# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli 1856_S207
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Whether Such a One Is to Be Held a Heretic or a Dangerous False Teacher, etc. 207

...the Apocalypse of John some reject; some count it among the certain and undoubted writings." Jerome writes in his Catalog of Writers: "It is said that the Epistle of James was published by someone else under his name." Eusebius writes in Book 2, Chapter 23: "It is said that the epistle which is first among the general (catholic) epistles is a letter of that James who was called Justus and Oblias; but it is to be known that it is 'reckoned spurious' (ὡς νοθεύεται), that is, that it is held to be not genuine and legitimate, but spurious and supposititious. Not many of the ancients mention it, and likewise the Epistle of Jude is rejected by most, because it takes a testimony from the Book of Enoch, which is apocryphal." Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 3: "We have heard that the epistle which circulates as the second of Peter is not legitimate." Jerome in the Catalog: "As for the second, it is denied by most that it is Peter's, on account of its dissimilarity of style with the first." Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 25: "The remaining two epistles of John are disputed." He also gives the reason: "Because, he says, it has been doubted whether they are of John the Evangelist, or of some other person of the same name as he." Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 3: "It must be known that some in the Roman Church have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that it is disputed whether it is Paul's." Book 6, Chapter 25: "Origen, in fixing the catalog of the canonical writings of the Old Testament, says that the books of the Maccabees are outside it." In the same place: "Peter has left one epistle, about which there is certainty; but it may be that he left another as well, concerning which there is dispute." Likewise: "It is said that the second and third of John are not entirely genuine." In the same place, concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews: "The character of the diction does not have the plain, unlearned quality of speech (ἰδιωτικόν ἐν λόγῳ), whereas Paul confesses that he was unskilled in speech. But whoever can distinguish between styles of speech will acknowledge that the Epistle to the Hebrews is more Hellenistic in its sentence construction. Again, that the sense of this epistle is by no means inferior to those writings which are apostolic beyond dispute — this everyone will acknowledge who diligently reads the apostolic writings." And finally he concludes: "If, then, a church accepts that epistle as an epistle of Paul, it is to be commended for this, for it was not without reason that the ancients handed it down as an epistle of Paul. Who, however, wrote it, God alone knows the truth. The account has come down to us that it was written either by Clement or by Luke, so that the content is Paul's, but the manner of speech and composition is that of a man who wrote down apostolic matters from memory, and set down with his own remarks what had been delivered orally by his teacher." Jerome, on the third chapter of Isaiah: "Although the Latin Church does not count the Epistle to the Hebrews among the...