תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

2.) Ch. iv. 2. " For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as to them.'

[ocr errors]

3.) Ch. ii. 1-4. "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that we have heard how then shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him: God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost."

Does not that exhortation, and the reason, with which it is supported, peculiarly suit the believers of Judea, where Christ himself first taught, and then his disciples after him, confirming their testimony with very numerous and conspicuous miracles?

4.) The people, to whom this epistle is sent, were well acquainted with our Saviour's sufferings, as they of Judea must have been. This appears in ch. i. 3. ii. 9, 18. v. 7, 8. ix, 14, 28. x. 11. xii. 2, 3. xiii. 12.

5.) Ch. v. 12. "For when ye ought to be teachers of others," and what follows, is most properly understood of Christians in Jerusalem, and Judea, to whom the gospel was first preached.

6.) What is said, ch. vi. 4-6. and x. 26-29. is most properly applicable to apostates in Judea.

7.) Ch. x. 32—34." But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions"-to the end of ver. 34. This leads us to the church of Jerusalem, which had suffered much, long before the writing this epistle, even very soon after they had received the knowledge of the truth. Comp. Acts viii. 1. ix. 1, 2. ix. 19. and 1 Thess. ii. 14. Grotius supposeth as much.

a

8.) Those exhortations ch. xiii. 13, 14, must have been very suitable to the case of the Jews of Jerusalem, at the supposed time of writing this epistle, a few years before the war in that country broke out.

[ocr errors]

с

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

9.) The regard shewn in this epistle to the rulers of the church or churches, to which it is sent, is very remarkable. They are mentioned twice or thrice: first in ch. xiii. 7. "Remember your rulers, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith imitate, considering the end of their conversation." b These were dead, as Grotius observes. And Theodoret's note is to this purpose: He intends the saints that were dead, Stephen the proto-martyr, James the brother of John, and James called the Just. And there were many others, who were taken off by the Jewish rage. Consider these,' says he, and observing their example, imitate their 'faith.' Then again, at ver. 17. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. For they watch for your souls.". And once more, ver. 24. "Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints." Upon which Theodoret says: This way of speaking intimates, that their rulers did not need such instruction. For which reason he did not write to them, < but to their disciples.' That is a fine observation. And Whitby upon that verse, says: Hence, it seems evident, that this epistle was not sent to the bishops or rulers of the church, but to the whole • church or the laity.' And it may deserve to be considered, whether this repeated notice of the rulers among them does not afford ground to believe, that some of the apostles were still in Judea? Whether there be sufficient reason to believe that, or not, I think these notices very proper and suitable to the state of the Jewish believers in Judea. For I am persuaded, that not only James, and all the other apostles, had exactly the same doctrine with Paul: but that all the elders likewise and all the understanding men among the Jewish believers, embraced the same doctrine. They were, as I apprehend, the multitude only, Teos, plebs, or the men of lower rank among them, who were attached to the peculiarities of the Mosaic law, and the customs of their ancestors. This This may be argued from what James and the elders at Jerusalem say to Paul. Acts xxi. 20-22. "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are that believe. And they are all zealous of the law. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together.". -It is hence evident, that the zeal for the law, which prevailed in the minds of

• Post Stephani mortem vehementer vexati fuere illi in Judæâ Christiani, ut videre est Act. xi. 19. 1 Thess. ii. 14. Grot. ad Heb. x. 34.

b Loquitur autem de iis, qui jam obierant, ut ostendunt sequentia. • Qui vobis locuti sunt verbum Dei: nempe in

diversis oppidis; forte etiam diversis temporibus, cum mortuis alii successerint. Id. ad Hebr. xiii. 7.

In ep. ad Hebr. cap. xiii. tom. III. p. 459. D.

· Αινίττεται ὁ λόγος, ὡς οἱ προςατεύοντες αυτών τοιαυτής διδασκαλίας εκ έχρησαν· οὐ δη χαριν εκ εκεινοις επεςείλεν, αλλα τοις μαθηταις. Ibid. p. 462. D.

many, was not approved by James, or the elders. That being the case, these recommendations of a regard for their rulers, whether apostles, or elders, were very proper in an epistle sent to the believers in Judea.

For these reasons I think that this epistle was sent to the Jewish believers at Jerusalem, and in Judea.

But there are objections, which must be considered.

a

1. Obj. Ch. vi. 10. "God is not unrighteous, to forget your work and labour of love,in that ye have ministred to the saints, and do minister." Upon which Dr. Wall remarks: • Here again we are put upon thinking, to what church, or what Christians this is said. For as to those of Jerusalem, we read much in Paul's former letters, of their poverty, and of their ⚫ being ministred to by the Gentile Christians of Galatia, Macedonia, Corinth: and in the Acts, by the Antiochians: but no where of their ministring to other saints. If it is of them that St.. • Paul speaks this, it must be meant of their ministring to their own poor. For that they were • famous at first, when the rich men sold their lands, and brought the money to the apostles, and they had all things in common, and none lacked. But in the time since that, they were very poor, and were relieved by other churches.' The late Mr. Wetstein, whose words I place below, argued much after the same manner with Dr. Wall. This objection, perhaps, might be strengthened from Heb. xiii. 2. "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers.' And from ver. 16.. "To do good, and to communicate, forget not."

viii. 2.

Answ. But the poverty of the Jews in Judea, and the contributions of the Gentile churches for their relief, are no reasons, why such admonitions as these should not be sent to them. They are properly directed to all Christians, that they may be induced to exert themselves to the utmost. The Gentile churches, among whom St. Paul made collections for the saints in Judea, were not rich. As he says, 1 Cor. i. 26. "For ye know your calling, brethren-not many mighty, not many noble, are called."And of the churches in Macedonia, he says, 2 Cor. "How that in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy, and their deep poverty, had abounded unto the riches of their liberality." In like manner there might be instances of liberality to the distressed, among the believers in Judea. There was a fine example recorded, Acts ix. 36-39. Nor was there ever any city or country in the world, to whom that exhortation, "be not forgetful to entertain strangers," or, "be not unmindful of hospitality," TYS DIROŽEVIAS μY ETIλavbaveσbe, could be more properly given, than Jerusalem and Judea. For the people there must have been much accustomed to it at their festivals, when there was a great resort thither from all countries. And the writer of an epistle to the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea would naturally think of such an admonition; being desirous, that they should not fall short of others in that respect. And we may here not unfitly recollect the history of St. Paul's going to Jerusalem, and how he and his fellow-travellers were entertained at Cæsarea, in the house of Philip the evangelist, and at Jerusalem, in the house of Mnason, an old disciple. As related Acts xxi. 8-16.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

2. Obj. Upon ch. xiii. 18, 19, the same Dr. Wall says, One would think, that Paul should: have prayed and purposed to go any whither, rather than to Jerusalem, where 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.

d

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 is Pearson.

g

a Critical Notes upon the N. T. p. 306,

Secundo, non possunt intelligi, qui Hierosolymis degebant. Hi enim pauperiores erant, et opus habebant, ut eorum inopia ab aliis ecclesiis sublevaretur.Iis vero, ad quos hæc epistola scripta est, commendatur beneficentia, xiii. 16. vi. 10. Erant ergo tales, non qui stipem accipere, sed qui dare debebant, solebantque. Wetst. ubi supr. p. 368. fin.

As before, p. 316.

d Ubi supra. p. 386..

See before, p. 325.

f Lud. Capell. Hist. Apost. p. 39. Lenfant et Beausobre, Préf. générale sur les épîtres de St. Paul. num. lv.

8 Paulus e Cretâ cum Timotheo in Judæam navigat. Heb. xiii. 23. Annal. Paulin. p. 21. A. Chr. 64.

a

3. Obj. St. Peter's epistles were written to the Hebrew Christians, scattered in Asia, and Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia. St. Paul must have written an epistle 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 shewn hereafter. When

b

St. Peter says, "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.

[ocr errors]

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.

с

f

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: James Capellus, S. Basnage, Mill in his prolegomena 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, and Wetstein, is taken from the Greek paronomasias in the epistle, or the

k

• Wall, as before, p. 318, 319.

h

1

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 epistola Pauli, quamquam ad singulas ecclesias, et homines singulos, missæ, omnium Christianorum illius ævi communes jure haberentur. Cleric. H. E. A. 69. p. 459.

Ils n'ont point eu d'autre raison de croire, que S. Paul avoit écrit en Hébreu, que celle qu'il écrivoit à des Hébreux. `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 fidèles, soit Hébreux, 'soit Gentils. Beaus. Préf. sur l'épître aux Hébreux. num. xv. d See Vol, ii. p. 391.

e Jacob. Capell. observat. in ep. ad Hebr. sect. ii. et iii. f Ann. 61. num. vi.

: 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.

Ad hæc observamus, 1. epistolam ad Hebræos, quæ nunc Græce exstat, non esse interpretis, sed ipsius auctoris. Qui putant ad Hebræos non aliter quam 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.

i

Spanh. De Auctore epist. ad Hebr. Part. III. cap. ii. tom. II. p. 245-252.

Nono, decretorium fere argumentum est a Græcorum idiotismis, hac in epistolâ passim conspicuis. Pauca hæc de multis. Auctor. cap. v. versu 8. elegantem adhibet rapwraμασίαν, Scil. Εμαθεν αφ' ών επαθε, qualem Hebraismus non ferebat. Græci contra mire sibi in talibus placent, &c. Spanh. ubi supr. n. xii. p. 249.

Porro manifestæ reperiuntur paronomasia, et quoTEXEUTα, quæ si in aliam linguam convertantur, pereunt. Hebr. v. S. et ver. 14. καλουτε καὶ κακε. vii. 3. απατωρ, αμήτωρ. xi. 37. επρισθήσαν, επειρασθησαν. ix. 10. βρωμασι και τοματι. vii. 14. μένεσαν και μελλέσαν. Talia auctor potius sectatur quam interpres. Wetst, ib. p. 385.

frequent concurrence of Greek words of like sound. Which seems to be an argument not easy to be answered.

a

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. Jerom 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 shewn 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.

d

с

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 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.

k

i

n

m

[ocr errors]

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. This epistle seems to be referred to by 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 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, by • 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. 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 by " Cyril of Jerusalem, in 348, by " 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 by dd Epiphanius, about 368, by the Apostolical Constitutions, about the end of the fourth century, by ff Basil, about

ee

[blocks in formation]

y

[blocks in formation]

aa

1 P. 633-649.

n P. 105, 106.

" P. 370. 372.

9 P. 215.

Y P. 400, 401.
aa P. 406.
ec P. 415.

P. 438.

ff P. 466.

a

[ocr errors]

e

h

[ocr errors]

k

b

[ocr errors]

f

m

d

i

370, by Gregory Nazianzen, in 370, by Amphilochius 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, by Serapion, bishop of Thmuis in Egypt, about 347, by 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 P Palladius, author of a life of Chrysostom, about 408, by Isidore of Pelusium, about 412, by Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, in 412, by Theodoret, at 423, by Eutherius, bishop of Tyana, in Cappadocia, in 431, by "Socrates, the Ecclesiastical Historian, about 440, by Euthalius, in Egypt, about 458, and, probably, by 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 in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, about 806, is received as Paul's by "Cosmas of Alexandria, about 535, by dd Leontius, of Constantinople, about 610, by John Damascen in 730, by Photius, about 858, by Ecumenius, about the year 950, and by hh Theophylact in 1070. I shall not go any

lower.

aa

y

S

ee

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

I shall now rehearse such authors as lived in that part of the Roman empire, where the Latin was the vulgar tongue.

kk

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Here in the first place offers Clement in his epistle to the Corinthians, written about the year 96, or, as some others say, about the year 70. For though he wrote in Greek, we rank him among Latin authors, because he was bishop of Rome. In his epistle are divers passages, generally supposed to contain allusions, or references to the epistle to the Hebrews. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, about 178, as we are assured by Eusebius, alleged ** some passages out of this epistle, in a work now lost. Nevertheless, it does not appear, that he received it as St. Paul's. By Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, about the year 200, this " epistle is ascribed to Barnabas. Caius, about 212, supposed to have been presbyter in the church of Rome, reckoning up the epistles of St. Paul, mentioned thirteen only, omitting that to the Hebrews. Here I place Hippolytus, who flourished about 220. But it is not certainly known where he was bishop, whether at Porto in Italy, or at some place in the east. We have seen evidences, that he did not receive the epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's. And perhaps, that may afford an argument, that though he wrote in Greek, he lived where the Latin tongue prevailed. This epistle is "* not quoted by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about 248, and afterwards. Nor does it appear to have been received by PP Novatus, otherwise called Novatian, presbyter of Rome, about 251. Nevertheless it was in after times received by his followers. It may be thought by some, that this epistle is referred to by" Arnobius, about 306, and " Lactantius about the same time. It is plainly quoted by " another Arnobius in the fifth century. It was received as Paul's by TM Hilary, of Poictiers, about 354, and ** by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia, about the same time, and by his followers. It was also received as Paul's by zz C. M. Victorinus. Whether it was aaa received by Optatus, of Milevi, in Africa, about 370, is doubtful. It was received as Paul's by bbb Ambrose, bishop of Milan, about 374, by the Priscillianists, about 378. About the year 380, was published a commentary upon thirteen epistles of Paul only, ascribed to Hilary, deacon of Rome. It was received as Paul's by cee Philaster, bishop of Brescia in Italy, about 380. But he takes notice that it was not then received by all. His successor Gaudentius, about 387, quotes this fff epistle as Paul's. It is also readily received as Paul's by Jerom, about 392. Those passages are alleged, with remarks, Vol. ì. p. 299-301. and see p. 302.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« הקודםהמשך »