tradition developed were Caesarea, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Constantinople. The major church centers in the West to which the ancient writers referred in discussing canonical literature for the church were Rome, Carthage, and Lyons.12
The Greek term kanon means “measuring rod,” a “bar” by which a standard measurement was determined. The word itself appears in four places in the New Testament literature, all within the Pauline letters: 2 Corinthians 10:13, 15, 16, and Galatians 6:16. In the first three uses, Paul was writing about the regulations he followed in handling his ministry, the rules under which he served as a preacher of the gospel. In his use of kanon in Galatians 6:16, Paul referred to what is normative for belief and behavior. By the second century, the term was widely used within the churches of the empire, and it denoted the basic faith of the Christian confession. Origen (c. 185–c. 254) was largely responsible for establishing this usage. By the fourth century, kanon was being used to denote the list of writings viewed as authoritative for stating the Christian faith and guiding the affairs of the church.
Those who referred to any certain writing as “canonical” had certain understandings about demands that writing met which could certify it as such: (1) distinct criteria were used to assess the writing as worthy of use for public worship; (2) an early date and use for that writing could be affirmed, backed by word from the closest church leader who could testify about its existence and use in certain places; and (3) solitary notices about the writing could be checked against more generally known references and uses of it.
The earliest listing of the books in our New Testament appeared in the Easter Letter written and sent by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373), to the clergy in his district in ad 367. As bishop, Athanasius was announcing the date of Easter for that year, and he purposely enumerated the writings that were authoritative for church use.13 Still earlier, in preparing the Decrees of the Synod of Nicaea in c. 350, Athanasius had used the expression “not belonging to the canon” in discussing The Shepherd of Hermas document. One of the principal contributions Athanasius made to the church was to list those church writings that he and others considered canonical. Those he listed are the same twenty-seven writings we refer to as the New Testament. Later in that same fourth century, those same twenty-seven books were given special recognition as canonical by the clergy present at two general councils, namely the Council of Hippo in ad 393 and the all-African general council at Carthage in ad 412. The recognition by the councils of these selected church writings as canonical did not make them authoritative; that recognition only certified the already established place of authority these writings had within the church.
In singling out Hebrews as part of the canon, the fact that this letter was known before the close of the first century attests to its early appearance, and the fact that Clement of Rome quoted from it suggests its presumed use in Rome at an early date.
The Letter to the Hebrews appears in the oldest listing of the New Testament canon, usually associated with the writings of Paul.14 The traditional ascription of Hebrews to Paul within the Eastern church secured a firm place for this writing within the New Testament. But it must not be overlooked that there was no common view among the church leaders in the East about how Paul was related to the writing. The tradition about Paul’s exact responsibility as possible author of Hebrews was quite mixed and complex. The main question concerned the difference between the writing style in Paul’s other letters as compared to that in Hebrews—Hebrews is written in refined Greek, while the known Pauline writings are not.15 The churches in the West disputed Pauline authorship of Hebrews because of its theology, especially its teaching about the apparent impossibility of pardon for an apostate (see Heb 6:4–8). Interestingly, although the Letter to the Hebrews gained entrance into the canon on the strength of the Eastern tradition that Paul wrote or was behind its creation, the present positioning of Hebrews in our English versions places the letter after Paul’s writings rather than among them. This order is based upon the Latin Vulgate, the translation work of the learned and noted Jerome (c. 345–c. 419), reputedly the ablest biblical scholar of the Western church at that time. The Latin Vulgate is a Western rendering that has had a primary influence upon our English Bible since it was the version on which the first English Bible was based. Although later English translations of the Bible have been made directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts rather than the Latin renderings, the order established for the books of the New Testament in the Latin Vulgate has continued as found there. Jerome was a scholar of the Western churches, and knowing the tradition within them of non-Pauline authorship of Hebrews, he placed this letter behind Paul’s writings rather than in the midst of them. Jerome thus paid tribute to the tradition in place in the West regarding Hebrews, although he was personally influenced by the ancient Eastern tradition that Paul was responsible for writing the letter.
III. Authorship and Audience
The belief within the churches in the East that Paul the Apostle was responsible for Hebrews was ancient, as we have seen, but so were the questions about how he might have been responsible. Clement of Alexandria (c. 155–c. 200) suggested that Hebrews is Luke’s polished Greek translation of a writing Paul originally made in Hebrew (or Aramaic), which would account for its difference in style from that apostle’s other acknowledged writings. Eusebius gave the following report about Clement’s views on this:
And as for the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says indeed that it is Paul’s, but that it was written for Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke, having carefully translated it, published it for the Greeks; hence, as a result of this translation, the same complexion of style is found in this Epistle and in the Acts but that the [words] “Paul an Apostle” were naturally not prefixed. For, says he, “in writing to Hebrews who had conceived a prejudice against him and were suspicious of him, he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name.”
Eusebius added:
Then lower down he adds: “But now, as the blessed elder used to say, since the Lord, being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through modesty, since he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not inscribe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, both to give due deference to the Lord and because he wrote to the Hebrews out of his abundance, being a preacher and apostle of the Gentiles.16
Origen (c. 185–c. 254) also took note of the better Greek diction found in Hebrews and suggested that one of Paul’s disciples or co-workers might have prepared the letter from notes taken while Paul was teaching (or dictating). Eusebius quoted Origen’s view as that scholar had stated it in his Homilies on Hebrews:
Furthermore, he discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his Homilies upon it: “That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences in 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.”
Eusebius continued:
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 the men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us is twofold, some saying that Clement, who was the bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.17
Eusebius quoted a brief comment Dionysius of Alexandria (died c. 264) made about Hebrews. The comment was excerpted from a letter Dionysius wrote to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, commending the memory of those who had suffered martyrdom at Alexandria under Emperor
