further it is to be noted that the first conclusion is followed by a general form of address—“ Beloved ””—which has occurred at an earlier point... In fact, apart from the formal superscription—X to Y greeting—the second part? of the Epistle is a complete epistle in itself. And it is natural enough that a circular letter, addressed to different communities, should contain alternative or additional letters, if the writer was aware that the conditions or circumstances were not identical in every case. The formal severance of the second part may, therefore, be taken as indicating that all the communities addressed were not necessarily in the condition, which that part implies.
1. The Recipients.~-Eusebius of Czsarea, whose Ecclesiastical History belongs to the beginning of the fourth century, is the earliest (extant) writer, who inquired systematically into the origins of the Christian literature. For him there is no question about the nation- ality of the first recipients of this document: they are Hebrews or Jewish Christians. He insists that the compact made between St. Peter and St. Paul at Jerusalem® was faithfully observed, as their respective writings and the evidence of St. Luke agree to testify: “That Paul, on the one hand, preached to those of Gentile origin and so laid the foundations of the churches from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum is plain from his own statements and from the narratives, which Luke gives in the Acts. And, on the other hand, from the phrases of Peter it is clear in what provinces he for his part preached the Gospel of Christ to those of the Circumcision and delivered to them the message of the New Covenant—I mean, from his acknowledged epistle in which he writes to those of Hebrew origin in the dispersion of Pontus and Galatia, Cappadocia and As@ and Bithynia.*
Just before this® plain statement Eusebius quotes verbally from Origen’s exegetical commentary upon Genesis: “ Peter seems to have preached in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia, in Cappadocia and Asia to the Fews in dispersion”. Origen’s assertion rests presumably on the authority of the address of our document, although the order of the provinces differs in respect of Bithynia from the generally accepted text. When Eusebius speaks for himself he restores the conventional order of the provinces and explicitly quotes the authority of ‘the acknowledged Epistle’. It does not seem at all probable that either Eusebius or Origen had any other evidence for their belief than such as is preserved for modern investigation. Both knew of
απ τα, Ziv. 12-v. II. 3 Gal. ii. 7-9. “Ρας. Η. E. iti. 4. SEus, Η. Ἐ. αι. τ.