Featured Who do you believe wrote the Book of Hebrews?

Apollos. If it wasn't Paul, then Apollos is the most likely.

 

Luke. Three places in scripture where near Classical Greek is used. The first four verses of Luke, Acts, and Hebrews. Additionally, Luke had a sponsor, Theopolios, that funded his works. It was common for such works to be done in “threes”.

The name is “lost” because Luke was a gentile and the writing was used to convince Jews that Jesus is their Messiah.

Peace to you

 

"...§ 6. Apollos not the author.
§ 6. Apollos hath been thought by some to be the penman of this Epistle; and that because it answers the character given of him. For it is said that he was an eloquent man, mighty in the Scripture, fervent in spirit, and one that mightily convinced the Jews out of the Scripture itself (Acts 18:24, 28), all which things appear throughout this whole discourse. But this conjecture hath no countenance from Antiquity, no mention being made of any Epistle written by Apollos, or of anything else, so that he is not reckoned by Jerome amongst the Ecclesiastical writers, nor by those who interpolated that work with some fragments out of Sophronius. Nor is he reported by Clement, Origen, or Eusebius, to have been by any esteemed the author of this Epistle. However, I confess somewhat of moment might have been apprehended in the observation mentioned, if the excellencies ascribed unto Apollos had been peculiar unto him; yea, had they not all of them been found in St. Paul, and that in a manner and degree more eminent than in the other. But this being so, the ground of this conjecture is taken from under it...."

Proof that the Apostle Paul Wrote Hebrews
John Owen

 

"...§ 4. St. Luke not the writer of it.
§ 4. Origen in Eusebius affirms that some supposed Luke to have been the author of this Epistle. But neither doth he approve their opinion, nor mention what reasons they pretend for it. He adds also that some esteemed it to be written by Clement of Rome. Clement of Alexandria allows St. Paul to be the author of it, but supposeth it might be translated by Luke, because as he saith, the style of it is not unlike that of his in the Acts of the Apostles. Grotius of late contends for Luke to be the author of it on the same account [3], but the instances which he gives, rather argue a coincidence of some words and phrases, than a similitude of style, which things are very different. Jerome also tells us that juxta quosdam videtur esse Lucae Evangelistae, “by some it was thought to be written by Luke the Evangelist”, which he took from Clement, Origen, and Eusebius; only he mentions nothing of the similitude of style with that of St. Luke, but afterwards informs us that in his judgment there is a great conformity in style, between this Epistle and that of Clement of Rome. None of them acquaint us who were the authors or approvers of this conjecture nor do they give any credit themselves unto it. Neither is there any reason of this opinion reported by them, but only that intimated by Clement of the agreement of the style with that of the Acts of the Apostles (which yet is not allowed by Jerome), whereon he doth not ascribe the writing, but only the translation of it unto Luke. Grotius alone contends for him to be the author of it, and that with this only argument, that sundry words are used in the same sense by St. Luke and the writer of this Epistle. But that this observation is of no moment shall afterwards be declared.

This opinion then may be well rejected as a groundless guess of an obscure unknown original, and not tolerably confirmed either by testimony or circumstances of things. If we will forego a persuasion established on so many important considerations, as we shall manifest this of St. Paul’s being the author of this Epistle to be, and confirmed by so many testimonies, upon every arbitrary ungrounded conjecture, we may be sure never to find rest in anything that we are rightly persuaded of. But I shall add one consideration that will cast this opinion of Grotius quite out of the limits of probability. By general consent this Epistle was written whilst James was yet alive and presided in the Church of the Hebrews at Jerusalem; and I shall afterwards prove it so to have been. What was his authority as an Apostle, what his reputation in that Church, is both known in general from the nature of his office, and in particular is intimated in the Scripture (Acts 15:13; Gal. 2:9). These were the Hebrews whose instruction in this Epistle is principally intended, and by their means, that of their brethren in the eastern dispersion of them. Now is it reason to imagine, that anyone who was not an Apostle, but only a scholar and follower of them, should be used to write unto that Church, wherein so great an Apostle, a pillar among them, had his especial residence, and did actually preside; and that in an argument of such huge importance, with reasons against a practice wherein they were all engaged; yea, that Apostle himself as appears in Galatians 2:12. Were anyone then alive of more esteem and reputation in the Church than others, certainly he was the fittest to be used in this employment; and how well all things of this nature agree unto St. Paul we shall see afterwards...."

Proof that the Apostle Paul Wrote Hebrews
John Owen

 

The theory that Paul wrote Hebrews has become more popular in recent years, and I would tend to support it if it were not for Hebrews 2:3, which I don't believe Paul would have written. He is adamant that he received the Gospel from the risen Christ (Galatians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 9:1).
If not Paul, it must have been one of his circle (Hebrews 13:23) and very familiar with the O.T.. Apollos, Barnabas, Luke.........Take your pick.

 

God. The human penman is unknown.

 

I like all the responses, but I had a thought concerning who else might have authored Hebrews based on the purpose and focused audience of his record of Christ.

I suggest (without proof) that it was Matthew.

Matthew, was already concerned that the Messiah be shown as the Christ.

The writer of Hebrews has a similar attention.

Paul, Luke, and Apolos were all focused upon the ministry and evangelism of the Gentiles.

I am too old to remember if the grammar selection would be similar, but (again so-very long ago) perhaps the cadence is similar?

So, merely because of target audience, I would appoint the writing to Matthew.

But I am very open to persuasion should someone of language learning can demonstrate I err.

 

Timothy wrote Hebrews
MB

 

Great replies, all. Good thread.

Peace to you.

 

Paul.
Hebrews reads very much like a formal and proper, yet flexible type of 'midrash' to me; and Paul would be best suited to write in such a way, with his rabbinic background.
As to why it would not read like his letters, my reasoning is that as those are informal, whereas Hebrews is formal.

Then there is church history and Timothy:
In my Trinitarian Bible Society Bible there is a 'subscription' to the Hebrews Text which reads:

'Written to the Hebrews from Italy by Timothy.'​

And yet, on their own site (Subscriptions to the Epistles - Trinitarian Bible Society), TBS argues against Timothy as the author (as they are removing the subscriptions in certain new prints):

'6. The Epistle to the Hebrews, apparently (from the subscription), was written ‘from Italy by Timothy’, but this is wholly without foundation and plainly contradicts the inspired writer’s own words in 13.23—‘Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you’.'​

What I am wondering though, is what the church history is behind choosing Timothy?

 

But Timothy was a Greek.

Would he have had the education of a Hebrew?

Matthew as an educated Hebrew could have written it and his record of focusing upon Jews in his record of Christ’s ministry would also be an indicator.

 

An Apostle did not write it, ". . .How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; . . ." -- Hebrews 2:3.

 

No. ". . . Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you. . . ." -- Hebrews 13:23. The recipents knew the writer.

 

Question, but it may distract from the original question. If you think it does, perhaps I should move it to a new thread.

Since the text itself does not say which disciple wrote the book of Hebrews, what would we gain by guessing correctly who it was? What might we lose by guessing incorrectly?

 

Luke was Greek as well. Do you really believe only Jews could write the New Testament?
MB

 

I found this at the end of the Book of Hebrews" Written to the Hebrews from Italy, by Timothy."

If that were the Case he would have done more writing than preaching don't you think. I believe the experts on this.timothy is the most likely.
MB

 

The “endnotes” or “subscriptions” on the 14 epistles that have them are not part of the original writings. They were probably added in the fourth century or later. They are someone’s opinion about who wrote them, to whom, and from where.

 

Do you think they would know..
This was writen just before the end;
Heb 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
I admit this is most likely the reason for doubt. How ever the guy who said it was someone who would know more about it. What would be the possible motive for lying. What difference does it make Hebrews is still in the New Testament. And most Christians accept it as the word of God.
MB
PS
Luke may have writen the book of Acts Look at Acts 1:1.
Act 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
I know Luke knew Theophilus The book of Luke it addressed to the same person and so is acts. Maybe Just Maybe Paul didn't write most of the New Testament as I have believed.