Hexham, Herder, the Gospels, and did Jesus speak Aramaic or Greek?

Image: Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803)

I’ve been using Irving Hexham’s Understanding World Religions: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Zondervan, 2011) in teaching a Religions of the World class this semester. In the chapter on Christianity, Hexham begins by sketching the canonical Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. After noting the traditional view that the Gospels relied on eyewitness testimony, Hexham states:

… it was also generally assumed, although seldom explicitly stated except by members of the Eastern Orthodox community, that Jesus spoke and taught Greek (328).

He adds:

Then, in the eighteenth century, the German scholar Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803) suggested that in reality Jesus must have spoken Aramaic (328).

An argument in favor of this would be the Aramaic citations in the Gospels (see my post on Aramaic citations in Mark).

Hexham continues:

Herder’s suggestion was widely accepted, and now it has become the received wisdom that Jesus taught in Aramaic, necessitating the translation of his words into Greek by the gospel writers (329).

He suggests this new “Jesus spoke Aramaic” theory created a problem for the traditional understanding of the Gospels, because so many of the quotations from Jesus in the Gospels use identical words. Hexham said it was suggested that if Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospel writers independently translated his words into Greek, it would be unlikely that the quotations would be so exact. This led to the theories of literary dependence among the Gospels, suggesting that they either borrowed from a common source and/or from each other.

Hexham concludes:

On the other hand, if Jesus spoke Greek, as earlier commentators assumed, and as the Greek Orthodox Church still maintains, these passages are easily explained as exact quotations from Jesus (329).

I find these observations intriguing. I have assumed that Jesus spoke Aramaic based on the Aramaic citations in Matthew and Mark. I was not aware of the Eastern Orthodox position was that Jesus spoke Greek or of Herder’s suggested role in tipping the balance to Aramaic. Hexham’s point on how this shift contributed to the rise of source criticism of the Gospels also makes sense. I’d like to study more on this….

JTR

Aramaic in Mark

One of the distinctive features of the Gospel of Mark is its attribution of several Aramaic phrases to Jesus:

Passage in Mark	Aramaic phrase (bold added)	Parallels in other Gospels
Raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5)	And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise (Mark 5:41).	Cf. Matthew 9:25; Luke 8:48. Neither includes the Aramaic phrase. Matthew does not record any speech by Jesus to the girl.
Healing of deaf and dumb man (Mark 7)	And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened (Mark 7:34).	No direct parallels.
Jesus’ cry from the cross (Mark 15)	And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34).	Cf. Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Notes:

1.    Some have argued that the use of these Aramaic phrases demonstrates Mark’s primitive nature (i.e., that it is the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels). This, however, is not necessarily the case. It could be that, regardless of any literary relationship to the other Gospels, for some unknown reason Mark took more care in preserving and recording these words and phrases from Jesus, as preserved in early Christian tradition.

2.    Though Mark includes these Aramaic phrases, he also includes a translation. Though his audience might include Greek and Aramaic speaking Jewish Christians who would understand these phrases, it also includes Hellenistic Jews and/or Gentiles who would only have known Greek and not Aramaic, and who needed translation, but who still might have been curious about Jesus’ words.

3.    These statements indicate that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native language. This would be consistent with Jesus being, according to the flesh, a Palestinian homeland Jew of the first century. He knew how to read the Old Testament in Hebrew (cf. Luke 4:16-20). He may also have spoken Greek or Latin to a greater or lesser degree.

JTR

WM 83: Ipsissima Verba or Ipsissima Vox?

Today, I recorded and posted Word Magazine # 83: Ipsissima Verba or Ipsissima Vox? You can listen here.

Here are my notes: 

In the recent Megiddo radiointerview I did with Paul Flynn on the text of the NT, he had asked me about this quote from Dan Wallace:

Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort. -Daniel B. Wallace https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

I’ve been wanting to do a follow up response to this idea of the verba/vox distinction and related issues, like whether Jesus spoke Greek or only Aramaic.

So, I want to look at four sources I’ve recently reviewed on these topics, along with some final thoughts conclusions on how believers are to understand the use of modern historical-critical methodology in Biblical criticism.

First: Irving Hexham, Understanding World Religions: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Zondervan, 2011).

A few weeks ago, I noted Irving Hexham’s questions about whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or Greek. See my post here. Hexham suggests that the consensus among modern NT scholars that Jesus spoke Aramaic rather than Greek only came about in the eighteenth century with the rise of source criticism and subtly undermined the traditional view that the Gospels faithfully recorded the exact words of Jesus.  

Second: Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Norman L. Geiser, Ed. Inerrancy (Zondervan, 1980): 267-304; esp. 301.

This book comes from the evangelical “Battle for the Bible” period. It was written to defend inerrancy against its liberal despisers. In Feinberg’s article he attempts to define inerrancy in such a way that it might remain compatible with the challenges of the modern historical critical method.

Of note is his specific discussion about whether the Gospels record the ipsissima verba (the very words) or the ipsissima vox (the very voice) of Jesus.

Feinberg notes: “Inerrancy does not demand that the Logia Jesu (the sayings of Jesus) contain the ipsissima verba (the exact words) of Jesus, only the ipsissima vox (the exact voice)” (301). He adds:

When a New Testament writer cites the sayings of Jesus, it need not be that Jesus said those exact words. Undoubtedly, the exact words of Jesus are to be found in the New Testament, but they need not be so in every instance.

Feinberg gives two reasons for his argument. First, he says “many of the sayings were spoken by our Lord in Aramaic and therefore had to be translated into Greek.” Second, he suggests that it is impossible which of the sayings are “direct quotes, which are indirect discourse, and which are freer renderings.”

My guess, however, is that most faithful, ordinary Christians (untrained in modern historical criticism) will be puzzled by this viewpoint for two reasons. First, they likely expect that the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels are, just that, his words, and not merely a close approximation of them. Second, they assume that distinctions between direct and indirect discourse are no harder to discern in the Greek of the New Testament than in English (or any other coherent language). So, for example, when they read John 5:8: “Jesus said unto him [i.e., the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda], Rise, take up thy bed, and walk,” they assume that this is a direct quotation, recording not merely an approximation of Jesus’ words but his exact words. If he originally spoke those words in Greek, and not Aramaic, it would, of course, require no translation.

Feinberg’s analysis appears not to be aimed at that ordinary Christian reader but at the skeptic who is eager to find errors or inconsistencies in the Biblical text. He believes that by surrendering a vigorous defense of the Logia Jesu in the Gospels as Christ’s precise words, in favor of a more nuanced suggestion that such sayings might only be free renderings by the Evangelists, he has safeguarded the Scriptures against charges of errancy. But has he conceded too much? Does this not buttress the skeptic’s view that the Gospels provide an often creative and inventive account of Jesus’ life and ministry as opposed to a meticulously accurate record of his words and deeds?

Furthermore, does Feinberg’s approach neglect the supernatural aspect of the faithful transmission of Scripture? Its accuracy does not, in the end, depend on the care or skill of the penmen but on the faithfulness of the God who directed them. Consider Christ’s promise to his disciples: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).

Third: Darrell Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Eds., Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Zondervan, 1995): 73-99.

This essay appears in a volume dedicated to defending the reliability of the NT Gospels over against the hyper-skepticism of the Jesus Seminar. As with Feinberg, however, one wonders if the author does not concede too much to the Bible’s despisers.

Bock suggests three points on a spectrum of understanding Christ’s words in the Gospels: live, jive, and Memorex. The “Memorex view” would be that of the traditionalists who assume that the words recorded in the Gospels are the exact words spoken. Bock rejects this view, however, stating, “It is possible to have historical truth without always resorting to explicit citation” (75). The “jive view” would be that the Jesus Seminar, which holds that the Gospel writers had maximal freedom in inventing or creating the recorded words. The mediating position which Bock champions is the “live” option, suggesting:

This is what the “live” approach is all about. Each evangelist retells the living and powerful words of Jesus in a fresh way for his readers, while faithfully and accurately presenting the “gist” of what Jesus said. I call this approach one that recognizes the Jesus tradition as “live” in its dynamic and quality (77).

Bock then follows Feinberg by insisting on a distinction between ipsissima verba and ispissima vox.  He cites one “universally recognized reality” as making the verba/vox distinction necessary: “that Jesus probably gave most of his teaching in Aramaic” while the Gospels were written in Greek, adding, “In other words, most of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels is already a translation” (77). So, Bock concedes: “Since a translation is already present in much of the tradition, we do not have ‘his very words’ in the strictest sense of the term” (77). The best Bock can say is that the Gospels “give us the true gist of his teaching and the central thrust of his message” (78).

Bock defends this view as in keeping with (1) the practices of Greco-Roman historiography; (2) the oral Jewish culture of remembering; and (3) the nature of historical writing. Regarding the third point, Bock notes: “History is not a static entity” (81).

Again, it seems unlikely that the faithful Christian reader will necessarily share these assumptions. Whatever the ordinary practices of secular Greek, Roman, or Jewish authors or the customary vagaries of ancient or modern history, the believing reader sees the Bible as an extra-ordinary work. Why then, under the Spirit’s direction, should it not faithfully record the very words of Jesus?

Note: When one reviews the examples cited by Bock one notices how thin are the actual citations of perceived variances in the words of Jesus among the Gospels (see pp. 84-89).

Bocks gives attention to variances in the order of the temptations in the temptation narratives, perceived differences in narrative sequencing in the Synoptic Gospels, detail differences in Synoptic parallels, and differences in verbal citations (like the Father’s voice at Jesus’ baptism or Peter’s confession).

When it comes to specific words from Jesus, Bock only cites two examples: (1) Jesus’ question to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi (p. 86); and (2) Jesus’ teaching on the coming of the Son of Man (p. 88).

Bock concludes: “The Gospels are summaries of the teaching of Jesus,” giving the “gist” but not the exact words (89).

This modern, evangelical approach was not, however, the one taken by pre-critical interpreters, who could acknowledge slight variations in the Gospels accounts while still affirming the full reliability of the Gospels in accurately recording Christ’s precise words (and those of others). How did they do this? By making reasonable harmonizations, often assuming that one Gospel writer might have recorded what Jesus (or another figure) said on one occasion or moment while another Gospel writer recorded what he said on another occasion or in another moment, thus explaining the occasional differences in wording. A report of Christ’s words might then be precise but only partial without assuming that the Evangelist had creatively summarized Christ’s words.

Fourth: Robert L. Thomas, “Impact of Historical Criticism on Theology and Apologetics,” in Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, Eds., The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism Into Evangelical Scholarship (Kregel, 1998): 356-377, especially 367-372.

Thomas challenges the evangelical embrace of the verba/vox distinction. According to Thomas, this move “now has the evangelical world wondering what words Jesus spoke. The general impact of that field of scholarship has been on the side of assuming the gospel writers never reported His exact words or the ipsissima verba—the very words—of the Lord” (367).

While conceding that Jesus’ speeches in the Gospels are shorter than the original speeches, Thomas argues that this does not mean that the words which are recorded in the Gospels are not Christ’s exact words.

Thomas offers a direct challenge to Bock, in particular, including his assumption that Jesus spoke only in Aramaic and this had to be translated into Greek. He notes a “growing realization among contemporary scholars” recognizing “the wide use of Greek among the Jews of Jesus’ day,” adding, “The assumption that Jesus never spoke Greek is certainly unfounded” (368).

Thomas thinks it highly likely that the followers of Jesus would have written down and accurately memorized Jesus’ exact words. Regarding the differences in the Synoptic Gospels, Thomas reflects:

If the Gospels do contain the very words of Jesus, what is one to make of their disagreement in wording when recording the same discourse or conversation? The fact that no single gospel records everything spoken on a given occasion furnishes an adequate response to that challenge. It is probable, in fact, that no combination of parallel accounts records the entirety of a speech or dialogue. Christ undoubtedly repeated some of His teachings with slightly differing wording on different occasions. He very probably did so on the same occasion too. So instances where parallel accounts report the same substance in slightly different forms may easily be traceable to different but similar statements on the same occasion, with each writer selecting for his account only a part of what was said (369).

Thomas’ view here reflects that held by the pre-critical interpreters.

He likewise notes the special nature of the Bible as a Holy Spirit inspired work:

Another factor overlooked by evangelicals in the whole issue of literary independence versus interdependence is the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling the memories of the eyewitnesses of Christ’s life….

The Spirit’s work in reminding and inspiring is a supernatural work, guaranteeing a degree of accuracy and precision that is without parallel in the annals of human historiography (372).

Concluding Reflections:

In conclusion, let me share some insights from Alvin Plantinga’s Knowledge and Christian Belief (Eerdmans, 2015). This is a simplified and popular version of his Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2000).

Plantinga argues in that book that there is warrant or justification for Christian belief (i.e., that it is not necessarily irrational to hold Christian beliefs). At the conclusion of that book he addresses three “defeaters” (arguments against his thesis). The three are challenges based on Historical Biblical Criticism; Pluralism; and Evil.

For the purposes of this discussion, I thought his comments on Historical Biblical Criticism (HBC) are worth sharing. Plantinga writes:

So HBC has not in general been sympathetic to traditional Christian belief; it has hardly been an encouragement to the faithful. The faithful, however, seem relatively unconcerned; they find traditional biblical commentary of great interest and importance, but the beliefs and attitudes of HBC have not seemed to filter down to them, in spite of its dominance in mainline seminaries. According to Van Harvey, “Despite decades of research, the average person tends to think of the life of Jesus in much the same terms as Christians did three centuries ago” [“New Testament Scholarship,” p. 194]. One possible reason is that there is no compelling or even reasonably decent argument for supposing that the procedures and assumptions of HBC are to be preferred, by Christians, to those of traditional Biblical commentary. A little epistemological reflection enables us to see something further: the traditional Christian has good reason to reject the skeptical claims of HBC and continue to hold traditional Christian belief despite the allegedly corrosive acids of HBC (103).

I think Plantinga gets it very right here. Modern evangelical scholars have embraced and accommodated the modern historical-critical method to their reading of the Bible (in this case the Gospels) in an effort to defend the faith against objections. The problem is that these are not objections raised by the faithful but by unbelieving skeptics. The faithful, in fact, find the “new” interpretations unconvincing, at best, and undermining the faith, at worst.

So, what can we conclude?

Jesus spoke Aramaic. That is clear from the Gospel quotations of his Aramaic speech. But it is not unreasonable to assume that he also spoke Greek and that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded his words in Greek. Not only did they rely on accurate written accounts and carefully preserved memories, but the Holy Spirit enabled faithful remembering (John 14:26). Agreements in the Gospel record do not have to explained through complex literary dependence theories. Any discrepancies in the account of speech from Jesus or other figures can also be reasonably explained through harmonization (e.g., distinctions between direct and indirect discourse, repetitions, partial citations, etc.) without abandoning confidence in the Gospels as faithfully preserving the ipsissima verba, which is essentially the default understanding of ordinary believing readers who have not been exposed to higher criticism.

JTR

Text Note: Galatians 1:18: "Peter" or "Cephas"?

The issue:

Did Paul write that he went up to Jerusalem to see “Peter” (Petros) or “Cephas” (Kephas)?  The traditional text reads “Peter,” while the modern critical text prefers the Aramaic form of Peter’s name, “Cephas.”

External evidence:

The traditional text is supported by a corrected hand of Sinaiticus and the codices D, F, G, Psi, K, L, P, and the vast majority of minuscules, in addition to the entire Latin tradition and the Syriac Harklean.

The modern critical text is supported by p46, p51, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, among other codices.  It is also found in various Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions.

Internal evidence:

Metzger takes the Aramaic name as the original which was substituted for “the more familiar Greek name Petros” (Textual Commentary, p. 591).

Examination of the rest of Galatians reveals that textual variations between “Peter” and “Cephas” are not limited to 1:18.  The issue resurfaces in 2:9, 11, and 14.

In 2:11 and 2:14, the Textus Receptus also reads “Peter” and the modern critical text “Cephas,” supported by essentially the same external evidence as found in 1:18.

Of particular interest, however, is the reading found in 2:9, where the traditional text agrees with the modern critical text in reading “Cephas,” not “Peter.”  Thus, the modern critical heavyweights Sinaiticus and Vaticanus support the Majority text here.  As Metzger points out, there are, indeed, some witnesses, “chiefly Western,” which read “Peter” rather than “Cephas” in 2:9. These include p46 and the codices D, F, G, K, and L (Textual Commentary, p. 592), but this was not the reading adopted by the traditional text.  Some of the manuscripts (D, F, G, etc.) not only read “Peter” but also place his name first in the list (i.e., “Peter and James and John”).

Analysis:

First, we would acknowledge that the reading of the apostle’s name as “Peter” or “Cephas” does not affect any vital point of doctrine.  The modern critical reading is based primarily on the weight of external evidence and an a priori assumption that the readings of certain texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) be given priority.

Second, the assumption that the traditional text substituted “Peter” for “Cephas” in 1:18; 2:11, 14 remains only a speculation.  Is it not equally possible that the manuscripts which serve as the basis for the modern critical text substituted “Cephas” for “Peter” for some unknown reason?  Perhaps they wanted to give emphasis to Peter’s Jewishness by referring to him by his Aramaic name, or they simply wanted to harmonize the references (but cf. 2:7, the only place where even the modern critical text reads “Peter” rather than “Cephas”).

Third, the fact that the traditional text reads “Cephas” rather than “Peter” in 2:9 would seem to undermine the theory that the traditional text systematically substituted “Peter” for “Cephas.”  If this had been the tendency of the received text, why was 2:9 overlooked, especially when some manuscripts obviously did alter the text (and no less than p46 at that!)?

Is it not just as plausible to assume that the variation in uses of “Peter” and “Cephas” in Galatians reflects the original hand of Paul?  Indeed, in Galatians 2:7 Paul refers to the apostle as “Peter” in a text that suffers from no textual dispute.  Thus, the traditional reading(s) might well be defended as authentic.

JTR

Even more thoughts on Matthew's "Sermon on the Mount" and Luke's "Sermon in the Plain"

As I continue to preach through Luke’s Sermon in the Plain (Luke 6), I am still pondering the propriety of taking Luke’s account as an abbreviated doublet of the material in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7) [see this previous post].  My tendency, again, is to see these as records of two independent sermons and not the same event.

The McArthur Study Bible provides an example of an evangelical interpretation which argues that Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon in the Plain are two presentations of the same event.  It acknowledges, “It is possible … that Jesus simply preached the same sermon on more than one occasion.”  Yet it concludes:

It appears more likely, however, that these are variant accounts of the same event.  Luke’s version is abbreviated somewhat, because he omitted sections from the sermon that are uniquely Jewish (particularly Christ’s exposition of the law).  Aside from that, the two sermons follow exactly the same flow of thought beginning with the Beatitudes and ending with the parable about building on the rock.  Differences in wording between the two accounts are undoubtedly owing to the fact that the sermon was originally delivered in Aramaic.  Luke and Matthew translate into Gr. with slight variances.  Of course, both translations are equally inspired and authoritative (p. 1524).

The problem with this approach is simply that the differences between the two sermons are much more than “slight variances” resulting from translation from Aramaic to Greek.  For example, Matthew has eight (or nine) beatitudes (Matthew 5) and no woes, while Luke has four beatitudes and four corresponding woes (Luke 6).

I am more inclined toward the interpretation of Matthew Poole in his Luke commentary.  Poole begins, “There are many that think what Luke hath in these verses, and so the end of the chapter, is but a shorter epitome of what Luke hath in his 5^th, 6^th, and 7^th chapters, and that both Matthew and Luke mean the same sermon preached at the same time.”  He cites two points in favor of this opinion:  (1) Matthew says that Jesus was teaching on a mountain, and Luke’s description can be taken as reference to a mountain plain; (2) There is much overlap in content.

Nevertheless, Poole concludes, “I can hardly be of that mind.”  He cites the following reasons:

(1)  He judges Luke’s reference to the plain is not the same setting as Matthew.

 

(2)   The description of the audience for the sermon in Luke (see 6:17) is distinct and indicates a unique setting.

 

(3)   “Principally, from the great differences in the relations of Matthew and Luke.”

These include:  (a) many large discourses in Matthew are not covered by Luke (e.g. Christ “true interpretation of the law” and his teaching about alms, prayer, fasting in Matthew 6); and (b) differences in the beatitudes (and woes) section.

Poole concludes:  “Leaving therefore all to their own judgments, I see no reason to think that this discourse was but a short copy of the same discourse, referring to the same time and company.”

JTR

Who wrote Hebrews?

Note:  I started today a new sermon series on the book of Hebrews with a message titled "To the Hebrews" (Hebrews 1:1-2).  In this opening message I asked four foundational questions about Hebrews, beginning with: "Who is the author of this book?"

If you have a King James Version of the Bible, the full title of this book is given as:  “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.”

 

That conveys the fact that many Christians down through the years have believed that this book was written by the apostle Paul.  If this is so, Hebrews would be the 14^th of Paul’s epistles in the NT.  Indeed, in our English Bibles it appears just after the Pauline corpus, after Philemon.  In many ancient Greek NTs it appeared after 2 Thessalonians and before 1 Timothy (see the order in the Robinson/Pierpont edition of the Byzantine Greek NT).

The authors of the two greatest Puritan commentaries on the book of Hebrews believed that the book was written by Paul.

William Gouge (1575-1653), described as an “arch Puritan,” preached more than a thousand sermons over a thirty year period on Hebrews.  In his commentary made from those sermons, which some describe as his magnum opus, he declares the “penman” of Hebrews “to be Paul the apostle” (Hebrews, Vol. 1, p. 4).

John Owen (1616-1683), the “Prince of the Puritans,” wrote a colossal commentary on Hebrews that fills seven volumes.  In the first volume of that work he includes an over 30 page essay in which he argues that the apostle Paul was the author of Hebrews (see Exercitation II, Hebrews, Vol. 1, pp. 65-92).

Why would they say that Paul wrote this book?  Here are a few reasons:

1.  This was the testimony of many in the ancient church.

2.  The author writes from prison and we know that Paul often did this (cf. 10:34).

3.  The author makes at least one reference to justification by faith, one of the Paul’s favorite themes (10:38).

4.  The author mentions Timothy who was one of Paul’s companion in his ministry (13:23).

5.  The author writes from Italy (perhaps Paul imprisoned in Rome; 13:24).

6.  The book ends with a standard “token” of Paul’s greetings:  “Grace be with you all. Amen” (13:25; cf. Phil, Col, 1-2 Thess, 1-2 Tim, Titus).

7.  It was suggested by the old interpreters (Gouge, Owen, Poole) that Peter likely refers to Hebrews in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

But there is one big problem with the idea of Paul’s authorship of Hebrews:  His name never appears explicitly in the book designating him as the author (as it does in every one of his epistles).

Some of the old interpreters suggest that Paul might have done this because his views were so controversial among some Jewish Christians he feared it might prevent “their reading or weighing of it as they ought” (Poole).

Some of the ancient titles of the book, indeed, simply read “To the Hebrews” without naming Paul.

This led to many other speculations about others who might have written the book, including Luke, Barnabas (Acts), Clement (Phil 4:3), and Apollos (Acts 18: 1 Cor 1), among others.  Clement of Alexandria suggested that Paul wrote the book in Aramaic and Luke translated it into Greek.

When the great Reformer John Calvin wrote his commentary on Hebrews he acknowledged the traditional views of Pauline authorship but concluded:  “I, indeed, can adduce no reason to shew that Paul was its author” adding that “the manner of teaching and the style, sufficiently shew that Paul was not the author.”

Indeed, one of the ancient Church Fathers Origen wrote of the question of Hebrews’ authorship:  “What is the very truth in this matter only God knows” (as cited in Owen, Hebrews, Vol. 1, p. 67).

Though I think there is good reason to believe that Paul wrote this book, we have to rest content without being able to say that for sure.  This is a matter of the sufficiency of Scripture.  The Bible does not tell us everything that we could possibly know, but it tells us everything we need to know.

What makes Hebrews or any other book of the Bible Scripture is not merely the fact that it might have been written by an apostle.  Indeed, some books were clearly written by men who were not apostles (like Mark and Luke).  What makes Scripture Scripture is the fact that it is breathed out by God, no matter who the human penman was (cf. 2 Tim 3:16).  And it is truly apostolic because the apostles first, and the believers then and in all ages thereafter, recognized that it was the Word of God.

Owen:  “Hence an anxious inquiry after the penman of any part of Scripture is not necessary” (Hebrews, Vol. I, p. 67).

Calvin says, speaking specifically of Hebrews:  “I, indeed, without hesitation, class it among apostolical writings….  There is, indeed, no book in the Holy Scriptures which speaks so clearly of the priesthood of Christ, so highly exalts the virtue and dignity of that only true sacrifice which he offered by his death, so abundantly treats of the use of ceremonies as well as their abrogation, and, in a word, so fully explains that Christ is the end of the law.”

JTR

Eusebius, EH.3.39: Papias of Hierapolis

Image: Colonnade in the ruins of ancient Hierapolis ("holy city") near the modern town of Pamukkale in western Turkey.

A new episode is posted to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 3, chapter 39. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

The focus in this chapter is on the writing of Papias of Hierapolis (c. AD 60-130).

Eusebius says that Papias was the author of five treatises under the title, “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord.” This work is no longer extant except in quotations from Eusebius and Irenaeus.

He notes that Irenaeus described Papias as “the hearer of John, who was a companion of Polycarp and one of the ancients.”

Eusebius notes, however, that Papias himself did not say he was “a hearer and eyewitness of the sacred apostles” but that he had learned from those who knew them.

He cites a passage in which Papias says he was diligent in learning from the followers of the apostles and other disciples of Jesus, mentioning Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew, but also Aristion and the presbyter (elder) John.

He quotes a controversial statement of Papias in which he says he did not consider that he would profit so much “from books” as from “the word of a living and surviving voice.”

Eusebius also notes the mention of two Johns by Papias: John the Apostle and John the Elder, suggesting the possibility that the latter, John the Elder, was the author of Revelation.

He relays other traditions, including one related to the daughters of Philip the Apostle (Confusion with Philip the Evangelist?) at Hierapolis and the raising of a corpse, as well as an account of a tradition of Justus Barsabas drinking poison but suffering no harm (cf. Mark 16:18).

He also notes “unwritten tradition” conveyed by Papias that included “some strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some more mythical accounts.”

Among these accounts he mentions the teaching of a millennial kingdom. Eusebius accuses Papias of misreading mystical and symbolic accounts of the apostles, since he was a man “of very little intelligence.” Yet, he influenced others to hold such views, including Irenaeus.

He also records Papias’s description of the evangelist Mark as “Peter’s interpreter” who recorded the apostle’s remembrances accurately but not “in order.”

Of Matthew, Papias says, the evangelist “collected the oracles in the Hebrew language [dialect], and each interpreted as best he could.” This has led to questions about whether Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

He adds that Papias cited from 1 John and 1 Peter.

Finally, he refers to a story of a woman “accused before the Lord of many sins” recorded in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It has been speculated that this refers to the pericope adulterae (John 7:53—8:11) and lends credence to this as a popular Jesus tradition “floating” about in early Christianity, but this is not substantiated.

Conclusion:

Eusebius recognizes Papias as an important early historical source but also raises questions about his reliability, especially with regard to his millennial views.

JTR

Six Arguments Against the Apocrypha

We are continuing our series at CRBC through the Second London Baptist Confession (1689).  On Sunday November 6 I led a Bible Study on Canon and Apocrypha from chapter one, paragraph three of the confession.

I concluded by offering the following six arguments against the inclusion of the Apocrypha within the canon of Scripture:

1. It was rejected by the Jews, the guardians of God’s oracles (Romans 3:2), as Scripture.

2. It was not written and preserved in the language of the Old Testament (either Hebrew or Aramaic).

3. It is not always historically reliable and cannot be considered infallible.

4. It makes use of fiction, false information, and pseudonyms.

5. It is never directly cited as Scripture in the New Testament.

6. It was and is not universally recognized by believers as inspired.

JTR

Questions on the NT use of the LXX

A friend recently emailed with some questions about the NT use of the Septuagint (LXX).  I thought others might like to overhear the (edited) exchange:

Q:

I'm curious what you think we can learn from the NT use of the LXX, if anything? What does it tell us about using the LXX in particular, those specific passages of the LXX, and/or translations in general?

JTR:

That's a great question and a big one, as you know.  Whole books could be written about it (and have!), so I don't think I'll be able to sum it all up in a short email, and I don't claim any expertise in this field.

At the least, the LXX's appearance and usage says that believers hold that one can read the Bible in translation, and it can be the Word of God. Unlike Islam which says one must know Arabic to read the Koran, Biblical believers have never said you must know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to read the Bible.

The apostles obviously often read the LXX and cited it in the NT (but not always, since they also made citations that give evidence of their rendering the Hebrew of the OT). 

The biggest problems with the LXX are twofold:

(1) It gives evidence that it was not based on the MT of the Hebrew Bible (see especially, e.g., Judges, 1-2 Samuel);

(2) It included the apocryphal books.

I agree with Owen's assessment that it is a "corrupt stream" whose readings must be taken cautiously.

Q:

Thanks, Jeff. One question in my mind is, if the NT cites a particular LXX passage, does it create an "alternate" authoritative version of that verse? Does it speak to the inspiration of translation of at least that passage?

JTR:

Good question on how to interpret the ramifications of the authority of the LXX when cited in the NT.  My view would be that a citation does not set up the LXX as an "alternate" authority to the Hebrew OT. Rather, it only becomes authoritative (i.e., is part of the immediately inspired Scripture) as it is cited by the NT writer.

We have several examples of the NT writers referencing or citing non-canonical works.  Examples:

Luke 1:1-4:  Luke refers to unnamed sources (some of which might have been canonical, like Mathew or Mark, but others might not have been canonical, like perhaps a memoir of Mary or other eyewitnesses).

Acts 17:28:  Paul cites Epimenides and Aratus.

Titus 1:12:  Paul cites Epimenides.

Jude 1:9:  Jude cites the Testament of Moses (?) or some other lost source.

Jude 1:14-15:  Jude cites the book of 1 Enoch.

We would not say, for example, that Epimenides' works or 1 Enoch are inspired just because they are cited in the NT.  Only the parts cited are inspired as they are used by the NT authors.  The same could be applied to the NT citations of the LXX.