The epistle to the Hebrews.

Our fourteenth canonical Pauline epistle.

Attributed author(s).

Text(s) available.
Epistle to the Hebrews 1-4, 5-8, 9-13 (on site, Greek only).
Online Greek Bible (Greek only).
Bible Gateway (English only).
HTML Bible: Hebrews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (Greek and English).
HTML Bible: Hebrews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (Latin Vulgate only).
Zhubert (Greek and English).
Kata Pi: Hebrews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (Greek and English).
Sacred Texts: Hebrews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (polyglot).

Useful links.
Hebrews at the NT Gateway.
Hebrews at Early Christian Writings.
Hebrews by Daniel Wallace.
Hebrews in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Hebrews at Kata Pi (R. M. Grant).
ECW e-Catena: Hebrews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

No one knows for certain who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, though it has been ascribed to Paul, to Barnabas, and to either Clement or Luke as translators, as well as in more recent times to Priscilla and to Apollos. I doubt, however, that any of these can be decisively proven to be the author, and in the end we will probably have to make do with the famous judgment of Origen on this issue: God knows.

Clement of Rome.

Clement never explicitly names the epistle to the Hebrews, but there are certain overlaps between these two epistles, including the following (representatively, not exhaustively):

  • 1 Clement 9.3 (the translation of Enoch; see Hebrews 11.5).
  • 1 Clement 12.1-8 (the example of Rahab; see Hebrews 11.31).
  • 1 Clement 17.1 (goatskins and sheepskins; see Hebrews 11.37).
  • 1 Clement 27.2 (impossible for God to lie; see Hebrews 6.18).
  • 1 Clement 36.2 (a more excellent name than the angels; see Hebrews 1.4).

Such overlaps in phrasing or in idea were detected as early as Eusebius, who in History of the Church 3.38.1 remarks that Clement borrowed both thoughts and verbal expressions from the epistle to the Hebrews.


Eusebius, History of the Church 5.26a (1 section only):

Αλλα γαρ προς τοις αποδοθεισιν Ειρηναιου συγγραμμασιν και ταις επιστολαις φερεται τις αυτου προς Ελληνας λογος συντομωτατος και τα μαλιστα αναγκαιοτατος, περι επιστημης επιγεγραμμενος, και αλλος, ον ανατεθεικεν αδελφω Μαρκιανω τουνομα εις επιδειξιν του αποστολικου κηρυγματος, και βιβλιον τι διαλεξεων διαφορων, εν ω της προς Εβραιους επιστολης και της λεγομενης Σολομωνος σοφιας μνημονευει, ρητα τινα εξ αυτων παραθεμενος. και τα μεν εις ημετεραν ελθοντα γνωσιν των Ειρηναιου τοσαυτα.

For, in addition to the works and letters of Irenaeus which we have mentioned, a certain book of his, On Knowledge, written against the Greeks, very concise and remarkably forcible, is extant, and another, which he dedicated to a brother named Marcian, In Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, as well as a certain booklet containing various discourses, in which he mentions the epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called wisdom of Solomon, making quotations from them. Such are the works of Irenaeus which have come to our knowledge.

Also refer to the entry for Photius.

Clement of Alexandria.

Eusebius, History of the Church 6.13.6-7, writing of Clement of Alexandria:

Κεχρηται δ εν αυτοις και ταις απο των αντιλεγομενων γραφων μαρτυριαις, της τε λεγομενης Σολομωνος σοφιας και της Ιησου του Σιραχ και της προς Εβραιους επιστολης της τε Βαρναβα και Κλημεντος και Ιουδα, μνημονευει τε του προς Ελληνας Τατιανου λογου και Κασσιανου, ως και αυτου χρονογραφιαν πεποιημενου, ετι μην Φιλωνος και Αριστοβουλου, Ιωσηπου τε και Δημητριου και Ευπολεμου, Ιουδαιων συγγραφεων, ως αν τουτων απαντων εγγραφως πρεσβυτερον της παρ Ελλησιν αρχαιογονιας Μωυσεα τε και το Ιουδαιων γενος αποδειξαντων.

And in [the Miscellanies] he has also made use of the testimonies from the disputed writings, to wit, the one called the wisdom of Solomon and the one of Jesus of Sirach and of the epistle toward the Hebrews and that of Barnabas and that of Clement and that of Jude, and he makes mention of the volume of Tatian against the Greeks and of Cassian, as he also had made a chonography, and yet of Philo and of Aristobulus, and of Josephus and of Demetrius and of Eupolemus, Jewish historians, as all of them would show forth in writing that Moses and the race of the Jews are older in historic origin than that of the Greeks.

Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14.1-4, writing of Clement of Alexandria:

Εν δε ταις υποτυπωσεσιν ξυνελοντα ειπειν πασης της ενδιαθηκου γραφης επιτετμημενας πεποιηται διηγησεις, μηδε τας αντιλεγομενας παρελθων, την Ιουδα λεγω και τας λοιπας καθολικας επιστολας, την τε Βαρναβα και την Πετρου λεγομενην αποκαλυψιν.

And in the Hypotyposeis, to speak briefly, he has made concise accounts of every testamental scripture, not even leaving out the disputed ones, that of Jude, I say, and the rest of the catholic epistles, and that of Barnabas as well as that called the apocalypse of Peter.

Και την προς Εβραιους δε επιστολην Παυλου μεν ειναι φησιν, γεγραφθαι δε Εβραιοις Εβραικη φωνη, Λουκαν δε φιλοτιμως αυτην μεθερμηνευσαντα εκδουναι τοις Ελλησιν, οθεν τον αυτον χρωτα ευρισκεσθαι κατα την ερμηνειαν ταυτης τε της επιστολης και των πραξεων.

And he says that the epistle toward the Hebrews is also of Paul, but it was written to Hebrews in a Hebrew voice, and Luke honorably translated it and published it for the Greeks, for which reason the same style is found, because of this translation, both in the epistle and in the Acts.

Μη προγεγραφθαι δε το Παυλος αποστολος εικοτως, Εβραιοις γαρ, φησιν, επιστελλων προληψιν ειληφοσιν κατ αυτου και υποπτευουσιν αυτον, συνετως πανυ ουκ εν αρχη απετρεψεν αυτους, το ονομα θεις.

But [he says that] the words: Paul an apostle, were not prefixed, and that customarily, for, he says, in writing an epistle to Hebrews who had formed a prejudice against him and were suspicious of him, he very cleverly did not drive them away at the beginning by placing his name there.

Ειτα υποβας επιλεγει· Ηδη δε, ως ο μακαριος ελεγεν πρεσβυτερος, επει ο κυριος, αποστολος ων του παντοκρατορος, επεσταλη προς Εβραιους, δια μετριοτητα ο Παυλος, ως αν εις τα εθνη απεσταλμενος, ουκ εγγραφει εαυτον Εβραιων αποστολον, δια τε την προς τον κυριον τιμην δια τε το εκ περιουσιας και τοις Εβραιοις επιστελλειν, εθνων κηρυκα οντα και αποστολον.

Then under that he says further: But already, as the blessed elder used to say, since the Lord, being an apostle of the almighty, was sent toward Hebrews, Paul through modesty, as one sent to the gentiles, does not inscribe himself as apostle of Hebrews, both through honor toward the Lord and on account that he wrote the epistle to the Hebrews from his abundance, being a preacher and apostle of gentiles.

From the Latin translation of Clement by Cassiodorus, Adumbrationes on 1 Peter 5.13:

Marcus, Petri sectator, praedicante Petro evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus et multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae commendare, scripsit ex his quae a Petro dicta sunt evangelium quod secundum Marcum vocitatur, sicut Lucas quoque actus apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur* et Pauli ad Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam.

* An emendation; the original reading is agnosceret, which does not seem to be correct, and must be a corruption.

Mark, follower of Peter, while Peter was preaching the gospel openly at Rome before certain Caesarean knights and proferring many testimonies of Christ, was petitioned by them that they might be able to commit what things were being said to memory, and wrote from these things that were said by Peter the gospel which is called according to Mark, just as Luke is recognized by the style both to have written the acts of the apostles and to have translated the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.

Also refer to the entry for Photius.

Gaius of Rome.

Nothing written by Gaius has survived; we know some of his work only through patristic quotations.

Eusebius, History of the Church 6.20.3:

Ηλθεν δε εις ημας και Γαιου, λογιωτατου ανδρος, διαλογος, επι Ρωμης κατα Ζεφυρινον, προς Προκλον της κατα Φρυγας αιρεσεως υπερμαχουντα κεκινημενος, εν ω των δι εναντιας την περι το συνταττειν καινας γραφας προπετειαν τε και τολμαν επιστομεζων, των του ιερου αποστολου δεκατριων μονων επιστολων μνημονευει, την προς Εβραιους μη συναριθμησας ταις λοιπαις, επει και εις δευρο παρα Ρωμαιων τισιν ου νομιζεται του αποστολου τυγχανειν.

And there has reached us also a dialogue of Gaius, a very learned man who was at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, with Proclus the champion of the heresy of the Phrygians, in which, while curbing the recklessness and audacity of his opponents in composing new scriptures, he mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not numbering the epistle to the Hebrews with the rest, seeing that even to this day among the Romans there are some who do not consider it to be of the apostle.

Jerome, On Famous Men 59:

Gaius sub Zephyrino, Romanae urbis episcopo, id est, sub Antonino, Severi filio, disputationem adversus Proculum, Montani sectatorem, valde insignem habuit arguens eum temeritatis super nova prophetia defendenda et in eodem volumine epistulas quoque Pauli tredecim tantum enumerans quartam decimam, quae fertur ad Hebraeos, dicit non eius esse; sed apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apostoli non habetur.

Gaius, in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, that is, in the reign of Antoninus, the son of Severus, held a very notable disputation against Proculus, the follower of Montanus, convicting him of temerity in his defense of the new prophecy, and in the same volume also enumerates only thirteen epistles of Paul and says that the fourteenth, which is now called to the Hebrews, is not by him, and is not held among the Romans to the present day as being by the apostle Paul.

Photius, Bibliotheca 48, writing of Gaius:

Συνταξαι δε και ετερον λογον ιδιως κατα της Αρτεμωνος αιρεσεως, και κατα Προκλου δε σπουδαστου Μοντανου σπουδαιαν διαλεξιν συντεταχεναι, εν η τρισκαιδεκα μονας επιστολας αριθμειται Παυλου ουκ εγκρινων την προς Εβραιους.

He wrote another special work against the heresy of Artemon, and also composed a weighty treatise against Proclus, the supporter of Montanus. In this he reckons only thirteen epistles of Saint Paul, and does not include the epistle to the Hebrews.


From Photius, Bibliotheca 121, writing of Hippolytus:

Λεγει δε αλλα τε τινα της ακριβειας λειπομενα, και οτι η προς Εβραιους επιστολη ουκ εστι του αποστολου Παυλου.

But he says other things somewhat lacking in accuracy, even that the epistle to the Hebrews is not of the apostle Paul.

Also refer to the actual entry for Photius.

Dionysius bar Salibi writes in his commentary on the apocalypse of John:

Hippolytus says that, in writing to seven churches, John writes just as Paul wrote thirteen letters, but wrote them to seven churches. That to the Hebrews he does not judge to be of Paul, but perhaps of Clement.

It ought to be mentioned that the Muratorian canon, which some think Hippolytus originally penned, does not list the epistle to the Hebrews among the epistles of Paul.


Tertullian, On Modesty 20.1-5 (Latin text modified from that of Munier; English translation modified from that of Thelwall):

Disciplina igitur apostolorum proprie quidem instruit ac determinat principaliter sanctitatis omnis erga templum dei sacramentum et ubique de ecclesia eradicat omne sacrilegium impudicitiae sine ulla restitutionis mentione. volo tamen ex redundanti alicuius etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium superducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo iure disciplinam magistrorum. extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, a deo satis auctorati viri, 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. monens itaque discipulos omissis omnibus initiis ad perfectionem magis tendere nec rursus fundamenta paenitentiae iacere ab operibus mortuorum: Impossibile est enim, inquit, eos qui semel inluminati sunt et donum caeleste gustaverunt et participaverunt spiritum sanctum et verbum dei dulce gustaverunt, occidente iam aevo cum exciderint, rursus revocari in paenitentiam, refigentes cruci in semetipsos filium dei et dedecorantes. terra enim quae bibit saepius deuenientem in se humorem et peperit herbam aptam his propter quos et colitur, benedictionem dei consequitur; proferens autem spinas reproba et maledictioni proxima, cuius finis in exustionem. hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit, numquam moecho et fornicatori secundam paenitentiam promissam ab apostolis norat. optime enim legem interpretabatur et figuras eius iam in ipsa veritate seruabat.

The discipline, therefore, of the apostles properly [so called], indeed, instructs and determinately directs, as a principal point, the overseer of all sanctity as regards the temple of God to the universal eradication of every sacrilegious outrage upon modesty, without any mention of restoration. I wish, however, redundantly to superadd the testimony likewise of one particular comrade of the apostles, aptly suited for confirming, by most proximate right, the discipline of his masters. For there is extant an epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas, a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working? And of course the epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the churches than that apocryphal Shepherd of the adulterers. Warning the disciples, accordingly, to omit all first principles and to strive rather after perfection, and not lay again the foundations of repentance from the works of the dead, he says: For impossible it is that they should be again recalled unto repentance who have once been illuminated and tasted the heavenly gift, and who have participated in the holy spirit and tasted the word of God and found it sweet, when they shall have fallen away, their age already setting, since they crucify again for themselves the son of God and dishonor him. For the earth, which has drunk the rain often descending upon it and has borne grass apt for those on whose account it is tilled, attains the blessing of God; but, if it should bring forth thorns, it is reprobate and nigh to cursing, whose end is unto utter burning. He who learned this from apostles and taught it with apostles never knew of any second repentance promised by apostles to the adulterer and fornicator. For excellently was he wont to interpret the law and keep its figures even in the truth itself.

The identification of Barnabas as the author of this epistle would give Acts 4.36 a twist. In that verse Luke says that the name Barnabas means son of encouragement (υιος παρακλησεως), even though the Aramaic behind Barnabas appears to have really meant something like son of a prophet. The relevance to our present text comes in Hebrews 13.22, in which the author calls his own epistle the word of encouragement (του λογου της παρακλησεως).


Eusebius, History of the Church 6.25.11-14, writing of Origen:

Ετι προς τουτοις περι της προς Εβραιους επιστολης εν ταις εις αυτην ομιλιαις ταυτα διαλαμβανει· Οτι ο χαρακτηρ της λεξεως της προς Εβραιους επιγεγραμμενης επιστολης ουκ εχει το εν λογω ιδιωτικον του αποστολου, ομολογησαντος εαυτον ιδιωτην ειναι τω λογω, τουτ εστιν τη φρασει, αλλ εστιν η επιστολη συνθεσει της λεξεως Ελληνικωτερα, πας ο επισταμενος κρινειν φρασεων διαφορας ομολογησαι αν.

In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the epistle to the Hebrews in his homilies upon it: That the character of the epistle entitled to the Hebrews is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself rude in speech, that is, in expression, but rather its diction is purer Greek, everyone who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.

Παλιν τε αυ οτι τα νοηματα της επιστολης θαυμασια εστιν και ου δευτερα των αποστολικων ομολογουμενων γραμματων, και τουτο αν συμφησαι ειναι αληθες πας ο προσεχων τη αναγνωσει τη αποστολικη.

Again, that the thoughts of the epistle are marvellous, not even inferior to the confessed apostolic writings, everyone who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.

Τουτοις μεθ ετερα επιφερει λεγων· Εγω δε αοφαινομενος ειποιμ αν οτι τα μεν νοηματα του αποστολου εστιν, η δε φρασις και η συνθεσις απομνημονευσαντος τινος τα αποστολικα και ωσπερ σχολιογραφησαντος τινος τα ειρημενα υπο του διδασκαλου. ει τις ουν εκκλησια εχει ταυτην την επιστολην ως Παυλου, αυτη ευδοκιμειτω και επι τουτω· ου γαρ εικη οι αρχαιοι ανδρες ως Παυλου αυτην παραδεδωκασιν.

After other things he adds these, saying: If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of someone who remembered the apostolic teachings and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as of Paul.

Τις δε ο γραψας την επιστολην, το μεν αληθες θεος οιδεν, η δε εις ημας φθασασα ιστορια υπο τινων μεν λεγοντων οτι Κλημης, ο γενομενος επισκοπος Ρωμαιων, εγραψεν την επιστολην, υπο τινων δε οτι Λουκας, ο γραψας το ευαγγελιον και τας πραξεις.

But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, who became bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the gospel and the Acts, wrote it.


Eusebius, after (A) cleanly identifying the Therapeutae mentioned by Philo with the Christian community in Alexandria founded by Mark the evangelist in History of the Church 2.17.1-9 and (B) quoting Philo for their allegorical reading of the scriptures as encouraged by some of the writings of their ancient authors in 2.17.10-11, goes on in 2.17.12 to conjecture that the writings meant by Philo would have included ευαγγελια και τας των αποστολων γραφας, διηγησεις τε τινας κατα το εικος των παλαι προφητων ερμηνευτικας, οποιας η τε προς Εβραιους και αλλαι πλειους του Παυλου περιεχουσιν επιστολαι ταυτ ειναι (the gospels and the writings of the apostles, and certain accounts of the prophets according to the custom of those of old, such as the epistle to the Hebrews and the many other epistles of Paul contain).

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.3.4b-5a:

Του δε Παυλου προδηλοι και σαφεις αι δεκατεσσαρες, οτι γε μην τινες ηθετηκασι την προς Εβραιους, προς της Ρωμαιων εκκλησιας ως μη Παυλου ουσαν αυτην αντιλεγεσθαι φησαντες, ου δικαιον αγνοειν· και τα περι ταυτης δε τοις προ ημων ειρημενα κατα καιρον παραθησομαι.

But the fourteen [epistles] of Paul are well known and clear, yet is not indeed right to be ignorant that some have rejected that to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed at the church of the Romans as not being of Paul. But the things that have been said concerning this [epistle] by those who came before us I will quote in due time.

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.38.1-5 (English translation slightly modifed from that in the Ante-Nicene Fathers):

Ωσπερ ουν αμελει του Ιγνατιου εν αις κατελεξαμεν επιστολαις, και του Κλημεντος εν τη ανωμολογημενη παρα πασιν, ην εκ προσωπου της Ρωμαιων εκκλησιας τη Κορινθιων διετυπωσατο, εν η της προς Εβραιους πολλα νοηματα παραθεις, ηδη δε και αυτολεξει ρητοις τισιν εξ αυτης χρησαμενος, σαφεστατα παριστησιν οτι μη νεον υπαρχει το συγγραμμα.

Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles which we have mentioned, and Clement in his epistle which is confessed by all, which he formed in the countenance of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth. In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the epistle to the Hebrews, and he also makes use verbally of some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.

Οθεν δη και εικοτως εδοξεν αυτο τοις λοιποις εγκαταλεχθηναι γραμμασι του αποστολου· Εβραιοις γαρ δια της πατριου γλωττης εγγραφως ωμιληκοτος του Παυλου, οι μεν τον ευαγγελιστην Λουκαν, οι δε τον Κλημεντα τουτον αυτον ερμηνευσαι λεγουσι την γραφην.

Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For, as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself translated the epistle.

Ο και μαλλον αν ειη αληθες τω τον ομοιον της φρασεως χαρακτηρα την τε του Κλημεντος επιστολην και την προς Εβραιους αποσωζειν και τω μη πορρω τα εν εκατεροις τοις συγγραμμασι νοηματα καθεσταναι.

The latter seems more probable, because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not very different.

Ιστεον δ ως και δευτερα τις ειναι λεγεται του Κλημεντος επιστολη· ου μην εθ ομοιως τη προτερα και ταυτην γνωριμον επισταμεθα, οτι μηδε τους αρχαιους αυτη κεχρημενους ισμεν.

But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second epistle of Clement. But we know that this is not recognized like the former, since we do not find that the ancients have made any use of it.

Ηδη δε και ετερα πολευπη και μακρα συγγραμματα ως του αυτου χθες και πρωην τινες προηγαγον, Πετρου δη και Απιωνος διαλογους περιεχοντα, ων ουδ ολως μνημη τις παρα τοις παλαιοις φερεται, ουδε γαρ καθαρον της αποστολικης ορθοδοξιας αποσωζει τον χαρακτηρα.

And certain men have recently put forth verbose and lengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion,* of which writings no mention has been made by the ancients; for they do not even preserve the pure character of apostolic orthodoxy.

* These writings may be the pseudo-Clementine Homilies.

Also refer to the entry for Photius.


Jerome, On Famous Men 15:

Clemens, de quo apostolus Paulus ad Philippenses scribens ait: Cum Clemente et caeteris cooperatoribus meis, quorum nomina scripta sunt in libro vitae, quartus post Petrum Romae episcopus, si quidem secundus Linus fuit, tertius Anacletus, tametsi plerique Latinorum secundum post Petrum apostolum putent fuisse Clementem. scripsit ex persona Romanae ecclesiae ad ecclesiam Corinthiorum valde utilem epistolam, quae et in nonnullis locis publice legitur, quae mihi videtur characteri epistolae quae sub Pauli nomine ad Hebraeos fertur convenire. sed et multis de eadem epistola, non solum sensibus, sed iuxta verborum quoque ordinem abutitur; omnino grandis in utraque similitudo est. fertur et secunda eius nomine epistola quae a veteribus reprobatur, et disputatio Petri et Appionis longo sermone conscripta, quam Eusebius in tertio historiae ecclesiasticae volumine coarguit. obiit tertio Traiani anno, et nominis eius memoriam usque hodie Romae exstructa ecclesia custodit.

Clement, concerning whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says: With Clement and others of my fellow workers, whose names have been written in the book of life, the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus, the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after Peter the apostle. He wrote in the person of the Roman church an especially useful epistle to the church of the Corinthians, which in some places is publicly read, and which seems to me to agree in character with the epistle to the Hebrews which is extant under the name of Paul. But it differs from this same epistle, not only in many of its ideas, but also in respect of the order of words, and its similarity in either respect is not very great. There is extant also a second epistle by his name which is rejected by the earlier men, and also a disputation between Peter and Appion written out at length, which Eusebius in the third book of his Ecclesiastical History convicts. He died in the third year of Trajan, and a church constructed at Rome preserves the memory of his name until today.


From Photius, Bibliotheca 232:

Οτι Ιππολυτος και Ειρηναιος την προς Εβραιους επιστολην Παυλου ουκ εκεινου ειναι φασιν, Κλημης μεντοι και Ευσεβιος και πολυς αλλος των θεοφορων πατερων ομιλος ταις αλλαις συναριθμουσι ταυτην επιστολαις, και φασιν αυτην εκ της Εβραιδος μεταφρασαι τον ειρημενον Κλημεντα.

Hippolytus and Irenaeus say that the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews is not his, but Clement and Eusebius and many of the other theophoric fathers count this one together with the other epistles and say that the aforementioned Clement translated it from the Hebrew.


The following important manuscripts are extant for the epistle to the Hebrews (but this list is by no means exhaustive):

Ƿ12, century III, Greek (contains 1.1).
Ƿ13, century III or IV, Greek (contains 2.14-5.5; 10.8-22; 10.29-11.13; 11.28-12.17).
Ƿ17, century IV, Greek (contains 9.12-19).
Ƿ46, circa 200, Greek (contains 1.1-9.16; 9.18-10.20, 22-30; 10.32-13.25).
Ƿ79, century VII, Greek (contains 10.10-12, 28-30).
Ƿ89, century IV, Greek (contains 6.7-9, 15-17).
Sinaiticus (א), century IV, Greek (contains entire text).
Alexandrinus (A), century V, Greek (contains entire text).
Vaticanus (B), century IV, Greek (contains 1.1-9.14).
Ephraemi rescriptus (C), century V, Greek (lacks 1.1-2.4; 7.26-9.15; 10.24-12.15).
Claromontanus (D), century VI, Greek (contains entire text).
Angelicus (L), century IX, Greek (lacks 13.10-25, fin).
Athous Lavrensis (Ψ), century VIII or IX, Greek (lacks 8.11-9.19).

The versions (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Slavonic), as far as I am aware, all contain this epistle.