hands, could earn enough as a faddler to fupply, in an ample manner, the neceffities both of himself, and of his friends. If we explain σxnvomoros as denoting a maker of leather chairs to be ftrapped on the backs of camels,' the difficulty will be ftill increased; for St. Paul was very frequently in places, where there were no camels, and confequently where no fuch chairs were wanted. Other commentators, take exоos in the fenfe of a 'tent-maker;' but the fame objections, which I have made to the other applications of the word, may be made likewife to this. And if Aquilas, who was of the fame trade with St. Paul, was a tent-maker, it must seem extraordinary, that a man, who was a native of Pontus, in the neighbourhood of which country there were nations who lived in tents, fhould come to Corinth and Ephefus, where tents were not wanted.

But the preceding difficulties are entirely removed by the following paffage in Julius Pollux, from which it appears that onvooios has properly a very different meaning from either of thofe already mentioned. This learned writer fays in his Onomafticon, Lib. VII. § 189. that exvorosos in the language of the old comedy was equivalent to μηχανοποιος *. Now μηχανοποιος fignifies a 'maker of mechanical inftruments.' Confequently St. Paul and Aquilas were neither faddlers, nor tent-makers, but mechanical inftrument makers. And this profeffion fuited extremely well their mode of life: for, whoever poffeffes ability in the art can earn, in a few hours every day, as much as is neceffary for his fupport, and can eafily travel from place to place, because the apparatus is easily transported. It is therefore extraordinary that no commentator has hitherto taken cxnvamosos, Acts xviii. 3. in this fenfe and ftill more extraordinary that Julius Pollux has been actually quoted for a very different purpose,

* Της δε μηχανοποιες και σκηνοποιός ή παλαια κωμῳδία ονομάζε Though Julius Pollux fays that exnomolog was thus ufed in the old comedy, and does not quote any living authors, yet it must be observed that the words ufed in comedy are the words of common converfation, though not always used by authors.

purpose, namely, to caution the reader against afcribing to axvorosos, Acts xviii. 3. the fenfe, which is given it in the Onomafticon of Julius Pollux. Such commentators moft furely have never reflected on the advantages, which attend this fenfe, and the difficulties, which attend the others.

CHAP.

XXIV.

OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

SECT. I.

General remarks: and statement of the queflions to be examined in this chapter.

I

HAVE deferred to this place the examination of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, because it is a matter of difpute, which perhaps will never be finally determined, whether it was written by St. Paul, or not. In the preceding editions of this Introduction, I wholly neglected to treat of this Epiftle, and contented myfelf with referring the reader to other authors: though, when I published the third edition I had already written a particular Expofition of this Epiftle, which I quoted as well as Lardner's Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory. But, fince an Introduction to the New Testament ought to contain a differtation on every part of it, I think it neceffary to fupply, in the present, the deficiency of the preceding editions. And I am the more strongly urged to the undertaking, firft, as I have lately made feveral obfervations on this fubject, which had formerly escaped my notice, as well as the notice

■ Vol. II. Ch. 12.

of

of other commentators, and fecondly, as I entertain at prefent much ftronger doubts, both as to the author of this Epiftle, and its canonical authority, than Lardner, to whom I referred the reader in the laft edition. I fhall have frequent occafion, in the courfe of this chapter, to quote my Differtation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews prefixed to the Expofition of this Epiftle: and it must be obferved, that I always mean the new and improved edition, published in 1780.

The queftions to be examined in the several sections of this chapter are the following.

1. Is that, which we call the Epiftle to the Hebrews, really an Epiftle?

2. Is it quoted by St. Peter?

3. If it is an Epiftle, to what community was it fent? 4. What was the fituation of this community? 5. At what time was it written?

6. In what language was it written?

7. If it was written in Hebrew, by whom was it tranflated into Greek?

8. What is the character of its Greek ftyle? 9. Who was the author of this Epiftle?

10. Is it canonical?

11. What are its contents?

SECT. II.

Is that, which we call the Epifle to the Hebrews, an Epiftle, or a Differtation? And, if it is an Epistle, what is the reafon, that the initiatory formule is wanting?

A

S the initiatory formule, ufual in Greek Epiftles, is wanting in that which we call the Epistle to the Hebrews, the queftion occurs, notwithstanding the

fuperfcription

fuperfcription ή προς Εβραιος επισολη, whether it was really an Epiftle fent to a particular community or communities, or only a Differtation intended for general readers, especially as many topics are difcuffed in it in the fame diffufive manner, as in a work which the author proposed to lay before the public. But there are feveral arguments, which decide in favour of the former, and fhew that it was really an Epiftle addressed to particular perfons. For not only the second perfon plural' ye' inceffantly occurs in it, which alone indeed would be no proof, but likewife we find special circumftances, to which the author alludes, ch. v. 11, 12. vi. 9, 10. x. 32-34. and above all, ch. xiii. 23, 24. which contains the promise of a vifit, and falutations.

The next question therefore to be asked is: fince this is an Epiftle, what is the reafon, that the initiatory formule is wanting. Several ancient writers, who have undertaken to answer this queftion, pre-fuppofe, what is far from being certain, that St. Paul was the author of it, and on this fuppofition they ground their answers. For inftance, Clement of Alexandria fays, that the name of Paul was odious to the Hebrews, and that for this reafon the Apostle did not mention his name at the beginning of it, as in his other Epiftles, that the Hebrews might not be prejudiced againft it. Jerom is of the famet opinion with Clement, for in his Treatife of illustrious men, he fays' propter invidiam fui nominis titulum amputavit: and this affertion is related by commentators to this very day. But this explanation is fo very extraordinary, that it appears to me unaccountable, how it could occur to fuch men, as Clement and Jerom. For at the very fame time, that it afcribes to St. Paul the greatest caution, it ascribes to him the greatest fimplicity, The author of this Epiftle fays, ch, xiii. 18, 19. for us, for we truft we have a good confcience, in all things willing to live honestly. But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the fooner.' And ver. 23. Know ye that our brother Timothy

Eufebii Hiftor. Ecclef. Lib. VI. cap. 16.

Pray

Timothy is fet at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will fee you.' Surely no man of common sense would close an Epiftle in this manner, if he intended that no one fhould know from whom it came.

In another place, namely, in his Expofition of the Epiftle to the Galatians, Jerom fuppofes, that St. Paul did not mention his name at the beginning of this Epiftle, because he was unwilling to name himself Apoftle in an Epiftle, in which this title is given to Chrift, through fear of placing himself on an equality with Chrift. On the other hand, Theodoret fays, that St. Paul did not commence the Epistle to the Hebrews with the formule, 'Paul an Apostle, &c.' because he was the Apostle, not of the Hebrews, but of the Gentiles. But neither of these reasons is in the leaft fatisfactory: for they account merely for the omiffion of the word Apoftle,' and not of the name of the author. And if St. Paul was really its author, and was yet unwilling to affume in this Epiftle the title of Apoftle, he might have mentioned his name without this title, fince he has actually done it in four other Epiftles.

The real reason, why the initiatory formule, ufual in ancient Epiftles, is wanting in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is at present therefore not easy to be affigned, fince we are. entirely deftitute of hiftorical information on this fubject. But as others have ventured to conjecture, the fame liberty may be granted likewife to me. As the Greek Epiftle to the Hebrews is only a tranflation, an initiatory formule might have been ufed in the original, but omitted by the tranflator, either because he thought the name of the author of no great importance, or because he was apprehenfive that the name of the author might prejudice Greek readers against the Epiftle, which, as being a very valuable and inftructive work, he wished to put into their hands. If either of these motives operated, St. Paul could not have been the author.

< Tom. IV. p. 225.

• If this was the motive the tranflator certainly erred.