While we are dealing with the difficult question of the un-Pauline Greek of Hebrews,

it is only fair to mention an important work by a Roman Catholic writer, W. Leonard,

D.D., The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1939) in which he seeks to show that

this has been sometimes exaggerated, as has the influence of Philo on the writer of this

epistle. Dr. Leonard's work is very scholarly and merits the attention of every serious

Bible student. While one is not able to accept all his view-points, distinctive Roman

Catholic doctrines are not pressed.

If it is not the Apostle Paul's hand that has written Hebrews, can we say that it is his

material and mind that is behind it? It is the fashion at present in evangelical circles to

say `no'. Yet, as we have seen, from the earliest times, the Eastern church accepted it as

Pauline, whatever doubts they may have had regarding the amanuensis or editor. It has

been represented that this was nothing more than an attempt to give the epistle

canonicity. But the question can only be settled by the internal evidence of the epistle

itself. Those who deny the Apostle Paul's connection with Hebrews bring forward a

number of objections, the chief of which are the following:

(1) There is no trace of allegorical interpretation of the O.T., in Paul's epistles. But

the association of allegory with the Hebrews is wrong. This is confusing allegory with

type. Types are only types, and one of the great aims of this letter is to show that the

O.T. types were only partial foreshadowings of the reality found and fulfilled in Christ

alone. They could never perfect or bring the believer to maturity.

(2) The doctrine of resurrection is missing. The Apostle Paul never introduces

doctrine just for the sake of it.  In I Corinthians, resurrection is introduced because

some in the church doubted it (I Cor. 15: 12). The epistle to the Galatians is undoubtedly

Paul's, and there is no mention of the doctrine of resurrection in it!

(3) There is no Gentile stress in the Gospel. We have already shown that the Gospel

which presents salvation to the sinner is not the theme of Hebrews. This letter is

addressed to a group of Hebrew believers whose faith was being severely tested and they

were in danger of giving up, drawing back and apostatizing.

(4) The characteristic Pauline doctrine of faith verses works is not developed. But

this evidently was not the problem of these Hebrew Christians. However, the law is

stressed as a shadow only, which can neither save nor perfect (Heb. 8: 4-5; 10: 1). So

Paul's teaching is implicit here.  The same objection could be brought against the

Thessalonian epistles.

(5) There is no mention of Christ as High Priest in Paul's epistle. While this is true,

yet Rom. 8: 34, "Christ . . . . . is even at the right hand of God, Who also maketh

intercession for us".  And Gal. 2: 20, and Eph. 5: 2, which stress Christ's giving

Himself for us, surely show Him both as High Priest and Offering. The Lord is not

represented as a layman offering Himself to another priest. His position as High Priest is

implicit in the prayer of John 17:, as is His appearance in Rev. 1:  In Paul's later