I just finished David Allen's monograph, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews [B&H Academic, 2010]. The book is a companion to his commentary on Hebrews, also released this year in the NAC series. His fascination with the authorship of Hebrews began in 1976 in a class ironically taught by Paige Patterson. He is one of the few advocating Lukan authorship today (though there has always been a few in that camp). The book, part of the NAC Studies in Bible and Theology series, is interesting and in parts persuasive. Certainly one will have to deal with it and the arguments presented in future studies on Hebrews.
Allen begins with a historical survey on the authorship question. Chapter 2 evaluates evidence for Barnabas, Apollos, and Paul as authorial candidates. Both chapters are important to the foundation Allen is laying. He comes to the conclusion that there is early evidence for Lukan authorship of Hebrews. He rules out both Barnabas and Apollos fairly easily. While the Patristic evidence for Pauline authorship cannot be easily dismissed, Allen falls on the side of the majority of modern scholars who believe there are no disagreements with Paul in Hebrews, but the many style differences particularly make Pauline authorship less likely.
The strongest arguments for Lukan authorship of Hebews are found in chapters 3 -5. The linguistic argument is first to bat and is by far the strongest hitter. Allen amasses a great deal of lexical, stylistic, and textlinguistic evidence to build his case. The lexical similarities between Luke/Acts and Hebrews are very impressive. However, I found his stylistic section very persuasive. The cumulative effect of the similarities "provide a forceful argument for Lukan authorship of Hebrews" [123]. In my opinion this is by far the strongest arguments presented in the book.
Second up is Allen's comparison of the purposes of Luke/Acts and Hebrews. He presents lexical/semantic evidence found in the prologues of the books and well as the hortatory sections. To Allen these similarities link the works closely. I am not so sure.
Third to the plate is Allen's discussion of the theological similarities between the three books. I personally found his discussion of the High Priesthood of Jesus in Luke/Acts the most interesting. Obviously that is a major topic in Hebrews. If it can be seen in Luke/Acts then Lukan authorship is at least possible. Allen sees Luke's view of Jesus as High Priest shown in three ways. First, Jesus prays for Peter in Luke 22:31-32. The intercessory ministry of Jesus is obviously in Hebrews. Second, Jesus' prayer at the cross for those who are placing Him there [Luke 22:34] is compared to Hebrews 5:2. Third, in the account of the ascension [Luke 24:50-51], Jesus lifts up his hands and blesses the disciples, reminiscent of the high priest. Allen writes, "Throughout Luke's Gospel, Jesus is characterized by the priestly attributes of sympathy, compassion, and mercy." While one may admit the above, Allen seems to stretch a bit. For example, in the account of the ten lepers cleansed by Jesus in Luke 17, the fact that one came back and showed himself to Jesus does not lend itself to proving Luke's view that Jesus is "God's High Priest" [213]. However, I believe Allen has at least shown that Luke is concerned about the priestly ministry of Jesus. A major roadblock to viewing Luke as authorship of Hebrews has at last been moved a bit.
I found Chapter 6 the most interesting. Luke has been assumed by scholars as Gentile. Thus there is no way he could have authored a work like Hebrews. Of course, even though a Gentile, he could have authored the work. That said if it can be proven that Luke is a Jew another major stumbling block has been removed. I believe Allen has done us a great service in this chapter, showing that Luke is likely a Jew. The Birth Narratives alone in Luke 1-2 seem to indicate this as I have believed for a long time. Luke's concern for OT prophecy, the priesthood, the Temple, and his use of Scripture all point to this conclusion. Luke/Acts is shown to be very "Jewish" in nature and one has to ask, If Luke were a Gentile or if he were writing for Gentiles, why do we find so many Jewish features in the two works? Allen's evidence, although a stretch in places, has its intended cumulative effect.
The rest of the book is certainly more subjective as Allen admits. His historical reconstruction, although interesting, is less compelling. He believes Luke wrote to a former High Priest, Theophilus, from Rome in the late 60s. Theophilus is in Antioch among a group of converted priests who are thinking about reverting to Judaism. While it is certainly possible that Luke wrote Hebrews from Rome after the death of Paul and before the destruction of the Jerusalem, the hard evidence is lacking and perhaps always will be.
Allen writes in his introduction that the book "is an attempt to prosecute the case for Lukan authorship by presenting a preponderance of evidence, the cumulative effect of which becomes difficult to deny" [5]. There is no doubt that there is a preponderance of evidence. Some of it stretches the limits of credibility, but there is a good deal in this book that should be digested, pondered, and perhaps even admitted at the very least possible. While his historical reconstruction may not be strong, the other evidence presented is. Particularly, if Luke can be seen as Jewish writing to Jews, then the primary obstacle to Lukan authorship of Hebrews is at least moved. I believe Allen has done this. It must be admitted that Luke could very possibly be (and I believe probably was) a Jew. Thus he certainly could be the author of Hebrews. If the author is not Paul, and it probably isn't, then Luke should be seen as a primary candidate. Certainly there is more evidence for him then Apollos or Barnabas.
I am not 100% persuaded by Allen's book, but I have gravitated closer to his position. "Almost thou persuadest me!."
