Hebrews was definitely not written by Paul and the fact that most scholars agree otherwise is a terrific piece of evidence that he did not write it. "Scholars" make their career by disagreeing with the bible whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself. Biblical Archeologist in particular, it seems, have it as their life's goal to disprove some aspect of the bible, but they aren't unique, unfortunately. It seems the more educated the scholar, the more likely they are to get major issues wrong.
Be that as it may, the strongest argument against Pauline authorship of Hebrews relies on linguistic, stylistic, historical, and theological evidence drawn from multiple sources, including early church testimony, textual analysis, and yes, even scholarly research. I won't bore you with the entire argument, which is lengthy and will instead focus on the biblical elements of the argument, which is more than sufficient....
First, Paul explicitly identifies himself in all his known letters (e.g., “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ…”), yet Hebrews lacks any personal attribution. In 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Paul states that he signs his letters with his own hand to verify authenticity. This is absent in Hebrews.
Second, Hebrews presents a high priestly Christology, focusing on Jesus as the Melchizedekian high priest, which is something Paul never develops in his letters. While Paul emphasizes justification by faith apart from works (e.g., Romans, Galatians), Hebrews leans heavily on endurance, obedience, and covenantal fidelity without explicitly discussing justification by faith alone in Pauline terms. The covenantal discussion in Hebrews is more aligned with Jewish liturgical thought, whereas Paul often frames his arguments in relation to Gentile inclusion and law vs. grace.
Third, Hebrews 2:3 states that the message of salvation “was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,” strongly implying the author was not an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry. Paul, however, consistently claims he received what he referred to as "my gospel" (
Romans 2:16,
Romans 16:25 &
II Timothy 2:8) directly from Christ (Galatians 1:12) and does not rely on secondhand testimony.
Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
That last point is the real kicker here because if Galatians 1:12 weren't the case and Paul was teaching the same gospel that the Twelve were preaching then there would be no need for Paul's ministry at all. Jesus had just spent three years training His apostles and Judas' replacement had been confirmed not only by the eleven Apostles who remained as Jesus had given them authority to do (Matthew 16:19), but also by the Holy Spirit Himself in Acts 2:1-4.
The "Great Commission" given by Christ to the Twelve was an explicit instruction for them to take the gospel to "all nations" and yet they agreed with Paul to remain in Israel and minister to "the circumcision" (i.e. believing Jews) while Paul would go to the Gentiles.
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
And notice also why the meeting that produced the above agreement, happened in the first place....
Galatians 2:2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles
Why would Paul need to be sent by God Himself to Jerusalem in order to explain the gospel to the Twelve if what he was preaching was the same? There wouldn't be any need! It is precisely the fact that he was not preaching the same thing that justifies Paul's being an Apostle at all.
This Jerusalem counsel agreement also relates to the question of Hebrews’ authorship. If Paul wrote Hebrews, then his gospel would have been identical to what the Twelve were preaching, and this Jerusalem council meeting would have been unnecessary. On the other hand, if Paul’s message was distinct and someone wanted to argue that Hebrews reflects Paul’s gospel (which it clearly does not, as shown above), then the fact that it was written to the Hebrews would mean that Paul had violated his agreement with the Twelve. Paul would surely not have done such a thing. He was, after all, sent to this meeting by God Himself. Indeed, if he had violated this agreement by writing to the Hebrews, God would not have allowed it to be included in His Word. Either way you go, this point alone is sufficient to prove that Paul did not write Hebrews.
