1. Of the language wherein this Epistle was originally written—Supposed to be the Hebrew. 2. Grounds of that supposition disproved. 3. Not translated by Clemens. 4. Written in Greek—Arguments for the proof thereof. 5. Of citations out of the LXX.
1. BECAUSE this Epistle was written to the Hebrews, most of the ancients granted that it was written in Hebrew. Clemens Alexandrinus was the first who asserted it; after whom, Origen gave it countenance; from whom Eusebius received it; and from him Jerome: which is the most ordinary progression of old reports. The main reason which induced them to embrace this persuasion, was a desire to free the Epistle from an exception against its being written by Paul, taken from the dissimilitude of the style used in it unto that of his other epistles. This being once admitted, though causelessly, they could think of no better answer, than that this supposed difference of style arose from the translation of this Epistle, which by the apostle himself was first written in Hebrew. Clemens Romanus is the person generally fixed on as the author of this translation; though some do faintly intimate that Luke the evangelist might possibly be the man that did it. But this objection from the diversity of style, which alone begat this persuasion, hath been already removed out of the way, so that it cannot be allowed to be a foundation unto any other supposition.
2. That which alone is added, to give countenance unto this opinion, is that which we mentioned at the entrance of this discourse,—namely, that the apostle writing unto the Hebrews, he did it in their own native language; which being also his own, it is no wonder if he were more copious and elegant in it than he was in the Greek, whereunto originally he was a stranger, learning it, as Jerome supposeth, upon his conversion. But a man may modestly say unto all this, Οὐδὲν ὑγιές. Every thing in this pretended reason of that which indeed never was, is so far from certainty that indeed it is beneath all probability.
For,—(1.) If this Epistle was written originally in Hebrew, whence comes it to pass that no copy of it in that language was ever read, seen, or heard of, by the most diligent collectors of all fragments of antiquity in the primitive times? Had ever any such thing been extant, whence came it, in particular, that Origen,—that prodigy of industry and learning,—should be able to attain no knowledge or report of it? (2.) If it were incumbent on Paul, writing unto the Hebrews, to write in their own language, why did he not also write in Latin unto the Romans? That he did so, indeed, Gratian affirms; but without pretence of proof or witness, contrary to the testimony of all antiquity, the evidence of the thing itself, and constant confession of the Roman church. And Erasmus says well on Rom. 1:7, "Coarguendus vel ridendus magis error eorum, qui putant Paulum Romanis linguâ Romanâ scripsisse;"—"The error of them is to be reproved (or rather, laughed at), who suppose Paul to have written unto the Romans in the Latin tongue." (3.) It is most unduly supposed that the Hebrew tongue was then the vulgar, common language of the Jews, when it was known only to the learned amongst them, and a corrupt Syriac was the common dialect of the people even at Jerusalem. (4.) It is as unduly averred that the Hebrew was the mother tongue of Paul himself, or that he was ignorant of the Greek; seeing he was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia, where that was the language that he was brought up in, and unto. (5.) The Epistle was written for the use of all the Hebrews in their several dispersions, especially that in the east, as Peter witnesseth, they being all alike concerned in the matter of it, though not so immediately as those in Judea and Jerusalem. Now, unto those the Greek language, from the days of the Macedonian empire, had been in vulgar use, and continued so to be. (6.) The Greek tongue was so well known and so much used in Judea itself, that, as a learned man hath proved by sundry testimonies out of their most ancient writings, it was called the vulgar amongst them.
I know, among the rabbins there is mention of a prohibition of learning the Greek tongue; and in the Jerusalem Talmud itself, Tit. Peah. cap. i., they add a reason of it, המסורות מפני; it was because of traitors, lest they should betray their brethren, and none understand them. But as this is contrary unto what themselves teach about the knowledge of tongues required in those who were to be chosen into the sanhedrim, so it is sufficiently disproved by the instances of the translators of the Bible, Jesus Syrachides, Philo, Josephus, and others among themselves. And though Josephus affirms, Antiq., lib. xx. cap. xi., that the study of the elegance of tongues was of no great reckoning amongst them, yet he grants that they were studied by all sorts of men. Nor doth this pretended decree of prohibition concern our times, it being made, as they say, Mishn. Tit. Sota., in the last wars of Titus: ילמר שלא גזרו טיטום של בפולמוסין יונית בנו את אדם;—"In the wars of Titus, they decreed that no man should teach his son the Greek language:" for it must be distinguished from the decree of the Asmoneans long before, prohibiting the study of the Grecian philosophy. So that this pretence is destitute of all colour, being made up of many vain, and evidently false, suppositions.
3. Again, the Epistle is said to be translated by Clemens, but where, or when, we are not informed. Was this done in Italy, before it was sent unto the Hebrews? To what end, then, was it written in Hebrew, when it was not to be used but in Greek? Was it sent in Hebrew before the supposed translation? In what language was it communicated unto others by them who first received it? Clemens was never in the east to translate it. And if all the first copies of it were dispersed in Hebrew, how came they to be so utterly lost as that no report or tradition of them, or any one of them, did ever remain? Besides, if it were translated by Clemens in the west, and that translation alone preserved, how came it to pass that it was so well known and generally received in the east before the western churches admitted of it? This tradition, therefore, is also every way groundless and improbable.
4. Besides, there want not evidences in the Epistle itself, proving it to be originally written in the language wherein it is yet extant. I shall only point at the heads of them, for this matter deserves no long discourse:— (1.) The style of it throughout manifests it to be no translation; at least, it is impossible it should be one exact and proper, as its own copiousness, propriety of phrase and expression, with freedom from savouring of the Hebraisms of an original in that language, do manifest. (2.) It abounds with Greek elegancies and paronomasias, that have no countenance given unto them by any thing in the Hebrew tongue; such as that, for instance, chap. 5:8, Ἔμαθεν ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν,—from the like expressions whereunto in the story of Susanna, ver. 55, 56, Ὑπὸ σχῖνον, σχίσει σε μέσον, and ver. 59, Ὑπὸ πρίνον, πρίσαι σε μέσον, it is well proved that it was written originally in the Greek language. (3.) The rendering of בְּרִית constantly by διαθήκη (of which more afterwards) is of the same importance. (4.) The words concerning Melchisedec, king of Salem, chap. 7:2, prove the same: Πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, ὅ ἐστι βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης. Had the Epistle been written in Hebrew, what need this ἐρμηνεία? That מַלְכִי־צֶדֶק is, being interpreted, צְדָקָח מֶלְךְ, is a strange kind of interpretation; and so also is it that שָׁלֵם מֶלֶךְ is שָלוֹם מֶלֶךְ. When John reports the words of Mary, Ῥαββουνί, and adds of his own, ὃ λέγεται, διδάσκαλε, "that is to say, Master," John 20:16, doth any man doubt but that he wrote in Greek, and therefore so rendered her Syriac expression? And is not the same evident concerning our apostle, from the interpretation that he gives of those Hebrew words? And it is in vain to reply, that these words were added by the translator, seeing the very argument of the author is founded on the interpretation of those words which he gives us. It appears, then, that as the assertion that this Epistle was written in Hebrew is altogether groundless,—and it arose from many false suppositions, which render it more incredible than if it made use of no pretence at all,—so there want not evidences from the Epistle itself of its being originally written in the language wherein it is still extant, and those such as few other books of the New Testament can afford concerning themselves, should the same question be made about them.
5. Moreover, in the confirmation of our persuasion, it is by some added that the testimonies made use of in this Epistle out of the Old Testament are taken out of the translation of the LXX., and that sometimes the stress of the argument taken from them relies on somewhat peculiar to that version; which was not possible to have been done had it been written originally in Hebrew. But because this assertion contains other difficulties in it, and is built on a supposition which deserves a further examination, we shall refer it unto its own place and season, which ensues.
——————
ON the point discussed in the previous Exercitation, a difference of an early date exists among critics. Clement of Alexandria held that "Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke carefully translated it into Greek," Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 14. Eusebius says, "Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and, according to report, either Luke or Clement" (i.e., of Rome) "translated it," Euseb. iii. 38. Jerome remarks, "He had written as a Hebrew to Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue," and "this Epistle was translated into Greek; so that the colouring of the style was made different in this way from that of Paul's." The following fathers may be named as holding the same opinion,— Theodoret, Euthalius, Primasius, Johannes Damascenus, Oecumenius, and Theophylact.
The principal reasons for believing that the Epistle extant is merely the Greek translation of an Aramaean original are, first, the difference of style in it from the rest of Paul's epistles, but this point has been considered already in the subsidiary note to the second Exercitation; and, secondly, that Hebrews are addressed, to whom their native tongue would be more acceptable. But the Greek tongue, by the time this Epistle was written, had obtained great currency in Palestine. Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed, the system of Judaism was verging on abolition, and the Jewish Christians were to be blended with their Gentile brethren of the faith. The employment of the Greek tongue in the inspired writings tended to facilitate the happy amalgamation.
Some considerations, in addition to what are noticed by Owen, have been deemed of force in support of a Greek original.
Greek words occur which in Hebrew could be expressed only by a periphrasis:—Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως, ch. 1:1; ἀπαύγασμα, ch. 1:3; εὐπερίστατος, ch. 12:1; μετριο παθεῖν, ch. 5:2; πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑπὸ τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, ch. 2:8. "The verb in this clause," to use the argument of Hug, which is thus well put by Dr Davidson, "is repeated in the context, Οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλοις ὑπέταξε τὴν οἰκουμένην, ch. 2:5; ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, οὐδεν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον, … ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα, ch. 2:8. But in Hebrew, the verb ὑποτάσσω is expressed by a periphrasis, רַגְלַ ם תַּחַת שִׁית, to place under the feet, and if the Epistle was written in Hebrew, the expressions derived from ὑποτάσσω could not have been employed in that language, in consequence of the often repeated circumlocution."
Moreover, since the time of Owen, there is greater evidence of the probability that an apostle writing to the Christians in Palestine would write in Greek. The opinion of De Rossi that Syro-Chaldaic was almost exclusively used in that country has yielded before subsequent inquiries. Hug shows that our Lord must have spoken Greek in various districts, Mark 7:24, and with the Hellenists mentioned John 7:35, 12:20; that the language of the Roman magistracy was probably Greek; that considerable cities in Palestine were inhabited by Greeks; that the Roman garrisons spoke Greek; that the foreign Jews at the feast of the passover, amounting to hundreds of thousands, used the same language; that the Jews who spoke Greek had their own synagogue in Jerusalem, Acts 6:9, 9:29; and that a great number of the Christian Jews spoke it freely, Acts 6:1, 2. Tholuck adds that James, who had never left Palestine, to judge from his Epistle, wrote Greek with elegance; and that the Septuagint must have been in common use among the Jews of Palestine, when Matthew and John generally follow it. The best evidence on this point is a passage sometimes appealed to in order to obtain an opposite inference, Acts 21:40. Though Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue, the multitude expected him to address them in Greek. Order and attention were secured when the sounds of their native language fell upon their ear. The fact shows, however, that they were able and prepared to understand him in Greek. In the Epistle to the Hebrews Paul was writing to Christians, and under no necessity to conciliate attention by such an expedient. It was natural, therefore, that he should write in the language in which he had been educated at Tarsus, and in which he wrote all his other epistles.
———
