One of the way in which it perplexes us is because there is not a consensus on who wrote such a beautiful piece of scripture.\u00a0 If one were to get a group of Biblical Scholars to together there will be varying opinions on this issue.\u00a0 Is the issue of authorship vital to prove its canonicity?\u00a0 Not at all, but it could serve to give us further insight into what the author was conveying.\u00a0 There have been many names presented as author such as Paul, Barnabas, Clement, Apollos, Luke, Priscilla, Jude, Apollos, Philip, and Silvanus[2]<\/a>.\u00a0 In this paper a look at internal evidence, and testimony from the Church Fathers will show that Apollos is the most likely candidate for authorship.<\/p>\n If one is to research who the author of the epistle is it would be wise to consider the tradition of the eastern and western churches.\u00a0 This is a most interesting practice as it yields two results that could not be any more different.\u00a0 Looking at the patristic evidence is important to understand why it was placed in the canon[3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the expanses of the west the epistle was quoted as early as the writing of\u00a01 Clement<\/em>\u00a0around the end of the first century[4]<\/a>.\u00a0 Traces of the epistle were seen in the works of Gaius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and much more by Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel.\u00a0 However, none saw evidence of Pauline authorship, and thus it was not considered canonical because it was not apostolic in nature[5]<\/a>.\u00a0 Eventually Pauline authorship became popular, though never fully accepted, in the west around the 4th<\/sup>\u00a0century when Paul was attributed as being the author in editions of the\u00a0Latin Vulgate<\/em>.\u00a0 This was also the case in early English translation such as the\u00a0Douay-Rheims<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0King James Version[6]<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Though Pauline authorship was a matter of contention in the west this was not the case in the East.\u00a0 Very early the Eastern churches show a strong tradition that displays Pauline authorship.\u00a0 According to the early church historian Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria followed the view of another church father named Pantaenus[7]<\/a>.\u00a0 Clement held a view that Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew for Hebrews, and that it was translated into Greek by Luke[8]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Pantaenus did recognize the difficulty in such a belief.\u00a0 He argued very early on that Paul did not introduce himself in the same way as the rest of his letters.\u00a0 His explanation was simple, but carried much weight. \u00a0According to Gareth Cockerill, Pantaneus believed, \u201cPaul had not affixed his name because he was only the apostle to the Gentiles[9]<\/a>\u201d.\u00a0 Clement of Alexandria, Pantaenus\u2019s successor, added further clarification of this thought.\u00a0 He believed that Paul wrote the epistle anonymously so he would not offend the Jews in the audience[10]<\/a>.<\/p>\n At any rate the West began to join the east in affirming Pauline authorship in the 4th<\/sup>\u00a0century.\u00a0 The view in the west was assisted by theological heavyweights Jerome and Augustine who greatly respected the \u201cprestigious opinion of the Eastern churches[11]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 It should be noted that Jerome did carry reservations about Pauline authorship, but did not see fit to attempt to deny it a place in the canon.\u00a0 His reason was very simple, and straightforward as the letter was read daily inside the churches.<\/p>\n To better understand the authorship of Hebrews a look at the first theories must be looked at.\u00a0 The earliest theories, as already mentioned, were that the Apostle Paul was the most likely author.\u00a0 It is wise to go through the reasons why this was the case as it will later assist in laying the foundation as to why Pauline authorship is not probate.\u00a0 This process may seem antithetical, but in looking at other Pauline letters we can see some similarity, but many differences in writing style at tone.<\/p>\n As previously stated the earliest traditions in the East name Paul as the author.\u00a0 This theory did not come just from anywhere in the East, but from the catechetical school in Alexandria[12]<\/a>.\u00a0 The great Early Church Father John Chrysostom clearly names Paul as the author.\u00a0 John writes in his first homily on the Epistle, \u201cWhy did he [Paul] not oppose \u201chimself\u201d to \u201cthe prophets\u201d? Certainly, he was much greater than they, inasmuch as a greater trust was committed to him. Yet he doth not so[13]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Origen, at a minimum, affirmed Pauline dictation but was unsure of who wrote everything down[14]<\/a>.\u00a0 Also, as stated earlier the west was slower to affirm this theory, but at the council of Carthage the fourteen Pauline Epistles were accepted as canon in the New Testament, and this would be the prominent view, with some holdouts until the 16th<\/sup>\u00a0century[15]<\/a>.<\/p>\n There are similarities between Hebrews and Pauline letters which helped full the case for his authorship.\u00a0 This is what perhaps led the earliest codices, around 200 A.D., of Pauline books to be fourteen[16]<\/a>.\u00a0 To illustrate this point, it is helpful to compare two passages of scripture.\u00a0 The first is Hebrews 1:2 which states, \u201cbut in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created all ages[17]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Compare that passage with Colossians 1:16 which states, \u201cfor in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities-all things were created through him and for him[18]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Both verses are similar in tone and emphasize the work of Christ in creation.\u00a0 This could assist one in concluding that either Paul, or someone closely associated with him was the author[19]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Other similarities between Hebrews and the Pauline epistles is the place of the New Covenant described in Hebrews 8:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:4-11.\u00a0 The bad example of Israel during the wondering in the wilderness in Hebrews 3:7-11, 4:6-11, and 1 Corinthians 10:1-11.\u00a0 The work of the Holy Spirit and the distribution of gifts in the church in Hebrews 2:4 and 1 Corinthians 12:11. Another similarity is that of the Christs incarnation and death as mentioned in Hebrews 2:14-17 and Philippians 2:5-8[20]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Early church tradition and a look at Biblical evidence present a reasonable case for Pauline authorship.\u00a0 However, these are surface level factors as evidence can be derived from the text to show that Paul did not write the letter.\u00a0 Though the debate over authorship rages on the evidence that will be provided will show that the author must have been someone other than Paul, but may have been an associate or knew him well.<\/p>\n The first piece of evidence to look at is the salutation in Hebrews.\u00a0 The letters that were written by Paul all had a salutation, but Hebrews does not.\u00a0 The author starts by writing, \u201cIn many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets[21]<\/a>.\u00a0 From the onset of the letter there is an aura of anonymity.\u00a0 In describing this theologian Paul Enns writes, \u201cThe author nowhere identifies himself in the book, yet it seems he knows the readers[22]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 One theory to get around this issue is that the name was omitted because it was in the form of a sermon.\u00a0 Though plausible, it is unlikely that Paul would not use his authority as an Apostle to steer his readers away from apostasy.\u00a0 Paul does exactly this in his letter to the Galatians.<\/p>\n The appeal to authority in Hebrews 2:3 is problematic as it is not one normally given by an apostle.\u00a0 For clarification, the verse states, \u201cIt was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him[23]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 This passage shows that the writer was not a follower of Christ during his earthly ministry, and indicated that the message received was one delivered by the Apostles.\u00a0 Paul most likely would have referred to apostolic traditions which points to the writer knowing about Christ because of the ministry of the Apostles[24]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Another point of contention is the style used in Hebrews.\u00a0 Paul used a more relaxed style of Greek in his letters, and Hebrews has a more classical style.\u00a0 Bible scholar Robert Utley states, \u201cThe Style is so different from Paul\u2019s other writings, the vocabulary is different, and there are subtle differences is word and phrase usage and emphasis[25]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 This is not to say that Paul it not capable of an elevated use of Greek.\u00a0 Many parts of his letters, such as 1 Corinthians 13, display that.\u00a0 It is unlikely that Paul would write thirteen letters is a very simple Greek dialect and use a higher literary style in the letter to the Hebrews.<\/p>\n The Epistle to the Hebrews puts a great emphasis on Jesus as High priest.\u00a0 This particular language is absent from the rest of his writings[26]<\/a>.\u00a0 The author also uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, but with a key difference.\u00a0 The author of Hebrews quotes it differently than Paul did, and Paul did not always quote from the Septuagint[27]<\/a>.<\/p>\n A great deal of time has been spent discussing the case for and against Pauline authorship.\u00a0 Though Paul would be a good candidate the evidence points towards someone associated with him, but there were other figures in history who were seen as probable authors.<\/p>\n Luke and Clement of Rome were two men who accompanied Paul in his journeys.\u00a0 Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts while Clement is mentioned in Philippians 4:2 as a fellow worker.\u00a0 The thought that one of them authored it is ancient in its origins[28]<\/a>.\u00a0 Though it is ancient there are a couple problems with this theory.\u00a0 When compared with other writings of Luke there is very little in common with the content of Hebrews.\u00a0 Clement of Rome must also be removed as a viable candidate because of evidence found in his letter to the Corinthians.\u00a0 In that letter, he quotes Hebrews several times.<\/p>\n There is a possibility that he is quoting his own writing, but he is quoting it in such a way to negate part of what is said.\u00a0 He speaks of the ministry of the Church in such a way that parts are opposite of what is said in Hebrews[29]<\/a>.\u00a0 These two historic figures have early writing that we can compare to Hebrews to see if it was a possible match.\u00a0 Another possible author, Barnabas, does not since the epistle attributed to him is also anonymous.\u00a0 Another possible author is Priscilla, but that only came about in the 19th<\/sup>\u00a0century by Adolph Harnack.\u00a0 There is little to no evidence to support this theory and she is ruled out because of the author referring to himself with a masculine pronoun in Hebrews 11:32[30]<\/a>.\u00a0 There are many more names that were put forward, but one name stands out among those.\u00a0 That name in Apollos, and there is evidence to support that he is the author.<\/p>\n I stated previously the author was most likely a companion, or associated with Paul in some way.\u00a0 He is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3:5, \u201cWhat, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe\u2013as the Lord has assigned to each his task[31]<\/a>\u201d.\u00a0 We further read in Acts 18:24 about Apollos, \u201cNow a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures[32]<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n The two scriptures provided provide many key points about authorship.\u00a0 The author of Hebrews had a very strong Hellenistic background with training in rhetoric.\u00a0 These two distinctions are important and have led many since the time of Martin Luther to conclude that the author is Apollos[33]<\/a>.\u00a0 In Acts 18:24 Luke says that Apollos is a native of Alexandria which was traditionally the Greek center for rhetorical training[34]<\/a>.\u00a0 It was also the location of the famed catechetical school in the early church.\u00a0 Though the school may not have been around at the time that does not mean that a strong scriptural catechesis could not have been present.<\/p>\n In Acts 18 we see Apollos describes as someone who is steeped in the word and a great expositor.\u00a0 The author of Hebrews does much of the same.\u00a0 The writer draws on great details from the Old Testament to share with his readers.\u00a0 In regards to this Gareth Cockerill writes, \u201cApollo\u2019s skill in demonstrating Christ\u2019s messiahship from the Old Testament is in accord with the pastor\u2019s Christological exposition[35]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Another element to consider is the ability that Apollos has to confound the Jews who did not acknowledge Christ.\u00a0 This ability fits well with the background of the recipients of the letter[36]<\/a>.<\/p>\n The mystery of who wrote Hebrews is one that may never be solved.\u00a0 Many important named in Church History have been proposed as the author.\u00a0 A look at the evidence for and against Pauline authorship was looked at, and from that a deduction can be made that Paul was not the author.\u00a0 The author was most likely associated with Paul in some way.\u00a0 Thus, a look at the possibility of Luke and Clement as writers was briefly discussed.\u00a0 In both cases their literary styles do not match that of the writer of Hebrews.\u00a0 Apollos was also associated with Paul at the church in Corinth.\u00a0 He was trained in rhetoric, and was a great expositor of the scriptures.\u00a0 His style of writing is more classical in style and matches that of the author of Hebrews.\u00a0 It is because of these reasons that Apollos is the most probable author of Hebrews.<\/p>\n Berry, J.D., ed.\u00a0The Lexham Bible Dictionary<\/em>. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.<\/p>\n Brown, Raymond E, Joseph A Fitzmeyer, and Roland E Murphy, eds.\u00a0The New Jerome Biblical Commentary<\/em>. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.<\/p>\n Brown, Raymond E.\u00a0Introduction to the New Testament<\/em>. New Haven, CT: Doubleday, 1997.<\/p>\n Carson, D.A., and Douglas J Moo.\u00a0An Introduction to the New Testament<\/em>. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.<\/p>\n Cockerill, Gareth L.\u00a0The Epistle to the Hebrews<\/em>. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2012.<\/p>\n Ellingworth, Paul.\u00a0The Epistle to the Hebrews:\u00a0 A Commentary on the Greek Text<\/em>. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman\u2019s Publishing, 1993.<\/p>\n Enns, Paul.\u00a0The Moody Handbook of Theology<\/em>. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014.<\/p>\n Guthrie, George H.\u00a0The NIV Application Commentary:\u00a0 Hebrews<\/em>. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.<\/p>\n Herron, Thomas J.\u00a0Clement and the Early Church of Rome:<\/em>\u00a0Edited by Scott Hahn. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2008.<\/p>\n Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black.\u00a0The New Testament:\u00a0 Its Background and Message<\/em>. Nashville, TN: B&h Academic, 2003.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014..\u00a0Holman New Testament Commentary:\u00a0 Hebrews, James<\/em>. Nashville, TN: B&h Publishers, 1999.<\/p>\n Schaff, Philip, ed.\u00a0Saint John Chrysostom:\u00a0 Homilies on the Gospel of John and Epistle to the Hebrews<\/em>. Vol 14th ed. New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1899.<\/p>\n Utley, Robert J.\u00a0The Superiority of the New Covenant:\u00a0 Hebrews<\/em>. Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1999.<\/p>\n Wright, N.T.\u00a0Hebrews For Everyone<\/em>. Louisville, KY: WJK Press, 2004.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0N.t. Wright,\u00a0Hebrews For Everyone<\/em>\u00a0(Louisville, KY: WJK Press, 2004), x.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>\u00a0George H. Guthrie,\u00a0The NIV Application Commentary:\u00a0 Hebrews<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 23.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>\u00a0Gareth L Cockerill,\u00a0The Epistle to the Hebrews<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2012), 3.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>, 3.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>, 3.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>\u00a0Raymond E. Brown,\u00a0Introduction to the New Testament<\/em>\u00a0(New Haven, CT: Doubleday, 1997), 697.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a>\u00a0Raymond E Brown, Joseph A Fitzmeyer, and Roland E Murphy, eds.,\u00a0The New Jerome Biblical Commentary<\/em>\u00a0(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 920.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>, 920.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a>\u00a0Gareth L Cockerill,\u00a0The Epistle to the Hebrews<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2012), 4.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>, 5.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a>\u00a0D.A. Carson and Douglas J Moo,\u00a0An Introduction to the New Testament<\/em>, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 601.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a>\u00a0Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black,\u00a0The New Testament:\u00a0 Its Background and Message<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: B&h Academic, 2003), 496.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a>\u00a0Philip Schaff, ed.,\u00a0Saint John Chrysostom:\u00a0 Homilies on the Gospel of John and Epistle to the Hebrews<\/em>, vol 14th ed (New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 366.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a>\u00a0Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black,\u00a0The New Testament:\u00a0 Its Background and Message<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: B&h Academic, 2003), 496.<\/p>\n [15]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>, 496.<\/p>\n [16]<\/a>\u00a0Paul Ellingworth,\u00a0The Epistle to the Hebrews:\u00a0 A Commentary on the Greek Text<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman\u2019s Publishing, 1993), 6.<\/p>\n [17]<\/a>\u00a0Hebrews 1:2 (Revised Standard Version).<\/p>\n [18]<\/a>\u00a0Colossians 1:16 (Revised Standard Version).<\/p>\n [19]<\/a>\u00a0Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black,\u00a0The New Testament:\u00a0 Its Background and Message<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: B&h Academic, 2003), 496.<\/p>\n [20]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em>, 496.<\/p>\n [21]<\/a>\u00a0Hebrews 1:1 (Revised Standard Version).<\/p>\n [22]<\/a>\u00a0Paul Enns,\u00a0The Moody Handbook of Theology<\/em>\u00a0(Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 121.<\/p>\n [23]<\/a>\u00a0Hebrews 2:3b (Revised Standard Version).<\/p>\n [24]<\/a>\u00a0J.D. Berry, ed.,\u00a0The Lexham Bible Dictionary<\/em>\u00a0(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 492.<\/p>\n [25]<\/a>\u00a0Robert J Utley,\u00a0The Superiority of the New Covenant:\u00a0 Hebrews<\/em>\u00a0(Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1999), 2.<\/p>\n [26]<\/a>\u00a0D.A. Carson and Douglas J Moo,\u00a0An Introduction to the New Testament<\/em>, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 602.<\/p>\n [27]<\/a>\u00a0Thomas D. Lea,\u00a0Holman New Testament Commentary:\u00a0 Hebrews, James<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: B&h Publishers, 1999), 1.<\/p>\n [28]<\/a>\u00a0Raymond E. Brown,\u00a0Introduction to the New Testament<\/em>\u00a0(New Haven, CT: Doubleday, 1997), 695.<\/p>\n [29]<\/a>\u00a0Thomas J. Herron,\u00a0Clement and the Early Church of Rome,<\/em>\u00a0ed. Scott Hahn (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2008), 81.<\/p>\n [30]<\/a>\u00a0D.A. Carson and Douglas J Moo,\u00a0An Introduction to the New Testament<\/em>, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 604.<\/p>\n [31]<\/a>\u00a01 Corinthians 3:5 (New International Version).<\/p>\n [32]<\/a>\u00a0Acts 18:24 (English Standard Version).<\/p>\n [33]<\/a>\u00a0Raymond E Brown, Joseph A Fitzmeyer, and Roland E Murphy, eds.,\u00a0The New Jerome Biblical Commentary<\/em>\u00a0(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 921.<\/p>\n [34]<\/a>\u00a0George H. Guthrie,\u00a0The NIV Application Commentary:\u00a0 Hebrews<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 26.<\/p>\n\u00a0Authorship Of Hebrews In East And West<\/h3>\n
![\"Books,](\"https:\/\/cdn.pixabay.com\/photo\/2017\/03\/20\/10\/50\/books-2158737__340.jpg\")
<\/p>\nEvidence For Pauline Authorship In Hebrews<\/h3>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/cdn.pixabay.com\/photo\/2015\/07\/28\/23\/02\/the-apostle-paul-865248__340.jpg\")
<\/p>\nEvidence Against Paul Being The Author<\/h3>\n
Other Potential Authors<\/h3>\n
Apollos As Author<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n
Bibliography<\/h3>\n