Several major considerations militate against Pauline authorship. The stylistic factors that impressed Clement and Origen are certainly significant. There is not in the Pauline corpus, even in such a relatively reflective and carefully composed work as Romans, anything that matches the studied prose of Hebrews with its careful structure and rich rhetorical embellishment. Contentual factors, however, are decisive. It is quite inconceivable that Paul, who so emphatically affirms his status as an apostle and eyewitness of the risen Christ (Gal 1:11-16; 1 Cor 15:8; Rom 1:1) could have put himself in the subordinate position of a secondhand recipient of tradition as does our author at 2:3. Most importantly, the central theological perspectives and imagery of Hebrews are quite uncharacteristic of Paul. The treatment of Jesus as High Priest is unique in the New Testament, and the elaborate use of cultic categories to interpret the Savior’s work is not characteristic of Paul, although he does know of similar traditions. At the same time, typical Pauline themes are lacking in Hebrews. When there are superficial thematic similarities, as in the rejection of the Law or the importance of faith,I6 the mode of treatment is quite different. As is generally recognized today, whoever wrote Hebrews, it was certainly not Paul.
Dating
Nowhere does 1 Clement cite Hebrews explicitly, as it does Pauline epistles. Some scholars have claimed that the connection between the two works (1 Clement & Hebrews) is no more than that, a shared common tradition. It may indeed be the case that not all of the similarities between the two works are due to direct borrowing, but at least in the case of 36.2-6 it is impossible to assume anything but literary dependence. Some have dated 1 Clement to 140 CE (See Elmer T. Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History (London: Macmillan, 1924) 217-41, noted by Robinson, Redating, 334 n. 107. More recently, Christian Eggenberger (Die Q!ullen der politischen Ethilc des 1. Klemensbriefes [Zurich: Zwingli, 1951] suggests a date between 118 and 125. For a late date see also Laurance L. Welborn, “On the Date of 1 Clement,” BR 29 (1984) 35-54. Kirsopp Lake (The Apostolic Fathers [Loeb; Cambridge: Harvard; London: Heinemann, 1912] 5). The reference to the “calamities” is much too vague to be a useful indication of date. While passages such as 44.1-3 or 47.1-6 are not completely incompatible with an early dating, they do tend to favor a later dating.
Against the (Hebrews doesn’t mention the Temple Destruction) argument: First, there are clear cases of authors writing after 70 referring to the temple and its cult, either as an ideal or literary reality, in present terms. The Jewish historian Josephus, whose Antiquities of the Jews was published some two decades after the destruction of the temple, regularly uses the present tense. Josephus regularly alternates between present and past tenses. In discussing sacrifices (Ant. 4.9.1-7 § 224-57) he regularly uses the present tense. Among post-70 Christian authors, cf. I Clem. 40 and Diogn. S, see also (See Robinson, Redating, 202-S).
Quite as many scholars opt for a post-70 date (See Braun, p. 3, who. however. sets the upper limit at 90).