Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews
The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews has been a subject of considerable debate throughout Christian history, with no definitive consensus reached among scholars [1, 2]. Unlike many other New Testament epistles, Hebrews does not explicitly name its author [3].
For many years, the Apostle Paul was widely considered the author [2]. Early Church Fathers like John Chrysostom assumed Pauline authorship and even addressed potential objections to it [3, 12]. Chrysostom, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, suggested that Paul might not have subscribed his name to the epistle out of reverence for the Lord, who was "the Apostle of the Almighty" sent to the Hebrews, and because Paul primarily considered himself an apostle to the Gentiles [4, 5]. He also entertained the idea that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew, and it was later translated by Luke or Clement [5, 6]. However, modern scholarship generally finds the stylistic and intellectual differences between Hebrews and Paul's undisputed letters to be significant, making common authorship "scarcely conceivable" [6].
Despite the traditional association with Paul, other figures have been proposed as potential authors. These include Barnabas, Silas, Luke, Clement of Rome, and Apollos [1, 2, 11].
- Barnabas: Tertullian, an early Christian writer, attributed the epistle to Barnabas [9].
- Silas: Silas, a companion of Paul, has been suggested, though less is known about him to definitively link him to the epistle [1, 7]. He is known to have been a prophet in the early church and accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey [7].
- Luke: The linguistic and theological characteristics of Hebrews share some similarities with Luke's writings, leading some to suggest his authorship [1, 10].
- Apollos: Martin Luther was the first to suggest Apollos as the author [8, 11]. Apollos was an eloquent and learned Jew from Alexandria, "mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts 18:24), which aligns with the sophisticated theological arguments and deep knowledge of the Old Testament found in Hebrews. However, no ancient author proposed Apollos, and there is no direct evidence of prolonged personal interaction between him and Paul, nor any specific connection to Jewish ritual beyond his Jewish heritage [8].
The question of authorship was an open one even in early Christian times, with Eusebius noting that "who really was the author, God only knows" [9]. The epistle's canonicity, however, has been consistently affirmed, with its right to a place in the New Testament canon vindicated by critical and historical research [1].
Sources
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Hebrews, Epistle to — (1.) Its canonicity. All the results of critical and historical research to which this epistle has been specially subjected abundantly vindicate its right to a place in the New Testament canon among the other inspired books. (2.) Its authorship. A considerable variety of opinions on this subject has at different times been advanced. Some have maintained that its author was Silas, Paul's companion. Others have attributed it to Clement of Rome, or Luke, or Barnabas, or some unknown Alexandrian Christian, or Apollos; but the conclusion which we thi”
- Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Hebrews, Epistle To The — + The author--There has been a wide difference of opinion respecting the authorship of this epistle. For many years Paul was considered the author; others think it may have been Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos. Much of the theology and the language are similar to Paul's, but the authorship of the epistle ia still disputed. + To whom written .--The epistle was probably addressed to the Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine. The argument of the epistle is such as could he used with most effect to a church consisting exclusively of Jews by birth, personall”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: 341 Introduction. by the american reviser. ———————————— In the following Homilies St. Chrysostom assumes throughout St. Paul’s authorship of the Epistle, and in his opening Homily deals with considerable ingenuity with several of the most obvious objections to the Pauline authorship. The Epistle, however, is anonymous, and is not attributed to St. Paul by the most ancient historical testimony which has come down to us, nor is his authorship generally recognized by modern criticism. It is interesting, therefore, to enquire whether St. Chrysostom, in ”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: translation, p. 213). “But now, as the blessed presbyter used to say, ‘since the Lord who was the Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul by reason of his inferiority, as if sent to the Gentiles, did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews; both out of reverence for the Lord, and because he wrote of his abundance to the Hebrews, as a herald and apostle of the Gentiles.’” from a lost work of Clement, and it is impossible to tell on what grounds he rested his opinion, or whether it was a mere personal speculation, like the reaso”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: p. 213). “But now, as the blessed presbyter used to say, ‘since the Lord who was the Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul by reason of his inferiority, as if sent to the Gentiles, did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews; both out of reverence for the Lord, and because he wrote of his abundance to the Hebrews, as a herald and apostle of the Gentiles.’” 2651 Ibid . The Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, but that it was carefully translated by Luke and published among”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: style, as well as intellectual power, is so unlike as to make the supposition of a common authorship scarcely conceivable. The early suggestion that the Epistle may have been written in Hebrew by St. Paul, more or less fully, and translated by St. Luke or St. Clement, or some other of his companions more or less paraphrastically, can find no favor with the modern scholar. If such a supposition is meant to leave the work essentially a translation, it encounters all the difficulties already mentioned against the Pauline authorship, and besides is oppo”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: the title and proper preface for St. Barnabas Day, in the Ambrosian liturgy, he must have passed through Rome on his way. Silas has also been suggested as a possible author. Of him we know even less than of Apollos. He was a prophet in the early Church at Jerusalem ( Acts xv. 32 ), and was the companion of St. Paul on his second missionary journey and subsequently in his labors at Corinth, and was also associated with the work of St. Peter ( 1 Pet. v. 12 ). In all this there is nothing to mark him out as the one likely to have written this Epistle b”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: theory of Apollos’ authorship has, however, this great advantage: that no line of his remains to compare with our Epistle. It has also these disadvantages: that it never occurred to any ancient author, but was first suggested by Luther; that there is no evidence of any prolonged personal intercourse between him and St. Paul; and that there is nothing to connect him with any especial interest in, or familiarity with, the Jewish ritual and temple beyond the simple fact that he was a Jew, as was also almost every other writer who has ever been suggeste”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: that who really was the author, God only knows. 2652 2652 Eusebius ’ Eccl. Hist . vi. 25. Extended quotations from the various writers above referred to, and from many others, may be found in almost any of the innumerable treatises on the subject, and are given with especial fullness and clearness in Alford’s Prolegomena . Thus far the question of authorship was evidently an open one on which everyone was free to hold his own opinion, or uncertainty of opinion. Tertullian speaks of the authorship of Barnabas simply as a fact, without an allusion to ”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: regard to which there is any considerable difference of usage; yet so many words are used by every writer accidentally, as it were, and not because they are characteristic, that much allowance is to be made. Still, the investigation seems to me to afford a sufficient basis for some probable conclusions. The Epistle contains both style-words and thought-words, characteristic alike of St. Luke and St. Paul, sometimes of one, sometimes of the other, sometimes of both; and these must be taken into account in any theory of the authorship. But they are no”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: certain extent Delitzsch), Clement of Rome (Erasmus, Reithmaier, Bisping), Silas (Mynster, Böhme, Godet), Apollos (Luther, Semler, De Wette, Tholuck, Bunsen, Kurtz, Farrar, De Pressensé, Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Lünemann, Alford), and Barnabas (Ullmann, Wieseler, Ritschl, Grau, Thiersch, Weiss, Renan, Keil). Of the three first we have genuine writings with which to make a comparison; of the three last—assuming the spuriousness of the so-called Epistles of Barnabas—nothing remains. The supposition of the authorship of St. Paul, although so long carelessly ”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: 363 homilies of St. John Chrysostom, archbishop of constantinople, on the epistle to the hebrews Published after his Falling Asleep, from Notes by Constantine, Presbyter of Antioch. ———————————— Argument. and Summary of the Epistle. [1.] The blessed Paul, writing to the Romans, says, “Inasmuch then as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: if by any means I may provoke to emulation them that are my flesh”: 2664 2664 Rom. xi. 13, 14 and again, in another place, “For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circ”