where the author expreffes his intention of vifiting the perfons, to whom he is writing: and it was about this time, that St. Paul was releafed from his first imprifonment in Rome, or at least had expectations of a speedy release. But the quoted paffage is rather too obfcure, to warrant an inference in refpect to the date of the Epiftle and as the argument entirely refts on the suppofition, that St. Paul was the author, it can have no force, till this point has been established.

With refpect to the place, it is less easy to determine where it was, than where it was not written. Moft commentators fuppofe, that it was written in Italy, because the author fays, ch. xiii. 24. AσTagovтaι iμas of απο της Ιταλίας : but the inference, which I deduce from this paffage, is the very reverse. If the author had written in Rome, he would have fent falutations from the Romans, who cannot be meant by the expreffion οἱ απο της Ιταλιας: for whoever writes in Rome, and ufes this expreffion, can mean only perfons, who came from other parts of Italy. But it is incredible, that falutations should be fent in an Epiftle written in Rome from unknown perfons in the Italian provinces to the Hebrews in Palestine, and none from the Romans themselves. Indeed, I am of opinion, that the Epistle was written no where in Italy, for the phrafe di ano τns Iraλas implies, that thefe perfons were out of Italy, and cannot fignify perfons, who were then in Italy. Confequently, the author of the Epiftle, who communicated thefe falutations from perfons, who perhaps had accompanied him from Italy, was likewife abfent from that country, perhaps in Greece. Further, it appears to have been written in a place, which had little or no connexion with Jerufalem, for otherwise the author would have fent falutations at leaft from fome of the principal members of the Chriftian community in that place. Any thing further on this subject I am unable to determine, and candidly confefs my ignorance, as to the place, where the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written. Nor do I envy any man, who pretends to know more

on this fubject, unless he has difcovered fources of intelligence, which have hitherto remained unknown. It is better to leave a question in a ftate of uncertainty, than, without foundation, to adopt an opinion, which may lead to material errors.

SECT. VIII.

Of the language, in which this Epiftle was written.

NOW come to the point, which has occafioned the greatest debate relative to this Epiftle, namely, in what language it was written. On this head there are two principal opinions:

1. That it was written in Greek. This opinion has been very generally adopted in modern times; at leaft, if we may judge from the authors, who have written on the fubject, for perhaps many readers think differently.

2. That it was written in Hebrew, and tranflated into Greek. This was the general opinion of the ancients; and it is that, which I adopt.

Before we proceed to the examination of this queftion, we must examine what is meant by the word 'Hebrew.' When ancient writers affert, that this Epiftle was written in Hebrew, we must not immediately conclude, that they meant the language, which we call by this name. For this term may denote,

1. Either the language, in which the greatest part of the Old Teftament was written, and to which we give the appellation of Hebrew. It is true, that this was no longer a living language, when the New Teftament was written, yet the Jews ftill ufed it as the language of prayer, both in Palestine and in the Eaftern Afia, and it was understood by every man of education.

0 2

The

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 Christ, as the Jews of Galilee fpake Syriac, another Aramæan dialect, though very corruptly.

Which of the two explanations ought to be adopted I cannot at prefent determine, and therefore I fhall take the word Hebrew' in its most extensive sense, 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 Eifle to the Hebrews was written originally in Hebrew.

T

HE moft ancient tradition, or opinion, relative to the language of the Epiftle 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 second 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 use 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 moft ancient tradition or opinion. That part, which relates to St. Luke, as the tranflator, is undoubtedly falfe; for instead of there being a fimilarity between the ftyle of the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of the Acts of the Apoftles, 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 Apoftle of the Jews,' is fo far from being hiftorically true, that it is nothing more than a very weak conjecture".

Eufebius himfelf, 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 Epistle, though without naming it, Eufebins firft argues in favour of its antiquity, and then proceeds as follows. As St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews in their own language (dia τns JATRIX YAWITNS), 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 most 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 fcrip

ferat

Η Παύλο είναι φησι, γεγράφθαι δε Εβραιοις Εβραικη φωνη Λεκαν δε φιλοτίμως αυτην μεθερμηνευσαντα εκδύναι τοις Έλλησιν, όθεν τον αυτόν χρωτα ευρισκεσθαι κατα την έρμηνειαν ταύτης δε της επισολής gugur. Eufebii Hist. Ecclef. Lib. VI. c. 14.

See Sect. z. 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 history, 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 difciple 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 construction 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 hiftorical 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 αποτολικά, και ώσπερει σχολιογραφήσαντος τα ειρημενα ύπο το διδασκαλε.