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 Decius. Testifying about their steadfastness of faith, Dionysius likened them to “those of whom Paul testified, they took joyfully the spoiling of their possessions.”18 The words quoted in that tribute are from Hebrews 10:34, and Dionysius’s ascription of them to Paul shows his view that Paul wrote Hebrews.
According to Tertullian (c. 155–c. 220), the noted apologist and theologian in the Western church, there was an equally ancient belief in the West that it was Barnabas, Paul’s companion, who wrote Hebrews. In writing his treatise On Modesty, Tertullian quoted from Hebrews 6:1, 4–6 to make a point about discipline as an apostolic dogma and mentioned Barnabas as the writer.
For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinance.”19
In his call to serious Christian living, Tertullian appealed to the strong witness of one who was part of the Pauline circle, and his attribution to Barnabas of that quotation from Hebrews shows his belief concerning who wrote it.
It is easy to understand how the view that Barnabas wrote Hebrews could make its way within certain of the churches. As a Levite, whose family, position, and work gave him an intimate knowledge of temple life, Barnabas had the background to treat the sustained argument about priestly ministry with which much of Hebrews deals. Hebrews ends, also, with the author describing his work as logou tes parakleseos, “a word of exhortation,” (13:22), a description that reflects the style of preaching Barnabas