formed in the first half of that century, and Tertullian, though object- ing to his omission of the Pastoral Epistles, makes no remark upon his rejection of Hebrews. In the latter half of the century Roman opinion is represented by the Muratorian canon, which makes no mention of the Epistle at all, unless, as some have fancied, it is alluded to as that “δὰ Alexandrinos”.! The prevalent Roman Opinion is represented by the presbyter Caius who did not accept the Epistle as Pauline. According to Photius, Hippolytus also denied the Pauline authorship; and in the earliest Old Latin Version the Epistle was omitted.
In the North African branch of the Latin Church not only was the Pauline authorship denied, but the Epistle was definitely ascribed to Barnabas. Tertullian (De Pudic., c. 20) in citing Hebrews vi. 4-8 claims for the Epistle only a subordinate authority [‘idoneum con- firmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum’’] because it was written not by an apostle, but by a “comes apostolorum,” whom he unhesitatingly speaks of as Barnabas.
Meanwhile, however, in the Eastern Church the Pauline author- ship was maintained. The Syrian Church accepted the Epistle into its earliest canon; and even if translated by a different and later hand than the other Epistles, this cannot be ascribed to any reluct- ance to receive it as canonical. In Alexandria towards the close of the second century it is accepted as Pauline by Pantaenus and Clement.4 But as criticism was cultivated with some diligence in this Church, it could not escape notice that both in its anonymity _ and in its style this Epistle differed from those of Paul. The absence of the usual Pauline address Pantaenus explained as due to the modesty of the Apostle, who would not even seem to usurp the place which belonged to the Lord Himself as Apostle of the Hebrews.5 Clement accounted for the difference in style by the supposition that the Epistle was originally written by Paul in Hebrew and afterwards translated by Luke, while the absence of signature is referred to the natural fear lest the name of the Apostle of the Gentiles might repel Hebrew readers. The opinion in which the Church of Alexandria in general rested may be gathered from the words of Origen :® “If I
1« Fertur etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fictae ad haeresem Marcionis, et alia plura, quae in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest ; fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit.”
2Euseb., H. E., vi. 20. Jerome, De Vir. Ill., c. 59.
°Dr. Bewer (4. ¥. T., Aprii, 1900, p. 358) dates its introduction to the Syrian canon in the third century.
4 Euseb., H. E., vi. 14. 5 Adopted by Jerome, Ep. ad Gal.
6 Euseb., H. E., vi. 25.