Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews
(Show All Books)
Chapter Commentaries:
Verse Commentaries:
COMMENTARY
ON
THE NEW TESTAMENT
HANDBOOK
TO
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
BY
DR. GOTTLIEB LÜNEMANN,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
REV. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
MDCCCLXXXII.
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR
It will be admitted that the commentary of Lünemann on the Hebrews—of which the first edition appeared in 1855, the second in 1861, the third in 1867, and the fourth, enlarged and greatly improved, in 1874—has claims of a very high order in a grammatical and lexicographical respect. He threads his way with a nice discrimination amidst a multitude of conflicting interpretations, and generally carries conviction with him when he finally gives his own view, or that in which he concurs. Even where, as in the case of some three or four controverted explanations, he may not have weighed the whole argument in favour of an opposite view, he has at least revealed to us the process by which his own conclusion is reached, thereby contributing to place the reader in a position for forming an independent judgment for himself.
The opinions of Dr. Lünemann, as regards the position occupied by the writer of our Epistle towards the Scriptures of the Old Testament, have been expressed with great candour. Unfortunately no one seems to have made the questions here raised a matter for any very prolonged and detailed examination since the time of John Owen. With the eventual answer which shall be given to these questions will stand or fall the claim of Barnabas to the authorship of the Epistle, and many other things besides.
It is, however, by his grammatico—critical and purely exegetical labours that Lünemann has rendered the greatest service to the cause of sacred literature. The judicious use of his commentary can hardly fail to lead to a more intimate acquaintance with the letter and spirit of this apostolic writing, well styled by the Helmstädt professor Walther a “beyond all measure profound epistle.”
Of the very abundant exegetical literature pertaining to the Epistle to the Hebrews, our space admits of the mention of but a very few writings. Nor was it needful to give an account even of all that have been collated in preparing this translation. Most of the German commentaries published after the middle of the eighteenth century were entirely overshadowed by the appearing of the great work of Bleek, and those of subsequent writers. For many particulars concerning the authors specified in the following list, more especially of those who flourished about the time of the Reformation, I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. James Kennedy, B.D., librarian of New College, Edinburgh. To the list of works enumerated might be fittingly added the suggestive translation of the New Testament made by Sebastian Castellio (1542–1550), mostly during the time of his retirement in Basle.
M. J. E.
FOR THE GREEK FATHERS
FRANCISCO DE RIBERA: Commentary. 8vo, Col. Agr. 1600.
CLARIO (Isidore) [Clarius]: Novum Testamentum Latinè, adjectis scholiis. Authore Isidoro Clario. 8vo, Ant. 1544.
LUDOVICUS DE TENA: Commentary. folio, Toleti, 1611.
LUDOVICUS DE TENA: Commentary. folio, Lond. 1661.
PRIMASIUS, Bishop of Adrumetum, sixth century: Commentary on the Epistles of Paul. That on the Hebrews is by some attributed to Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt, † 853.
BAUMGARTEN (S. J.), † 1757, and SEMLER: Erklärung des Briefes. Halle, 1763.
BIESENTHAL (J. H. R.): Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos, cum rabbinico commentario. Berol. 1857.
BISPING (A.): Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Briefen des Ap. Paulus [vol. iii.]. Münster, 1855–63.
BLEEK (Franz), † Hebrews 1859: Der Brief an die Hebräer. Berlin, 1828–40. Der Hebräerbrief erklärt. Edited by Windrath. Elberfeld, 1868.
BULLINGER (Heinrychus), † Hebrews 1575: In omnes Apostolicas Epistolas, Divi videlicet Pauli xiiii. etc. Commentarii. [P. 639–731.] fol. Tiguri, 1549.
CAMERON (John), Professor at Saumur, † Hebrews 1625: Annotationes in N. T. Edited by Lewis Cappel. 1628.
CAPPEL (Jacques), † Hebrews 1624: Observationes in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Sedan, 1624.
CARPZOV (J. B.), Professor at Helmstädt, † Hebrews 1803: Sacrae Exercitationes … ex Philone Alexandrine. 8vo, Helmst. 1750.
CRAMER (Johann Andreas), Professor at Kiel, † Hebrews 1788: Erklärung des Briefes an die Hebräer, 2 parts. Copenh. 1757.
DE WETTE (W. M. L.), † Hebrews 1849: Kurze Erklärung, etc. Die Briefe an Tit. Tim. und Heb. [vol. ii. part 5]. Leipz. 1844, al.
DELITZSCH: Commentar zum Brief a. d. Hebr. Leipz. 1857. [Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1868.]
DICKSON (David), † Hebrews 1662: Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews 8 vo, Aberdeen, 1649. [See also ROMANS.]
D’OUTREIN (Jan.): Zendbrief … aan de Ebreen, ontleidet, uitgebreed en verklaard. 1711.
EBRARD (H. A.), Professor at Erlangen: Commentar über den Hebräerbrief. Königsberg, 1850. [Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1853.]
EWALD (G. H. A.), Professor at Göttingen, † Hebrews 1876: Sendschreiben an die Hebräer. Götting. 1870.
GERHARD (John), † Hebrews 1637: Commentarius super Epist. ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Jenae, 1661.
GOMAR (Francis), Professor at Leyden, † Hebrews 1641: Analysis Epistolae Pauli ad Hebraeos. Opera [pp. 285–380]. Amstel. 1644.
GOUGE (W.), D.D., † Hebrews 1653: Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1655. [Reprinted 1866, 1867.]
GUERS (E.): Etude sur l’Epître aux Hébreux. Genève et Paris, 1862.
HOFMANN (J. C. K. von), † Hebrews 1877: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments. Vol. v. 8vo, Nördlingen, 1873.
HYPERIUS (Andreas), † Hebrews 1564: Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Hebraeos. fol. Tiguri, 1584.
JONES (W.), D.D.: Commentary on the Epistles to Philemon, Hebrews, and the First and Second Epistles of John. fol. Lond. 1636.
KLEE (H.): Auslegung des Hebräerbriefs. Mainz, 1833.
KLUGE: Der Hebräerbrief, Auslegung und Lehrbegriff. Neu.-Ruppin, 1863
KURTZ (J. H.), Professor at Dorpat: Der Hebräerbrief erklärt. 1869.
LAWSON (George), Rector of More, Shropshire: Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. fol. Lond. 1662.
M‘CAUL (J. B.), Canon of Rochester: A Paraphrastic Commentary, etc. Lond. 1871.
MANCHESTER (George Montagu, Duke of): Horae Hebraicae [Heb_1:1 to Heb_4:11]. Lond. 1835.
MENKEN (Gottfried), † Hebrews 1831: Homilien über das 9te und 10te Kap., nebst einem Anhange etlicher Homilien über Stellen des 12ten Kap. Bremen, 1831.
MOLL (C. B.): Der Brief an die Hebräer [Lange’s series]. Bielefeld, 1861. [Translated by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. New York, 1871.]
OECOLAMPADIUS (Joannes), † Hebrews 1531: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos J. O. explanationes. 4to, Argentorati, 1524. [From notes taken by some of the hearers.]
OWEN (John), D.D., † Hebrews 1683: Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews 4 vols. fol. London, 1668–74, al.
PELLICAN (Conrad), † Hebrews 1556: Commentaria Bibliorum. 9 vols. fol. Tiguri, 1532–42. [Vol. ix. “in omnes Epistolas.”]
PISCATOR (John), Professor at Herborn, † Hebrews 1626: Analysis Logica Epistolae Pauli ad Hebraeos. [Commentarii in omnes libros Novi Testamenti, 3d ed. fol. p. 674–718. Herbornae, 1638.]
REICHE (J. G.): Commentarius Criticus in Novum Testamentum. 3 vols. 4to, Göttingen, 1853–62. [Vol. iii. In Hebraeos et Catholicas Epistolas.]
REUSS (Ed.): L’Epître aux Hébreux. Essai d’une traduction nouvelle, accompagné d’un commentaire théologique. Strasbourg, 1862.
RIEHM (E. C. A.): Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefs. Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859.
ROLLOCK (Robert), Principal of the University of Edinburgh, † Hebrews 1598: Analysis Logica in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Accessit brevis et utilis Tractatus de Justificatione. 8vo, Edinburgi, 1605. [Rollock carried the work only to xi. 6, the rest was finished and edited by Robert Charteris, at Rollock’s request.]
SCHLICHTING (Jonas), † 1664, and JOHN CRELL, † Hebrews 1633: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Commentarius. 8vo, Racoviae, 1634.
SCHMID (Chr. Fr.), † Hebrews 1778: Observations … historicae, criticae, theologicae super Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Lips. 1766.
SCHMID (Erasmus), † Hebrews 1637: Notae in Novum Testamentum. 1658.
SCHMIDT (Sebastian), † Hebrews 1696: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Commentarius. 1690.
STEWARD (George): Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews 8 vo, Edin. 1872.
STIER (Rudolf), † Hebrews 1862: Der Brief an die Hebräer, in 36 Betrachtungen ausgelegt. 2 parts. 1842.
STUART (Moses), Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover, † Hebrews 1852: Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2 vols. 8vo, 1827, 1828, al.
THOLUCK (Andreas), Professor at Halle, † Hebrews 1877: Kommentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer. 8vo [1836], 3d ed. Hamburg, 1850.
VALCKENAER (Lewis Casp.), Professor of Greek at Leyden, † Hebrews 1785: Selecta e Scholiis. Edited by Wassenbergh. Tom. 2. Amst. 1817.
WALTHER (Michael), Professor at Helmstädt, † Hebrews 1662: Gründliche, erdeutliche und ausführliche Erläuterung der … Ep. St. Pauli an die Hebräer. fol. Nürnberg, 1646.
WIESELER (Karl), Professor at Greifswald: Untersuchung über den Hebräerbrief, namentlich seinen Verfasser und seine Leser. 8vo, Kiel, 1861.
WITTICH (Christoph), Professor at Leyden, † Hebrews 1687: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Edited by David Hassel. 1692.
INTRODUCTION
SEC. 1.—THE AUTHOR
[1] Comp. H. Thayer, “Authorship and Canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xxiv., Andov. 1867, p. 681 ff.
(1) The testimonies of Christian antiquity in favour of Paul as the author of the epistle are neither so general nor so confident as we must expect, if the epistle had been from the beginning handed down as a work of the Apostle Paul.
Not unfavourable to the claim of Paul, but yet by no means decisive, are the judgments of the early Alexandrian Church. Pantaenus, president of the school of catechetes in Alexandria about the middle of the second century, the first from whom an express statement as to the name of the author has come down to us, certainly assigned the epistle to the Apostle Paul. But yet it is to be observed that even he felt called to set aside an objection, which seemed to lie against the justice of this view, namely: that, contrary to the custom of Paul, the author has not, even in an address prefixed to the epistle, mentioned himself by name; whether it was that this difficulty first arose in the mind of Pantaenus himself or that, in opposition to others who had raised it, he wished to show the invalid nature thereof. (Comp. the notice of Clemens Alexandrinus on Pantaenus, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 14: Ἤδη δέ , ὡς ὁ μακάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος , ἐπεὶ ὁ κύριος , ἀπόστολος ὢν τοῦ παντοκράτορος , ἀπεστάλη πρὸς Ἑβραίους , διὰ μετριότητα ὁ Παῦλος , ὡς ἂν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἀπεσταλμένος , οὐκ ἐγγράφει ἑαυτὸν Ἑβραίων ἀπόστολον διά τε τὴν πρὸς τὸν κύριον τιμὴν διά τε τὸ ἐκ περιουσίας καὶ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις ἐπιστέλλειν , ἐθνῶν κήρυκα ὄντα καὶ ἀπόστολον .)
Clemens Alexandrinus, too, the disciple of Pantaenus (end of the second and beginning of the third century), makes repeated mention of the epistle as a work of the Apostle Paul (Strom. ii. p. 420, iv. p. 514 sq., ed. Sylburg, Colon. 1688, al.). But yet he does not venture to ascribe it in its present form immediately to Paul. Not only is for him, too, the same objection, which his teacher already had undertaken to set aside, still of sufficient weight for him to attempt its removal in a new, though, it is true, equally unsatisfactory manner; but also the un-Pauline character of the language in the epistle does not escape his glance. Rather to Luke than to Paul does the garb of the letter seem to him to point. On this account he assumes that a Hebrew (Aramaic) original writing of Paul forms the substratum of the epistle, but that our present epistle is only a version or adaptation of that original writing by Luke, designed for Hellenes. (Comp. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 14: Καὶ τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους δὲ ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου μέν εἶναί φησι , γεγράφθαι δὲ Ἑβραίοις Ἑβραϊκῇ φωνῇ , Λουκᾶν δὲ φιλοτίμως αὐτὴν μεθερμηνεύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν · ὅθεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσκεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τε τῆς ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῶν πράξεων · μὴ προγεγράφθαι δὲ τὸ Παῦλος ἀπόστολος , εἰκότως . Ἑβραίοις γάρ , φησίν , ἐπιστέλλων πρόληψιν εἰληφόσι κατʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑποπτεύουσιν αὐτὸν συνετῶς πάνυ οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἀπέστρεψεν αὐτοὺς τὸ ὄνομα θείς .)
Equally does Origen († 254) make the Epistle to the Hebrews stand, it is true, in some relation to the Apostle Paul, as he accordingly more than once cites passages therefrom as sayings of Paul (e.g. Exhort. ad Martyr. 44, in Joh., ed. Huet. t. ii. p. 56; ibid. t. iii. p. 64, t. x. p. 162, al.). But not only is he aware that in point of fact deniers of the composition of the epistle by Paul have arisen ( οἱ ἀθετοῦντες τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς οὐ Παύλῳ γεγραμμένην , Epist. ad African. c. 9. Comp. also in Mat_23:27 sq.: Sed pone aliquem abdicare epistolam ad Hebraeos, quasi non Pauli); he too, for his own part, is not able to bring himself to recognise the epistle as a work of Paul in the narrower sense. Only the thoughts of the epistle does he ascribe to Paul; the diction and composition, on the other hand, he denies to be his. Since he admits withal that the contents of the epistle are Pauline, he regards the ancient tradition, which traces it back to Paul, as not unfounded; he has therefore no fault to find if a church looks upon the epistle as the work of Paul. By whom, however, it was in reality composed is, he thinks, known only to God. Tradition, he tells us, speaks sometimes of the Roman bishop Clement, sometimes of Luke, as the author. (Comp. the two fragments of the lost homilies of Origen on the Epistle to the Hebrews, preserved in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 25: Ὅτι ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιγεγραμμένης ἐπιστολῆς οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ ἀποστόλου , ὁμολογήσαντος ἑαυτὸν ἰδιώτην εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ , τουτέστι τῇ φράσει , ἀλλά ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως ἑλληνικωτέρα , πᾶς ὁ ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσεων διαφορὰς ὁμολογήσαι ἄν · πάλιν τε αὖ ὅτι τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς θαυμάσιά ἐστι καὶ οὐ δεύτερα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν ὁμολογουμένων γραμμάτων , καὶ τοῦτο ἂν συμφήσαι εἶναι ἀληθὲς πᾶς ὁ προς έχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ .… Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινόμενος εἴποιμʼ ἄν , ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐστίν , ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογραφήσαντός τινος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου . Εἴ τις οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς Παύλου , αὕτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ · οὐ γὰρ λὰρ εἰκῆ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι · τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας [2] τὴν ἐπιστολήν , τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν · ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φθάσασα ἱστορία ὑπό τινων μὲν λεγόντων , ὅτι Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν , ὑπό τινων δέ , ὅτι Λουκᾶς ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὰς πράξεις .)
Only subsequently to the time of Origen, accordingly, was the epistle universally regarded within the Alexandrian Church, as within the Egyptian Church in general, as a writing which proceeded immediately from the Apostle Paul. Declarations thereof are appealed to, as simply the words of Paul, by the Alexandrian bishops, Dionysius, about the middle of the third century (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 41); Alexander, about 312 (in Theodoret, H. E. i.3, Opp. ed. Schulze, tom. 3. p. 736, and in Socrat. H. E. i.6, ed. Vales., Paris 1686, p. 11); Athanasius († 373), in his thirty-ninth epistola festalis, and elsewhere; Didymus, the president of the Alexandrian school of catechetes († 395), the Egyptian monks, Macarius the elder, and Marcus Ascetes (c. 400), and others.
[2] That ὁ γράψας denotes the actual author, and not, as Olshausen (“De auctore ep. ad Hebr.,” in his Opuscc. Theol., Berol. 1834, p. 100), Stenglein (Historische Zeugnisse der vier ersten Jahrhunderte über den Verf. des Br. an die Hebr., Bamb. 1835, p. 35), and Delitzsch (“Ueber Verf. und Leser des Hebräerbr.,” in Rudelsbach u. Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. die Luth. Theol. 1849, p. 259), assert, with the assent of Davidson (Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. I., Lond. 1868, p. 228 f.), the mere “scriba” or “penman,” is shown even by the analogy of the closing words: Δουκᾶς ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὰς πράξεις . Wrongly does Delitzsch (in his Kommentar, p. xvii.) object that Origen, indeed, concedes to the apostle a part [in its composition], and that Luke also, in the Gospel and the Acts, was working up a material not of his own invention, but one ready to his hand. For the part which Origen assigns to Paul is not an active, but a passive one; that Paul exerted an immediate influence on the writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or was directly occupied with the same—of this Origen says nothing; the dependence upon Paul is limited in his estimation to the fact that the epistle was composed by a disciple of Paul, and in the spirit of Paul. By the consideration, however, that Luke in his two works was using a material “ready to his hand,” his authorship in reference to these works is not annulled; for the notion of authorship is not destroyed by the mode in which it is exercised. Besides, if Origen had wished to denote the particular way in which the writings of Luke arose, he would have put, not ὁ γράψας , but ὁ συνταξάμενος , or something similar.
In the ancient Syrian Church the epistle, it is true, was held very early in ecclesiastical repute. For it is already received into the Peshito, belonging to the end of the second century. But that it was so soon as this held to be a work of Paul, does not follow from this reception. On the contrary, the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews has been placed in the Peshito not already after the letters of Paul addressed to churches, but only after those of his letters addressed to private persons, might rather be interpreted as a sign that this letter, only on account of its similar character, had been attached, as it were, by way of appendix to the Pauline Epistles, while not assigned to Paul himself. Yet the later church of North-Eastern Syria seems to have ascribed this writing to the Apostle Paul. For while Jacob, bishop of Nisibis (c. 325), cites declarations of the Epistle to the Hebrews only in general as utterances of an apostle (Galland. Bibl. Patr. v. pp. xvi. lxii al.), and this indefinite mode of citation is also the prevalent one with Jacob’s disciple Ephraem Syrus († 378); yet the latter, at any rate, seems not to have doubted the composition by Paul, since (Opp. Graec. tom. 2., Rom. 1743, fol. p. 203) he joins together the passages Rom_2:16, Eph_5:15, Heb_10:31, by the common introductory formula: Περὶ ταύτης τῆς ἡμέρας βοᾷ καὶ Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος , and then abruptly separates from further citations by the words: Βοᾷ δὲ καὶ ὁ μακάριος Πέτρος .
In like manner in Western (Grecian) Syria, after the middle of the third century, the epistle was probably assigned to the Apostle Paul; since, in the letter issued by the Antiochian Synod (c. 264) to Paul of Samosata, Heb_11:26 and sentences out of the two Epistles to the Corinthians are connected together as sayings of the same apostle (comp. Mansi, Collect. Concil. t. i. p. 1038).
Elsewhere, too, in the Eastern Church, the opinion that Paul was the author became in subsequent times more and more general. Nevertheless, doubts as yet by no means ceased to be heard. Thus Eusebius of Caesarea (in the first half of the fourth century) often, indeed, quotes the Epistle to the Hebrews as the work of Paul, and without doubt reckons it, since he expressly accepts fourteen Pauline Epistles (Hist. Eccles. iii. 3), in the chief passage on the New Testament canon (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25),—as a constituent part of the epistles of Paul, which are mentioned only in general,—to belong to the Homologumena. But yet he regards the epistle only as a version from a Hebrew original of Paul (Hist. Eccles. iii. 38), and can tell of Greeks who, in reliance upon the adverse judgment of the Roman Church, denied the Pauline origin of the epistle in any sense (Hist. Eccles. iii. 3). Nay, in another place (Hist. Eccles. vi. 13), himself even reckons the epistle among the ἀντιλεγόμεναι γραφαί ;[3] inasmuch as he places it in one line with the Wisdom of Solomon, that of Jesus Sirach, and the epistles of Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, and Jude! On the other hand, the epistle is acknowledged as directly the work of Paul, in the sixtieth canon of the Council at Laodicea after the middle of the fourth century, by Titus of Bostra († c. 371), by Basil the Great († 379), and his brother Gregory of Nyssa; by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem († 386); by Gregory of Nazianzus († 389), in the Jambi ad Seleucum, where, nevertheless, the remark has been inserted: τινὲς δέ φασι τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους νόθον ; by Epiphanius († 402), Chrysostom († 407), Theodore of Mopsuestia († c. 428), and others. Yet Theodoret in his Prooemium to the epistle (comp. also Epiphanius, Haer. 69. 37) is still engaged in polemics against those of Arian sentiments, who rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews as νόθος , denying its Pauline authorship.
[3] According to Delitzsch, indeed (Komment. p. xvii. f.), this supposition rests upon a misunderstanding of the words of Eusebius. But Eusebius’ words are surely clear enough. They are as follows: κέχρηται δʼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων γραφῶν μαρτυρίαις , τῆς τε λεγομένης Σαλομῶντος σοφίας καὶ τῆς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Σιρὰχ καὶ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς , τῆς τε Βαρνάβα καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ Ἰούδα .
While thus the testimonies of the East in general are favourable indeed to a Pauline origin of the epistle, an immediate composition thereof by Paul, however, was for the most part asserted only in later times, whereas in the earlier period more generally only a mediate authorship was maintained; the West, on the other hand, during the first centuries, does not acknowledge an authorship of Paul in any sense.
A voucher for this statement is Tertullian, belonging to the North African Church, at the end of the second century and the beginning of the third. Only on a single occasion does he make express mention of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in order to cite from it the words Heb_6:4-8, and it is here evidently his endeavour to rate as highly as possible the authority of the writing cited by him. Of a composition thereof by the Apostle Paul, however, he knows nothing; instead of Paul he names Barnabas as its author, and that not in the form of a conjecture, but simply and without qualification, in such wise that he manifestly proceeds upon a supposition universally current in the churches of his native land. (Comp. de Pudicitia, c. 20: Volo tamen ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium superducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, a Deo satis auctoritati viri,[4] ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore: “aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem?” Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum.… Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit, nunquam moecho et fornicatori secundam poenitentiam promissam ab apostolis norat.)
Also, in the time immediately following, the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot in Proconsular Africa have been regarded as a writing of the Apostle Paul. This is proved on the authority of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage († 258), who, with the single exception of the short Epistle to Philemon, makes citations from all the letters of Paul, and yet nowhere quotes passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, but asserts, on the other hand, that Paul wrote only to seven churches (comp. Testim. adv. Jud. i. 20; De Exhortat. Martyrii, c. 11).
[4] Thus we have to read, with Oehler (Tertull. Opp. tom, i., Lips. 1853, p. 839), in place of adeo satis auctoritatis viri.
But as the early Church of North Africa, so also the early Roman Church knew nothing of an appertaining of the Epistle to the Hebrews to the Pauline collection of letters. This is the more noteworthy, inasmuch as within the Roman Church the earliest trace is met with of the existence of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For a series of characteristic expressions of the latter is taken up by Clemens Romanus (towards the end of the first century) in his Epistle to the Corinthians (comp. specially cap. 36 with Heb_6:4; Heb_1:3-5; Heb_1:7; Heb_1:13; cap. 17 with Heb_11:37; and in general, Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, Part ii. vol. i., Lond. 1748, p. 62 ff.; Böhme, p. lxxv. sq.). These derived expressions, however, are not introduced as citations, but are blended with his own discourse. They prove, therefore, only that Clement was acquainted with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and highly prized it, but afford no information on the question as to whom he regarded as the author. That, however, Clement believed the Apostle Paul to be the author is rendered extremely improbable by the position which the Roman Church of the subsequent period assumed towards this epistle. In the fragment on the canon of the Roman Church, discovered by Muratori, belonging to the close of the second century, it is stated that Paul wrote to seven churches; upon which follows an enumeration of our present thirteen Pauline Epistles. Besides these two, other letters are then named, which have been forged as coming from Paul; but of the Epistle to the Hebrews not even mention is made. It cannot thus in the Roman Church of that time have been invested with any canonical authority, much less have been looked upon as a writing of the Apostle Paul.
In like manner Caius, presbyter at Rome at the end of the second century and beginning of the third, recognised, in express opposition to the περὶ τὸ συντάττειν καινὰς γραφὰς προπέτειά τε καὶ τόλμα , only thirteen epistles as the work of the Apostle Paul, to the exclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 20).
Even as late as about the middle of the third century the Epistle to the Hebrews was not in the Roman Church esteemed to be a work of Paul, nor indeed regarded as a canonical writing. This is evident from the fact that Novatian, in his dissertations, De Trinitate and De Cibis Judaicis (in Gallandi, Biblioth. Patr. t. iii. p. 287 sqq.), although these abound in Biblical citations, and although their subject might naturally suggest the employment of the Epistle to the Hebrews, nowhere so much as makes mention of the same; an omission which, supposing its recognition as a canonical writing, and one proceeding from Paul, would be the more inexplicable, inasmuch as Novatian could hardly have urged any passage of Scripture in favour of his severer view with regard to the receiving again into the communion of the church of those who had lapsed, with greater appearance of justification than this very text of Heb_6:4-6.
So likewise Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 20) expressly observes with respect to his age (first half of the fourth century): καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ Ῥωμαίων τισὶν οὐ νομίζεται τοῦ ἀποστόλου τυγχάνειν .
Of Irenaeus, moreover, the representative of the Church of South