Who wrote Hebrews?

May 29, 2007 Matthew Keedy Clifton New Testament Commentary

New Testament scholars down through the years have been left in a quandary when it comes to consideration of the authorship of the book we know as the Epistle to the Hebrews. After all, although traditionally it was ascribed to Paul as the author, there is the looming fact of the omission of his name in the greeting, where it characteristically appears in thirteen epistles of Paul.

Did Paul write the letter to the Hebrews? If not, who did? These are questions that have been speculated upon, but no definite answer has been forthcoming. George Guthrie noted that few questions concerning the New Testament have fostered so many speculations and so few answers (p. 23). In addition to Paul, many other possibilities””with varying degrees of credibility””have been proposed over the years, including Luke, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Priscilla, Jude, Philip, Silas and Apollos, who is championed quite often in modern times after initially being proposed in past centuries by Martin Luther. But none of these suggestions carry with it any note of surety.

The object of this paper is not to arrive at a provable result on who wrote Hebrews, although this writer will express an opinion in the conclusion. We cannot expect to do in one short paper something that has not been accomplished in 2,000 years of research and speculation. Rather, we will examine the pros and cons of each proposed author to weigh the evidence of scholarly opinion. Some proposed authors may be ruled out as highly doubtful, while arguments for others carry more weight. In the end, perhaps enough evidence will be presented to allow for a “most likely” conclusion.

Each proposed author will be dealt with in the following individual sections. Each section will then contain a summary of arguments for, and arguments against, the authorship of each suggested author. These sections will be followed by a final conclusion. Before addressing each of the major possibilities for authorship, though, let us begin by noting some internal qualities of the epistle that may help us know what kind of person the author was.

Internal evidence regarding the author

What kind of person was the author of Hebrews? The only sure clues we have are those contained in the text itself. There are a few points that are commonly agreed upon by most scholars:

The author had great Old Testament knowledge. This is generally agreed upon, with many adding the idea that the author interpreted the Septuagint “according to a creative exegetical principle” (Bruce, p. 20). In his article entitled The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews, however, George Guthrie notes that to assign an allegorical type of exegesis akin to Philo would be to go too far (p. 47). So while staying out of the realm of allegorical interpretation, the author of Hebrews was powerful and creative in his use of the Old Testament.

The author was a dynamic preacher. The argument is made that the style of Hebrews is one of a sermon, similar to those delivered in synagogue (G. Guthrie, p. 24). Bruce comments that the author was a “master of fine rhetorical style” (p. 20). Additionally, the point is made that the phrase in Hebrews 13:22, “word of exhortation,” is the same idea as in Acts 13:14-15, where Paul and Barnabas were encouraged to deliver a “word of exhortation” in the synagogue (G. Guthrie, p. 24).

The author was highly educated. The author’s sentence structure belies an understanding of rhetorical style, and the first four verse of the book have been called the “most perfect Greek sentence in the New Testament” (G. Guthrie, p. 26).

The author had a close relationship with the readers. Both Hebrews 10:32-24 and 13:18-24 show that the writer had a former personal contact with these readers, and cared deeply about their condition. So the author had a deep care and concern for these Christians, and a desire to steer them back to the right path and encourage them to remain faithful under all circumstances.

With these ideas in mind, let us now move on to more specific issues regarding possible authors of Hebrews.

The apostle Paul

Arguments in favor. From the earliest text of Hebrews that we have, the epistle was placed right after Romans amongst the Pauline epistles. In the majority of early Greek manuscripts Hebrews is placed after 2 Thessalonians and before the pastoral epistles (D. Guthrie, p. 670). Carson says this placement no doubt reflects the conviction of the Eastern church, which in turn was dependent upon several Alexandrian scholars whose opinions were preserved by Eusebius (p. 394). The early attestation of church “fathers” is therefore one of the strongest arguments for Pauline authorship. Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all attest to Pauline authorship, albeit with varying degrees of surety (Milligan, p. 5ff).

Another argument in favor of Pauline authorship is the use of common themes. Many scholars do not see any common Pauline themes in Hebrews (D. Guthrie, p. 396), but in this writer’s opinion, they are not looking hard enough. For instance, the writer uses the metaphor of running a race in Hebrews 12:1, which Paul uses as well in 1 Corinthians 9:24. Although the writer of Hebrews does not use the characteristic Pauline salutation, he does use a characteristic Pauline closing. In Hebrews 13:25, we read, “Grace be with you all. Amen.” Every single epistle of Paul utilizes such a closing line which mentions “grace.” No other New Testament writer closes in such a way. There is also the use of the common “falling away” theme, so greatly touched upon in Hebrews, especially in chapters six and ten. Paul speaks of falling away in his epistles, such as Gal. 5:4, Romans 11, and 1 Corinthians 10:12. The close association with Timothy (Heb. 13:23) is also cited as evidence for Pauline authorship. It is also interesting to this writer that the author of Hebrews mentions being in chains (Heb. 10:34) which is a common recurring theme in Paul’s epistles. Barnes offers a good discussion on this point in his work on Hebrews (p. iv).

In his Exposition on Hebrews, John Owen makes the argument that the epistle Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3:15-16 is one having been written by Paul to the same people Peter is addressing (p. 83ff). Since 2 Peter is written to the same group as 1 Peter, we can look at the salutation of 1 Peter and see to whom it was addressed: “To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.” This dispersion, Owen argues, is the Hebrews. He goes on to argue that the conclusion must be that either the Epistle to the Hebrews is the one Peter refers to, or there is another epistle written to the same people Peter wrote to which is now lost. Owen says the former is the more likely.

Milligan points out that while the style is somewhat elevated from Paul’s other letters, there is the characteristic “digression” in Hebrews that so marks Paul’s epistles (p. 18). This idea is strongly displayed in the Hebrews chapter 5, where the writer breaks off at the word “Melchisedek” in verse 10 and launches into a side thought, not returning to the theme until chapter seven. Guthrie, however, points out that even this digression in Hebrews is dissimilar to Paul’s digressions (D. Guthrie, p. 672). Nevertheless, because of these reasons, I think it incorrect to say that there are no Pauline qualities to the book of Hebrews.

Arguments against. There are numerous arguments that have been brought forward to deny Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The first and foremost is the lack of the characteristic Pauline greeting found in his other letters. Carson writes that the lack of Paul’s name in the salutation makes it hard to believe the apostle wrote it (p. 396). This is a strong argument, but many who hold to Pauline authorship will point out the words of Clement of Alexandria, who explained that in writing to the Hebrews, Paul would not have turn them off from his epistle by setting down his name at the beginning (Bruce, p. 15). This explanation, though, seems odd in light of the writer’s seemingly close relationship with the readers, who must have known who the writer was. Heb. 13:23 implies that the one coming to them would be known.

Another argument is that the writer exhibits no apostolic authority. This argument is bolstered by the statement in Hebrews 2:3, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” Carson says it is almost impossible to believe the phrase “confirmed unto us by them that heard him” would have been written by an apostle who had seen the risen Lord (p. 396). This idea should be compared to Gal. 1:11-12, where Paul says that which he delivered came directly from Christ, and not a man. This is indeed a strong argument on the face of it, but one that is not without counter. For instance, Milligan takes the position that in saying “confirmed unto us by them that heard him,” the writer is merely associating himself with the readers, as he does in Hebrews 6:1-3: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.” Here the writer places himself among the readers, and one would never get the impression that the writer was saying he himself needed to go on to higher teachings (p. 15).

Although there are other minor arguments, we will finally look at the difference in style, which Guthrie says would seem to make Pauline authorship inconceivable (p. 672). Origen noted that the Greek is more polished, the argumentation is more designed, and does not contain the characteristic abruptness and digressions of Paul’s letters (D. Guthrie, p. 672). Some think too much has been made of this stylistic argument, especially if Luke transcribed the letter for Paul (Black, p. 6). There are similarities between the gospel of Luke, Acts and Hebrews (Allen, p. 5ff), and if Luke wrote his gospel account from Paul’s recollections as the writings of Irenaeus tell us (Eusebius, p. 210), then it is conceivable that Luke may have written down Hebrews by dictation, which would cause the style to be different.

In concluding this section on Paul, we can see that the opinion of ancient Christian witnesses plays heavily into the belief in Paul as the author, but many of the arguments against him as author have plausible counter arguments. Let us now look at some alternate suggestions.

Luke

Arguments in favor. Luke has been brought up in two capacities: scribe for Paul and author by himself. Clement of Alexandria considered Luke to have been the translator of the letter Paul wrote to the Hebrews, from Hebrew into Greek (D. Guthrie, p. 676). The main support for this theory is the similarity between Luke-Acts and the letter to the Hebrews. Allen gives a thorough review of the possibilities of Lukan authorship, citing lexical similarities and stylistic similarities (p. 5ff). Additionally, Allen proposes (after van Unnik) a common purpose between Luke-Acts and Hebrews. He points to Hebrews 2:3-4 as being an expression of what Luke has accomplished in Luke-Acts (p.11). Allen compares the prologues to Luke-Acts with the one in Hebrews, and sees in them similarities, such as the phrase, “which began to be spoken by the Lord” (Heb. 2:3) with “concerning all which Jesus began both to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1). He sees further similarities between Heb. 2:3-4 and Acts 14:3 and Acts 1:8. Allen also cites a similarity between the phrasing in Hebrews 2:10, “author of salvation,” and Acts 3:15 and Acts 5:31 (p. 12). Based on these and other ideas, Allen argues for independent Lukan authorship:

When all the evidence (which has not been presented here) is taken together, the best theory which answers the most questions regarding the authorship of Hebrews is that of independent Lukan authorship. From a lexical, stylistic, and textlinguistic perspective, of all the New Testament writers, Luke is closer to Hebrews than anyone. From the standpoint of purpose and theology, Luke is again closer to Hebrews than Paul or any other New Testament writer. If we add to this the possibility of the Jewish background of Luke, there is no formidable argument which can be made against Lukan authorship of Hebrews. In the absence of a better theory, it would seem that we can speak legitimately about not only the possibility but also even the probability of Luke having been the author of Hebrews, assuming the author to be one of the New Testament writers (p. 18).

Other affinities that are pointed out between Luke-Acts and Hebrews include the fact that both contain reviews of Hebrew history; both stress the call of Abraham and Abraham’s non-possession of the land; both discuss the tabernacle as divinely ordered, and that the Law was mediated by angels (D. Guthrie, p. 677).

Arguments against. Outside of the points made above, there is very little evidence to support independent Lukan authorship. There are indeed similarities between the writings of Luke and Hebrews, and at least we have writings of Luke to compare with Hebrews. Carson comments that the similarities between Luke-Acts and Hebrews are too slight to signal common authorship (p. 396). Clement of Alexandria put forth the idea that Luke was the translator for a Pauline epistle in Hebrew, but Bruce postulates that Origen must have know that the Greek of Hebrews was not translation Greek (p. 15). However, this writer believes that although independent authorship of Luke has little support, there is a good chance that Luke served as “scribe” to Paul in the writing of Hebrews.

Clement of Rome

Arguments in favor. Clement of Rome has been suggested as another possible author of Hebrews. There are marked similarities between Hebrews and the epistle sent by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (D. Guthrie, p. 668). For instance we can see similarities between Hebrews 11:7:

“By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.”

And 1 Clement 9:4:

“Noah, being found faithful, preached regeneration to the world through his ministry; and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark.”

Other comparisons can be drawn between Heb. 11:31 and 1 Clement 12:1 and Hebrews 1:3ff and 1 Clement 36:1ff. Looking at these similarities, some have supposed the Clement could have written Hebrews.

Arguments against. Despite these similarities, Westcott has demonstrated that the differences are far too great for the letters to have common authorship (D. Guthrie, p. 678). The similarities are well accounted for by the idea that Clement was familiar with the letter to the Hebrews, and drew images and thoughts from it. Also, as Carson points out, some of the arguments Clement makes in his epistle to the Corinthians are directly at odds with the themes of Hebrews (p. 396). Therefore, this writer believes Clement of Rome can safely be discounted as a possibility.

Apollos

Arguments in favor. Although Apollos seems to be the “fad author” of the day for Hebrews, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to him as the writer. George Guthrie gives a good history of the examination of Apollos (p. 42). The first scholar that we know of to propose Apollos as author was Martin Luther. Despite having once advocated Pauline authorship as late as 1517, Luther in 1537 began suggesting Apollos. Over the next three centuries, Apollos crops up as a possibility in the work of Bleek, Farrar, and Zahn. Later, Ceslas Spicq picked up the charge and outlined 11 points which he feels indicate Apollos as author. His points of contention were:

1. Hebrews requires a Jewish author, and Apollos fits this bill.
2. Apollos was a native of Alexandria, and many scholars argue Hebrews has an “Alexandrian flavor.”
3. Apollos was a powerful orator and a scholar, according to the account of him in Acts 18.
4. The writer of Hebrews was a master of Old Testament exegesis, and again Apollos’ description in Acts fits.
5. Apollos was an effective apologist and was able to refute mightly the Jews.
6. Spicq says all great orators have an area of specialty, and the Hebrew writer’s was the person of Jesus.
7. Apollos was an exceptional person, due to Luke’s treatment of him in Acts and Paul’s mention of him in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere. Hebrews is an exceptional letter, and thus fits.
8. Apollos came into contact with Paul in Ephesus, thereby accounting for the Pauline influence.
9. Apollos’ refusal to go to Corinth at Paul’s suggestion in 1 Cor. 16:12 probably stemmed from his sensitivity to the difficult situation his earlier ministry there had prompted.
10. Hebrews seems to display an elementary approach to the Christian faith, as in 6:1-3, and a deficiency in a doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and this could be said of Apollos, based on the account of his instruction by Aquila and Priscilla.
11. Last, Spicq sums up by saying that Apollos simply fits the evidence better than any other figure of the New Testament (G. Guthrie, p. 47).

Spicq’s points above as quoted by George Guthrie are representational of the main arguments used by those who put forth Apollos as a possible author for the letter to the Hebrews.

Arguments against. While at first glance these reasons above seem intriguing, there seem to be some major difficulties to consider. First, there is the total absence of any historical attestation to Apollos as author. The eastern (Alexandrian) church had a long-held tradition of Paul as author, and if an Alexandrian like Apollos was the author, it would seem near impossible that a record of him as author would not have been kept (D. Guthrie, p. 679). Neither is there any evidence that Apollos ever wrote anything.

What we are left with is a series of conjectures that do not have a solid foundation to rest upon. Hebrews requires a writer mighty in the scriptures for sure, but can we deny that Paul fits this bill as well? While Apollos is an intriguing suggestion, this writer sees it mostly as wishful thinking by modern scholars who have shunned the traditional authorship of Paul are and grappling to put a name to what they see as a “nameless” letter.

Barnabas

Arguments in favor. Barnabas may have possibly the oldest attestation of all the possible authors. Bruce says Tertullian does not attribute the epistle to Barnabas as if he were merely expressing opinion, but rather as if it were a commonly held ascription among those of his circle (p. 16). In his analysis of word usage (which he says rules out Paul as author), Gardner makes much of this single attribution of Hebrews to Barnabas, concluding that “there is nothing to hinder the early ecclesiastical statement that he [Barnabas] was also the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews” (p. 25).

Since Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:36), he would certainly have had the necessary knowledge about the temple operations and ritual. It may also be pointed out that Barnabas was called the son of exhortation in Acts 4:36, and the writer of Hebrews says he was writing to offer a “word of exhortation” in Hebrews 13:22. These are the main supports for Barnabas as author.

Arguments against. As with all suggestions, there are some difficulties. First, would Barnabas have described his learning of the gospel in terms of Hebrews 2:3? And if Barnabas was the author, why the early rise of the idea that Paul was the author (D. Guthrie, p. 675)?

Also, if Barnabas is truly the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, why is there such a marked difference in spiritual content and lofty rhetoric between the former work and the Epistle to the Hebrews?

And a counter to those like Gardiner who feel Tertullian’s attestation is solid proof, what of the rise of the tradition that Paul wrote Hebrews? In this writer’s opinion, there is more to commend Barnabas as an independent author than any other suggestion, other than Paul, but there again is not enough evidence to form any more than a guess based on conjecture.

Priscilla

Arguments in favor. Our final candidate will be examined not because there is an abundance of evidence for the possibility, but rather because of the unusual claim of a female author for Hebrews.

Around 1900, Harnack suggested that Priscilla wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews (Torrey, p. 187), perhaps with the help of her husband Aquila (D. Guthrie, p. 680). Among the support for this suggestion is that Priscilla and Aquila were highly capable teachers, as is evidenced by their instruction of Apollos in Acts 18. But Harnack’s focal argument is simply this: The reason the epistle was anonymous is because the letter, being written by a woman, would have rejected. Therefore, for the sake of prudence, the name was omitted from the letter.

There are a few internal evidences that Harnack and others have brought up. First, the argument is made that the “faith’s hall of fame” listing in Hebrews 11 contains the names of women, and therefore reflects a female interest (D. Guthrie, p. 680). The use of the plural (we) in Hebrews 13:18 is suggested as referring to the husband-wife team. Also, since Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers, the interest in the tabernacle is seen as an evidence, as well as the interest in childhood (Hebrews 5:12; 11:23; 12:7) and parenthood (Hebrews 7:3; 11:23).

Arguments against. For those working from a feminist viewpoint, Priscilla is an intriguing possibility. However, the issue of evidence is a great one, and all the evidence offered by Harnack and others is circumstantial.

Of course Aquila and Priscilla were great teachers. However, Priscilla was teaching along with her husband, not outside of her husband’s authority. It would be highly doubtful that Priscilla, being in such close contact and influence of Paul, would have directly gone against his admonition that women not teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Cor. 14:34ff; 1 Tim. 2:12).

This point also plays into the issue of anonymous authorship. If Priscilla was a strong Christian teacher, and was influences greatly by Paul, why would she go directly against his teachings? Further, this writer feels that if Hebrews was a resultant work of the husband-wife team of Aquila and Priscilla, would not it have been of more impact to affix Aquila’s name to the work, and thereby lend to the work a note of authenticity? The readers no doubt knew who this letter was coming from, and therefore if Priscilla wrote it, leaving off the name would have been of no effect.

As far as the supposed internal evidences, these are easily countered. In Hebrews chapter 11, the writer does mention female heroes of faith. But it escapes this writer why this would be evidence for female authorship. First, does not the Old Testament contain these stories of faithful women? And yet, we do not attempt to affix female authors. Does not James in the New Testament refer to Rahab as being faithful? And again, we do not think he has to be a female. This point is a weak one, and carries little merit.

As for the other supposed internal evidences, it is plain to see that a person does not have to be a female, nor married, to speak of childhood and parenthood. We can look at Paul’s frequent uses of “my son” and begetting children in the gospel to confirm this idea. Also, the tabernacle evidence is purely grasping at straws.

Perhaps, though, the deathblow for such a theory that Priscilla was the written is the author’s use of a masculine participle in reference to himself in Hebrews 11:32. With all these accumulated evidences against female authorship, it is a sure thing that Priscilla was not the author.

Conclusion

Where does this leave us? In this writer’s opinion, only Paul, Luke and Barnabas are left as credible possibilities. Clement of Rome has too little evidence to even consider. Priscilla is a flight of fantasy, and wishful thinking from the liberal, feminist sections of modern scholarship. Apollos, though an intriguing and exciting possibility, carries too much conjecture and circumstantial evidence, not to mention assumptions and no historical attestation to him having every written anything, much less so grandiose and important an epistle as Hebrews.

Since the earliest positive historical attestation is for Barnabas, he must be considered seriously. Being a close companion of Paul, it is easy to understand the similarities to Paul’s images of running a race and falling away. Gardiner has made the argument that only a Levite like Barnabas would have the intimate knowledge of temple ritual that is evident in Hebrews (p. 25). Further, he claims that the lack of attestation among early Christians comes from the fact that the spurious Epistle of Barnabas was affixed with his name, and since Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas are dissimilar, so his possible authorship of Hebrews has been ignored (p. 25). However, other than Tertullian’s attestation, there is no other strong evidence for the authorship of Barnabas, especially since we have no writings of his to compare to Hebrews.

This leaves us to consider Paul and Luke as possibilities. The strong tradition that Paul is the author weighs heavily upon this issue. Early Christians who were in a position to know more than we do today did not assign Hebrews to Luke, or Apollos, or others (with the slight exception of Barnabas, who can be excluded for other reasons). Instead, they assigned it to Paul. This speaks strongly to Paul’s authorship.

So many scholars discuss the need for an “eloquent man” to be the writer, and thus attempt to assign the epistle to Apollos due to his description by Luke in Acts. However, was Paul not an eloquent man himself, and mighty in the scriptures in his own right? Does not Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 attain to the grandiose rhetorical heights demanded of today’s scholars for the author of Hebrews? Does not the letter to the Romans bear the mark of an excellent speaker? Can anyone read the first chapter of Romans without feeling the power of Paul’s inspired speaking skills? The argument that Apollos would better fit this demand than Paul is a nonsense argument.

But what about the change in style between Paul’s 13 known letters and the letter to the Hebrews? Does this not prove that Paul was could not have been the author? Too much is made of this style difference, in this writer’s opinion. However, this assertion does not make the difference magically disappear. How do we deal with this difficulty and retain Pauline authorship?

It would seem that there is some evidence that Luke may have transcribed the letter to the Hebrews. As we have shown from the work of Allen, Luke-Acts and Hebrews have a similar style and word usage. Luke was a frequent companion of Paul, and additionally, as has been referenced previously, Irenaeus makes the assertion that Luke wrote his gospel account from the influence of Paul. If this is true, it would not be much of a stretch to imagine that Luke could have written down the letter to the Hebrews from Paul himself. There is some doubt about whether Hebrews is “translation” Greek, but that does not rule out the possibility that Luke translated it from the Hebrew, either. This would also account for the early Christian attestation that links Luke with the Hebrew letter, such as Clement of Alexandria’s claim that Luke was the translator (D. Guthrie, p. 676). Such a transcription or translation by Luke of Paul’s speech or writing would easily account for the stylistic differences, and better accounts for the stylistic similarities between Luke-Acts and Hebrews.

If presenting the idea that Paul is the author, we must deal with the statement in Hebrews 2:3: “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard.” Many scholars demand that this statement must mean that the writer has no apostolic authority. But is that what it really means? As we presented earlier, could the writer have been using inclusive language in order to show kinship with the readers? After all, in other sections the writer puts himself among them, for instance in Hebrews 6:1-4 where he encourages them to leave behind the elementary teachings, and adds that “this we will do if the Lord permits.” Certainly we don’t think this writer has yet to leave behind the elementary principles and press forward into weightier matters? Therefore, the argument from Hebrews 2:3 is not insurmountable by any means.

But then there is the question of why the author’s name was omitted from the letter. It is obvious that the readers would have known who the writer was, so this is a difficult question. Perhaps the name was left off because of Luke’s intimate assistance with the letter. Or perhaps, as many early writers believed, Paul left his name off this letter because his status as apostle to the Gentiles would incur the wrath of the Hebrew readers (D. Guthrie, p. 671). Others suggested that Paul left his name off out of respect for the Lord, who appointed him to his position as apostle to the Gentiles (p. 672), while Christ Himself may have been considered by Paul to be the apostle to the Hebrews.

It is interesting that respected scholars like F.F. Bruce see in the Epistle to the Hebrews absolutely no mark of Paul:

“¦we may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of Old Testament quotation is not Paul’s. In brief, “I can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author.” So Calvin wisely sums up (p. 20).

Why is it that Bruce sees no marks of Paul’s involvement, when early Christian writers like Origen, who were obviously closer to the time of writing than Bruce, do see such marks, at least in admitting the thoughts are Pauline (D. Guthrie, p. 669)? Again, this writer will appeal to the difference between the loving letter to Philemon, the fiery letter to the Galatians, and the lofty book of Romans and Paul’s speech upon Mars Hill in Acts 17 to show that difference circumstances required different techniques. Style alone, especially given possible involvement by Luke, cannot rule out Paul as the author. Additionally, Origen constantly cited the epistle as having been Paul’s, regardless of any conjecture that may have been going on at the time (Black, p. 5).

Despite modern scholarship’s insistence that Paul could not have been the author, the evidence this writer has seen continues to point back to Pauline authorship, or at least Pauline origination with the assistance of Luke. Even independent authorship by Luke would not diminish the inspired nature of the writings, any more than it diminishes the inspired nature of the gospel of Luke or Acts. However, the early attestation that Paul was the writer and that Luke was the translator or transcriber seems to be the more likely scenario. So it is the conclusion of this writer that Paul was the author, possibly with the assistance of Luke in some manner.

Near the beginning of this discuss, we looked at four qualities of the author of Hebrews that were evident from internal clues. First, we stated that the author was highly knowledgeable of the Old Testament. It is doubtful that there are many who would deny that Paul was just this sort of man.

Secondly, we observed that the author was a dynamic preacher. Again, we can see in Paul just such a dynamic preacher. In reviewing Paul’s recorded speeches, such as in Acts, we can see the eloquence and power in his preaching of the gospel. Again we appeal to the lofty language of Romans, and we can see no reason why Paul would not fit this description, also.

Third, we said the author of Hebrews was highly educated. Paul himself was highly educated, having surpassed others in his religion (Gal. 1:13) and taught at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). This does not prove he could have written the superb Greek of Hebrews, but it certainly is not a stumbling block to his authorship by scribe. Further, when we consider the inspirational work of the Holy Spirit, even the style coming from Paul’s own hand is not to be ruled out.

Fourth, the author had a close relationship with his readers. What statement could be more descriptive of Paul? He expressed care, concern and prayers for the people he wrote to in his letters, and in commenting upon his hardships for the gospel, he placed among the hardest to endure his “anxiety for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28) that pressed upon him daily. There is no doubt that Paul fits the bill when it comes to care and concern for the body of Christ.

If Paul fits all four of the qualities that are generally agreed upon in regard to the author of Hebrews, then we should not rule Paul out as author. On the contrary, he should be moved back to the top of the list when we consider who may have written this inspired work. This position best fits the evidence, both new and old, and does not venture too far into the realm of unsubstantiated conjecture, as some of the other possibilities do.

In the end, however, we have to admit that we do not know with 100 percent surety. Thankfully, God has given us a complete revelation in the Bible, and no doctrine of the Bible is violated by the writings in Hebrews. It is in full accord with all that is taught throughout the Bible. Therefore, along with the Paul-Luke connection, we can be assured that Hebrews is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and fully appropriate for our learning and development as Christians.

WORKS CITED

1. Allen, David L. “The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews: A Proposal.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 8 (1996): 1-22.
2. Barnes , Albert. Notes on the New Testament: Hebrews. 1955. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
3. Black, David Alan. “On the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews (Part 2): The External Evidence Reconsidered.” Faith and Mission 16.3 (1999): 78-86.
4. Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
5. Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.
6. Eusebius. The History of the Church. Translated by G.A. Williamson. 1965. New York: Dorset Press.
7. Gardiner, Frederic. “The Language of the Epistle to the Hebrews as Bearing Upon Its Authorship.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 7.1 (1887): 1-27.
8. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 1970. 4th rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1990.
9. Guthrie, George H. “The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews.” Faith & Mission 18.2 (2001): 41-56.
10. —. The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews 1998. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
11. Milligan, Robert. A Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1874. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Company, 1989.
12. Owen, John. An Exposition of Hebrews. Vol. 1. 1668. Marshallton, DE: The National Foundation for Christian Education, 1969.
13. Tenney, Merril C. “A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews.” Bibliotheca Sacra 123 (1966): 230-36.

authorship of hebrews,