II. TITLE.
In the oldest MSS. ('AB: C is defective but it has the subscription pros ebraious) the title of the Epistle, like that of the other oldest Epistles to Churches, is simply pros ebraious, 'to Hebrews.' There is no title or colophon to the Epistle in D?, but it has a running heading pros ebraious.
The absence of title in D? is contrary to the usage of the MS.; and it is also to be noticed that the colophon to the Epistle to Philemon (pros Philemona eplerothn) gives no notice that any other Epistle is to follow, as is done in other cases (e.g. pros Titon eplerothe, archetai pros Philemona). In fact the Epistle to Philemon is followed by the Stichometry (Hist. of Canon of N. T. p. 563), and the Epistle to the Hebrews has been added by the Scribe as an appendix to the archetype of the other Epistles.
The Egyptian versions (Memph. Theb.) have the same simple title: to the Hebrews.
This title, as in other cases, was gradually enlarged. The Peshito Syriac and the New College MS. of the Harclean give the Epistle to the Hebrews: the Cambridge MS. of the Harclean Syriac gives in its title the Epistle to the Hebrews of Paul the Apostle, but in the subscription the Epistle is called simply the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Later Greek MSS. give Paulou epistole pros Ebraious, as in the Epistle to the Romans &c., (P?), and, at greater length, tou agiou kai paneuphemou apostolou Paulou epistole pros Ebraious (L?). Sometimes historical statements are inwoven in the title: egraphe apo Italias dia Timotheou he pros Hebraious epistole ektetheisa hos en pinaki (M?); Paulos apostolos Ebraiois tade sungenesin (f Scr).
The title forms no part of the original document; but it must have been given to the book at a very early date, when it first passed into public use as part of a collection of Apostolic letters. And it was rightly given in regard to the permanent relation which the book occupies to the whole message of the Gospel. For while the treatment of the subjects with which it deals and the subjects themselves are of universal interest, the discussion is directed by special circumstances. The arguments and reflections in their whole form and spirit, even more than in special details, are addressed to 'Hebrews,' men, that is, whose hearts were filled with the thoughts, the hopes, the consolations, of the Old Covenant, such perhaps as, under another aspect, are described as ohi ek peritomes (Acts x. 45; xi. 2; Gal. ii. 12; Col. iv. 11; Tit. i. 10).
Tertullian has preserved an interesting notice of another name, which was given to the Epistle in North Africa, and which apparently dates from a time earlier than the formation of the collection of Apostolic Epistles. He quotes it definitely as Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos (de Pudic. 20); and there can be no reasonable doubt that the Epistle of Barnabas which is included in the African (Latin) Stichometry contained in the Cod. Clarom. (D?) refers to this book. There is not however the least evidence that it was ever called 'the Epistle to the Laodicenes' (not in Philastr. Haer. 89 or Cod. Boern. G?), or 'the Epistle to the Alexandrines' (Can. Murat. fertur etiam ad Laudicenses [epistola], alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine finctae ad haeresem Marcionis, et alia plura quae) in Catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest) although it might be described as 'directed to meet (pros ten airesin) the teaching of Marcion.' (Comp. Hist. of N. T. Canon, p. 537.)
The identification of the Epistle of Barnabas of the Claromontane Stichometry with the Epistle to the Hebrews was first suggested by Martianay (Jerome, Bibl. Div. Prolog, iv: Migne P. L. xxviii. 124), and maintained by Credner. Two books only can come into consideration, the Apocryphal Letter of Barnabas and the Epistle to the Hebrews. These are so different in length that when the question is one of measurement it is practically impossible to confuse them. In Cod. Sin. ', which contains both, the Epistle to the Hebrews occupies 40½ columns and the Epistle of Barnabas 53½ columns; and, to take another equivalent of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Galatians, the Ephesians, and Titus together occupy 41 columns. It may then be fairly concluded that in any scheme of reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews will give a number of lines (stichoi) approximately equal to the combined numbers of the lines in these three Epistles, and that the 'lines' in the Letter of Barnabas will be about a third more. Thus in the Greek numeration given by Martianay (l.c.), which is found in several MSS., the three Epistles give a total of 702 (293 + 312 + 97) and the number assigned to Hebrews is 703. The numeration in the Claromontane list is different, but it leads to the same result: the three Epistles have a total sum of 865 (350 + 375 + 140), and the number assigned to 'the Epistle of Barnabas' is 850. It would be difficult to add anything to the force of this correspondence.
There is however another independent testimony to the relative length of the (apocryphal) Letter of Barnabas in the Stichometry of Nicephorus. In this the lines of the fourteen Epistles of St Paul are given only in a total sum: then the lines of Barnabas are reckoned as 1360, and the lines of the Apocalypse at 1400. In other words, according to this calculation, which represents a different numeration from that given in the Claromontane Stichometry, the length in lines of the Epistle of Barnabas is a little less than that of the Apocalypse. Now in the Claromontane list the lines of the Apocalypse are reckoned as 1200, and the lines of 'the Epistle of Barnabas' are 850. Taking then the proportion of the Hebrews to the apocryphal Barnabas in Cod. Sin., and assuming that the Claromontane Barnabas is the Epistle to the Hebrews, the lines of the apocryphal Barnabas on this scale would be 1150. Again the coincidence is practically complete.
The position of the Book in the Stichometry, after the Catholic Epistles and before the Revelation, the Acts of the Apostles and the Shepherd, points to the same conclusion; nor would it be necessary in the case of the single letter of the supposed author to identify it further by the addition of the address.
Little stress however can be laid on these details. The length of the apocryphal Barnabas absolutely excludes it; and the exact agreement of the length of the book named with the Epistle to the Hebrews leaves no room for doubt as to their identification.
Wherever the nature of the book is defined by early writers it is called an 'Epistle.' The description is substantially correct, though the construction of the writing is irregular. It opens without any address or salutation (comp. 1 John i. 1), but it closes with salutations (xiii. 24 f.). There are indeed personal references throughout, and in the course of the book there is a gradual transition from the form of an 'essay' to that of a 'letter': ii. 1; iii. 1, 12; iv. 1, 14; v. 11; vi. 9; x. 19; xiii. 7, 22 ff.
The writer himself characterises his composition as logos parakleseos (xiii. 22 note); and the verb which he uses of his communication (dia bracheon epesteila l.c.), while it does not necessarily describe a letter (in Acts xxi. 25 the true reading is apesteilamen, and episteilai in Acts xv. 20 is probably to enjoin), yet presupposes a direct personal address (epistellein is used of the Epistle by Clem. Alex. ap: Euseb. H. E. vi. 14; comp. Clem. R. 1 Cor. 7, 47,), though personal relationships are kept in the background till the end.
The conjecture that the salutation at the opening of the Epistle has been removed cannot be regarded as worthy of serious discussion. An 'editor' who had mutilated the beginning of the book (to say no more) would not have left c. xiii. as it stands.
It is of interest to notice the delicate shades of feeling marked by the transition from 'we' to 'ye' as the writer speaks of the hopes and trials and duties of Christians, e.g. iii. 12, 13, 14; x. 22 ff., 25 f.; 36, 39; xii. 1, 2, 3; 8—12; 25, 28 f.; xiii. 5, 6; 9, 10; 15, 16.
III. POSITION.
The places occupied by the Epistle in different authorities indicate the variety of opinions which were entertained in early times as to its authorship.
In the oldest Greek MSS. ('ABC) it comes immediately before the Pastoral Epistles following 2 Thess.; and this is the position which it generally occupies in MSS. of the Memphitic Version (Woide, App. Cod. Alex. N.T. p. 19; Lightfoot ap. Scrivener, Introd. 386 f., 390). This order is followed also by many later MSS. (H? P? 17 &c.), and by many Greek Fathers.
In Cod. Vat. B there is important evidence that it occupied a different position in an early collection of Pauline Epistles. In this MS. there is a marginal numeration which shews that the whole collection of Pauline Epistles was divided, either in its archetype or in some earlier copy, into a series of sections numbered consecutively. In this collection the Epistle to the Hebrews came between the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Ephesians.
The paragraphs in B, so far as they come under consideration here, begin:
NE' Gal. v. 16.
NTh' Hebr. i. 1.
X' — iii. 1.
XA' — iv. 14.
XB' — vi. 9.
ChG' — vii 19.
ChD' — ix. 11.
The remainder of the Epistle accounts for sections XE'-ChTh'. Then follows
O' Eph. i. 1.
This arrangement preserved by B approximates to that of the Thebaic and Bashmuric versions, in which the Epistle comes between 2 Corinthians and Galatians (Zoega, Cat. Codd. in Mus. Borg. pp. 186, 140; comp. Lightfoot ap. Scrivener l.c. pp. 339, 404). Cassiodorus (Instit. 14) gives another arrangement of the same type, placing the epistle between Colossians and 1 Thessalonians.
The order of the Books in a Latin MS. of St Paul's Epistles (glossed) in the Chapter Library at Westminster is worth quoting: Romans; 1, 2 Corinth.; 1, 2 Thess.; 1, 2 Tim.; Gal., Eph., Col., Phil., Hebr., Philm., Titus. The order is marked in the colophons, e.g. Explicit epistola ad Philippenses. Praefatio epistolae ad Hebraeos; Explicit epistola ad Hebraeos. Incipit epistola ad Philemonom.
In the Syriac versions the Epistle comes after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon; and this order, which was followed in the mass of later Greek MSS. (K? L? &c), probably under Syrian influence, has passed into the 'Received text.' Compare Epiph. Haer. xlii. p. 373.
The same order is found in Latin MSS. For in the West the Epistle did not originally form part of the collection of the writings of St Paul; and other clear traces remain of the absence of the book from the Apostolic collection. Thus in Cod. Clarom. D? the Epistle, as has been seen, appears as an appendix to the Pauline Epistles, being separated from the Epistle to Philemon by the Stichometry.
The archetype of this MS. and the original text from which the Gothic version was made, evidently contained only thirteen Epistles of St Paul.
Another testimony to the collection of thirteen Epistles of St Paul is given by the remarkable Stichometry printed by Mommson from a MS. belonging to the Library of Sir T. Phillipps (Hermes, 1886, p. 146).
Item indiculum novi testamenti evangelia iiii.
Matheum vr ii dcc
Marcus ver? dcc
Johannem vr? dccc
Luca vr iii ccc fiunt omnes versus x eplae Pauli n xiii actus aplorum ver iii dc apocalipsis ver? dccc eplae Iohannis iii. ur ccccl una sola.
eplae Petri ii. ver. ccc una sola.
Thus at the earliest date at which we find a collection of St Paul's Epistles in circulation in the Church, the Epistle to the Hebrews was by some definitely included in his writings, occupying a place either among or at the close of the Epistles to Churches: by others it was treated as an appendix to them, being set after the private letters: with others again it found no place at all among the Apostolic writings.
IV. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
The earliest direct notice of the Epistle, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14) from Clement of Alexandria, states that it 'was written (by Paul) to Hebrews in the Hebrew language (i.e. the Aramaic dialect current in Palestine at the time, Acts xxii. 2) and was translated (into Greek) by Luke.' (See § xi.) This statement was repeated from Eusebius (and Jerome who depended on him), as it appears, and not from Clement himself, by a series of later writers both in the East and West (Theodoret, Euthalius, John of Damascus, OEcumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Rabanus Maurus, Thomas Aquinas: see Bleck, 8 f.; Credner, Einl. 533), but there is not the least trace of any independent evidence in favour of the tradition, nor is it said that any one had ever seen the original Hebrew document. The unsupported statement of Clement, which Origen discredits by his silence, is thus the whole historical foundation for the belief that the Epistle was written in Hebrew. The opinion however was incorporated in the Glossa Ordinaria, and became the traditional opinion of the mediaeval Western Church. When Widmanstadt first published the Syriac text of the New Testament, he even argued that the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews was the original of St Paul. The belief in a Hebrew original was maintained by one or two scholars in the last century (J. Hallet, J. D. Michaelis); and lately it has found a vigorous advocate in J. H. R. Biesenthal (Das Trostschreiben d. Ap. Paulus an d. Hebräer, 1878; comp. Panek, Comm. in Ep. Prolegg. § 2; 1882), who thinks that the Epistle was written in 'the dialect of the Mishna, the language of the schools' in the apostolic age, into which he has again rendered the Greek.
The words of Widmanstadt are: Ex quibus omnibus coniecturam non love capi posse arbitror, et Mathieu Euagelium suu, et Paula ad Hebraeos Epistolam sermone Syro, Hebraici populi vulgari usu trito, ut a Iudeis passim omnibus intelligerentur, scripsisse, esq; in Syrorum Ecclesiis iam usq; a temporibus Apostolorum coservata fuisse (Nov. Test. Syr. Praef, a xxxxxx. 3, 1555). There is a small commentary based on the Syriac, published not many years afterwards, in which it is argued that: in Syro Paulo multa sunt quae non tantum lucem adferunt obscurioribus sed etiam interpretum discussiones bellissime componunt, ex graecanicarum vocum ambiguitate prognatas (Enarratio Ep. ad Hebr. B. Pauli Apost. a Syro sermone in Latinum conversae, ex M. Galeni Vestcappellii praelectionibus concinnata opera ac studio Fr. Andreae Crocquetii...Duaci, 1578).
The words of the Glossa Ordinaria are instructive as shewing how a statement grows precise by lapse of time: Hanc... epistolam ad Hebraeos conscriptam Hebraica lingua fertur apostolus misisse; cujus sensum et ordinem retinens Lucas evangelista post excessum beati apostoli Pauli Graeco sermone composuit (Migne, P. L. cxiv. p. 643).
Card. Caietan, writing in 1529, says that one of the two preliminary points which he must discuss is: 'an haec epistola fuerit condita Hebraico sermone ut communiter supponitur.' He decides without hesitation against the common opinion.
Not to dwell on the insufficiency of the statement of Clement, in the absence of all collateral external testimony, to justify the belief worthy that the Epistle was written in Hebrew, internal evidence appears to establish absolutely beyond question that the Greek text is original and not a translation from any form of Aramaic. The evidence of vocabulary, the style, the rhetorical characteristics of the work all lead to the same conclusion. It is (for example) impossible to imagine any Aramaic phrase which could have suggested to a translator the opening clause of the Epistle, polumeros kai polutropos; and similar difficulties offer themselves throughout the book in the free and masterly use of compound words which have no Aramaic equivalents (e.g. metriopathein v. 2; euperistatos xii. 1). The structure of the periods is bold and complicated, and the arrangement of the words is often singularly expressive (e.g. ii. 9). Paronomasias (e.g. i. 1; ii. 10; v. 8; vii. 23 f.; ix. 28; x. 34, 38 f.) are at least more likely to have been due to the writer than to have been introduced or imitated by a translator. But on the other hand stress must not be laid on a (falsely) assumed change in the meaning of diatheke in ix. 15 ff., or the obviously fortuitous hexameter in the common text of xii. 13.
A still more decisive proof that the Greek text is original lies in the fact that the quotations from the O. T. are all (except x. 30 || Deut. xxxii. 35) taken from the lxx, even when the lxx differs from the Hebrew (e.g. ii. 7 par' angelous; x. 38 kai ean "huposteiletai; xii. 5 f. mastigoi). And arguments are based on peculiarities of the lxx, so that the quotations cannot have been first introduced in the translation from Aramaic to Greek (e.g. x. 5 ff. soma katertiso; xii. 26 f. apax).
It may also be added that the passages in which difficulties in the Greek text are supposed to be removed by the hypothesis of a false rendering of the original offer no solid support to the theory. Scholars who allege them shew little agreement as to the difficulties or as to the solutions of them. Thus in the two lists given by Michaelis and Biesenthal, of eighteen and nineteen passages respectively, only four are identical (i. 2; vi. 19; ix. 17; x. 1), and in these four the solutions are different
The passages alleged by Michaelis (Bleck, i. p. 23 anm.) are i. 2; ii 1, 9; iii. 3f.; v. 13; vi. 14, 19; vii. 14; ix. 2—4, 14—17; x. 1; xi. 11, 35; xii. 15, 18, 25; xiii. 9, 15. Those alleged by Biesenthal are: i. 2; ii. 3; iii. 13; iv. 12, 13; vi 19; vii. 4, 5, 15, 27; viii. 2; ix. 16f.; x. 1, 11; xi. 26, 27; xii. 18.