New Testament Bible Story
Epistle to Hebrews - Introduction #4
The following is taken from Albert Barnes' "Notes On The New Testament." THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN This is a vexed and still unsettled question, and it does not seem to be possible to determine it with any considerable degree of certainty. Critics, of the ablest name, have been divided on it; and, what is remarkable, have appealed to the same arguments to prove exactly opposite opinions - one class arguing that the style of the epistle is such as to prove that it was written in Hebrew, and the other appeal to the same proofs to demonstrate that it was written in Greek. Among those who have supposed that it was written in Hebrew are the following, viz. :- Some of the Fathers - as Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, John Damascenes, Theophylact; and among the moderns, Michaelis has been the most strenuous defender of this opinion. This opinion was also held by the late Dr.James P. Wilson, who says, "It was probably written in the vulgar language of the Jews; that is, in that mixture of Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldee, which was usually spoken in the time of the Saviour, and which was known as the Syro-Chaldaic." On the other hand, the great body of Critics have supposed it was written in the Greek language. This was the opinion of Fabricius, Whitby, Beausobre, Capellus, Basnage, Mill, and others; and is also the pinion of Lardner, Hug, Stuart, and perhaps of most modem critics. These opinions may be seen examined at length in Michaelis' Introduction, Hug, Stuart; and Lardner. The arguments in support of the opinion, that it was written in Hebrew, are briefly the following: (l) The testimony of the Fathers. Thus, Clement of Alexandria say., "Paul wrote to the Hebrew, in the Hebrew language, and Luke carefully translated it into Greek." Jerome Says, "Paul, as a Hebrew, wrote to the Hebrews in Hebrew - Scrlpserat ut Hebraeus Hebraeis Hebraice;" and then he adds, "This epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was made diverse in this way from that of Paul's." (2.) The fact that it was written for the use of the Hebrews, who spoke the Hebrew, or the Talmudic language, is alleged as a reason for supposing that it must have been written in that language. (3) It is alleged by Michaelis, that the style of the Greek, as we now have it, is far more pure and classical than Paul else-where employs, and that hence it is to be inferred, that it was translated by some man who was master of the Greek language. On this, however, the most eminent critics disagree. (4) It is Alleged by Michaelis, that the quotations in the epistle, as we have it, are made from the Septuagint, and that they are foreign to the purpose which the writer had in view as they are now quoted, whereas they are exactly in point as they stand in the Hebrew. Hence, he infers, that the original Hebrew was quoted by the author, and that the translator used the common version at hand, instead of making an exact translation for himself. Of the fact alleged here, however, there may be good ground to raise a question and if it were so, it would not prove that the writer might not have used the common and accredited translation, though less to his purpose than the original. Of the fact, moreover, to which Michaelis here refers, Professor Stuart says, "He has not adduced a single instance, of what he calls a WRONG translation, which wears the appearance of any considerable probability." The only instance, urged by Michaelis, which seems to me to be plausible, is Hob.i.7. These are the principal arguments which have been urged in favour of the opinion, that this epistle was written in the Hebrew language. They are evidently not conclusive. The only argument, of any considerable weight, is the testimony of some of the Fathers, and it may be denoted whether they gave this as a matter of historical fact, or only as a matter of opinion. See Hug's Introduction, § 144. It is morally certain, that, in one respect, their statement CANNOT be true. They state, that it was translated by Luke; but it is capable of the clearest proof, that it was not translated by Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, since there is the most remarkable dissimilarity in the style. On the other hand, there are alleged in favour of the opinion, that it was written in Greek, the following considerations, viz. :- (1) The fact that we have NO Hebrew original. If it was written in Hebrew, the original was early lost. None of the Fathers say that they had seen it; none quote it. ALL the COPIES that we have are in GREEK. If it was written n Hebrew, and the original was destroyed, it must have been at every early period; and it is remarkable that no one should have mentioned the fact, or alluded to it. Besides, it is scarcely conceivable that the original should have so soon perished, and that the translation should have altogether taken its place. If it was addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine, the same reason which made it proper that it should have been written in Hebrew, would have led them to retain it in that language; and we might have supposed, that Origen, or Eusebius, or Jerome, who lived there, or Ephrem the Syrian, would have adverted to the fact, that there was there a Hebrew original. The Jews were remarkable for retaining their sacred books in the language in which they were written; and, if this were written in Hebrew, it is difficult to account for the fact, that it was so soon suffered to perish. (2) The presumption - a presumption amounting to almost a moral certainty - is, that an apostle writing to the Christians in Palestine would write in Greek. This presumption is based on the following circumstances: (a) The fact, that all the other books of the New Testament were written is Greek, unless the gospel by Matthew be an exception. (b) This occurred is cases where it would seem to have been as improbable, as it was that one writing to the Hebrews should use that language. For instance, Paul wrote to the church in Rome in the Greek language, though the Latin language was that which was in universal use there. (c) The Greek was a common language in the East. It seems to have been familiarly spoken, and to have been and commonly understood. (d Like the other books of the New Testament, this epistle do not appear to have been intended to be confined to the Hebrews only. The writings of the apostles were regarded as the property of the church at large. Those writings would be copied, spread abroad. The Greek was a far better language for such a purpose than the Hebrew. It was polished, and elegant; was adapted to the purpose of discoursing on moral subjects; was fitted to express delicate shades of thought; and was the language which was best understood by the world at large. (e) It was the language which Paul would naturally use, unless there was a strong reason for his employing the Hebrew. Though he was able to speak in Hebrew, (Acts xxi.40,) yet he had spent his early days in Tarsus, where the Greek was the vernacular tongue, and it was probably that which he had first learned. Besides this, when this epistle was written he had been absent from Palestine about twenty-five years, and in all that time he bad been there but a few days, He had been where the Greek language was universally spoken. He bad been among Jews who spoke that language. It was the language used in their synagogues, and Paul had addressed them in it. After thus preaching, conversing, and writing in that language for twenty-five years, is it any wonder that he should prefer writing in i t - that he should naturally do it? and is it not to be presumed that he would do it in this case? These presumptions are so strong, that they ought to be allowed to settle a question of this kind, unless there is positive proof to the contrary. (3) There is internal proof that it was written in the Greek language. The evidence of this kind consists in the fact, that the writer bases an argument on the meaning and force of Greek words, which could not have occurred had he written in Hebrew. Instances of this kind are such as these. (a) In ch.ii. he applies a passage from Psa. viii. to prove that the Son of God must have had a human nature, which was to be exalted above the angels, and placed at the head of the creation. The passage is, "Thou bast made him a little while inferior to the ANGELS," ch.ii.7. margin. In the Hebrew, in Psa. viii.5, the word rendered angels, is - Elohim - God; and the sense of angel, attached to that word, though it may sometimes occur, is so unusual, that an argument would not have been built on the Hebrew. (b) In ch.vii.1, the writer has explained the name Melchizedek, and translated it king of Salem - telling what it is in Greek - a thing which would not have been done if it had be written in Hebrew, where the word was well understood. It is possible, indeed, that a translator might have done this; but the explanation seems to be interwoven with the discourse itself, and to constitute a part of the argument. (c) In ch.ix.16,17, there is an argument on the meaning of the word COVENANT - which could not have occurred had the epistle been in Hebrew. It is founded in the DOUBLE meaning of that word - denoting both a covenant and a testament, or will. The Hebrew word, - Berith - has NO such DOUBLE signification. It means COVENANT only, and is never used in the sense of the word WILL, or TESTAMENT. The proper translation of that word would be - "syntheke" - but the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament - Keith Hunt) uniformly used the former, - "diatheke" - and on this word the argument of the apostle is based. This could not have been done by a translator; it must have been by the original author, for it is incorporated into the argument. (d) In ch.x.3-9, the author shows that Christ came to make an atonement for sin, and that in order to this it was necessary that he should have a human body. This, he shows, was not only necessary, but was predicted. In doing this, be appeals to Psa.xl.6 - "A body halt thou prepared form me." But the Hebrew here is, "Mine EARS hast thou opened." This passage would have been much less pertinent than the other form - "a body hast thou prepared me;" and, indeed, it is not easy to see how it would bear at all on the object in view. Sea ver.10. But in the Septuagint the phrase stands as he quotes it - "a body hast thou prepared for me" a fact which demonstrates, whatever difficulties there may be about the principle on which be makes the quotation, that the epistle wee written in Greek. It may be added, that it has nothing of the appearance of a translation. It is not stiff, forced, or constrained in style, as translations usually are. It is impassioned, free, flowing, full of animation, life, and colouring, and has all the appearance of being an original composition. So clear have these considerations appeared, that the great body of critics now concur in the opinion that the epistle was originally written in Greek. THE DESIGN AND GENERAL ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE ................... The use of the Greek Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) in the first century Church of God, and in the writings of the apostle Paul, with other Greek translations and paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament, may come as a surprise to many. The use of the Greek was extensive and the reader is pointed to an indepth study on this Website "Paul's Use of the Old Testament" to show the truth of the matter - a truth that will shock and certainly be a surprised education for many. (Keith Hunt) We shall continue with comments from Albert Barnes in number 5 of this Introduction to Hebrews. November 2006 |
No comments:
Post a Comment