vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Vigiliae
Christianae
brill.com/vc

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

in De pudicitia 20.1-5
E.A. de Boer

Theological University KampenFree University Amsterdam,

The NetherlandsUniversity of Free State, South Africa
eadeboer@tukampen.nl

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

244

de Boer

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 testimony of the author ever transmitted in early Christian documents? Most biblical 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 auctoritati 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).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

245

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 translated 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 shipwrecked 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 penance as a way of honest and unconditional repentance (with the idea of acceptance 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 acquaintance 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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 renders 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 forgiveness, 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 pontifex 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 highranking 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, gloria 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 pedibus 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).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

247

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 companion of the apostles, who is capable of confirming the discipline of the apostles as nearest witness (De pud. 20.1). Having thus introduced the point in
question Tertullian continues: Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos...
10

11

12

See Claudio Micaelli in: Tertullien, La pudicit (De pudicitia), vol. 1, ed. Claudio Micaelli
Charles 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 ecclesiam 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).
Antti Marjanen, Montanism: Egalitarian Ecstatic New Prophecy, in A Companion to
Second-Century Christian Heretics, eds. Antti Marjanen, Petri Luomanen (Leiden, 2008),
185-212.
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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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 connection 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 pudicitia 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 confused 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

249

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 summary 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 person 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 entering 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 titulus 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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 authorship. 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 aliorum apostolorum ad Graecam veritatem castigatae again presented Tertullians
testimony.19
Tertullians writings from his Montanist period survived in only a few manuscripts, 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 disseminated 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

251

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, pointing 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 regarding 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 attributed 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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 reference to the Letter to the Hebrews, especially on the basis of the stichometric 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
27

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.
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 thirteen 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)).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

253

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, without 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 radicalism 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 baptism 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

29
30

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

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

255

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 opinion. 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 parallel 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 illustribus 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 altogether great similarity between the two.38 Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
34 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI 25.11-12
35 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI 25.13. This passage is also published as Ex origenis homiliis in epistolam 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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 HenneckeSchneemelcher 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

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

257

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

42

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

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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 interest in his famous predecessor. He mentions Barnabas as one of the seventytwo 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, therefore, 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 manuscripts 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 different 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

259

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 exordium est: Multifariam et multis modis olim Deus locutus patribus per prophetas, novissime 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 apostolus 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).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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 letters 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

261

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 cooperation with Paul in Hebrew, while Luke (or, according to some, Clement) translated 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 undecided. 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 commenting 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 sixthcentury 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 divinissimi 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 subscriptions 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 HebrerBrief 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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

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 encourages () 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 paulinum 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 copied. 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, 685794 (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.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263

Tertullian on Barnabas Letter to the Hebrews

263

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 conclusion.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 tradition 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, especially 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 information 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
69

See Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 46-62.

As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. VI 25.14.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 243-263