The Works of Nathaniel Lardner, D.D. with a Life by Dr. Kippis ...

he had been so used: and where he fell into that five ' years' imprisonment, from which he was but just now delivered. To the like purpose also Mr. Wetstein.

But there is not any improbability, that Paul might now desire to see his countrymen in Judea; if he might go thither with safety, as I think he might. Almost three years had now passed since he left Judea; and his trial, or apology, had been over two years. And he was now set at liberty by the emperor himself. No man, not very presumptuous, would admit a thought of disturbing him. However, I suppose, that the apostle would behave discreetly so as to give no needless provocation to any, and that he would stay but a short time in Judea, and then go to Ephesus. There have been men of good sense, who have supposed, that Paul went to Jerusalem about this time, particularly Chrysostom among the ancients, and divers moderns, one of whom ist Pearson.

3. Obj. St. Peter's epistles were written to the Hebrew christians, scattered in Asia, and Pontus, Galatia, Cappa'docia, and Bithynia. St. Paul must have written an epis'tle to those Hebrew christians, to whom St. Peter writes 'his two epistles. For St. Peter, 2 epist. iii. 15, cites to them what "Paul had written unto them." No epistle of 'Paul was written to Hebrews, particularly, but this. So 'that these must be the Hebrews of the above named ' countries,'

To which I answer, that St. Peter's epistles were not sent to Jews, but to Gentiles, or to all christians in general, in the places above mentioned, as will be clearly shown hereafter. When St. Peter says, 66 as Paul has written unto you," he may intend Paul's epistle to the Galatians, and ▾ some other epistles written to Gentiles. If he refers at all to this epistle to the Hebrews, it is comprehended under that expression, ver. 16, "as also in all his epistles."

4. Obj. This epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been written in Greek. But if it had been sent to the Jewish believers in Judea, it would have been written in Hebrew.

¶ Ubi supra, p. 386.

s Lud. Capell. Hist. Apost. p. 39. sur les épîtres de St. Paul. num. lv.

• See before, p. 81.

L'Enfant et Beausobre, Préf. générale t Paulus e Cretâ cum Timotheo

in Judæam navigat. Heb. xiii. 23. Annal. Paulin. p. 21. A. Chr. 64. u Wall, as before, p. 318, 319. ▾ Videtur respicere Petrus ad Rom. ii. 4. ubi de Dei' longanimitate' similia habet his quæ docet hic Petrus: dicereque ad Asiaticos scriptam epistolam, quæ ad Romanos data, eo quod epistolæ Pauli, quamquam ad singulas ecclesias, et homines singulos, missæ, omnium christianorum illius ævi communes jure haberentur. Cleric. H. E. A. 69. p. 459.

To which I answer, that allowing the epistle to have been written in Greek, it might be sent to the believers in Judea. If St. Paul wrote to the Jewish believers in Palestine, he intended the epistle for general use, for all christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile original. Many of the Jews in Judea understood Greek. Few of the Jews out of Judea understood Hebrew. The Greek language was almost universal, and therefore generally used. All St. Paul's epistles are in Greek, even that to the Romans. And are not both St. Peter's epistles in Greek? and St. John's, and St. Jude's? Yea, did not St. James likewise write in Greek, who is supposed to have resided at Jerusalem, from the time of our Lord's ascension, to the time of his own death? His epistle is inscribed "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad." But I presume, that they of the twelve tribes who dwelt in Judea, are not excluded by him, but intended. Nor could he be unwilling, that his epistle should be read and understood by those, who were his special charge. The epistle written by Barnabas, a Levite, or ascribed to him, was written in Greek. Not now to mention any other Jewish writers who have used the Greek language.

II. Thus we are unawares brought to the inquiry, in what language this epistle was written. For there have been doubts about it among both ancients and moderns. So that we are obliged to take some particular notice of this point. But I should have deferred the consideration of it, till we had observed the writer of the epistle, if the just mentioned objection had not brought this inquiry in our way in this place.

And it may be recollected, that I formerly alleged divers learned and judicious moderns, who have been of opinion, that Greek, and not Hebrew, was the original language of this epistle. To them I now add several others: y James Capellus, S. Basnage, a Mill in his Prolegomena w Ils n'ont point eu d'autre raison de croire, que S. Paul avoit écrit en Hébreu, que celle qu'il écrivoit à des Hebreux. Or cette raison, toute vraisemblable qu'elle paroît, n'est point convaincante, parcequ'il est certain, que la langue Grecque étoit entendue dans la Judée, quoiqu'elle ne fût pas la langue vulgaire. Tous les auteurs du Nouveau Testament ont écrit en Grec, bien qu'ils écrivissent pour tous les fidéles, soit Hébreux, soit Gentils. Beaus. Préf. sur l'épître aux Hébreux. num. xv. * See Vol. iv. ch. lxxii.

y Jacob. Capell. observat. in ep. ad Hebr. sect. ii et iii. z Ann. 61. num, vi.

a Et sane magis adhuc futilis est eorum sententia, qui hanc epistolam Paulo quidem Hebraïce scriptam volunt, ab alio autem aliquo traductam fuisse in sermonem Græcum. Nihil enim clarius atque evidentius, quam eam linguâ Græcâ primitus conceptam fuisse, &c. Prolegom. num. 95-98.

to the New Testament, and the late Mr. Wetstein, and also Spanheim in his Dissertation concerning the author of this epistle, which well deserves to be consulted. One argument for this, both of Spanheim, ande Wetstein, is taken from the Greek paronomasias in the epistle, or the frequent concurrence of Greek words of like sound. Which seems to be an argument not easy to be answered.

Some ancient christian writers were of opinion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, and translated into Greek by Luke, or Clement, of Rome. Jeroms in particular, seems to have supposed, that this epistle was written in Hebrew. And Origen also is sometimes reckoned among those, who were of this opinion. But I think I have shown it to be probable that he thought it was written in Greek. It seems likewise, that they must have been of the same opinion, who considered the elegance of the Greek language of this epistle as an objection against its having been written by St. Paul. For if the Greek epistle had been supposed to be a translation, the superior elegance of the style of this epistle above that of the other epistles of Paul could have afforded no objection against his being the author of it.

Indeed the ancients, as Beausobre said formerly, had no other reason to believe that St. Paul wrote in Hebrew, but that he wrote to the Hebrews. So likewise says Capellus. The title deceived them. And because it was written to

Ad hæc observamus, 1. epistolam ad Hebræos, quæ nunc Græce exstat, non esse interpretis, sed ipsius auctoris. Qui putant ad Hebræos non aliter Hebraïce scribi debuisse, manifesto falluntur. Omnes enim novi fœderis libri, etiam Matthæi, ut ad ipsum vidimus, linguâ Græcâ scripti sunt. Hanc linguam plerique Judæi nôrant. Wetstein. T. Gr. T. II. p. 385.

quam

Spanh. De Auctore epist. ad Heb. Part. III. cap. ii. tom. II. p. 245–252. d Nono, decretorium fere argumentum est a Græcorum idiotismis, hac in epistolâ passim conspicuis. Pauca hæc de multis. Auctor. cap. v. versu 8. elegantem adhibet παρωνομασιαν, Scil. Εμαθεν αφ' ών επαθε, qualem Hebraïsmus non ferebat. Græci contra mire sibi in talibus placent, &c. Spanh. ubi supr. n. xii. p. 249. e Porro manifestæ reperiuntur paro

nomasiæ, et oμolorελevra, quæ si in aliam linguam convertantur, pereunt. Hebr. v. 8. et ver. 14. καλε τε και κακ8. vii. 3. απατωρ, αμητωρ. xi. 37. · επρισθησαν, επειρασθησαν. ix. 10. βρωμασι και πωμασι. xiii. 14. μεν σαν και μεsoav. Talia auctor potius sectatur quam interpres. Wetst. ib. p. 385.

f See Vol ii. ch. ii. xxii. and Vol. iv. ch. lxxii.

h See Vol. ii. ch. xxxviii. and Vol. iv. ch. lxxii.

i Vol. iv. ch. lxxii. See likewise here, p. 86. note".

Vol. iv. ch. cxiv.

* Qui volunt hanc epistolam Hebraïce scriptam, hos decepit titulus. Cum enim ad Hebræos scribebatur, Hebraïce quoque scribi debuisse sunt opinati. Sed meminisse debuerant, etiam Hierosolymis magnum fuisse linguæ Græcæ Cis Hierosolymam paucissimi Judæi aliter quam Græce loquebantur. Jacob. Capel. Observat. in Nov. Testam. p. 109.

usum.

Hebrews, they concluded it was written in Hebrew. For none of the ancients appear to have seen a copy of this epistle in that language.

III. I now proceed to the third inquiry, who is the writer of this epistle. And many things offer in favour of the apostle Paul.

1. It is ascribed to him by many of the ancients.

Here I think myself obliged briefly to recollect the testimonies of ancient authors, which have been produced at large in the preceding volumes. And I shall rank them under two heads: first, the testimonies of writers who used the Greek tongue, then the testimonies of those who lived in that part of the Roman empire, where the Latin was the vulgar language.

There are some passages in the epistles of Ignatius, about the year 107, which may be thought by some to contain allusions to the epistle to the Hebrews. The epistle seems to be referred to bym Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, in his epistle written to the Philippians in the year 108, and " in the relation of his martyrdom, written about the middle of the second century. This epistle is often quoted as Paul's by Clement of Alexandria, about the year 194. It is received, and quoted as Paul's by P Origen, about 230. It was also received as the apostle's by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria in 247. It is plainly referred to by Theognostus of Alexandria, about 282. It appears to have been received by Methodius, about 292, byt Pamphilus, about 294, and by" Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia, at the beginning of the fourth century, by the Manichees in the fourth, and by the Paulicians, in the seventh century. It was received, and ascribed to Paul by* Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in the year 313, and by the Arians in the fourth century. Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, about 315, says, 'There are fourteen epistles of Paul, manifest and 'well known: but yet there are some, who reject that to 'the Hebrews, alleging, in behalf of their opinion, that it was not received by the church of Rome, as a writing of Paul.' It is often quoted by Eusebius himself, as Paul's, and sacred scripture. This epistle was received by Athanasius without any hesitation. In his enumeration of St. See Vol. ii. p. 87, 88.

n P. 111.

9 P. 690, 721.

• P. 194-196.

▾ P. 403.

m P. 106.
P P. 495, 501.

" P. 225, 239.

r Vol. iii. p. 152.

t P. 226.

w P. 448.

u P. 258. * P. 567.

у Р. 581, 582.

a P. 119, 120.

z Vol. iv. p. 98, 102, 103.

b P. 155, 157.

ས་ ་

Paul's fourteen epistles, this is placed next after the two to the Thessalonians, and before the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The same order is observed in the Synopsis of scripture ascribed to him. This epistle is received as Paul's by Adamantius, author of a dialogue against the Marcionites in 330, and bye Cyril of Jerusalem, in 348, by f the council of Laodicea, in 363. Where St. Paul's epistles are enumerated in the same order, as in Athanasius, just taken notice of. This epistle is also received as Paul's byg Epiphanius, about 368, by the Apostolical Constitutions, about the end of the fourth century, byi Basil, about 370, by Gregory Nazianzen, in 370, by Amphilochius1 also. But he says it was not received by all as Paul's. It was received by Gregory Nyssen, about 371, by" Didymus of Alexandria, about the same time, by Ephrem the Syrian, in 370, and by the churches of Syria, by Diodorus of Tarsus, in 378, by Hierax, a learned Egyptian, about the year 302, bys Serapion, bishop of Thmuis in Egypt, about 347, byt Titus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, about 362, by Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia, about the year 394, by Chrysostom, at the year 398, by Severian, bishop of Gabala, in Syria, 401, by Victor of Antioch, about 401, by y Palladius, author of a life of Chrysostom, about 408, by Isidore of Pelusium, about 412, bya Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, in 412, by Theodoret, at 423, by cc Eutherius, bishop of Tyana, in Cappadocia, in 431, bydd Socrates, the Ecclesiastical Historian, about 440, byee Euthalius, in Egypt, about 458, and, probably, byff Dionysius, falsely called the Areopagite; by the author of the Quæstiones et Responsiones, commonly ascribed to Justin Martyr, but rather written in the fifth century. It is in the Alexandrian manuscript, about the year 500, and ii in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, about 806, is received as Paul's by kk Cosmas of Alexandria, about 535, by11 Leontius, of Constantinople, about 610, by' mm John Damascen, in 730, by an Pho

c P. 162, 163.. f P. 182.

i P. 279.

m P. 296.
P P. 321, 322.
s P. 271.

P. 537, 547. ✓ Vol. v. p. 6. b P. 15, 17.

ee P. 71.

hh Vol. v. p. 82. 11 P. 143.

d P. 167.

6 P. 187-189.

k P. 287.

n P. 303.
9 P. 377.

t P. 274, 404.
w P. 571.
z P. 10.
cc P. 33.

ff P. 73, 74.