sequently retained their native language, were the only perfons therefore who can be fuppofed to have used a Hebrew Epistle. But it is well known that they were declared enemies, both of St. Paul, and of his writings. If then St. Paul was the author of the Epistle, it is not extraordinary that they rejected it. On the other hand, if he was not the author, and the Epiftle proceeded from a perfon unknown, its early lofs can afford to no man juft matter of furprise.

5. A fifth argument in favour of a Greek original, is that the quotations in this Epiftle from the Old Teftament, are made in the words of the Septuagint.

Answer. This may be ascribed to a tranflator, as eafily as to the author. And that we ought rather to ascribe this circumftance to a tranflator, appears from what I have already faid in the former part of this fection, where I have fhewn, that the paffages, quoted in the words of the Septuagint, are fometimes lefs fuitable to the purpose, for which they were produced, than they would have been, if quoted, as they are worded in the Hebrew.

6. This Epiftle is more free from Hebraisms, than most other books of the New Teftament, which would hardly have happened, had it been a tranflation of a Hebrew original.

Answer. It is furely poffible for a tranflator, who is mafter of the language, in which he writes, to produce a tranflation which bears no marks of the language, from which it was made. Befides, the Epiftle to the Hebrews is not abfolutely free from Hebraifms, of which I fhall give examples in the following fection. Nay, the very perfons, who have made ufe of the argument in question, have at other times, not only granted that there are Hebraifms, but even appealed to them, and compared them with the Hebraifms in St. Paul's Epiftles, in order to prove that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

To the preceding arguments, Mr. Neidel in the thefis quoted at the beginning of this section has added the following".

7. The See my Explanation of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, p. 65-71,

7. The Epistle to the Hebrews contains many allegorical interpretations, fuch as were in ufe among the Hellenist Jews, and are found in the writings of Philo: whereas allegories of this kind were not adopted by the Rabbins, who wrote in Hebrew, the Hebrew language being too poor to admit of them.

Answer. The Hebrew writings of the Rabbins are fo far from being devoid of allegorical interpretations, that they abound with them, as every one knows, who has read thefe writings. They are even fo remarkable, that they have been distinguished by a peculiar title, namely, that of Medrash: and moreover St. Paul has been accufed of imitating this Rabbinical mode of interpretation. To the affertion, that the Hebrew language is too poor to have expreffed what is contained in the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews, I anfwer, this Epiftle has been tranflated into very good and fluent Syriac and nothing would be more eafy, than to tranflate it into the Rabbinic and Talmudic dialects. This objection therefore proceded from a want of fufficient information on the fubject.

8. The quotation made in ch. i. 7. ποιων τες αγγελος aTY VEUμaтa, cannot be expreffed in Hebrew.

Anfwer. The words here quoted are taken from Pfalm civ. 4. I admit indeed, with Mr. Neidel, that the Hebrew text in this paffage fignifies, he maketh the winds his meffengers: but I do not admit that this is the only fenfe, of which it is capable, for may be taken in the fenfe of fpirit,' and 7 in that of angel,' as the author of the Septuagint verfion of the Pfalms really has tranflated these words.

מלאך

9. The word anchor occurs ch. vi. 19. a term, which is hardly to be expected in a Hebrew work, as the Jews were not a fea-faring nation.

Anfwer. The Syriac, which in the main agrees with the Chaldee, has feveral names for an anchor, among which the author of the Syriac verfion has chosen in this inftance col and in the Talmud it is denoted by

:

Nor is it true that the Jews were wholly .חוגן or עוגן

unacquainted

unacquainted with fhipping: for, to fay nothing of the age of Solomon, the city of Joppa was made a harbour by the high prieft Simon", and Cæfarea by Herod. The Jews committed even piracy in the Mediterranean, in the time of Pompey.

10. The word Jeaтg Coμevo, ch. x. 33 has a manifest allufion to Greek cuftoms, and the notion conveyed by it cannot be expreffed in Hebrew, because theatres were not permitted among the Jews.

Anfwer. Though theatres were inconfiftent with the Jewish cuftoms, yet the Jews were not wholly unacquainted with them: and Herod even built a theatre both at Jerufalem ", and at Cæfarea The Greek word Geargo was adopted in the Syriac, Chaldee, and Talmudic, and written, 202, N, ', as may be

4

feen on confulting Buxtorf and Schaaf. In the present inftance however the Syriac tranflator has used a pure

.ܚܙܘܢܐ܂ Syriac word and written

Examination of the question, whether the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews is in all refpects an accurate tranflation of the original.

S the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews is only a tranf

Alation, it proceeded from a perfon, who was not

infallible, and was confequently exposed to the danger of mistaking the fenfe of his author. It is neceffary therefore, as far as can be done without a comparison with the original, to examine whether the tranflation be every where free from error. That the tranflator has executed

"I Maccab. xiv. 5.

P Jofeph. Antiq. xv. 8. 1.

• Jofeph. Antiq. xv. 9. 6.

a Ib. xv. 9. 6.

executed his talk with ability, muft be obvious to every one who understands Greek: for, in general, his language is perfpicuous, his fentences are well arranged, and the Epiftle is more eafy to be understood, than any of thofe, which were written by St. Paul. Yet I think fome few exceptions must be made, where the tranflator appears to have rendered inaccurately. The following are examples of this kind.

Ch. 1. 2. δι ὁ και της αιώνας εποίησε, Here the expref. fion Tavas, which again occurs in the fame fenfe, ch. xi. 3. is, I think, exceptionable. Oi aves is conftantly used by the Greek writers as a word expreffive of time, or as denoting a fucceffion of ages: but in the prefent inftance the context requires for it a different fenfe, namely that of worlds.' Now the Jews used their in both fenses; for though it literally denotes fæculum,' yet they frequently appied it in the sense of mundus. For inftance, they called the Earth Dy SD, that is, the lower world; to the middle regions they gave the name of y, and the upper regions, or the heavens, they dénoted by now! It is therefore not improbable, that where res a Was stands in the translation, the Hebrew word was ufed, by which the author intended to exprefs the notion of worlds.' But as it fignifies at other times ages, this fenfe fuggefted itself to the tranflator, which induced him to render it, and that too improperly in the prefent inftance, by res asuvas: for in no other inftance, either in the New Teftament, or in the Septuagint is this word ufed in the fenfe of worlds.' If we reject the opinion that the Epiftle was written in Hebrew, it will be almost impoffible to give a fatisfactory explanation of this fingular ufe of οἱ αιώνες.

Ch. ii. 1. δια τετο δει περισσοτερως ήμας προσέχειν τοις ακεσθείσι, μη ποτε παραρρυωμεν. Here μη ποτέ παραρρή

See Buxtorf Lex. Talm, p. 1620.

fcil.

fcil. Ta axxolevra, ne effluant audita a nobis, would agree much better with the context than μη ποτε παραρρυωμεν, which all the commentators have found it difficult to explain. Perhaps, this is another inftance of inaccuracy in the tranflator: and if the original was not pure Hebrew, but Syriac, the cause of the mistake may be very easily affigned. In Syriac, the verb has the fame form in the firft perfon plural, as in the third perfon fingular and in this very example, the Syriac version has, which denotes both μn were wagäggvwμ‹v,

་

and μn wore wagageon.

Ch. ii. 9. όπως χαριτι θες ύπερ παντός γεύσηται θανάτε. Inftead of xagiri 98, fome authorities have xwgs Few. It is true that this variation might eafily take place by mere accident in a Greek manufcript: but when I wrote the note to this verfe in my Commentary on the Epistle, I ventured the conjecture that both of thefe readings were tranflations from the Hebrew. For D fignifies Xapiri, and on, which differs only in the turn of a letter denotes xweis. At prefent, this conjecture appears χωρίς. to me to be lets probable, than it did formerly: I note it however as a fubject for future inquiry..

Ch. iii. 3. 4. as worded in the Greek gives a sense, which could hardly have been meant by a writer fo rational, as the author of this Epiftle: but as foon as we represent the paffage in Hebrew the difficulty vanishes. It is probable, that where xaradxEvaσas auтov ftands in the Greek, 1 was ufed in the original, which according to the defign of the author fhould have been pronounced

and tranflated ios auT: but the tranflator pronounced it, and accordingly rendered it xxTxσxeuxσας αυτού. The reader will find a further illuftration of of this example in my Note to the paffage.

Ch. v. 13. πας γαρ ὁ μετέχων γαλακτος, απειρος λόγο δικαιοσύνης, νηπιος γαρ εσι, is extremely harth and obfcure. In the roth verfe, the subject related to the 'Prieft after the

על דברתי מלכיצדק,order of Melchifedek, in Hebrew

after which the author argues thus: of whom I have much to fay, but ye are at prefent not fufficiently

advanced