272 bryan r. dyer
name without actually mentioning a name. for the purpose of this article,
we must allow pseudepigraphy a broader definition.10 put simply, i define
“pseudepigraphy” as a literary category in which a composition was writ-
ten by an author with the intent of passing it off as another’s work.11 for
us to understand hebrews as pseudepigraphy, it must be determined that
the author intended to attribute the epistle to a different person. further,
for it to be understood as Pauline pseudepigraphy, it must be shown that
hebrews was intentionally crafted to pass as a letter of paul. This is signifi-
cant since determinations of a document’s status as pseudepigraphy must
take into consideration the author that it is supposedly ascribed to. This is
why comparison with the pauline corpus is essential for this study.
Previous Scholarship on Heb 13:20–25 and Pauline Pseudepigraphy
The closing verses of hebrews, especially the reference to Timothy (13:23),
have long been used to connect the epistle to paul.12 since at least the
late-nineteenth century, many have argued on the basis of these verses for
pauline pseudepigraphy.13 in 1880, franz overbeck argued that hebrews
formally ends at 13:21 and that vv. 22–25 were a later addition to make the
10 This is not to say that the presence of a false name is not a helpful criterion for
identifying pseudepigraphy. yet, for the purposes of exploring the possibility of hebrews
as an example of this category, the definition must be expanded to include other forms of
writing “under a false name.”
11 i do not use the word “deceive” since i do not wish to comment on the ethics or
integrity of early Christian practice of pseudepigraphy. many have argued—including
aland and metzger, as well as david g. meade—that pseudepigraphy was a well-known
and accepted practice in the first century and that such documents were not neces-
sarily composed with the intent to deceive (david g. meade, Pseudonymity and Canon
[wunT 39; Tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1986], esp. 17–43). others—such as porter and ellis—
argue strongly against this position, stating that deception is inherent to the practice of
pseudonymity and that the early church consistently rejected any document found to be
a forgery. such discussions are beyond the scope of this essay.
12 “among scholars, it [the mention of Timothy] generates the hope of being able to
locate the composition’s date and authorship. The most obvious and likely connection is
to paul.... The close association of Timothy with paul undoubtedly led some early read-
ers to assume pauline authorship of hebrews... but it must also be recognized that the
pauline circle was extensive, and others within his mission team could also have used the
same designation... but absolutely nothing definitive on this point can be established”
(luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary [nTl; louisville: westminster John
Knox, 2006], 357–58).
13 The best overview of this subject is found in Clare K. rothschild, Hebrews as Pseude-
pigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews (wunT 235;
Tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2009), 45–62. This section is indebted to rothschild’s research.