D.

Hebrews

The canonical status of Hebrews was insured when a second-century editor (possibly Pantaenus, the
director of a theological school in Alexandria around 170) incorporated this writing into the Pauline
corpus of letters. The books scriptural status was never questioned after that in Alexandria.

Eventually the Syrian churches also agreed that Hebrews was written by Paul, and they received it
into their scripture canon. The book was both known and quoted in the East and west, but that did
not mean that the western churches accepted it as scripture. Clement of Rome, for example, made
obvious use of Hebrews and incorporated its words into his letter without referring to it as Scripture
or making any direct reference to the letter or its author (see 1 Clem. 9.3 and Heb 11:5; 1 Clem. 10.7
and Heb 11:17; 1 Clem. 17.1 and Heb 11:37; 1 Clem. 19.2 and Heb 12:1; and especially 1Clem. 36.1-5
and Heb 2:18; 3:1; 1:3-4, 7, 13).

Other parallels appear in Justin Martyr (ca. 160) who, like Heb 3:1, strangely refers to Christ as an
“apostle” (1 Apol. 1.12, 63; see also Dial. 34 and Heb 8:7; Dial. 13 and Heb 9:13-14; and Dial. 67 and
Heb 12:18-19).

When Eusebius accepted Hebrews as one of fourteen “obvious and plain” letters by Paul, he
conceded that others disputed its authorship and that the church in Rome even denied that Paul had
written it (His. eccl. 3.3.4-5).

The authorship of the book was central to its acceptance in the churches.

Clement of Alexandria was the first, according to Eusebius, to say that Paul had written Hebrews, but
he claimed that it was originally written in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek and
omitted Paul’s name so as not to offend the Jewish- Christians who were prejudiced against him
(Hist. eccl. 6.14.2-4).

Although Origen acknowledged that some accepted Hebrews as Paul’s letter, while others attributed
it to clement of Rome or Luke (Hist. eccl. 6.25.11-14), he himself held an agnostic on the authorship
of Hebrews. Tertullian alter claimed that Barnabas wrote it (Modesty 20).

Hebrews had a questionable position in the Peshitta and was placed after the epistles of Paul, not
unlike in the current biblical canon, where its position is somewhat equivocal. Auqustine and Jerome
had doubts about the authorship of Hebrews, but they nevertheless accepted it as Paul`s to insure
its inclusion in the biblical canon. Jerome observed that the churches to the west (the “Latins”) “do
not receive it among the canonical scriptures as St. Paul’s” (Letter to Dardanus 129). The book was
eventually included in many of the Scripture canones of the West at the Synod of Hippo in 393 and
at the third and sixth Synods of Carthage in 397 and 419.

E. GENERAL EPISTLES

Except for Jamse, 1 peter, and 1 John, the General Epistles were not widely known in the churches
throughout the second century, and they were variously disputed even in fourth and fifth centuries.

1. James

James had a mixed reception in early Christianity, probably as a result of its apparent contradiction
of Paul’s teaching on works (cf. Rom 4 and Jas 2).
Eusebius classifies the book as one of the disputed writings (antilegomena) (Hist. eccl .3.25.1-5), and
it is missing from several fourth-century lists of NT books. Clement of Rom apparently knew of the
writings in the late first century and balanced the teaching of Paul with that of James on the issue of
works and the law. So also Didache, Ignatius, Barnabas, Polycarp, shepherd of Hermas, Diognetus,
and Justin cite or allude to James. Eusebius (His. eccl.5.11.5) says that Clement of Alexandria taught
directly “from Peter and James and John and Paul” (i.e. their writings). The first person to clearly
refer to James as scripture and clim that it was written by James the brother of Jesus is Origen
(Commentary on John 19.6; compare Homilies on Exodus 15.25).

The same views emerge later in Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 250-265) and in Gregory the
Thaumaturge (ca. 250-265).

2. 1 Peter

Although there are several parallel phrases in Barnabas and 1 peter (Barn.5.6 and 1 pet 1:20), it is
only with Polycarp that clear use of 1 peter is found (e.g., Pol. Phil. 1.3 and 1 Pet 1:8; Pol. Phil. 10.2
and 1 Pet 2:12). The author of 2 Pet 3:1 (ca.100-125, or possibly as late as 180) refers to the
existence of an earlier letter by the Apostle Peter. Eusebius claimed that Papias (ca. 100-150) knew
and used 1 peter (Hist. eccl.3.39.17), and he includes it in the list of the recognized books (3.25.2 and
3.3.1). Irenaeus was the first to use 1 Peter by name (Haer. 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2), and thereafter many
references are made to the book by the early church fathers. Early witnesses validate the use of the
book in the church, and it does not appear to have been seriously questioned in the fourth century,
even though it is missing in the Muratorian Fragment.

3.1 Peter

Essentially, 2 Peter was under suspicion in the church until the time of Athanasius’s Thirty-ninth
Festal Letter in 367. Eusebius rejected it (Hist. eccl.3.25.3) and was aware of the widespread doubts
about its authenticity (Hist.eccl.3.3.1-4). The Syrian church appear to have held it in question until
the sixth century. It is absent from the recension of Lucian of Antioch, and the most prominent
church father from Antioch, John Chrysostom, never referred to it. The same is true of Theodore of
Mopsuestia. Athanasius of Alexandria apparently set the stage for the acceptance of 2 peter in the
churches, but it was questioned as late as the Reformation, when Martin Luther concluded that the
Christian message did not shine well through it.

4.1 John

First John was one of the earliest books the Gospels and Epistles of Paul to be acknowledged as
scripture and subsequently as a part of the Christian canon. Both Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3. 24. 17) and
Origen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6. 25. 10) accepted it as a Part of their sacred collection of Christian
Scriptures. It is cited by Irenaeus (Haer. 3. 17. 5,8) Clement of Alexandria (Fragmente in
Adumbrationes), and Tertullian (Prax. 15; Marc. 5. 16; Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting 12). Apart
from the Alogi from Asia Minor in the last third of the second century, who rejected the Gospel of
John, Acts, Revelation (see Irenaeus’s report in Haer. 3. 11. 12), and probably 1 John as well, few
were opposed to the authenticity of this letter, and most writers of antiquity agreed that the Apostle
John had written it. Eusebius in the fourth century states that very few leaders of the church ever
questioned its authenticity. It was accepted into the Syriac Peshitta no later than the fifth century,
but was not included in the early stages of its formation. The earliest obvious citations of the letter
appear in Pol. Phil. 7; Justin, Dial. 123.9; and probably also Ign. Eph. 7.2; Diogn. 10. 3; and Gospel of
Truth 27. And 31. 4-5.

5.2 and 3 John

Very little attestation for 2-3 John is found prior to the fourth century, and both Eusebius (Hist. eccl.
3.25.3) and Origen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.6.25.10, which may be a Eusebius invention) have doubts
about their authenticity. A few possible parallels in the Apostolic Fathers are not conclusive (e.g.,
Pol. Phil. 7.1 and 2 John 10-11). Better information is available on the use of these two letters from
the time of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2.15.66). Irenaeus quotes 2 John 11 and 7 in Haer.3.17.8.
According to Eusebius, Dionysius of Alexandria knew all three letters of John (Hist. eccl. 7.25.11).
Eusebius also claims that Papias wrote a commentary on them (Hist. eccl. 3.39.1-3). Irenaeus and
Tertullian do not mention 3 John, and even the fourth-century Muratorian Fragment (lines 68-69)
knew only two letters of John. Elsewhere in the fourth century the three letters are known, but are
not yet generally accepted among the churches as Scripture. They are included in Anthanasius’s
Thirty-ninth Festal Letter, Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 4.36), and the Mommsen or
Cheltenham Catalogue (ca. 360 in North Africa), but doubts were still expressed about their
inspiration and canonicity by Jerome (ca.420) in Illustrious Men 9.18. Cyprian cites 2 John 10-11 in
his Sententiae episcoporum 81. They are also included in the Muratorian Fragment (lines 68-69).

There appears to have been a time when only two letters of John were accepted in the West and in
Alexandria. There is no certain reference to 3 John until the time of Jerome and Augustine. Although
some scholars argue that 2 John and 3 John circulated at first as one letter-hence their common
designation under one name and frequent references to only two letters of John-the evidence for
this is not convincing. Both 2 John and 3 John have a slim history of use in the church and are seldom
referred to until the fourth and fifth centuries, when they both appear in lists of Scriptures and
subsequently in theological treatises, where their authority and reception are both questioned and
accepted.

6. Jude

The Epistle of Jude is used in several early Christian writings: Pol. Phil. 3.2 and Jude 3, 20; Barn. 2..10
and Jude 3-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for Christian 24-25; Theophilus of Antioch 2.15; Clement of
Alexandria, Christ the Educator 3.8.44 (quoting Jude 5-6 by name); 3.8.45 (quoting Jude 11); Strom.
3.2.11 (quoting Jude 8-16 by name). Eusebius notes Clement’s acceptance of Jude (Hist. eccl. 6.13.6;
6.14.1). Tertullian implies that Jude was known in Latin translation (Apparel of Women 1.3).
The book was fully accepted by Athanasius in his Thirty-ninth Festal Letter of 367. The Muratorian
Fragment (lines 68-69) mentions Jude in an awkward manner, possibly showing som element of
doubt about its acceptance. This is consistent with the questions raised about Jude in the fourth
century.

Origen knew of questions about Jude, but this does not deter him from citing the book (e.g.,
Commentary on Matthew 17.30 and Jude 6; Commentary on Matthew 10.17, where Jude is called a
servant of “our Lord Jesus Christ and a brother of James”; Commentary on John 13.37 and Jude 6;
Homily on Ezekiel 4.1 and Jude 8-9; and First Principles 3.2.1, which shows awareness of the book).
He was apparently attracted to Jude because of its views on angelology. The widely acknowledged
use of Jude in 2 Peter gives further witness to the widespread use of Jude in the second century.

In the fourth and fifth centuries Jude was called into question primarily as a result of its use of 1 En.
1:9 in Jude 14-15. Throughout the first two centuries of the church, 1 Enoch was accepted as
inspired and sacred in many Christian communities. For example, 1 Enoch was used by Assumption
of Moses, Jubilees, Apocalypse of Baruch (ca. 70 C.E), and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In
the Christian era, the author of Barnabas cites 1 Enoch three times, twice referring to it as Scripture:
“It has been written, just as Enoch says” (Barn. 4.3, referring to 1 En. 89:61-64; 90:17) and “for the
Scripture says” (Barn. 16.5, citing 1 En. 89:55, 66-67). The appeal of Jude to 1 Enoch, therefore, was
not a problem in the Christian communities. Only in the third century and later do we find doubts
expressed about the canonicity of 1 Enoch, mostly because of its attributing carnal lust to heavenly
beings. Consequently, in the fourth century and later Jude’s use of 1 Enoch led to question about the
place of Jude itself in the Scripture canon.

Eusebius lists Jude among the “doubted” (antilegomena) writings in the church (Hist. eccl. 3.25.3; cf.
2.23.25), and Jerome (Illustrious Men 4) felt obligated to deal with the issue of Jude’s use of 1 Enoch.
Didymus of Alexandria (ca. 395) defended Jude against those who attacked its use of 1 Enoch (see
Migne, Patrologia graeca 39.1811-18). Jude’s offense was not that he made use of 1 Enoch, as other
Christian writers had, but that he referred to the writing by name. Jude used Jewish apocalypses in
much the same manner as did 1-2 Peter. Although Jude cites 1 Enoch by name, he is nonetheless still
within the bounds of what was acceptable in his day.

F. REVELATION

There are no certain traces of Revelation in the Apostolic Fathers. The closest parallels, of course,
come from the Visions section of the Shepherd of Hermas:

Herm. Vis. 1.1.3 and Rev 17:3

Herm. Vis. 2.2.7; 4.2.5; 4.3.6 and Rev 3:10 and 7:14
Herm. Vis. 2.4 and Rev 12:1
Herm. Vis. 4.1.6 and Rev 9:3
Herm. Sim. 8.2.1, 3 and Rev 2:10; 3:11; and 6:11
Barn. 7.9 and Rev 1:7, 13
Barn. 21.3 and Rev 22:10-12

Charles claims that Revelation was all but universally accepted (and consequently used in an
authoritative manner) in Asia Minor, western Syria, Africa, Rome, and south Gaul in the second
century. Justin appears to have been the first to say that the book of Revelation was written by John
the Apostle (Dial. 81.15; cf. also 1 Apol. 28, which refers to Rev 12:9). According to Eusebius,
Apollonius used Revelation in the second century to write against the Montanists (His. eccl. 5.18.14).
Clement of Alexandria (Christ the Educator 2.119) cites Revelation as Scripture and as the work of
John the Apostle (salvation of the Rich 42 and Strom. 6.106-107). Charles further notes that,
according to Tertullian, Marcion rejected the traditional authorship of John and the Alogi of the
second century rejected the traditional authorship of John and the Alogi of the second century
rejected the writing altogether.

According to Eusebius, Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (ca. 260-64) wrote a critical appraisal of the
authorship of the book (Hist. eccl. 7.24-27) and concluded that it was not written by john the
Apostle. Eusebius placed Revelation among the doubtful books in his own collection of Christian
writing (Hist. eccl. 3.24.18; 3.25.4). Cyril of Jerusalem rejected the book altogether and forbad its use
in public or private (Catechetical Lectures 4.36). Around 360, Revelation did not get included in the
canon list of the Council of Laodicea or in the canon 85 of the Apostolic Constitutions. Most scholars
contend, as Charles shows that Revelation was ignored or rejected in many Eastern churches in the
fourth century. On the other hand, some Eastern writers did accept and refer to Revelation: Melito
of Sardis, Jerome, Theophilus of Antioch, Apollonius of Hierapolis, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen
(see details in SI.D item#7 above).

Significant rejection of Revelation in the East did not occur until the end of the fourth century, when
Cyril of Jerusalem excluded Revelation without comment (Catechetical Lectures 4.36). On the other
hand, Epiphanius of Salamis still included it at the end of the fourth century (Pan. 76.5), as did
Jerome (Letter to Paul 53) and Codex Alexandrinus (425).

III. SUMMARY

The recognition of Christian literature as authoritative and useful in the life and worship of the
church came sooner than its formal recognition as Scripture. In general, such writings were not
called Scripture in the second century, even though they no doubt functioned that way for many
Christians. By the end of the second century, the principle of Christian Scriptures had already been
recognized by vast segments of the Christian community. This conclusion, however, calls for three
important cautions that are also reminders of how we began this chapter. Firs, acknowledgment of
the authority of one part of the NT literature at this time does not imply that all of it was so
recognized everywhere. Second, because one writer may refer to a part of the NT as Scripture does
not mean that all Christians of the same era came to the same conclusion. Finally, even if some of
the NT writings were recognized as having the status of Scripture in the second century, this is not
the same as a closed canon of Scripture even though it is clear that with the recognition of the
authority of certain Christian writings canonical processes were in motion.