Paul or Shaul?
Why would you ask a question to which you already knew the answer?
Like Daniel J. Boorstin once said, the great obstacle to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. While reading James White’s article regarding the gospel of Matthew (or Matityahu, as was his name), I was surprised to learn that the first gospel in the apostolic scriptures was probably written in Hebrew. I understood that my sense of surprise came from my assumption that I already knew what there was to know about the origins of the “New Testament”. I thought I already had the answer, so I never asked the question.
Spurred on by his article, I wanted to see what else ancient historians - people who were much closer to the events than modern biblical scholars - had to say regarding the Jewishness of the language of the apostles. I discovered that, in addition to Matityahu’s account of Yeshua, there are reasons to believe that the Book of Hebrews was written originally in Hebrew, as well. And by no less a person than the apostle Paul, or, as his contemporaries knew him, Rabbi Shaul.
EUSEBIUS, JEROME, AND CONTEXT
Eusebius refers to Clement’s Hypotyposes when stating in Church History 6.14.2:
“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.”
Earlier, in Church History 3.38.2-3, Eusebius states:
“Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle.”
And then there’s Jerome who, in the fifth chapter of his On Illustrious Men, wrote that Rabbi Shaul, “being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently”, and goes on to hypothesize that perhaps the reason the Book of Hebrews is in such a different style than Shaul’s is because it was translated into Greek from Hebrew.
To say nothing of the indirect evidence that arises when you translate the Greek texts into Hebrew, such as the wordplay that Jewish writers are so fond of, as well as those “secondary layers of meaning” James mentioned in his article.
We know from Scripture and archaeological evidence (contemporaneous letters, coins, et al.) that Hebrew was a living and hallowed language at the time of Yeshua, and that Yeshua spoke it. The common Jew under Roman rule was very adamant about resisting syncretism and assimilation into Hellenistic culture, including and especially the Greek language (as the Maccabean revolt and the Bar Kochba rebellion can testify to).
WORLDVIEW AND HUMILITY
It would make sense. Why would a Jew write in Greek if he were writing for a Jewish audience regarding inherently Jewish topics, topics best related in the Hebrew language? Hebrew had already developed terms to deal with concepts like the messiah, salvation, and the unity of justice and mercy. A writer needs to write with an audience in mind. The audience for the Book of Hebrews were Hebrews.
It can be humbling, to say the least, for a person raised with a Hellenistic, Western worldview to learn that the scriptures they’ve been studying were written by people with Jewish, Eastern worldviews for people with Jewish, Eastern worldviews. The differences between Eastern and Western mentalities are considerable, and the negative effects of trying to grasp Jewish concepts through translations of translations of a text written in an age long gone by a person with a radically different outlook on life can be seen in any account of church history.
Even if all of the apostolic scriptures were originally written in Koine Greek, weren’t they still written by Jews? About Jews? To Jews? The entire Bible is a Jewish book, and to claim “mastery” of it with a Hellenistic worldview is misguided at best.
Which is only to say what should always be said: we all need to take a step back, conform our minds to Yeshua’s model, and look at scripture with a fresh Jewish perspective.
E. English
Matthew or Matityahu?
It’s common knowledge among believers of Messiah that the “New Testament” was written in Greek before being translated into Latin, German, and so on. But is the common knowledge correct knowledge? Is Greek the language these manuscripts were originally drafted in, or were the gospels and letters of the apostles first translated into Greek from yet another language? Evidence supports the idea that the gospel of Matthew, at least, was originally composed in the language of the Messiah himself: Hebrew.
I was introduced to this concept one yom shabbat morning when my rabbi glibly mentioned it during his drash. I was shocked and intrigued, wondering why I’d never heard this before. I looked into it and discovered that, while the debate goes on, most resources assert that the answer is clear: Matthew was originally written in Greek. Quoting from biblical scholars, they lay the old nine-out-of-ten-experts-agree card on the table.
So why was my rabbi so sure that the gospel of Matthew (or Matityahu, as he was known) was originally written in the Hebrew language? If biblical scholars disagree, where else can we look? How about the historians of the time? Wouldn’t they know more than any modern experts?
HISTORIANS SPEAK
Josephus, who was active during the first century CE, claims that the Jews at the time spoke Hebrew as well as Greek and Aramaic:
“And being sensible that exhortations are frequently more effectual than arms, [Titus] persuaded [the Jews] to surrender [Jerusalem], now in a manner already taken, and thereby to save themselves, and sent Josephus to speak to them in their own language; for he imagined they might yield to the persuasion of a countryman of their own.” Josephus, The Jewish War 5.9.2 (c. 75 CE)
Here are a few references to Matityahu’s gospel itself from other historians:
“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” Papias (150-170 CE) as quoted by Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16 (c. 324 CE)
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Ireneus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 (c. 180 CE)
“Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.” Origen (c. 210 C.E.) as quoted by Eusebius, Church History 6.25.4 (c. 324 CE)
“For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.” Eusebius, Church History 3.24.6 (c. 324 CE)
“[The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters”. Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 (c. 378 CE)
“Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.” Jerome, On Illustrious Men (c. 392 CE)
This is not to say, however, that all of the texts of Matityahu’s gospel in Hebrew are legitimate. One in particular, the Shem-Tov, claims that gentiles will not be converted until the Thousand Year Reign of Messiah, and that any attempt to do so now is the work of Anti-Messiah (a contention which obviously does not conform with the rest of scripture, let alone history).
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
The testimony of the historians is just the beginning of our understanding of this topic. If these historians are to be believed, however, then we have to agree that the debate is over. Matityahu, a Jew writing for a Jewish audience, wrote his account of the Jewish messiah in the Jewish language: Hebrew.
So, why does this matter? The same reason that studying alI of scripture from the Jewish perspective matters: a deeper understanding of God’s Word. Scripture was written by Jews for Jews. It is Jewish from cover to cover. If Matityahu’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it flows better and contains secondary layers of meaning that would otherwise be lost in a Greek translation.
But the debate goes on.
J. White
