As I suggested in a previous post, one of the factors we have to consider for the authorship of Hebrews is that the author was influenced by Paul or Pauline theology. Perhaps the simplest way to account for this influence is simply that Paul is the author of the book of Hebrews. While this is not a popular view today, the earliest traditions identify Paul as the author, but this has been questioned since the Reformation and is now only rarely defended.
Why was Paul suggested as an author? There may have been some desire to connect the letter with an apostle in order to argue in favor of including the letter in the canon. A document that came from the apostolic circle would carry more weight than a document that did not. In addition, there are some Pauline elements to the book.
As the books of the New Testament we collected into book form (codices), Hebrews was often associated with the Pauline letters. The earliest copies from the third century place the book within the Pauline letter, right after Romans. Many early church fathers, especially the Alexandrian fathers, believed Paul wrote the book. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) and Origin (185-253), for example, believed Paul was the author. By the end of the second century, Origen thought that the “weight of tradition” was behind Pauline authorship, but in the end said “only God knows” who wrote the book. He goes on to say “This writing is inspired even though we do not know who wrote it.” (See Eusebius, HE 6.25.11-13).
It was not until the Reformation that this teaching was doubted, first by Calvin, then by Luther. More recently, detailed linguistic analysis has been done my Celsus Spicq, who concluded that “it is impossible from the linguistic point of view to attribute to Paul the direct paternity of Hebrews” (Cited by Ellingworth, Hebrews, 12). Since the book is anonymous and there is a mixed tradition about who the author might have been, perhaps it is better to agree with Origen as say “only God knows” who wrote the book.
David Allen Black has revived the Pauline authorship of Hebrews in a series of articles now summarized in a short book, The Authorship of Hebrews: The Cases For Paul (available for a mere$2.99 on Kindle). Black surveys the internal evidence for Pauline authorship by working through the book of Hebrews and showing potential parallels in Paul’s letters. Some of these are compelling; there are many words and phrases that appear only in Paul and Hebrews in the New Testament. But some of the parallels can be explained better as use of a common source. For example, In Hebrews 4:12-13, the Word of God is like a double-edged sword (μάχαιραν δίστομον), which Black says “seems to betray Paul (Eph 6:17). Certainly the word sword appears in both contexts, but in Paul it is the Sword of the Spirit, in Hebrews the Word of God is the sword. Paul omits the additional description of “double edged.” That word only appears in Hebrew 4:12 and three times in Revelation to describe a sword (although ῥομφαία is used, not μάχαιρα. In the end, there are parallels, but nothing that forces the reader to assume Pauline authorship.
Another way to get the Pauline influence on the book of Hebrews is the suggestion that Luke used a synagogue sermon by Paul to write what we now know as the Book of Hebrews. This was the thesis of Andrew Pitts and Joshua Walker in an essay in Paul and His Social Relations (edited by Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2012). Pitts and Walker prefer to think of Luke as the editor of an oral presentation. In order to show this, they study ancient stenography and propose that it is at least possible that Paul is the source, Luke is the editor. This is an important essay since it avoids the objection that “linguistically” the book is not Pauline, while embracing the (at times) Pauline theology in the letter.
I think that both of these attempts are worthy of consideration since they take seriously the Pauline influence on the book of Hebrews. Pitts and Walker make a compelling argument for transcription of a synagogue sermon, but it is harder to support the claim that Paul was the origin of that sermon. It seems to move the authorship issue back a step to “who was the original speaker of this sermon?” Paul, Apollos and the usual suspects are all still possible.
The modern church is as bothered by an anonymous letter in the New Testament, but it may matter to some people that Paul did (or did not) write the book. What are the implications for reading the letter if Paul did (or did not) write the book?
There are a few implications that would arise with believing that Paul did/didn’t write the book of Hebrews.
1. People could question the canonicity of the book. This doesn’t seem like a big deal at first but having a book in the Bible that no one knows who wrote it… How can we say it is inspired? How do we know that some lunatic didn’t write this book? I am not saying that this is what happened but just implications that would arise with the questioning of authorship.
2. If Paul did not write this book could we trust his word in other books that we know that he wrote? In 2 Thess.3:17 we see that Paul marks all of his writings, “I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.” So if Paul did write this book why would he have said this in Thessalonians 2? Why would Paul change his routine of marking his letters? Or maybe the guy just forgot to sign his name.
3. It effects the way we understand the book. When we read other N.T. books we know the author, location and many other details that help us understand the book in ways that help us live out our daily Christian lives. Not knowing the author of the book doesn’t effect our theology very much, if at all. To me it doesn’t effect the canonicity of the book either. But not knowing the author is life receiving a letter in the mail from someone that you have never met, or even heard of. The contents of the letter are amazing and are life changing, but who wrote it? It would be cool to know the person so that we can study their life and maybe other writings. The theology in Hebrews is amazing and well articulated, it would be beneficial to be able to know more about the author.
The implications listed above are not my own implications but just possible implications that I think people could ask of the book and have asked.
The way that Dan spelled out the different implications of pauline vs non-pauline authorship are good enough that i can’t really draw out implications without slightly plagiarizing his post. However what i would like to do is pick one and expand. To me not know the author of a book is a valid reason to question canonicity. While i 100% believe God could use any literate layman to pen a book to be used in the Bible, it is questionable to me at least how we can be so sure about something without knowing its source. It is the same reason i think it important to know the history behind so many other things said in the Bible, just so that you can understand why an author would say things the way they do. But, to argue the other side, the lack of an author requires us to trust more in the fact that God inspired all Scripture, regardless of whether we even know the author. As cheesy as it is to use, Paul says in 2 Timothy that “ALL scripture is God-breathed”, which includes books that we don’t know the author of. Think about the fact that there has never been an actual confirmation of who wrote the book of Genesis (though it is attributed to Moses), and yet it has been canon for as long as the Bible has existed.
The implications of reading the letter as Pauline could be quite substantial, depending on your dispensational point of view. Contrary to what Dan said previously, the inclusion of Hebrews as a Pauline letter could have profound implications, especially for a mid-Acts dispensational view. This is mainly because in a mid-Acts dispensational theology, the Pauline epistles are the most directly applicable books of the Bible for today. Paul was writing for people in this current dispensation of Grace, and his writings are of utmost importance when discerning how to live right now. Mid-Acts dispensational theology generally brushes aside the general epistles as not fully applicable for today, and in my personal experience Hebrews often falls in that same boat. It is looked at for great theology and its well developed Christology, but rarely looked into for application for the present day when compared to Paul’s epistles.
I feel like Ty touched on an important point when mentioning the implications of Pauline authorship as it relates to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. Some today might give greater weight to the practicality of Hebrews if they view the book as being written by Paul, taking into account that Paul was charged by Jesus to be the primary witness of the Gospel to Gentiles. But one of the reasons that goes against this is the particularly Jewish bent Hebrews seems to have, which wouldn’t make sense if Paul was directing it toward Gentile Christians. The title of the book is, after all, Hebrews. While it might be possible Paul could have written it to the Jews as a sort of clarification that the fact of Jesus as God’s Messiah is rooted in the Old Testament, this doesn’t seem to line up with his overall mission of revealing the mystery of Gentile inclusion into God’s people. The ministry and writings to Jews are more prominently handled by apostles like John and Peter.
For a few years now I’ve wanted someone to do an analysis of Hebrews in relation to Matthew’s Gospel, with a point of trying to see if there’s enough connective tissue between the two to propose Matthean authorship of Hebrews. The reason for this is that when I took the Jewish-Christian epistles class from Dale DeWitt he was talking about the structure of the letter being in an arrangement of alternating blocks of theology and exhortation. I immediately made the observation that this was not unlike how Matthew arranges his gospel in alternating blocks of Narrative and discourse. DeWitt seemed really surprised by the observation, but then moved on. I’ve wondered many times since then if this was simply a common structure to use by various authors or if it was Matthean. The chance seems to be an outside one, but it might make for an interesting paper.
I am not sure that I have heard anyone try and make a case for Matthew as the author, probably because Matthew as an author is fairly well known and does not fit the “things we know about the author” that I mentioned before. Sometimes Matthew is described as a Jewish Christian mission text that is a kind of “Christianity without Paul;” certainly that as the later Ebionite view.
I think that one reason is that Matthew is often associated with anti-pharisee polemic (chapter 23, for example, or the break with the pharisees in chapter 12). Hebrews is more positive toward the Temple, although you could say he is positive toward the Tabernacle and the “proper worship” from the OT, not the present Temple in Jerusalem or that priesthood.
The alternation of blocks is intriguing, but the difference is that the exhortations in Hebrews are more brief, and “writer speaks to the reader” moments. Matthew is constructing an elaborate Moses typology, which may be a more fruitful way to come at the problem.
An obvious problem will be Matthew’s complete lack of the Hellenistic / Platonic Jewish typology found in Hebrews (or even more so in Philo).
But hey, everyone gets to argue for their own author for Hebrews! So get out there are prove your case, write a book, etc.
I figured it was a long shot. Also it probably makes more sense to say that the “alternating blocks” thing was some kind of rhetorical method used by various people in many different contexts…not all of them Christian most likely.
Here is one potential author that is often overlooked: Peter! Here is the case: http://www.jeffreybowman.com/Authorship_of_Hebrews.html
Thanks for the comment, Jeff. Been a while since I have heard from you, I always enjoyed having your kids at WCGYC.
In my defense, I did not intend to cover all the possibilities. Just about everyone in the NT has been suggested at one point or another, the view that Peter and Silas wrote the book is in my classnotes, but under the heading “Extreme Minority Positions” (sorry!) As for your list, it is good, but check out the commentary by Paul Ellingworth in the NICGTC series if you can. He has a page of “real and significant” parallels between 1 Peter and Hebrews, although I think they are mostly drawn from an article from the Church Quarterly (1930-31) by T. E. S.Ferris, “A comparison of 1 Peter and Hebrews”. Ellingworth is unpersuaded since the comparisons are all the sorts of things one would expect from a Second Temple Jewish Christian writer. The list (in my view) confirms that the author was certainly a Hellenistic Jew, and that was in fact Peter’s target.
Maybe Peter was the author, he is as likely as anybody.
Concluding Paul’s authorship of Hebrews can be difficult after considering two areas of Pauline thought: Paul’s target audience and base message regarding salvation’s permanence.
Paul is clear about the caliber of people he addresses for God’s work when he addresses those called to serve, “not many of you were wise by human standards, not many of you were influential, not many were of noble birth… God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are…” (1 Cor 1:26-28). When considering the “highly literary and very ornate” (Jobes 39) Greek used to compose Hebrews, one can begin to doubt Paul’s personal authorship. Although well educated and a man of culture, Paul knew that God’s work was most often carried out by those with simple social status.
Regarding the possibility of apostasy in Hebrews 6 & 10 causes greater concern of the authorship of Paul. Paul’s base message of salvation’s permanence is quite clear when he writes, “for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). Although there are several similarities of Paul’s writing in Hebrews, based off his target working audience and his message of salvation, it is safest to assume the author of Hebrews was an individual highly influenced by Pauline teaching.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
According to Karen Jobes’ portion of her book that discusses Hebrew’s author, makes me believe that the second centuries scholars were never really sold on the idea that Paul was the author. In Dr. Long’s original blog post, it says that there were second century theological fathers, such as Clement and Origen believed that Paul was the author. However, in Jobe’s book, Letters to the church, she states that even these early scholars associated the book with Paul, but wasn’t actually Paul psychically writing the book. (Jobe’s, p.37) Jobes’ also points out two additional evidences that Paul was not the author. Adam R. mentioned earlier that it isn’t until the closing of the book that the language of Hebrews is similar to Paul’s other letters, and Jobes’ supports this point. Secondly, Paul usually introduces himself at the beginning of his letters. Why all the sudden change pattern, if Paul were the author, as Hebrews has no author introduction at the beginning. Paul would also have to have changed pattern in his writing style if he were the author.
Thanks for your work
When I was very young the Bible my parents had said Hebrews written by the Apostle Paul.
And even before any of that opinion had been tainted by outside sources, I said to myself, “there is No Way Paul wrote this”
It’s weird. I found myself at odds with supposedly great men. Of course, as we get older we realize that after the last apostle died men were just guessing about these things, including many other bold proclamations of their awesomeness in interpreting things.
This book has virtually zero elements common to Paul. It’s like if your mother wrote you about the family business and her intense beliefs about it for 10 years and then you receive something so foreign to your mother that you’d laugh at how anyone could think this new letter is from her.
People who see Paul in Hebrews could not possibly *Know Paul. It’s not Paul. It’s not even close. It not trying to even imitate Paul. It’s a very intelligent Jew, who was a serious fan of John’s christology and possibly James emphasis on works. Paul would never speak of the law in this depth. He would consider that pointless. The writer is in the thought process of the original 12 Apostles in which the Son of Man was under the law of Moses. It seems Paul was chosen precisely because he didn’t learn from Jesus’ earthly life and started just as a gentile would. This letter goes backwards to Christianity in diapers . It is so alien to Paul that I feel depressed that Christians could be so *off in their assessments of him. If anyone has doubts don’t just read his letters but the way he thinks and speaks in Acts to Jews. He simply does not argue from his
Phariseeical knowledge in that manner.
It’s not about textural analysis either. It’s the thought for thought context. It’s not from Paul’s mind. It is so awesome though. It’s a powerhouse of spirit filled bliss. “the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being”
I think Peter wrote it… see: http://jeffreybowman.com/Authorship_of_Hebrews.html
Hi Jeff, I replied to your comment last time you posted it here (January 24, 2014). Greet Ben for me next time you see him, I fondly remember our lengthy Simpsons discussions at WCGYC
Will do! Or is it “doh!” 😀
As we read through the book of Hebrews and wonder who the author is, there has been debate that it is Paul that wrote Hebrews as it follows a lot of the themes and Pauline theology as the books that Paul wrote. But as the article said that has been up for debate ever since the reformation. One thing that I like to think about on this topic would be how the influence of Pauline theology that is on this book written. I think that if it is not Paul himself it has to be someone close to him that would believe the same things and share the same type of writing style. Now I may be way wrong as I am not a bible scholar but as I notice these signs and read through Jobes book and read through article like these I notice more and more how closely related that Hebrews is to the other books that Paul wrote. So if it is not Paul who wrote Hebrews I think it would be someone who is close to him or someone who followed him and listened closely to the teachings that Paul performed.
I never thought that Paul was considered to be the author of Hebrews so that it could be added to the canon. Most early Eastern churches accepted this fact. Origen says, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth only God knows” (Jobes, 37). Another aspect that shows that Paul probably is not the author is the fact that Hebrews is anonymous. Paul always starts out his letters with “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus” (Romans 1:1) or “Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:1). Another example is that Hebrews is the only book that describes Jesus as the High Priest. Paul does not ever mention that Jesus as the high priest in any of his letters. Also, Paul refers to himself as an apostle. Yet in Hebrews, the author states that he heard from the Lord. No mention of being an apostle (Hebrews 2:3). I do find it interesting that the author of Hebrews was influenced by Paul based on the proof that Professor Long gives. As Origen points out, it really does not matter who the author is, but only God knows.
Not knowing who wrote Hebrews has brought a lot of controversy on the book as it is mentioned in The Letter to the Church. Many think that Paul wrote it due to the fact that it comes after Romans, others believe that Paul wrote it and Luke translated it. Many before me have mentioned that Paul always introduces himself in all of his letters, and why would he change it now. I honestly ask the same question, why would he change his writing style, if he is trying to reach certain people. Personally, I think that Origen has a point when he says “But who wrote the epistle, in truth only God knows.” (Jobes, 37). Is there really a need to figure out who wrote the book of Hebrews? I don’t think so. I do think it is interesting that there may be correlation or influence from Paul to whoever wrote the book, but I do not think it was Paul himself, due to the fact that there is no introduction of him being the author of the book as well as the writing style that is being used. As Dr. Long quotes Black on the Hebrews 4:12-13 and how it “betrays” what Ephesians 6:17, which makes sense. Only God knows that should be sufficient for us as readers.
After scrutinizing some of others comments, many have argues the fact that what distinguish Paul from other author was his greeting. Therefore, Paul can’t be the author. One thing I want to assert is that because of the harmful circumstance ( persecutions ) that was circulating toward Christian in Rome could be a possibility why the greeting marks was not found in Hebrew. This bring me to a assumption that reflects Paul as the source and Luke as the editor of the source, therefore there is a possibility exclusion of the greeting mark by Luke since he was the final editor. In a retrospect, the author seem being influences by Paul in terms of their usage of theological terms and perspective on the description of Christ. Both grew-up in Hellenistic culture, both acquire a sophisticated knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and in literature. However, for this case I might have to share with Origin views ‘only God know’.
A failure to dertemine the authorship of the book, wether Paul, Luke, or Apollo didn’t dimnish the book of Hebrew in anyway. Modern Christian should be confident in reading Hebrew. Despite the author was unknown , we can critique and clearly know that it didn’t contradict to any teaching of Pauline theology or the Bible as a whole. It’s teaching of the Christ is relevant, and a multiples usage of references from the Old Testament scripture clearly represent the authenticity and the reliability of Hebrew. In fact, it was accepted as the canon of scripture; the inspire word of God by the church Father.
Paul being the author was a good thought, but it does not quite line up with history. In earlier times, this was a strong case, today there are fewer individuals that believe Paul is the author based on new findings. Some evidence leading us to believe Paul’s authorship is similar wording. I think we have to recognize that this could be true, but also there were sources the author referenced, but it was knowledge not only offered to Paul. Another thought was Luke used one of Paul’s sermons. Both could have happened, but we will not know for sure. Although it is debated, most reject Pauline authorship of Hebrews (Jobes, 2011, pp.37). Like the book and the blog mention, God is the only one who truly knows the author of the book. Even with the book being anonymous or being written by Paul its truth remains. We focus on the content of what the author was trying to convey in a broader sense. If Paul was the one to of wrote it we would look at a direct application, because we know the context like were to whom, and why. The content would remain, but the application would change.
In examining the potential authorship of Paul, we quickly begin to see the problems that occur when the view that Paul was the original author of Hebrews is taken to seriously. It is important that we ask ourselves “Why is Paul commonly considered the author of Hebrews?”
Jobes explains that church leaders throughout history have carried different views about Paul being the author of Hebrews (37). From Clement and Origen, the view that Paul wrote Hebrews has been widely held, but not necessarily deeply held. Origin himself said that “only God knows” who wrote the letter of Hebrews. John Calvin and Martin Luther did not share the view that Paul wrote Hebrews (Jobes, 37). These church leaders helped pave the way to change the view on Paul being the author of Hebrews.
Although there are a variety of options for the authorship of Hebrews, it seems to me that most likely the author of Hebrews was Apollos. Not only was he influenced by Paul, but he was also not a first-generation Christian (Jobes, 40). Even more so, he was a Jewish Christian that had also been heavily influenced by the Greco-Roman culture of the era.
Although Apollos was nowhere near the only one who could have wrote the book of Hebrews, he is a very likely candidate. However, as Origen said, “only God knows”. We need to understand that God alone has the knowledge of who wrote Hebrews and that is where the information must lie. Because only God knows, and we must trust him knowing there’s a reason he retains that information
Implications for reading the letter if Paul did write/inspire the book include our consideration of the audience, purpose, assumptions of Paul, and if it’s possible that the use of the Septuagint could have been possible through Luke. If Paul did write the book of Hebrews, we would have to consider the true audience for the book. Paul is commissioned by God to preach to Gentiles, so if he were the author, we would have to consider that Gentiles were the main audience for this book (Acts 22:21). While this may seem unlikely because the book of Hebrews is heavily saturated with Jewish traditions, Gentiles had the opportunity to learn more about Jewish Scriptures at that time, as mentioned in Jobes’ book, Letters to the Church, in chapter 1 (2011).
If Paul did write/inspire this book, we might have to see it primarily as a book written to Gentile Christians explaining how Jewish tradition connects to Christianity. Paul would have assumed that these Gentile Christians were familiar with or perhaps learning more about Jewish Scripture. However, also according to Jobes, the Septuagint is the Scriptural reference for each of the quotes in Hebrews, not the Hebrew text (2011). Jobes mentions this as a strike against Paul’s authorship (2011). Is this because Paul used to be a Pharisee and would have favored the Hebrew Scriptures (Acts 23:6)? Something else I do not know is whether Luke, as the editor, could have referenced each quote using the Septuagint? This is probably something covered in the essay you mention by Pitts and Walker, I am but a humble undergrad, so I do not know this information off the top of my head. These are the implications I could think of if Paul is, in fact, the author of Hebrews.
It is very interesting to me the difference I have seen between the different cultures of my home church and coming to college pertaining to different topics within theology. Many things that I never realized were such a huge debate before, are such a common debate among scholars that they are mentioned in practically every class that I take. While I had been taught that the author of Hebrews was unknown, I never considered it a big deal. In fact, most people in my home church were probably content to believe it was written by Paul. Those pursuing Biblical degrees, not so much. In so many of my classes, the topic of who wrote Hebrews has been brought up. I did not realize that in the early manuscripts, the book of Hebrews was circulated along with Paul’s letters. In many ways, this does make it seem like Paul wrote the book, or at the very least had a heavy influence on it, especially when considering some of the other explanations for Pauline influence as mentioned in the blog. I do not think it is wrong to assume that there is some Pauline influence at least associated with the book, but I do not think that this equals Pauline authorship. In terms of how authorship affects the reading of the book, perhaps there is a reason the author is unknown. I think some people think of Paul as a ‘super-apostle’ or at least a superior apostle, placing more value on his works than on other scripture. Just as some people might say, “Billy Graham said this about a passage, therefore it is clearly more correct than what my preacher says on Sunday morning.” But ultimately, I think we should remember that all scripture is inspired by God. He chose to give us what he wanted us to know, and who he chose to do it through is of less importance than recognizing that it ultimately comes from him. Perhaps the author of Hebrews remains anonymous because if the author’s name was known, there would be a negative connotation with it that would hinder readers from seeking what God was saying. One thing Jobes mentioned in the textbook that I did not realize is how the New Testament quotes scripture from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament (p.67). I had never realized this is what accounts for most of the differences between quotations of the Old Testament written in the New Testament compared to how they were written in the Old Testament. Hebrews also has more allusions to the Old Testament than any other New Testament book. This reflects the scholarly level, and familiarity with the Old Testament that the author had. So regardless of who wrote it, they studied the scriptures, and they sought God, which ought to be the most important qualifications for writing the inspired word of God.
Some of the implications that we may come across is the canonicity of the book of Hebrews. How can one be so sure to trust and believe this book if we do not even know the true author? This is not certain but just a thought. It is hard to worship and put faith into something that we do not know very much about. Another idea would center around the context of Hebrews. How can we fully comprehend the book if we do not know the author? How can we understand the views and the thoughts without having some background knowledge of who the author is? We need to know the details before we can draw conclusions or thoughts. I feel like it just takes away from us being able to fully understand and process the book. The way that we apply this book into our life and while reading it is going to be across the board for everyone. Could it have been Paul? If it was not Paul then it had to have been someone who followed him and learned from Paul. As Professor Long stated in his article “Black surveys the internal evidence for Pauline authorship by working through the book of Hebrews and showing potential parallels in Paul’s letters.” (Long, 2018) There end up being many different conclusions on who wrote the book of Hebrews. From these conclusions, people will make their own assumptions and interpretations on Hebrews.
It is interesting that the authorship of Hebrews may have been attributed to Paul simply to make it fit in the canon and how it was put right after Romans because of its length before being moved. I think that an interesting idea from this is that the author had Pauline influence and by that probably had known Paul. It’s also very interesting that Calvin was one of the first to fight against Paul being responsible for the book of Hebrews. It is also interesting to learn about the linguistic analysis of the book and how it is not possible that it could have been written by Paul because there are different ways we use language and structure our sentences and words. I think an okay option for authorship could be Luke because he worked with Paul and would have known his style and how to sound like him. Jobes once again talks about how the author was a very learned man, meaning a plethora of apostles who that category applies to. We discussed in class about how it isn’t super important to know the author, especially given that if it was supposed to be in the canon it would be, God’s will is always more than human mistakes.
It is highly suggested that the author of Hebrews was influenced by Paul or Pauline theology. Because of this many assumed that Paul was the author of Hebrews himself. Clement of Alexandria and Origen claimed that there was a Pauline association with the book of Hebrews. Clement suggested that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews in Hebrew, but that Luke translated it into Greek. Another piece of supporting evidence is that “In the earliest manuscript editions of the New Testament books, Hebrews is included after Romans among the books written by the apostle Paul” (Jobes, 36-37). Even though these pieces of evidence strongly suggest that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, this view on the authorship of the letter has been in question since the Reformation (Long). Very few scholars still carry this view. Jobes points out that the book of Hebrews itself supports the view that Paul did not write the letter. The style of writing used in the book of Hebrews is distinct from Paul’s letters. The theology, while compatible with Pauline theology is also different enough to bring Paul’s authorship of the letter to question. The way that the author addresses himself in Hebrews 2:3 also seems out of character for Paul (Jobes 39).
What intrigues me about the attribution of Hebrews as one of Paul’s letters is that it was not questioned until it was doubted by Calvin and later by Luther. After it was questioned it seems that many people have set aside that idea and sought to discover who really wrote Hebrews. While Paul is still one of the only candidates known to have written Hebrews along with Pricilla, Barnabas, Apollos, Luke, and Clement his authorship is not supported by many scholars today. Since Hebrews is written in very ornate Greek that would have been only written by a scholar or public speaker at the time, Paul’s authorship is questionable. The author of Hebrews also makes a statement that “the gospel was confirmed “to us” by those who heard the Lord announce salvation” in Hebrews 2:3 which is a very unlikely phrase to come from Paul considering that he normally openly referred to himself as an apostle of Jesus who would have heard that gospel message firsthand (Jobes, 2011). Regardless of if Paul wrote Hebrews or not, I agree with Origen that even though only God truly knows who wrote Hebrews it still remains an inspired part of scripture.
I think that there also are multiple implications that arise with believing Paul did or did not write the book of Hebrews. To go along with point one, I completely agree, there is already enough backlash on how people view the Bible. With adding as a believer of the Bible that we do not know where one of the most prominent books of the Bible came from, it does not add a large sense of security or understanding. Many people need to know all of the facts in order to believe in anything especially something as serious as eternal life.
In your second point it also brings out a very serious thought, this thought however is one of the reasons why many scholars believe the author to be Luke instead of Paul because as you said, “why would Paul change his routine?” There is no logical reason for why Paul would change his routine. He may have forgotten like you have said but this is highly unlikely. Even with this assumption of Luke, the book remains anonymous. According to Jobes in chapter 1, he brings up the point that the style of Hebrew used to write the book was far different from the style used in the other Pauline writings. There are many pieces of Hebrews that are unique to only Hebrews which makes people struggle to believe in the canonicity. One of which being Jesus as the Great High Priest or final sacrifice. Nowhere else in the New Testament describes Him in this way except for in Hebrews.
In your third implication I agree, opening a letter from somebody anonymous no matter how deep or how truthful the letter may be keeps us in question of the authenticity of the letter. With knowing an author there is a security as I mentioned earlier that you can better understand and trust what you are reading to be true. A big question raised if one were to receive an anonymous letter, especially if it was very profound or challenging, would likely be why stay anonymous, why not claim a work or words.
The authorship and the history of the book of Hebrews is interesting to ponder and consider. It doesn’t subtract anything from the authenticity or inspiration, but it is a theological question to consider who wrote Hebrews. Some say Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, or even Priscilla. Old popular tradition considered the apostle Paul to be the author. And like Long mentioned, it is worth asking why Paul suggested as the author. Long mentioned in class and through this blog post that church fathers or theologians “believed Paul wrote the book” with parallels to his other letters, Pauline-like phrases he might’ve used, or his preaching style. However, none of these theories never held up and the ironic quote from Origen rings true, “Only God knows”.