« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
‘ those two writings very different.’ This passage has been already twice quoted by us: once in the chapter of Clement t bishop of Rome, and again in that" of Eusebius. Philaster, bishop of Brescia, about 380, as formerly quoted, says, “There" are some, who do not allow the epistle * to the Hebrews to be Paul’s : but say, it is either an ‘ epistle of the apostle Barnabas, or of Clement bishop of * Rome. But some say, it is an epistle of Luke the evangelist. 6 Moreover, some reject it, as more eloquent than the ‘ apostle's other writings.” Jerom, about 392, in his article of St. Paul in the book of Illustrious Men, as " before cited also, says, “The epistle, ‘ called To the Hebrews, is not thought to be his, because of ‘the difference of the argument and style: but either Bar‘nabas's, as Tertullian thought, or the evangelist Luke's, “according to some others; or Clement's, bishop of Rome: * who, as some think, being much with him, clothed and “adorned Paul’s sense in his own language.— Moreover ‘ he wrote as a Hebrew to Hebrews in pure Hebrew, it ‘ being his own language. Whence it came to pass that, ‘ being translated, it has more elegance in the Greek, than ‘ his other epistles.’ I need not allege here any more testimonies relating to this matter. We sufficiently perceive by what has been said, that many ancient christians supposed the Greek of this epistle to have a superior elegance to the received epistles of St. Paul. And to some of them the Greek was their native language. And others, as Jerom, though Latins, may be supposed to have been good judges in this Inatter. Some learned men of late times, as Grotius and Le Clerc, have thought this to be an insuperable objection. Of this opinion likewise was Jacob Tollius: who in his notes upon Longinus, Of the Sublime, has celebrated the sublimity of this epistle, and particularly the elegance of the beginning of it. Which alone he thinks sufficient to show, that
* Vol. ii. ch. ii. u Vol. iv. ch. lxxii. " Ibid. ch. cx.
" Ibid. ch. cxlv. * Ejusmodi simplyusc, kal avaravosuc statim in initio eloquentissimae, et nescio annon omnem gentilium scriptorum Sublimitatem superantis, certe adaquantis epistolae ad Hebræos reperias; quam vel hoc uno Pauli non esse probaverim. Sed Sunt avatravostg illae non deorsum ruentis orationis, verum contra ea in coelum ascendentis snpuyuot. Ita vero incipit: IIoxvpspoc, kat troXvrpotroc, traXai o 0soc XaAngag roug trarpagw, c. A. Ubi tres consequenter sunt positi Paeones quarti cum syllabá post singulas remanente, velut ad subsistendum, dum ita in coelum ad Deum velut gradibus scriptor adscendit. J. Tollius ad Longin. de Sublim. Sect. 39. not. 22.
it is not Paul's. Others allow the fine contexture of the style of this epistle; but do not see that consequence. These are obliged to account for it: which they do several ways. Mr. Wetstein, who allows that the epistle is St. Paul’s, and that it was written in Greek, thinks that y Paul having now lived two years at Rome, may have improved his Greek style. But in answer to that it may be said, that we have several epistles of Paul, written near the end of his imprisonment at Rome, in which we perceive his usual style. e % gain, Mr. Wetstein adds, “That” this is a learned epistle, ‘ and may have been composed with more care and exactness ‘ than letters written to friends, or to churches, whose ‘ urgent necessities obliged him to write in haste.” But neither will this, I believe, be sufficient to account for the difference of style in this, and the epistles received as Paul's. For no care and attention will on a sudden enable a man to alter his usual style, in a remarkable manner. It remains therefore, as seems to me, that if the epistle be Paul’s, and was originally written in Greek, as we suppose, the apostle must have had some assistance in composing it. So that we are led to the judgment of Origen, which appears to be as ingenious and probable as any. “The “sentiments are the apostle's, but the language and compo‘sition of some one else: who committed to writing the * apostle's sense, and as it were reduced into commentaries “ the things spoken by his master.” According to this account, the epistle is St. Paul’s, as to the thoughts and matter, but the words are another's. Jerom, as may be remembered, said, “He wrote as a Hebrew to Hebrews in ‘pure Hebrew, it being his own language. Whence it ‘ came to pass, that being translated, it has more elegance in ‘the Greek, than his other epistles.’ My conjecture, which is not very different, if I may be allowed to mention it, is, that St. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the apostle's sentiments in his own elegant Greek. But who this assistant of the apostle was, is altogether unknown.
y Potuit Paulus aliter scribere, cum esset in Graecią, aliter postea, cum in Italiam translatus ex usu frequentiori linguæ Graeca, et Hebraïsmos vitare, et facilius scribere didicisset. Wetst. N. T. Tom. II. p. 385.
* Potuit hanc epistolam, quae erudita est, longiori meditatione elaborãsse, cum alias ad familiares amicos, vel ad ecclesias, ubi necessitas urgebat, festinantius effudisset, Ibid.
The ancients, beside Paul, have mentioned Barnabas, Luke, and Clement, as writers, or translators of this epistle. But I do not know that there is any remarkable agreement between the style of the epistle to the Hebrews and the style of the epistle commonly ascribed to Barnabas. The * style of Clement, in his epistle to the Corinthians, is verbose and prolix. St. Luke" may have some words, which are in the epistle to the Hebrews. But that does not make out the same style. This epistle, as Origen said, “as to the ‘ texture of the style is elegant Greek.” But that kind of texture appears not in Luke, so far as I can perceive. There may be more art and labour in the writings of Luke, than in those of the other evangelists: but not much elegance, that I can discern. This epistle to the Hebrews " is bright and elegant from the beginning to the end, and surpasseth as much the style of St. Luke, as it does the style of St. Paul in his acknowledged epistles. In short, this is an admirable epistle, but singular in sentinents and language: somewhat different in both respects from all the other writings in the New Testament. And whose is the language, as seems to me, is altogether unknown : whether that of Zenas, or Apollos, or some other of the apostle Paul's assistants, and fellow-labourers. 3. Obj. There still remains one objection more against this epistle being written by St. Paul : which is the want of his name. For to all the thirteen epistles, received as his, he prefixeth his name, and generally calleth himself apostle. This objection has been obvious in all ages. And the omission has been differently accounted for by the ancients, who received this epistle as a genuine writing of St. Paul. Clement of Alexandria, in his institutions, as cited by us" formerly from Eusebius, speaks to this purpose, “The epistle ‘to the Hebrews, he says, is Paul's. But he did not make ‘ use of that inscription, “Paul the apostle.” Of which he ‘assigns this reason. Writing to the Hebrews, who had ‘conceived a prejudice against him, and were suspicious of ‘ him, he wisely declined setting his name at the beginning, * lest he should offend them. He also mentions this tradition: “forasmuch as the Lord was sent as the apostle of Almighty “God to the Hebrews, Paul out of modesty does not style
* Clementest diffus,
&c. Beaus. Pref. Sur. l'épitre aux Hébreux. num. ‘ himself the apostle of the Hebrews: both out of respect ‘to the Lord, and that being preacher and apostle of the Gen‘tiles, he over and above wrote to the Hebrews.’ . Jerom also speaks to this purpose, “That “ Paul might ‘ decline putting his name in the inscription, on account of ‘the Hebrews being offended with him.’ So in the article of St. Paul, in his book of Illustrious Men. In his commentary upon the beginning of the epistle to the Galatians, he assigns another reason, “that ‘ Paul declined to style ‘ himself apostle at the beginning of the epistle to the He• brews, because he should afterwards call Christ “the ‘high priest, and apostle of our profession.”’ See ch. iii. 1. s Theodoret says, that Paul was especially the apostle of the Gentiles. For which he allegeth, Gal. ii. 9, and Rom. xi. 13. “Therefore & writing to the Hebrews, who were not ‘entrusted to his care, he barely delivered the doctrine of ‘the gospel, without assuming any character of authority. * For they were the charge of the other apostles.” I need not quote any others; which would be only a repotition of the same, or like reasons.” All these reasons may not be reckoned equally good. And, perhaps, none of them are sufficient and adequate to the purpose. But though we should not be able to assign a good reason, why Paul omitted his name; the epistle, nevertheless, may be his. For" there may have been a good reason for it, though we are not able to find it out. It is the work of a masterly hand, who for some reason omitted his name. Paul might have a reason for such silence, as well as another. Lightfoot says, “Paul’s not affixing his name to this, as ‘ he had done to his other epistles, does no more deny it to * Vel certe quia Paulus scribebat ad Hebræos, et propter invidiam sui apud eos nominis titulum in principio Salutationis amputaverat. De V. I. cap. v. * Et in epistolâ ad Hebræos propterea Paulum solitā consuetudine nec nomen suum, nec apostoli vocabulum praeposuisse, quia de Christo erat dicturus: ‘Habentes ergo principem Sacerdotum, et Apostolum confessionis, Jesum;’ nec fuisse congruum, ut, ubi Christus apostolus dicendus erat, ibi etiam Paulus apostolus pomeretur. In ep. ad Gal. cap. i. T. IV. p. 225. in. * Espatotg 36 ypapov, div ak evexsupwoom rmv stripleMetav, Yvpuumv roy ačwparov ćukorwg rmv Čučaoka)\tav Trpoonveykov' intro Yap rmv roy a\\ov atrosoxov trpoundstav eroev. Theod. in Hebr. T. III. p. 392. * Verum est, Paulum omnibus aliis epistolis, si hanc excipias, et nomen Suum praeposuisse, et titulos addidisse, quibus sibi auctoritatem conciliaret. Nectamen inde consequitur, hanc, de quá agimus, Pauli non esse. Autenim dicendum erit, nullius esse, quia momen nullum prefixum est: aut si alius quis contra morem receptum momen suum reticere potuit, idem aequo jure etiam Paulo lieuit. Wetst. N. T. tom. II. p. 384. med. * See his Works, Vol. I. p. 339.
vii. * Lucam autem hujus epistolae scriptorem ostenduntetiam vocabula et loquendi genera quædam Luce velut propria. Grot. Praef. in ep. ad Hebr. ° Toutlemonde reconnoit de l'éloquence et de
l'élévation dans l'epitre aux Hébreux. Beaus, ibid. * Vol. ii. ch. xxii.
‘ be his, than the first epistle of John is denied to be John's ‘ upon that account.” Tillemont says, “Possibly * Paul considered it as a book, * rather than a letter: since he makes an excuse for its ‘ brevity, ch. xiii. 22. For indeed it is short for a book, ‘ but long for a letter.” The same thought is in Estius. This may induce us to recollect an observation of Chrysostom to the like purpose, formerly " taken notice of. It is, I think, observable, that there is not at the beginning of this epistle any salutation. As there is no name of the writer, so neither is there any description of the people, to whom it is sent. It appears from the conclusion, that it was sent to some people in a certain place. And, undoubtedly, they to whom it was sent, and by whom it was received, knew very well from whom it came. Nevertheless there might be reasons for omitting an inscription, and a salutation at the beginning. This might arise from the circumstances of things. There might be danger of offence in sending at that time a long letter to Jews in Judea. And this omission might be in part owing to a regard for the bearer, who too is not named. The only person named throughout the epistle is Timothy. Nor was |. at that time present with the writer. Indeed I imagine, that the two great objections against this being a genuine epistle of the apostle; the elegance of the style, and the want of a name and inscription, are both owing to some particular circumstances of the writer, and the people to whom it was sent. The people, to whom it was sent are plainly Jews in Judea; and the writer, very probably, is Paul. Whose circumstances at the breaking up of his confinement at Rome, and his setting out upon a new journey, might be attended with some peculiar embarrassments; which obliged him to act differently from his usual method. IV. Thus we are brought to the fourth and last part of our inquiry concerning this epistle, the time and place of writing it. Mill was of opinion, that " this epistle was written by Paul in the year 63, in some part of Italy, soon after he had been released from his imprisonment at Rome.
* S. Paul. art. 46. Mem. T.I.
| Sed post haec omnia, an vera ratio omissae salutationis est, quod haec epistola scripta est per modum libri, non per modum epistolæ Unde in fine dicit: “Etenim perpaucis scripsi vobis.’ Quod de epistolà non erat dicturus, cum sit epistola prolixa. Est. de Auct. Ep. ad Hebr. p. 893.
In See Vol. iv. ch. cxviii. * Interea, mox ute carcere evasit apostolus, recessit in ulteriorem aliquam Italia, partem, ibique scripsit epistolam ad Hebræos. Proleg. num. 83.