Who Wrote Hebrews? A Scholarly Examination of an Ancient Question

Who Wrote Hebrews? A Scholarly Examination of an Ancient Question

The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most sophisticated writings in the New Testament. It combines an unparalleled mastery of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) with exalted Christology and pastoral exhortation. Yet, unlike Paul’s letters, it bears no opening salutation or claim of authorship. From the second century until now, scholars and church leaders have wrestled with the question: who wrote Hebrews? While opinions vary, one conclusion is certain: the message of Hebrews carries the full weight of divine authority, regardless of its human author.

The Early Church’s Opinions

Pauline Authorship: East versus West

In the East, many early fathers attributed Hebrews to Paul. Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) suggested that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. Origen, though cautious, leaned in this direction: “But as to who actually wrote the epistle, God knows the truth of the matter.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.25.14). The Alexandrian tradition thus preserved the idea of Paul’s involvement, possibly mediated through another hand.

In the West, however, doubts were more pronounced. Tertullian attributed Hebrews to Barnabas, describing it as his work (De Pudicitia 20). The Roman church was initially hesitant to include Hebrews in the Pauline corpus because of stylistic differences. Only after the 4th century, through the influence of Jerome and Augustine, was Hebrews universally accepted into the canon as part of Paul’s letters.

Alternative Proposals Through History

1. Barnabas (Tertullian’s view): A Levite from Cyprus, steeped in Jewish tradition, Barnabas could have written Hebrews’ detailed treatment of the Levitical cult. His nickname “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36) resonates with Hebrews’ exhortational style.

2. Apollos (Luther’s proposal): Apollos was described as “an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24). His Alexandrian background would explain Hebrews’ reliance on the Septuagint and its elevated Greek. Many modern scholars consider this the strongest alternative.

3. Luke: Stylistically, Hebrews’ Greek is closer to Luke-Acts than to Paul’s letters. It uses refined vocabulary, complex rhetorical devices, and polished syntax. If Hebrews reflects Pauline theology with Lucan style, one possibility is that Luke composed the letter from Paul’s preaching, as Clement suggested.

4. Priscilla and Aquila: Some modern scholars (e.g., Adolf von Harnack) proposed Priscilla as the author, explaining the anonymity as intentional to avoid bias against a woman’s authorship. While speculative, it accounts for Hebrews’ distinct perspective and omission of a personal claim to authority.

5. Other suggestions: Silas, Philip, or even an unknown disciple close to Paul have been floated. Yet none has gained lasting traction.

Linguistic Considerations: Why Not Paul?

The Greek of Hebrews diverges sharply from Paul’s known style. Several features stand out:

• Opening formula: Paul customarily begins with Παῦλος ἀπόστολος (“Paul, an apostle”) and thanksgiving. Hebrews begins with elevated rhetoric: “Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν…” (“In many parts and in many ways, God spoke to the fathers…,” Heb. 1:1). This polished exordium resembles classical oratory more than Pauline epistolary form.

• Vocabulary: Hebrews employs words not found elsewhere in Paul, such as ἀπαύγασμα (apaugasma, “radiance,” 1:3), χαρακτὴρ (charaktēr, “imprint,” 1:3), and μεσίτης (mesitēs, “mediator,” Heb. 8:6). The density of rare words is unmatched in Paul’s letters.

• Style: Hebrews’ syntax is periodic, flowing in long, balanced clauses, while Paul’s style is more spontaneous, with abrupt digressions. For example, Hebrews 2:14–18 is a carefully structured paragraph, whereas Paul’s writing (e.g., Gal. 2:15–21) often piles phrases in a passionate cascade.

• Common Pauline phrases absent: Paul’s favored expressions (ἐν Χριστῷ, “in Christ”; χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ὑμῖν, “grace and peace to you”) are absent. Instead, Hebrews uses more formal Hellenistic rhetorical devices.

Thus, stylistically, Hebrews is unlikely to be directly from Paul’s hand.

The Sermon-Transcription Hypothesis

Yet theological content is strikingly Pauline. The themes of Christ’s death, resurrection, priesthood, and new covenant resonate deeply with Paul’s gospel. Some have therefore proposed that Hebrews may represent a transcript of a Pauline sermon, preserved by a more skilled Greek stylist such as Luke.

• Paul himself acknowledged varying methods of delivery: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 Cor. 3:6).

• Hebrews 13:22 calls the letter a “word of exhortation” (λόγος παρακλήσεως), the same phrase used for synagogue sermons (cf. Acts 13:15).

• If Paul preached this message in Hebrew or Aramaic, a companion like Luke — known for polished Greek and historical detail — could have recorded or shaped it into the form we have.

This view reconciles Pauline theology with non-Pauline style. It explains why Hebrews is included in the Pauline corpus in the East but raises doubts in the West.

Comparison with Luke’s Greek

Hebrews shares affinities with Luke-Acts:

• Elevated vocabulary and medical/technical terms (Luke was a physician, Col. 4:14).

• Periodic style, careful rhetorical arrangement

• Frequent use of participial constructions and balanced clauses.

For example, Hebrews 2:14–15 and Luke 1:1–4 show the same classical elegance. Thus, Luke as author or editor of a Pauline sermon remains plausible.

Theological and Canonical Considerations

Whatever the human author, Hebrews bears the hallmark of divine inspiration. The early church accepted Hebrews into the canon not because it solved the question of authorship, but because of its apostolic teaching and conformity with the rule of faith.

Origen’s statement remains decisive: “Who wrote the epistle, God only knows. But the thoughts are marvelous and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings.”

Indeed, the church has accepted other books with uncertain authorship:

• The Gospels of Matthew and John are strongly attested, but Mark and Luke were not apostles themselves.

• James and Jude were brothers of the Lord, but their authority was initially debated.

• Even 1 and 2 Peter faced questions, yet their theology and usage secured their place.

If the canon depended on absolute certainty of human authorship, much of the New Testament would be in doubt. Instead, the church recognized the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: The Spirit’s Authorship

The question “Who wrote Hebrews?” has no final human answer. Barnabas, Apollos, Luke, Priscilla, or Paul himself may have been involved. Linguistic evidence suggests Hebrews was not directly written by Paul, but theological and historical links to him are strong. Perhaps the most compelling possibility is that Hebrews is a Pauline sermon preserved and polished by Luke or another disciple.

Yet in the end, the author we can affirm with confidence is the Holy Spirit. As 2 Peter 1:21 reminds us: “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Hebrews speaks with apostolic authority not because we can name its writer, but because it bears witness to Christ as the final Word.

“The Word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires.” (Heb. 4:12, NLT)