History, Bk. III.xxxviii.1–3.
9. Ecclesiastical History, Bk. III.xxxvii.4.
10. See the Introduction, Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, especially pp. xxxiii–xxxiv. See also J. B. Orchard, “Some Guidelines for the Interpretation of Eusebius’ Hist Eccl. 3:34–39,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, edited by William C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), Vol. 2, pp. 393–403.
11. Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1912), p. 178.
12. Ibid., pp. 182–97. See also Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1881 fifth edition), especially pp. 337–50, 428–55.
13. For an extract from the Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of Athanasius, see Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1912), Appendix E, pp. 213–17.
14. Hebrews has been positioned in many different orders within the letters of Paul. It is positioned between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy in the Greek Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent.), Codex Vaticanus (4th cent.), Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent.), and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th Cent.). Other arrangements have been between Philippians and Philemon, after Philemon, after Titus, but always associated in some way with Paul’s works. In the earliest papyrus manuscript of Hebrews (p. 46), usually dated c. ad 200, Hebrews is positioned between Romans and 1 Corinthians. On these different positionings, see Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980 reprint = 1892), pp. xxx–xxxii. See also W. H. P. Hatch, ‘‘The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament,” Harvard Theological Review, XXIX (1936), pp. 133–55.
15. On the style of Hebrews, see Alexander Nairne, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1917), pp. cxlv–clxv; William Henry Simcox, The Writers of the New Testament: Their Style and Characteristics (Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1980 reprint), pp. 39–59, 92ff.
16. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., Bk. VI.xiv.2–4.
17. Ibid., Bk. VI. xxv.1l–14.
18. Ibid., Bk. VL.xli.6
19. Tertullian, “On Modesty,” chapter XX, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1925), p. 97.
20. For an extended treatment of the case for Barnabas as author of Hebrews, see F. J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles: and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical Setting (London: S.P.CK, 1937), especially pp. 183–84, 198–99.
21. For an excellent survey covering Hebrews research across most of the sixteenth century, see Kenneth Hagen, Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Beze: 1516–1598 (Tuebingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981).
22. See Martin Luther, “Lectures on Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews,” Luther’s Works, vol. 29, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing Co., 1968), especially pp. 109–241; Kenneth Hagen, A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther: The Lectures on Hebrews (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1974), especially pp. 19–30; Martin Luther, Weimar edition of his works, vol. 45 (Weimar, Germany: Hermann Boehlau, 1911), p. 389.
23. See William Leonard, The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1939).
24. For the treatment of the Greek style and diction in Hebrews, see James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (International Critical Commentary) (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1924), especially pp. lvi–lxiv.
25. See E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), especially pp. 156–57,160–61, 170–71, 176–77,178–79, 187.
26. William M. Ramsey, Luke the Physician: and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), see pp. 301–28.
27. Philip the Evangelist is to be distinguished from Philip the Apostle. The Evangelist was at first one of seven deacons of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5) and was a Hellenist (Greek-speaking Jew), while Philip the Apostle was a Galilean (John 1:44) who probably used Palestinean-Aramaic mainly.
28. “Probabilia uber die Adreesse und den Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes,” in Zeitschrift: fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 1 (1900), pp. 16–41.
29. For a recent feminist statement to reestablish the case for a woman writer of Hebrews, see Juliana Casey, Hebrews (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier,Inc., 1980), pp. xiii, xvii.
30. See Charles P. Anderson, “Who Wrote ‘The Epistle From Laodicea’?” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXV (1966), pp. 436–40; idem., “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter Collection,” Harvard Theological Review, LIX (1966), pp. 429–438; idem., Hebrews Among the Letters of Paul (Studies in Religion), vol. V [1975–76], pp. 258–66.
31. Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981), p. 10.
32. On Timothy as possible author, see J. D. Legg, “Our Brother Timothy: A Suggested Solution to the Problem of the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Evangelical Quarterly, vol. 40, (October–December, 1968), pp. 220–30. On Silas as the author, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction: Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1947, 2nd ed.), pp. 463–66. Thomas Hewitt also favors Silas as author in The Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale Press, 1960), pp. 29–32.
33. According to 1 Peter 5:13, that epistle was written at “Babylon,” the Christian code-name for
