There are not wanting those who reject the commonly received opinion that the Apostle Paul wrote this epistle. It may therefore be interesting to look at the historic proof of Paul being the writer.
There are several particulars relating to the personal history of the writer:
He was not one of our Lord's disciples, and probably did not know Christianity till after our Lord's ascension (Heb. 2:3). Paul we know was converted after the ascension of our Lord (Acts 9).
The epistle was written from Italy (13:24). Paul was in Italy for some time.
The writer mentions some hindrance which prevented his leaving Italy (13:19). This agrees with what we know of Paul, who was in prison there (2 Tim. 1:8).
The writer desired the prayers of his brethren for the removal of this hindrance (13:19). This is conformable to the custom of Paul in his other epistles (Rom. 15:30; Eph. 6:19).
The writer knew of Timothy's release from prison. Paul mentions this (1 Tim. 6:12).
Timothy was not with the writer in Italy, but was shortly expected (13:23). This agrees with what we know of the situation of Paul when in prison (2 Tim. 4:9).
7) The writer looked forward to traveling with Timothy to visit the Hebrew Christians. Timothy was Paul's constant companion in travel.
Here there are several particulars respecting the writer of the epistle, all of which agree with what we know of the history of Paul, but do not suit with what is known of any other eminent New Testament saint. It is highly improbable therefore that any other New Testament writer but Paul wrote this epistle.
Further: to none of the assigned writers do all the circumstances here noted suit, as far as we are acquainted with their histories. We know not that Apollos or Barnabas were ever in Rome, or suffered imprisonment there for the truth's sake. Luke was in Rome, but we have no information of his having been imprisoned there. In the absence of certainty, there is evidence enough from the personal remarks of the writer to lead us to the conclusion that Paul wrote this epistle (2 Pet. 3:15 seems to me decisive that Paul wrote to the Jewish saints; and this of course is no other than "Hebrews".)
If the question be asked, Why did Paul not name himself, or state his apostleship here as in his other epistles, there are several reasons that might be given.
It would have been something out of order for Paul to put himself forward when writing to the Jews, for he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, the uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7, 8), and not to the circumcision. It is not strange, however, that the Lord should use Paul to write a final appeal to the converted Jews to draw them away from their earthly attachments, for He had previously used Peter, the Apostle to the circumcision, to open the door into the kingdom to the Gentiles (Acts 10).
It was suitable that this appeal should reach the converted Hebrews with all the authority of
God Himself; hence, the epistle opens with "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." Another has written, "How enfeebling would have been the Apostle's introduction of himself in such a connection!" Yes, it was God Himself who was speaking to them, and the servant needed to be hidden.
3) In the third chapter the Lord Jesus is put forward as "the Apostle," the true sent One of God; hence it would not have been fitting to set forth Paul's apostleship here.