 |  |
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".
In our last study we gave reasons for doubting whether the Hebrews epistle is an
attempt to literally translate Aramaic. 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. Names like Apollos, Priscilla and Aquila
are not helpful, because we have no writing of these to compare with Hebrews. We have
already remarked on 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 N.T., or in late Greek generally, the likeness is unquestionably
remarkable. No one can work independently at the epistle without observing it."
We find that Franz Delitzsch and other scholar, 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. These, together with other predominantly Lucan words, are given later in
an appendix. Such words as hothen; out of 15 occurrences in the N.T., Luke and
Hebrews us it 10 times. The same is true of diamarturomai. Tungchano occurs 12 times
in the N.T.; 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 Heb. 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
Heb. 7: 25; Diapantos continually, in Luke 24: 53; Acts 10: 2; 24: 16; Heb. 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 Prof. F. F. Bruce states: ". . . . . because our author and
Luke approximate more closely than other N.T. 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.