Doct. Philos., London (1833)], p. 1). So † Prof. Edouard Reuss, Histoire de theologie chretienne au siècle apostolique II (Strasbourg et Paris31864), p. 269. In this sense, it is expressed, for example, † Prof. Dr. Karl August Credner, Einleitung in das Ncue Testament I, 2 (Halle 1836), S. 538. See F. Prat, La theologie de saint Paul I (Paris 1908), 501. Cp. †Rev. Prof. Al. B. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews in “The Expositor” 1888. p. 179: “The canonicity of the Epistle is enteriy independent of the question of authorship. It depends on canonical function". So Prof. George Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews with a Critical Introduction (Edinburgh 1914), p. 15, 16. See † Prof. Dr. Moritz von Aberle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, herausg. von Prof. Dr. Paul Schanz (Freiburg in Bresgau 1877), S. 241–242. See Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. VI, p. 417: De austore et de modo compositions Epistolae ad Hebraeos (Commissio Biblica, 24 June 1914): “I. – Urum dubiis quae primis saeculis ob haereticorum imprimis abusum, aliquorum in Occidente animus tenuere circa divinaui inspirationem ac Paulinam originem Epistolae ad Hebraeos tanta vis tribuenda sit ut, attenta perpetua, unanimi ac constanti Orlentalium Patrum affirmatione, cui post saeculum IV totius Occidentalis Ecclesiae plenus accessit consensus, perpensis quoque Summorum Pontificum sacrorumque Conciliorum, Tridentini praesertim actis, necuou perpetuo Ecclesiae universalis usu, haesitare liceat earn non solum inter canonicas – quod de fide definitum est – verum etiam genuinas Apostoli Pauli epistolas certo recensere? R. – Negative. II. – Utrum argumenta, quae desutni solent sive cx insolita nominis Pauli absentia et consueti exordii salutationisque oinissione in epistola ad Hebraeos – sive ex ejusdem linguae graecae puritate, dictionis ac styli elegatia et perfectione, – sive ex modo quo in ea Vetus Testamentum allegatur et ex eo arguitur, – sive ex differentiis quibusdam quae inter hujus ceterarumque Pauli epistolarum doctrinam exsistere practenduntur, aliquomodo ejusdem Paulinam origiueni infirmare valeant; an potius perfecta doctrinae ac sententiarum consensio, admonitionum et exhortationum similitude, necnon locutionum ac ipsorum verborum Concordia, a nonnullis quoque acatholicis celebrate quae inter eam et reliqua Apostoli gentium scripta observantur eandem Paulinam originem commonstrent atque conferment? R. – Negative ad primam partem; affirmative alteram. III. – Utrum Paulus Apostolus it a hulus epistolae auctor censendus sit ut necessario affirmari debeat, ipsum eam totam non solum Spiritu Sancto inspirante concepisse et expressisse, verum etiam ea forma donasse qua prostat? R. – Negative, salvo ulteriori Ecclesiae judicio.” See about this in detail in Luciano Mechineau, L’Epistola agli Ebrei secondo la riposto della Commissione Biblica (derceto del 24 giunio 1914) in “La Civilta Cattoliea” NN 1593, 1595 (4 Nov., 2 Dec. 1916), 1598, 1600, 1602, 1604, 1607, 1609, 1612 (20 gennaio, 17 febbrato, 17 marzo, 21 April, 2 giugno, 7 luglio, 18 agosto), p. 277, 518, 161, 407, 663, 143, 480, 45. 341, and reprinted in a separate book Roma 1917. See, for example, J. S. Hutjar, Einleitung zu den heiligen Schrifteu des neuesen Testamentes (Gratz 1897), S. 247, that the Apostle Paul can only have a personal handwritten account from XIII, 22. See, for example, † Rudolphus Cornely S. J., Introductio specialis in singulos Novi Testamenti libros (Parisiis21925), p. 529. Cp. in D. Heinrich Appel, Einleitung in das Ncue Tesfament (Leipzig 1922), S. 85. See Zusatze und Veranderungen der vierten Ausgabe von Michaelis Einleitung in das N. T. (Gottingen 1788), S. 391. Cp. † Prof. Franz Delitzsh, Ueber Verfasser und Leser der Hebraerbriefes mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der neuesten Untersuchungen Wieseler’s und Tiersch’s in “Zeitschrift fur die gesammte luterische Theologie und Kirche” X (1849), 2, S. 253. † Henry Alford, The Greek Testament IV (London 1913), p. 86: "Apostolicity and Canonicity were bound to gether." True, blessed. Jerome says (see pp. 20, 20): “nihil interesse, cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit,” however, “none of the ancient ever dealt so before Jerome, nor did Jerome hinseli in other passages.” See †Pro. Dr. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 1: das Neue Testament vor Orlgen (Erlangen 1888), S. 281. † Prof. Franz Delitzsch in “Zeitschrift fur die gesammte lutherlsche Theologie” X (1849), 2, S. 258. See him and † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altchristlichcn Litcratur III (Erlangen 1884), S. 71–72. So † Prof. A. S. Peake, Hebrews (in The Century Bible edited by Principal Walter F. Andene y in Edinburgh), p. 6. See Stromata VI, 8 (Migne gr. IX, col. 284), For quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in Clement of Alexandria, see † Prof. Theodor Zahn: Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons III, S. 9510, whereby the author claims that in the fifth book of Clement’s “Hypotypos” the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews is assumed by this Alexandrian catechet (Forschungen III, S. 149). Wed. † Prof. Th. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 1, S. 285–296. See Joseph Quentel, Les destinateures de ÍEpitre aux Hebreux in Revue biblique internationale IX, 1 (Janvier 1912), p. 57, 58. P.em. K. Endemann, Ueber den Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" XXI (1910), 2, S. 106. † Prof. D. Paul Feine, Einleitung in das Neue Testameut (Leipzig 1913), S. 79. † Prof. Dr. Friedrich Вleek: Der Hebraerbrief, herausg, von Pfarrer Karl August Windrath (Eberfeld, 1808), S. 43–44; Einleitnng in das Neue Testament, vierte Auflage, besorgt von Prof. D. Wilhelm Mangold (Berlin, 1880), S. 682. Prof. Fr. Bleek: Der Hebraerbrief, S. 34–35; Einleitung in das N. T., S. 4662. † Prof. D. W. Wrede, Das literarische Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs: mit einem Anhang uber den literarischen Charakter des Barnabasbriefes (in For. schungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alien und Neuen Testaments herausg. von Proff. D. Wilhelm Bousset und D. Hermann Gunkel, 8 Helft), Gottingen 1906, S. 75, 84, 1. So Rev. Prof. James Moffaft, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (Edinburgh 1911), p. 432. † Prof. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neuen Testament (Freiburgi B. 1885), S. 311. Prof. K. A. Credner, Einleitung in das?. T. I, 2, S. 537. Prof. Dr. Franz Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons: zwei Abhandlungen (Chemnitz 1880), S. 70. † Prof. Franz Overbeck ibid., S. 68, 70. From this it is clear that it cannot be said that Origen states not later, but traditionally inherited objections to the Epistle to the Hebrews, as † Prof. states. Franz Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, S. 25. † Prof. A. W. Davidson, The Epistle of the Hebrews with Introduction and Notes (in Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students edited by Prinzipal Alexander Whyte and Rev. John Kelman in Edinburgh), p. 29, 30. Prof. E. Jacquier, Le nouveau Testament dans l’Eglise chretienne Ï Preparation, formation et definition du Canon du Nouveau Testament (Paris 2 1911), p. 260. † Prof. Franz Delitzsch, Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebraer mit archaologischen und dogmatiscsen Excursen uber das Opfer und Versohmmg (Leipzig 1857), S. XVII. † Prof. Dr. Bernhard Weiss, Brief an die Hebraer in Kritlschexegetischer Kommentar uber das Neue Testament begrundet von Heinr. Aug. Wilh. Meyer, XII-te Theil, 6. verbesserte Auflage (Gottingen 1897), S. 2. † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Hebraerbrief, S. 36. Prof. A. S. Peake, Hebrews, p. 7. Prof. W. Wrede, Das literarische Ratscel des Hebraerbriefes, S. 76. K. Endemann in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" XXI (1910), 2, S. 108. † Prof. A. S. Peake, Hebrews, p. 7. † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Hebraerbitef, S. 37. † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Einleitung in das N. T., S. 4663. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, although he attributes Origen's words to ἔι τις οὐν ἐκκλησία κτλ. to “eine Minderheltder Kirchen,” but for the rest it suggests rather the simple obscurity of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Geschichte desneutestamentlichen Kanons I. 1, S. 287.1. Rev. Prof. Aloses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 93. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons 1, 1, S. 287. Prof. Dr. Aloys Schaefer, Die Bucher des Neuen Testamentes erlautert, V. Band: Der Hebraerbrfef (Munster i. W. 1893), S. 7, Prof. Dr. Johannes Evang. Belser, Elnleitung in das Neue Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau 1901), S. 610 – according to Eusebius Hist. eccles. III, 39. Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer: eine Studie zur neutestamentlichen Einleitung (Freiburg im Breisgau 1905), S. 13. Prof. D. I. Bogdashevsky († Archbishop Vasily), Experiments in the study of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, issue 1 (Kiev 1909), p. 83. Raton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles (Edinburgh 1874), p. 443. Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Hebraerbrief, S. 37. Prof. K. A. Credner, Einleitung in das N. T. 1, 2, S. 501. Cp. Prof. E. Jacquier, Epitre aux Hebreux in Dictionnaire de la Bible publle par F. Vigouroux III (Paris 1903), col. 526. † Prof. D. Alfred Seeberg, Der Brief an die Hebraer (in Evangelisch-theologische Bibliothek herausg. von Prof. Lic. B. Bess: Kominentar zum Neuen Testament), Leipzig 1912, S. 1. Paton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 443–444. † Prof. A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 30. † Prof. A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 29. Prof. George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament (London 1894), p. 416. Cp. also Dr. Bartholomaus Heigt, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. 15, 1. 2. Mtgne gr. XII, col. 596: “ipse tamen Paulus ostendere volens esse quamdam praeter eas et iam primitivorum Ecclesiam dicit ad Hebraeos scribens (XII, 18. 22. 23)… . et Apostolus quatuor ordines sanctorum describit in coelis.” Epistola ad Africanum 9: Migne gr. XI, col. 65 – 68. † Bishop Theophan (Govorov) states that Origen draws inspiration from the Epistle to the Hebrews up to 200 times (On the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, Moscow 1896, p. 9). See Prof. Alexander Souter. The Text and Canon of the New Testament, London 1913, p. 183. † Prof. Franz De1itzsch, Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebraer, S. XVII–XVIII. Paton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistes, p. 444. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig 1901), S. 55. Demonstratio evangelica IV, 15, 16: Migne gr. XXII, col. 297. 317, 324. Commentar. in Ps. II, 6. XIV, 1: Migne gr. XXIII, col. 85, 152. Cm. Exemplum Epistolae missae Paulo Samosatensi ab orthodoxis episcopis Synodi Antiocheni I priusquam deponetur. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum collectio, t. 1, p. 1037. Epistola ad Fabium, 2: Migne gr. X, col. 1297; Eusebii Hist eccles. VI, 41: 6. Epistola canonica, 9: Migne gr. XVIII, col. 485; Rules of St. The Father with Interpretations, ed. Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, Moscow 1884, p. 48. Epistola de Ariana haeresi I, 6, (12); II, 4: Migne gr. XVIII, col. 557, 565, 575. Oratio contra Arianos II, 1, 4: Migne gr. XXVI, col. 148–149, 153. In the Coptic version - in fourth place, after 1-2 Cor. and before Gal.: Der Osterfestbrief des Athanasius von J. 867 von C. Schmidt in Nachrichte der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 1898, Heft 2. S. 181. And for all Paul’s epistles, see † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1 (Erlangen und Leipzig 1890), S. 211. Migne gr. XXVIII, col. 293. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 316. De Trinitate lib. I, 15: Migne gr. XXXIX, col. 317; 320–321. Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiabi Trinitate assertiones, 4, 7: Migne gr. LXXV, col. 37, 40, (44), 49, 84, (89), 93. Argumentum Epistolae Pauli ad Hebraeos: Migne gr. LXXXV, col. 773–778. Cp and y † Prof. H. v. Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments I, S. 347, 353, 355, 360. Cathechesis IV, 36.X, 18.XVII, 20; XV, 28: Migne gr. XXXIII, col. 500, 684, 992; 912. Haer. XLII, 12: Migne gr. XLI, col. 809–812. See also † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 179. Haer. LXIX, 37 (Migne gr. XLII, col. 260 (about the Arians: καὶ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν Ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην, τὴν ?? τοῦ Άποστόλου, καὶ λέγοντες μὴ εῖναι τοῦ αὐτοῦ. Carmen de verls Sripturis, 35: Migne gr. XXXVII, col. 474. See and † Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestanientlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 217. Adversus Eunomium I, 14, 18, 20: Migne gr. XXIX. col. 545,553, 556 Contra Eunomium I, 25, 26: Migne gr. XLV, col. 361, 369. Jambi ad Seleucum, 307–309 in Migne gr. XXXVII, col. 1597, and † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestanientlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 219: τινὲς δέ φασι τὴν προς Ἐβραιους νόθον, οὐκ εὖ λέγοντες γνησία ἡ χάρις. Migne gr. LXIII, col. 9 sqq. Creations XII (St. Petersburg, 1906, pp.) 5 pp. In epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos commantarii fragmentä Migne gr. LXVI, col. 952 sqq. Migne gr. LXXXII, col. 672, 676, 677. Creations VII (Moscow 1861), pp. 555–556, 558. † Prof. Bernh. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. 63. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Grundriss des neutestamentlichen Kanons, S. 55. See and Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes ail die Hebraer, S. 25. See † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 1, S. 379. Julius A. Bewer, The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church in The American Journal of Theology IV, 2 (April, 1900) p. 358–359. Sermo II de dilectione 6 (Heb. ix. 11, 12), 13 (Apostolus dicit for Heb. iv. 9, 11) in Bibliotheca veterum patrum cura et studio Andreae Gallandii V (Venetiis 1788), p. XIII, XVI. In Genes in XXI, what about Melchizedek Apostolus exposuit in Heb. VII (Ephraemi Syri Opera omnia syriace et latine, t. I, Romae 1737, p. 160). De conpunctione animi leads Heb. X, 31 with the note: καθιὸς γέγραπται also quotes XI, 35–38, and In secundum Domini adventum the words of Heb. X 31 gives after Rom. II, 16, as those who dicit – Apostolus Paulus (Ephraemi Syri Opera omnia I, Romae 1732, p. 30, 38; II, Romae 1743, p. 203). See and † Prof. H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, London 31911, p. CXVÏ “Junilius... represents the Biblical criticism of the school of Nisibis in the sixth century.” Instituta regularia divinae legis (De partibus divlnae legis) I, 6: Migne lat. LXVIII, col. 19. Epistola ad Dardanum CXXIX, 3 ap. Migne Iat. XXII, col. 1103–1104 vas electionis loquitur ad Hebraeos (XI, 8 sqq. 13 sqq. 39–40; XII, 22 23). Nec me fugit, quod perfidia Judeorum haec testimonta non suscipiat, quae utique Veteris Testamenti auctoritate formata sunt. Illud nostris dicendum est, banc epistolam quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecelesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli apostoli susclpi, licet pleriqne cam vel Bamabae, vel Clemciitis arbitretur; et nihil interesse, cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celehretur. Quod si earn Latinorurn consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas; nec Graecorum quidem ecclesiae Apocalipsin Joannis eadem liberate suscipiunt; et tamen nos utramque suscipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum autoritaten sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque abutuntur testirnoniis, non ut interdum dc apocryphis facere solent, quippe qui et gentilium Iitterarum raro utantur exemplis, sed quasi canonicis et eccleslastils.” Blessed creations Jerome, part III, ed. 2 (Kiev 1903), pp. 315–316. See † Prof. Dr. J. H. Kurtz, Der Brief an die Hebraer erklart (Mitau 1869), S. 4. † Prof. Fr. Bleek: Der Hebraerbrief, S. 43–44; Einleitung in das N. T., S. 4680. † Prof. Franz Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, S. 1; † Prof. Franz Delitzsch: Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebraer, S. XII, and in "Zeitschrift fur die gesamrnte lutherische Theologie und Kirche" X, (1849), 2, S. 253. Privatdoc. Dr. G. Hoennicke, Der Hebraerbrief und die neuere Kritik in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" XXIX (1918), 7, S. 368. Rev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, "Let us go on": the Secret of Christian Progress in the Epistle to the Herbrews, London 1923, p. 2. Prof. E. F. Scott, Epistle to the Hebrews, ist Doctrine and Significance, Edinburgh 1923, p. 5. Prof. E. F. Scott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 5–6: “At last it was grundgingly admitted to the Canon, but only through the pius fiction, never really accepted until the Middle Ages, that it was an anonymous Epistle of Paul.” Patres apostolici ed. † Prof. Fr. X. Funk. vol. I (Tubingae 1901) p. 50. For Barnabas, see and Dr. Bartholomaus Heigt, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. 4. Migne lat. XXIII, col. 633. † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Hebraerbrief, S. 28. † Prof. Carl Weizsacker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche Preiburg. i. B. 2/1892), S. 473. † Rudolphus Cornely S. J., Introductio specialis in singulos Novi Testamenti libros (Parisiis 1886 and 1925), p. 530. Prof. F. Jaquier in F. Vigouroux in Dictionaire de la Bible III, co1 527. † Prof. Ad. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebins II, 1 (Leipzig 1897), S. 475: "in dem I. Clementsbricf es reichlich benutzt ist." Prof. G. Hoennicke in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" XXIX (1918), 7, pp. 359–360. Elmer Thuesdell Mervill, On "Clement of Rome" in American Journal of Theology XXII, 3 (July, 1918), p. 439, although the author dates 1 Clement’s Epistle to the time around 140. And denies that it belongs to Bishop Clement of Rome, even considering the existence of the latter to be fictitious (p. 442); similar to this and Prof. Alexander Nairne, Prayer for Gonseciation of Bishop in the Church - Order of Hippolytus in The Journal of Theological Studies XVII, 68 (July 1916). p. 348–349. Dr. Heinrich Appel, Einleitung in das ?eue Testament, S. 85. John Gawper Granbery, Outline of New Testament Christology (Chicago 1909), p. 66: “its extended use by Clement is unmistakable.” † Prof. Alfred Seeberg, Brief an die Hebraer, S. 2. K. Endemann in “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift” III (1910), 2, S. (102-) 103. see already in Blessed Jerome, De viris illustribus 15 ar. Migne lat. XXIII, col. 633: “Scripsit ex persona Romanae Ecclesiae ad Ecclesiam Corinthiorum valde utilem Epistolam, quae et in nonnullis locis publice legitur, qtiae mihi videtur characteri Epistolae, quae sub Pauli nomine ad Hebraeos fenitur, convenire. Sed et multis de eadem Epistola, non solum sensibus, sed juxta veborum quoque ordinem abutitur. Omnio grandis in utraque similitude.” † Prof. Ad. v. Harnack, Probabilia uber die Adresse und den Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes in "Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" I (1900), 1, S. 40, 4. † Prof. W. Wrede, Untersuchungen zum ersten Clementsbriefe (Gottingen 1891), S. 71 ff. † Prof. Jean Reville in "Revue d'histoire des religions" XV (1899). p. 217. See The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford 1905), p. (3, 7 sqq.), 40. Joseph Qnentel in Revue biblique IX (1910), 1, p. 67. Therefore † Prof. A. B. Davidson directly admits (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 27): “that Clement knew who author (of Hebrews) was – possible.” Cp. Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefs an die Hebraer, S. 4. † Prof. Fr. X. Funk, Patres apostolici I, p. 144, 146. Exact parallels are collected and noted by Prof. Clemens Konnecke, Die Beziehungen des Hebraerbriefs zu dem Briefe Clemens Romanus an die Korinther at Programm des Koniglichen und Groningschen Gymnasiums zu Stargard, in Pommern, fur das Schuljar von Ostern 1895 bis Ostern 1896 (Stargrad 1896), S. 13 ff., a also in Rev. Prof. Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 66–74. Edgar J. Goodspeed, First Clement Called Forth by Hebrews in Journal of Biblical Literature XXX (1911), II, p. 157–160; cp. Hebrews First Clement and Persecution of Domitian by Donald W. Riddle ibid XLIII (1924), p. 342. On the question of Roman intervention in the affairs of the Corinthian Church, see R. van Cauwelaert, O. S. V., Intervention de l'eglise de Rome a Corinthe vers l?an 96 in "Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique" XXXI, 3 (Avril 1935) and ibid. XXXI, 4 (October 1935), p. 762–765, 763–766: A propos de l?intervention de l'eglise de Rome a Corinthe par Jaques Zeiller; Reponse aux remarques de M. Zeiller par R. van Cauwelaert. Cp. about the first and Berthold Altauer in Theologische Revue 1936, no. 2, Sp. 41–45. See † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons L I, S. 286; I, 2 (Erlangen und Leipzig 1889), pp. 963–965. † Prof. Fr. X. Funk, Patres apostolici I, p. (310), 311; Migne gr. V, col. 1015. Apolog. I, 12: Migne gr. VI, col. 345. Dial. With. Tryphone, 113: Migne gr. VI, col. 736. see † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 2, S. 577–579. J. D. Maynard, Justin Martyr and the Text of Hebrews in "The Expositior" 1909, II, p. 166. Paton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Paiuline Episrtes, p. 440. See also Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. 4–5. See † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I, 1, S. 299. See about Tudichum at † Prof. W. Wrede, Das literarische Ratsel des Hebraerbriefes, S. 35, 1. See The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford 1905. Rev. Prof. Th. Andrews, D. D., The Philosophical Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews in The Expositor 1917, XI (November), p. 318, 351 sqq., 354 sq., 359, 360 sq., 362. † Prof. Wilhelm Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im spathellenistischen Zeitalter, 3te Aufl. (vou Prof. Hugo Gressman), Tubingen 1926, S. 194. See also D. Heinrich Appel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, S. 85. This is the conclusion from the words of Eusebius Hiist. eccles. Ill. 3:5 (see below p. 32) rightly makes Rev. Prof. Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 99. † Prof. Edouard Reuss, Histoire de theologie chretienne, p. 3263. at Prof. A. S. Peake, Hebrews, p. 28. †Fr. Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebraer erlautert durch Einleitung, Uebersetzung und fortlaufenden Commentar I (Berlin 1828), S. 390. Prof. George Salmon, A Historical Introduction, p. 6419. Rudolfus Cornell S. J., Introductio specialis in singulos Novi Testamenti libros, p. 530. Rev. Prof. James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p. 432. Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes die Hebraer, S. 17–18. Cp. prof. D. I. Bogdashevsky († Archbishop Vasily), Experiments in the study of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, pp. 85–86, although the author admits that Hippolytus did not recognize the Epistle to the Hebrews as Pavlovo due to his passion for polemics against the followers of Theodotus. K. Endemann in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" XXI (1910), 2, S. 103–104. Photii Bibliotheca, cod. 232: Migne gr. III, col. 1104–1105. Bibliotheca, cod. 121: Migne gr. III, col. 404. † Prof. Theodor Zahn: Einleitung in das Neue Testament II (Leipzig 31907), S. 123–124; Geschichte des neutestmmentlichen Kanons I. 1, S. 296–297. Prof. Dr. Eduard Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer ausgelegt (in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament herausgegeben von Prof. D. Dr. Theodor Zahn), Leipzig 1913, S. X. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T. 3II, S. 119 and cp. 123, 8. † Prof. Dr. Nathanael Bonwetsch, Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts zum Buche Daniel und Hohen Liede in "Texte und Untersuchungen" XVI (N.F.D. 2 (Leipzig 1897), S. 25-26. And † Prof. Theodor Zahn admits that Hippolytus used the epistle to the Hebrews, although not as Paul's or canonical, but as a venerable scripture from apostolic times (Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 1, S. 297 and cp. 300). † Prof. Eduard Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. X. Epiphanii haer. LV, 1 ap. Migne gr. XLI, col. 972: ... βουλόμενοι. Cp. Ps.-Tertulliani Adversus omnes haereses, cap. VIIÏ Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia ed. Franciscus Oehler, t. II (Lipsiae 1854), p. 764–765. Cp. and † Prof. Adolf Hilgenfeld, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig 1875), S. 252. See K. Endemann in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrit XXI (1910), 2. S. 104. Prof. Franz Overbeck claims (Zur Geschichte des Kanons, S. 38) that Kai allegedly denied the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and this scientist refers to the testimony of the blessed. Jerome De virs illustribus, 59 (Migne lat. XXIII, col. 669–670): “Gaius, sub Zephyrin Romanae urbis episcopo, id est sub Antonino Severi filio, disputationem adversum Proclum, Montani sectatorem, valde Insigncm habuit, agguens eum teneritatis, super Nova Prophetia defendenda, et in eadein volumine Epistolas quoque Pauli, tridecim tantum anumeratis, decimam quartam, quae fertur ad Hebraeos, dicit non ejus esse, sed et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apostoli non habetur.” But they rightly point out that the blessed one. Jerome here is simply some distortion of Eusebius’ words, an addition to them (•†Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 1, S. 288). K. Endemann in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" XXI (1910), 2, S. 105. Cp. Migne lat. V, col. 301 sqq., 317 sqq. † Prof. Eduard Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. XIV. Cp. Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. 24. † Prof. Theodor Zahn. Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, S. 66, 80–82 (text). Epistola ad Fortunatum – de exhortatione martirii (Migne lat. IV, col. 668): “et apostolus Paulus, qui hujus legitlmi numeri et certi meminit, ad septem ecclesias scribit.” It must be said that Cyprian speaks of the special meaning of the number “seven” and notes in the Apostle Paul only the corresponding one - he has epistles to seven churches, not excluding others that did not fit into this category, although for him there is no doubt that they are pastoral. Wed. and the blessed one Jerome ad Paulinum 53 (103) are. Migne lat. XXII, col. 548: “Paulus Apostolus ad septem Ecclesias scribit (octava enim ad Hebraeos a plerisque extra numerum paritur),” although Jerome himself recognized it. Victorinus of Pictavia († about 303), the oldest exeget of the Latin Church, also mentions “septemecclesiae apud Paulim.” Wed. K. Endemann in “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift” XXI (1901), 2, S. 105. Epistola ad Dardanum CXXIX, 3: see above on pp. 19, 90. De viris illustribus, 59: Migne lat. XXIII, col. 69. Commentarium In Matthaeum lib. IV, cap. XXVI, 8, 9 (Migne lat. XXVI, col, 192). In Jes. lib. III, cap. VI. 9 sqq. (Migne lat. XXIV, col. 99): “Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebraeos Epistolae contradicitur, quod ad Hebraeos scribens utatur testimoniis, quae in Hebraeos volutninibus nou habentur.” In Jes. lib. III, cap. VI. 2 (Migne lat. XXIV, col. 94): "Unde et Paulus Apostolus in Epistola ad Hebraeos, quam latina consuetudo non recipit, nonne omnes, inquit (Hebr. I, 14), ministri sunt spiritus." In Jes. lib• III, cap. VIII, 18 (Migne lat. XXIV, col. 121): “Caeterum beatus Apostolus in Epistola, quae ad Hebraeos scribitur, docet (licet eam Latina consuetudo inter Canonicas Scripturas non reciplat)…” On the difference between consuetudo and traditio among the blessed. Jerome see Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. (32 ff.), 37. This is indicated, for example, by † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebraer I, S. 120. See above on pp. 30, 148. Wed and † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament II. S. 3117. So † Prof. Вernh. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. 55. In Jerem. lib. VI, cap. XXXI, 31–32 (Migne lat. XXIV, col. 883): “Hoc testimonio apostolus Paulus, sive quis alius scripsit Epistolam, usus est ad Hebraeos.” In Ezech. lib. IX, cap, XXVIII, 11 sqq. (Migne Lat. XXV, col. 272): "Et Paulus apostolus loquitur (Hebr. XII, 22), si quis tamen ad Hebraeos Epistolam suscipit." In Amos lib. III, cap. VIII, 7–8 (Migne lat. XXV, col. 1081 ".... quod, quicnmque est ille qui ad Hebraeos scripsit Epistolam, disserens ait." In Zachar. lib. II, cap. VIII, 1 sqq. (Migne lat. XXV, col. 1465): "De hoc monte, et de hac civitate et apostolus Paulus (si tamen in suscipienda Epistola, Graecorum auctoritatem Latina lingua non respuit), sacrata oratione disputans ait". Xth chapter); cap. XXI, 39 (ibid., col. i57): "Et Apostolus loquitur, quod extra portam Jesus crucifixus est" (Heb. XIII, 12). (si quis tamen earn recipit) prudentibus quibusque lectoribus Paulus subindicat dicens" (Hebr. XI, 39, 40). quia jam inter Ecclesiasticas est recepta), totum ilium catalogum fidei enumera, in quo scriptum est" (Hebr. XI, 4 sqq.). Cp. Paton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 448–449. De trinitate IV, II (Migne lat. X, col. 104): “... facturam autem per id quod Panlus ad Hebraeos dixit” (I, 4. III, 1). De non conveniendo cum haereticis (Migne XIII, col. 782): “... quorum reprobationis exemplum beatus ostendens Paulus dicit ad Hebraeos” (III, 5 sqq.). See, for example, Adversus Arium lib. II. 3 o Heb. I, 3 (Migne lat. VIII, col. 1091): "Lectum apud Paulum ad Hebraeos de Christo." Δε ὁμοουσίῳ recipiendo 2 o Heb. I, 3 (Migne lat. VIII, col. 1138): "Dicit Apostolus ad Hebraeos." Epistotae tres ad Sympronianum Novatianum III, 13, where we find “dicit Apostolus” for 1 Cor. X, 11, and then Heb. XI, prefaced: “Et iterum” (Migne lat. XIII, col. 1072). Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latiriorum, vol. XVIIÏ Priscilliani quae supersunt recensuit Georgius Schepps (Vindobonae 1889), p. 29 Liber apologeticus) for Heb. 1, 6, 7 “de quo scribtum est”; p. 79 (Tractatus exodi) for Heb. III, 16 “sicut scribtum est”; p. 45 (Liber de fide et apocryhis) for Heb. XI. 5 "Paulus in epistola ad Hebraeos." More pp. 7, 28. 45, 49, 55, 58, 70, 97, 112, 113, 118, 119, 121, 130, 136, 138, 142 145, for which see the index p. 166a. De trinitate II, 13 (Migne lat. XIII, col. 61): “Sed et Paulus apostolus hoc ipsum credens, quod et olim Spiritus sanctus in David locutus est et postea exposuit, arit in Epistola sua” (Hebr. I, 13). De fuga saeculi III, 16 (Migne lat. XIV, col. 577) quotes Heb. twice. VII, 26 with inquit, i.e. apostolus. Wed. De paenitentia lib. II, cap. 2, § 7 (numquld Paulus adversus factum suum praedicare potuit? (ad Hebr. VI, 4-6), 10 (Ergo quod ait iu hac epistola, quae scribitur ad Hebraeos VI, 6); and § 11 (Hortatur autem nos ut, reliquentes initiuin verbi, ad perfectum tendermis; Hebr. VI, 1); Migne lat. XVI, col. Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolorum, 37 (Migne lat. XXI, col. 374): "Pauli Apostoli Epistolae quatuordecim." Cp. Epistola Pelagii († after 418) ad Demetriadem, cap. 5 to EUR VII, 1 ff. (Migne lat. XXX, cot. 20; XXXIII, cot. 20; XXXIII. col. 1102); but the very possibility of this heretical monk writing any commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews is now disputed: see † Prof. D. Eduard Riggenbach, Unbeachtet gebliebene Fragmente des Pelagius-Kommentars zu den Paullnischen Briefen in “Beitrage zur Forderting christlicher Theologie” herausg. von Proff. A. Schlatter und W. Lutgert IX, 1 (Gutersloh 1905), S. 24; Alexander Souter, The Character and History of Pelagius, Commentary on the Epistles of St. Pant, Oxford 1916. Liber de haeresibus, cap. 88, 89: Migne lat. XII, cot. 1199, 1200–1202. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, t, S. 237, 238–239. De haeresibus, cap. 120 (Migne lat. XII, col. 1243) for Heb. KhSh, 4. Cap. 130 (col. 1260–1261). Cap. 156 (col. 1290): "...ut dictum est" (Hebr. IV, 12). Cap. 148 (col. 1282): "...de quo (Melchisedech) ait Scriptura" (Hebr. VII, 3). De doctrina Christiana II, 14 (Migne lat. XXXIV, col. 41, and in † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 258) directly places the epistle to the Hebrews among Pavlovian canonical writings in 14th place. D. Odilon Rottmanner, O. S. V., S. Augustin sul l'auteur de l'epitre aux Hebreux in "Revue Benedictine" XVIII (1901), p. 257–261 states that at first and until 406 Blessed. Augustine quotes the epistle to the Hebrews as Paul's, and from 406 to 430 simply calls it "epistula ad Hebraeos." Epistolae ad Romanos inchoatae expositio 11, 12 (Migne lat. XXXV, col. 2095). De peccatorum meritis et remissione I, 27, 50 (Migne lat. XLIV, col. 137); “Ad Hebraeos quoque Epistola, quanguam nonnullis incerta sit, tamen quoniam legl huic nostrae de Baptismo parvulorum senentlae contraria sentientes, earn quibusdam opinionibus suis tcstem adhibere voluisse, magisque me movet auctorltas Fcclesiarum orientalium, quae hanc etiam in canonicis liabent, quanta pro nobis testimonia contineat, advertendum est.” Mansi III, col. 821, cap. XLVII. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 216 ff., 252. Migne lat. LIX, col. 158. † Prof. Theodor Zahn: Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 262 ff.; Grundriss des neutestamentlichen Kanons, S. (82-)83. † Rudpolhus Cornely S. J., Introductio in utrlusque Testamenti libros sacros (Parisiis 1885), p 87: 15. † Prof. Ernst von Dobschutz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendus et non recipiendis im kritischem Text herausgegeben und untersucht in "Texte und Untersuchungen" XXXVIII, 4 (Leipzig 11912). S. VI, 340 ff. †Prof Eduard Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. XV. Epist. VI, cap. VII, 13: Migne lat. XX. col. 502. at Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 245. Mansi IV, p. 430, cap. XXIX. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 252, 7. De doctrina Christiana II, 12: Migne lat. XXXIV, col. 40–41. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 255. See, for example, † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Hebraerbrief, S. 40. See † prof. O. V. G. Rozhdestvensky, History of the New Testament canon in “Christian Reading” 1874, No. 8–9, pp. 748–749. Such is the influence here of the Montanists and Novatians, who abused Heb. VI, 4–8 (see Sancti Ambrosii de poenitentia lib. II, cap. 2 in Migne lat. XVI, col. 497–499, and XIII, col. 14–17), note, for example, T Prof. Theodor Zahn (Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, S. 70) and Prof. Joh. Evang. Belser (Einleitung in das Neue Testament, S. 599). See also Rev. Prof. Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 111–112 (about the Montanists). Prof. Hans Achells, Christentum in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten 11 (Leipzig 1912), pp. 156–157. † E. Feofan (Govorov), About the message of St. Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, page 12 (about the Marcionites and Novatians). W. F. Farrar, The First Days of Christianity, translation † prof. A. P. Lopukhina, Petrograd 1915, pp. 898: 509. In addition to Novatian rigorism, the Epistle to the Hebrews was also suspected of an Arian tendency (cf. Prof. Father E. A. Vorontsov, On the issue of quoting Psalm 39(40) in the Epistle to the Hebrews in Christian Reading 1905, No. 10, p. 521), for some Arians used it for their own purposes, although they denied Pavlovo’s authorship (†Br. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 3LXXII, as the latter is also confirmed by Prof. J. A. Cramer, Catenae graecorum patrum in Novam Testamentum, t. VIII (Oxonli 1844), p. 279. † Prof. Franz Delitzsch, Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebraer, S. XIX - with a note (S. XXIV) that the West generally did not like three Judeo-Christian writings - James, I Peter, and Heb. † Prof. Joh. Leonh. Hug, Einleitug in die Schriften tes Neuen Tesiamcnis 3II (Tubingen 1826). S. 481 ff., 489 (although at the beginning Rome accepted: S. 479). † Prof. J. H. Kurtz, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. 204. † Pror. Dr. Heinrich Klee, Auslegung des Briefes an die Hebraer (Mainz 1833), S. 7. † Rudolphus Cornely S. J., Introductio specialis in singulos Novi Testamenti libros, p. 530. Paton J. Gloag, Introductio to the Pauline Epistles, p. 450. † Prof. D. Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das Nene Testament (Gutersloh 21911). S. 117. † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Hebraerbrief, S. 22–23. † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebraer I, S. 262. † Rudolphus Cornely S. J., Introductio specials in singulos Novi Testamenti libros, p. 530. See † Prof. Franz Delitzsch in “Zeitschrift fur die gesammte lutherische Tlieologie und Kirche” X (1849), 2. S. 262. Rev. Prof. Vernon Bartlet, Barnabas and his Genuine Epistle in "The Expositor" 1902, VI, p. 425. The extent to which this was generally accepted and deeply penetrated the consciousness of believers is also shown by the acts of the Scillitanian martyrs (around the year 200), where, when asked about the things stored in the box, the answer is given that there are “books (i.e., the Old Testament and the Gospels) and the epistles of Paul, the righteous man” (libri et epistulae Pauli justi, αἱ καθ́ ἡμᾶς βίβλοι καὶ αῖ προσειπιτούτοις ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου τοῦ ὁσίου ἀνδρός). See Prof. Rudolf Knopf, Ausgewahlte Martyreracten (Tubingen und Leipzig 1901), S. 35, and in Texts and Studies ed. by Armitage Robinson I, 2 (Cambridge 1891), p. 114, 115. † Prof. Theodor Zahn even asserts that in ancient times whoever denied the apostolic authenticity of a well-known scripture appropriated its authorship to heretics (Geschichte des neitestamentlichen Kanons I, 1, S. 281). This also follows from the words of Eusebius Hist. eccles. III. 3; 5: τινές ἠθετήκασι τὴν πρὸς Έβραίους, πρὸς τῆς Ρ́ωμαίων ἐκλησίας ὡς μή Παύλου οὖσαν αὐτὴν ἀντιλέγεσθαι φήσαντες, i.e. some rejected the canonical merits of Hebrews on the grounds that the Roman Church doubted Paul's authorship. Migne lat. II, col. 1022. For this evidence cf. Hermann Ronsch. Das Neue Testament Tertullian's: aus den Scliriiten des letzeren moglieh vollstandig reconstruirt, mit Einleitungen und Anmerkungen textkritischen und sprachliclien Inhaltes (Leipzig 1871), S. 563 ff. † Prof. Fr. Bleek. Der Brief an die Hebraer I, S. III; 113 and 413. † Prof. D. C. F. Nosgen, Geschichte der neutestamentlichen Offenbarung, II. Band: Geschichte der apostolischen Verkundigun (Muncben 1893), S. 62. Prof. George Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle of the Hebrews, p. 16, 28. So does † Prof. Fr. Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebraer I, S. 390, although later (S. 390) weakens and limits this conclusion. † Prof. J. H. Kurtz, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. 4–5. † Prof. W. Wrede, Das literarische Ratsel des Hebraercriefes, S. 77. † Prof. Ed. Riggenbach, Die Brief an die Hebraer, S. XI, XII. Rev. Prof. Vernon Bartlet in The Expositor 1902, VI, p. 423, † Prof. Adolf von Harnack in “Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft” 1 (1900), 1, S. 23. † Prof. George Salmon, A. Historical History to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, p. 6425–427, 429. Prof. Franz Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, S. 33. 38, 40 ff. Prof. E. Jacquiery R Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible III, col. 15. † Prof. Robertson Smith and † Prof. Hermann von Soden in Encydopaedia Biblica ed. by † the Rev. Prof. T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black II, col. 1991. † Prof. Ed. Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. XI ff. † Prof. Fritz Bart, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, S. 2121–122, 128. Franz Dibelius, Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes: eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Christentums (Strassburg 1910), S. 57: “die gute Bezeugung durch Tertullian.” Prof. Franz Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, S. 48. Franz Dibellius, Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes. S. 56, 58, Cp. and † Prof. Ad. Hilgenfeld, Historisch-kritische Einleitung In das Neue Testament, Leipzig 1875, S. 355. † Prof. Ad. Hilgenfeld, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Nene Testament, S. 354–355. Cp. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamettliehen Kanons I, 1, S. 27 Anm. †Prot. Paul Feine. Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig 1913), S. 79. † Prof. A. S. Peake, Hebrews, p 6. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 1, S. 294; II, 1, S. 170. Cp. More Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser nnd Adresse des Briefs an die Hebraer, S. 22–23 - indicating the complicity of the Novatians, as well as † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Grudriss der Geschichte des neutestameutltchen Kanons, S, 18, 65. † Prof. A. S. Peake, Hebrews, p. 33. † Prof. A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 28. Prof. G. Hoennicke in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" XXIX (1918), 7, S. 357. † Prof. Ed. Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. XIII-XIV. K. Endemann in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" XXI (1910), 2, S. 104, 117–118. K. Endemann ibid. XXI (1910), 2, S. 113. † Prof. Franz Delitzsch, Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebraer, S. XXI, XXV. Rev. Prof. Vernon Bartlet in The Expositor 1902, VI, p. 426. † Prof. Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das N. T., S. 2116. See also Franz Dibelius, Das Abendmahl: eine Untersuchung uber die Anfange der christiichen Religion (Leipzig 1911), S. 16 Anm., 18, 1. † Prof. Fritz Barth. Einleitung in das N. T., S. 4–5122: “Die Barnabashypothese ist zur Stunde bei weitern die wahrscheinlichste.” † Prof. Hans Windisch, Der Hebraerbrief (Tubingen 21930, S. 6, 124). See about her † Prof. D. Caspar Rene Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes I (Leipzid 1900), pp. 105–109. Alexander Souter. The Original Home of Codex Choromontanus (D. Paul) in The Journal of Theological Studies VI, 22 (January 1905), p. 240–243 that the Latin text is a copy of the same as that of Lucifer of Sardinia, and the codex dates back to the 6th century and, perhaps, was made precisely within Sardinia. See, for example, † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. (157 ff.) 159. For calculations see † Prof. Caspar Rene Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments I, S. 107. † Prof. directly refers to him. Theodor Zahn, Grundriss der Geschiclite des neutestamentlichen Kanons, S. 80. The epistle of Barnabas also includes † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschiclite des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 1, S. 170–171. This is already the case, for example, † Prof. Ad. Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in das Neu Testament S. 355. K. Endemann in “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift” XXI (1910), 2, S. 105. It should be noted that Novatian’s literary personality is also not sufficiently defined: see J. Quarry, Novatiani De Trinitate liber, its Probable History in “Hermathena” X (1899), no. 23, p. 36–70 that this is the work of Hippolytus, although according to Prof. Otto Bardenhewer, Patrologie (Freiburg im Breisgau 21901), S. 194 – usually “darf das Werk mit Sicherheit als das Eigentum Novatians bezcichnet warden”. See A. d les, Novatien: etude sur la theologie rornaine au milieu du IIIe siècle, Paris 1925. † Prof. Ed. Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. XII. Cp. Otto Bardenhewer, Patrologie, S. 2194–195; 365. Epistola ad Dardanum CXXIX, 3: Migne lat. XXII, col. 1103; see above on p. De viris illustribus, cap. V: Migne lat. XXXIII, col. 617–620. The Praelectio theologica in scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita auctore Gulielmo Hodge Mill, reverendissimo archiepiscop Cantabrigiensi (Cantabrigiae 1843), explicitly states that this is a pure conjecture of Tertullian (p. 6). Praelectiones theologicae in scholis Contabrigienstbus Gulielmo Hodge Mill, reverendissimoarchiepiscopo Cantabriglensi (Cantabrigde 1843), explicitly states that this is Tertullian’s pure conjecture (p. 6). † Prof. Franz Delitzseh, Ueber Verfasser und Leser des Hebraerbriefs in "Zeitschrift fur die gesammte luterische Theologie und Kirche" X (1849), 2. S. 271. So Prof. G. Hoehnicke, Der Hebraerbrief und die neuere Kritik in "Neue Kircbliche Zeitschrift" XXIX (1918), 7, S. 357. See, for example, Prof. Karl Wieseler, Untersuchungen uber den Hebraerbrief I (Kiel i860), S. 48; Esq. James C. Marshall, Was Barnabas ignorant of Jewish Ritual? in The Expositor IV (1882), p. 63–77; Franz Dibelius, Das Abendmahl (Leipzig 1911), S. 18, 1. See K. Endemann in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift XXI (1910), 2, S. 109, 118. † Prof. Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das N. T., S. 2121. This is how Catholics usually do it: see Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser uud Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. 141. So, for example, Priester Dr. Otto Braunsberger, Der Apostol Barnabas: sein leben und der ihm beigelegte Brief, wissenschaftlich gewurdigt (Maiuz 1876), S. 249. So, for example, † Prof. Franz Delitzsch in “Zeitschrift fur die gesammte lutherisclic Theologie und Kirche” X (1849), 2, S. 271 that Tertullian does not mention the epistle to the Hebrews at all, but calls the epistle of Barnabas by this name. And according to James C. Marshall (Was Barnabas ignorant of Jewish Ritual? in “The Expositor,” socond series, vol. IV, 1882, p. 64 not.), “his confusion of the names must be taken as mere ship of memory and one for which the many points of resemblance between two epistles ready account.” In Ascensionem D. N. J. Christi et in principium Act. II, 8: Mlgne gr. LII, col. 780. Ad Amphil. quaest. 122: Migne gr. CI, col. 716. † Rudolphus Cornelу S. J., Introduce o specialis in singulos Novi Testamenti libros, p. 526. See Herman Roensch, Das Neue Testament des Tertullians, S. 565. † Prof. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 1. S. 291; II, 1, S. 170. See also prof. D. I. Bogdashevsky († Archbishop Vasily), Experiments in the Study of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament I, pp. 87, 101. E. Burggaller, Neue Untersuchungen zum Hebraerbrief in "Theologische Rundschau" XIII (1910), 11, S. 417. Raton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 444. See and Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser uud Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. 138–140 (–149). Cp. Prof. George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, p. 6415: “the Fpistie to the Hebrews was accepted as canonical by the whole Eastern Chwich, with no exception that I know of.” M. A. R. Tuker, Gospel according to Prisca in "Nineteenth Century and After", founded by James Knowles, edited by W. Wray Skilbeck, No. 431 (London, January 1913), p. 81. † Prof. Willibald Beischlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, oder Geschichtliche Darstellnng der Lehre Jesu und des Urehristetums nach deu neutestamentlichen Quellen. II. Band (Halle a. S. (1896), S. 287. †Rev. Prof. Alexander Balmain Bruce, Epistle to Hebrews in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. By James Hastings, vol. II (London 1902), p. 335 b: “That the Apostle (Paul) was not the author of it (the Epistle to the Hebrews) now so generally admitted that it is harlly worth while discussing the question.” See also in “the Expositor” 1888, p. 177. Prof. E. F. Scott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 5–6. Prof. Rudolph Knopf, Einfuhrung in das Neue Testament: Bibelkunde des Neuen Testaments, Geschichte und Religion des Urchristentums. Dritte Auflage unter Mitwirkung von Prof. D.Dr. Hans Litzmann bearbeitet von Prof. D.Dr. Heinrich Weinel, Giessen 1930, S. 87. See Dr. about this. Barholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. 2. Cp. Prof. Cardus Bernardus Moll, Christologiae in Epistola ad Hebraeos scripta proposita particula Ï prolegomena (Halis 1854), p. 16: “...Sed tale deprehenditur discrimen inter hanc cpistolam atque Paulinas, quod attinet res pertractatas modumque pertraetandi ut theobgorum hujus nostri aevi nemo sententiam de Paulo auctore tenere videatur.” † Prof. Hans Windisch, Der Hebraerbrief, S. 2 134, 128, that the authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews has long been rejected by critics as a non-Pavlovian and non-Pavlinistic document. † Prof. W. Robertson Smith and † Prof. Hermann von Soden, Epistle to the Hebrews in Encyclopedia Biblica ed. by the Rev. Prof. T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, vol. II (London 1901), col. I 992: “Scarcely any sound scholar will be found to accept Paul as direct author of the epistle” (to the Hebrews). Prof. D. Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vierte und funfte Auflage, Gutersloh 1921, S. 119–120: “Der Gedanke an Paulus war dennoch ein unglucklicher.” † Prof. W. Wrede, Das literarisehe Ratzel des Hebraerbrifs, S. 80: “Die Palusuberliefernng findet in der protestantischen Theologie keine Ritter mehr.” Prof. Geoge Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 15: “the belief that he (the author of the epistle to the Hebrews) was Paul is practically abandoned.” P. 18: “In view of the general consensus of modern scholarship against the pauline authorship, such an inquiry may be seen, perhaps, no longer necessary.” Even Prof. S. A. Zhebele dares to assert (Apostle Paul and his Epistles, Petrograd 1922, pp. 61, 68, 112) that “the epistle to the Hebrews, according to unanimous opinion (?!), does not belong to Paul”; “the epistle to the Hebrews, the non-attribution of which is firmly established”; "ap. It doesn’t belong to Paul.” † Prof. Willibald Beischlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie II S. 287. † Prof. Bernh. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. 67. † Prof. A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 31. † Prof. Alfred Seeberg, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. 1. † Prof. A. S. Peake, Hebrews, p. 28, 33. See Dr. Georg Hollmann, Der Hebraerbrief y Prof. Joh. Weiss, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments II (Gottingen 1907), 2, S. 200. † Prof. Marcus Dods, The Epistle to the Hebrews in The Expositors Greek Testament, edited by the Rev. W. Robertson Nicoll, vol. IV (London 1910), p. 224. † Prof. Eugene Menegoz, La théologie de le Epitre aux Hebreux (Paris 1894), p. 56: “De toutes les hypotheses, celle qni attribue cette Epitre (aux Hebreux) a saint Paul est la plus inadmissible; "elle est en dehors de toutes les probabilites." Frederic Rendall, Theology of the Hebrew Christians (London 1886), p. 6. † Prof. D. Rudolf Knopf, Probleme der Paulusforschung (Tubingen 1913), S. 5. †Rev. Prof. A. B. Bruce in James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible II, p. 336a. † Prof. Bernh. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebraer S, 611, 16, † Prof. Dr. Hermann von Soden, Hebraerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jacobus, Judas bearbeitet in Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament III, 2 (Freiburg i. B. 2 1892), S. 2, 6. Prof. George Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle of the Hebrews, p. 263 sqq. † Prof. Dr. Carl Fr. Keil, Commentar uber den Briefe an die Hebraer (Leipzig 1885), S. 4–5, 406–413. † Prof. Thod. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament II, S.3127. Prof. E. F. Scott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 4. Prof. E. Jacquier in F. Vigouroux, Dictiounaire de la Bible III, col. 530. †Bp. Br. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 371. Prof. E. Jacquier in F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible III, col. 530. † Prof. Moritz von Aberle, Einleitung in dus Neue Testament, S. 237: "Dass der Apostel (Paulus) den Hebraenbrief nicht verfasst habe, ist eine unlaugbare Thatsache, und Unverstand und Mangel an aller kritischen Befahigung konnten den Versuch einer entgegengesetzten Behauptug wagen." Prof. E. Jacquter in F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible III, col. 539. Prof. E. Jacquier ibid. III, col. 526, 542. † Prof. Moritz v. Aberle, Einleitung in das N. T., S, 539. † Prof. Ed. Reuss, Histoire de theologie chretienne II, p. 3539. Dr. Georg Hollmaun, Der Hebraerbrief y W. Bousset und W. Heitmuller III. S. 159. 167, 206–207. Prof. E F. Scott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 24. Rev. J. H. Wade, p. 23–24. Prof. K. A. Credner, Einleitung in das Neue Testament I, 2, S. 491, 548. † Prof. Fr. Bleek: Der Brief an die Hebraer I, S. 40, 285 ff.; Der Hebraerbrief. S. 48. Hermann Messner, Die Lehre der Apostel, S. 293, 294. † Prof. Ad. Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, S. 373. Prof. Dr. David Schulz, Der Brief an die Hebraer: Einleitung, Uebersetzung und Anmerkungen, Bresiau 1818, S. 125 ff. † Prof. Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, S. 2119. † Prof Bernh, Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebraer, S. 68, † Prof. Hermann von Soden in Hand-Commentar zum Nestament III, 2, S. 21. Doz. P. Olaf Mine, Paulus und die evangelische Geschlchte, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der Evangelien (Leipzig 1912). S. 39. † Prof. Adolf von Harnack, Geschiehte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II, 1, S. 476. † Prof. Fr. Godet, The Epistle to the Hebrews; the Note ot Warning to the Judeo-Christian Church in The Expositor 1888, p. 262; Jean Reville, Les origines de le episcopatë etude sur la formation du gouvernement ecclesiastique au sein de l'eglise chretienne dans l'empire Romain (premiere partie), Paris 1894, p. 119. Frederic Rendall, Theology of the Hebrew Christians, p. 23, 48–49. † Prof. A. S. Peake, Hebrews, p. 33. Prof. Rudolf Knopf, Einfuhrung in das Neue Testament, S. 388. That's why Prof. Franz Dibelius, Das Abendmahl, S. 21 expresses fair bewilderment, as if the “second generation” appeared only in the year 61 and as if this did not already exist at the first Pentecost. † Prof. A. W. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 102. † Prof. Alexander Balmain Bruce rightly states (The Epistle to the Hebrews the First Apology for Christianity, Edinburgh 1899, p. 33) that indifference to information about Christ would be “self-stultitifying” on the part of the author. It is therefore categorically stated that the writer of Hebrews was well acquainted with the life of Christ (Prof. Harris Lachlan MacNeil, The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews including its Relation to the Developing Christology of the Primitive Church, Chicago 1914, p 24) and the words of the Lord († Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Friedrich Gess, Christi Person und Werk nach Christi Selbszeugniss und Zeugnissen der Apostil, IÏ Das apostolische Zeugniss, erste Halfte, Basel 1878, S. 465). Wed. Raton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 457. Rev. Prof. Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to Hebrews, p. 175–176, 296, Rev. Prof. Vernon Bartlet in The Expositor 1902, VI, p. 420–421, Dr. Bartholomaus Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebraer, S. 49. Prof. George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, p.6420. So does Lester Readdin, Hebrews a Petrine Document in The Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. LXVIII; October, 1911, p. 691–692 considers Heb. II, 3 is compatible with the assimilation of the letter to the Apostle Peter, and then it is clear that this is no less true in relation to St. Pavel. You might be interested in: