Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Argument
A few things must here be premised. First, on the authority of this Epistle. Secondly, on its author. Thirdly, on its idiom and style. Fourthly, on its argument and scope.
It is asked therefore first, whether this Epistle is canonical Scripture. Marcion and Arius once denied it, and recently Luther, Brentius, Chemnitz, the Magdeburgians and Anabaptists; nay, even from the Catholics Cajetan, writing on this Epistle, doubts about this.
But I reply and say: It is of faith that the Epistle to the Hebrews is canonical Scripture. Thus the Council of Florence defines in the Instruction for the Armenians, and the Council of Trent, session IV. And this is the sense and consensus of the Fathers and ancient Church: for thus Innocent I once judged in his epistle to Exuperius, and the Third Council of Carthage, can. 47, and Laodicea, can. 59, and also the Canons of the Apostles, last canon. Athanasius teaches the same in the Synopsis; Augustine, book II On Christian Doctrine, ch. VIII; Jerome, epistle to Dardanus; Origen and Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, book VI of Ecclesiastical History, ch. XI and XVIII. Indeed Calvin, Beza, and their followers assert the same. The eight arguments which are objected against the authority of this Epistle by Erasmus and others, I will dissolve each in its own place. In the meantime, see them gathered together and discussed in Bellarmine, book I On the Word of God, ch. XVII, and Medina, book VI On Right Faith, ch. XXV.
It is asked secondly, who is the author of this Epistle? Erasmus and Calvin deny it is St. Paul; and once Tertullian, in his book On Modesty, judged it to be Barnabas. But I reply and say: It is certain that this Epistle is St. Paul's. Thus the Greek and Latin Fathers everywhere, whom Bellarmine cites above, and Galenus here. Indeed St. Peter teaches this same thing, in his second epistle, chapter III, verse 15: "Even as our most dear brother Paul wrote unto you," namely to the Hebrew Christians, fugitives from Judea on account of the persecution of the Jews, and dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia. For to these St. Peter writes both his second and his first epistle, as is clear from epistle I, chapter I, verse 1; for the Greek παρεπιδήμοις there signifies these Hebrew fugitives, sojourning in Greece or elsewhere, as Ribera rightly notes here.
You will say: Why then does Paul in other epistles prefix his name in saluting his own, but here is silent about that name?
Some answer that Paul did put his name in this Epistle also; but the translator omitted it, either because he obtained a defective copy from which he translated this, or by forgetfulness, or for some other reason.
But more probably St. Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, on Paul; Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius at the place cited, and others everywhere, answer that Paul kept silence about his own name in this Epistle, because the name of Paul had a bad sound among the Jews even Christian. For Paul was held an enemy of the Mosaic Law, and a patron of the Gentiles (who were hateful to the Jews). Add that if he had called himself Paul, since that is a Gentile and Roman name, he would have displeased the Jews, as if from Saul to Paul, from a Jew he had become a Gentile and Roman; but if he had called himself Saul, he would have seemed to the Gentiles to wish to return from the Gentiles to the Jews, and from Christianity to Judaism. Prudently therefore he kept silence about his name, lest by his name he should offend either these or those.
Some add that for the same reason Paul seems to have handed this Epistle over to Barnabas, that he might publish it as it were under his own name, and therefore it is ascribed by Tertullian to Barnabas. But Paul sufficiently indicates himself and his name to the Hebrews in the last chapter, verse 23.
A second cause why Paul here is silent about his name, Theodoret and Clement bring forward at the place already cited, namely the modesty of Paul, because he himself in this Epistle preaches and celebrates Christ, the first Apostle of the Hebrews. Again, because the Hebrews had been committed to the care of Peter and James, but Paul was the teacher and Apostle not of the Jews, but of the Gentiles. For this reason he was unwilling to name himself, because he would at the same time, according to custom, have had to call himself their Apostle; which he did not wish to do, but conceded this title both to Christ and to St. Peter and James. Hence Paul writes here to the Hebrews, not as their teacher and Apostle, but as their associate and friend, as is evident from the last chapter, verse 3.
Some add a third reason, namely that it was a custom of the Hebrews not to prefix their names to letters. This custom seems to be inferred from 4 Kings 10:2. But this reason does not seem sufficiently certain or solid.
Thirdly, it is asked in what language this Epistle was written. Some, with Origen and Clement of Alexandria in the cited passage, reply that it was written in Greek, so that the meaning and substance is Paul's, but the phrasing and style is St. Luke's or Clement's, and therefore it is more elegant than Paul's other epistles. But in this case Luke or Clement, rather than Paul, would be the author and hagiographic writer of this Epistle, inasmuch as composing and arranging the individual sentences of this Epistle not from himself, but by the instinct of God and at the dictation of the Holy Spirit.
I say therefore, with St. Jerome in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, in the entry on Clement, with Theodoret and Oecumenius here, and with Clement of Alexandria above, that Paul wrote this Epistle in Hebrew, inasmuch as he was a Hebrew writing to Hebrews: in Hebrew, I say, not pure, but corrupt, that is, in Syriac, as the Jews spoke after their return from Babylon and at the time of Christ. Paul therefore wrote this Epistle in Hebrew, that is, most eloquently in his own native tongue, and with equal eloquence it was translated into Greek by Luke, as Clement of Alexandria thought, according to Eusebius, Bk. VI of the History, ch. XI; or rather, as Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, and Oecumenius hold, by Clement of Rome, whose epistle to the Corinthians very much agrees with this one to the Hebrews both in style and sense. And this is the reason why between this Epistle to the Hebrews and Paul's other epistles to others, there is a great dissimilarity of style.
You will say: If he wrote in Hebrew, why then, when citing the Scripture of the Old Testament, does he not cite it according to the Hebrew text, but according to the Septuagint version?
I reply: In the Hebrew autograph Paul cited Scripture according to the Hebrew text, but the Greek translator substituted the Septuagint version, as more familiar to the Greeks. Thus Paul cited the Hebrew text in the Syriac (that is, Antiochian) synagogue, Acts 13:35 and 41, where however Luke, writing in Greek to Greeks, substituted the Septuagint version. The translator of St. Matthew did the same thing in chapter 13, verse 14, and elsewhere, as Jansenius and others noted there. Unless you prefer to say with Ribera, Galenus and Baronius, vol. 1, p. 677, that at that time the Septuagint version was the common one among all, both Jews and Greeks, and had been translated from Greek into the Syriac idiom, and that Paul cited that: hence both Josephus and Philo, although Hebrews, nevertheless follow and cite the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew autographs themselves.
You will say secondly: If Paul wrote these things in Hebrew, why then does he interpret one Hebrew name through another, saying in chapter 7, verses 1 and 2: "Melchizedek, who is interpreted king of righteousness;" and: "King of Salem, that is, of peace."
Some reply that Paul did not interpret these Hebrew names, but that the Greek translator added these interpretations to Paul's text. But this cannot be said: for the very context shows them to be Paul's; for in these very interpretations Paul himself places great force of his argumentation. I say therefore that Paul himself interpreted these Hebrew words through other similar ones, or through the same ones, but separated and distinguished, in order to inculcate them more, and to explain and press home the meaning latent in them, by saying in verse 2: "Melchisedec" is the same as melech, that is, king, sedec, that is, of righteousness; just as in Latin one rightly interprets by saying, frugifer (fruit-bearing) is the same as frugem ferens (bearing fruit), corniger (horned) is the same as cornu gerens (bearing a horn). Add that the Apostle does not interpret Hebrew words through Hebrew, but through Syriac, which the Jews then spoke: just as the Syriac translator (whom some think to be not a translator, but Paul's own autograph, which I shall presently examine) interprets the same names by saying, Melekisedec, that is, malca dekinuta.
You will inquire here whether the Syriac text which is extant in the Royal Bibles is Paul's own autograph; Albert Widmanstadt, lately Chancellor of the Emperor Ferdinand, attempts by many arguments to persuade us of this, who was the first to have the New Testament printed in Syriac in Europe, and Guido Fabricius, who translated it into Latin, and Matthew Galenus, Chancellor of Douai, who in commenting on this epistle follows and explains the Syriac in preference to the Greek.
But this is very uncertain and hardly probable. For to learned men this Syriac text seems more recent and translated from the Greek, especially since the same, and similar in every respect to itself, exists in all the epistles of Paul and the other Apostles, and in all the Gospels, which there is no doubt were originally written in Greek, not in Syriac, and were translated into Syriac by some Syrian translator. Although the Syrians think this translator was St. Mark the Evangelist, yet it is more truly the case that it was not Mark, but someone far later than Mark: for St. Cyril, Clement, Athanasius, Theodoret, Damascene, and others, who lived and wrote in Syria or Egypt, do not mention this Syriac version. Again, that this Syriac text is not of Paul, nor of Mark, nor of any Christian of that first age, is evident from the fact that this Syriac version differs in phrase and idiom from the Syriac language which the Jews spoke in the time of Christ, Paul, and Mark. For Matthew 27:8, in place of haceldema, as the Jews said in the time of Christ, the Syriac version now has aguresa daddema, where it Grecizes. For from ἀγρός, that is, field, it forms aguresa. So Matthew 27:46, in place of Eli Eli, as Christ said, the Syriac now has Il Il. So for Jerusalem, the Syriac translates Ourischlem; for Kephas, Kipho; for Pascha, Pezcho; for Golgotha, Golgoulto; for Joseph, Jauseph; for Jacob, Jaacoub; for Messias, Meschicho; for Moses, Mousche; for Esau, Isou; for Isaac, Ischok; for Israel, Israiel; for Abel, Hobel; for Cain, Koin. From these and other things it is clear that Christ and the Jews spoke in one idiom, but this Syriac version of the New Testament was written in another.
This Epistle is also extant printed in pure Hebrew. But that this is not the autograph of St. Paul, but rather that it was translated from Latin or Greek into Hebrew by some Hebrew, any learned person will easily detect.
Such also is the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, which Sebastian Münster, and after him Quinquarboreus, published, asserting that he had wrenched it from the Jews. As if indeed the Jews alone, the most hostile enemies of Christ, would have so carefully guarded it through so many centuries of years while the Christians neglected it. Add that this work is spurious and supposititious, as is sufficiently inferred from the fact that in the margin it often substitutes other synonymous words, plainly different from those in the text, for the text, and that it renders the Latin text word-for-word, and often follows the Hebraisms too childishly.
Such also is the Hebrew Tobit, which Paul Fagius, a man of equally suspect faith as Münster, published, having received it, as he himself says, at Constantinople, and substituted as the autograph. For St. Jerome testifies in the prologue prefixed to Tobit that Tobit was written not in the Hebrew, but in the Chaldean tongue, inasmuch as in the Assyrian captivity. Hence the Hebrew phrasing of this Tobit seems to be the mimicry of some Rabbi or Hebrew, inasmuch as it so childishly often corresponds word-for-word to the Greek text, that it plainly seems to be translated and expressed from it, with however certain things cut out which displeased the translator. Moreover this author feigns that Tobit, when he could not be cured, went into Germany. No doubt one may suspect that all these books are supposititious offspring of some German Lutheran or Jew, and perhaps of the same one by whom they were first published.
Fourthly, it is asked what is the argument of this Epistle? I reply: This Epistle was written as a kind of circular to all the Hebrews dispersed throughout the whole world, but chiefly to the Hebrews dwelling in Judaea, that it might be read through all their Churches. This is evident from the last chapter, verse 23, where he indicates that he, with Timothy, will shortly come to them, namely into Judaea. Why they are called Hebrews, I have said at 2 Corinthians 11:22.
Therefore Paul writes to the Hebrews with this end and purpose, namely that he may show and demonstrate to them the dignity of Christ and of the Gospel, to which Moses and the old law must yield, that is, that he may transfer them entirely, integrally, and perfectly from Judaism to Christianity, and confirm them in it. So the Greek Scholiast, Primasius, Sedulius, and others.
For this reason Paul here proposes to the Hebrews, and proves first, the divinity and dignity of Christ. Secondly, His priesthood, namely that the unique sacrifice of Christ on the cross, foreshadowed by all the ancient sacrifices, alone was sufficient to accomplish the redemption of us all. Thirdly, He demonstrates that Christ's office is that through His blood He is the expiator, redeemer, mediator of all sins, and our pontiff and the opener of heaven. Fourthly, he sets forth the difference and excellence of the New Testament over the Old. Fifthly, he consoles those who, by the Jewish magistrates, with the permission of the Roman governors, on account of faith in Christ and defection from the law of Moses, were as apostates being despoiled of their goods and harassed in various ways. Indeed, if we believe St. Chrysostom, this consolation and confirmation of these same persons is the scope of the entire Epistle. Finally, Paul concludes this Epistle, after his manner, with moral instruction and ethical precepts.
He wrote this Epistle, as he says in the last chapter, last verse, from Italy, namely Rome, not in the 14th year of Nero, when he returned to Rome from Spain a second time to be crowned with martyrdom, as some maintain; but when, during his first imprisonment, he had successfully pleaded his cause before Nero, and the best hope of his being freed shone forth, as is gathered from the last chapter, verse 23, namely in the fourth year of Nero, which was the sixtieth year of Christ. So Baronius, with Chrysostom, Galenus, and others.