From the Council of Florence:
It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and
the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since
the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit.
It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows:
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon,
Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch,
Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books
of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen
letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians,
to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the
Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two
letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the
Apostles; Apocalypse of John. (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed.
Norman P. Tanner, 2 vols. [London: Sheed and Ward, 1990], 1:572; the Latin
reads “Quatuordecim Epistolis Pauli . . . Ad Hebreos”)
The
Author and Method of Composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
[Reply of the Biblical Commission, June
24, 1914]
2176 [DS 3591] I. Whether so much force is to be
attributed to the doubts which in the first centuries possessed the minds of
some in the Occident regarding the divine inspiration and Pauline origin of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, because of the special abuse of heretics, that,
although aware of the perpetual, unanimous, and continued affirmation of the
Oriental Fathers, to which was added after the fourth century the full
agreement of the entire Western Church; weighing also the acts of the Highest
Pontiffs and of the sacred Councils, especially of Trent, and also the
perpetual practice of the universal Church, one may hesitate to classify it
with certainty not only among the canonical—which is determined regarding
faith—but also among the genuine epistles of the Apostle Paul?—Reply: In the negative.
2177 [DS 3592] II. Whether the arguments which are
usually drawn from the unusual absence of the name of Paul, and the omission of
the customary introduction and salutation in the Epistle to the Hebrews—or from
the purity of the same Greek language, the elegance and perfection of diction
and style,—or from the way by which the Old Testament is cited in it and
arguments made from it,—or from certain differences which supposedly existed
between the doctrine of this and of the other epistles of Paul, somehow are
able to weaken the Pauline origin of the same; or whether, on the other hand,
the perfect agreement of doctrine and opinions, the likeness of admonitions and
exhortations, and also the harmony of the phrases and of the words themselves
celebrated also by some non-Catholics, which are observed between it and the
other writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles, demonstrate and confirm the same
Pauline origin?—Reply: In the
negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second.
2178 [DS 3593] III. Whether the Apostle Paul is so to be
considered the author of this epistle that it should necessarily be affirmed
that he not only conceived and expressed it all by the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, but also endowed it with that form with which it stands out?—Reply: In the negative, save for a later
judgment of the Church. (The Sources of Catholic Dogma, ed. Henry
Denzinger and Karl Rahner [trans. Roy J. Deferrari [St. Louis, Miss.: B. Herder
Book Co., 1954], 559)
