The Epistle to the Hebrews has long stood out among the writings of the Greek New Testament. Its soaring language about the superiority of Christ’s priesthood, its in-depth quotations from the Old Testament, and its unique approach to Mosaic institutions capture the reader’s attention. Yet a question persists: Did the early believers correctly identify the author, or was this letter a “forgery,” as some modern scholars allege about various New Testament writings? An agnostic scholar, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, popularized this charge in his book that branded numerous New Testament works as pseudepigrapha. According to his view, if an ancient document was written under an assumed name, it was tantamount to “forgery,” an act he believes happened frequently.

However, the Epistle to the Hebrews was never explicitly attributed to a named author in its text. Early manuscripts and widespread tradition included Hebrews with Paul’s letters in certain regions, while believers elsewhere hesitated to accept it as a Pauline work. Some propose that Hebrews, being anonymous, was “falsely attributed” to the apostle Paul, or perhaps to other prominent figures such as Luke or Barnabas. Yet the question remains whether such attributions undermine the letter’s authenticity or its divine authority. This article weighs the internal and external evidences regarding Hebrews, sheds light on the arguments from critics like Ehrman, and shows that concerns over forgery are misplaced. Hebrews was received from the start as a genuine composition, never claiming an author who was not in fact the real author, and it continued to stand on its own merits in the biblical canon.

Did Ancient Readers Accept False Attributions?

In discussing the authenticity of biblical texts, critics sometimes argue that early Christians tolerated, or even condoned, pseudonymous writings. Some claim that an author in antiquity could compose an entire work in the name of a revered apostle or teacher, and that those reading it would acknowledge this as an acceptable custom. For instance, a teacher might pen a letter but place the name of Peter or Paul on it, intending it as a tribute to the original apostle’s theology. Many modern skeptics then conclude that numerous books in the New Testament were generated through this process.

Yet this narrative clashes with the actual evidence. Authorities in the ancient world did not treat forgery lightly. A spurious letter that misrepresented itself as authored by a celebrated figure often met with swift condemnation. Many recognized that claiming to be an apostle when one was not amounted to deception. Historical testimonies from the early centuries show that Christian communities took significant steps to ensure that documents claiming apostolic origin matched the known style, doctrine, and personal references associated with the credited writer. The church fathers refuted forgeries whenever they detected them. Therefore, calling the Epistle to the Hebrews “falsely attributed” presupposes that someone wrote it under an assumed name and passed it off as apostolic, but that conflicts with the letter’s anonymity. Hebrews does not, in fact, bear any explicit claim that Paul or any other apostolic figure wrote it.

Debunking the “Forgery” Claim

In more recent years, Bart Ehrman’s book argued that there are at least eleven forged documents in the Greek New Testament. He also claimed that eight originally anonymous texts later had apostolic names added to them, allegedly forming a kind of “falsely attributed” category. According to this line of reasoning, Hebrews could stand among these “anonymous texts.” However, simply being anonymous does not constitute false attribution. A genuine pseudepigraphical work disguises itself as penned by a named figure, but Hebrews never states “I, Paul, wrote this.” Hebrews simply appears without a signature. Any subsequent guess that Paul composed it does not convert the epistle itself into a forgery.

Furthermore, the argument that ancient communities were comfortable with attributions known to be false runs contrary to standard moral teachings. Early Christian writings consistently condemn deceit. In 1 Thessalonians 2:3–4, Paul emphasizes that his exhortation “does not arise from error or impurity or by way of deceit,” an ethos presumably shared by other apostolic-era authors. Forgery was, in general, disapproved in Greco-Roman society, where identifying an author was crucial for credibility. The condemnation of such practices was common. Thus, if a letter had truly been introduced under a false name, that would have caused suspicion and pushback rather than wholesale acceptance.

Considering Ehrman’s Broader Assertions

In pressing his case, Ehrman cites “inconsistencies” in the New Testament that, in his view, illustrate that certain letters or gospels could not have come from the purported authors. One example is Acts 4:13, where Peter and John are described as “unlettered,” sometimes misunderstood to mean “illiterate.” Critics interpret “unlettered” to indicate that they could not write, so the letters attributed to them must be forged. However, the Greek term more accurately indicates that these apostles lacked specialized rabbinic training, not that they had no literacy whatsoever. Over thirty years, or even sixty in John’s case, they could have developed or employed capable scribes, refining a style appropriate for their message. This reality undermines the notion that Peter and John were incapable of authoring biblical texts. Such misinterpretations of “unlettered” often feed skepticism, but they rest on a misunderstanding of first-century linguistic realities. The charge of forgery evaporates when a correct approach to the language is maintained.

Hebrews, on the other hand, does not identify its writer as Peter, John, or any other apostle. Therefore, in a sense, it remains free from many of Ehrman’s contentions about a name or identity conflict. The question is whether the final text of Hebrews—transmitted by early Christian communities and appended in some manuscripts with “to the Hebrews” or occasionally with “by Paul”—should be viewed as the product of deliberate misrepresentation. The historical record shows that the earliest readers recognized it as an authentic letter from a respected teacher of apostolic connections, not as an imposture.

Weighing the Internal Evidence

Hebrews includes unique doctrinal content such as Jesus’s priestly role “after the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:10) and a highly polished Greek style. Yet its theological framework aligns with the recognized apostolic message. The epistle underscores the supremacy of Jesus Christ over angels, Moses, and the Levitical system, an emphasis not dissimilar to themes in Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Colossians.

In addressing the author’s identity, scholars have mentioned several names: Paul, Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, and even Priscilla (along with Aquila). One line of reasoning for Luke connects the refined Greek style and the mention of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23). Luke was known to be an educated individual and a companion of Paul, who worked closely with Timothy. Another candidate, Barnabas, was a Levite (Acts 4:36), theoretically giving him insight into the sacrificial system that Hebrews explains at length. Tertullian once referred to Barnabas as the author. Apollos is similarly proposed, since Acts 18:24 calls him “eloquent,” matching Hebrews’ rhetorical sophistication and strong interest in Old Testament exposition. Priscilla has also been suggested, though this view lacks strong ancient support.

A leading contender remains Paul. Even though Hebrews does not use Paul’s customary introduction, the author demonstrates profound understanding of the transition from the Mosaic covenant to the new covenant in Christ—something Paul repeatedly addressed in Romans, Galatians, and 2 Corinthians. The letter also refers to Timothy as a familiar coworker (Hebrews 13:23), consistent with Paul’s circle. Ancient testimony from the eastern regions of Christendom widely accepted Pauline authorship, though the West was more cautious until centuries later. Certain arguments against Paul as the author highlight the fact that Hebrews quotes primarily from the Septuagint (LXX), includes an advanced Greek vocabulary, and, unlike Paul’s standard practice, does not begin with his name. Advocates counter that these distinctions can be explained by the target audience (Jewish believers fluent in Greek) and the unique subject matter.

Ultimately, Hebrews itself acknowledges that the writer was not one of the immediate twelve apostles who heard Jesus in person (Hebrews 2:3–4). That still allows Paul, who encountered the risen Christ in a revelatory manner, or associates like Barnabas or Luke, to be within view. Regardless, the letter’s central claims and teachings remain harmonious with recognized apostolic doctrine. That is why Origen around the early third century famously said of Hebrews, “But who wrote it, only God knows.” He was not implying it was forged. He was simply observing that no definitive name is stated. All such remarks confirm that from ancient times, the letter was anonymous but considered reliable.

The Author’s Known Qualities

Despite the anonymity, Hebrews offers clues that help identify its author as a close associate of first-generation apostolic leaders. The writer knew Timothy (Hebrews 13:23) and presumably wrote from “Italy,” greeting readers in a way that suggests direct contact with believers in that region (Hebrews 13:24). The language is more advanced, revealing that he was capable of intricate Greek expression. He demonstrates masterful skill in citing Old Testament passages—ninety-eight references overall—suggesting thorough knowledge of Hebrew Scriptures as found in the Greek translation. He also had a keen interest in Platonic reasoning about the unseen realities that the earthly tabernacle foreshadowed (Hebrews 8:5, 9:23–24), although he always grounded his arguments firmly in the biblical covenants rather than Greek philosophy.

This context indicates that the earliest recipients knew exactly who authored the text. He writes in Hebrews 5:11–12, “About this we have much to say,” rebuking them for sluggishness in hearing. He also alludes to their earlier hardships and how they should recall the former days (Hebrews 10:32–34, 12:4). Such personal references suggest that the recipients were personally acquainted with him. If that were not the case, they would likely reject such an admonition from an unknown writer.

External Recognition of Hebrews

Clement of Rome, around the late first century, cited passages echoing the language of Hebrews, showing that the letter was already circulating and respected. Later in the second century and into the third, figures like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen showed familiarity with it. Tertullian may have believed Barnabas wrote it, but he nonetheless treated it with respect, implying its recognized apostolic ties. The difficulty in the West hinged not so much on the letter’s inherent authority but on the question of authorship, which was complicated by some Montanist controversies involving Hebrews 6:4–6 (a passage about falling away and repentance). Once the Western churches were satisfied that Hebrews belonged within the apostolic tradition—often by attaching Paul’s name to it—they joined the Eastern churches in canonically accepting it.

Critics who propose that this acceptance shows an early Christian willingness to incorporate a “forgery” ignore the moral convictions of these communities. They placed utmost importance on associating a writing with authentic apostolic or close apostolic-era figures. The final acceptance was not a shrug toward pseudonymity. It was a careful evaluation concluding that Hebrews was both ancient and doctrinally consistent, coming from a teacher recognized in the Pauline circle, thus making it apostolic in source.

Addressing the Forgery Accusation Directly

Any valid accusation of forgery must identify a text that explicitly claims an author different from the real one. Hebrews makes no such claim. Its preface does not say “Paul, an apostle, to the Hebrews.” It simply begins with a solemn statement regarding God’s revelation “through the prophets” and now “through the Son” (Hebrews 1:1–2). Even the final verses refrain from declaring “I, Paul, wrote this letter.” The letter is effectively anonymous. History shows that some early believers ascribed the letter to Paul, some to Barnabas, and still others to Luke or Apollos, as they tried to explain the style and theology. But the letter itself never misidentifies its writer. Therefore, labeling Hebrews a forgery misapplies the term. Even if tradition attached Paul’s name to it, that tradition, whether correct or incorrect, does not transform the text itself into a false claim. A reader might question whether Paul or another wrote it, but the letter stands above that controversy by not claiming a named figure.

If someone suggests that “the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Barnabas or Apollos but circulated under Paul’s name,” that does not mean the original writing was a deliberate deception. That scenario would imply that later scribes or communities made an educated guess. The letter was recognized as of Pauline affiliation or overshadowed by Paul’s teaching, leading to acceptance in the Pauline corpus. But no evidence exists that a second-century copy of Hebrews added “I, Paul,” or that the letter tried to pass itself off with a false subscription. The question of authorship remained open in certain regions until consensus formed about its apostolic credentials. That is fundamentally different from a scenario in which a letter deliberately and falsely claims apostolic authorship.

Does Hebrews Contradict Other Pauline Letters?

One reason some question whether Paul wrote Hebrews is the distinctive nature of its content. Some note that Paul customarily identified himself by name, and that his extant letters often used personal greetings and direct references to “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Hebrews lacks that format. Still, many believers find theological resonance between Hebrews and Romans, Galatians, and 2 Corinthians, particularly in the central emphasis on Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Paul’s letters often highlight how the Law foreshadowed salvation in Christ, which matches Hebrews’ extended explanations. The reference to “Timothy” is not surprising from a Pauline vantage.

The difference in style and approach in Hebrews can be explained by the specialized nature of its audience—Jewish Christians who were grappling with the continuing significance of temple sacrifices and priestly rites. The Holy Spirit guided Paul (or another close associate) to craft a message that addresses those concerns in a deeply polished rhetorical manner. Meanwhile, the more personal style of letters like 1 and 2 Corinthians or Philippians could reflect direct epistolary communication with established congregations having specific issues. Hebrews, though still personal in certain references, focuses on a weighty doctrinal exposition aimed at solidly affirming Jesus as the final High Priest and Mediator of a superior covenant. If Paul did indeed compose it (some hold that Luke or a scribe might have contributed to the refined Greek expression), it would have a character distinct from letters to predominantly Gentile churches. This scenario does not signal forgery; it signals versatility of presentation.

Why the First Readers Trusted the Author

The text of Hebrews indicates that its readers had undergone significant persecution, shown hospitality to others in prison, and needed encouragement to stand firm in faith (Hebrews 10:32–34, 13:2–3). The writer shows intimate knowledge of their past experiences. Such closeness established trust. The audience was also warned against returning to old patterns of worship that had been surpassed by the arrival of the Messiah (Hebrews 6:4–8). This stern exhortation suggests that the writer held an authoritative standing in their community, and they would have recognized him as an approved teacher.

Any notion that a stranger might produce a letter under a famous name to manipulate these believers does not harmonize with the actual tone. The letter’s reproofs, warnings, and personal details fit an individual known to them who possessed spiritual credibility. Furthermore, nowhere does the text rely on “Paul says” or “I, Apollos, command.” The weight of the argument rests on the truth of the Scripture citations and the writer’s demonstrated relationship with both the Old Testament and the teachings of Christ. This is consistent with an honest approach, not a ruse.

Hebrews’ Place in the Canon

Some in the Western churches initially hesitated to acknowledge Hebrews in the same group as Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians because the named apostle was missing. The East, by contrast, quickly embraced it as Pauline or at least associated with Paul’s circle. Over time, once the entire community of believers recognized the epistle’s theological depth and consistency, it was placed firmly in the canon. This alignment across diverse congregations did not spring from a casual acceptance of spurious works. It grew from a combination of doctrinal harmony, historical acceptance, and references to the letter by early witnesses such as Clement of Rome. The impetus was never, “We must fill our canon with as many works as possible,” but rather, “We must preserve only those writings from legitimate apostolic sources.” Hebrews passed that test, and no sincere evidence of forgery or false attribution prevented its acceptance.

Strengthening Faith Instead of Casting Doubt

Contrary to modern claims of forgery, the Epistle to the Hebrews yields robust faith-building material. It bridges the Old Testament sacrificial system to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. It presents Jesus as the merciful High Priest who can “sympathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15). It underscores that the Mosaic Law pointed forward to a more complete redemption (Hebrews 7:18–19). These themes parallel Paul’s letters, even if expressed in a different literary style. The theological synergy reveals continuity, not contradiction.

Moreover, the letter exalts Christ’s standing far above angels or any mere prophet (Hebrews 1:4–5, 3:3–6), reflecting the well-attested biblical truth that Jesus is the unique Son of God. The repeated warning passages call believers to avoid spiritual drifting (Hebrews 2:1–3, 10:26–31), paralleling the cautions against apostasy found in Paul’s writings to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 10:1–12). All these correspondences strengthen the case that Hebrews belongs in the same line of apostolic teaching. Those who first received it knew from whom it originated, and they embraced the message without suspecting cunning deception.

Conclusion: Hebrews Is Neither a Forgery nor Falsely Attributed

Hebrews stands as a profound, anonymous letter that never claims an author contrary to the actual writer’s identity. From the earliest references in the writings of Clement of Rome and others, Hebrews was revered as a legitimate and powerful exposition of Christ’s superiority and the fulfillment of the old covenant. Questions over Pauline authorship arose simply because its style and approach differ from the standard Pauline epistles. Yet whether Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, or Luke wrote it, the letter is no forgery. It asserts no spurious identity. The charge that Hebrews is “falsely attributed” fails because the text does not adopt any name in its address or conclusion. Later attributions—some to Paul, some to Barnabas or others—reflect a natural effort by early Christians to identify a writer they respected as apostolic or near-apostolic, rather than an attempt to foist a counterfeit upon the faith community.

Examining both internal and external evidence eliminates the premise of deliberate deception. The earliest believers who received Hebrews knew the writer and accepted the epistle’s exhortations without misgivings. Over time, as the letter circulated more widely, recognition of its apostolic legitimacy led to its enduring place in the New Testament canon. Far from a random or questionable inclusion, Hebrews cements a crucial teaching about Christ’s role as ultimate High Priest, fulfilling the covenantal shadows. The notion that it was forged crumbles under the plain facts that there is no bogus name presented in it, and that its theological coherence fits the apostolic doctrine wholeheartedly.

Modern skepticism occasionally seizes upon the letter’s anonymity to suspect wrongdoing, but historical reality shows that from the first century onward, Hebrews was cherished as an integral part of the sacred writings. It proclaims powerful truth and demands genuine faith, echoing Paul’s coworker Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture is breathed out by God,” including works from recognized apostolic men. Hebrews, whether penned by Paul or one in his circle, was never a dishonest invention. It remains a trustworthy message that upholds Christ’s absolute supremacy, fulfilling the Old Testament types and admonishing believers to hold fast. There is no substantial reason to call it “falsely attributed,” and the confident Christian can uphold Hebrews as a vital part of the Holy Scriptures.

You May Also Enjoy

How Can We Approach the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION