Hebrews is perhaps the easiest
book of the New Testament to convince people that Hebrew was the original language
used, given that it was most clearly written to Hebrew (Jewish) followers of
Yeshua.
But rather than assume this, let’s look at a little of the evidence. The DSS have given us some more evidence to help determine the original audience, and therefore the original language.
As FF Bruce writes: “Yigael Yadin' s article 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews' (pp. 36 ff.) identifies the addressees of the Epistle with Jews originally belonging to the Qumran sect, who were converted to Christianity but carried with them into Christianity some of their former beliefs and practices, with which the writer of the Epistle takes issue.” - FF Bruce in ’Recent Literature on the Epistle to the Hebrews’[1]
And Uriel Ben Mordechai also mentions Yadin and
states:
But rather than assume this, let’s look at a little of the evidence. The DSS have given us some more evidence to help determine the original audience, and therefore the original language.
As FF Bruce writes: “Yigael Yadin' s article 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews' (pp. 36 ff.) identifies the addressees of the Epistle with Jews originally belonging to the Qumran sect, who were converted to Christianity but carried with them into Christianity some of their former beliefs and practices, with which the writer of the Epistle takes issue.” - FF Bruce in ’Recent Literature on the Epistle to the Hebrews’[1]
“Israeli archeologist Yigael
Yadin [z”l], surmises that “El Ha’Iv’rim” was written to members of the Dead
Sea area Essene community, who had embraced Yeshua as Israel’s Mashiach, and
that the Dead Sea Scrolls present evidence of their doctrines.[2]
This is the only way to explain the specific language used expressing the concepts of Temple worship, and Torah values, with which those in the Essene community would have been familiar.”[3]
This is the only way to explain the specific language used expressing the concepts of Temple worship, and Torah values, with which those in the Essene community would have been familiar.”[3]
Also
a number of the ‘early church fathers’ argued that Hebrews was written by the
Apostle Paul and originally in Hebrew. Some also argued that it was, at some
time, then translated into Greek by Luke.
For example, Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-215 and Origen’s teacher) wrote an article which was quoted at length by Eusebius:
"[Clement] has given in the Hupotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, … He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts” see Eusebius’s ‘Church History Book VI’ [4]
While this is only a limited summary of the evidence, and it is not totally, it certainly does lend support to the argument that this epistle was conclusive written to Hebraic Jews, and not Hellenist Jews as argued by some, and also as I have contend, in the Hebrew language.
If it was written to former Essenes (and assuming that the Qumran Yachad were Essenes), it could be argued that they do have some Hellenistic influences evident in their doctrines, such as a form of asceticism, as well as an isolationist approach which Yeshua rejected. Overall though, the Hellenistic influence on the Qumran community was still quite minor.
And remember, the Qumran community’s scrolls were almost 90% Hebrew, with some Aramaic and very little Greek. This means, that if this Epistle was written to former Jewish members from the Qumran sect, who clearly preferred Hebrew, we would expect the author to write in Hebrew.
I think it is also relevant to appreciate, that if Yadin is correct, and that it was originally written to the Qumran Yachad who in their own writings heavily stressed the role of the High Priest, and would certainly have rejected any argument that the Mosaic Covenant was ‘passing away’, then we would expect the focus of Hebrews to be on the Priesthood rather than any comparison of Covenants.
This is consistent with the argument as presented by Frank Selch that Hebrews 8:7, 13 & 9:1 refers to the Priesthood and that the insertion of the word ‘covenant’ in these versions is clearly a redaction in the KJV.[5]
While Hebrews chapters 6-10 clearly focus on Yeshua as the future High Priest, Uriel ben Mordechai argues that Hebrews is primarily about the Coming Age.
He writes: “Moreover, “El Ha’Iv’rim” (Hebrews) is primarily a story about the Olam Ha’Bah [the world to come]. One read through it, will convince the one who embarks on this journey, of the original author’s determination to present to his contemporaries a Torah-observant norm, from eyes fixed upon the Beit Ha’MiK’dash [the Holy Temple] in Jerusalem. The result is a message that redirects all eyes to their Olam Ha’Bah, in a manner consistent with that delivered by Torat-Moshe.
For example, Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-215 and Origen’s teacher) wrote an article which was quoted at length by Eusebius:
"[Clement] has given in the Hupotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, … He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts” see Eusebius’s ‘Church History Book VI’ [4]
While this is only a limited summary of the evidence, and it is not totally, it certainly does lend support to the argument that this epistle was conclusive written to Hebraic Jews, and not Hellenist Jews as argued by some, and also as I have contend, in the Hebrew language.
If it was written to former Essenes (and assuming that the Qumran Yachad were Essenes), it could be argued that they do have some Hellenistic influences evident in their doctrines, such as a form of asceticism, as well as an isolationist approach which Yeshua rejected. Overall though, the Hellenistic influence on the Qumran community was still quite minor.
And remember, the Qumran community’s scrolls were almost 90% Hebrew, with some Aramaic and very little Greek. This means, that if this Epistle was written to former Jewish members from the Qumran sect, who clearly preferred Hebrew, we would expect the author to write in Hebrew.
I think it is also relevant to appreciate, that if Yadin is correct, and that it was originally written to the Qumran Yachad who in their own writings heavily stressed the role of the High Priest, and would certainly have rejected any argument that the Mosaic Covenant was ‘passing away’, then we would expect the focus of Hebrews to be on the Priesthood rather than any comparison of Covenants.
This is consistent with the argument as presented by Frank Selch that Hebrews 8:7, 13 & 9:1 refers to the Priesthood and that the insertion of the word ‘covenant’ in these versions is clearly a redaction in the KJV.[5]
While Hebrews chapters 6-10 clearly focus on Yeshua as the future High Priest, Uriel ben Mordechai argues that Hebrews is primarily about the Coming Age.
He writes: “Moreover, “El Ha’Iv’rim” (Hebrews) is primarily a story about the Olam Ha’Bah [the world to come]. One read through it, will convince the one who embarks on this journey, of the original author’s determination to present to his contemporaries a Torah-observant norm, from eyes fixed upon the Beit Ha’MiK’dash [the Holy Temple] in Jerusalem. The result is a message that redirects all eyes to their Olam Ha’Bah, in a manner consistent with that delivered by Torat-Moshe.
The recipients
must have been a group of Jews originally belonging to the Dead Sea Sect who
had welcomed Yeshua. “El Ha’Iv’rim” is thus a polemic to vindicate how Mashiach
would fit into their already well-developed eschatological views that included
both a Kohein Gadol, a Kohein Ha’Mashiach, and a King who would present himself
to AM Israel after Moshe. The geographical destination of “El Ha’Iv’rim” seems
likely to have been in Jerusalem, or at least some location within the Land of
Israel.”
Further support for this focus on the Olam HaBah comes from how often Psalm 110 is quoted in Hebrews. We see explicit references to it in Hebrews 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.
Such regular quoting of Ps 110 certainly leads credence to the argument that it is directed to Jewish believers who were formally part of the Qumran Yachad, also saw Ps 110 as very relevant to their end-times eschatology.
In trying to re-assess Hebrews, and dis-entangle ourselves from the common corrupted translations of the epistle, it is worth reflecting on some of the issues surrounding the KJV version from which almost all modern translations are derived.
Uriel Ben Mordechai also sums this up well in the forward to his translation of Hebrews:
“The Greek text behind the KJV was based on about half-a-dozen Greek manuscripts, compiled and published by Erasmus from Rotterdam, some 95 years earlier, in 1516 CE, which later became known as the “Textus Receptus” [TR] (Latin for the “Received Text”). It should be noted that there were a number of occurrences where gaps existed in the Greek that produced the TR. Erasmus solved the dilemma by back-translating the Latin Vulgate into Greek, in order to fill in those gaps. What else should a translator do, when faced with missing concepts and theologies that might or might not have been penned 1,470 years previously? Nevertheless, his work became the “tried and proven” Textus Receptus, that today, whenever translated into English, leaves Jews with a message they are ashamed to call their own.”
Further support for this focus on the Olam HaBah comes from how often Psalm 110 is quoted in Hebrews. We see explicit references to it in Hebrews 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.
Such regular quoting of Ps 110 certainly leads credence to the argument that it is directed to Jewish believers who were formally part of the Qumran Yachad, also saw Ps 110 as very relevant to their end-times eschatology.
In trying to re-assess Hebrews, and dis-entangle ourselves from the common corrupted translations of the epistle, it is worth reflecting on some of the issues surrounding the KJV version from which almost all modern translations are derived.
Uriel Ben Mordechai also sums this up well in the forward to his translation of Hebrews:
“The Greek text behind the KJV was based on about half-a-dozen Greek manuscripts, compiled and published by Erasmus from Rotterdam, some 95 years earlier, in 1516 CE, which later became known as the “Textus Receptus” [TR] (Latin for the “Received Text”). It should be noted that there were a number of occurrences where gaps existed in the Greek that produced the TR. Erasmus solved the dilemma by back-translating the Latin Vulgate into Greek, in order to fill in those gaps. What else should a translator do, when faced with missing concepts and theologies that might or might not have been penned 1,470 years previously? Nevertheless, his work became the “tried and proven” Textus Receptus, that today, whenever translated into English, leaves Jews with a message they are ashamed to call their own.”
So in summary, the evidence is really quite strong that the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’ really was written to the Hebrews and therefore, written in Hebrew.
For this text in context see the book here
[2]
see “The Scrolls
and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Scripta Hierosolymitana, Volume IV, Aspects of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin; Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1958), pp. 36–55.
[3]
Uriel
Ben Mordechai in the foreword to his ‘El
Ha’Iv’rim - The Kohein from Yehudah’[4]
Quoted
here http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/hebrew.html
[5]
“This focus on the significance of the New High Priest begins
in chapter 6:13 and continues through to chapter 10― receiving a final seal in
12:2. Therefore, when the translators arbitrarily insert the word covenant in
8:7 and 13; as well as in 9:1, it is entirely out of context― it is an
unwarranted and misleading distortion of the topic. It is especially
significant, since the word Covenant (διαθήκη) does not appear in ANY of the
Greek texts, nor in the Latin Vulgate, from which those verses are translated.” - http://circumcisedheart.info/frank/The%20Covenant%20in%20Hebrews%208%20&%209.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment