quent page), could not determine in what dialect he should write to the Hebrews, which they might all understand; for the pure Hebrew then existed in the Old Testament, though it was not in popular use. Among the Jews there were several dialects spoken, as the East Aramaan or Chaldee, and the West Aramæan or Syriac; which suffered various alterations from the places where the Jews were dispersed; so that the original Hebrew was known comparatively to few, and those who were conversant in Syriac might not be acquainted with the Chaldee. If therefore this Epistle had been written in biblical Hebrew, the learned few only could have read it; and had it been written in either of the other dialects, a part only of the Jews could have perused it. 2. By writing in Hebrew, the author of this Epistle could have instructed only his own nation; and his arguments would have availed only with the pious few, while the unbelieving multitude would in all probability have ridiculed his doctrines, and misrepresented them to the uninformed and to strangers. But by writing the Epistle in Greek, which language, we have seen, was at that time universally known and understood, he instructed his own countrymen, and also explained the Christian covenant to the Gentiles.2 The preceding is a summary of the arguments adduced on this much litigated point: and upon the whole, we are compelled to draw the conclusion, that the original language of the Epistle to the Hebrews must have been GREEK. The reader, however, will adopt which opinion he deems best supported concerning the Hebrew or Greek original of this Epistle. If he prefer the former, it may be satisfactory to him to be reminded, that the circumstance of this Epistle being first written in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek, by no means affects its genuineness and authenticity. III. The next object of inquiry respects the AUTHOR of this Epistle, some ascribing it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul; others to Clement of Rome, to the evangelist Luke, to Silas or Silvanus, or to Apollos; and the Christian church generally to the apostle Paul. Tertullian was the first who ascribed this Epistle to Barnabas, and his opinion was adopted by Cameron, and subsequently by Dr. Storr; but it rests on mere conjecture, for Tertullian cites no authority, and does not even say that this opinion was received by the church. He is also contradicted by Clement of Alexandria, who mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews as Saint Paul's; to which we may add, that the style of the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas differs so widely from that of the letter to the Hebrews, as to prove that it could not have been written by him. Further, it appears from Heb. xiii. 24. that this Epistle was written from Italy, where there is no evidence that Barnabas ever went. Philastries relates, that at the end of the fourth century, many persons attributed this Epistle to Clement of Rome; but this notion is contradicted by the fact that Clement has himself repeatedly quoted this Epistle. translation of this Epistle, ascribes it to Silas or Silvanus (by whom he imagines it was directed to the church at An tioch), and the illustrious reformer Luther thought that this Epistle was written by Apollos, who is mentioned in Acts xviii. 24. 28. as being an eloquent man, mighty in the Scripture, fervent in spirit, and one that convinced the Jews out of the Scripture itself; all which characters unquestionably are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But both these conjectures are totally unsupported by historical testimony, no mention whatever being made of any Epistle or other writing as being composed either by Silas or by Apollos. Some weight would certainly have attached to Luther's conjecture, if the excellent qualities ascribed to Apollos had been peculiar to him, or if they had not all been found in Paul in a more eminent degree than in Apollos. But Paul Apollos, and being also a divinely constituted apostle, the being endowed with more ample gifts and excellencies than conjecture of Luther necessarily falls to the ground.8 internal, for the opinion which has generally prevailed in the We are now to consider the evidence, both external and Christian church, viz. that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the genuine production of the great apostle to the Gentiles. 1. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OR HISTORICAL TESTIMONY. [i.] In the first place, it is acknowledged to be the production of Paul by the apostle Peter in his second Epistle (iii. 15, 16.); from which passage it is evident, (1.) That Peter had read all Paul's letters. was then writing, that is, to the believing Jews in general (2.) That Paul had written to those Christians to whom Peter (2 Pet. i. 1.), and to those of the dispersion mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1. Now, since there is no evidence to prove that this Epistle was lost, it follows that it must be that which is now inscribed to the Hebrews. (3.) That Paul wrote to them concerning the same topics which were the subjects of Peter's Epistle. Thus Peter writes that by Christ are given to us all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. i. 3, 4.), and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, in whom the Father is well pleased with us, of whom the prophets spoke. These very topics are copiously discussed in Heb. i. to x. 19. Again, Peter exhorts them to faith and holiness (2 Pet. i. 5-16. ii. 15.); so also does Paul. (Heb. ii. 1—5. iii. 1. 6-19.) Peter shows the danger of apostasy (2 Pet. ii. 20, 21.), and so does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. (Heb. vi. 4-9.) (4.) In the Epistle mentioned by Peter, he seems to ascribe to Paul an eminency of wisdom. It was, he says, wrinen according to the wisdom given to him. As Paul made use of that wisdom which had been conferred on him in writing all his other Epistles, so there is no doubt that he exerted the same wisdom, zeal, and love in writing the Epistle to the Hebrews: but, in the passage now under consideration, Peter eminently distinguishes that apostle's wisdom. He does not refer to Paul's spiritual wisdom in general, in the knowledge of the will of God and of the mysteries of the Gospel; but he particularly alludes to the especial holy prudence which Paul has displayed in the composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, whom the structure of his arguments was singularly adapted to convince, if unbelievers": while his warnings and encouragements were admirably calculated to animate the believing Hebrews to constancy and fortitude in the faith of the Gospel. At the same, time, nothing more clearly shows the singular wisdom, which Peter asserts to be manifest in this letter, than Paul's condescension to the capacities, prejudices, and affections of those to whom he wrote and whom he constantly urged with their own principles and con The same author also informs us that some ascribed it to Luke; and this hypothesis has been adopted by Grotius and by Janssens, on account of a supposed resemblance of style between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the writings of Luke, and especially on account of the greater elegance of style and choice of words discoverable in this Epistle, than is to be found in Paul's other letters. But to this hypothesis there are several objections. For, 1. Luke was a Gentile by birth, and could not have acquired that intimate knowledge of the Hebrew literature and religion which Paul possessed, who was instructed by Gamaliel and other celebrated Jewish teachers. 2. If Luke wrote this Epistle, why did he not rather ascribe it to the Greeks, who were his countrymen? 3. Ecclesiastical antiquity is totally silent concerning this (5.) That Peter affirms there were some things discussed in Epistle as being written by that evangelist, to whom all the the Epistle to the Hebrews, which were hard or difficult to be primitive Christian writers unanimously ascribe the Gospel understood (Tiva Suovonta). Now Paut explicitly states (Heb. v. which bears his name, and also the Acts of the Apostles. 11.) that some of the topics which he was to discuss in that 4. The author of this Epistle addresses the Hebrews (xiii. Epistle were Suspμnvera, hard to be uttered, or difficult to be 18, 19.) as persons among whom he had preached the Gos-interpreted, and consequently hard to be understood; particularly pel: and as it nowhere appears that Luke had preached to the converted Jews, it follows that he could not be the author of this Epistle. Among the modern writers, C. F. Boehme, in his Latin 1 See pp. 352-356, infra. cessions. the topic he immediately had in view, viz. the typical nature of the person of Melchisedek. Or if it refer to the priesthood of Christ, that would be still more "hard to be uttered," because it implies not only his being constituted a priest after this typical order, but also his paying down the ransom for the sins of the whole world, and his satisfaction of divine justice by this sacrifice, 2 Francisci Junii Parallela Sacra, lib. 3. c. 9. in Ep. ad Hebr. tom. i. p. and thus opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers. Topics 1595. edit. Genevæ. 1613. 3 See the observations on this topic in Vol. I. p. 49. De Pudicitia, c. 20. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 34. See the passage also in Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii p. 211.; 4to. vol. i. p. 394. Hær. c. 89. Lardner, 8vo. vol. iv. p. 500.; 4to. vol. i. p. 522 like these it would be difficult for the apostle to explain in a And because restitution, by repairing the injury that has been done, restores the person who did the injury to the character which he had lost, the apostle, to enable Onesimus to appear in Philemon's family with some degree of reputation, bound himself in this Epistle by his handwriting, not only to repay all that Onesimus owed to Philemon, but to make full reparation also to Philemon for whatever injury he had done to him by running away." To account for the solicitude expressed by Paul in this Epistle in order to obtain Onesimus's pardon, and procure a thorough reconciliation, it is not necessary to suppose, with some critics, that Philemon was keen and obstinate in his resentments, or of that rough and mtractable disposition for which the Phrygians were proverbial. The contrary is insinuated by the apostle, who has in other places commended his benevolence and charity. It is most probable, as Dr. Macknight has conjectured, that Philemon had a number of slaves, on whom the pardoning of Onesimus too easily might have had a bad effect; and therefore he might judge some punishment necessary as an example to the rest. At least Paul could not have considered the pardoning of Onesimus as an affair that merited so much earnest entreaty, with a person of Philemon's piety, benevolence, and gratitude, unless he had suspected him to have entertained some such intention. V. Whether Philemon pardoned or punished Onesimus, is a circumstance concerning which we have no information. From the earnestness with which the apostle solicited his pardon, and from the generosity and goodness of Philemon's disposition, the eminent critic above cited conjectures that he actually pardoned Onesimus, and even gave him his freedom, in compliance with the apostle's insinuation, as it is interpreted by some, that he would do more than he had asked. For it was no uncommon thing, in ancient times, to bestow freedom on those slaves whose faithful services had procured for them the esteem and good will of their masters. The primitive Christians preserving this Epistle, and placing it in the sacred canon (Dr. Benson remarks), are strong arguments to induce us to believe that Philemon granted the apostle's request, and received Onesimus into his house and favour again. As Onesimus was particularly recommended by Saint Paul to the notice of the Colossians (iv. 9.), it cannot be doubted that they cheerfully received him into their church. In the Apostolical Constitutions,2 Onesimus is said to have been bishop of Berea; but they are a compilation of the fourth century, and consequently, of no authority. When Ignatius wrote his Epistle to the Ephesians (A. D. 107), their bishop's name was Onesimus: and Grotius thought that he was the person for whom Saint Paul interceded. But this, as Dr. Lardner3 remarks, is not certain. Dr. Mills has mentioned a copy, at the conclusion of which it is said that Onesimus suffered martyrdom at Rome by having his legs broken. urged every thing that can be said upon the occasion. Pliny SECTION XVI. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. I. To whom written.-II. In what language.-III. Its genuineness and authenticity.-Proofs that it was written by Paul.-IV. Its date.-V. Occasion and scope of this Epistle.-VI. Synopsis of its contents. I. AFTER the thirteen Epistles avowedly written by Paul, with his name prefixed to them, succeeds what we call the Epistle to the Hebrews; the nature and authenticity of which has been more controverted, perhaps, than any other book of the New Testament. As the initiatory formula, usual in the other apostolical letters, is wanting in this Epistle (notwithstanding the superscription terms it the Epistle to the Hebrews), it has been questioned whether it was really an Epistle sent to a particular community, or only a discourse or dissertation intended for general readers. Michaelis determines that it is an Epistle, and remarks that not only the second person plural ye incessantly occurs in it, which alone indeed would be no proof, but also that the author alludes to special circumstances in this writing, in chapters v. 11, 12. vi. 9. x. 32-34., and above all in chapter xiii. 23, 24., which contains the promise of a visit, and various salutations; all which circumstances taken together show that it really is an apostolical Epistle. Who the Hebrews were, to whom this letter was addressed, learned men are by no means agreed. Sir Isaac Newton was of opinion that by "the Hebrews" in this Epistle we are to understand those Jewish believers who had left Jerusalem a short time before its destruction, and were now dispersed throughout Asia Minor; but of this we have no authentic record. Others again have imagined that it was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Spain, Galatia, Macedonia, or at Corinth or Rome, or to those who resided in Palestine. Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Euthalius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and other fathers, were of opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was sent to the converted Jews living in Judæa; who in the apostle's days were called Hebrews, to distinguish them from the Jews in the Gentile countries, who were called Hellenists or Grecians. (Acts vi. 1. ix. 29. xi. 20.) The opinion of these learned fathers is adopted by Beza, Louis Cappel, Carpzov, Drs. Lightfoot, Whitby, Mill, Lardner, and Macknight, Bishops Pearson and Tomline, Hallet, Rosenmüller, Hug, Scott, and others. Michaelis considers it as written for the use of the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem and in Palestine; and Professor Stuarts, (who is followed by M. La Harpe) that it was directed to Hebrews in Palestine, and probably to the church of Cæsarea. The very ancient opinion last stated is corroborated by the contents of the Epistle itself, in which we meet with many things peculiarly suitable to the believers in Judæa. 1. It is evident from the whole tenor of this Epistle, that the The whole of this Epistle is indeed a most beautiful composition. Such deference and respect for Philemon, such affection and concern for Onesimus, such distant but just insinuation, such a genteel and fine address pervade the whole, that this alone might be sufficient to convince us that Paul was not unacquainted with the world, and was not that weak and visionary enthusiast, which the enemies of revelation have sometimes represented him to be. It is, indeed, impossible to peruse this admirable Epistle without being touched with the delicacy of sentiment, and the masterly address that appear in every part of it. We see here, in a most striking light, how perfectly consistent true politeness is, not only with all the warmth and sincerity of the friend, but even with the dignity of the Christian and the apostle. Every word has its force and propriety. With what dignity persons to whom it was addressed, were in imminent danger of and authority does Paul entreat, though a prisoner! With falling back from Christianity to Judaism, induced partly by a what condescension and humility does he command, though severe persecution, and partly by the false arguments of the raban apostle! And if this letter were to be considered in no bins. This could hardly have happened to several communities other point of view than as a mere human composition, it must at the same time in any other country than Palestine, and therebe allowed to be a master-piece in its kind. As an illus- fore we cannot suppose it of several communities of Ásia Minor, tration of this remark, it may not be improper to compare it to which, in the opinion of some commentators, the Epistle was with an Epistle of the younger Pliny,5 that seems to have been written on a similar occasion; which, though composed by one who has always been reckoned to excel in the epistolatory style, and though it undoubtedly has many beauties, yet it must be acknowledged by every impartial reader to be vastly inferior to this animated composition of the apostle. Pliny seems desirous of saying something; the apostle has Doddridge, Introd. to Philemon. Observations on the Apocalypse of Saint John, p. 244. 8 Stuart's Comm. on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 67-73. (An. dover, N. Am. 1827.) In pp. 8-67. he has discussed the various hypo theses of Dr. Storr, who supposes it to have been written to the Hebrew church at Thessalonica; of Bolten, who imagined that it was directed to Hebrews who were sojourners in Asia Minor; of Michael Weber, who church at Galatia; of Noesselt, who considered it as addressed to the advanced and endeavoured to support the opinion that it was addressed to the church at Corinth; and of the ancients (whose opinion he adopts), that this epistle was written to the Hebrew church in Palestine. La Harpe, Essai Critique sur l'Authenticité de l'Epitre aux Hebreux p. 136. (Toulouse, 1832. addressed. Christianity at this time enjoyed, from the tolerating spirit of the Roman laws and the Roman magistrates, throughout the empire in general, so much religious liberty, that out of Palestine it would have been difficult to have effected a general persecution. But, through the influence of the Jewish sanhedrin in Jerusalem, the Christians in that country underwent several severe persecutions, especially during the high-priesthood of the younger Ananus, when Saint James and other Christians suffered martyrdom. 2. Further, if we examine the Epistles of Saint Paul, especially those to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, and compare them with the two Epistles of Saint Peter, which were addressed to the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, we shall find, though mention is made of seducers, not the smallest traces of imminent danger of an apostasy to Judaism, and still less of blasphemy against Christ, as we find in the sixth and tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The two passages of this Epistle (vi. 6. x. 29.) which relate to blasphemy against Christ, as a person justly condemned and crucified, are peculiarly adapted to the situation of communities in Palestine; and it is difficult to read these passages without inferring that several Christians had really apostatized and openly blasphemed Christ; for it appears from Acts xxvi. 11. that violent measures were taken in Palestine for this very purpose, of which we meet with no traces in any other country at that early age. Neither the Epistles of Saint Paul, nor those of Saint Peter, furnish any instance of a public renunciation of Christianity and return to Judaism: and yet, if any such instances had happened in the communities to which they wrote, these apostles would hardly have passed them over in silence, or without cautioning other persons against following such examples. The circumstance, likewise, to which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews alludes (x. 25.), that several who still continued Christians forsook the places of public worship, does not occur in any other Epistle, and implies a general and continued persecution, which deterred the Christians from an open confession of their faith. In this melancholy situation, the Hebrews, almost reduced to despair, are referred (x. 25. 35-38.) to the promised coming of Christ, which they are requested to await with patience, as being not far distant. This can be no other than the promised destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.), of which Christ himself said (Luke xxi. 28.), "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." Now this coming of Christ was to the Christians in Palestine a deliverance from the yoke with which they were oppressed; but it had no such influence on the Christians of other countries. On the contrary, the first persecution under Nero happened in the year 65, about two years before the commencement of the Jewish war, and the second under Domitian, about five-and-twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem. 3. From ch. xii. 7. though no mention is made in express terms of martyrs who had suffered in the cause of Christianity, we may with great probability infer, that several persons had really suffered, and afforded a noble example to their brethren. If this inference be just, the Hebrews, to whom this Epistle was written, must have been inhabitants of Palestine, for in no other part of the Roman empire, before the year 65, had the enemies of Christianity the power of persecuting its professors in such a manner as to deprive them of their lives, because no Roman court of justice would have condemned a man to death, merely for religious opinions; and the pretence of the Jews, that who ever acknowledged Jesus for the Messiah was guilty of treason against the emperor, was too sophistical to be admitted by a Roman magistrate. But, in Palestine, Stephen and the elder James had already suffered martyrdom (Acts vii. xiii.); both Saint Peter and Saint Paul had been in imminent danger of undergoing the same fate (Acts xii. 3-6. xxii. 11-21.26. 30.); and according to Josephus, several other persons were put to death, during the high-priesthood of the younger Ananus, about the year 64 or 65.3 4. The declarations in Heb. i. 2. and iv. 12., and particularly 1 This is evident from the Acts of the Apostles. See also Lardner's Credibility, chap. vii. (Works, 8vo. vol. i. pp. 164-201.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 90-110.) Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 9. § 1. The words of Josephus are as follow:-"The younger Anani, who had obtained the office of high-priest, was a man of desperate character, of the sect of the Saducees, who, as I have observed in other places, were in general severe in their punishments. This Ananus embraced the opportunity of acting according to his inclination, after the death of Festus, and before the arrival of his successor Albinus. In this interval he constituted a court of justice, and brought before it James, a brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and several others, where they were accused of having violated the law, and were condemned to be stoned to death. But the more moderate part of the city, and they who strictly adhered to the law, disapproved highly of this measure." Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 193-197. the exhortation in ii. 1-4., are peculiarly suitable to the believers of Judæa, where Jesus Christ himself first taught, and his disciples after him, confirming their testimony with very numerous and conspicuous miracles. 5. The people to whom this Epistle was sent were well acquainted with our Saviour's sufferings, as those of Judæa must have been. This appears in Heb. i. 3.; ii. 9. 18.; v. 7. 8.; ix. 14. 28.; x. 12.; xii. 2, 3.; and xiii. 12. 6. The censure in v. 12. is most properly understood of Christians in Jerusalem and Judæa, to whom the Gospel was first preached. 7. Lastly, the exhortation in Heb. xiii. 12—14. is very difficult to be explained, on the supposition that the Epistle was written to Hebrews who lived out of Palestine; for neither in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in the other Epistles, do we meet with an instance of expulsion from the synagogue merely for a belief in Christ; on the contrary, the apostles themselves were permitted to teach openly in the Jewish assemblies. But if we suppose that the Epistle was written to Jewish converts in Jerusalem, this passage becomes perfectly clear, and Dr. Lardner observes, must have been very suitable to their case, especially if it was written only a short time before the commencement of the Jewish war, about the year 65 or 66. The Christians, on this suppsition, are exhorted to endure their fate with patience, if they should be obliged to retire, or should even be ignominiously expelled from Jerusalem, since Christ himself had been forced out of this very city, and had suffered without its walls. It was a city devoted to destruction, and they who fled from it had to expect a better in heaven. The disciples of Christ had been already warned by their Master to flee from Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv. 15-22.), and the time assigned for their flight could, when this Epistle was written, be not far distant. That they actually followed his advice, appears from the relation of Eusebius ; and, according to Josephus,5 the most sensible inhabitants of Jerusalem took similar measures after the retreat of Cestius Gallus, which happened in November 66, and likewise left the city. If we suppose, therefore, that the Epistle was written to the Hebrews of Jerusalem, the passage in question is clear; but on the hypothesis, that it was written to Hebrews, who lived in any other place, the words, "Let us ge forth with him out of the camp, bearing his reproach," lose their meaning. Further (x. 25.) the exhortation, Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the day approaching, is an additional confirmation of this opinion, The approaching day can mean only the day appointed for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the downfall of the Jewish nation: but this event immediately concerned only the Hebrews of Palestine, and could have no influence in determining the inhabitants of other countries, such as Asia Minor, Greece, and Spain, either to forsake or to frequent the places of public worship. To these clear and decisive evidences, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians resident in Palestine, it has been objected, 1. That the words in Heb. xii. 4. (ye have not resisted unto blood, combating against sin) cannot apply to the church of Jerusalem, where there had already been two martyrs, viz. Stephen and James. But this objection is of no weight; for the apostle was addressing the laity of that church, to whom alone this Epistle was directed, and not to the rulers; and few, if any, of the common people, had hitherto been put to death, though they had been imprisoned, pillaged, and defamed. Compare Acts viii. 1-3. xxvi. 10, 11. and 1 Thess. ii. 14. 2. That the remark in Heb. vi. 10. (God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister) is not suitable to the state of the church at Jerusalem, at that time, because, though the members of that church at first were in a state of affluence, when they had all things in common, yet afterwards they became so poor that they were relieved by the contributions of the Gentile Christians in Macedonia, Galatia, Corinth, and Antioch. There is, however, no force in this objection. Ministering to the saints in those days did not consist solely in helping them with money. Attending on them in their imprisonment-rendering them any little offices of which they stood in need-speaking to them in a kind and consolatory manner-these and such other services as may be performed without money were, and still are, as much ministering to the saints as affording them pecuniary aid. And, doubt 4 Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 25. Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 20. § 1. Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 199. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 383-387.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 326, 327. less, the members of the church at Jerusalem ministered in that manner to one another in their afflictions. But, though the generality of the members of that church were reduced to poverty by the sufferings they had sustained, yet in all probability there were some among them in better circumstances who might have deserved the commendation, that they had administered and did minister to the saints, by giving them a share of their worldly goods. Upon a review, therefore, of all the circumstances, we shall be justified in adopting the opinion of the ancient church, that this Epistle was addressed to Hebrew Christians in Palestine; but it is (as Michaelis has observed) a question of little or no importance, whether it was sent to Jerusalem alone, or to any other city in Palestine; because an Epistle, intended for the use of Jewish converts at Jerusalem, must equally have concerned the other Jewish converts in that country.2 II. The next question concerning this Epistle relates to the LANGUAGE in which it was written. On this subject there have been two principal opinions; one, that it was originally written in Hebrew, and translated into Greek by Luke or Barnabas; and the other, that it was written in Greek. The former opinion is entertained by the fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Euthalius, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, and (as some have supposed) Origen, and also by Bahrdt, Michaelis, and others among the moderns. The latter opinion-that it was originally composed in Greek-is held by Fabricius, Beausobre, Cappel, Owen, Basnage, Mill, Leusden, Pictet, Wetstein, Braunius, Heidegger, Van Til, Calmet, Carpzov, Pritius, Moldenhawer, Lardner, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmiller, Rumpæus, Viser, Alber, Bishop Tomline, Dr. Hales, Professor Stuart, and we believe, by almost every modern commentator and critic who has treated on this book. The arguments for the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic original of this Epistle may be reduced to the two following: 1. As this Epistle was written for the use of Hebrew Christians, it was proper that it should be written in their own language. To this argument, it has been replied, first, That if it was proper that the apostle should write to them in the Hebrew tongue, it must have been equally proper for him to write his letter to the Romans in their own language; yet we know that Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans was not written in Latin, the language of Rome, but in Greek: nay, that all his Epistles, and those of the other apostles, were written in Greek, and not in the languages of the churches and persons to whom they were addressed. Secondly, The Apostolical Epistles being intended for the use of the whole Christian world in every age, as well as for the persons to whom they were sent, it was more proper that they should be written in Greek than in any provincial dialect; because the Greek language was then universally understood. The arguments already adduced, to show that Greek was the original language of the New Testament generally, are equally applicable to prove that the Epistle to the Hebrews was never written in Hebrew.3 2. It is objected, that this Epistle has been originally written in Hebrew, because its Greek style is superior to that of Saint Paul's other Epistles. To which Rosenmüller, after Carpzov, has replied by observing, that the difference in style may be readily accounted for, by considering, that this was one of the apostle's last Epistles, and that from his extensive intercourse with men of various ranks and conditions, during his numerous journeys, "Paul the aged" would naturally write in a different style from Paul when a young man. To this remark we may add, that there are such coincidences of expression between this Epistle and Saint Paul's other letters, which were in Greek, as plainly show that he was its author, and consequently did not write it in Hebrew; but as this topic is discussed more at length in a subsequent page, we proceed to remark, that, as the Syriac version of this Epistle was made from the Greek at the end of the first or at the beginning of the second century, it is evident that no Hebrew original was then extant; and consequently that Michaelis's hypothesis, respecting the blunders committed by the supposed translator, has no foundation whatever. Again, the Epistle is said to have been translated by Clement of Rome, but where or when, we are not informed. Was this translation executed in Italy before it was sent to the Hebrews? If so, what 1 Macknight's Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews, sect. 2. § 1. 2 Michaelis, Introd. vol. iv. p. 193 See Vol. I. Part I. Chap. I. Sect III. § II. pp. 193, 194. To the above argument we may add, that the apostolic father Barnabas wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews in the GREEK language. See pp. 332-356. infra, where the question respecting the author of this epistle is considered. purpose could be answered by writing it in Hebrew when it was only to be used in Greek? Was it sent in Hebrew before the supposed translation? In what language was it communicated to others by the Christians who first received it? Clement was never in the East to translate it. And if all the first copies of it were dispersed in Hebrew, how came they to be so utterly lost, that no authentic report or tradition concerning them, or any one of them, ever remained: besides, if it were translated by Clement in the West, and that translation alone were preserved, how came it to pass, that it was so well known and generally received in the East before the Western churches received it into their canon of Scripture? This tradition, therefore, respecting its translation by Clement, is every way groundless and improbable. Independently of the preceding considerations, which show that the Epistle to the Hebrews was never extant in the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic dialect, the Epistle itself furnishes us with decisive and positive evidence that it was originally written in the language in which it is now extant. manifests that it is no translation. It has altogether the air of 1. In the first place, the style of this Epistle, throughout, an original. There is nothing of the constraint of a translator, nor do we meet with those Hebraisms which occur so constantly in the Septuagint version.5 2. Hebrew names are interpreted as Melchizedek by King of Righteousness (vii. 2.), and Salem by Peace, which interpretation would have been superfluous if the Epistle had been written in Hebrew. If this Epistle be a translation, and not an original, because the interpretation of a few words is added, we may with equal propriety affirm that Saint Paul wrote his Epistles to the Galatians and Romans in Hebrew, because he has added the interpretation of the Syriac word Abba,-father (Rom. viii. 15. Gal. iv. 6.), or that John wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, because (i. 47. xx. 16.) he has explained the meaning of the Hebrew word Rabboni. The same remark may be extended to the other three evangelists, all of whom, we have seen, wrote in Greek, as the whole current of Christian antiquity also attests. A further proof that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in Greek, and consequently was not a translation, is, that the argument of the author is founded on the interpretation which he has given us of the words above cited. 3. The passages, cited from the Old Testament in this Epistle, are not quoted from the Hebrew, but from the Septuagint, where that faithfully represented the Hebrew text. Frequently the stress of the argument taken from such quotations relies on something peculiar in that version, which could not possibly have taken place if the Epistle had been written in Hebrew And in a few instances, where the Septuagint did not fully render the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the author of the Epistle has substituted translations of his own, from which he argues in the same manner, whence it is manifest that this Epis tle never was extant in Hebrew. 6 Independently of these (we think indisputable and posi tive) arguments for the Greek original of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which Michaelis has attempted to answer, but without success, the hypothesis that it was written in He brew is attended with several difficulties, and particularly the two following: 1. That at the time the author (Paul, as is shown in a subse The numerous paronomasias, or occurrences of words of like sound, but which cannot be rendered in English with due effect, that are to be lation. See instances of such paronomasias in Hebrews v. 8. 14. vii. 3. 19. found in this Epistle, have been urged as a clear proof that it is not a trans22. ix. 10. x. 34. xi. 37. and xiii. 14. (Gr.) But of these paronomasias, Prof. Stuart observes that the instance from Heb. x. 34. is the only one which appears to betray any marks of design; and even here the marks are by no means of a decisive nature. "If they are altogether accidental, they may have occurred in the Epistle to the Hebrews, even if its present language is merely that of a translation. In fact, even designed paronoinafavour of the Greek being the original language of the Epistle to the Hesias may, not unfrequently, occur in a translation. The argument in brews built on such instances of paronomasia as those above cited (where, in most" examples "it is a mere homophony of like tenses or cases), is too uncertain and too slender to be rested on, as a proper support of the opinion in question." Stuart's Comm. on the Hebrews, vol. i. p. 282. Dr. Owen has ably treated this topic in his fifth exercitation on the Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 46-53. folio edition. Calmet, Comment. Literal. tom. several other divines have laid much stress upon the rendering of the Heviii. pp. 631, 632. Stuart's Commentary, vol. i. pp. 282-285. Calvin and brew word herith by Six, which denotes either testament or covenant: and Michaelis has acknowledged that this is the most specious of all the arguments adduced to prove that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in Greek. But Braunius affirms that it proves nothing either way. Proleg. in Ep. ad Hebr. p. 25. The objections to this Epistle of Drs. Schulz and Seyffarth, grounded on the mode in which its author quotes and appeals to the Old Testament (and also on particular phrases and expressions), are examined in detail, and most satisfactorily refuted by Professor Stuart (Commentary, vol. i. pp. 205-252, or pp. 236-290. in the London edition.) quent page), could not determine in what dialect he should The preceding is a summary of the arguments adduced on this much litigated point: and upon the whole, we are compelled to draw the conclusion, that the original language of the Epistle to the Hebrews must have been GREEK. The reader, however, will adopt which opinion he deems best supported concerning the Hebrew or Greek original of this Epistle. If he prefer the former, it may be satisfactory to him to be reminded, that the circumstance of this Epistle being first written in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek, by no means affects its genuineness and authenticity. III. The next object of inquiry respects the AUTHOR of this Epistle, some ascribing it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul; others to Clement of Rome, to the evangelist Luke, to Silas or Silvanus, or to Apollos; and the Christian church generally to the apostle Paul. translation of this Epistle, ascribes it to Silas or Silvanus (by whom he imagines it was directed to the church at An tioch), and the illustrious reformer Luther thought that this Epistle was written by Apollos, who is mentioned in Acts xviii. 24. 28. as being an eloquent man, mighty in the Scripture, fervent in spirit, and one that convinced the Jews out of the Scripture itself; all which characters unquestionably are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But both these conjectures are totally unsupported by historical testimony, no mention whatever being made of any Epistle or other writing as being composed either by Silas or by Apollos. Some weight would certainly have attached to Luther's conjecture, if the excellent qualities ascribed to Apollos had been peculiar to him, or if they had not all been found in Paul in a more eminent degree than in Apollos. But Paul Apollos, and being also a divinely constituted apostle, the being endowed with more ample gifts and excellencies than conjecture of Luther necessarily falls to the ground.s internal, for the opinion which has generally prevailed in the We are now to consider the evidence, both external and Christian church, viz. that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the genuine production of the great apostle to the Gentiles. 1. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OR HISTORICAL TESTIMONY. [i.] In the first place, it is acknowledged to be the production of Paul by the apostle Peter in his second Epistle (iii. 15, 16.); from which passage it is evident, (1.) That Peter had read all Paul's letters. was then writing, that is, to the believing Jews in general (2.) That Paul had written to those Christians to whom Peter (2 Pet. i. 1.), and to those of the dispersion mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1. Now, since there is no evidence to prove that this Epistle was lost, it follows that it must be that which is now inscribed to the Hebrews. (3.) That Paul wrote to them concerning the same topics which were the subjects of Peter's Epistle. Thus Peter writes that by Christ are given to us all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. i. 3, 4.), and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, in whom the Father is well pleased with us, of whom the prophets spoke. These very topics are copiously discussed in Heb. i. to x. 19. Again, Peter exhorts them to faith and holimess (2 Pet. i. 5-16. ii. 15.); so also does Paul. (Heb. ii. 1—5. iii. 1. 6-19.) Peter shows the danger of apostasy (2 Pet. ii. 20, 21.), and so does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. (Heb. vi. 4-9.) Tertullian was the first who ascribed this Epistle to Barnabas, and his opinion was adopted by Cameron, and subsequently by Dr. Storr; but it rests on mere conjecture, for Tertullian cites no authority, and does not even say that this opinion was received by the church. He is also contradicted by Clement of Alexandria, who mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews as Saint Paul's; to which we may add, that the style of the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas differs so widely (4.) In the Epistle mentioned by Peter, he seems to ascribe to from that of the letter to the Hebrews, as to prove that it Paul an eminency of wisdom. It was, he says, wriven accordcould not have been written by him. Further, it appears ing to the wisdom given to him. As Paul made use of that wisfrom Heb. xiii. 24. that this Epistle was written from Italy, dom which had been conferred on him in writing all his other where there is no evidence that Barnabas ever went. Phi- Epistles, so there is no doubt that he exerted the same wisdom, lastries relates, that at the end of the fourth century, many zeal, and love in writing the Epistle to the Hebrews: but, in the persons attributed this Epistle to Clement of Rome; but this passage now under consideration, Peter eminently distinguishes notion is contradicted by the fact that Clement has himself that apostle's wisdom. He does not refer to Paul's spiritual repeatedly quoted this Epistle. wisdom in general, in the knowledge of the will of God and of the mysteries of the Gospel; but he particularly alludes to the especial holy prudence which Paul has displayed in the composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, whom the structure of his arguments was singularly adapted to convince, if unbelievers: while his warnings and encouragements were admirably całeulated to animate the believing Hebrews to constancy and fortitude in the faith of the Gospel. At the same, time, nothing more clearly shows the singular wisdom, which Peter asserts to be manifest in this letter, than Paul's condescension to the capacities, prejudices, and affections of those to whom he wrote and whom he constantly urged with their own principles and con The same author also informs us that some ascribed it to Luke; and this hypothesis has been adopted by Grotius and by Janssens, on account of a supposed resemblance of style between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the writings of Luke, and especially on account of the greater elegance of style and choice of words discoverable in this Epistle, than is to be found in Paul's other letters. But to this hypothesis there are several objections. For, 1. Luke was a Gentile by birth, and could not have acquired that intimate knowledge of the Hebrew literature and religion which Paul possessed, who was instructed by Gamaliel and other celebrated Jewish teachers. 2. If Luke wrote this Epistle, why did he not rather ascribe it to the Greeks, who were his countrymen? 3. Ecclesiastical antiquity is totally silent concerning this (5.) That Peter affirms there were some things discussed in Epistle as being written by that evangelist, to whom all the the Epistle to the Hebrews, which were hard or difficult to be primitive Christian writers unanimously ascribe the Gospel understood (Tava Suoven). Now Paul explicitly states (Heb. v. which bears his name, and also the Acts of the Apostles. 11.) that some of the topics which he was to discuss in that 4. The author of this Epistle addresses the Hebrews (xiii. Epistle were Suceveura, hard to be uttered, or difficult to be 18, 19.) as persons among whom he had preached the Gos-interpreted, and consequently hard to be understood; particularly pel: and as it nowhere appears that Luke had preached to the converted Jews, it follows that he could not be the author of this Epistle. Among the modern writers, C. F. Boehme, in his Latin 1 See pp. 352-356, infra. cessions. the topic he immediately had in view, viz. the typical nature of the person of Melchisedek. Or if it refer to the priesthood of Christ, that would be still more "hard to be uttered," because it implies not only his being constituted a priest after this typical order, but also his paying down the ransom for the sins of the whole world, and his satisfaction of divine justice by this sacrifice, 2 Francisci Junii Parallela Sacra, lib. 3. c. 9. in Ep. ad Hebr. tom. i. p. and thus opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers. Topics 1595. edit. Geneva. 1613. See the observations on this topic in Vol. I. p. 49. De Pudicitia, c. 20. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 34. See the passage also in Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii p. 211.; 4to. vol. i. p. 394. Hær. c. 89. Lardner, 8vo. vol. iv. p. 500.; 4to. vol. i. p. 522 like these it would be difficult for the apostle to explain in a |