PERFECTION
PERDITION
8
OR
Greek being a literal expression of the Hebrew (Aramaic) he says: `If the apostle could write good Hebrew
(Aramaic), then a really competent translator could give the same in attractive Greek. Such a writing as we actually
possess, the Salkinson-Ginsburg version of the New Testament into Hebrew, shows that every sentiment of the
epistle of the New Testament may be expressed in glowing Biblical Hebrew. With a corresponding original, even
though in later Hebrew or Aramaic, why should not a good translator produce a version in strong and even rhetorical
Greek? To be successful, a translation should have such characteristics'.
We have given reasons for doubting whether the Hebrews epistle is an attempt to translate Aramaic literally.
The epistle could be a free reproduction, using an Aramaic original as a basis. If this epistle to the Hebrews is such
a reproduction, whose work was it? We have already given various opinions of Bible scholars, most of them being
little more than clever guess-work. The fact is, no one knows for certain. Some, however, have more probability
than others. We have already alluded to the remarkable likeness of Luke's Greek to that of the Hebrews epistle, and
here we are on different ground, for we have his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles to put alongside our epistle for
comparison. Bishop Westcott writes:
`It has been already seen that the earliest scholars who speak of the epistle notice its likeness in style to the
writings of Luke; and when every allowance has been made for coincidences, which consist in forms of
expression which are found also in the LXX or in other writers of the New Testament, or in late Greek generally,
the likeness is unquestionably remarkable. No one can work independently at the epistle without observing it'
(op. cit. p. lxxvi).
We find that Franz Delitzsch and other scholars, including Calvin, take the same attitude. In his second volume
of The Epistle to the Hebrews, Delitzsch devotes a chapter at the end to the authorship and decidedly favours Luke:
`That St. Paul was not the direct author of the epistle to the Hebrews, we hold to be incontestably certain.
Taking into account the observations made in the course of the exposition from the beginning to the end, we
consider it in the highest degree probable that Luke composed the epistle from statements made to him by the
Apostle, being commissioned by the latter thereto'.
There are some 49 Greek words which only occur in Luke's writings and the epistle to the Hebrews. A word
such as hothen; out of 15 occurrences in the New Testament, Luke and Hebrews use it 11 times. The same is true of
diamarturomai. Tungchano occurs 12 times in the New Testament; Luke and Hebrews use it 9 times. In Luke
20:35, we have `they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain (tungchano) that world (age), and the resurrection
from (ek) the dead'. While Hebrews 11:35, reads: `that they might obtain (tungchano) a better resurrection', an
obvious parallel and only found in Luke's writings and the Hebrew epistle. Then we find eis to panteles, no wise,
uttermost, in Luke 13:11 and Hebrew 7:25; diapantos continually, in Luke 24:53 and Acts 10:2; 24:16; Hebrews
9:6;13:15. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts must be carefully studied in the original and compared with Hebrews to
note the stylistic likeness, which is too complex to deal with adequately here. It could be, as Professor F.F. Bruce
states: `... because our author and Luke approximate more closely than other New Testament writers to the model of
literary Hellenistic - our author even more so than Luke'. But we feel the likeness goes deeper than this, and while
we cannot say dogmatically that Luke was the penman of Hebrews, we believe there is more evidence for his
association with the epistle than any other who has been put forward.
While we are dealing with the difficult question of the unPauline Greek of Hebrews, we would mention an
important work by a Roman Catholic writer, W. Leonard, D.D., The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1939)
in which he seeks to show that this has been sometimes exaggerated, as has the influence of Philo on the writer of
this epistle. Dr. Leonard's work is very scholarly and merits the attention of every serious Bible student. While one
is not able to accept all his viewpoints, distinctive Roman Catholic doctrines are not pressed. We strongly
recommend the careful study of this exposition.
If it is not the apostle Paul's hand that has written Hebrews, can we say that it is his material and mind that is
behind it? It is the fashion at present in evangelical circles to say `no'. Yet, as we have seen, from the earliest
times, the Eastern church accepted it as Pauline, whatever doubts they may have had regarding the amanuensis or
editor. It has been represented that this was nothing more than an attempt to give the epistle canonicity. But the
question can only be settled by the internal evidence of the epistle itself. Those who deny the apostle Paul's
connection with Hebrews bring forward a number of objections, the chief of which are the following: