De Moor II:8: The Authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, Part 3

B.  Our AUTHOR next in his Compendio, before he concludes this §, professes that he rejects the opinions,

              א.  Concerning the GOSPEL of MATTHEW WRITTEN in HEBREW; concerning which the Most Illustrious GOMARUS’ Dissertatio, Opera, tome 3, pages 313-316, stands out, in addition to which LEUSDEN’S[1] Philologus Hebræo-Græcus, Dissertation XVII, § 11-13, is also able to be consulted; and also SPANHEIM’S Exercitatio de Historiæ Euangelicæ Scriptoribus, § 8, 9, in the Appendix of book II of Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquitatum, opera, tome 2, columns 271-273, and also in book III of Miscenllaneorum Sacrorum Antiquitatum, Disseration III, part III, § 10, opera, tome 2, column 359; but also BUDDEUS’ Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 4, tome 2, pages 1494b-1496a.  Certainly, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, is related everywhere by the Ancients, Papias,[2] Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact; you have the words of each in GOMARUS, in the place cited:  which Gospel was then translated into the Greek Language either by James, the brother of the Lord, according to Athanasius, or by John, according to Theophylact.  The experience of the Fathers is added, among whom JEROME testifies that that Gospel was not only extant in his age at the Library of Cæsarea, but he also received the same from the Nazarenes, who were using this volume, so that he might copy it, which he translated into the Greek and Latin tongue.

Nevertheless, that our Greek Gospel of Matthew was not translated out of Hebrew, we hold with our AUTHOR, 1.  Because of the translation, not only of an individual word, but of an entire Hebrew pericope into Greek speech:  thus in Matthew 1:23 it is, And they shall call His name Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον, Μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός, Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us; and in Matthew 27:46, Ἠλί, Ἠλί, λαμὰ σαβαχθανί; τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, Θεέ μου, Θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?; These translations would certainly have been wanting in the Hebrew text:  with what fidelity, then, were they added by the Translator?  Neither are the Versions of the Septuagint and Latin to be summoned for help, in which in some places something similar, yet still quite different, is found; neither do those Versions have authenticity with respect to words, as indeed the Greek text of Matthew is acknowledged to be authentic.

2.  If God had taken care that the Gospel be written down by Matthew in Hebrew θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration, He would have preserved for us copies in the original Language, no less of this than of the other Canonical Books, written down for the perpetual use of the Church:  which, nevertheless,

              α.  At this time are not extant.  Indeed, even today Hebrew Gospels of Matthew are circulated, one by MUNSTER,[3] another by MERCERUS,[4] rendered in Latin; but, 1.  as these were unknown to all antiquity, so, says GOMARUS, by the evidence of their style, by certain additions and omissions, and by the especially great variety among themselves, they sufficiently show that they were translated by Jews, diverse and unequal in erudition, from Greek or Latin:  which he confirms by the judgment of MERCERUS, which is worth reading.  2.  If Matthew had written to please the Jews, he would not have written even in Hebrew, but in Syriac, of which dialect at that time the Jews were generally making use, while Hebrew speech had become the language of the Learned.

But, β.  neither in the time of JEROME was there extant a Gospel written by Matthew in Hebrew:  for the Gospel, of which JEROME speaks was a Gospel, not of Matthew in Hebrew, but according to the Hebrews, written in the Chaldean and Syrian language but in Hebrew letters, which was used by the Nazarenes and Ebionite heretics:[5]  but which readily betrays its own νοθείαν/spuriousness, 1.  by various additions, which are patched on to the Greek text; 2.  by importation of some histories from other Gospels, with some things changed, and with other things patched on that are extant nowhere else; 3.  by the unsuitable and impious opinions found in this Gospel; 4.  by the mutilation of the Genealogy of Christ:  all which are confirmed by GOMARUS, Dissertatione, Opera, tome 3, pages 314, 315, from examples selected out of EPIPHANIUS and JEROME.  Hence also among the Fathers,

Epiphanius

a.  EPIPHANIUS contradicts himself; when in Hæresi XXIX he spoke of the Gospel of Matthew as written down and rendered in Hebrew, in Hæresi XXX he calls the same mutilated and corrupt.  JEROME also, in his opera, tome 2, Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos, book III, page 297, speaks hesitatingly and according to the opinion of others concerning this Gospel as written by Matthew:  “In the Gospel, says he, according to the Hebrews…of which unto this day the Nazarenes make use, as according to the Apostles, or, as most assert, according to Matthew.”  CHRYSOSTOM likewise hesitates as one in doubt, in whose homilies on Matthew I, opera, tome 7, page 7, is read:  Matthew is said to have written a Gospel in Hebrew, Λέγεται δὲ καὶ Ματθαῖος, —τῇ τῶν Ἑβραίων φωνῇ συνθεῖναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.

              b.  So that we might state the situation as it is, all the Fathers of the Church were misled by PAPIAS, from whom Irenæus related that, and from both these Origen; hence the rest.  But,

                             a.  Papias, according to EUSEBIUS, Historia Ecclesiastica, book III, chapter XXXIX or the end, was σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν, furnished with very mediocre talent, as one might conclude from his λόγοις/writings:  nevertheless, to a great many Ecclesiastical Writers after him, τῆς ὁμοίας αὐτῷ δόξης παραίτιον γεγονέναι, the sharing of the like opinion, is referred in the same place, or the furnishing of the occasion of the same error with him, inasmuch as they were supporting their own opinion by the antiquity of Papias, while he passes down to posterity many things fabulous, groundlessly believed.

                             b.  Then, if you will believe Papias, what then shall be the authority of the Greek Codex of Matthew? since Papias not only related the Matthew wrote in the Hebrew tongue; but he also added that ἡρμήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἠδύνατο ἕκαστος, each one interpreted these things (that is, τὰ λόγια, the oracles) as he was able, in EUSEBIUS’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book III, chapter XXXIX at the end.  But no greater confidence is due to him in this concerning the alleged translation of Matthew, than in the principal thesis, in which he confused the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the Gospel originally written in Hebrew.  Which error there the remaining Fathers were able more easily to adopt, since most were ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, and so they were not able to examine that Gospel.

Neither by the Subscript of the Gospel in the Syriac and Arabic Versions is the opinion concerning the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew able to uphold itself; when in the Syriac Version we read of Matthew, that he preached the Gospel in Hebrew in the region of Palestine.  But in the Arabic Codex it is asserted that it was Written in the land of the Philistines in Hebrew.  For,

α.  Those Subscripts are not of divine authority, which are not even in the original Greek text, nor in other Versions.

β.  The Syriac Subscript asserts only that Matthew preached in Hebrew, not that he thus wrote.

γ.  In the Bible Polyglots, not this, but a far different Subscript is subjoined to the Arabic Version of the Gospel of Matthew, namely this:  “By the help of the Most High God is finished the Gospel of Saint Matthew, preacher of eternal life.  May His blessings surround us, Amen!”

ב.  Our AUTHOR rejects the opinion concerning the EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS WRITTEN IN HEBREW.  Of course, almost all Antiquity was inclined unto this opinion also.  That Paul wrote to the Hebrews in Hebrew, and that the Evangelist Luke translated this Epistle into Greek, was the opinion of CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA, according to EUSEBIUS, Historia Ecclesiastica, book VI, chapter XIV.  That Paul wrote this Epistle in Hebrew, but that CLEMENT of ROME[6] acted as translator, was suggested by a statement of EUSEBIUS, καὶ πολλοῦ ἄλλοῦ τῶν θεοφόρων πατέρων ὁμίλου, and of another large crowd of God-bearing Fathers, as Stephanus Gobarus[7] proposes in PHOTIUS’ Bibliotheca, columns m. 903, 904; for thus also JEROME, THEODORET, and many others.  Neither do the Neoterics deny that this Epistle was written in Hebrew, Baronius,[8] Bellarmine, Ribera;[9] but also Zanchius,[10] Hyperius,[11] and Tossanus:[12]  see SPANHEIM’S de Auctore Epistolæ ad Hebræos, part III, chapter II, or Miscellanea Sacrorum Antiquorum, book II, opera, tome 2, columns 245 and following, from whom one may now briefly select what things are able to make for the refutation of this opinion of the Ancients.

Namely, 1.  you might observe that the Style in this Epistle is nothing less than ἑρμηνευτικὸν/hermeneutical, whereby translation might be made from word to word, and which, therefore, would be everywhere τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ ἑβραΐζων, Hebraic with respect to interpretation.  For it is, as ORIGEN rightly observes, an Epistle συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως ἑλληνικωτέρα, Hellenistic in the composition of its style.

2.  Paul would have written either purely in the Hebrew tongue, or in the Syriac and mixed tongue of those times.  a.  The former does not appear to be correct, because it was no longer in use by the people.  Outside of the Sacred Codices, a new Syrian dialect was obtaining.  b.  But neither does the latter appear to be correct.  For that Syrian dialect was not known by all Hebrews, who were holding ancestral seats outside of Palestine in Greece, Asia, or Egypt.

3.  How does it happen that the Hebrew text of this Epistle is not mentioned as having been read by any of the Ancients, or even seen?  Where has that treasure been hidden?  How was it so quickly lost?  For those which today are read in Syriac and Hebrew were translated from the Greek.

4.  Spanheim observes that many Idioms of the Greeks in this Epistle are not thus consistent with the Hebrew language.

5.  The Learned note that Paul cites all the passages of the Old Testament in this Epistle, not from the Hebrew sources, but from the Greek codices.

6.  The Author of this Epistle, no less than Matthew, translates Hebrew terms into Greek, when of Melchizedek and the King of Salem he speaks in Hebrews 7:2, πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ὅ ἐστι βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης, first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace.[13]

7.  Note that for the most part from one, namely, CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA, all that tradition flows.  For what he said of Luke as translator, afterwards others said of CLEMENT with EUSEBIUS and JEROME.  Besides whom, all the rest for the most part set this matter forth, relating the opinion of those going before, with, as it were, implicit faith, by appealing not obscurely to those more ancient, who had related this matter.

But now, what then was the foundation for those great Men handing down these things?

1.  The Agreement of Style of this Epistle with the history composed by Luke, that the speech’s τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν εὑρίσκεσθαι, very skin is discovered to be according to translation.  But, a.  Spanheim convicts this thesis of falsehood.  b.  That very affinity of speech may tell against translation:  for the Greek diction of a man learned in Greek is must differ in every respect from that diction which has been faithfully portrayed out of Hebrew or Syriac.  With which difference not here coming between the Epistle and Luke, the suspicion of translation vanishes.  c.  The same militates against Clement as translator, whom Eusebius, Jerome, and Œcumenius name, because the Epistle to the Hebrews τούτου σώζει τὸν χαρακτῆρα, preserves his stamp.  But Clement had drawn up his own in Greek, even in a Style diffuse and elegant:  if the character of our Epistle be very similar to it, it is not possible that that was translated verbatim from Hebrew.

2.  They had conjectured that Paul had written in Hebrew, because he had written to Hebrews:  EUSEBIUS out of CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA, Historia Ecclesiastica, book VI, chapter XIV, καὶ τὴν πρὸς ἑβραίους δὲ ἐπιστολὴν, Παύλου μὲν εἶναι φησὶ, γεγράφθαι δὲ Ἑβραίοις Ἑβραικῇ φωνῇ, the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and it is written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue.  But this account is mistaken:  a.  Because the Epistle has regard unto all the faithful of the Hebrews, not unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem or of Palestine alone.  But by then, with the Hebrews living beyond the borders of Palestine, Greek was commonly their native and more familiar language.  b.  At that time, neither were the Palestinians themselves ignorant of Greek, especially those that were of some note.  c.  In whatever way it may have been inscribed to the Hebrews, nevertheless it had to be common to all Nations, and its use had to be extended also then to the Churches of the Greeks.  And the Apostle understood that it was to be placed into the Canon with the rest.  d.  Peter, James, and John also wrote to the Hebrews, yet in Greek.

3.  No less false is that hypothesis of the Ancients, especially of Jerome, namely, that Paul was more eloquent in Hebrew than in Greek:  so that from the eloquence of the Epistle it is possible to judge that the same was written in Hebrew.  But just how greatly in this matter also they are deceived, Spanheim clearly shows.

              ג.  That the FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER was also written in Hebrew is to our AUTHOR a tradition similarly to be repudiated:  concerning which the Most Illustrious WOLF in his Curis Philologicis et criticis, præfatione ad hanc Epistolam, writes:  “That it was written in Hebrew, but translated into Greek by Mark, one, unless I am mistaken, Baronius, without appearance of truth, supposes in his Annalibus ad Annum Christi 45, n. 28, 37.”  Notwithstanding, Baronius appeals to JEROME, Epistolis CXLV, question XI, ad Hedibiam, opera, tome 3, page 151, “Thus far,” says he, “concerning the Epistle of Peter; which without any doubt was always received with the consent of the entire Catholic Church; and which was translated out of Hebrew by the Evangelist Mark, as Jerome appears to affirm, while, after he treated of the Gospel written by Mark, but received from Peter, he says these things:  Finally also the two Epistles, which are said to be of Peter, differ from each other in style and character, and in the arrangement of words.  From which we understand, according to the necessity of these things, that he made use of diverse interpreters.”  And besides Baronius the Illustrious SALMASIUS[14] is here able to be reckoned, who in the place cited in MARCKIUS’ Exercitationibus textualibus, Part II, Exercise XXXVI, § 5, page 625, instead of the gift of tongues granted to the Apostles on Pentecost, a gift clearly temporary, urges the example of Peter, who, while the gift of tongues was remaining, would not have needed a translator of Greek letters, whom all the Ancient Fathers assign to him, and to whose translation he says that it is likewise lawful to attribute the first catholic Epistle of Peter, which he believes to have been dictated by Peter in the Galilæan or Syriac tongue of that time.

But whatever else might thus be said concerning the writing of this Epistle, I willingly grant to the Most Illustrious Wolf that it was done without the appearance of truth, and that a tradition of this sort is no less easily rejected, than it is rashly affirmed.  That the gift of Tongues remaining among the Apostles, of which, for the propagation of the Gospel and the erection of the kingdom of Christ among all nations, they had daily need; MARCKIUS in the place cited confirmed against Salmasius:  and so also Peter himself may have written in Greek, or may have dictated to be written this former Epistle no less than the second:  both of which he indeed wrote to the Jews, but especially to those dispersed through Asia Minor, whose native language hence had already been made Greek instead, and with whose assembly converted Greeks had been intermixed; compare 1 Peter 2:10.  The inept gloss of Baronius and of Simon concerning the former Epistle of Peter written by the Apostle in Hebrew, but translated into Greek by Mark as Peter’s Translator, SPANHEIM also proscribes, in his Exercitationibus de Historicis Euangeliorum Scriptoribus, § 17, opera, tome 2, column 279; whom see.

              ד.  Moreover, our AUTHOR rejects the tradition of THE GOSPEL OF MARK, and THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, written in Latin.

That Mark had written his Gospel in Latin for the satisfaction of the Romans, and indeed at Rome, Baronius contends in his Annalibus on 45 AD, § 38-41, columns 390, 391, appealing to the Pontifical of Damasus[15] on the Life of Peter; and especially making use of this reasoning, 1.  that there was no reason on account of which Mark as the translator of Peter, writing for the satisfaction of the Romans and Italians, would write in Greek rather than Latin; especially since by the authority and example of the Emperor Tiberius[16] the Greek language was already dying out at Rome among the most estimable, and the Latin language was claiming for itself the principal place among all.  2.  That Mark, taking his Gospel from the preaching of Peter, since Peter would have addressed Roman men only in the Roman tongue, in no way could be presumed to have written those things that he heard in Latin, writing to Latins, in Greek:  while, even if Peter had made use of Greek or Hebrew idiom, inasmuch as he would have discharged the office of a Translator, he would have been obliged to render those things into Latin.  Neither is Bellarmine averse to this opinion, book II, de Verbo Dei, chapter VII, Controversiis, tome 1, column 105:  “But, that the book of Mark,” says he, “was written by Mark himself in Latin at Rome, and then converted into the Greek tongue by the same at Aquileia,[17] teaches Adrianus Finus, book 6, Flagelli Judæorum, chapter 80, and book 8, chapter 62, and Petrus Antonius Beuther, who followed Finus, annotationibus 8 and 9 ad sacram Scripturam.”  But also SELDEN,[18] Commentario in Eutychii Origines Alexandrini, pages 152, 161, expressly relates:  “Now, that Mark wrote in Latin, testimonies are indeed at hand, as that the Gospel was said to belong as much to Peter as to Mark.”  But, on the other hand, one may be permitted to observe the vanity of the traditions that here come together, and which the Most Illustrious SPANHEIM diligently laid out, Dissertatione de Historiæ Euangelicæ Scriptoribus, § 14 and following, which he makes an Appendix to book II of Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquorum, opera, tome 2, in which place see columns 277-284.

1.  He thinks it beneath the Apostolic dignity, that the Apostles needed Translators properly so called, of which sort they imagine Mark was to Peter, Titus was to Paul.  But also that it little agrees with the dignity of the Writers of the Evangelical history, that they only performed the office of Amanuenses and Translators.  That out of Papias the rest also gather that this title of Interpreter of Peter was given to Mark.  But that this was not the mind of Papias or Irenæus, of which sort an inferior age affixed to them, even JEROME himself understood, ad Quæstionem XI Hedibiæ, opera, tome 3, pages 151, 152.  That they meant nothing other than that Mark narrated the history that he had received from him, who was an αὐτόπτης καὶ ὑπηρέτης τοῦ λόγου, eyewitness and minister of the Word, of which sort was Peter, with that well-grounded πληροφορίᾳ/assurance/certainty, which is ἄνωθεν, from the very first, which Luke also narrates concerning himself.[19]  Therefore, Mark was an Interpreter, that is, of the same matters, of the same Gospel, which Peter with living voice had announced to the Hebrews, and had frequently confirmed in Mark’s hearing, when he was for a while a companion to him in Judea and Egypt.  “For it is not to be supposed that Mark had received his Gospel from the dictation of Peter,” says VALOIS on EUSEBIUS’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book III, chapter XXXIX, “but that, when he had heard Peter preaching the Word of God to the Jews in Hebrew, Mark studiously digested in the Greek language all the particulars that pertained to Christ.”  Least of all was Mark said to be an Interpreter of Peter, as if Peter, being ignorant of Greek, had been in need of an Interpreter.  a.  Thus the gift of Tongues would have been of little use to him.  b.  Mark himself was a Jew with respect to nation, an ἑβραΐζων, Hebrew speaker, rather than an ἑλληνίζων, Greek speaker, equally with Peter.  Therefore, why was Peter not found ἑλληνίζειν, to speak Greek, in like manner to Mark, his son or disciple?

2.  That Mark had written at Rome, with the Romans entreating him, a great many of the ancients indeed related after Papias, certainly after Clement of Alexandria, concerning whom see EUSEBIUS’ Historiam Ecclesiasticam, book II, chapter XV, compared with book II, chapter XXXIX.  But, a.  of this tradition (altogether vain according to SPANHEIM, Dissertatione de Historiæ Euangelicæ Scriptoribus, § 20, column 282, opera, tome 2) there is no other origin than that of Papias in Eusebius, hence of Clement of Alexandria, and also of Tertullian, that Mark was the Interpreter of Peter, as a ἀκόλουθον/follower, and, what things he had heard from Peter, he retained in memory and afterwards committed to writing.  From this, as tradition is wont to arise, Mark was believed to have been Peter’s amanuensis, with Peter dictating, or to have written his Gospel with him commanding.  Hence nothing was remaining except that supposedly the First of the Apostles founded the first Church, that is, the Roman Church, that it was written at Rome, and indeed in the Latin language.  At the same time, the Most Illustrious SPANHEIM gave a prolix and most learned Dissertationem de ficta Petri Profectione in Urbem Romam (found in book III of Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquorum, Dissertation III, opera, tome 2, columns 331-338, whose argument, contracted into a compendium, read below on Chapter XXXIII, § 7), in which he renders it quite doubtful whether Peter visited Rome:  with which foundation undermined, the whole structure of tradition mentioned above comes to ruin.  b.  GREGORY NAZIANZEN, who in Oratione XXV, opera, tome I, page 438, reckoned that Mark had preached and written in Italy, nevertheless supposed that he consigned his Gospel to writing in Greek.  But CHRYSOSTOM did not even approve that, that Mark had written at Rome, or at the request of the Romans; but ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, τῶν μαθητῶν παρακαλεσάντων αὐτὸν, in Egypt, with the disciples requesting it, homilia I, in Mattheum, page 7, opera, tome 7.  ISIDORE Hispalensis,[20] in his Chronico, relates that Mark wrote at Alexandria, where he was teaching, and that in Greek.  Thus the Chronicon Vetus, published at Oxford in 1692,[21] relates that Mark wrote his Gospel in Egypt in 47 AD, and in that same passage that he died at Alexandria in 63 AD.  And indeed it is not unlikely that Mark wrote to Alexandrian Jews and others of that same nation dispersed in Egypt, Palestine, Asia, and everywhere in the Roman Empire, and consequently in Greek, not Latin.

Caesar Baronius

Therefore, what Baronius presses beyond measure by his own ratiocinations is not so.  Neither is the testimony of Damasus advantageous to him, which is so fabulous that no confidence can be had in it:  for also in the same place he adds that Peter (who according to common opinion obtained the honor of martyrdom under Nero) read and approved the Gospels of the others and also of John.

Neither is there anything in the appeal others make:

1.  Either to the Latin name of Mark, which no more implies that Mark had written in Latin than Paul.

2.  Or to certain Latin words in this Evangelist turned into Greek.  For, a.  this also occurs in other Writers of the New Testament, neither is this strange since they were living under Roman domination.  b.  To these Latin words one may oppose pure Hebraisms no less found in Mark.

3.  Or to the Subscript of this Gospel in the Syriac Version, where you read of Mark, that he spoke and preached in Latin at Rome, but not that he wrote his Gospel in Latin; besides which, those Subscripts, as already cautioned above, are of very slight authority:  consult SPANHEIM’S Dissertationem laudatam de temere credita Petri Profectione Romam versus, part III, § 11-16, opera, tome 2, columns 360-363.  And his Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century 1, chapter VII, § 3, column 547, opera, tome 1; BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 4, tome 2, pages 1496b, 1497a.

              ה.  It is no more firmly proven that THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS WAS WRITTEN IN LATIN:  thus the Glossator on Gratian’s Distinction IX, chapter VI, “The whole New Testament was written in Greek, except the Gospel of Matthew, and the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, which was written in Latin.”  This is followed by Salmeron,[22] who maintains that this one Epistle was written in Latin, 1.  because Paul wrote it to Latins:  2.  because his amanuensis was Tertius, Romans 16:22, which is a Latin name.  On the other hand,

1.  Chrysostom and the rest of the Greeks, indeed all Interpreters, both Greek and Latin, hold the Greek text of this Epistle to be authentic and original, to which, when the reading is doubtful, they are wont to appeal.  2.  Learned men observe that this Epistle abounds in Grecisms.  3.  That the Latin Version sometimes appears to have been translated verbatim from the Greek text.  4.  At that time the Greek tongue was sufficiently familiar to the Romans; and Paul, writing at the same time unto converted Jews and Greeks that were living at Rome was able to choose no other Tongue more agreeable to both, than the Greek:  in addition to the fact that this Epistle passed into the Canon and use of the entire Church.  5.  The best of the Papists hence acknowledge that this Epistle was written in Greek, as does Bellarmine, when, in book II de Verbo Dei, chapter VII, Controversiis, tome I, column 105, he writes:  “It is evident that the New Testament was written in Greek…with only the Gospels of Matthew and Mark and the Epistle to the Hebrews excepted.”  CORNELIUS À LAPIDE also supports this, in his Argumento of this Epistle, page 26, where he has among other things:  “He writes from Greece, where he had already become accustomed to the Greek tongue; and therefore he writes in Greek also to the Romans, because to these, as also to others, the Greek tongue at that time was familiar and elegant.  Therefore, Paul does here, just as any French or Belgic man might write from France into Belgium unto Leuven or Antwerp in French.”

[1] Johannes Leusden (1624-1699) was a Dutch Reformed Orientalist; he served as Professor of Oriental Languages at Utrecht (1650-1699).

[2] Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis circa 100.  His Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord is preserved only in fragments.

[3] Sebastian Munster (1489-1552) was a German scholar of great talent in the fields of mathematics, Oriental studies, and divinity.  He joined the Lutherans, became Professor of Hebrew at Basil, and produced important early Reformation commentaries on the Old Testament (Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum) and on Matthew (Annotationes in Matthæi Evangelium Hebraicum).

[4] John Mercerus (died 1562) began his career as a Roman Catholic scholar.  He was one of the sixteenth century’s greatest experts in Hebrew, and he served as Professor of Hebrew and Chaldean in the Royal College, Paris (1549).  Roman Catholics lamented his conversion to Protestantism.

[5] The Ebionites were a second century Judaizing sect, who insisted upon the keeping of Jewish religious rites and laws.  They denied the Deity of Jesus Christ.  The existence of a second century heresiarch by the name of Ebion is a matter of some dispute.  Unlike the Ebionites, the Nazarenes held orthodox views concerning the person of Christ, but they tenaciously held to the ceremonial law of Moses.  Remnants of this sect seem to have survived into the twelfth century.

[6] Clement of Rome served as Bishop of Rome from 92 to 99.

[7] Little is known about Stephen Gobarus.  He wrote in the sixth century, and is called a “tritheist” by Photius.

[8] Cesare Baronio (1538-1607) was an Italian Cardinal and Vatican librarian.  He is remembered primarily for his work in ecclesiastical history, Annalibus Ecclesiasticis.

[9] Francis Ribera (1537-1591) was a Spanish Jesuit scholar, most remembered for his commentary on Revelation in which he advances the Futurist scheme of interpretation.  His work on his Commentario in Epistolam ad Hebræos was interrupted by death; it was finished by other hands.

[10] Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590) was an Italian Reformed theologian.  At the age of fifteen, he entered the monastery of the Augustinian Order of Regular Canons.  He came under the personal influence of Peter Martyr Vermigli; and the writings of the Reformers, especially Calvin, had a profound impact upon his thinking.  Zanchi served as Professor of Old Testament at Strasbourg (1553-1563), and Professor of Theology at Heidelberg (1568-1577).

[11] Andreas Hyperius (1511-1564) was a Flemish Protestant theologian.  He endeavored to mediate between Reformed and Lutheran theology, and so holds an important position in both traditions.  Hyperius served as Professor of Theology at Marburg (1541-1564).

[12] Daniel Tossanus, Sr. (1541-1602) was a French Reformed pastor and theologian.  He served as Professor of New Testament at Heidelberg (1586-1601).

[13] מלְכִּי־צֶדֶק/Melchizedek signifies King of Righteousness (מֶלֶךְ/king and צֶדֶק/righteousnss).  מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם signifies King of Peace (מֶלֶךְ/king and שָׁלֵם/ peace).

[14] Claudius Salmasius, or Claude Saumaise (1588-1653) was a French Protestant scholar of classical antiquity.  He succeeded Joseph Scaliger in the professorship at Leiden.

[15] Damasus I (c. 305-384) was bishop of Rome from 366 until his death.  He is noteworthy for leading the Church through the Apollinarian and Macedonian controversies, and for the encouragement that he gave to his personal secretary, Jerome, to undertake the translation of the Scriptures into Latin.

[16] Tiberius was Roman Emperor from 14 to 37 AD.

[17] Aquileia was a town in northeastern Italy.

[18] John Selden (1584-1654) was a learned English jurist and philosopher, and scholar of Jewish law.

[19] Luke 1:1-4:  “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed (πεπληροφορημένων) among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word (αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου); it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first (ἄνωθεν), to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”

[20] Isidore (c. 560-636) was Archbishop of Seville and a bright and shining light of learning in the intellectual darkness of his age.  He presided over the Second Council of Seville (619), which ruled against Arianism, and the Fourth Council of Toledo, which required bishops to establish seminaries in their principal cities.

[21] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a collection of annals, chronicling the history of the Anglo-Saxons.  It was commissioned by Alfred the Great (reigning from 871 to 899).  It begins with Cæsar’s invasion of Britain in 60 BC, and continues to the time of its composition.

[22] Alfonso Salmeron (1515-1585) was a Catholic priest, and one of the first Jesuits.  He wrote sixteen volumes of New Testament commentary, including expositions on Acts and the Pauline Epistles.