...

says οἱ ἀπὸ Θεσσαλονίκης Ιουδαίοι, to the subsequent coming of these persons to Berea, and their demeanour there, Review, p. 14. But it would be rather a singular reason for calling men οἱ ἀπὸ . because, in the subsequent course of narration, we might have occasion to speak of their being or acting in some other place besides that named in connexion with a. Besides; nothing can be plainer than that in the phrase οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης Ιουδαῖοι. ἀπὸ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης is by the laws of grammatical construction a mere adjective in substance. Bleek does not need to be told that circumstances of this nature thrown in between the article and the noun to which it belongs, are adjectives in their very nature, i. e. by the laws and usages of the Greek language; so that here is a cause definitely speaking what was claimed for it in the first edition of the present work. If the writer had meant to express the idea for which Bleek contends, he would of course have said s de yvwoav oi Ιουδαῖοι, ἦλθον ἀπὸ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης κακεῖ σαλεύοντες κ. τ. λ. Acts xxi. 16, συνῆλθον δὲ καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν ἀπὸ Καισαρείας σὺν ἡμῖν, κ. τ. λ., 1. e. some of the Christian brethren belonging to Cesarea, set out from that place in company with Paul and his friends, or accompanied them; a case of the same nature with that in Acts x. 23 noted above. Here there is surely no reference to the writer as being out of Cesarea, nor to the τῶν μαθητῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Καισαρείας as being out of Cesarea, but to the simple fact, that some of the Cesareans accompanied Paul and his friends on their journey to Jerusalem.

After exhibiting these illustrations of the principle in question concerning the use of of aò. . . . . it will be sufficient merely to refer to other examples of the like usage. Matt. xxvii. 57, 'Iwon'¶ àñò'Agıμadaías, Joseph the Arimathean, i. e. Joseph belonging by birth or origin to Arimathea; surely not Joseph who had lately come from that place, for he was voxμwv Bovλevtýs, one of the honourable Sanhedrin at Jerusalem; comp. the same expression in Mark xv. 43. Luke xxiii. 51. John xix. 38. So the expression Jesus . . . . ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, is plainly the some as Jesus ὁ ὢν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, i. e. who belongs there, Jesus the Nazarene; comp. Acts x. 38, John i. 46. 5ο ἀπὸ Κιλικίας, a Cicilian, Acts xxiii. 34; τινὲς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Ασίας Ιουδαῖοι, certain Asiatic Jews, Acts xxiv. 18; (the position of Tivès àñò x. T. λ. makes this meaning certain again). Mark iii. 7, λÙ πλñdos áæò Tanınaías followed him [Jesus]; yet Jesus was now in Galilee, and did not leave here when the multitudes in question followed him. John i. 45, Philip àñò Вnfoaïdá, i. e. the Bethsaidan, a native of Bethsaida; comp. John xii. 21. John xxi. 2, Nathanael i àTÒ Kava, a native of Cana. Matt. iv. 25, great multitudes àñò гanınaías followed Jesus, etc.; yet both he and they were in Galilee during all the time of their following him. Matt. xv. 1, οἱ ἀπὸ ̔Ιεροσολύμων γραμματεῖς, from the position of the words, must mean simply the Jerusalem scribes, i. e. scribes who belonged to Jerusalem.

Other instances might easily be added; but I apprehend that Bleek himself will candidly admit that no more are necessary.

From all this it is plain enough, then, that of àñò'Iranías means neither more nor less than the Italians, i. e. those who belonged to the country of Italy; and this, without at all determining whether the writer, or they, or both, were out of Italy, at the time when he wrote.

Had the Greek Concordance been consulted, the critics who have occasioned this long philological disquisition, would probably have seen, that where άrò is designed to express a local removing or distance, such verbs as gxoμai, διαγείρω, ἀναβαίνω, παρέρχομαι, ἀποχωρέω, καταβαίνω, ἀπέχω, κ. τ. λ. are employed before it, or along with it.

I must continue, then, to entertain my former views respecting of άò τs 'Iranías, until I find some better reason to change them than I have yet been able to find. Nay, I may even venture to call in question whether it is agreeable to the usus loquendi of the Greek, to employ oi àñò. . . . in order to designate persons as those who have gone from one place to another, unless some verb is joined with the phrase which expresses the action of going, etc.; compare for example, Acts xviii. 2. Matt. iii. 7. iii. 13, 16. vii. 23. viii. 1, 11, 34. xii. 43. xiii. 1. xiv. 29. xvii. 9, 18. xix. 1. Mark i. 9, 10, 42. iii. 22. v. 35, etc., etc.

In reference, however, to the whole phrase in question, it is asked, ́ How came Italians to salute a church in Palestine? If Paul wrote our epistle at Rome, why did he not say, ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ Ρώμης ? What acquaintance had the Romans with the church at Palestine ?'

This objection, however, will not bear examination. The Romans surely were Italians; and it is a matter of indifference, whether the writer at Rome said, οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ρώμης, οι οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλίας, if he meant to send only the salutation of Christians who resided at Rome. But is it at all probable that there were not Christians often at Rome from various parts of Italy, who were acquainted with Paul, and who cherished a friendly interest for the church whom he was addressing? If these also, as well as the Romans, wished to send the expression of their friendly regards to the Hebrews, what other phraseology could Paul have adopted, that would be more appropriate than of άTÒ Tns 'Iranías, which would embrace Christians in general who lived in the country where the writer was?

Then why should this be thought so strange, when an example of the very same nature may be produced from the acknowledged writings of Paul? This apostle, writing from Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 8.) to the church at Corinth, says, The churches of Asia salute you, xvi 19. May not the same questions be urged here, which objectors urge in the case above? May not we ask, How could the Asiatics be personally known to the Corinthians? And why should Paul speak of the churches of Asia, and not of that at Ephesus? Plainly the reason of this was, that Christians from different parts of Asia Minor (which is here meant), were collected together in Ephesus its capital, where they had intercourse with Paul, and knew that he was addressing the Corinthians, and desired an expression of their brotherly affection toward them. What is more common, every day, than for single individuals, or societies of men, who have never had any personal intercourse together, to exchange friendly salutations? Could not Paul as well send the salutations of oi aÒ τῆς ̓Ιταλίας, as of the ἐκκλησίαι τῆς ̓Ασίας.

Such are the various circumstances adverted to in our epistle, which serve to render it probable that Paul was the author of it. From its nature this evidence is indirect; but evidence of such a kind is, not unfrequently, as convincing as that which appears to be more direct. The prefixing or suffixing a writer's name to an epistle, is a more easy and obvious method of interpolation, than the insertion of minute circumstances which imply a very intimate acquaintance with a writer's condition and circumstances.

Will any one undertake to show, that the circumstances which are brought into view above, may be more probably attached to some other person than to Paul? If not, then the probability from them is in favour of Paul as the author of our epistle.

XX. EVIDENCE THAT THE EPISTLE IS PAUL'S, FROM A SIMILARITY OF SENTIMENT; AND ALSO FROM THE FORM, METHOD, STYLE, AND DICTION OF THE

COMPOSITION.

THE preceding section treated of the facts or external circumstances, to which various passages of our epistle advert; and what is gathered from these may be called, in a certain respect, a kind of external evidence. But a comparison of our epistle with the other acknowledged writings of Paul, remains yet to be made. This is a species of evidence, on which some have relied with great confidence; and it is remarkable that it has been appealed to with equal confidence, both by those who defend and by those who assail the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews. Even in very ancient times, so early as the third century, the same occurrence took place. One might, perhaps, naturally enough conclude from this, that no very satisfactory evidence on either side can be obtained; but that the epistle contains things to which both parties may appeal, with some tolerable show of reason. Before coming, however, to such a conclusion, we ought at least to make a thorough investigation, and to weigh well all the arguments which are adduced to support the respective opinions to which I allude.

A comparison between our epistle and the acknowledged letters of Paul, may have respect to the doctrines taught in both; or to the form and method, as well as the style and diction, of the epistle. When these shall have passed in review before us, the allegations with regard to a dissimilarity between the epistle to the Hebrews and other epistles of Paul, may be further discussed.

XXI. SIMILARITY OF DOCTRINES BETWEEN THE EPISTLE TO the Hebrews AND THE ACknowledged epistles oF PAUL.

Do

ARE the sentiments in our epistle such as Paul was wont to teach ? they accord with his, not only in such a general way as we may easily suppose the sentiments of all Christians in the apostolic age harmonized with each other, but have they the colouring, the proportion, the characteristic features of Paul's sentiments? Are they so stated and insisted on, as Paul is wont to state and insist on his?

Before proceeding in my endeavours to answer these questions, it will be proper to state some general considerations in regard to the nature of the evidence in question.

Those who disbelieve the Pauline origin of our epistle are wont to urge very strenuously all the discrepancies between it and the acknowledged epistles of Paul, as to diction, phraseology, ideas, doctrine, etc., and to claim that these decide the point against the probability that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Schulz and Seyffarth have made up almost the whole of their arguments against the Pauline origin of the epistle, from considerations of this nature. Others before them had done so to a considerable extent; and Bleek and De Wette have recently adopted much of this nature from the writers just named.

Now, if there be any weight in this argument, it is incumbent on those who adopt a different opinion, to show that the opposite of this is true, viz. that there is a resemblance (instead of a great discrepancy), between our

epistle and the acknowledged writings of Paul; and if this resemblance can be shown to extend to all the particulars above named, to be striking, and to be minute, then of course, the argument in question is deprived of all its importance and shown to be groundless.

Bleek (Rev. p. 15) expresses his wonder that I should think of deducing any argument in favour of Paul, from such resemblances. He says that the resemblance is still more striking between Paul and the first epistle of Peter; e. g. 1 Pet. i. 3, comp. Eph. i. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 1, comp. Eph. v. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 9, comp. Rom. xii. 17; 1 Pet. v. 5, comp. Eph. v. 21; 1 Pet. v. 14, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 10, comp. Gal. v. 13, (14?); 1 Pet. ii. 13, seq., comp. Rom. xiii. 1—4; 1 Pet. iv. 2, comp. Phil. ii. 14; 1 Pet. v. 1, comp. Rom. viii. 18, etc.

That there are resemblances of expression, in some of these passages, need not be denied. I have examined them all with attention. Some of the references are undoubtedly incorrect, and do not express the meaning of Prof. Bleek; e. g. Gal. v. 13. Phil. ii. 14, or else the corresponding 1 Pet. ii. 10 and iv. 2 are incorrect. As to the others collectively we may say, that the respective writers, in inculcating the same sentiments, have now and then hit upon the same words. This is all that can be justly said. Why did not Bleek draw out these parallelisms, and produce them to the view of the reader? The bare inspection of them would show the very contrary of that for which they are alleged. Every reader of Greek has the power of making the comparison for himself; and to every one who does make it, and is competent to judge of the result, I cheerfully commit the question at issue.

Then as to arrangement, colouring, diction, course of thought in general, method of arguing and exhorting-in a word, the tout ensemble of the first epistle of Peter,—I hazard nothing in repeating it, that every reader must feel the difference to be wide between this and the epistle to the Hebrews. But if this is not to be appealed to, (and I am altogether willing that a resort to actual comparison should be made,) then let the resemblance be drawn out for ocular view, between 1 Pet. and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as I have drawn it out in the following pages between the latter and Paul's acknowledged epistles. The fairness of this appeal will not be called in question.

Bleek wonders that I should think of arguing from the similarity of our epistle to Paul's, (which he acknowledges is great, p. 15,) that Paul was the author of the former. But if diversity be an argument against sameness of authorship, (and so Bleek and others strenuously contend,) then why is not similarity an argument in favour of it? I allow, that there may be similarity arising from intimate intercourse, frequent reading and admiring, etc., between two different writers; but then, on the other hand, it must also be allowed, that diversity, and sometimes great diversity too, may exist, and does exist, between the writings of the same man, at different periods of his life, and in different circumstances. Consequently neither similarity nor diversity, unless they are of a very marked and specific character, can absolutely determine the question in the one way or the other.

But still, when diversity is urged as a powerful and conclusive argument against the Pauline origin of our epistle, it is of course the duty of those who advocate this origin to show, if they can, that just the opposite of this is true, and consequently that there is no ground for such an argument. As a species of negative proof, therefore, if nothing more, it becomes expedient to produce

this, and fully to produce it. Why should Bleek find fault with me for doing this, while he insists on diversity of diction, etc., as an argument against the Pauline origin of the epistle in question?

If the resemblances that will be pointed out in the sequel, show nothing more, they show thus much, viz., that there is not in our epistle sufficient diversity, to justify any one for pleading this, in order to prove that Paul did not write it. This done, the principal argument of those who do thus plead, is rendered null.

I hope for pardon, then, while I still persist in producing the resemblances in question. Nor are they merely of a negative character. We shall see that they are too near, and too numerous, not to have some positive weight in rendering it probable that Paul was the author of our epistle.

I begin, as the heading of this Section proposes, with resemblance in regard to doctrine.

The resemblance in respect to DOCTRINE may be arranged, for the sake of perspicuity and distinction under the following heads.

I. General preference of Christianity over Judaism.

There can, indeed, be no reasonable doubt, that all the apostles and primitive teachers of Christianity, who were well instructed in the principles of this religion, must have acknowledged and taught its superiority over the ancient religion of the Jews. The very fact that they were Christians, necessarily implies this. But still, it is quite certain, that the preference of the new over the ancient religion, is taught by Paul in a manner different from that of other writers of the New Testament; and with more emphasis, in his writings, than in any other parts of the sacred volume.

The grounds of preferring Christianity to Judaism, may be classed under the following particulars.

(1) The superior degree of light, or religious knowledge, imparted by the gospel.

In his acknowledged epistles, Paul calls Judaism τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, Gal. iv. 3; and again, τà άovñ xai #тwxà otoixała, Gal. iv. 9. He represents it as adapted to children, vý, Gal. iv. 3, who are in a state of nonage and pupilage, Gal. iv. 2, or in the condition of servants rather than that of heirs, Gal. iv. 1.

On the other hand, Christians attain to a higher knowledge of God, Gal. iv. 9; they are no more as servants, but become sons, and obtain the privilege of adoption, Gal. iv. 5, 6. They are represented as Téλ101, 1 Cor. xiv. 20; as being furnished with instruction adequate to make them avogas TEλEÍOUS, Eph. iv. 11-13. Christianity leads them to see the glorious displays of himself, which God has made with an unveiled face, i. e. clearly, 2 Cor. iii. 18; while Judaism threw a veil over these things, 2 Cor. ii. 13. Christianity is engraven on the hearts of its votaries, ἡ διακονία τοῦ Πνεύματος, 2 Cor. iii. 8; while Judaism was engraven on tablets of stone, ivtetuñoμévn iv aídos, 2 Cor. iii. 7.

Such is the brief sketch of Paul's views in respect to this point, as represented in his acknowledged epistles. Let us now compare these views with those which the epistle to the Hebrews discloses.

This epistle commences with the declaration, that God, who in times past spake to the Fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, Heb. i. 1. ii. 1, seq. Judaism was revealed only by the mediation of angels, ii. 2; while Christianity was revealed by the Son of God, and