tracted, and so much is left to be fupplied by the reader, that it is fometimes difficult to difcover the Apostle's meaning. Five chapters especially of the Epistle to the Hebrews difplay a copioufnefs of argument, which appears to be inconfiftent with the concife manner of St. Paul. The arguments therefore on both fides of the queftion are nearly of equal weight: but if there is any preponderance, it is in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was not the author. For the defign of visiting Jerufalem, which the author of this Epiftle expreffes, would hardly have been formed by St. Paul on his release from imprisonment. And if St. Paul was really the author, it is difficult to account for the omiffion of his name at the opening of the Epistle, fince the omiffion cannot well be afcribed to a tranflator, who would not have neglected to retain a name, which gave authority to the Epiftle'. After all then, we must confefs, that we do not know, whether St. Paul wrote this Epistle, or not. An abfolute decifion on this fubject is indeed to be wished, but, in my opinion, not to be obtained, 9 Chap. vi-x. See Sect. 2. of this Chapter. VOL. IV. R SECT. SECT. XVII. Examination of the opinion entertained by fome of the ancients, that Barnabas was the author. HAT Barnabas was the author of the Epiftle to the THebrews was formerly a not unufual opinion in the Latin church. Now this opinion in itself contains nothing improbable: for Barnabas was by birth a Levite, and well acquainted with the Jewish laws, and with the Jewish literature. Confequently a learned Epiftle, like that to the Hebrews, is fuch as might be expected from his hand. And, if that which is commonly called the Epiftle of Barnabas, is, as many critics believe, a for-. gery under his name, we have no writings of Barnabas now extant, which we can oppofe to the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and thence argue against this opinion from a difference of ftyle. On this ground therefore it would be difficult to confute the opinion, fince no one can. prove that Barnabas was unable to write as good Greek, as that which is contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But, if on the other hand the Epiftle afcribed to Barnabas be really genuine, as other critics affert, the ftate of the queftion will be materially altered. The moft ancient writer, who has mentioned Barnabas, as author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, is Tertullian and this Latin father fpeaks, not in dubious terms, but agreeably to his ufual manner in a decifive tone. In his treatife entitled, De pudicitia, c. 20. he quotes the Epiftle to the Hebrews in fupport of the Montanistic doctrine, that they who had fallen after baptifm could not again expect remiffion of their fins. He quotes it however not as fcripture, in the ftrictest fense of the word, but as a work of deutero-canonical authority, and as affording only collateral proof. His words Moft of the Latin fathers confidered the Epiftle to the Hebrews in the fame light. 1 W words are as follow. Volo ex abundantia alicujus comitis apoftolorum teftimonium fuperinducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure difciplinam magiftrorum. Extat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebræos', adco fatis auctoritatis viri, ut quem Paulus juxta fe pofuerit in abftinentiæ tenore, 6 aut ego folus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi poteftatem".' Et utique receptior apud ecclefias Epiftola Barnabæ illo apocrypho Paftore mæchorum. Monens igitur difcipulos, omiffis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere, nec rurfum fundamenta poenitentiæ jacere operibus mortuorum: impoffible enini eft, inquit, illos, qui femel inluminati funt, et donum coelefte guftaverunt, et participarunt fpiritum fanctum, et verbum Dei dulce guftarunt, occidente jam ævo, cum exciderint rurfus revocari in pœnitentiam,, refigentes cruci in femetipfis filium Dei et dedecorantes. This opinion of Tertullian, that Barnabas was the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, muft have been entertained in the following centuries by many members of the Latin church, though it does appear to have been adopted by the Greek writers. For Jerom in his Epiftle to Dardanus fays: Noftris dicendum eft, hanc epiftolam quæ infcribitur ad Hebræos,' non folum ab ecclefiis Orientis, fed ab omnibus retro ecclefiafticis Græci fermonis fcriptoribus quafi Pauli apoftoli fufcipi, licet plerique eam vel Barnabæ vel Clementis arbitren tura. X That is, the Epiftle with the title, ' ad Hebræos.' u 1 Cor. ix. 16. But w Here Tertullian means the Epiftle of Barnabas, commonly fo called. We fee likewife from this paffage, that the Epiftle afcribed to Barnabas was greatly preferred by the African churches to the Shep herd of Hermas. * Tom. II. p. 608. y Jerom should not have faid omnibus,' for Origen at least makes an exception. See Sect. 15. of this chapter. Plerique applies here to the members of the Latin church only, who are oppofed to thofe of the Greek church mentioned in the former part of the fentence. a Lardner in his Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory, P. II. Vol. x. P. 123. 124, expreffes a doubt, whether they who afcribed the Epistle But how great fo ever the number may have been among the members of the Latin church, who afcribed. this Epiftle to Barnabas, their affertions can be received only as private opinion, not as hiftorical evidence, because the report is wholly unknown to the most ancient Greek fathers. Neither Tertullian, nor Jerom has advanced any argument in its fupport, and therefore it is difficult at prefent to affign the caufe, which gave it birth. It is however not improbable, that the opinion took its rife in the following manner. Though the Epistle to the Hebrews was not received as a work of St. Paul, on account of the difference of its ftyle, it was still held, as it juftly deferves, in veneration, Clement of Rome, for inftance, having quoted from it whole paffages. But of a work, which we esteem, we always endeavour to discover the author, and if we cannot obtain certainty we have recourse to conjecture, and often affign to an anonymous work a name, which we think it deferves. Now between the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and that which is called the Epiftle of Barnabas, notwithstanding their diffimilarity in other respects, there is a resemblance in the felection of the materials, and fometimes in the cloice of the words. The two Epiftles agree likewife in this refpect, that the author neither of the one, nor of the other, has mentioned his name at the beginning, though it was ufual in Greek Epiftles. Further, both of them abound with explana tions to Barnabas, or to Clement, did not mean, that these were only the fcribes, who wrote what St. Paul dictated. But I cannot fuppofe that this was their meaning. In the whole Epiftle there is no falutation either from Barnabas, or from Clement: we have no reafon to fuppofe that Barnabas was with St. Paul when he was released from imprisonment: and, as Barnabas was not only the colleague of St. Paul, but likewife greatly his fenior, it is not probable that Barnabas was employed merely as an amanuenfis. b I here leave the question undecided, whether this Epiftle be genuine or not. • The Latin tranflation of the Epiftle of Barnabas (for the two first chapters of the Greek are loft) begins thus, Avete filii et filiæ in nomine domini noftri Jefu Chrifti. tions of paffages from the Old Teftament. It is therefore not at all extraordinary that both of these anonymous Epiftles have been afcribed to the fame author. Yet notwithstanding thefe Epiftles in some respects agree, a more minute comparifon of them will fhew that they cannot well have been written by the fame author. As Barnabas however may ftill have written the one, if he did not write the other, we must previously examine, whether the Epiftle, which is commonly called the Epiftle of Barnabas, be genuine. Eufebius refers it to the clafs of fpurious writings: and I am inclined to accede to this opinion, though I will not decide on the the subject, because this would require an examination of all the arguments on both fides of the question. My chief reafon for thinking that Barnabas was not the author of the Epiftle, which goes under his name, is, not that it contains fome very extraordinary interpretations of the Old Teftament, though, even these are in' my opinion unworthy of Barnabas, but that it contains a paffage, which betrays fuch ignorance in regard to the Hebrew letters, as can hardly be expected from a Jewish teacher of Christianity, who had long refided in Jerusalem. Surely Barnabas must have known that Jefus was written in Hebrew yw, with Y, and not П, and that (which in fome Alphabets has the fhape of the cross) denoted, as a numeral, not 300, but 400. Yet there is a paffage in this Epiftle, which betrays an ignorance in both these respects ✨, Nola. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. III. 25. But Δηλοι The paffage, which I mean is in § 7. where the author, fpeaking of the three hundred and eighteen fervants of Abraham, fays that the number 318 denotes Jefus and the Cross. This he makes out in the following manner. Μαθετε τις δεκαοκτώ πρώτες, είτα της τριακοσιάς. Των γας δεκα και οκτω, Ιωτα δεκα, Ητα οκτω. Εχεις Ιησεν. Ότι δε Γαυρος εν τω Τ εμελλεν έχειν την χάριν, λέγει και τις τριακοσίας. εν τον μεν Ιησαν εν τοις δυσι γραμμασι, και εν ένι τον ταυρον. There words I tranflate thus. Note firft the 18, and then the 300. Of the 18, Jod is 10, and Heth is 8. Thus you have Jefus. And because the crofs in the Tau was to obtain grace, he fays alfo 300. It is evident therefore, that Jefus is denoted in two letters and the crofs in R 3 one.' |