De Moor II:12: The Instrumental Cause of Scripture: The Amanuenses (Part 4)

Finally, our AUTHOR lays claim to the EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS for PAUL, on behalf of which opinion especially the Great SPANHEIM the Younger in his Exercitationibus de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos taught that many reasons, not easily repudiated, militate, which Exercitationes constitute book II Miscellanearum Sacrarum Antiquitatum in tome 2 of his operum.  And we argue for this opinion with our AUTHOR,

α.  First and foremost from that Petrine passage, 2 Peter 3:15, 16, from which various instances are able to be drawn out for this purpose:

              1.  For here Paul is expressly said to have written an Epistle to converted Jews:  for he is asserted to have written to the same men unto whom Peter was writing this second Epistle, καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, even as our beloved brother Paul also hath written unto you.  But Peter was now writing this second Epistle unto the same men, unto whom he had sent the first Epistle, according to 2 Peter 3:1, Ταύτην ἤδη, ἀγαπητοί, δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν, this second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you.  And Peter’s First Epistle was imparted to ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας, καὶ Βιθυνίας, elect sojourners of the diaspora, of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, 1 Peter 1:1, by whom it is evident that converted Jews are understood, comparing James 1:1 and Acts 2:5, 9-11.  Neither was this Epistle of Paul, indicated by Peter, imparted to converted Jews together with others, as indeed in the case of the other Churches unto which Paul was writing, the penitent Jews were mixed with converted Gentiles:  but this Epistle sent by Paul to the Hebrews Peter distinguishes from all the rest, καθὼς—Παῦλος ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν·  ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, even as Paul hath written to you; as also in all his epistles:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part I, chapter II, columns 176-183.

              2.  Paul wrote in this, his Epistle to the Jews, of the same argument as Peter, λαλῶν περὶ τούτων, speaking of these things, which in particular is able to be referred to the immediately preceding exhortation, verses 14 and 15, to which a similar is found in Hebrews 10:22-24, together with a similar motive from the coming of the Lord for the fulfilling of this admonition, verses 25, 36, 37.  But in general this is also able to have respect to the principal occasion that is treated, which in either Apostle’s Epistle, of which we speak, is also the same, namely, the confirmation of the Hebrews in the faith, with irreparable misery also carefully considered, which awaits those having voluntarily lapsed from, and those without, faith, concerning which both Peter speaks, 2 Peter 2:20-22, and also Paul, Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:26-31:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part I, chapter III, columns 183-187.

              3.  Peter says that Paul wrote this Epistle to the Jews, κατὰ τὴν αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν σοφίαν, according to the wisdom given unto him.  For Paul had indeed acquired this wisdom by his own zeal, Galatians 1:14; but he had to a greater extent received it as a gift from the Lord of the Church, Galatians 1:12; he himself declares that he speaks this divine Wisdom, 1 Corinthians 2:6, 7; but in none of the Pauline Epistles do the beams of heavenly wisdom so shine as in this Epistle to the Hebrews, whether you have regard unto the majesty of the thoughts, or unto the sublimity of the mysteries, or unto the force of the arguments taken from the history, prophecies, and types:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part I, chapter IV, columns 187, 188.

              4.  It no less squares with this Epistle, what Peter adds concerning certain δυσνοήτοις, things hard to be understood, in the Pauline Epistles, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν, which the unlearned and unstable wrest unto their own destruction.  For this is demonstrated by the commentaries of all the Interpreters, greatly laboring in the exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews; moreover, the Apostle himself indicates that he is going to set forth that sublime doctrine concerning the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchisedec:  for he writes of this argument, Hebrews 5:11, περὶ οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος καὶ δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered.  But both the Novatians[1] and the Arians abused this Epistle, and twisted its argument unto the support of their errors:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part I, chapter V, columns 188-191.

All these things taken together hardly leave any doubt that Peter, in 2 Peter 3:15, 16, commended the Epistle that we have, entitled to the Hebrews, as written by Paul.

β.  A second argument is sought from the constant Tradition of the Greeks, approved by many of the Latins; inasmuch as SPANHEIM gathered thirty or more testimonies of the Greeks to this purpose, with whom agree of the more ancient Latins Clement of Rome, Cyprian or the Author of the book de Cardinalibus operibus Christi,[2] Arnobius, and Marius Victorinus Afer,[3] while the rest do not have sufficient reasons for doubt:  But in the fourth Century this Epistle was acknowledged in the Third Synod of Carthage, in the year 397,[4] as divine and Pauline, at which Augustine was present.  Paulinus also, σύγχρονος/contemporaneous with Jerome and Augustine, several times cites this Epistle as Pauline:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part I, chapters VI-VIII, columns 191-213.

γ.  Moreover, we argue from Affection of Paul unto his own nation, to which he testifies with such feeling, Romans 9:1-3; 10:1; but this does not appear to allow that the Apostle might be said to have been so forgetful of the Jews that he would not write unto them separately even one Epistle.  He was indeed the Apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was the Apostle to the Circumcision, according to Galatians 2:7-9.  But this ought not to be extended to such an extent that by reason of office no care of the Gentiles touched Peter, and no care of the Jews touched Paul:  one may discern the contrary, Acts 15:7; Romans 11:13-15:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter VI, § 6-8, columns 230, 231.

δ.  One may also undoubtedly argue from reasons incorporated in the Epistle, which are supplied by:

              1.  The Conclusion, which is altogether Pauline, whether you have regard unto the prayer, Hebrews 13:20, 21, compared with 1 Thessalonians 5:23; etc.; or unto the greeting, almost perpetual in Paul, Hebrews 13:24; or unto his customary seal, by which all things are brought to a conclusion, Hebrews 13:25, ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.  Ἀμήν, Grace be with you all:  Amen:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter III, columns 223, 224.

              2.  The State of the writer, who sends his Epistle from Italian bonds, from which, nevertheless, he hopes to be released shortly; see Hebrews 10:34; 13:19, 23.  But unto whom do these things agree more than unto the Apostle Paul, and his first Roman imprisonment, from which he wrote so many Epistles, in which he is not at all forgetful of his τῶν δεσμῶν, bonds, as it is evident from an inspection of the Epistles to the Ephesians,[5] Philippians,[6] Colossians,[7] and Philemon;[8] and also from 2 Timothy,[9] but which is referred to the last imprisonment of Paul by the best Interpreters; while also elsewhere he expresses a hope for his imminent release from bonds, Philippians 1:26; Philemon 22:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter IV, columns 224-227.

              3.  The Place of Writing, from Italy, Hebrews 13:24, to which place we read, in Acts 27 and 28, that Paul was taken as a prisoner, and from which it is evident that several letters were written by him:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter IV, columns 224-227.

              4.  The Mention of Timothy, as a sharer in his journeys and bonds, Hebrews 13:23, which is customary in all the Epistles of Paul, with Galatians and Titus alone excepted; whom also, as here, he is wont to call brother, 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter V, columns 227, 228.

              5.  The Scope/goal of the doctrine, which is to draw the Jews from the ceremonies by a consideration of the person, offices, and benefits of Christ, and of the present Gospel economy, and to exhort them to conversation worthy of the Gospel, afflictions notwithstanding:  which, whether you have regard unto the argument, or unto the method, wholly breathe the Pauline genius and style; than who no one ever acted with greater courage and zeal, that he might draw both Jews and Greeks from ceremonies to the grace of Christ; to which the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Colossians bear witness:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter VI, § 1-5, columns 229, 230.

It is not necessary to heap up further arguments, since the things that we have recited far outweigh those that are moved to the contrary:

α.  For what diversity of Style between this and the other Pauline Epistles they imagine here, 1.  that could be attributed to a measure of diversity of argument, but it is really not so great:  indeed, 2.  contrariwise, the Most Illustrious SPANHEIM’S, in his Exercitationibus laudatis, part II, chapters I, II, columns 217-223, demonstrates at length that the Pauline genius of speech is easily able to be observed in this Epistle, if you compare, a.  the Phraseology of this Epistle with the other Epistles of Paul, in which occur not only very similar modes of speech, but also words used only by Paul, of which sort are πληροφορία,[10] and μεσίτης/mediator,[11] an elogium of Christ.  b.  If you attend to the several elogia, with which Paul is wont to distinguish Christ, which you also find here:  if you attend to certain sayings of the Old Testament, which Paul is wont to cite, which are also cited here:  and if you attend to the custom of Paul according to his wisdom to apply certain obscure oracles and histories of the Old Testament to Christianity, which he especially did in this Epistle most of all:  see also SPANHEIM, in his Exercitationibus laudatis, part III, chapter I, columns 241-245.

β.  They add that this does not touch the argument from the omission of an Inscription, to this effect:  What Epistle does not have the name and office of Paul prefixed after the manner of the Pauline Epistles, the same does not appear to be Paul’s.  But of such a kind is that controverted Epistle to the Hebrews.  Therefore.  But this consequence does not follow; which, 1.  is demonstrated from a similar example:  in the two latter Epistles of John we find ἐπιγραφὴν, an inscription, ἀσπασμὸν, a salutation, ὑπογραφὴν, a conclusion, but in the former all these things are wanting.  2.  The error is made through a false hypothesis, as if Paul had fixed this for himself as a perpetual rule, that he would set his name at the head.  3.  If there be here anything new and singular, singular reasons for that also were not wanting to Paul.  Never in the other Epistles was his business immediately with the Hebrews:  but, a.  of what name should Paul, in writing to them, make use in his Inscription? he would have inscribed himself as either Paul, or Saul.  He did not wish the latter:  a.  because he had previously disregarded that name, b.  because some time before he had become known to the Churches under the name of Paul, c.  because perhaps a suspicion would have arisen among the Gentiles that he had returned to Judaism as a result of the resumption of his Jewish name.  Neither did he wish the former, which name of Paul, as Roman, Gentile, and assumed among the Gentiles, unto a certain despite of his Hebrew name, he would have recognized to have been hateful to the Hebrews, and not naturally suited for capturing their goodwill or attention.  b.  He wanted to move the Hebrews to agreement, not so much by the authority of his name, as by the holiness of his doctrine, agreeing with Moses in all respects.  c.  Moreover, Paul was not an Apostle of the Circumcision:  therefore, he, writing to the Hebrews, did not desire to set his name at the head of the Epistle, lest he should offend the Apostles of the Circumcision, or appear further to limit their Apostolate, or ambitiously to raise himself above the others.  Now, he appears to write to the Hebrews, more on account of the circumstance and occasion of the afflictions with which the Hebrews were pressed, than on account of the authority of his office.  And hence he asks for permission to write, as it were, since he was not their Apostle in particular, Hebrews 13:22.  4.  Paul, just like any other Writer, was able to pass over his name in silence:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part III, chapters III and IV; Miscellanearum Sacrarum Antiquitatum, book II, columns 253-259.

γ.  Equally invalid is the argument from Hebrews 2:3, upon which passage CALVIN in his Commentario wrote:  “Moreover, this passage is an indication that the Epistle was not composed by Paul:  for he was not wont to speak so humbly as to admit himself to be one of the disciples of the Apostles.”

Responses:  1.  This is to set in opposition what things are able to be set together, and to separate what things are to be conjoined.  Paul as an Apostle was indeed immediately taught by Christ the lofty mysteries of the faith, but at the same time concerning those he was able to be confirmed, βεβαιωθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων, to be confirmed by them that heard; not so much that he himself was to be confirmed, as the doctrine of salvation, ἥτις (that is, σωτηρία) ἐβεβαιώθη, which (that is, salvation) was confirmed; not ἡμῖν, to us, but εἰς ἡμᾶς, properly unto us; consult WOLF’S Curas philologicas et criticas on Hebrews 2:3.  And so he learned from Christ what things he was obliged to know:  the same were confirmed to him for the sake of a more abundant certainty by eyewitnesses, comparing Galatians 1:18, 19; 2:2.  Neither does Paul exclude himself ἀπλῶς/absolutely from the number of τῶν ἀκουσάντων, those that heard, but only κατὰ τὶ, relatively:  that is, Paul was not of the number of τῶν ἀκουσάντων, those that heard, Christ on the earth and in the state of humiliation, from whom hence he was able to distinguish himself:  subsequently he himself was also a ἀκούσας/ hearer and θεωρήσας/eye-witness, but miraculously, after the exaltation of Christ.

2.  But Paul is also able to be said to proceed by speaking through ἀνακοίνωσιν/anacœnosis,[12] so that salvation was confirmed to us, to the greater part of our men, to you, believers, the Church, and unto you.  a.  For thus Paul spoke in the beginning of the verse:  πῶς ἡμεῖς ἐκφευξόμεθα τηλικαύτης ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας, how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; but also in verse 1, δεῖ ἡμᾶς προσέχειν, μήποτε παραρρυῶμεν, we ought to give heed, lest at any time we should let them slip.  But Paul was so very far from the danger of that dreaded punishment, or of negligence, or of falling away.  b.  The use of that ἀνακοινώσεως/anacœnosis, is quite common in our Author, Hebrews 6:1, ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώμεθα, let us go on unto perfection; Hebrews 10:26, ἐκουσίως ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν, if we sin willfully.  c.  This also is especially common to Paul elsewhere, 1 Thessalonians 4:17, ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες, we which are alive; 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52; etc.  d.  Here Paul is no less able to be reckoned as one to be included among τοῖς ἀκούσασι, those that heard, although he appears to distinguish himself from them; as Jude is to be reckoned among the Apostles, from whom he could nevertheless appear to distinguish himself also, Jude 17, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Κυρίου, etc., by the Apostles of the Lord, etc.  For, just as Jude was of the Apostles, so also Paul was of the immediate hearers of the Lord.  e.  Now, the Apostle speaks by ἀνακοίνωσιν/anacœnosis, so that he might more easily persuade, and so that he might all the more insinuate himself and his own among the Hebrews:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part III, chapter V, Miscellanearum Sacrarum Antiquitatum, book II, columns 260-262.

δ.  Finally, they that deny Paul to be the author of this Epistle argue from the uncertain traditions of certain Latins, dependent upon mere conjecture.

              1.  Thus, according to some, this Epistle was credited to Luke the Evangelist, with this being mentioned by ORIGEN in Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book VI, chapter XXV, at the end, and by JEROME in his Catalogo Scriptoribus illustribus, on Paul, opera, tome I, page 267; neither does CALVIN differ from our men on Hebrews 13:23.  But nothing is brought forward for Luke that has not already been adduced by us for Paul with much greater right conjoined with far more reasons:   see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter VII, § 1-5, columns 231, 232.

              2.  To some others it seems right to assign Clement of Rome to this Epistle as author, with this being related by ORIGEN and JEROME in the passages cited, and also PHILASTRIUS in his Hæreseos LXXXIX; ERASMUS also subscribes to this opinion, on Hebrews 13:24.  But no probable reason is produced for Clement as author of this Epistle, except the agreement of speech between this Epistle and Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians:  but concerning this everyone judges according to his own inclination.  On the other hand, against Clement, there is, a.  that Clement is enumerated among Ecclesiastical, not θεοπνεύστοις/inspired, writers.  b.  That he appears to have been a Roman man and a foreigner, not so involved in the matters of the Hebrews.  c.  That Hebrews 13:19 does not square with him, for how is it that he was hoping from Italy to be brought back to the Hebrews? see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter VII, § 6-12, columns 233, 234.

3.  TERTULLIAN, libro de Pudicitia, chapter XX, with JEROME also making mention of the matter in Catalogo Scriptoribus illustribus, on Paul; and with Tertullian others of the Ancients, with JEROME in his Epistola ad Dardanum, opera, tome 3, page 68, and PHILASTRIUS in his Hæreseos LXXXIX, relating this, ascribe the Epistle to Barnabas; which opinion has been renewed by JOHN CAMERON, question 2 in Epistola ad Hebræos, opera, pages 369, 370.  But, a.  it is not certain that Barnabas was in Italy, still less in chains:  b.  As it is not certain that Timothy was a companion of Barnabas, after that separation treated in Acts 15:39.  c.  Barnabas’ zeal for Christian liberty was not so great as is here demonstrated, by a comparison with Galatians 2:13.  d.  If the other Epistle truly belongs to Barnabas, which survives to the present,[13] that Epistle to the Hebrews differs from Barnabas’ far rougher and much more βαρβαρίζοντι/barbarous speech:  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter VIII, columns 234-239.

4.  Finally, I do not even make mention of Apollos, since not one of the Ancients ascribed any Epistle to him, much less this one, so that the more recent opinion of LUTHER is destitute of all authority, who on Genesis 48:20 admits his judgment that Apollos is the author of this Epistle to be arbitrary.  Although, if it is to be withdrawn from Paul, it is not to be denied that probable reason especially militates in favor of Apollos:  since he was a Hebrew, eloquent, to whom some of the Corinthians adhered more than they did to Paul, mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit, and disputing frequently with the Jews:[14]  see SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part II, chapter IX, columns 239, 240.  Hence it is not so strange that Luther also found some followers of his opinion, namely, HEUMANN,[15] LAURENTIUS MULLERUS,[16] and JEAN LE CLERC, with WOLF relating, but at the same time enervating, that opinion, Prolegomenis in Epistolam ad Hebræos, pages 590, 591, whom consult with additional material concerning the AUTHOR of this Epistle, Prolegomenis in Epistolam ad Hebræos in Curis philologicis et criticis, pages 583-590.

Even recently, against the arguments of PHILIP VAN LIMBORCH,[17] Prolegomenis ad Commentarium in Epistolam ad Hebræos, and JEAN LE CLERC, Historia Ecclesiastica, Century I, on the year LXIX, § V, numbers 1-3, Reverend NICOLAAS HARTMAN claimed the Epistle to the Hebrews for Paul, Huysbybel in Epistolam ad Hebræos, pages 226-229.  Now, since the Arminian Writers just cited hardly have anything new that, it ought to be concluded, has not already been sufficiently addressed by Spanheim; and since the argumentation of Hartman likewise also only makes for the greater confirmation of those things that were formerly alleged by Spanheim, even indeed more copiously according to his custom; in striking down the arguments of Limborch and Le Clerc we do not much linger.  For example,

They object, 1.  that this Epistle was written in a Style diverse from the Pauline and more polished and elegant.

But see how Objection α above was answered by Spanheim.  Hartman replies:  1.  I do not presume to judge for myself concerning this matter:  but would οἱ ἐξ ἐναντίας, those of the opposite side, say, that they sincerely believe that Paul was lacking the ability to write an Epistle in a style of this sort? or was lacking a reason for making use of this style?  2.  The Greek Church was formerly in a better position to judge of the Greek style of this Epistle, which Church with unanimous consent claimed the Epistle for Paul, doubtlessly brought to this by indisputable reasons; than after so many ages one or the other learned man, who as proof of their eminent erudition sometimes peddle that which is indebted rather to their audacious temerity for its origin.

They object, 2.  that Paul did not record his Name, nor anywhere in this Epistle make mention of his Apostleship.

But see again the response of Spanheim to Objection β above.  1.  This can strike us as strange, says Hartman, but only if we ignore the rationale.  This was certainly not so that the author might lie hidden, who through the courier or in some other manner was most certainly known to those to whom this Epistle was sent, and who through the arguments and evidence incorporated in the Epistle, especially at the end of chapter 13 in the conclusion of the Epistle, manifestly enough revealed himself.  2.  These things do not make for the removal of this Epistle from Paul against the constant tradition of the Greek and Oriental Church, to which this Epistle was sent in the first place, and unto a special portion of which he was most nearly having regard.  3.  What then would become of the Epistles of John, on which also he did not set his name, and only described himself by the more common title of Πρεσβυτέρου/elder?  What shall we think of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, the writers of which similarly did not express their names, nor make mention of their authority as Apostles or Evangelists?  4.  Neither is it to be said that by someone other than Paul Timothy was also able to be described in such a way as it is done in Hebrews 13:23.  For, although this is able to be done, it is asked whether it was thus done elsewhere by any other than Paul; and whether or not this circumstance, conjoined with all the others occurring here, leads us surely to Paul more than any other?

They object, 3.  that the Writer of this Epistle expressly distinguishes himself from the Apostles, and numbers himself among their disciples, Hebrews 2:3.

But besides those things that were mentioned out of Spanheim on Objection γ, and which abundantly suffice for the blunting of the force of this arrow:  Hartman is not at all able to tolerate these things, inasmuch as Limborch, after he had pled this with all effort, that not the Apostle Paul, but rather some disciple of the Apostles, is held as the writer of this Epistle; nevertheless, in the end asserts that it is probable that this same Epistle was written by one of the companions of Paul, even indeed with Paul being aware, and was drawn from the doctrine of Paul:  indeed, it is evident, not only that the divine authority of this Epistle is to be acknowledged, but that the authority is even the same with the many others which were written by the Apostles, on account of which he considers giving preference to the excellence of the argument.  In which manner Hartman thinks that Limborch indulges too much in contradictory conjectures; inasmuch as from the style he had concluded that the Epistle does not belong to Paul; but from the argument he again infers that Paul furnished the material for it:  and he thinks that a strange idea of the Apostle he forms for himself, who judges that a man that is not the Apostle is equal to writing a more excellent Epistle than what might proceed from the Apostle himself.

They object, 4.  If this Epistle, which was written in Italy, be Paul’s, the Italian Churches, especially the Roman, and again the rest of the Latin Church, would have been aware of this matter:  consequently, this matter would not have been doubted in the Latin and Western Church.

Responses:  1.  Οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας, they of Italy, certainly knew that this Epistle was written, and recognized its author, at the time when it was written; for through him they greet the brethren to whom it was sent:  but this does not prevent this matter from being able to be doubted in the time following.  2.  This argument is able to be turned back.  The author of this Epistle, written in Italy, and through which οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας, they of Italy, greet the others, was undoubtedly known in Italy at the time of the writing:  hence its author, whoever he may have been, was thereafter never able to come into doubt, nor to be doubted, whether it was Luke, or Clement, or Barnabas.  However, we know that this happened.  Whatever they that move this objection might give in response, might also be repeated back to them.  But if that doubt of some Latins be not obstacle to the divinity and canonical authority of this Epistle, which they maintain to be air-tight; neither will it be an obstacle to the acknowledgement of Paul as its author.

But we so much more willingly stand for PAUL as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, because thus the authority of the Epistle is more easily established also.  BUDDEUS, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 4, tome 2, page 1484, cites a fair number that could be consulted in favor of Paul as author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and he himself adds:  Now, today it is a position beyond doubt, that Paul is the author of this Epistle, and that proven by such powerful arguments that he who would deny this is going demonstrate his mind to be set upon calling the clearest evidences into doubt:  consult also AUGUSTUS LUDOVICUS ZACHARIÆ on Hebrews 13:16 in Bibliotheca Bremense nova, classis VI, fascicle III, chapter II, § 2, page 221.

[1] Novatian (c. 200-258) was a priest and scholar.  He argued against readmission to the church for those that had lapsed during persecution, and this brought him into conflict with the Roman Bishop Cornelius.  Novatian was excommunicated.  The Novatians broke away from the Catholic Church, even rebaptizing converts.

[2] De Cardinalibus operibus Christi was printed in the Leiden edition (1555) of Cyprian’s works, but it was probably the work of another, and may have been written at a significantly later date.

[3] Gaius Marius Victorinus (fourth century) was a Roman rhetorician who converted to Christianity late in life, possibly under the influence of Augustine.

[4] The Third Council of Carthage issued a canon on the Scripture.

[5] For example, Ephesians 3:1; 4:1.

[6] Philippians 1:7, 14, 16.

[7] Colossians 4:18.

[8] Philemon 1, 9, 10.

[9] 2 Timothy 1:8; 2:9.

[10] Hebrews 6:11:  “And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance (τὴν πληροφορίαν) of hope unto the end…”  Hebrews 10:22:  “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance (πληροφορίᾳ) of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”  Colossians 2:2:  “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance (τῆς πληροφορίας) of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ…”  1 Thessalonians 1:5:  “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance (ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ); as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.”

[11] Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; Galatians 3:19, 20; 1 Timothy 2:5.

[12] That is, a form of address that demonstrates the common interest of the speaker and hearers.

[13] The Epistle of Barnabas (circa 100), although of doubtful authorship, has been traditionally ascribed to the Barnabas of Acts.

[14] Acts 18:24-26; 1 Corinthians 1:12.

[15] Christoph August Heumann (1681-1764) was a Lutheran divine, and Professor of Theology at the University of Gottingen.

[16] Lorenz Joachim Müller (1716-1771) was a German Lutheran theologian and teacher.

[17] Philip van Limborch (1633-1712) was a Dutch Remonstrant pastor and theologian, and Professor of Theology at Amsterdam (1667-1712).