Nearly all the striking parallels in Schulz's list, p. 265 seq., abridged and extracted by Bleek, p. 398 seq., are of the kind just mentioned; i. e. they have their origin either in the words of the Old Testament, or in the facts which it relates.

E. g.

Heb. iv. 14, ȧgxigia péyav; Philo, μéyas dgxiegeús; both from the

5 of the Hebrew Scriptures. So in Heb. v. 2, 5, Moses wiσtò; iv öhy tê oix avtoй, which is twice produced by Schulz from Philo, in order to show that our epistle has an Alexandrine hue. So again in the parallels to Heb.

iv. 14; vi. 13, 19; vii. 1; viii. 5, etc.

In many other passages, there is merely a coincidence of thought, in some one particular or on some important subject, while the generality of expression is as diverse as in any writers whatever. E. g.

Heb. i. 3, φέρων . . . τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ; Philo, ὁ τὰ μὲν ὄντα φέρων, καὶ τὰ πάντα γεννῶν, and ῥήματι ὁ θεὸς πάντα ποιεῖ. Heb. iv. 12 is cited, and as a parallel of it several passages in which the word of God is spoken of as Toues; in both authors the original is Is. xlix. 2, comp. xi. 4; in all other respects, the course of thought and language in Philo is exceedingly diverse from that in our epistle.

So in iv. 13, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, the parallel of which, in Philo, is made to be, ὁ θεῖος λόγος ὀξυδερκέστατός ἐστιν, ὡς πάντα ἐφορᾷν εἶναι ἱκανός κ. T. λ. As to language, the resemblance is faint enough; as to thought, the idea is common to the two writers, that God, or his word, is omniscient. Must a man be brought up at Alexandria, in order to say this?

In other passages of Schulz, the resemblance consists merely in appeal to the same facts related in the Scriptures; E. g.

Heb. vii. 1-4, and the passages from Philo, all of which, like the passage in our epistle, are deduced from the narration in Genesis. So in respect to Heb. vii. 27, ὃς [Χριστὸς] οὐκ ἔχει καθ' ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην κ. τ. λ. ; the parallel in Philo is said to be, ἀρχιερεὺς . . . κατὰ τοὺς νόμους εὐχάς τε καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν κ. τ. λ.; the common source of both writers being the Mosaic statutes in regard to this subject; and surely the diction here is diverse enough to render the imitation of the one by the other quite incredible.

Of this nature are nearly the whole of the instances produced by Schulz. Who now can gather from such a passage as the following, any evidence that the writer of our epistle belonged to Alexandria, and was conversant with the writings of Philo?

Philo . τῆς κιβωτοῦ ἐπιθεμα . . . τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν ἱεροῖς βίβλοις ἱλαστήριον . . . τὸ ἐπίθεμα τὸ προσαγορευόμενον ἱλαστήριον, βάσις ἐπὶ τῶν πτηνῶν δυοῖν, αἳ . . προσαγορεύεται Χερουβὶμ κ. τ. λ. Epistle to the Hebrews: ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς Χερουβὶμ τῆς δόξης, κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριον.

And must a man then, have lived at Alexandria, and have read Philo, in order to speak of the inaongov and of the Xegovßiu? And if these two technical words, which every Jew on earth that could utter a Greek sentence, and had heard of the Hebrew tabernacle or temple, must have known, are taken out of the parallel in question, where is the "quid Philoneum" which is so anxiously sought for?

Put now out of consideration all the necessary resemblances, which, treating of the same subjects, receiving substantially the same education, living in

the same age, belonging to the same peculiar people, and, above all, appealing to the same divine book as the source of ideas, and expressions, and facts— leave all these things out of sight, and then, I venture to ask, what is the special resemblance left between Philo and the writer of our epistle? And confident as Bleek appears to be on this question, I have no fears as to the answer which will be given by every impartial judge, who is competent to examine the subject. Can any man read a page of Philo's Greek, and then a page of our epistle, without saying that the difference is as striking, with the exceptions made above, as between our epistle and any of the later Greek classical writers ? What can be more remote from our epistle, than the swollen, forced, mystical, and frequently unnatural and bombastic periods of Philo Judæus ?

The writers whom I am now controverting, are indebted to J. B. Carpzoff, (Exercitationes Sacræ in Pauli epistola ad Hebræos, ex Philone, Alexandrino. Helmstadt, 1750,) for the materials which they have wrought up into the form of an argument for the Alexandrine origin of our epistle. But they do not once seem to have reflected, that if the same iron diligence which Carpzoff has exhibited in his work, had been applied to the acknowledged epistles of Paul in the same way, as large a harvest of resemblances might have been gathered. In regard to allegory, for example, which is a main point of alleged resemblance, what could be more obvious, than to appeal to 1 Corinthians x. 1—6, 10, 11; Romans v. 14; 1 Corinthians xv. 45-47; 2 Corinthians iii. 13-18; Galatians iv. 22-31; also to Colossians ii. 16, 17; Galatians iii. 23-25, iv. 1-5? May it not be said of these passages, (as Jerome has often and erroneously been represented as saying of our epistle, and which has so often been appealed to with confidence,)' spirant quid Philoneum ? Let the experiment be made by another Carpzoff, and I venture to predict, that, assuming the principle of argument which is assumed by Eichhorn, Schulz, and Bleek, we may easily show that Paul himself must have been an Alexandrian, and been educated in the Philonean school. Bleek says (Review p. 28), that "it is necessary only to cite the above statements in order to refute them, for a German scholar." It may be so, for those German scholars who have made up their minds on the whole subject, by virtue of a priori argument, but it will not be so, I trust, on the part of others, whether German, American, or English. It has not been so with such men as Storr, Hug, and a multitude of others who could easily be named. Hug, in the second edition of his Introduction to the New Testament, says, in reference to the very parallelisms in question of Dr Schulz, "The uniformity of the objects is here the ground of mutual resemblance" [as to style,] p. 463.

For the present, I tender the labouring oar to those who deny that as frequent resemblances between Philo and Paul may be found, as between Philo and our epistle. I make this exception only as to the position, (and every candid man will allow me to make this,) viz. that from the very nature of the subjects in our epistle, which ex professo treats of Levitical ordinances, etc., more frequent recurrence must necessarily be made to those ordinances, than in epistles where such a subject is not treated of. Now as Philo often handles the same topics, the same in various respects, of course there must be a frequent analogy between the two writers who appeal to the same source. But as to all which does not come under this category, I call

on Bleek, or any other opponent of the Pauline origin of our epistle, to show that there is less resemblance in Paul to the writings of Philo, than in our epistle. It will be more to the purpose to accept this challenge, than it will be to assert, that the considerations which are suggested by his opponents, only need to be quoted in order to be refuted,' i. e. for his own countrymen. On this side of the Atlantic, at least, it is true, as we are accustomed to think, that refutation must be made out in another way.

How

One hint more, and I shall dismiss the subject. Is not the Septuagint, Alexandrine Greek? Are not the Apocryphal books connected with the Old Testament, Alexandrine Greek? Does not the whole of the New Testament Greek bear a resemblance to the style of these two classes of books? Are not Paul's epistles Hebrew Greek, like all the rest? can it be shown, then, that the author of our epistle was an Alexandrian, because he writes Alexandrine Greek? If the argument be valid for this purpose which Eichhorn and Schulz employ, then may we prove that all the New Testament writers were Alexandrians. Quod nimium probat, nihil probat.

XXXIV. RESULT.

THE Conclusion to be deduced from the whole of the preceding examination, seems to be, that the arguments drawn from the style and diction of the epistle to the Hebrews, are not to be relied on as deciding the question against the Pauline origin of it. Cases of this nature cannot be determined by assertion. Allegations made for such a purpose, if found to be contradicted by facts, cannot fail, in the end, to pass for nothing more than allegations.

One other thing may be said with truth, which has an important bearing on this question. If the internal evidence is altogether insufficient to decide the point at issue in the negative, the external is equally so. Indeed, the historical evidence against the Pauline origin of our epistle is, as we have seen, so little, so vague, and for the most part so indirect, that we may well say, 'the objections have never been of an historical nature, but of a conjectural one.' They have arisen more from taste and feeling, than from tradition or testimony. Accordingly, in all the objections of the western churches, we do not find a single instance of appeal to ancient tradition or historical evidence as the ground of them; as Hug has most truly and forcibly remarked. The objections evidently belong to that class which arise from feeling and taste, or from the exigencies of religious dispute. Why then should we attribute much weight to them ?

On the whole, I must acquiesce in the opinion of Origen, which I repeat as the general voice of antiquity; IT IS NOT WITHOUT REASON THE ANCIENTS HAVE HANDED IT DOWN TO US THAT THIS EPISTLE IS PAUL'S. Nor should I differ materially from those, who (with Eusebius) can say: Tou de Haúhov ηλοι

καὶ σαφεῖς αἱ δεκατέσσαρες, fourteen epistles are CLEARLY and CERTAINLY Paul's. I consider, however, the form of the proposition, as stated by Origen, to be the most becoming in regard to a point so controverted, and to contain for substance all which it is necessary or expedient for us to assert and to believe.

XXXV. WAS BARNABAS THE AUTHOR ?

WHOEVER is satisfied with the arguments in favour of the Pauline origin of our epistle, may dispense with the examination, whether any other person than this apostle has a title to be considered as the author. As past experience, however, must lead one to believe, that unanimity in regard to this subject is not yet to be expected, but that some may still incline to adopt opinions about the authorship of our epistle which were avowed or defended in ancient times; it seems to be necessary, briefly at least, to examine the claims of some others, as well as those of Paul.

The doubts raised in ancient times, whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, occasioned conjectures with regard to several other persons. Among the remains of ancient Christian writings, we find some hints that Barnabas was the author of our epistle. We first meet with these in the essay of Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c. 201. "Exstat," says he, "enim et Barnabæ titulus ad Hebræos," i. e. there is extant an epistle of Barnabas, inscribed to the Hebrews. This is simple assertion, without any reference to the reasons why Tertullian supposes Barnabas to be the author. He does not intimate whether he gathers it from tradition, or assumes it as a matter of mere opinion. He speaks of it as a thing which he believes; which seems to imply that others in that quarter of the church were probably of the same opinion. But we find no mention of this opinion again until so late as the end of the 4th century, when Jerome adverting to it says, "Most [of the Latins] believe that the epistle to the Hebrews belongs to Barnabas, or Clement;" see Berth. p. 2953, and Jerome in his Epist. ad Dardanum. Again, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, under the word Paulus he says: "The epistle to the Hebrews is thought not to be his, on account of the discrepancy of the style; but to belong to Barnabas, according to Tertullian; or to the evangelist Luke, according to some; or to Clement of Rome." The same thing Philastrius (A. D. 380) repeats, Hæres., c. 89. And in modern times Cameron and Schmidt have undertaken to defend the hypothesis, that Barnabas was the author of this epistle; Bertholdt, ubi supra.

This is all the evidence which history gives us in respect to this subject; and this surely is too slender to build any opinion upon, which can lay claim to critical confidence.

But all hope of defending this opinion, with any degree of plausibility is removed, by a comparison of the epistle to the Hebrews

with an epistle of Barnabas still extant, and, undoubtedly, the same that was extant in the days of Tertullian, as the quotations from it by the ancient Christian fathers evince. I produce here a few short extracts from this epistle, to enable every one to judge for himself, whether the author of the one epistle can be rationally supposed to have written the other.

Chap. ΙΧ. Μάθετε οὖν, τέκνα, περὶ πάντων πλουσίως, ὅτι ̓Αβραὰμ, ὁ πρῶτος περιτομὴν δοὺς, ἐν πνεύματι προβλέψας εἰς τὸν υἱὸν περιέτεμε, λαβὼν τριῶν γραμμάτων δόγματα λέγει γάρ· Καὶ περιέτεμεν ̓Αβραὰμ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἄνδρας δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριακοσίους. Τίς οὖν ἡ δοθεῖσα τούτῳ γνῶσις; Μάθετε τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ πρώτους, εἶτα τοὺς τριακοσίους. Τὸ δὲ δεκαοκτώ, ἰῶτα δέκα, ἦτα ὀκτώ· ἔχεις ̓Ιησοῦν· ὅτι δὲ σταυρὸς ἐν τῷ Τ ἔμελλεν ἔχειν τὴν χάριν, λέγει καὶ Τριακοσίους. Δηλοῖ οὖν τὸν μέν ̓Ιησοῦν ἐν τοῖς δυσί γράμμασι καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ, τὸν σταυρόν. Οἶδεν ὁ τὴν ἔμφυτον δωρεὰν τῆς διδαχῆς αὐτοῦ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν. Οὐδεὶς γνησιώτερον ἔμαθεν ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ λόγον· ἀλλὰ οἶδα ὅτι ἄξιοι ἐστὲ ὑμεῖς· i. e. Children, learn abundantly in regard to all things; for Abraham, who first instituted circumcision, practised this rite, looking forward in the Spirit to the Son, receiving the doctrine of the three letters. For [the Scripture] says, And Abraham circumcised, of his household, three hundred and eighteen men. What instruction is imparted by this? Learn as to the first eighteen, then as to the three hundred. As to eighteen, ira signifies ten, and ra eight; this means, Jesus. And because the cross, signified by T, would possess grace, it says three hundred. It points out Jesus, therefore, by the two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has conferred upon us the engrafted gift of his doctrine. No one has learned more genuine doctrine of me; but I know that ye are worthy of it.” Cotelerius, Pat. Apostol. Tom. I. p. 28.

So then, because Abraham circumcised three hundred and eighteen persons, (which by the way is not said in the Scriptures, see Genesis xvii. 23-27, comp. Genesis xiv. 14; which gave occasion to the mistake,) the system of gospel truth is disclosed in this mysterious number; and this because ἰῶτα stands for ten, ἦτα for eight, and ταῦ for three hundred, i. e. here is Jesus, and he crucified. Where in all the New Testament is any thing like such egregious trifling as this?

See now, how the same Barnabas can explain the ceremony of the red heifer, the ashes of which were sprinkled upon offenders. After stating the ceremony, and that the ashes were sprinkled by three children, he thus proceeds :

Ο μόσχος οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς· οἱ προσφερόντες, ἄνδρες ἁμαρτωλοὶ, οἱ προσενέγ καντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ σφαγὴν· εἶτα οὐκέτι ἄνδρες, οὐκέτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ἡ δόξα. Οἱ δὲ ῥαντίζοντες παῖδες, εὐαγγελιζόμενοι ἡμῖν τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ τὸν ἁγνισμὸν τῆς καρδίας, οἷς ἔδωκε τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν ἐξουσίαν, (οῦσι δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν, ὅτι δεκαδύο αἱ φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ,) εἰς τὸ κηρύσσειν. Διὰ τί δὲ τρεῖς παῖδες οἱ ῥαντίζοντες; Εἰς μαρτύριον ̓Αβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ, ὅτι οὗτοι μεγάλοι τῷ θεῷ. Οτι δὲ τὸ ἔριον ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον; Ὅτι ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ ̓Ιησοῦ ἐπὶ τῷ ξύλῳ· διότι οἱ ἐλπίζοντες εἰς αὐτὸν ζήσονται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Διὰ τί δὲ τὸ ἔριον καὶ τὸν ὕσσωπον ; Ὅτι ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ ἡῳέραι ἔσονται πονηραὶ, καὶ ῥυπαραὶ, ἐν αἷς ἡμεῖς σωθησόμεθα· ὅτι καὶ ἀλγῶν τὴν σάρκα διὰ τοῦ ῥύπου τοῦ ὑσσώπου