270 bryan r. dyer
paul—often circulating as a part of a corpus of paul’s letters. hebrews
then is the only anonymous document to be associated with paul. all
other canonical books attributed to paul (regardless of their status con-
cerning pseudepigraphy) clearly identify with his name.4 later pauline
pseudepigraphy (e.g., 3 Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans) similarly
write using paul’s name within the composition.
if, as is something of a scholarly consensus, paul did not write hebrews,
how did it come to be ascribed to him despite any direct appeal to his
name?5 This is where the issue of pseudepigraphy comes into play. many
scholars writing on new Testament—especially pauline—pseudepigraphy
consider hebrews to be a case of “mistaken attribution,”6 in which the
connection to paul happened after its composition and reception. most
in this group would argue that the epistle was never intended to be attrib-
uted to paul but its parallels to paul’s letters, or possibly a connection
to a pauline school, led to this false attribution. others leave hebrews
out of their definition of pseudepigraphy because of its anonymity.7 still
others have maintained that hebrews should be understood as pauline
pseudepigraphy by arguing that its author, or some later editor, intention-
ally attempted to connect the epistle to paul’s name. Those arguing for
pauline pseudepigraphy usually focus on the epistle’s closing (13:20–25)
as an intentional appeal to paul’s identity and authority.
4 rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1, 16:21; 2 Cor 1:1, 10:1; gal 1:1, 5:2; eph 1:1, 3:1; phil 1:1; Col 1:1, 4:18; 1 Thess
1:1, 2:18; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1; phlm 1, 19.
5 harold attridge identifies william leonard’s 1939 The Authorship of the Epistle to the
Hebrews (rome: Vatican polyglot) as the last major defense of pauline authorship (attridge,
The Epistle to the Hebrews [philadelphia: fortress, 1989], 2 n.11). There have, however, been
more recent attempts to connect hebrews to paul. david alan black has argued that paul
dictated hebrews to luke and that this explains the linguistic differences between paul’s
letters and hebrews (“who wrote hebrews? The internal and external evidence reexam-
ined,” Faith & Mission 18 [2001]: 3–26). similarly, andrew w. pitts and Joshua f. walker
have argued that hebrews was a pauline speech written down (using the practice of ste-
nography) by luke at a later date (“The authorship of hebrews: a further development
in the luke-paul relationship,” in stanley e. porter and Christopher d. land [eds.], Paul
and His Social Relations [pasT 7; leiden: brill, 2012], 143–84).
6 richard bauckham, “pseudo-apostolic letters,” JBL 107 (1988): 471. see also bruce m.
metzger, “literary forgeries and Canonical pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 19; e. e. ellis,
“pseudonymity and Canonicity of new Testament documents,” in michael J. wilkins and
Terence paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor
of Ralph P. Martin (JsnTsup 87; sheffield: JsoT, 1992), 212.
7 Kent d. Clarke, “The problem of pseudonymity in biblical literature and its impli-
cations for Canon formation,” in lee martin mcdonald and James a. sanders (eds.),
The Canon Debate (peabody, ma: hendrickson, 2002), 446; stanley e. porter, “pauline
authorship and the pastoral epistles: implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1999): 105–23 (113).