poffibly warrant the inference, which has been drawn from them. In my Differtation on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 60. 62. 63. I have filled more than two whole pages with examples taken merely from tranflations, to which I now add a few more, which have fince occurred to me. In Jeremiah vii. 32. the Greek tranflation in the Septuagint is, 9x480 v Ty Tapel, which has given birth to the falle reading, θαψεσιν εν τῷ ταφῳ. In the very firft verfe of the Epiftle, with which we are now concerned, the Syriac verfion has the following parono μέρως και πολυτρόπως. The fame argument therefore, , where the Greek, sa navλn diargien spelwr, has no paronomafia whatsoever. Befides, the examples, which have been quoted from the Epiftle to the Hebrews, are for the most part inftances, not of ftudied, but of unavoidable fimilarity of found; and that which is taken from ch. xi. 37. is founded on a reading, the authenticity of which is not certain. One example, I grant, is an inftance of a real paronomafia, and that too, a paronomafia in common ufe among the Greeks. Namely, when they intended. to fay, that we learn from adverfity, they faid proverbially παθήματα μαθηματα. Now in Heb. v. 8. we find εμαθεν, αφ' ὧν επαθε, την ὑπακοήν. But admitting that the author of * See my Differtation on the Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 63-65. 1 See Carpzov on this paffage. of the Epistle had the Greek proverb in view, when he wrote this paffage, it does not neceffarily follow that the paffage itself was originally Greek for a proverbial expreffion in one language may occur to an author, when he is writing in another. It is likewife very poffible, that a person, who wrote in Hebrew, might have the fame thought, without any knowledge of the Greek proverb, and the circumftance therefore, that the tranflation contained a paronomafia, might be matter of mere accident: in the fame manner as the Latin docendo difco' is, when tranflated into German a real paronomafia, durch lehren lerne ich.' 4. It is faid, that if the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written originally in Hebrew, it is very extraordinary, that the original fo fuddenly disappeared, that no ecclefiaftical writer, even of the third or fourth century, ever faw a copy of it. This argument I will ftill ftrengthen by adding: What is the reafon likewife, that the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, who made ufe of the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, are not mentioned either by Jerom or Epiphanius, as having had a copy of the Hebrew Epistle to the Hebrews: and, what muft appear ftill more extraordinary, why did the author of the Syriac version tranflate this Epistle from the Greek, if its original was Hebrew. Answer. We cannot argue from the non-existence of a book in the third or fourth century to its nonexistence in the firft. It cannot be denied, that of the numerous works of antiquity, many had only a short duration and of the early extinction of a Hebrew Epiftle to the Hebrews it is by no means difficult to affign the caufe. The Greek tranflation, which must have been made at a very early age, fupplied the place of the original, which was unintelligible, except to the Chriftians of Palestine. But the Jewish war, and the deftruction of Jerufalem, obliged a greater part of the Chriftians in that country, to feek a fettlement in other places, where they gradually intermixed with the natives, and of course adopted their language. The Nazarenes and the Ebionites, who remained in Paleftine, and confequently P 4 J fequently retained their native language, were the only perfons therefore who can be fuppofed to have used a Hebrew Epiftle. But it is well known that they were declared enemies, both of St. Paul, and of his writings. If then St. Paul was the author of the Epistle, it is not extraordinary that they rejected it. On the other hand, if he was not the author, and the Epiftle proceeded from a perfon unknown, its early lofs can afford to no man just matter of surprise. 5. A fifth argument in favour of a Greek original, is, that the quotations in this Epiftle from the Old Teftament, are made in the words of the Septuagint. Anfwer. This may be afcribed to a tranflator, as eafily as to the author. And that we ought rather to ascribe this circumftance to a tranflator, appears from what I have already faid in the former part of this section, where I have fhewn, that the paffages, quoted in the words of the feptuagint, are fometimes lefs fuitable to the purpose, for which they were produced, than they would have been, if quoted, as they are worded in the Hebrew. 6. This Epiftle is more free from Hebraifms, than most other books of the New Teftament, which would hardly have happened, had it been a tranflation of a Hebrew original. Anfwer. It is furely poffible for a tranflator, who is mafter of the language, in which he writes, to produce a tranflation which bears no marks of the language, from which it was made. Befides, the Epiftle to the Hebrews is not abfolutely free from Hebraifms, of which I fhall give examples in the following fection. Nay, the very perfons, who have made ufe of the argument in queftion, have at other times, not only granted that there are Hebraifms, but even appealed to them, and compared them with the Hebraifms in St. Paul's Epiftles, in order to prove that he was the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews. To the preceding arguments, Mr. Neidel in the thefis quoted at the beginning of this fection has added the following ". See my Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 65-71. 7. The Epiftle to the Hebrews contains many allegorical interpretations, fuch as were in ufe among the Hellenift Jews, and are found in the writings of Philo: whereas allegories of this kind were not adopted by the Rabbins, who wrote in Hebrew, the Hebrew language being too poor to admit of them. Anfwer. The Hebrew writings of the Rabbins are fo far from being devoid of allegorical interpretations, that they abound with them, as every one knows, who has read these writings. They are even fo remarkable, that they have been diftinguifhed by a peculiar title, namely, that of Medrafh: and moreover St. Paul has been accufed of imitating this Rabbinical mode of interpretation. To the affertion, that the Hebrew language is too poor to have expreffed what is contained in the Greek Epifle to the Hebrews, I anfwer, this Epiftle has been tranflated into very good and fluent Syriac: and nothing would be more eafy, than to tranflate it into the Rabbinic and Talmudic dialects. This objection therefore proceeded from a want of fufficient information on the fubject. 8. The quotation made in ch. i. 7. 8 WON THE AYYEλs ποιων της αγγελος αὔτε πνεύματα, cannot be expreffed in Hebrew. Answer. The words here quoted are taken from Pfalm civ. 4. I admit indeed, with Mr. Neidel, that the Hebrew text in this paffage fignifies, he maketh the winds his meffengers:' but I do not admit that this is the only fenfe, of which it is capable, for m may be taken in the fenfe of fpirit,' and 7 in that of 'angel,' as the author of the Septuagint verfion of the Palms really has tranflated these words. 9. The word anchor' occurs ch. vi. 19. a term, which is hardly to be expected in a Hebrew work, as the Jews were not a fea-faring nation. Anfwer. The Syriac, which in the main agrees with the Chaldee, has feveral names for an anchor, among which the author of the Syriac verfion has chosen in this inftance and in the Talmud it is denoted by Nor is it true that the Jews were wholly חוגן or עיט unacquainted unacquainted with fhipping: for, to fay nothing of the age of Solomon, the city of Joppa was made a harbour by the high priest Simon", and Cæfarea by Herod'. The Jews committed even piracy in the Mediterranean, in the time of Pompey. 10. The word Seaтgi Soμevoi, ch. x. 33. has a manifest allufion to Greek cuftoms, and the notion conveyed by it cannot be expreffed in Hebrew, because theatres were not permitted among the Jews. Anfwer. Though theatres were inconfiftent with the Jewish customs, yet the Jews were not wholly unacquainted with them: and Herod even built a theatre both at Jerufalem', and at Cæfarea. The Greek word SeaTgo was adopted in the Syriac, Chaldee, and Talmudic, and written, 42, ph, n, as may be feen on confulting Buxtorf and Schaaf. In the present inftance however the Syriac tranflator has used a pure .ܚܙܒܢܐ Syriac word and written SECT. XIII. Examination of the question, whether the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews is in all refpects an accurate tranflation of the original. A S the Greek Epiftle to the Hebrews is only a tranflation, it proceeded from a perfon, who was not infallible, and was confequently expofed to the danger of mistaking the sense of his author. It is neceffary therefore, as far as can be done without a comparison with the original, to examine whether the translation be every where free from error. That the tranflator has executed 8 "I Maccab. xiv. 5. • Jofeph. Antiq. xv. 9. 6, 9 Ib. xv. 9. 6. |