15700720_068_03_s001_text.pdf

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 4|doi ./-4

vigiliae christianae (04) 4-

brill.com/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews in De pudicitia 20.1-5

E.A. de BoerTheological University KampenFree University Amsterdam, The NetherlandsUniversity of Free State, South Africa

[email protected]

Abstract

In De pudicitia Tertullian, quoting from Hebrews 6, refers to the Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos. This piece of primary evidence on the authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews has not received the attention it deserves. Consideration of this piece of evidence serves to clarify our understanding of the development of the diverging ascriptions, and more-over reveals some possible reasons for this divergence. The Barnabas tradition can be followed until the end of the fourth century in Spain and France. Comparison of De paenitentia and De pudicitia shows that Hebrews features only late in Tertullians work. His growing conviction that a second repentance after baptism cannot be terminated by acceptance in the Church was strengthened by his appeal to Hebrews 6. Finally, Tertullians exposition of two chapters from Leviticus on purity illustrate his reading of Hebrew as the Letter by Joseph Barnabas, a Levite.

Keywords

Tertullian authorship New Testament canon Letter to the Hebrews Codex Claromontanus Barnabas Pauline Letters

The first Christian Latin author to refer to the provenance of the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews is Tertullian of Carthage (c.140-c.220). In De pudicitia (c.210)1 he wrote on the sanctity of the Church and the example of the apostles at the very end of a discussion of New Testament passages:

1 Timothy David Barnes, Tertullian. A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 47.

244 de Boer

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

For there exists also a letter, entitled by Barnabas to the Hebrews, by a man sufficiently authorized by God, since Paul put him besides himself in observance of abstention: For is it only I and Barnabas who have no power to forebear working? [1 Cor 9:6] At any rate, this Letter of Barnabas is better received by the churches than that apocryphal Shepherd of the adulterers.2

What is the weight of this testimony for the history of the New Testament canon and is there any corroboration for the attribution of the Letter to the Hebrews to Barnabas? Writing on Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon Clare Rothschild has noted: Tertullian, to cite just one example, accepts the letters authority while rejecting its Pauline authorship, attributing it, rather, to Barnabas (with reference to De pud. 20).3 The text, however, does not indicate that Tertullian contemplated the possibility of Paul as author, nor of a personal preference for Barnabas.

The following questions will be addressed. What is the bearing and weight of his reference? In what context does Tertullian turn to Hebrews? Was his tes-timony of the author ever transmitted in early Christian documents? Most bib-lical commentaries on Hebrews contemplate the question of authorship. Often a reference to Tertullian, but hardly any literary study of the text, is found.4 The present study will revisit De pudicitia 20 and look for other data which may corroborate Tertullians testimony or represent the same manuscript tradition. It will show that the Barnabas tradition can be followed until the end of the fourth century in Spain and France.

2 Tertullian, De pudicitia 20.2: Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, a Deo satis auctori-tati uiri, ut quem Paulus iuxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore: aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus operandi potestatem? Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum (CCSL 2, 1324).

3 Clare K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon. The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews, WUNT 235 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 20 n.15. Most biblical commentaries on Hebrews have a passage on authorship. E.g. Otto Michel mentions der Barnabas-Hypothese of Tertullian and Gregory of Elvira (Der Brief an die Hebrer (Gttingen, 1966), 38). Peter Stuhlmacher mentions Barnabas von dessen Autorschaft Tertullian gehrt hat (Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2 (Gttingen, 1999), 87). The text of De pud. 20 is quoted and briefly discussed in Eduard Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebrar (Leipzig, 1913; O. Hofius ed., Wuppertal, 1987), p. XI; F.W. Grosheide, De brief aan de Hebreen en de brief van Jakobus (Kampen, 1955), 31.

4 No study of De pud. 20 is mentioned in Chronica Tertullianea et Cyprianea 1975-1994. Bibliographie critique de la premire littrature latine chrtienne, eds. Ren Braun e.a. (Collection des tudes Augustiniennes. Srie Antiquit 157; Paris, 1999).

245Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews


De paenitentia and De pudicitia

Tertullians opusculum, as he calls it (4.2.), On sexual purity clearly falls in his Montanist period. He describes it as adversus psychicos titulus (1.10), that is against people who take a spiritual position in ethical questions, a position which he admits to have held before. In his earlier De paenitentiato be trans-lated as On Conversionhe had written a positive, almost missionary view of the divine call to paenitentia. To that repentance you (so much like meI am even less, for I acknowledge that I excel in sins) have to hasten, as a ship-wrecked man to embrace the help of some plank (De paen. 4.2). Such a line comes close to the personal note on which Tertullian ended his De baptismo: I just beseech you, when you pray, that you will even remember the sinner Tertullian (De bapt. XX 5). On the same note De paenitentia closes: For sinner as I am in every respect and born for nothing else but repentance... (De paen. XII 9). Still, the penance, described in De paenitentia, received the form of a ritual, the exomologesis (used in verbal form in the New Testament for confessing of sin). Yet no sin is excluded from the invitation to acts of pen-ance as a way of honest and unconditional repentance (with the idea of accep-tance in Church). Tertullian seems not yet to have wrestled with Hebrews 6.

The Letter to the Hebrews does not feature in Tertullians earlier essay on repentance and conversion. Was our author at that date (before 203) aware if its existence?5 There are two works in which Tertullian is leafing through his collection of New Testament books. In Scorpiace (203/4) he mentions Peter, John, and James and quoted from 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelations (Scorp. XII). In the next chapter he discusses Paul and his letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians and 2 Timothy. Summarizing what he wrote on the apostolorum litterae, he finally turns to Acts for illustration (Acta decurrens; Scorp. XV 1). Hebrews, however, is neither quoted nor mentioned. Also later in Adversus Marcionem V (207/8) Tertullian specifies the titles of thirteen letters by Paul, but does not mention Hebrews. Additionally, in a work where one would expect an awareness of Hebrews 1-2, Adversus Praxean, no reference to this Letter is found. In his early work Tertullian shows no awareness of the Letter to the Hebrews.

In only three works do we encounter words which may reflect acquain-tance with the text of Hebrews. In Adversus Iudaeos we read a reference to Melchizedek, summi dei sacerdos, but this may also have been taken from

5 For the dating of Tertullians works see Timothy David Barnes, Tertullian. A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford, 1971), 55.

246 de Boer


the Vetus Latina of Genesis 14.6 The same can be said of the Latin translation of Psalm 8: 5-7, and Hebrews 2: 7 as read by Tertullian.7 There are only a few examples where Tertullian used a specific term which sounds reminiscent of a word in Hebrews. Both in Adversus Iudaeos and in De anima he writes of Enoch who was taken away by faith (translatus est), as the Vetus Latina ren-ders Genesis4:24.8 Also in Adversus Iudaeos Tertullian speaks of Christ who was crucified outside the city, while the Vetus Latina reads in Hebrews 13:13: Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. For here we do not have an enduring city.9

It is only in De pudicitia that the Letter to the Hebrews comes into full view. The question that lies at the heart of this later work is whether or not the Church can accept a repentant sinner who, after his conversion and baptism, falls into the sin of adultery. Tertullians unequivocal stand is that such a sinner should remain repentant before God until the end of his life and hope for Gods for-giveness, but that the Church cannot absolve him from his sins and accept him as a member again. God himself will judge in the end whether or not this repentant and penitent person was acceptable for salvation.

After a passionate description of the value of pudicitia, deriving everything from heaven: both its nature by the baptism of regeneration, its discipline through the help of preaching, and its judgment through the verdicts from the two Testaments (1.5), Tertullian describes the occasion of his writing. A pon-tifex maximus, who is the highest bishop (episcopus episcoporum), issued the following decree: I forgive sins of adultery and of fornication to those who have performed penance (1.6). The decree and the description of this high-ranking bishop are the only clues which may help to establish a date for the writing of De pudicitia. Callistus of Rome (217-222) is often mentioned as candidate. T.D. Barnes, however, has suggested that the bishop should not be

6 Tertullian, Adv. Iud. II 16; Hebr 7:1; Gen 14:18.7 Tertullian, Adv. Iud. XIV 5 reads posteaquam diminuit eum modicum quid citra angelos, glo-

ria et honore coronabit eum et subiciet omnia pedibus eius, while the Vulgate has Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis, gloria et honore coronasti eum [...], omnia subiecisti sub pedi-bus eius (Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel vol. 25, ed. Hermann Josef Frede (Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1975-91), 1127-31).

8 Tertullian, De anima L 5 (Translatus est Enoch et Helias nec mors eorum reperta est; CCL 2, 856); Adv. Iud. II 13 (Nam et Enoch iustissimum non circumcisum nec sabbatizantem de hoc mundo transtulit, qui necdum mortem gustavit...). Cf. Vetus Latina 25, 1505-1507.

9 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Iud. XIV 9 (extra civitatem crucifixus est; CCL 2, 1394) and Vetus Latina (exeamus igitur ad eum extra castra, improperium eius portantes, nec enim habemus hic manentem civitatem; vol. 25, 1639-1641).



looked for in Rome, but in Carthage.10 The work must be of a later date than De paenitentia in which Tertullian had still allowed a second repentance after baptism for any sin. For the purpose of our present study it suffices to conclude that De pudicitia is a late work of Tertullian, written around 210 and addressing a high ranking bishop.11

The main line of this treatise is a discussion of New Testament passages pertinent to sin and conversion. After an exposition of some parables from the Gospel (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son; De pud. 8-11). Tertullian moves from Acts 15 to St. Pauls Letters (12-18). Following the Pauline letters he adduces St. John in the book of Revelation and Johns First Letter (19).12 Tertullians discussion of New Testament books is then brought to an end in the passage, quoted at the beginning of the present study: There even does exist Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos... (20.2). It seems that Tertullian had since became aware of its existence and that he values its contents so much that he wants to draw attention to the Letter and status of its author.

Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos

Writing on the disciplina apostolorum Tertullian stated that their teaching is that the sanctity of the Church excludes every sacrilege of impurity without any mention of restitution. As an example he adduces the testimony of a com-panion of the apostles, who is capable of confirming the discipline of the apos-tles as nearest witness (De pud. 20.1). Having thus introduced the point in question Tertullian continues: Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos...

10 See Claudio Micaelli in: Tertullien, La pudicit (De pudicitia), vol. 1, ed. Claudio MicaelliCharles Munier (Sources Chrtiennes 394; Paris, 1993), 10-38; Barnes, Tertullian, 247. Barnes main argument against an opponent in Rome is the line id est ad omnem eccle-siam Petri propinquam, that is to every nearby church of Peter (Pud. 21.9), according to the text of CCSL 1, 1327. Moreover, Munier in SC 394 reads provinciam (272), l. 45).

11 Antti Marjanen, Montanism: Egalitarian Ecstatic New Prophecy, in A Companion to Second-Century Christian Heretics, eds. Antti Marjanen, Petri Luomanen (Leiden, 2008), 185-212.

12 Cyprian of Carthage, meditating on the number seven, also mentioned Apostolus Paulus, qui huius numeri legitimi et certi meminit, ad septem ecclesias scripsit (Ad. Fort. 11; CCSL 3, 205, ll. 102-102; cf. Adv. Iud. 1.20; PL 4, 716). The Cheltenham Canon, dated c. 360 and located in North Africa, limits Pauls letters to thirteen and does not mention Hebrews (Rainer Riesner, Der Hebrer-Brief nach Altkirchlichen Zeugnissen, European Journal of Theology 11/1 (2002), 21 (15-29)). Since James and Jude are also omitted, the text may be corrupt.

248 de Boer


(as quoted in translation above). What does the subject of the sentence Barnabae titulus mean? The Latin titulus (Greek ) refers to a title, a heading, or a (library) tag.13 With the verbal form extat Tertullian states the fact that there remains a [work] by Barnabas, entitled To the Hebrews. The fact that Tertullian speaks of a titulus in which the name of Barnabas occurs in con-nection to Ad Hebraeos, points at a heading in either a (Greek) manuscript or a (Latin) translation.

Before quoting from the referred work Tertullian says on Barnabas that he is a man who has been authorized sufficiently by God, since Paul placed him besides himself in the observance of abstinence: Or do only I and Barnabas not have the right to act so? [1 Cor. 6:9]. Paul and Barnabas did not rely on financial support from the congregations, nor did they takes their spouses with them on their travels. They worked for their living and travelled together, but without female company. The reference to a specific verse in 1 Corinthians 9 serves to highlight the authority of the author of Ad Hebraeos.

The last general statement on the Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos in De pudici-tia 20.2 is: At any rate the Letter of Barnabas is more accepted by the churches than that apocryphal Pastor of the fornicators. In paragraph 10 Tertullian had already stated what he thought of the book Pastor Hermae, who is the only one who loves adulterers (10.12). This statement raises the question of whether Tertullian, comparing the epistola Barnabae and the Pastor Hermae, in fact thought of the so-called Letter of Barnabas? In the East this Greek letter is found, for example, in the codex Sinaticus following Revelation and before the Shepherd of Hermas. In the West, however, the work was never regarded as authoritative writing. Within De pudicitia 20.2 the epistola Barnabae must be identical with the Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos. Tertullian could not have con-fused the Letter to the Hebrews and the so-called Letter of Barnabas, because the quote he has been introducing is not found in that work.

In De pudicitia 20.3 the author takes up the introduction on the discipline of the apostles. Thus he exhorted his disciples, leaving all beginnings behind, to proceed towards perfection and to not again lay the foundation of repentance by works of the dead. Thus summarising Hebrews 6:1-2, Tertullian proceeds with an extended quote, introduced by the main verb of the whole paragraph inquit, of Hebrews 6:4-8a passage which is also valuable as testimony to the Vetus Latina (De pud. 20.3-4).14

13 In De pud. 1.10 Tertullian refers to hic adversus psychicos titulus.14 See Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel vol. 25, ed. Hermann Josef Frede

(Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1975-91), 1264-75.



Tertullian reaches the following conclusion, again describing Barnabas: He who had learned this from the apostles and taught it with the apostles, never knew of a second conversion for adulterers and fornicators as promised by the apostles. For he interpreted the law very well and he preserved its ceremonies in the very truth (De pud. 20.5).15 The first line of this concluding passage again connects the author to the apostles, in whose company he worked, and states that he did not teach a second conversion. The second line seems to be a sum-mary of the Letter to the Hebrews as an interpretation of the Old Testament lex and its figurae.

Tertullian finally turns to the Old Testament book Leviticus to illustrate the authors (himself a Levite) hermeneutics of the Law. Tertullian adduces the extensive law on leprosy of Lev. 13-14. Conversion and baptism are compared to the case of healing from leprosy. On inspection by the Priest the healed per-son is cleansed, having received the whiteness of the faith. But when a house (which could be affected by mould, resembling leprosy) is contaminated the bad stones should be taken out and dumped into an unclean place outside the town (Lev. 14:40, quoted in De pud. XX 9). The high priest of the Father, Christ, entered the unclean house (flesh and soul) and polished the stones for renewed use. The clean stones can be used again and the house plastered anew. However, when leprosy breaks out again in the house of man, the whole structure shall be demolished and taken out of town to an unclean place. So also the man, body and soul, who being renewed after baptism and the enter-ing of the priests (qui post baptismum et introitum sacerdotum reformatus) fell into serious sexual sin can no more be rebuilt in the Church after his ruin (De pud. XX 12). Tertullian, inspired by the Letter to the Hebrews, expounded the laws involving the Levites and applied its teachings to bring home his point: a second repentance cannot be accepted and ended in the Christian church. Neither apostles nor martyrs can absolve such a sinner. Only death, as a second baptism, can bring forgiveness, which is Gods alone to grant.

To summarize: In De pudicitia 20 Tertullian quoted a passage from Hebrews 6 from a Latin translation or translated it from a Greek manuscript. The titu-lus on the manuscript or the title tag in the library, evidently read Barnabae ad Hebraeos. Our findings are that in Carthage, North Africa, at the beginning of the third century the Letter to the Hebrews was clearly received as from Barnabas, the early companion of Paul. While the status is receptior16 apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae (over against the apocryphal Pastor [Hermae],

15 Tertullian, De pudicitia 20.3-5 (CCSL 2, 1325, ll. 22-24).16 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.5.5: Nam et competit ut, si qui evangelium pervertant, eorum

magis curarent perversionem, quorum sciebant auctoritatem receptiorem.

250 de Boer


which he calls derisively moechorum), the title is given without any doubt regarding its authenticity and without any thought of possible Pauline author-ship. Writing a highly polemical treatise Tertullian could not afford to refer to a writing of which the authenticity and even apostolicity was questioned. For Tertullian, regarding the Levite Barnabas as author of Hebrews, it was a logical conclusion to proceed with an exposition of a law from Leviticus.

Transmission of Tertullians titulus

Tertullians testimony was summarized and transmitted by Jerome who noted on the Letter to the Hebrews that is was not believed to have been written by Paul because of different style and speech, but by Barnabas (according to Tertullian), by Luke the evangelist (according to some), or by Clement, later bishop of the church of Rome [...].17 This line was transcribed, for example, by Pelagius in his introduction to his commentary on Pauls Letters.18 In the 16th century, when Pauline authorship was established and regarded as doctrine, it was cardinal Cajetan (Tomasso de Vio) who in 1532 in his Epistolae Pauli et alio-rum apostolorum ad Graecam veritatem castigatae again presented Tertullians testimony.19

Tertullians writings from his Montanist period survived in only a few man-uscripts, which served as the basis of the 16th century editions. De pudicitia was not included in the editio princeps of Tertullians works in print, produced by Beatus Rhenanus in 1521 (at Johannes Frobens in Basel). It was introduced in the 1545 edition by Martin Mesnard (at Jean Gagnys in Paris).20 Although Tertullians later work was not transmitted broadly,21 the text of De pudicitia and his attribution of Hebrews to Barnabas were not unknown, but were dis-seminated among his writings.

17 Jerome, De viris illustribus 5: Epistola autem quae fertur ad Hebraeos, non eius creditur, propter styli sermonisque dissonantiam, sed vel Barnabae, juxta Tertullianum. See, how-ever, Jerome, Epist. 129.3 (ad Dardanum).

18 Pelagius, Expositiones XIII epistularum Pauli (PLS 1, 1110).19 Kenneth Hagen, Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Bze 1516-1598 [BGBE 23]

(Tbingen, 1981), 18, 20.20 See http://www.tertullian.org/editions/editions.htm (accessed at 27 June 2012); CCSL 1,

p. VI-VIII and Tabula II.21 CCSL 1, Tabula Ib-c; Pacianus, Paraenesis, sive exhortatorius libellus, ad poenitentiam,

PL 13, 1082-90; Dom E. Dekkers, Note on a Recently Discovered Fragments of Tertullian, Sacris Eruditi 4 (1952), 372-383.



Barnabae epistola in the fourth century

There might be other traces that corroborate the existence of a manuscript tradition of the Letter to the Hebrews including the titulus. In Ps.-Origenes, Tractatus de libris sacrarum scripturarum, tract. 10 attributes a reference to Romans 12:1, to the blessed apostle Paul, while the next quote (Hebrews 13:15) is introduced as follows:

But also the very holy Barnabas says: Let us through him offer to God a sacrifice of praise of our lips which confess his name.22

The apostles Paul and Barnabas are mentioned and quoted pointedly together. While Theodore Zahn pointed to Novatian as author of these Tractatus, they are nowadays attributed to Gregory of Elvira ( after 392, according to Jerome),23 who used the works of Tertullian, Novatian (De Trinitate), Cyprian, and Hilary extensively. A recent advocate of Novatian is Rainer Riesner, point-ing to the fact that in Rome the Letter to the Hebrews was not attributed to Paul, so that Novatian could have followed a North African tradition in regard-ing Barnabas as its author.24 The Roman presbyter wrote De bono pudicitiae, a pastoral letter commending sexual purity and reflecting knowledge of Tertullians work.25

The text of Hebrews 13:15 quoted in Ps.-Origens Tractatus is clearly attrib-uted to Barnabas. Knowledge of that tradition may stem from the manuscript cited by the author of the Tractatus. When Gregory of Elvira is taken as author of the Tractatus, this tradition survived until the end of the fourth century. Living in the province Baetica in the South of Spain, Gregory could be aware of a manuscript tradition in northern Africa and of knowledge of the provenance of Hebrews as it was preserved in Rome.

22 Sed et sanctissimus Barnabas: Per ipsum offerimus, inquit, Deo laudis hostiam labiorum confitentium nomini eius (Tractatus Origenis de libris SS. Scripturarum, ed. Petrus Batiffol (Paris, [1900]), 108; J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina. Supplementum vol. 1 (Paris, 1958), 417; Gregorii Iliberritani Episcopi quae supersunt, ed. V. Bulhart (CCSL69; Turnhout, 1967), 78 ll. 72-74.

23 Cf. Gregorii Iliberritani Episcopi quae supersunt (CCSL 69), p. LIII.24 Riesner, Der Hebrer-Brief nach Altkirchlichen Zeugnissen, 21. On Gregory of Elvira see:

Lexikon der Antiken Christlichen Literatur, Siegmar DppWilhelm Geerlings eds., 3 ed. (Freiburg / Basel / wien: Herder, 2002), 291.

25 In Novationi opera, ed. G.F. Diercks (CCSL IV; Turnhout, 1972), 113-127.

252 de Boer


A third pointer to Barnabas as author of one of the books of the New Testament is found in the Codex Ambrosianus, regarded as stemming from Rome and from the 3rd or 4th century. There, a remarkable note is written on the making of the New Testament:

On the canonical books of the New Testament the first to write was Peter, the second James, the third Matthew, the fourth Jude, fifth Paul, sextus Barnabas, seventh Luke, eighth Marc, ninth John.26

The note is a preface to the Catholic Letters. In the West the note on Barnabas could hardly hint at the so-called Letter of Barnabas since this was not regarded as authentic. That Peter is mentioned first may refer to his priority among the Twelve. James suggests the Catholic Letter of that name, followed in time by the gospel of Matthew. Mentioning Judes as an early Letter is unusual. It is striking that Paul and Barnabas are mentioned together and in this order as fifth and sixth. Donatien de Bruyne stated that only one explanation of the occurrence of sextus Barnabas remains: that is to identify our Barnabas with the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.

A fourth reference to Barnabae epistola is found in the bilingual Codex Claromontanus or D 06 (4th century; found by Theodore Beza in Clermont in northern France in 1582 and now preserved in Paris). The list itself fails to mention To the Hebrews, but does mention (between the Letter of Jude and Revelation) the Epistle of Barnabas. Some scholars take this heading as ref-erence to the Letter to the Hebrews, especially on the basis of the stichomet-ric calculation which gives for this book a total of 850 lines (which is far too little for the larger pseudepigraphic Epistle of Barnabas), somewhat less than Romans or 1 Corinthians.27 Codex Claromontanus thus gives a titulus reading Barnabae epistola for a Latin translation of the Letter to the Hebrews.

26 Donatien de Bruyne, Un prologue inconnu des pitres catholiques, in: Revue Bndictine 23 (1906), 82-87. Cf. Riesner, Der Hebrer-Brief nach Altkirchlichen Zeugnissen, 24.

27 Riesner, Der Hebrer-Brief nach Altkirchlichen Zeugnissen, 23; Robert A. Kraft in The Apostolic Fathers. A New Translation and Commentary, vol. 3, ed. Robert A. Kraft (Toronto/ New York / London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1965), 41. Linguistic research of the Latin text of this codex demonstrates that the text of Hebrews shows another translator than the Pauline letters and was added no later than the early fourth century to a corpus of thir-teen letters, that is perhaps when the authorship of Paul became established in the West (cf. Reinhard Franz Schlossnikel, Der Brief aan die Hebrer und das Corpus Paulinum. Eine linguistische Bruchstelle im Codex Claromontanus und ihre Bedeutung im Rahmen von Tekst- und Kanongeschichte [Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Buibel 24] (Freiburg, 1991)).



Second conversion or rebaptism?

Reasons why the Letter to the Hebrews was not accepted as readily as other New Testament writings can be learned from the work of Filastrius of Brescia (383/393). In his Liber de haeresibus he dedicated a chapter (no. 99) to The Heresy of Some on Pauls Letter to the Hebrews.28 In the preceding passage on apocryphal books Filastrius had listed which books may only be read in church and had distinguished between Pauls thirteen Letters, and seven others, with-out mentioning Hebrews. In chapter 99 we read: There are also some people who state that the Letter by Paul to the Hebrews it not his, but they either say that it is by the apostle Barnabas, or by Clement, bishop of the city of Rome. Even Luke has been mentioned as author. In some churches the letter to the Hebrews is read only now and then. Filastrius mentions explicitly that the rad-icalism of the Novatians on (second) conversion (poenitantia) was reason for some not to read the letter in Church (which he argues as incorrect).29 We might ask: is this also the reason why no references to Hebrews are found in the work of Cyprian of Carthage?

Philastrius does not mention Tertullian at all. In his enumeration of false religions, sects, and heresies from Old Testament times until his days he does speak of the Cataphrygists, but without pointing to North Africa. He distinguishes even the Montanists but connects them to the North African Donatists.30 Filastrius chapter on Hebrews reads as a defence of the Letter against various reasons why it is not being read in some churches. According to him Hebrews speaks against rebaptism (rebaptizatores), not against the bap-tism of penance (baptismus poenitentiae).

The following conclusion may be drawn: a tradition which ascribed the Letter to the Hebrews to Barnabas apostolos is represented in the Latin Church since Tertullian and survived until the end of the fourth century in Spain and France. This fact underlines the thought that the Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos refers to an actual manuscript in which Hebrews was not yet identified with the Corpus Paulinum (De pud. 20.2).

28 Sunt alii quoque, qui Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non asserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli, aut Clementis de urbe roma episcopi (PL 12, 1200-1202). In 1720 Paolo Gagliardi of Brescia edited the work of Filastrius and referred in the preface to a possible other work which may be attributed to the same author nempe vetus Latina Epistolae S. Barnabae Interpretatio (PL 12, 1073). It is not clear whether this refers to an exposition of Hebrews or of the pseudepigraphical Letter of Barnabas.

29 De poenitentia autem (Hebr. VI, 4; X, 26) propter Novatianos aeque (PL 12, 1201).30 PL 12, 1165f; 1196.

254 de Boer


Eusebius and the East

This survival of this manuscript tradition on Hebrews in the Latin Church is all the more surprising over against the early and solid tradition in the Greek Church which ascribed this Letter to Paul. How do we explain that the Barnabas tradition seems to have been unknown in the East?

Regarding the eastern tradition, Eusebius reports on the explicit opinion of Clement of Alexandria (c.140-c.220) in his (now lost) Hypotyposeis on the Letter to the Hebrews. Clement stated specifically that the letter is by Paul, written for the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and translated by Luke on behalf of the Greeks (which would explain why the style agrees with that of the Gospel and Acts). The reason why the words are not found written in the letterhead is clear: the Hebrews had a prejudice against him and the apostle wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name.31

It is remarkable that Clement of Alexandria regarded Hebrews as written by Paul, while on the other hand he recognized the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (which would never be accepted in the West) and identified the author as the apostle, one of the seventy and co-worker of Paul, or the prophet Barnabas.32 According to Eusebius, the also contained a concise exposition of this Epistle of Barnabas and it is after this remark that Eusebius informs his readers that Clement attributed Hebrews to Paul.

Origen regarded the Epistle of Barnabas as a .33 The fact that this work is found in the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), following Revelation, testifies to the place it held for some time in the East. On Hebrews, Eusebius also pointed out what Origen (c.185-253) in his Homiliai said about the style and contents of the letter, comparing it to Pauls writings. The first point made by Origen is, That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews does not have the apostles idiosyncracy ( ) in

31 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI 14.2-3. Eusebius relates that Philo ( 50 p.n.) read the Gospels, the writings to the apostles and some expositions (...) of the prophets after the manner of the ancients, such as are in the Epistle to the Hebrews and many other of the epistles of Paul (Hist. eccl. II 17.12). Eusebius thus stresses first the typical manner of Old Testament exposition as found in Hebrews and secondly seems to include Hebrews in the letters of Paul. Although it is unlikely that Philo of Alexandria could have known the New Testament writings, it is clear why Eusebius singled out Hebrews.

32 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata I. 7.35.4 [GCS 2, 131] ); . 20.116.3 [176] ( ... ). Cf. Eusebius, HE VI 13.6.

33 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI 14.1: ; Origenes, Contra Celsum libri VII, A 63, ed. M. Marcovich [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 54] (Leiden / Boston / Kln: Brill, 2001), 65.



speech, that is, in style; but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences in style.34 Regarding its contents Origen judged that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle [...]. Therefore, Not without reason have the men of the old time handed it down as Pauls, because the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostles teaching and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said.35 Finally Origen recorded (and Eusebius established) the account of the writer of Hebrews being either Clement of Rome or Luke, the author of the Gospel and Acts.

Eusebius not only reported on Origens esteem for Hebrews, but also showed his own convictions, rooted in the same tradition. Relating the preaching by the apostles following the destruction of Jerusalem in book III, Eusebius listed their writings. The Fourteen ( ), are clearly, and convincingly, by Paul. Yet it is not right to ignore that some do not acknowledge the one to the Hebrews, stating that the church of Rome spoke against it being of Paul.36 Eusebius promises his readers that he will discuss the matter in due time.

In his overview of the apostles successors Eusebius develops his own opin-ion. He mentions Clement of Rome (c.91-c.101), writing on their behalf to the church of Corinth, and observes thoughts and even verbal quotations paral-lel to Hebrews, thereby showing clearly that it was not a recent production, and for this reason, too, it has seemed natural to include Hebrews among the other writings of the Apostle.37 Paul would have addressed the Hebrews in their native language, while according to some the evangelist Luke translated the letter into Greek, and according to others still the translator was Clement himself (which would provide a good explanation for Clements acquaintance with Hebrews).

Jerome (c.347-419) later shared this view and reported in De viris illustri-bus XV on Clement of Rome and his Letter to the church of Corinth, which seems to me to correspond to the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews ascribed to the authorship of Paul, and uses many expressions from that same epistle which do not merely agree in sense but even in word order, and there is an alto-gether great similarity between the two.38 Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and

34 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI 25.11-1235 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI 25.13. This passage is also published as Ex origenis homiliis in epis-

tolam ad Hebraeos in PG 14, 1308-09.36 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III 3.4.37 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III 38.2-3.38 Jerome, De vir. ill. XV; PL 13, 647-50. Cf. above n. 10.

256 de Boer


Eusebius represented a strong tradition in which Pauls authorship of Hebrews was established and the peculiar traits of the Letter explained. The arguments, used in this tradition, are neither consistent not conclusive. Also, there is no manuscript evidence for a attributing Hebrews to Paul.

Rome and Hebrews

Even Eusebius did not ignore a Roman tradition, expressed by Gaius, writing in the days of Zephyrinus (198-217) in Rome, who in his Dialogus adversus Proclum (a Montanist) ascribed the thirteen letters to Paul and did not count Hebrews among them seeing that even to this day among the Romans there are those who do not consider it to be the Apostles.39 The letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, said to have been written by Clement Romanus at the end of the first century, indeed contains references to Hebrews and thereby attest early and first-hand knowledge of the Letter in Rome.

There are other data which link the Letter to the Hebrews to Rome as place of origin and which may underpin the testimony of non-Pauline authorship. Many subscriptions in the manuscripts have , thus taking Rome as place of dispatch or even writing.40 The subscriptions rarely contain a writers name, although they do name Timothy as the bearer of the Letter. This does not conflict with the report on Timothy in Hebrews 13:23 that our brother Timothy has been released, where the author added: If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you. From other New Testament data no (temporary) imprisonment of Timothy is known, nor of Paul waiting for him to be released.

There is one tradition, however, which puts both Barnabas and Timothy in Rome. The Acta Petri apostoli (c.180-190), originally written in Greek but known for the greater part only in Latin translation, tell of an appearance of Simon Magus in Rome. He succeeded in confusing the Christians, especially since Paul was not present, and neither were Timothy and Barnabas, because they were send to Macedonia by Paul.41 This detail suggests that Timothy and

39 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI 20.3.40 Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament London / New

York, 1975), 678.41 Actus Petri cum Simone IV, in A. LipsiusM. Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, vol. 1

(Leipzig, 1891/Hildesheim, 1959), 49 r. 9-10; cf. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, vol. II, 3. ed. (Tngen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964), 194. The reference in Hennecke-Schneemelcher to Acts 19:22 en Fil 2:19f, is to an earlier mission of Timothy to Macedonia (c.52). Van Houwelingen calls this tale in the Acts of Peter an apocryphal but trustworthy



Barnabas had been in Rome, even before Peter came to preach there. Peters arrival in Rome is described as after the twelve years in Jerusalem, which the Lord Christ had prescribed to him.42 Such a tradition may be connected to knowledge concerning the provenance of the Letter to the Hebrews in Rome and the continuing hesitance to ascribe it to the apostle Paul.

Barnabas,

What is the status of Barnabas in the early Church, especially in the East, close to his roots? In the New Testament Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means son of encouragement; -) is introduced by Luke (Acts 4:36). He is the one in Jerusalem who takes care of the converted Saul and takes the trouble to go and find him later in Tarsus. In the first missionary journey it is Barnabas who is mentioned first, until Paul takes a leading role (Acts 13:42). The two apostles feature as a team, also in their defence of the mission strategy in the Jerusalem Council, until they break up in a conflict over John Mark. From then on Barnabas disappears from the Acts of the Apostles. It is only in later letters, which the early Church ascribed to Paul, that we learn that he again valued John Mark and may have been reconciled with Barnabas (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11). If these letters are regarded as having been written after Paul, the positive tradition on Barnabas is even stronger.

The last note in Acts on Barnabas whereabouts is found in Lukes farewell in Acts 15: Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus (15:39), from where the Levite Joseph Barnabas originated. In the following ages no recollection of any involvement by him in the writing of Hebrews was preserved in the Greek world. It is only when in 488 Barnabas remains were thought to have been uncovered near Salamis on Cyprus that all (oral) traditions on him were brought together. The Laudatio Barnabae, compiled before 566 by Alexander

tradition (P.H.R. van Houwelingen red., Apostelen. Dragers van een spraakmakend evan-gelie (Kampen, 2010), 130 n. 31); id., Riddles around the Letter to the Hebrews, Fides Reformata 16/2 (2011), 151-162.

42 Actus Petri cum Simone IV, in: LipsiusBonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, vol. 1, 49: Lugentibus autem eis et ieiunantibus, iam instruebat deus in futurum Petrum in Hierosolymis. Adimpletis duodecim annis quod illi praeceperat dominus, Christus osten-dit illi visionem talem, dicens ei...

258 de Boer


Monachus, told the tale of Barnabas service to the gospel, but included no reference to any writings from his hand.43

No tradition on Barnabas in relation to Hebrews survived on Cyprus, the island of his birth. Epiphanius of Salamis (c.320-403) had noted in his Adversus haereses, writing against Marcion, that some codices of the New Testament count Hebrews as the fourteenth letter, but other copies put the Letter to the Hebrews in the tenth place, before 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.44 One could expect that this Bishop of Cyprus would maintain a special inter-est in his famous predecessor. He mentions Barnabas as one of the seventy-two apostles sent by Jesus and relates that Barnabas ancestors fled from war to Cyprus in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.45 Epiphanius, however, speaks nowhere of any (involvement in) letter writing by Barnabas. There are, there-fore, no eastern sources mentioning Barnabas in relation to the Letter to the Hebrews. In the Greek Church the Letter was at an early stage attributed to the apostle Paul, even though some hesitance in this regard was remembered.

Hebrews and Barnabas in Canon Lists

One papyrus manuscript (P46), dated c.200 ad, with the earliest collection of Pauls letters has Hebrews following Romans, surprisingly.46 The Muratorian Canon, however, lists Pauls known letters and does not mention Hebrews at all. These examples suggest that the place of Hebrews in the New Testament canon is relevant to the aspect of authorship. Hebrews has, as far as the manu-scripts show, always been transmitted together with Pauls Letters and not in the collection of Catholic Letters.47

Hatch has extensively described how Hebrews appears basically at three dif-ferent positions among the Pauline letters. First, it is found among the letters to churches, that is after Romans or following Corinthians. In that case its length gave Hebrews a prominent position. Secondly, Hebrews often features after

43 The work, also called Laudatio Barnabae, tells the story how Barnabas foretold his death and asked to be buried. His disciples were then to go to Paul and stay with him, until the Lord will relay to you what to do (Alexander Monachus, Laudatio Barnabae / Lobrede auf Barnabas (Fontes Christiani 46; Turnhout, 2007), 28 (p. 100)).

44 Epiphanius, Adversus haereses I, PG 41, 812.45 Epiphanius, Panarion 4.1 (GCS 25, 231); 30.24-25 (366f). 46 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament X: Hebrews, eds. Erik H.

HeenPhilip D.W. Krey (Downers Grove IL, 2005), p. XVIII.47 David Trobisch. Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments. Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung

der christlichen Bibel (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 31; Gttingen, 1996), 40, 91.



2 Thessalonians, that is, after the letters to the churches. The third position, which became dominant following the Vulgate in the West, is that Hebrews is placed after all of Pauls letters, that is, following Philemon.48 It is instructive to take a closer look at some examples of these three positions because they illustrate that the position of Hebrews in the canon remained peculiar, even when it was accepted as Pauls.

Athanasius in his famous Thirty-Ninth Festival Letter (367, Alexandria) lists twenty seven books of the New Testament: following the Catholic Letters are by Paul fourteen letters, put in this order..., where Hebrews has the tenth and last place among the letters to Churches and is placed before Pauls letters to his co-workers.49 The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (in definitive version) also place Hebrews after 2 Thessalonians.50 Also interesting in this respect is the prologue which Euthalius wrote to the Fourteen letters of St. Paul, where he places Hebrews after Thessalonians. He mentions Barnabas, not in direct relation to Hebrews, but to Pauls ministry according to Galatians 2:9, that is the agreement that Paul and Barnabas should go to the gentiles, while the other apostles went to the Jews, to those who are from the circumcision.51 Although his historical position is not clear, the Athanasius to whom Euthalius dedicated his edition of and introduction to Acts and to the Catholic Epistles, could be Athanasius of Alexandria (who placed Hebrews as the last letter to churches).

Jerome represents the days when the position of Hebrews in the canon in the West is set, that is at the end of the Pauline letters. Yet in his letter to Paulinus he mentioned: The apostle Paul wrote to seven churches (for the eighth, To the Hebrews, is put by most outside this number). After this line Jerome lists Pauls

48 W.H.P. Hatch, The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament, Harvard Theological Review 29 (1936), 133-51.

49 Athanasius, Epistolae heortasticae XXIX, PG 26, 1437. This corresponds with the place of Hebrews in the Synopsis scripturae sacrae, transmitted under his name, where the list is amplified with the opening verse of each Bible book: Decima, ad Hebaeos, cuius exor-dium est: Multifariam et multis modis olim Deus locutus patribus per prophetas, novis-sime extremis diebus locutus est nobis in Filio (PG 28, 293).

50 Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London / New York: United bible societies, 1975), 661f. on the basis of Hatch, The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament.

51 Euthalius, Prologus in quatuordecim sancti Pauli apostolic epistolas, in PG 85, 705, 773-80. Barnabas name is only mentioned in connection to Paul: siquidem Paulus gentium apos-tolus erat, non Judaeorum; societatis namque dextras dederat Petro caeterisque apostolic, ut ipse cum Barnaba in gentes; Petrus vero cum reliquis, in eos qui ex circumcisione errant, apostolatu fungeretur (PG 85, 775).

260 de Boer


letters to his co-workers.52 He knew of those Greek manuscripts which have Hebrews after 2 Thessalonians, as he could have seen in Alexandria, which he visited after completing his Bible translation. Amphilochius of Iconium (end of 4th century) composed a poem, transmitted through Gregory of Nazianzus, in which the biblical books are listed. At the end of Pauls two times seven let-ters is mentioned, and to the Hebrews one, with the added line: Some say that the one to the Hebrews is a fake, but they do not speak well. For the genuine letter is grace.53 Hilary of Poitiers mentioned in his De Trinitate of 367 quod Paulus ad Hebraeos dixerit, quoting from chapters 1 and 3.54

Patristic Commentaries on Hebrews

When does the Letter to the Hebrews feature in biblical exposition? John Chrysostom (c.349-407) in thirty-four homilies, preached late in his life and appearing after his death, gives the first full exposition in the East.55 In the introduction he dwells on the authorship of Paul, pondering why the apostle to the nations would have written a letter to the Jews. Cyril of Alexandria ( 444) also expounded Hebrews, partially also preserved in the Catenae, and regarded Paul as its author.56 This mainly anti-Arian explanation does not contain any discussion of the authorship. Theodoret of Cyr (c.393-466) followed the same anti-Arian line in his Interpretatio epistolae ad Hebraeos, but went a step further.57 In the argumentum he warned against the Arians who separate this letter from the other apostolic ones and call it a forgery (, as Eusebius labelled the Epistle of Barnabas, as also ).58 Theodoret appealed to Eusebius who defended Pauline authorship: Paul wrote

52 Hieronymus, Epistula 54 ad Paulinum (PL 22, 548).53 Amphilochius (Hatch, The Position of Hebrews, 143) in Gregorius, Carminum liber II/2, ll.

306-309: [...] . / , / GP 37, 1597).

54 Hilarius, De Trin. 4.11 (CCSL 62, 112).55 John Chrysostomus, In epistulam ad Hebraeos argumentum et homiliae 1-34, PG 63, 13-236.56 PG 74, 953-1005.57 Theodoretus, Interpretatio in epistulam ad Hebraeos, PG 82, 673-785. Theodore of

Mopsuestias work on Hebrews is found in Fragmenta in epistulam ad Hebraeos, in Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, 2 ed. Karl Swaab (Mnster/Westfalen: Aschendorff, 1984), 200-12.

58 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III 25.4-5.



the Letter in the Hebrew language and Clement [of Rome] translated it.59 John of Damascus, building on the work of Chrysostom, added a short passage to his exposition in which he attributed the Letter to the Hebrews to Clement of Rome (mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4), who wrote the letter in coopera-tion with Paul in Hebrew, while Luke (or, according to some, Clement) trans-lated the letter into Greek.60

While in the East the Pauline authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews is assumed and defended, expositors in the West do not automatically include Hebrews in the Pauline Letters and leave the matter of authorship unde-cided. Ambrosiaster (third quarter of the 4th century) wrote a commentary on Pauls thirteen letters, excluding the Letter to the Hebrews. Souter stated that Ambrosiaster regarded Hebrews as an anonymous work (a label which indeed is found in some of the subscriptiones to the Greek text).61 Yet while comment-ing on 2 Timothy 1:3 (serving with a clear conscience) Ambrosiaster wrote: For in the same way it is also written in the Letter to the Hebrews on Levis service to God (Heb. 7:9-1), and clearly regarded it as canonical.62

Some extant manuscripts by Ambrosiaster and some early printed editions include a commentary on Hebrews written by Alcuin (804). Alcuins was the first extensive Latin commentary on that letter, relying heavily on the sixth-century translation of Chrysostoms commentary on Hebrews, written c. 403.63 In the same age a commentary on Hebrews (by Haimo of Auxerre) was attached to Pelagius (mid-4th century) commentary on the thirteen Pauline Letters

59 Quod si ne hoc quidem ad eis persuadendum satis est, Eusebio certe oportebat eos Palaestino credere, quem patronum suorum decretorum appellant. Nam is etiam divinis-simi Pauli hanc esse Epistolam confessus est; et veteres omnes hanc de ea sententiam habuisse asseruit (Latin translation of Theodoretus, Interpretatio in epistulam ad Hebraeos in PG 82, 673-76).

60 John Damascene, Commentarii in epistolam ad Hebraeos, PG 95, 929-997. For the note on authorship see, p. 996. See on the Greek Fathers Rowan A. Greer, The Captain of our Salvation. A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews (Beitrge zur Geschichte der Biblischen Exegese 15; Tbingen, 1973).

61 Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity (Leiden Boston: Brill, 2006), 358-61; Alexander Souter, Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. A Study (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1927; 1999). For the subscrip-tions see Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 678. On Pelagius see Ps-Pelagius, Fragmenta in epistulam ad Hebraeos, in PLS 1, 1685-87 (on Hebrews 2-3). Rainer Riesner, Der Hebrer-Brief nach Altkirchlichen Zeugnissen, European Journal of Theology 11/1 (2002), 21 (15-29).

62 Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas pars tertia (CSEL 81/3), 296.63 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament X: Hebrews, p. XIX.

262 de Boer


(as purged by Cassiodorus).64 Neither Jerome nor Augustine expounded the Letter to the Hebrews. The latter referred regularly, when quoting a verse, to the letter with the heading To the Hebrews.65 The Council of Carthage in 397 finally registered Hebrews among the scripturae canonicae the pauli apostoli epistolae xiiii, sealing this tradition on the authorship also for the West.66

Paul and Barnabas, (Acts 14:14)

There is one word group in Hebrews which might contain a hint at the authors name. Luke explained the given name Barnabas as , son of encouragement (Acts 4:36). In the postscript of Hebrews the author encour-ages () his readers to bear with (Heb. 13:22). This is a rhetorical term for an exhortatory address, used expressly in Lukes tale of Paul and his companions visiting the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:15). It is possible that a pun was intended, hinting at the authors given name with which he was known as apostle next to Paul. On the way back towards Antioch in Syria, Paul and Barnabas are mentioned together as - (Acts 14:14). This literary reminiscence squares with the fact that the text of Hebrews was transmitted at an early stage firmly attached to the corpus pau-linum and never included in a codex of Catholic Letters. When Hebrews was included in or attached to the codex of Pauls Letters, the titulus was not cop-ied. So it also was with Pauls Letters, which begin with an identification of the author by way of salutation to the readers, but also lack a titulus (which the Catholic Letters do have).

The only trace of possible independent circulation and an original letter heading or library tag is found in Tertullian, De pudicitia 20. That he accepted the literary reference to Barnabas as author does not contradict Origens impression that the style and composition [of Hebrews] belong to one who called to mind the apostle [Paul]s teaching and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said.67 When Hebrews is regarded as close to Pauls Letters in contents, it is possible that Barnabas wrote it and Paul was responsible for the

64 Souter, Earliest Latin Commentaries, 210. Cf. Ad Hebraeos divi Pauli epistola, in PL 68, 685-794 (Primasius of Hadrumetum); attributed to Cassiodorus by Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 361.

65 E.g. Augustinus, De Genesi ad litteram 10, 19.34; De civitate Dei XVI 22.66 Breviarium hipponense in: Concilia Africae A. 345-A. 525, ed. C. Munier (CCSL149; Turnhout,

1974), 43.67 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI 25.13.



postscript. In New Testament scholarship the theory has been advanced that Hebrews 13:20-25 is a cover letter, written by someone else than the writer of the preceding letter.68 When the postscript is regarded as Pauline, then it was he who hinted at the [] in writing Hebrews 13:22.

Conclusions

In the Latin Church Tertullian had a manuscript of the Letter to the Hebrews which attributed it to Barnabas. Traces of this tradition are preserved until the fourth century. This evidence was contradicted by the Eastern tradition, which ascribed Hebrews to Paul, Luke, and/or Clement. Origens resigned dictum Whoever wrote the epistle, in truth only God knows is still a safe conclu-sion.69 Yet, he himself is part of the Greek patristic tradition in which an amount of doubt regarding Pauline authorship remained known (Origen, Eusebius). Besides Paul and Barnabas, no other candidates for the authorship of Hebrews are found in patristic sources. It is only in early and late modern times that other names as possible authors are suggested, such as Apollos (Martin Luther) or Priscilla (Adolph von Harnack).

The earliest and very pointed testimony on Hebrews in the West is a tradi-tion attested by Tertullian, which points to a manuscript with the letterhead Barnabas to the Hebrews. This strand can be followed through the Codices Ambrosianus and Claromontanus, and in Filastrius of Brescia. Tertullians early, pronounced, and detailed testimony merits more credit than is often given to him. In time it stands besides Clements identification of Paul as the essential author (as transmitted by Eusebius). Around the same time, espe-cially in Rome, the probable birthplace of Hebrews, doubt remained regarding Pauline authorship (Novatian, Gaius).

When writing on second penance in De pudicitia, Tertullian presented Hebrews as an additional apostolic authority to his readers. Coming close to the peroration of his treatise, Tertullian could not afford to lean on a book which had a less than firm status in the Churches. The extensive quote from Chapter 6 would undermine his ethical stand when the Letter to the Hebrews did not carry any weight. Therefore he enforces its authority by providing infor-mation on his source and its titulus, while outlining the position of Barnabas among the apostles. Tertullian thus regarded the apostolicity of Barnabae ad Hebraeos as established.

68 See Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 46-62.69 As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. VI 25.14.

Date post:	20-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	manticora-phantastica
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

15700720_068_03_s001_text.pdf

Documents