| − | The identity of the author of the epistle has been called "the riddle of the New Testament"<ref>Scott, E. F. [http://www.archive.org/stream/MN41537ucmf_9/MN41537ucmf_9_djvu.txt ''The Epistle of the Hebrews: Its Doctrine and Significance''] (Edinburgh; T and T Clarke; 1922) full text online. Accessed 15 March 2008</ref> It remains the only New Testament book whose authorship is definitely unknown. The earliest translations of the [[King James Bible]] call it "the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews", but this is conjecture, and also a position that was not adopted by the church until the [[Middle Ages]]. By the time of the [[Reformation]], this authorship was being questioned. While commonly attributed to [[Paul]], a comparison of the language and style with his other writings seems to indicate that he was not the author, although the ideas expressed within it certainly follow Pauline thought, suggesting that the author had been a pupil of his. | + | The identity of the author of the epistle has been called "the riddle of the New Testament"<ref>Scott, E. F. [http://www.archive.org/stream/MN41537ucmf_9/MN41537ucmf_9_djvu.txt ''The Epistle of the Hebrews: Its Doctrine and Significance''] (Edinburgh; T and T Clarke; 1922) full text online. Accessed 15 March 2008</ref> It remains the only New Testament book whose authorship is definitely unknown. The earliest translations of the [[King James Bible]] call it "the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews," but this is implausible conjecture, and also a position that was not adopted by the church until the [[Middle Ages]]. By the time of the [[Reformation]], this authorship was being questioned. While commonly attributed to [[Paul]], a comparison of the language and style with his other writings demonstrate that he was not the author, although the ideas expressed within it do not contradict Pauline thought, suggesting that the author may have been a pupil of his. |
| | Attridge<ref>Attridge, Harold W. ''Epistle to the Hebrews'' Anchor Bible Dictionary</ref> writes: "Although Hebrews is included in the Pauline corpus and was part of that corpus in its earliest attested form ([eg papyrus] ''P46''), it is certainly not a work of the apostle. This fact was recognized, largely on stylistic grounds, even in antiquity. Some patristic authors defended the traditional Pauline attribution with theories of scribal assistants such as [[Clement]] of Rome or Luke, but such hypotheses do not do justice to the very un-Pauline treatment of key themes, particularly those of law and faith. Numerous alternative candidates for authorship have been proposed. The most prominent have been [[Barnabas]], to whom [[Tertullian]] assigned the work; [[Apollos]], defended by [[Martin Luther|Luther]] and many moderns; [[Priscilla]], suggested by von Harnack; [[Epaphras]]; and [[Silas]]. Arguments for none are decisive, and [[Origen|Origen's]] judgment that "''God only knows''" who composed the work is sound." | | Attridge<ref>Attridge, Harold W. ''Epistle to the Hebrews'' Anchor Bible Dictionary</ref> writes: "Although Hebrews is included in the Pauline corpus and was part of that corpus in its earliest attested form ([eg papyrus] ''P46''), it is certainly not a work of the apostle. This fact was recognized, largely on stylistic grounds, even in antiquity. Some patristic authors defended the traditional Pauline attribution with theories of scribal assistants such as [[Clement]] of Rome or Luke, but such hypotheses do not do justice to the very un-Pauline treatment of key themes, particularly those of law and faith. Numerous alternative candidates for authorship have been proposed. The most prominent have been [[Barnabas]], to whom [[Tertullian]] assigned the work; [[Apollos]], defended by [[Martin Luther|Luther]] and many moderns; [[Priscilla]], suggested by von Harnack; [[Epaphras]]; and [[Silas]]. Arguments for none are decisive, and [[Origen|Origen's]] judgment that "''God only knows''" who composed the work is sound." |