¹ Most of the evidence for putting Hebrews in each of these places can be found in Tischendorf's Novum Testamentum Graece (eighth ed., Leipzig, 1869–1872); but some facts have come to light since the publication of this monumental work, and it seems worth while to collect all the evidence known at the present time and present it in one place.

² Of this papyrus codex of the Pauline Epistles eighty-six leaves are extant. Fifty-six are in the library of Mr. A. Chester Beatty in London (Chester Beatty Papyrus II), and thirty are in the Library of the University of Michigan (P. Michigan 222). See SirKenyon, F. G., The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri (London, 1933–1934), I, 6 f.Google Scholar; and III, v ff. and 1 ff.; Sanders, H. A., A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul (Ann Arbor, 1935)Google Scholar; and SirKenyon, F. G. in the American Journal of Philology, LVII, 91 ffGoogle Scholar.

³ Codd. 103, 455, 1961, 1964, 1977, and 1994. The earliest of these (103) was written in the eleventh century. The others range from the thirteenth or fourteenth to the sixteenth century in date.

⁴ This canon is preserved in a ninth century manuscript at Mount Sinai (Cod. Syr. 10). Cf. Lewis, A. S., Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Convent of S. Catharine on Mount Sinai (London, 1894), 11 ff.Google Scholar; Zahn, T., Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (second ed., Leipzig, 1904), 86Google Scholar; and Souter, A., The Text and Canon of the New Testament (New York, 1913), 226Google Scholar. The list includes the four Gospels in the usual order, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. Hebrews occupies the fifth place among the letters ascribed to the Apostle.

⁵ Codd. 1930 (saec. XVI) and 1978 (saec. XV).

⁶ Cod. 2248 (saec. XIV). The commentary on Hebrews follows immediately after that on 2 Corinthians. Cf. Hatch, W. H. P., The Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament in Jerusalem (Paris, 1934), Plate XLVII, note 2Google Scholar.

⁷ Cf. Zoega, G., Catalogus Codicum Copticorum Manu Scriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur (Rome, 1810), 186 (No. LXXX)Google Scholar.

⁸ Cod. A. Cf. SirThompson, H., The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles in the Sahidic Dialect (Cambridge, 1932)Google Scholar.

⁹ Morgan Library, M 570 and M 571. Cf. Hyvernat, H., A Check List of Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library (New York, 1919), 4Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Cf. Schmidt, C. in von der Königl, Nachrichten. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., 1898, 174Google Scholar. In the Greek original of this letter and in the Syriac translation of it published by Cureton Hebrews follows immediately after the two epistles to the Thessalonians. Cf. Cureton, W., The Festal Letters of Athanasiua (London, 1848), 53 (Syriac letters)Google Scholar.

¹¹ In Galatians, Hebrews, and Ephesians the chapters are numbered thus: in Galatians 54 (ΝΔ) to 59 (Νϴ); in Hebrews 60 (Ξ) to 64 (ΞΔ); in Ephesians 70 (Ο) to 75 (ΟΕ). Doubtless there were originally ten chapters in Hebrews.

¹² Cod. 606 (saec. XI).

¹³ Cf. Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Lectionum, 14 (Migne, P. L. LXX, col. 1125)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Codd. ΝABCHIP 0150, 0151.

¹⁵ Codd. 5, 33, 38, 62, 88, 91, 94, 122, 131, 181, 218, 255, 256, 263, 302, 436, 442, 460, 611, 623, 632, 680, 699, 794, 927, 1099, 1106, 1175, 1288, 1352, 1827, 1828, 1836, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1843, 1845, 1851, 1868, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1877, 1881, 1885, 1889, 1898, 1908, 1912, 1942, 1945, 1947, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1996, 1999, 2012, 2298. These manuscripts range from the ninth or tenth century to the sixteenth century in date. Cod. 1359, which had Hebrews immediately after 2 Thessalonians, has disappeared. Cf. W. H. P. Hatch, op. cit., 10 f.

¹⁶ Codd. A₁ B Γ D E₁ E₂ F G J₁ J₂ M N O P.

¹⁷ Wilkins, D., the editor of the editio princeps of the Bohairic version, says: ‘Ordo autem Epistolarum Pauli in omnibus Codicibus Copticis talis est, qualem nos observamus, nisi quod Epistola ad Hebraeos praeponatur Epistolis ad Timotheum’ (Novum Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum, Oxford, 1716, Prolegg., VIII)Google Scholar. Nevertheless, he placed Hebrews after Philemon in his edition.

¹⁸ Cf. Zahn, T., Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen and Leipzig, 1888–1890), II, 164 and 171Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Cf. Harnack, A., Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1897–1904), II, 84 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ A considerable fragment of this letter has been preserved in Greek, Syriac, and Coptic (Sahidic). The Greek text is printed by Zahn, T., Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (second ed., Leipzig, 1904), 87 f.Google Scholar; and by A. Souter, op. cit., 213 f. For the Syriae see W. Cureton, op. cit., 52 ff. (Syriac letters). The Sahidic version is given by Schmidt, C. in von der Königl, Nachrichten. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., 1898, 169 ffGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Cf. Migne, P. G. LXXXV, col. 705.

²² Cf. Robinson, J. A. in Texts and Studies, III, 3, p. 27Google Scholar.

²³ Cf. Texts and Studies, III, 3, p. 101Google Scholar. On the other hand according to von Dobschütz Euthalius flourished in the second half of the fifth century. Cf. Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, X, 68Google Scholar.

²⁴ Cf. Texts and Studies, III, 3, p. 81Google Scholar. Von Dobschütz, however, thinks the person addressed in the Euthalian prologues was neither of these bishops of Alexandria. Cf. Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, X, 65Google Scholar.

²⁵ Cf. Texts and Studies, III, 3, p. 43Google Scholar.

²⁶ The Euthalian apparatus was known in Caesarea at a comparatively early date, but there is no clear evidence that Euthalius himself belonged to that locality. Cf. Lake, K., The Text of the New Testament (sixth ed., London, 1928), 59 f.Google Scholar; and Texts and Studies, III, 3, pp. 44 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ Cf. Migne, P. G. XLI, col. 812.

²⁸ Cf. Epist. LIII, 8 (Migne, P. L. XXII, col. 548).

²⁹ Cf. Migne, P. G. LXXVI, cols. 1249 ff. and 1296. It happens that no quotations from 1 or 2 Thessalonians are given in either of these places.

³⁰ Cf. Migne, P. G. LXXXII, cols. 673 ff. A fourteenth century manuscript in the Greek Patriarchal Library in Jerusalem (Cod. Saba 217 = Gregory 2012), containing Theodoret's commentary on the Pauline Epistles, has the commentary on Hebrews next after that on 2 Thessalonians. Cf. W. H. P. Hatch, op. cit., Plate LI.

³¹ Cf. Migne, P. G. LXXXVIII, col. 304.

³² Cf. Migne, P. G. LXXXVIII, col. 305. Clement of Alexandria is the earliest writer who mentions the hypothesis that Luke translated the epistle from Hebrew into Greek. Cf. Eusebius, H. E., VI, 14, 2; and Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in Epistolas Canonicas (in Zahn, T., Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1881–1929, III, 83Google Scholar). In another place Eusebius gives this view and adds the alternative theory that Clement of Rome was the translator. Eusebius himself considered the latter more probable. Cf. H. E., III, 38, 2 and 3. Origen knew through tradition or hearsay that some thought Luke was the author of Hebrews, and that others believed Clement of Rome wrote it. Cf. H. E., VI, 25, 14. The notion that Luke or Clement of Rome translated the epistle from Hebrew into Greek is a later development. It doubtless arose from the two above-given opinions concerning the authorship of Hebrews when the latter was attributed to the Apostle Paul.

³³ Cf. Migne, P. G. XCV, col. 929.

³⁴ Cf. Migne, P. G. XXVIII, col. 293.

³⁵ Cf. Zahn, T., Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen and Leipzig, 1888–1890), II, 302 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Cf. T. Zahn, op. cit., II, 193 ff.

³⁷ Zahn gives the text of the list in op. cit., II, 202.

³⁸ Cf. T. Zahn, op. cit., II, 198 f.

³⁹ Zahn thinks that the list of canonical books was appended to Canon 59 between 600 and 800 A.D., and that it was an earlier catalogue which up to that time had not won general acceptance. Cf. op. cit., II, 200 f.

⁴⁰ Cf. T. Zahn, op. cit., II, 201.

⁴¹ Zahn points out that in designating Genesis Гένεσις Κόσμου and Exodus Ἔξοδος Αἰγύπτου the Laodicean Canon agrees with the index found in Codex Alexandrinus. Cf. op. cit., II, 201. However, the differences between the two lists, both in the Old Testament and in the New, are more striking than their agreement in the matter just mentioned. For example, fourteen Pauline Epistles are recognized in the catalogue contained in Codex Alexandrinus, but they are not named. Moreover, the list given in Codex Alexandrinus includes the Apocalypse, 1 and 2 Clement, and the Psalms of Solomon; whereas the Laodicean Canon ends with Philemon.

⁴² Codd. DEKL. It is said that the text of D and E is ‘Western,’ that of K ‘Western’ and Byzantine, and that of L largely Antiochian-Byzantine. Cf. H. A. Sanders, op. cit., 26 f.

⁴³ About 329 minuscule manuscripts are known to have Hebrews next after Philemon. The minuscules are the leading representatives of the Antiochian-Byzantine text. Cf. H. A. Sanders, op. cit., 26.

⁴⁴ Cf. Migne, P. G. XLI, cols. 809 and 812.

⁴⁵ Cf. Migne, P. G. XXXVII, col. 1597. These verses have sometimes been attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus.

⁴⁶ The Muratorian Canon designates thirteen epistles of Paul by name, but it does not mention Hebrews. Cf. Zahn, T., Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentliehen Kanons (second ed., Leipzig, 1904), 80Google Scholar; and A. Souter, op. cit., 209. Hebrews was not included in Marcion's canon, and originally there was no Marcionite prologue for the epistle. A prologue for Hebrews was provided much later, probably in the second half of the fourth century. Cf. A. Souter, op. cit., 205 ff.

⁴⁷ Cf. A. Souter, op. cit., 191.

⁴⁸ Cf. Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (Florence and Venice, 1759–1798), III, col. 891Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Cf. von Dobschütz, E. in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Dritte Reihe, VIII, 4, p. 6Google Scholar; and A. Souter, op. cit., 229 f. It is worthy of note that in all the manuscripts of the Decretum Gelasianum Hebrews stands at the end of the Pauline canon. Cf. von Dobschütz in op. cit., p. 249. The so-called Damasine Decree or Roman Canon of the year 382 (see Zahn, T., Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentliehen Kanons, second ed., Leipzig, 1904, 84 f.Google Scholar) is not a document of independent value for the history of the canon. It is only one form of the Decretum Gelasianum and has no connection with Pope Damasus or the fourth century. He-brews follows Philemon also in this form of the Decretum Gelasianum.

⁵⁰ Cf. E. von Dobschütz in op. cit., Dritte Reihe, VIII, 4, pp. 334 ff.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cf. Migne, P. L. LXX, col. 1357.

⁵² Codd. def. Old Latin manuscripts containing the Pauline corpus are rare.

⁵³ Berger notes only one exception, viz. a St. Gall manuscript of the eighth century (Cod. 70). He says it is unique in having Hebrews between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy, i.e. in the Alexandrian position. Cf. Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate (Paris, 1893), 119 f.Google Scholar, 342, and 417.

⁵⁴ The present writer knows of no Peshîṭtâ or Harclean manuscript which has Hebrews in any other place.

⁵⁵ Cf. Migne, P. L. LXVIII, col. 19.

⁵⁶ Cf. Migne, P. L. LXVIII, col. 15.

⁵⁷ Cf. Kihn, H., Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten (Freiburg, 1880), 254 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Codd. CKLHA₂. C, K, and L were written in the fourteenth century. H is dated 1416 A.D., and A₂ was copied in 1794 A.D.

⁵⁹ Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, Cod. Armen. 1. Gregory does not indicate the position of Hebrews in any other manuscript in his list of Armenian codices. Cf. Gregory, C. B., Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes (Leipzig, 1900–1909), II, 570 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Conybeare, F. C. in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible (New York, 1899–1904), I, 153Google Scholar. Conybeare does not give the name of the library in which the manuscript is preserved or the number which it bears. It is probably in the library of the Mechitarist monastery on the island of San Lazzaro.

⁶¹ Zohrab is said to have used twenty manuscripts in the New Testament part of his edition.

⁶² Uscan's edition, printed at Amsterdam in 1666, is not accessible to me. I have used the Serampore edition of 1817, which is a reprint of Uscan's work.

⁶³ Cf. Robinson, J. A. in Texts and Studies, III, 3, pp. 83 ff.Google Scholar; and K. Lake, op. cit., 44 f.

⁶⁴ This is the view which ProfessorMacler, F. maintains in his book entitled ‘Le texte arménien de l'évangile d'après Matthieu et Marc’ (Paris, 1919)Google Scholar. For a critical review of Macler's work see Blake, R. P. in The Harvard Theological Review, XV, 299 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Cf. Scrivener, F. H. A., A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (fourth ed., 1894), II, 149 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Canon Streeter suggests that the Greek manuscripts employed in this revision may have been of the Caesarean type. He thinks that this hypothesis would ‘explain the phenomena noted by Armitage Robinson, and also those brought forward by Macler.’ Cf. Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (New York, 1925), 104 f.Google Scholar It seems, however, to the present writer more probable that the codices which were obtained in Byzantium soon after the year 431 and were considered to be accurate copies contained the Antiochian text. This supposition would account for the Antiochian elements in the existing Armenian version.

⁶⁷ Cf. K. Lake, op. cit., 44 f.

⁶⁸ A. A. Tsagareli, in his Catalogue of the Georgian Manuscripts in the Monastery of the Holy Cross at Jerusalem, mentions seven Georgian codices containing the Acts and Epistles; but he does not note the position of Hebrews in them. Cf. Wardrop, O. in the Journal of Biblical Literature, XII, 2, pp. 170 f.Google Scholar Gregory lists no Georgian manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles which are not included in Tsagareli's catalogue. Cf. C. R. Gregory, op. cit., II, 574 f. My colleague Professor R. P. Blake has kindly informed me that a Georgian manuscript in the Library of Iviron at Mount Athos (Cod. 11 Tsagareli = Cod. 42 Blake), which was written in 965 A.D., and Cod. Georg. 407 (saec. X) in the Library of the Society for the Extension of Literacy among the Georgians at Tiflis have the Epistle to the Hebrews immediately after 2 Thessalonians.

⁶⁹ Moscow (1816) and Tiflis (1879). The former of these is a reprint of the editio princeps of the Georgian Bible, which was published a t Moscow in 1743. The editio princeps is a rare book, and the present writer has had no opportunity to consult it.

⁷⁰ Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Aeth. 27 (Zotenberg 45), dated 1378 A.D.; and ibid., Cod. Aeth. 29 (Zotenberg 47). It is said that the text of Cod. Aeth. 27 differs from that of the London edition (1830) and often agrees with that of the Roman edition (1548–1549). Cf. C. R. Gregory, op. cit., II, 563.

⁷¹ Gregory mentions twelve Ethiopic codices which have Hebrews after Philemon. Four of them are ascribed to the seventeenth century and three to the eighteenth, and in the case of five no date is given. Cf. C. R. Gregory, op. cit., II, 559 ff.

⁷² London (1830). It was reprinted in London (1837) and in Basle (1874), and it was republished in revised form by Prätorius in Leipzig (1899). I have not seen the editio princeps of the Ethiopic New Testament, which was published in Rome in 1548–1549. It is said to contain many errors and is not significant for determining the position of Hebrews in the canon. The epistle was not printed with the rest of the Pauline corpus. It was included in the first volume of the work with the other New Testament books except the thirteen Pauline Epistles (1548). The latter were grouped together by themselves in the second volume (1549).

⁷³ Asmara (1920). The Old Testament, prepared by da Bassano, appeared in 1926.

⁷⁴ Cf. Guidi, I., Le Traduzioni degli Evangeli in Arabo e in Etiopico (Rome, 1888), 33Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Cf. I. Guidi, op. cit., 34 ff.

⁷⁶ Codd. 1, 2, 4, and 7. Cf. C. R. Gregory, op. cit., II, 930.

⁷⁷ Cod. Acts 52 (Paul 50). Stunica referred to this manuscript as Codex Rhodiensis.

⁷⁸ The Antwerp Polyglot (1571–1572) and the Paris Polyglot (1630–1633) both have Hebrews after Philemon.

⁷⁹ Mill: Codd. A B 33 181 1908.

Wettstein: Codd. A C 91 94 181.

Griesbach: Codd. A C H 33 1908.

⁸⁰ In the first (1898) and second (1899) editions of Nestle's text Hebrews stands between 3 John and James. There is no ancient warrant for putting the epistle in this place.