I presented in the last issue that there were several writings in the early Church that were labeled Apocalypse. The other apocalypse, that of John, attained canonical status only with some difficulty. At first it seems to have been accepted; it is the only apocalypse endorsed by Origen. Some attached the Apocalypse of Peter as well as John on theological grounds – the only true indi-cation of opposition to the Apocalypse in the Western Church. In the Greek Church, Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 250) maintained that John, son of Zebedee and author of the Gospel, did not write Apocalypse (Revelation). Dionysius did not reject the book but was worried about the use being made of it by the heretical chiliasts (i.e., a sect deemed heretical). His critical judgment distinguishing two different writers for John and Apocalypse was certainly correct, but his denial of apostolic authorship to Apocalypse had the effect of weakening the acceptance of Apocalypse as a biblical book in the Greek Church. Eusebius wavers in whether to list Apocalypse as genuine or spurious. It is not included in the list of Cyril of Jerusalem (350) or in the list of the 60th Canon of Laodicea, or in the list of Gregory Nazianzen that was accepted bin Trullo II (692). The Apocalypse was not accepted in the Syrian Church.

Next I would take up the Epistle to the Hebrews, attributed to Paul. This epistle probably was composed in the 80’s or 90’s by a Jewish Christian well educated in the Greek oratorical techniques of Alexandria. Although the work is in epistolary form, it is essentially a highly literate theological disquisition on the relation of Christianity to Jewish institutions. There is little evidence of clear citations of Hebrews in the 2nd century. The discussion of the acceptance of Hebrews is centered around its attribution to Paul. If Apocalypse was accepted in the West and rejected in the East, the reverse holds true for Hebrews. In the West, Hebrews is not mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment or in the Lat list of the Codex Claromontanus, or in the African Canon of 360. In the East, Hebrews is mentioned in Origen’s list, but he admits doubt as to whether Paul wrote it by his own hand. Eusebius himself accepts Hebrews, even though he knows that the Roman church denies that it is the work of Paul. Its acceptance in the East is attested by the canons of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen. In the West, in the latter part of the 4th century, Hebrews won acceptance through other Fathers of the Church.