The earlier part of the Talmud, the Mishna, was likewife written in this language.

2. Or Chaldee, that is, the Aramæan dialect spoken in Babylon and Affyria. This was the language spoken by the Jews of Jerufalem and Judæa, in the time of Chrift, as the Jews of Galilee spake Syriac, another Aramæan dialect, though very corruptly.

Which of the two explanations ought to be adopted I cannot at prefent determine, and therefore I shall take the word Hebrew' in its most extenfive fenfe, as including both Chaldee and Syriac, as well as that, which is commonly called Hebrew.

SECT. IX.

According to the most ancient tradition, or opinion, the Epifle to the Hebrews was written originally in He

brew.

THE

HE moft ancient tradition, or opinion, relative to the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is, that its original was Hebrew, and that what we have at prefent is a Greek tranflation of it. We have no

accounts of it, which reach fo far as the first century: but in the fecond century, Clement of Alexandria, who lived a hundred years, or three generations, after St. Paul, has, in a paffage quoted by Eufebius from a work, which is now loft, given the following relation:

That it was written by St. Paul in the Hebrew language for the ufe of the Hebrews, and that St. Luke tranflated it for the benefit of the Greeks, whence there is a fimilarity obfervable between the tranflation of this Epiftle

Epiftle and the Acts of the Apoftles". I quote the words of Clement preferved by Eufebius, not as hiftorical evidence, but merely to fhew what was the most ancient tradition or opinion. That part, which relates to St. Luke, as the tranflator, is undoubtedly falfe; for inftead of there being a fimilarity between the ftyle of the Epiftle to the Hebrews and that of the Acts of the Apostles, there is really fo confiderable a difference, that they cannot have proceeded from the fame writer. And the claufe, which immediately follows the words, which have been juft quoted, St. Paul did not call himself an Apoftle, that he might not make a difagreeable impreffion on the Hebrews, and because he was not the Apostle of the Jews,' is fo far from being hiftorically true, that it is nothing more than a very weak conjecture".

Eufebius himself, where he delivers his own opinion agrees in the main point with Clement of Alexandria : for fpeaking of Clement of Rome, who had quoted whole paffages from this Epiftle, though without naming it, Eufebius firft argues in favour of its antiquity, and then proceeds as follows. As St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews in their own language (dia Ins wargi grwrrns), fome fuppofe that St. Luke, others that our Clement tranflated the Epiftle, which latter fuppofition, on account of the fimilarity of ftyle, appears to me the moft probable.' Jerom likewife, though he doubts, whether St. Paul was the author, fays hypothetically, after he had noticed the difference in the language, Scripferat ut Hebræis Hebraice, id eft, fuo eloquio difertiffime, ut ea quæ eloquenter fcripferat

- Παύλο είναι φησι, γεγραφθαι δε Εβραιοις Εβραικη φωνη Λεκαν δε φιλοτίμως αυτην μεθερμηνεύσαντα εκδέναι τοις Έλλησιν, ὅθεν τον αυτόν χρωτα ευρισκεσθαι κατα την ἑρμηνειαν ταύτης δε της επισολής, ** Twv wężewv. Eufebii Hift. Ecclef. Lib. VI. c. 14.

* See Sect. 2. of this Chapter.

* Hift. Ecclef. Lib. III. c. 38.

ferat in Hebræo, verterentur in Græcum; et hanc caufam effe aiunt, quod a cæteris Pauli Epiftolis difcrepare videatur.' It is manifeft therefore, that these accounts are not hiftory, but opinion: it was taken for granted, that St. Paul was the author, whofe mode of writing being different from that obfervable in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, it was inferred, that the Greek was not the original: but of the tranflator they had no knowledge, and delivered merely their own conjectures. Further, the accounts of ancient writers on this fubject are at variance with each other: for Origen, though a dif ciple of Clement of Alexandria, makes no mention whatever of a Hebrew original, but fays only: In my opinion the matter was from St. Paul, but the language and conftruction of the words from another, who recorded the thoughts of the Apostle, and made notes, as it were, of what was faid by his mafter".'

The question therefore must be decided without an appeal to historical evidence, fince it appears, that we have in fact none; and it is really to be lamented, that Clement of Rome, though he has frequently produced paffages from this Epiftle, has not once mentioned, who was the author of it. External evidence then

being defective, we must have recourfe to internal.

* Απομνημονεύσαντος τα αποτόλικα, και ώσπερει σχολιογράφησαντος τα ειρημενα ύπο το διδάσκαλε.

SECT.

•ን

Arguments in favour of the opinion, that this Epiftle was written in Hebrew.

THE

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 spoken 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, Acts 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 Hellenifts as were fettled there, and who are diftinguished, 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, efpecially as the Jewish converts at Jerufalem were for the moft 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.

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 leaft understood by many of them. But this objection is of no value whatsoever. Let us take an inftance in modern times, and the thing will fpeak for itself. In Hamburg for inftance, the English language is understood by a very confiderable part of the inhabitants; yet if the cafe thould 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 Epiftle 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 these 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 Epiftle 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, Sec. 13. I have made fome other obfervations, which tend to confirm the following argument, and to confute the objections to it.