Hebrews: Who is the Author?
The book of Hebrews is clearly one of the most important books in the entire Bible. John Owen, for example, considered it second in importance only to Romans. Moses Stuart thought it to be the equal of Romans. John Calvin wrote that “there is … no book in the Holy Scriptures which speaks so clearly of the priesthood of Christ, so highly exalts the virtue and dignity of that only true sacrifice which He offered by His death, so abundantly treats of the use of ceremonies as well as of their abrogation, and, in a word, so fully explains that Christ is the end of the law.”
The Book of Hebrews contains some thirty citations from the Old Testament, while at the same time pointing out that with the coming of Christ and the New Testament era, we have a “better covenant” which is “established on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6). The overarching theme of the book is the supremacy of Christ over all that came before Him. He is superior to all of the former means of revelation (1:1-3), to the angels (1:4-2:18), to Moses and Joshua (3:1-4:13), to the Aaronic priesthood (4:14-10:18), and to the entirety of the Old Covenant (10:19-12:29). Hebrews focuses on Christ as prophet, priest, and king; but the major emphasis is on His high priesthood. He is “the author and perfecter of the faith” (12:2), who all of the Old Testament types prefigured. There is a real sense, then, in which we may say that this book is a compendium of all Biblical teachings, both Old and New Testaments, regarding redemptive history.
At the same time, Hebrews is a book with a degree of mystery about it. There are questions regarding the author, the addresses, the date it was written, and the occasion of the writing. Even the title “to [the] Hebrews” (pros ebraious) is questionable. Though this title can be traced back to the second century, it was likely not a part of the original letter.
Certainly one of the most debated questions about this book, and the principle one this article intends to study, is the authorship. Who wrote the anonymous Book of Hebrews? When this question is asked, Origen’s (c. 185-254) well known statement is frequently given as an answer: “in truth God [alone] knows.” Numerous theories regarding the authorship have been advanced: the apostle Paul; Silas, the companion of Paul (Acts 15:40); Aquila and Priscilla, fellow tent makers with Paul and his trusted friends (Acts 18:2); Luke, the faithful friend and traveling companion of Paul (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11); Barnabas, Paul’s friend and fellow minister (Acts 13:2); Apollos, a gifted teacher and friend of Paul (Acts 18:23-28); etc. Of the non-Pauline suggestions, Barnabas and Apollos are the most frequently proposed.
One of the reasons that the persons other than Paul are suggested is that each possible author mentioned was somehow associated with this great apostle. The author of this book was undoubtedly a scholar of great measure. And Paul was certainly just that: he was a rabbinical scholar, who studied under the renowned Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and who later worked with and/or trained each of those listed above. Even those commentators who do not hold to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews concur that this letter incorporates a goodly amount of Paul’s thought. This simply cannot be reasonably doubted.
With so many different opinions and so much controversy over this matter, the question remains: Are we able to know the author of Hebrews? After a lengthy study of this subject, New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie concluded: “In the light of the preceding discussions, an open verdict is clearly the safest course and in this the opinion of Origen [‘in truth God alone knows’] can hardly be improved upon.”
The first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that the question of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a difficult one to answer. But we must not leave the matter there. The letter being anonymous, we cannot know with infallible, inerrant certainty who the author is. That does not mean, however, that we cannot reach a well-informed opinion with a goodly degree of certainty. After all, John’s epistles are also anonymous; yet there is little or no question regarding the authorship of those writings. First John, 2 John, and 3 John have always been recognized as coming from the pen of the apostle John. What is not as well known is that the classical view of the church through the centuries has also been, though not with as great a degree of certainty, that the author of Hebrews was the apostle Paul. As we examine the evidence (both external and internal), we will see that John Owen was correct in his assessment: “The evidence both external and internal is so satisfactory, that an impression is left on the mind, that Paul was the author of this epistle, nearly equal to what his very name prefixed to it would have produced.”
First is the external evidence. As Robert Reymond points out, as often as Origen’s referred to opinion is cited (that God alone knows who the author is), what is not so commonly recognized is that immediately preceding this statement, Origen said that his belief was that the letter was written by Paul. Origen’s words are as follows:
But as for myself, if I were to state my
own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle
[Paul], but that the diction and phraseology are those of someone who
wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore, if
any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for
this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s.
But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows.
It cannot be reasonably doubted that the Eastern church held to Pauline authorship from its earliest days. According to Eusebius (c. 263-340), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) taught that “Paul wrote the Hebrews in the Hebrew language and that Luke carefully translated it into Greek.” He also stated that this was the belief of the “blessed elder Pantaenus” (died c. 200). In the Western church, Tertullian (c. 155-220) is the first clear testimony regarding the authorship of this epistle, and, although his words are somewhat difficult to cipher, as Laird Harris avers, “it would seem possible to hold that Tertullian did actually accept Hebrews and accepted it because it derived from the apostles, specifically Paul.” Then there is the historian Eusebius, who spoke of the “fourteen epistles” of the apostle Paul. It is also the case that Jerome (c. 347-420) in Jerusalem considered Hebrews to be of Pauline origin, as did Augustine (354-430) in North Africa. It is also worthy of note that in several of the early Greek manuscripts this epistle is located, not after Philemon as in our Bibles, but grouped among the other Pauline epistles, thereby revealing that those who arranged the manuscripts considered Hebrews to be of Pauline origin. Also, the fact of the matter is that Hebrews was received into the canon of Scripture by the early church due (principally) to the belief that it was an inspired epistle of the apostle Paul. As confirmed by Geisler and Nix:
The anonymity of Hebrews kept open the question of the apostolic authority of the epistle. In time, the Western church came to accept Hebrews as Pauline and, therefore, that issue was resolved. Once the West was convinced of the apostolicity of the book, there remained no obstacle to its full and final acceptance into the canon.
W. H. Goold listed a number of other scholars of antiquity that held to Pauline authorship: Hilary, Ambrose, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, and Athanasius. Then too, Pauline authorship was the adopted view of the synod of Antioch (A.D. 264), the council of Nicea (A.D. 315), the council of Laodicea (A.D. 360), the council of Hippo (A.D. 393), the third council of Carthage (A.D. 397), and the sixth council of Carthage (A.D. 419).
Throughout the years of church history, numerous other scholars have also concluded that Paul wrote Hebrews. Thomas Aquinas taught that Paul was the author of this book. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) declared that there are fourteen Pauline epistles. In the Belgic Confession (1561), Hebrews is listed among the Pauline writings. The same is true of the Second Helvetic Confession (1562). The first publication of the King James Version of the Bible (1611), entitled this letter “The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews.” John Owen, who wrote a masterful seven volume commentary on Hebrews, commented that “St. Paul it is by whom we affirm this epistle to be written.” Matthew Henry commented that Hebrews “is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul’s name in the title. In the primitive times it was generally ascribed to him, and the style and scope of it very well agree with his spirit, who was a person of a clear head and a warm heart, whose main end and endeavor it was to exalt Christ.” Matthew Poole said that he agreed with “the general consent of the church through successive ages of it, entitling it [Hebrews] to him [Paul].” Louis Gaussen considered Paul to be the author of Hebrews, as did Jonathan Edwards. John Brown of Edinburgh wrote: “That tradition ascribes the epistle to the apostle Paul as its author …. After considering with some care the evidence on both sides of this question, I am disposed to think that, though by no means absolutely certain, it is in a high degree probable, that this epistle was written by the apostle Paul.” And Moses Stuart, after an exhaustive study of the subject, concluded: “On the whole, I must acquiesce in the opinion of Origen, which I repeat to the general voice of antiquity; it is not without reason the ancients have handed it down to us, that this epistle is Paul’s. Nor shall I differ materially with those who, like Eusebius, can say…[that] fourteen epistles are clearly and certainly Paul’s.” The Reformed Baptist theologian John Gill said that this book is “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.” A. W. Pink wrote that he was “fully assured” that the author of Hebrews “was the apostle Paul.” Robert Reymond, in agreement with all of these commentators, concluded: “I conclude that there is nothing in the content of the letter that Paul could not have written and that the Pauline authorship of Hebrews best explains, humanly speaking, the letter’s place in the canon.”
Moses Stuart was correct in his assertion that the external evidence is “preponderant in favor of the opinion that Paul was the author of our epistle [Hebrews].” It is when we come to the internal evidence, however, that we find the strongest opposition to this opinion. Calvin, for example, wrote: “I, indeed, can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author; for they who say that he designedly suppressed his name because it was hateful to the Jews, bring nothing to the purpose …. But the manner of teaching, and the style, sufficiently show that Paul was not the author; and the writer himself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the apostles, which is wholly different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself.” William Hendriksen, Simon Kistemaker, and B. F. Westcott also list a number of reasons why Paul (allegedly) could not have authored this book. An examination of the internal evidence, however, will show that this is simply not the case. To cite Dr. Reymond: “Internal evidence also supports the legitimacy of holding that Paul could have been the author.”
Let us examine some of the internal evidence. One of the most serious challenges that those who hold to Pauline authorship have to answer is why Paul would not have signed this epistle, as he did the other thirteen. First, Clement of Alexandria gave an answer to this question years ago when he wrote that “the blessed elder Pantaenus” taught that “since the Lord [Jesus], being the Apostle to the Hebrews [Hebrews 3:1], was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through modesty, since he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not inscribe himself as an apostle to the Hebrews, both to give due deference to the Lord and because he wrote to the Hebrews also out of his abundance, being a preacher and apostle to the Gentiles.” John Owen added to this by saying that Paul, being the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Galatians 2:7), and knowing of Jewish discrimination against him, wanted to avoid any Jewish prejudice against the letter which likely would have come if they knew who wrote it. Rather, Paul founds all of his arguments on the Old Testament Scriptures, with which his audience would have been familiar. These are legitimate reasons for Paul not to have affixed his name to the epistle.
Along this same line of thought, in 2 Thessalonians 3:17-18, Paul writes: “The salutation [aspasmos] of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle; so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” Note is made that Paul does not say in these verses that he signs every epistle that he writes. What he says is that he always gives this “salutation” [aspasmos]: “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” This salutation (or something similar to it) is found at the end of every one of Paul’s signed thirteen epistles. It is also at the end of Hebrews (13:25): “Grace be with you all. Amen.” Paul did write his salutation at the end of this epistle, just as he said he would do in all of his writings.
Second, there is the alleged problem of Hebrews 2:3, which reads “how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him.” According to William Hendriksen, “about the last thing Paul would ever say is found in Hebrews 2:3. He emphasized the fact that he had received his gospel directly from Christ.” But the author of this verse does not say that he received his gospel from the other apostles. What he says is that it “was confirmed [ebebaiothe] to us by those who heard Him.” And as Reymond explains, this implies “that he was already in possession of the message at the time of its confirmation to him.” And this “confirmation” could have taken place in Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem when he met with Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19); or it could have occurred on the visit he describes in Galatians 2:1-10. Certainly, Reymond goes on to say, “the action of the apostles, as described by Paul in Galatians 2:9 (‘… recognizing the grace that had been given unto me, James and Cephas and John … gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship’) has the appearance of being a ‘confirming’ activity.” What the other apostles, whose credentials were not in question, did on this occasion was confirm or endorse Paul’s credentials as an apostle. And this endorsement was necessary for Paul to properly function as an apostle. Herein, wrote William Hendriksen, the endorsement “served as the confirmation of a solemn covenant.”
As John Owen suggested, another possibility is that the apostle could just be “placing himself among those unto whom he wrote, though not personally concerned in every particular spoken – a thing so usual with him [Paul] that there is scarce any of his epistles wherein sundry instances of it are not to be found. See 1 Corinthians 10:8-9; 1 Thessalonians 4:17.” John Brown was of the same opinion:
What the Lord spoke concerning this great salvation, “was confirmed,” says the inspired writer, “to us by them who heard Him.” Some interpreters conceive that in the use of the pronoun of the first person here, they have evidence that Paul was not the author of the epistle, as he obtained his knowledge of the Christian salvation, as he states in Galatians, not from men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. I do not think there is much in this. He is speaking of himself in common with those to whom he was writing, few or none of whom probably had heard the gospel from the lips of the Lord Himself; and though Paul did not obtain his knowledge of the gospel from the other apostles, he might justly say, it was confirmed to him by those who heard the Savior.
These things being so, Hebrews 2:3 in no way denies that Paul could have written this epistle.
Third, there is the supposed difficulty, to cite Calvin, “with the manner of teaching, and the style” used in Hebrews, which differs to some degree with that of Paul in his other epistles. That there is some difference in these is beyond cavil. But this in no way means that Paul could not have written the letter. John’s style of writing, for example, in Revelation is significantly different from his other writings: the Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. But this does not mean that John did not write Revelation. Then too, 1 Peter differs in a large degree from 2 Peter; yet, Peter wrote them both. In fact, there are some New Testament scholars who aver that Paul could not have written the Pastoral Epistles because the style found in these letters is unlike the apostle’s other writings. But this in no way denies Pauline authorship. But if Clement of Alexandria is correct in his belief that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew, and Luke translated it into Greek, this would explain the difference in style and vocabulary. And what is more likely, the same would be true if Paul himself wrote this letter in Greek (as with his other letters) and used an amanuensis (confirm Romans 16:22).
A different audience would also account for the difference “with the manner of teaching, and the style.” Moreover, John Owen and Moses Stuart have pointed out dozens of similarities between the “manner of teaching” in Paul’s other letters and in Hebrews. They have also showed that much of the language used in Hebrews is similar to that which is found in other Pauline epistles. The present author is in agreement with Robert Reymond when he writes: “As for its style and grammar … and its doctrinal content, I grant that these matters are different in some ways from Paul’s other letters to specific churches and individuals, but its recipients, its very subject matter, and its purpose would have made much to do with determining the style and vocabulary of the letter. There is nothing in the content of the letter that Paul could not have written.”
The internal evidence of 2 Peter 3:15 (“and account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation – as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you”), also supports the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. In his introductory “argument” to the Book of Hebrews, Matthew Poole wrote: “This is most certain, that the apostle Paul wrote such an epistle [the one Peter refers to]; that it was well known to the dispersed churches of Christ then; that it was abused by corrupt minds, as it is at this day, since the Spirit gives us undeniable testimony of it in 2 Peter 3:15-16 …. That this epistle [Hebrews] should be it [the one Peter refers to], seems not difficult to determine.” A. W. Pink was of the same opinion: “That this epistle [Hebrews] was written by Paul is clear from 2 Peter 3:15. Peter was writing to saved Jews as the opening verses of his first epistle intimates. The first verse of chapter 3 in his second epistle informs us that this letter was addressed to the same people as his former one had been. Then in verse 15 he declares that his beloved brother Paul “also according to the wisdom given unto Him has written unto you.” If the Epistle to the Hebrews be not that writing, where is it?”
The external and internal evidence has been collected. What then should be the verdict? The present writer is in agreement with the conclusion reached by John Owen over three centuries ago: “The evidence both external and internal is so satisfactory, that an impression is left on the mind, that Paul was the author of this epistle, nearly equal to what his very name prefixed to it would have produced.”
If Paul is the author, where was he when he wrote Hebrews? The most likely place of origin is Rome. In the closing statements he writes “those from Italy greet you” (13:24). The most plausible way of interpreting this remark is that the Christians in Italy, i.e., Rome, send their greetings to the addressees. This strongly implies that Paul was in Rome at the time of the writing, perhaps at the end of his first imprisonment there (Acts 28:30). This is also inferred by Hebrews 13:18-19, by his request for the addressees to pray for him that “I may be restored to you the sooner.” The fact that in 13:23 the author speaks with confidence that “I shall see you,” in no way denies that he was in prison at the time of the writing. Paul wrote Philemon and Philippians from his prison cell, and in both letters he expressed a confidence that God would deliver him from prison and send him on his way to them (see Philemon 22 and Philippians 1:25; 2:23-24). Hebrews may well have been written near the very end of this same prison time. This would give us a date for the epistle around A.D. 62 or 63. Of course, with John Owen we should also say that the letter could have been written shortly after Paul’s release from this first Roman imprisonment.
Who were the addressees? As the title “To the Hebrews” suggests, they are Jewish Christians, who in all likelihood were living in Jerusalem and the environs of Judea. Having studied the matter at length, Moses Stuart wrote: “In ancient times, so far as I have been able to discover, there was but one opinion on this subject; and this has been adopted and defended by a majority of distinguished critics [commentators], in modern and recent times. This opinion is, that the epistle was addressed to the Hebrew church of Palestine.” These were Jews who had made a profession of faith in Christ, but were now in danger of wavering in their faith, and falling away (3:12-4:16). They are exhorted to “hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end” (3:6), and to “press on to maturity” (6:1). These Hebrews were undergoing persecution for their faith (12:1-4), and were in need of exhortation (13:22).
The conclusion of the matter is this: It seems clear from both the external and the internal evidence that the apostle Paul is the most likely candidate to be the author of the Book of Hebrews. With little question this has been the classical view of the church, even though this is not the case in our day. Moses Stuart correctly asserted that “there is a peculiarity of representation so distinctly marked here, so exclusively Pauline in manner, that if Paul himself did not write the epistle to the Hebrews, it must have been some one, who had drunk in so deeply of his instructions, as to become the very image of the fountain whence he drew.” We do not, however, need to end up here. A reasonable examination of all of the issues should bring us to the conclusion reached by the nineteenth century scholar John Brown: “After considering with some care the evidence on both sides of this question, I am disposed to think that, though by no means absolutely certain, it is in a high degree probable, that this epistle was written by the apostle Paul.” The present author is of the opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was penned by the apostle Paul to the Hebrew church of Palestine, during (or immediately subsequent to his release from) his first imprisonment in Rome in A.D. 62 or 63.
 John Owen, “Translator’s Preface,” in John Calvin, Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), XXII:v.
 Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: William Tegg and Company, 1850), v.
 Calvin, Commentaries, XXII:xxvi.
 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), xxiii; B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), xxvii.
 Cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.
 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1970), 685-698; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 19-30; Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 6-8.
 The participle usage of diegeomai found in Hebrews 11:32 has a masculine ending, which rules out a woman being the author.
 Moses Stuart noted the reply of the critics of his day who denied Pauline authorship: “The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” they say, “was an intimate friend, or a studious imitator, of Paul; a man of talents, who, with unqualified admiration of the apostle’s sentiments, mode of reasoning, and even choice of words, closely imitated him in all these particulars. Hence the similarity between the writings of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 146).
 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 698.
 Owen, in the “Translator’s Preface,” Calvin, Commentaries, XXII:ix.
 Robert L. Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), 274.
 Cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.
 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.
 R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 266.
 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.3.
 Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, 276.
 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated by Thomas L. Kingsbury (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, , 1978), I:16; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, xxx-xxxii; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 686. F. F. Bruce noted that in the Chester Beatty collection of manuscripts, which is the “oldest known surviving copy of the Pauline letters” (dated at the end of the second century), Hebrews is included among the Pauline writings (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 466).
 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 118.
 Listed in John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, edited by William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), I:93; see also Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, I:12-16.
 Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 22.
 Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.), IV:362.
 John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I:67.
 Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.), VI:888.
 Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.), III:808.
 Louis Gaussen, God-Breathed: The Divine Inspiration of the Bible (The Trinity Foundation, 2001), 29, 93, 111.
 Cited in John H. Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Powhatan, Virginia: Berea Publications; Orlando: Ligonier Ministries, 1991), I:248.
 John Brown, Hebrews (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), 7-8.
 Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 234.
 John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), IX:372.
 A. W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, , 1993), 18.
 Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, 279.
 Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 112.
 Calvin, Commentaries, XXII:xxvii.
 William Hendriksen, Survey of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 416; Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 7; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, lxxvii-lxxviii.
 Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, 276.
 Much of this information is drawn from Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, 276-279; Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I:65-92; and Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, IX:372-373.
 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.
 Owen in “Translator’s Preface,” Calvin, Commentaries, XXII:x.
 Hendriksen, Survey of the Bible, 416.
 Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, 278.
 William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 85. See also R. C. Sproul, The Gospel of God (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), 19.
 Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, III:280.
 Brown, Hebrews, 80.
 Michael Green wrote: “Is it conceivable that these two epistles, 1 Peter and 2 Peter, should come from the same hand? The language is different (strikingly so in the original), and the thought is also different.” Green, in agreement with Jerome, went on to show that one of the reasons for the difference is easily explainable by the fact that Peter used different secretaries when writing these two letters; see Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, , 1984), 16.
 William Hendriksen, in the “Introduction” to his New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), lists a number of such scholars who reject the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.
 R. D. Shaw pointed out that it is probable that Paul wrote most, if not all, of his letters by dictating them to an amanuensis (The Pauline Epistles [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909], 8-9).
 Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I:78-91; Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 121-145. See also Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 722-723.
 Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1990), 295.
 Poole, A Commentary on the Whole Bible, III:808.
 Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, 18.
 Owen, “Translator’s Preface,” Calvin, Commentaries, XXII:ix.
 See Brown, Hebrews, 727; Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, 280; Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, III:878-879; and Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 115-121.
 Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 115-121.
 Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I:96-101.
 Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 32; see also Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, xli.
 Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 128.
 Brown, Hebrews, 8.
Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 12:36:46 PM