authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 45
often the reader was misled to believe that it was a commentary on aris-
totle’s “Categories.” and often when someone came across the commentary
by alexander of aphrodisias (early third century ce) on the “Categories” he
thought that it belonged to the “Categories” of aristotle, not knowing that
alexander had not only written on aristotle’s but also on theophrastus’ “Cat-
egories.” there also was a time when the books were falsely ascribed because
of the gratitude of the pupils over against their teachers, as in the case of all
the writings that are superscribed with the name of Pythagoras. for Pythago-
ras has not left behind his own writings, because he said that one must not
leave behind lifeless writings since they could not defend themselves, but that
one must leave behind living writings, that is pupils, who are able to fight for
themselves and for their own teachers. his disciples, however, out of affection
superscribed the writings which they produced with the name of Pythagoras.
and for this reason, all the writings which are presented under the name of
Pythagoras are falsely ascribed.
Origenes, fragmenta ex homiliis in epistulam ad hebraeos in Eusebius,
historia ecclesiastica 6.25.11–14
In his Homilies on the Letter to the Hebrews, from which eusebius quoted
a few fragments, origen accepted a writing as authentic if its content did
actually come from the author to whom it was ascribed, even if the author
of the content had not himself composed the book.62
furthermore, he (i.e., origen) thus discusses the epistle to the hebrews,
in his “homilies” upon it: “that the character of the diction of the epistle
entitles ‘to the hebrews’ has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who con-
fessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better
greek in the framing of its diction, 12 will be admitted by everyone who is
able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the
thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged
writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has
given attention to reading the apostle.”
13 further on, he adds the following remarks: “But as for myself, if I were
to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s,
but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the
apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said.
If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended
for this also. for not without reason have men of old time handed it down
as Paul’s.
14 But who wrote the epistle, in truth god knows. yet the account which
has reached us (is twofold), some saying that Clement, was bishop of the
romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was luke, he who wrote the gospel
and the acts.”
62 trans. by J. e. l. oulton, lCl 265:77, 79.