The idea that Paul wrote Hebrews is an unpopular one today, but throughout most of Christian history it was simply a given. Early on, the Church Father Origen famously and memorably put it this way:
τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν.
Origen (via Eusebius), Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.14
But as for who wrote this letter, truly God knows.
I worry, however, that Origen is here often being taken out of context. Rarely is the full quote ever heard. Even Origen is not willing to deny that Hebrews, if only in some tangential way, is Pauline:
ὅτι ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς Πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιγεγραμμένης ἐπιστολῆς οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ ἀποστόλου, ὁμολογήσαντος ἑαυτὸν ἰδιώτην εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν τῇ φράσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως Ἡλληνικωτέρα, πᾶς ὁ ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσεων διαφορὰς ὁμολογήσαι ἄν. πάλιν τε αὖ ὅτι τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς θαυμάσιά ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δεύτερα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν ὁμολογουμένων γραμμάτων, καὶ τοῦτο ἂν συμφήσαι εἶναι ἀληθὲς πᾶς ὁ προσέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ. (…)
Origen (via Eusebius), Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.11-14
ἐγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινόμενος εἴποιμ᾽ ἂν ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις ἀπόμνημονεύσώστος τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ καὶ ὥσπερ σχολιογραφήσαντός τινος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου. εἴ τις οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὕτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ οὐ γὰρ εἰκῇ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασιν. τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν, ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φθάσασα ἱστορία ὑπὸ τινῶν μὲν λεγόντων ὅτι Κλήμης, ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος “Ῥωμαίων, ἔγραψεν τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ὑπὸ τινῶν δὲ ὅτι Λουκᾶς, ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὰς Πράξεις.
That the stylistic character of the letter called “to the Hebrews” does not posses the common language of the Apostle (who confessed himself to be untrained in word, that is, in style), but rather that the letter in stylistic composition is more Greek, everyone who is knowledgeable enough to discern different styles would confess. But again on the other hand, that the thoughts of the letter are each marvelous, and not less than the confessed Apostolic writings, truly everyone who persists in the Apostolic knowledge would also agree is true. (…)
But if I were the one giving the verdict, I would say that on the one hand the thoughts indeed are each from the Apostle (τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐστίν), but on the other hand that the phrasing and composition are from one who remembered the Apostle’s teaching, just like when when one writes notes on that which was spoken by their teacher (ὥσπερ σχολιογραφήσαντός τινος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου). Therefore, if a church holds that this letter is Pauline, let this also be approved, for the ancients did not pass down this letter as Pauline in vain. But as far as who wrote this letter, truly God knows; but the history told to us by some, on the one hand, is that Clement Bishop of Rome wrote the letter, or on the other hand some say that it was written by Luke, who wrote the Gospel and Acts.
It doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well, and it’s not as “quippy,” so maybe it can be forgiven that the shortened excerpt is often given alone.
But look at the sections which I’ve italicized in my translation. While the Greek text indicates some hesitancy in Origen’s words, he’s blunt and does not deny that the ultimate source of Hebrews is Paul; he holds this as certain, as passed down by reliable tradition — “for the ancients did not pass down this letter as Pauline in vain.” The thoughts, and each one of them (a singular verb governing a plural noun to stress individuality), are all Pauline. Origen uses a schoolhouse metaphor to explain what he means by this: just like a student who periphrastically remembers and writes notes about what his teacher said in class, so also did the author of Hebrews write down Paul’s teaching. Origen doesn’t allow for much wiggle-room for the author of Hebrews to act on his own: really he’s just a channel by which we receive another letter from Paul, his changes restricted to “phrasing and composition” (stylistic features). Although certainly Origen must’ve allowed for the addresses at the end of the book to be by the proximate author. In the ancient Church this was a common idea, that Hebrews constituted a sermon by Paul to a Hebrew audience, written down (or translated from Aramaic) by another (usually Luke).
Origen’s argument is wholly based on the “stylistic character” of the Epistle, which is often the primary argument still used today. If you ever take an introductory Greek class, you will never be told to start with Hebrews — as Origen says, it is “more Greek” (that is, better Greek). Style, however, is hard to empirically measure, and only rarely peeks through the translations which average Churchgoers use. Hence, while almost universally abandoned at the scholarly level, I think that in our confessional churches there still lingers a tendency to identify Hebrews with Paul in a simple sense (by which I mean, “directly from his pen”). But, anyone who reads the Greek of Hebrews will tell you that the text doesn’t “feel” Pauline. To say that Hebrews doesn’t “feel” Pauline is of course subjective and therefore inadequate, but in the scholarly literature there have been good empirical comparisons between the style of the known letters of Paul and Hebrews to show that they diverge (see Ellingworth, p. 8-12).
Origen expresses the view common in the early Church, that of an amanuensis, or a scribe of some sort, commenting on Paul. Such a theory allows us to “have our cake and eat it too”: we can say that the language (the “phrasing and composition”) is not like Paul’s, but we can still attribute it in some way to Paul. However, this assumes that there is already some reason to attribute the letter to Paul. There would be no reason to theorize about an amanuensis if it had not already been determined that the letter was Pauline. As an example, the differences between 1 and 2 Peter are explained by an amanuensis in conservative circles: both letters internally claim Petrine authorship (1 Peter 1.1, 2 Peter 1.1), therefore an amanuensis allows us to explain the linguistic difference, we “have our cake and eat it too.” However, Hebrews makes no similar internal claim of authorship.
So, is there a reason to think that the ultimate source of the Epistle is Pauline? Origen cites a long-standing tradition, which on its own could hold weight. Consider the Synoptic Gospels: these are mostly anonymous, but there is a strong tradition identifying their authors as Matthew, Mark, and Luke tracing back to those figures’ very lifetimes through Papias, and there is no internal reason which makes these identifications impossible. Therefore, I am content to say that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were probably the authors of the Synoptics.
Is the situation with Hebrews similar? Origen seems to think so. The tradition of identifying Hebrews as ultimately Paul’s is certainly not, however, as reliable as the tradition identifying the authorship of the Synoptics. Most obviously, this is the reason why Hebrews was, for a while, considered Antilegomenon in the early Church: a disputed writing. There certainly were some in the early Church who flatly denied Pauline authorship (and often, unfortunately, canonicity on that basis).
Furthermore, however, I think there is fairly strong internal evidence which raises serious doubts of Paul’s ultimate authorship. Read Hebrews 2.3-4:
πῶς ἡμεῖς ἐκφευξόμεθα τηλικαύτης ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας, ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ θεοῦ σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσιν καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν;
Hebrews 2.3-4
How will we possibly be able to escape, neglecting such a great salvation, which, being first received as spoken through the Lord, was confirmed for us (εἰς ἡμᾶς) by those who heard it, God adding his own testimony by signs and wonders and many powerful miracles and manifestations of the Holy Spirit according to his will?
The author is here using a lesser-to-greater argument. If the lesser covenant, mediated by angels, punished apostasy by death (Hebrews 2.2), how much more will those be lost who abandon the better covenant which the Lord himself (Jesus) mediates, which reliable eyewitnesses of Jesus presented to us, and which God confirmed as absolutely sure by many miracles?
Notice that the author is included within the “we” who received the Christian revelation, the “great salvation,” indirectly, through eyewitnesses of Jesus during his earthly ministry. The problem which this presents for Pauline authorship can be demonstrated through the emphatic language of Galatians 1.11-12:
Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὐδὲ ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Galatians 1.11-12
For I want you to know, brothers: the Gospel which I preach, it isn’t according to human sensibilities (lit. according to a human). For I myself neither received it from a human nor was taught it by a human (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὐδὲ ἐδιδάχθην), but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
My basic argument is this:
- Paul did not receive the Christian revelation indirectly, but received it directly from the resurrected Jesus himself (Gal. 1.11-12).
- The author of Hebrews did receive the Christian revelation indirectly, from those who heard Jesus during his earthly ministry (Heb. 2.3).
- Therefore, Paul is not the author of Hebrews.
Therefore, while was already a given that Paul was not the immediate author of Hebrews, we can also be fairly certain that Paul was not the ultimate author of Hebrews, such that it was written by some sort of amanuensis. If there was an amanuensis at play, then his mark upon the canonical form of Hebrews is so great that little Pauline basis seems to remain, seeing that he was allowed to add or change significant thoughts such that some remain in Hebrews which are incompatible with Pauline authorship. Therefore, even with an amanuensis it could not be said to be meaningfully Pauline. Origen’s assertion that “the thoughts indeed are each from the Apostle” falls flat.
Therefore, on the basis of disputed external evidence and negative internal evidence, the idea that the ultimate source of Hebrews is Paul may be said with reasonable certainty to be false.
Other authors have been proposed for Hebrews, the most admirable of which is Apollos, but any other claim than Paul is, in my eyes, baseless speculation — there’s no ancient tradition identifying Hebrews with any other author. Apollos could have written Hebrews, but there is simply no reason to affirm or deny that. We can be sure that the author of Hebrews was male, as he uses a masculine pronoun of himself in 11.32. He probably had some authority within the early Church, as evidenced by the fact that he is writing this letter at all. He had some knowledge of Timothy’s immediate circumstances, who is most likely the same “son” of Paul, which is evident from 13.22. But these factors do not accomplish much narrowing at all.
So in the end, I don’t think we get anywhere. The author of Hebrews ought to be a question perhaps left unanswered, barring any revolutionary new discovery or development in scholarship (which seems today unlikely). But that’s okay; we have other biblical books like Chronicles with unknown authors, because ultimately the composition is what bears Divine authority as God’s word, not its human author. But, in the strictest sense, Hebrews is not anonymous; the personal greetings at the end of the book make clear that the original audience would have known from whom they were receiving the letter. So I remain hopeful, to satisfy curiosity, that maybe one day we’ll have some insight into this question. But, until then (and I do not quote), as far as who wrote this letter, truly God knows.
Bibliography
- Ellingworth, Paul. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: Epistle to the Hebrews. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2014.
- Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History, translated by Kirsopp Lake and J.E.L. Oulton. Translations mine.
- The Greek New Testament. 5th rev. ed., United Bible Societies, 2014. Translations mine.