What do you think?
Rate this book
The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul
Is it possible for a serious New Testament scholar to accept the apostle Paul as the author of the book of Hebrews? Over the last few centuries the authorship of the book of Hebrews has been a contentious topic, but lately a strong scholarly consensus has emerged that Paul was not the author. There is no similar consensus about who did author the book; the consensus is entirely negative. Nonetheless, it takes some courage for a scholar to risk his reputation by challenging a so thoroughly assured conclusion of so many scholars. Yet this is precisely what Dr. David Alan Black has done. In this book he adapts some of his previous scholarly work for a broader audience, demonstrating both how one goes about determining the authorship of an ancient work, and also how one challenges a scholarly consensus. That is why we have chosen this volume as the inaugural volume of our Topic Line Drives series. Millions of churchgoers look to the introductions to various books in their study Bibles to answer questions of date, authorship, and background. But only those who read more than one introduction will be fully aware of the disagreements among scholars about those conclusions. How is it that scholars make a determination about authorship? Dr. Black has paid his dues in the practice of scholarship, and here he demonstrates how one challenges such a consensus. At the same time he will guide the reader through the various factors that influence a decision about the authorship of a book. We hope this book will give new life to your Bible study and will challenge you to study further, not just about this subject, but about many others. This book is for those who want to dig deeper than the notes in a study Bible and who want to understand what stands behind those conclusions.
- GenresBiblical Studies
42 pages, Paperback
First published September 20, 2013
7 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
November 26, 2022
His take on Origen is spot on!
January 7, 2019
Most contemporary New Testament scholars simply assume that the Apostle Paul was not the author of Hebrews. David Alan Black encourages us to rethink this conclusion. With this aim, his short book provides us with useful data, though the force of his conclusion from that data is not, in my view, as strong as he believes.
His first and longest section, “Overlooked Affinities between Hebrews and Paul,” provides a great deal of raw data that shows that the author of Hebrews used many of the same words in similar, if not identical, ways as Paul used them. The objective existence of these similarities cannot be doubted. The claims that they are overlooked, and that they provide strong evidence for Pauline authorship, can. Black uses the same methodology, in reverse, that higher critics use to deny the Pauline authorship of the pastorals. Some of us find that methodology suspect, and if it is suspect in denying Paul as author of the pastorals, it is certainly suspect in affirming him as the author of Hebrews. Could these similarities arise from the fact that Paul wrote Hebrews? Certainly. But, given the fact that Hebrews, like so many of Paul’s epistles, is a soteriological treatise, it is equally possible that two authors are drawing from a common theological vocabulary in the early church. Paul was certainly a major contributor to that vocabulary, but this gives us no reason to assume it was his exclusive domain.
Similar arguments could be advanced to claim that Paul was actually the author of 1 Peter (were Peter’s name not on it). Similar arguments (in reverse) are certainly advanced to claim that Peter was not the author of 2 Peter. The problem with these kinds of argument is not in the raw data, but in a questionable methodology for interpreting that data. This is not to deny that Black has done us a great service in giving us this data. At least, the data shows us a common core of language and concepts in the soteriological literature of the New Testament. Those of us who ascribe to biblical inerrancy would expect nothing less.
The second section “The Style of Hebrews and the Question of Authorship,” was the most disappointing in the book. Considering that this is the main line of reasoning usually cited against Paul as the author, the brevity of this section, and the lack of subjects addressed, are difficult to understand. Rather than delving deeply into the real stylistic differences, Black expands his analysis of lexical data to include grammatical similarities in several turns of phrase, without really engaging the macrostructure issues involved in comparing Hebrews with the Pauline Corpus. He gives no real attention to the differences between Paul’s proof texting use of the Old Testament versus the thorough expositions found in Hebrews.
It is in Black’s last section, “The External Evidence,” that we find the strongest section of his case. This evidence is clear and compelling, if not quite as compelling as Black suggests. He provides ample evidence to show that the Pauline authorship of Hebrews was the dominant view of the early church, and the view of the canonical councils. This evidence cannot, and should not be dismissed lightly. He overstates his case, however, when he says, “The canonicity of this epistle is somewhat dependent on how we answer the question of authorship” (p. 24). This indicates that questioning the Pauline authorship should bring the canonicity of Hebrews into question. It goes without saying that most contemporary evangelical scholars embrace the canonicity of Hebrews while denying the Pauline authorship. Black pushes the criterion of apostolicity beyond its original meaning. It means, simply stated, that to be canonical a New Testament book had to be written by an apostle or one of their close associates. Hence the reason that Mark, Luke, James, and Jude have contributions. All the major candidates for the author of Hebrews were, indeed, close associates of Paul (Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla, Luke, etc.). Paul not writing Hebrews need not alter its canonical status. Another criteria for canonicity was a book’s self-authenticating divine nature. In the case of Hebrews, this is so strong that it seems very unlikely that uncertainty about authorship would have kept the councils from denying the book’s canonicity.
We should also note that, while the view that Paul wrote Hebrews was strong in the early church, it was far from unanimous. We might compare the other anonymous books in the New Testament, namely, the Gospels. None of the four canonical Gospels have a stated author, but evangelical scholars rarely doubt the traditional authorship because no one seriously contested it until the advent of 19th century German Liberalism. Not so with Hebrews. One of the reasons its authorship continues to be under discussion is precisely because there is no unanimous tradition.
Black cites the usual evidences of the connection with Timothy and having been in prison. These evidences certainly fit Paul well, but they also fit many of his associates. Black fails, however, to adequately deal with the fact that Hebrews is anonymous, while all of Paul’s uncontested epistles use his name. Some do so several times. He follows Clement’s line of reasoning that Paul did not Include his name so as not to prejudice his Jewish audience against him outright. This reminds one of Adolf Von Harnack’s suggestion that Priscilla wrote the epistle and left it anonymous so as not to prejudice male readers against it. In Priscilla’s case, we have no sample of other writings to compare, but in Paul’s case, we have an abundance. Many scholars (including myself) believe that Hebrews was composed for Jewish believers in Rome. This is significant because Paul had written Romans to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles less than ten years before Hebrews was written. Romans, Galatians and Colossians, in part, were written to correct similar errors as Hebrews. This is significant because, in these epistles, Paul boldly asserts his apostolic authority. Are we truly to believe that Paul, the man who withstood Peter publicly in Antioch, would shirk at asserting his apostolic authority to accommodate a hostile Jewish audience. Everything we know about Paul suggests that he would do the exact opposite.
We might also note that Black seems to assume, on very little evidence, that no one besides the apostle Paul would have been capable of writing Hebrews. For example, he states, “Barnabas does not appear in the New Testament as capable of writing such a treatise as Hebrews” (p. 31). What evidence he is citing is difficult to imagine. Given that all of Paul’s traveling companions probably heard him talk for hundreds of hours around campfires and long hikes from one city to another, it is difficult to imagine anyone who had spent this kind of time with him incapable of writing Hebrews. This would further explain the clear Pauline influence on Hebrews, and the association with Timothy, while giving a framework for the clear stylistic differences that even Black is forced to acknowledge (e.g., p. 30).
In conclusion, Black’s book is a very helpful tool because it provides us with data to show a common soteriological vocabulary in early Christianity. He further demonstrates the plausibility that Paul could have written Hebrews. I believe, however, he falls far short of showing Paul to be the most likely candidate. After reading his book carefully, I am still convinced that the best answer to the question of who wrote Hebrews is, “We just don’t know for sure.”
His first and longest section, “Overlooked Affinities between Hebrews and Paul,” provides a great deal of raw data that shows that the author of Hebrews used many of the same words in similar, if not identical, ways as Paul used them. The objective existence of these similarities cannot be doubted. The claims that they are overlooked, and that they provide strong evidence for Pauline authorship, can. Black uses the same methodology, in reverse, that higher critics use to deny the Pauline authorship of the pastorals. Some of us find that methodology suspect, and if it is suspect in denying Paul as author of the pastorals, it is certainly suspect in affirming him as the author of Hebrews. Could these similarities arise from the fact that Paul wrote Hebrews? Certainly. But, given the fact that Hebrews, like so many of Paul’s epistles, is a soteriological treatise, it is equally possible that two authors are drawing from a common theological vocabulary in the early church. Paul was certainly a major contributor to that vocabulary, but this gives us no reason to assume it was his exclusive domain.
Similar arguments could be advanced to claim that Paul was actually the author of 1 Peter (were Peter’s name not on it). Similar arguments (in reverse) are certainly advanced to claim that Peter was not the author of 2 Peter. The problem with these kinds of argument is not in the raw data, but in a questionable methodology for interpreting that data. This is not to deny that Black has done us a great service in giving us this data. At least, the data shows us a common core of language and concepts in the soteriological literature of the New Testament. Those of us who ascribe to biblical inerrancy would expect nothing less.
The second section “The Style of Hebrews and the Question of Authorship,” was the most disappointing in the book. Considering that this is the main line of reasoning usually cited against Paul as the author, the brevity of this section, and the lack of subjects addressed, are difficult to understand. Rather than delving deeply into the real stylistic differences, Black expands his analysis of lexical data to include grammatical similarities in several turns of phrase, without really engaging the macrostructure issues involved in comparing Hebrews with the Pauline Corpus. He gives no real attention to the differences between Paul’s proof texting use of the Old Testament versus the thorough expositions found in Hebrews.
It is in Black’s last section, “The External Evidence,” that we find the strongest section of his case. This evidence is clear and compelling, if not quite as compelling as Black suggests. He provides ample evidence to show that the Pauline authorship of Hebrews was the dominant view of the early church, and the view of the canonical councils. This evidence cannot, and should not be dismissed lightly. He overstates his case, however, when he says, “The canonicity of this epistle is somewhat dependent on how we answer the question of authorship” (p. 24). This indicates that questioning the Pauline authorship should bring the canonicity of Hebrews into question. It goes without saying that most contemporary evangelical scholars embrace the canonicity of Hebrews while denying the Pauline authorship. Black pushes the criterion of apostolicity beyond its original meaning. It means, simply stated, that to be canonical a New Testament book had to be written by an apostle or one of their close associates. Hence the reason that Mark, Luke, James, and Jude have contributions. All the major candidates for the author of Hebrews were, indeed, close associates of Paul (Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla, Luke, etc.). Paul not writing Hebrews need not alter its canonical status. Another criteria for canonicity was a book’s self-authenticating divine nature. In the case of Hebrews, this is so strong that it seems very unlikely that uncertainty about authorship would have kept the councils from denying the book’s canonicity.
We should also note that, while the view that Paul wrote Hebrews was strong in the early church, it was far from unanimous. We might compare the other anonymous books in the New Testament, namely, the Gospels. None of the four canonical Gospels have a stated author, but evangelical scholars rarely doubt the traditional authorship because no one seriously contested it until the advent of 19th century German Liberalism. Not so with Hebrews. One of the reasons its authorship continues to be under discussion is precisely because there is no unanimous tradition.
Black cites the usual evidences of the connection with Timothy and having been in prison. These evidences certainly fit Paul well, but they also fit many of his associates. Black fails, however, to adequately deal with the fact that Hebrews is anonymous, while all of Paul’s uncontested epistles use his name. Some do so several times. He follows Clement’s line of reasoning that Paul did not Include his name so as not to prejudice his Jewish audience against him outright. This reminds one of Adolf Von Harnack’s suggestion that Priscilla wrote the epistle and left it anonymous so as not to prejudice male readers against it. In Priscilla’s case, we have no sample of other writings to compare, but in Paul’s case, we have an abundance. Many scholars (including myself) believe that Hebrews was composed for Jewish believers in Rome. This is significant because Paul had written Romans to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles less than ten years before Hebrews was written. Romans, Galatians and Colossians, in part, were written to correct similar errors as Hebrews. This is significant because, in these epistles, Paul boldly asserts his apostolic authority. Are we truly to believe that Paul, the man who withstood Peter publicly in Antioch, would shirk at asserting his apostolic authority to accommodate a hostile Jewish audience. Everything we know about Paul suggests that he would do the exact opposite.
We might also note that Black seems to assume, on very little evidence, that no one besides the apostle Paul would have been capable of writing Hebrews. For example, he states, “Barnabas does not appear in the New Testament as capable of writing such a treatise as Hebrews” (p. 31). What evidence he is citing is difficult to imagine. Given that all of Paul’s traveling companions probably heard him talk for hundreds of hours around campfires and long hikes from one city to another, it is difficult to imagine anyone who had spent this kind of time with him incapable of writing Hebrews. This would further explain the clear Pauline influence on Hebrews, and the association with Timothy, while giving a framework for the clear stylistic differences that even Black is forced to acknowledge (e.g., p. 30).
In conclusion, Black’s book is a very helpful tool because it provides us with data to show a common soteriological vocabulary in early Christianity. He further demonstrates the plausibility that Paul could have written Hebrews. I believe, however, he falls far short of showing Paul to be the most likely candidate. After reading his book carefully, I am still convinced that the best answer to the question of who wrote Hebrews is, “We just don’t know for sure.”
May 10, 2019
Black makes a strong case for the traditional view of Paul as the author of Hebrews. His appendix on Origen's view of the epistle's authorship is especially helpful as Origen is often cited as being against Pauline authorship.
December 3, 2025
I am agnostic about the author of Hebrews, but Dr. Black does make a very convincing argument for Pauline authorship here. Examining the internal evidence of Hebrews and the similarity of grammar and ideas to Paul’s writings, as well as the external evidence and the strong amount of citations from eastern church fathers about Pauline authorship, Black makes a modest argument that Hebrews PROBABLY is written by Paul, but Black is not overly dogmatic about this assertion. If it was not written by the Apostle Paul, I think we can at least say, as I once heard Madison Pierce iterate, that the masterful letter was written by a Pauline associate. There is also a neat appendix at the end that contains Origen’s citations of Hebrews as a Pauline letter. This book provides a helpful look at the style of Hebrews, as well as hints at some issues of the initial canonization of the letter.
“Although Paul saw himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles, he preached to the Jews first wherever he went (Rom 1:16), often visited the Jerusalem church, and had a deep spiritual concern for Israel (Rom 9:1-5; 10:1-4). His Pharisaical training in Jerusalem under Gamaliel would have provided him with a thorough knowledge of the Jewish sacrificial system, and few others would have had the background to compose such a book heavy with allusions to Exodus and Leviticus. Therefore, since the internal evidence is not unfavorable to Pauline authorship, and since the external evidence is largely in its support, the best course of action in our view is to accept that Hebrews was authored by Paul the apostle, possibly with the assistance of an amanuensis such as Luke.”
On suspicions about the canonization of Hebrews in the early church: “Possibly the use made of Hebrews by the Montanists, who welcomed its denial of a second repentance, compromised the letter in certain quarters.37 Especially the passages in Heb 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 seem strongly to favor the views that they maintained.”
“Although Paul saw himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles, he preached to the Jews first wherever he went (Rom 1:16), often visited the Jerusalem church, and had a deep spiritual concern for Israel (Rom 9:1-5; 10:1-4). His Pharisaical training in Jerusalem under Gamaliel would have provided him with a thorough knowledge of the Jewish sacrificial system, and few others would have had the background to compose such a book heavy with allusions to Exodus and Leviticus. Therefore, since the internal evidence is not unfavorable to Pauline authorship, and since the external evidence is largely in its support, the best course of action in our view is to accept that Hebrews was authored by Paul the apostle, possibly with the assistance of an amanuensis such as Luke.”
On suspicions about the canonization of Hebrews in the early church: “Possibly the use made of Hebrews by the Montanists, who welcomed its denial of a second repentance, compromised the letter in certain quarters.37 Especially the passages in Heb 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 seem strongly to favor the views that they maintained.”
January 21, 2021
Black makes a very convincing case here, but even with the help of Greek Transliteration the first half is difficult to follow for a layman. The overview of Patristics' writing on the topic in the second half is succinct and clear.
August 2, 2018
An excellent presentation of the evidence from history and the New Testament in defense of Pauline authorship of Hebrews.
January 27, 2014
Interesting enough short work on an argument for Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Pretty technical and very straightforward. I think it makes a more than plausible argument and think it is more likely than not that Paul wrote Hebrews (whether with an amanuensis or not).
February 22, 2015
Works for me.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews