SECT. X. Arguments in favour of the opinion, that this Epiftle was written in Hebrew. TH HE firft argument, which induces me to believe, that this Epiftle was written in Hebrew, is, that it was written for the ufe of the Hebrews (as fome of the ancients, quoted in the preceding paragraph, have related), by which I understand Jewith Chriftians in Jerufalem. Now as Chaldee was the language generally fpoken by the people in Jerufalem, and Hebrew, or, as I would rather call it, Talmudic, was the language of the learned, and alfo the language of the church, and of prayer, I cannot fuppofe, that a man, who was mafter of the Hebrew, would write to a community at Jerufalem in any other language. When St. Paul fpake in public before the Jews in Jerufalem, he addreffed them in Hebrew, as St. Luke exprefsly relates, A&s xxi. 40. xxii. 2.: if then St. Paul was the author of the Epiftle, it is incredible, that he fhould have written to them in Greek. It is true, that there were many individuals in Jerufalem, who understood Greek, for inftance the Romans, the men of the highest rank among the Jews, with fuch of the Hellenists as were fettled there, and who are diftinguithed, Acts vi. 1. from the Hebrews: but the greateft part of the inhabitants were certainly unacquainted with Greek, and therefore the author of an Epiftle, containing matters of fo much confequence as the Epiftle to the Hebrews, would have hardly written in this language, etpecially as the Jewish converts at Jerufalem were for the most part perfons of inferior rank. Nay, I believe, that not all the teachers of the Chriftian community in Jerufalem, and very few among the Rabbins, would have understood a Greek Epiftle. 0 4 The The preceding argument would indeed be deprived of its force, were it true (what Ifaac Voffius has afferted) that Greek was the native language of the Jews of Jerufalem. But this affertion, which is contrary to all our hiftorical and philological knowledge, I have confuted at large in the eleventh fection of my Differtation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews. Lardner likewife objects, that Greek, if not the native language of the Jews of Jerufalem, was at least understood by many of them. But this objection is of no value what foever. Let us take an inftance in modern times, and the thing will fpeak for itfelf. In Hamburg for inftance, the English language is understood by a very confiderable part of the inhabitants; yet if the cafe fhould occur, that apprehenfions were entertained of an apoftacy from the Chriftian religion, and that too among the lower claffes, no man, who was able to write German, would think of addreffing to the people of Hamburg a pastoral letter written in English. The tradition therefore recorded by Clement of Alexandria in the fecond century is confirmed by its own internal probability. It is true, that this argument refts on the fuppofition, that the Epifle to the Hebrews was defigned for the Hebrews in Jerufalem: and therefore neither Dr. Noeffelt, who contends, that it was fent to the Theffalonians, nor they, who affert, that it was intended for the Chriftians in Afia Minor, will allow the argument to be valid. But fince the advocates for both of thefe opinions maintain, that St. Paul was the author, they must admit, that the following argument is valid, which I deliver indeed only hypothetically, but which no man can confute, if it be true, that this Epiftle was written by St. Paul. The Greek Epistle to the Hebrews, in the form in which we have it at prefent, cannot poffibly be St. Paul's In my Differtation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews, Se&. 13. I have made fome other obfervations, which tend to confirm the following argument, and to confute the objections to it. Paul's original: for his manner of writing Greek is totally different, whether we regard the choice of single words, the mode of connecting them, or the conftruction and rotundity of the periods. Origen, whom every one will admit to be a competent judge on this fubject, fays, This Epiftle has not that peculiarity, which belongs to the Apostle, and which immediately difcovers his writing, but in the conftruction of the language is better Greek (συνθέσει της λέξεως Ελληνικωτερα). This every one will admit, who is able to distinguish the difference of ftyles. Other critics in the time of Jerom perceived likewife the fame difference: for this learned father, in his Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers', fays: Epiftola, quæ fertur ad Hebræos, non ejus creditur propter ftyli fermonifque diffonantiam.' Whenever I read therefore this Epiftle, I cannot avoid feeling an astonishment, that fo many modern writers on this subject, some of whom undoubtedly are judges of the Greek language, thould mistake the Greek of the Epiftle to the Hebrews for the Greek of St. Paul. This miftake arifes perhaps, partly from the early imbibed prejudice, that all the canonical books of the New Teftament were written in Greek, and partly from the circumftance, that we read the Greek Teftament at school, at a time when we are unable to judge of the difference of style, and thus become fo accuftomed to it, that we are rendered unable at a later age to diftinguish between the modes of compofition, which are visible in the feveral parts of it. Carpzov, one of the most learned advocates for the opinion, that the Greek Epiftle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul, has made the following conceffion, in his Exercitationes in Epiftolam ad Hebræos, p. 91. Si quis orationem Pauli adcurate notavit, ftilum in hac ad Hebræos diffimilem aliquanto cognofcet effe illius, quo Apoftolus in reliquis epiftolis ufus eft. Nam caftitas Græcæ, linguæ, Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. VI. cap. 25. linguæ, pauciores Hebraifmi, phrafefque Cilicum aut Tarfenfium, particularum ufus elegantior, pofitus verborum valde venuftus, flores hinc inde intperfi, aliæ virtutes bene multæ, epiftolæ huic vel eo nomine præ cæteris Paulinis prærogativam videntur concedere.' Yet this learned writer, notwithstanding all thefe differences, ftill contends, p. 81. that the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul, and that its fuperiority to St. Paul's other Epiftles arofe from the circumftance, that the Apoftle had refolved to exhibit a fpecimen of fine writing, and to fhew how well he was able to write Greek, whenever he chofe it. Now, that St. Paul ever wrote an Epiftle, as a kind of fchool exercife in the Greek language, and that 'the Epiftle, which he chofe for this purpofe, was an Epiftle, not to Greeks, but to Hebrews, appears, I think, highly improbable. Still more improbable is the opinion of Cramer, who afcribes the difference in queftion to St. Paul's intercourfe with the Greeks, and a confequent improvement in the Apoftle's Greek style. Strange, that a native of Tarfus, where Greek and good Greek was fpoken, whom we find almost conftantly in Greek cities, in the accounts, which are given of him from Acts xi. to xx. fhould, after the four years and an half imprisonment, which he fpent out of Greece, namely two years at Cæfarea in Paleftine, where he was under a Roman guard, half a year at fea and in the ifland of Malta, and two years at Rome, make such a proficiency in the Greek language, as to be able to write in it much better than before. That there are fome, though very few Hebraifms, in this Epiftle, to which Cramer appeals, will not invalidate the argument derived from its ftyle: and he feems to have mistaken Origen and Jerom, who do not fay, that it is written in perfectly pure Greek, but only, that it is written in better Greek than that, which was used by St. Paul. And if the Hebraifms were still more Pag. 37. of the Introduction prefixed to his Differtation on the Epifile to the Hebrews. more numerous, than they really are, they would no more prove, that St. Paul was the author of the Epistle, than the Hebraifms, which are visible in Cramer's own Odes and Plalms, would prove thefe to be the work of the Apostle. It must be expected, not only that every Jewish, but every Greek writer, who was daily accustomed to the Septuagint, would occafionally introduce Hebraifms, unlets, like Jofephus, who wrote, not for Jews, but for Greeks and Romans, he made pure and claffic Greek his particular study. Carpzov has collected in his Prolegomena to this Epiftle, 76-78. expreffions, which, in his opinion, betray the ftyle of St. Paul: but whoever examines them, will find, that inftead of proving the point, for which they are quoted, they rather thew the weaknefs of the cause, which this learned advocate undertook to fupport. For inftance, he compares Heb. ix. 14. απο νεκρών εργων, εις, το λατρεύειν Θεώ ζωντι, with i Theff. i. 9. απο των ειδώλων, δελεύειν Θεῳ ζωντι και αληθινῳ. But in this example the ule of δελεύειν in the latter inftance, and of λargeve, which is finer Greek, in the former, must rather lead to the conclufion, that the paffages proceeded from different writers. It is true, that they agree in the words O CwvT; but the living God' is a phrate fo common among the Jewish writers, that no inference whatfoever can be drawn from it; and fince it likewife occurs in Matth. xvi. 16. John vi. 69. Acts xvi. 15. 1 Pet. i. 23. Rev ii. 2. we might with the fame reafon afcribe likewise these books to St. Paul. Again, he compares Heb. iv. 16. προσερχώμεθα εν μετα παρρησίας τῷ θρόνῳ της χάριτος, with Ephet. iii. 1 2. εν ᾧ εχομεν την παρρησίαν και την προσαγωγήν εν πεποιθήσει. Here the whole fimilarity confifts in the word waggia, a word which frequently occurs in παρρησία, other books of the New Teftament, and is used not lefs than four times in this very fente in the firft Epiftle of St. John. And even if the word wagensia were Ch. ii. 28. iii. 21. iv. 17. V. 14. παρρησία peculiar |