rather than a decision of objective criticism. Luther does not stand alone in holding this epistle to be one of the choicest books of the New Testament. [48] By Von Soden and Jülicher, although some interpolations are allowed. Even Pfleiderer admitted that it contained fragments of St. Paul's genuine writings, after Hilgenfeld had followed his leader Baur in rejecting it altogether. Lightfoot, T. K. Abbott, Zahn, and Sanday all defend its claims. The question of the _Pastoral Epistles_ must be considered as still one meeting with doubtful answers. Many scholars who accept all the ten epistles of St. Paul to the Churches agree with Marcion of the second century in not admitting these three works. Still they are defended by most British and American New Testament[49] scholars, and some who do not allow that in their present form they can be attributed to the Apostle still admit that they contain fragments of the Apostle's genuine writings.[50] [49] Not by Davidson, however, nor more recently by Bacon or Moffatt. Dr. Horton (_Century Bible_) balances the arguments _pro_ and _con_ and refuses to decide either way. [50] This is Harnach's view. On the other hand so independent a scholar and drastic a critic as Mr. Conybeare told the present writer that he had no doubt of their genuineness. The _Epistle to the Hebrews_ is now universally admitted not to be a work of St. Paul. The book itself makes no claim to be such, and it is unfortunate that the English Revisers retained the misleading title ascribing it to "Paul the Apostle," a late superscription of no historical value. Happily the American Revisers have struck this out. Claims for Barnabas and for Apollos as its author have their advocates; and lately Prof. Harnach has hit on the happy guess, backed up by considerations of some amount of probability, that its author was a woman--Priscilla. But most scholars feel it necessary to abide by Origen's negative conclusion: "Who wrote the epistle God only knows." That it is a most valuable work of high inspiration well worthy of a place in the canon in spite of its anonymity cannot be doubted. It has recently received special attention from scholars in the form of fresh and luminous exposition.[51] [51] Especially by Menégoz, Bruce, and Milligan.