Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

A part of the hiftory of this community, to which allufion is made, ch. xiii. 8, 9, 10. entirely fails us, which, if we were acquainted with it, would throw great light on the Epiftle, efpecially on this obfcure paffage. From the words, Jefus Chrift, the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever,' taken in their connexion with the feventh verfe, Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, whofe faith follow, confidering the end of their converfation,' I can draw no other conclufion, than that feveral members of the community had endeavoured to introduce into Christianity fome doctrines different from thofe, which had been taught by their former teachers, especially by St. James. This appears more plainly, when we read further, Be not carried about with divers and ftrange doctrines.' The queftion cannot here relate to the retaining of the Levitical law, as a fyftem of unchangeable and eternal commands of the Deity; for this was no new doctrine among the Chriftians at Jerufalem, all of whom, even after they had become converts to Chriftianity, remained zealously attached to the law of Mofes, Acts xxi. 20. Immediately after (Heb. xiii. 9.), the subject relates to offerings: It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace, not with meats, which have not profited them, which have been occupied therein. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat, which ferve the tabernacle.' This likewife was nothing new at Jerufalem: and when St. Paul, Acts xxi. 2326. defrayed the expences neceffary for the performance of fome Nazarite vows, the ceremonies were accompanied with offerings. See Numb. vi. 14, 15. where a ram is ordered for a meat-offering, and ver. 20. where the Nazarite, after the fulfilling of his vow, is permitted again to drink wine. I am inclined therefore to fuppofe, that attempts had been made to introduce offerings as a part of the Chriftian fervice, perhaps general offerings in the name of the whole community:

[ocr errors]

but

but, as we have no hiftorical evidence for the affertion, I advance the opinion merely as conjecture.

That the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews be lieved in the divinity of Chrift, is manifeft from what he fays, ch. i, 2, 3. But, when I confider what pains he has taken, ver. 4-14. to prove that Chrift is greater than the angels, and in the third chapter that he is greater than Mofes, I conclude, that the perfons, to whom it was fent, were not univerfally convinced, that Chrift was God: for if they were, they were of courfe convinced, that he was greater than Mofes and the angels, a point therefore, which it would have been useless to have proved by fo many quotations. But on this fubject I must request the reader to examine my Notes to this part of the Epiftle, where it will appear, that the author of it has taken his proofs, not from the divinity of Chrift, of which the quoted paffages cannot be explained without the utmoit violence and perverfion, but from the facerdotal office of Jefus, and the biblical as well as the Jewish doctrine of angels. That many of the Jewish Chriftians, the Ebionites for inftance, confidered Chrift as a mere man, is a known fact. If therefore a writer, in order to obviate the arguments for a return to Judaifm, undertook to convince fuch perfons, that the Chriftian religion was not inferior to the Mofaic, either in fublimity or in the divinity of its origin, nor to be lefs valued than the law, which was given by the miniftration of angels, it was neceffary to argue from data, which they already granted, and not to found his reafoning on principles, of which they would not have admitted the truth.

7

SECT.

SECT. VII.

Of the time when, and the place where, this Epiftle was

written.

FTER that, which I have already faid on the perfecution of the Chriftians under the younger Ananus, and the martyrdom of St. James, I must conclude, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written till after the death of the Procurator Feftus, in the year 64, which was immediately followed by the perfecution under Ananus, the author of the Epiftle having already experienced its effects on the Hebrews, who began to waver in the faith, to forfake the places. of public worship, and fome of them even to apoftatize. This date agrees likewife with the circumftance, that in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, ch. x. 28. 37-39. the coming of the Lord, namely to hold judgement over Jerufalem, is defcribed as being at hand: for the Jewish war commenced in the year 67, and in 70 Jerufalem was taken and deftroyed. But I apprehend, that it was written before the troubles actually commenced, and therefore not during the government of Ceftius Gallus: for though I believe, that the Christians in Palestine, at leaft thofe, who deferved the name, (for I do not include thofe, who expected the coming of the Meffiah to overthrow the Roman power, and establish a temporal kingdom') did not entertain any rebellious principles, yet I think, if it had been written fo late as the year 66, when matters were ripe for rebellion, it would have contained fome allufion to the exifting troubles, with advice to the Chriftians, not to take part in the public difturbances.

Nearly the fame date has been affigned to this Epiftle by other commentators, who argue from ch xiii. 23

VOL. IV.

↑ Mark xiii, 6. Luke xxi. 8.

O

where

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 leaft had expectations of a fpeedy 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 fuppofition, that St. Paul was the author, it can have no force, till this point has been established.

With respect to the place, it is lefs easy to determine where it was, than where it was not written. Most commentators fuppofe, that it was written in Italy, because the author fays, ch. xiii. 24. ArraCouraι iμas oi απο της Ιτάλιας: 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 Di aтo τns Itaλias: 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 Epiftle was written no where in Italy, for the phrafe of ano τns Iraλias implies, that these 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 otherwife the author would have fent falutations at least from fome of the principal members of the Chriftian community in that place. Any thing further on this fubject 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

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.

I

[blocks in formation]

Of the language, in which this Epistle 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 least, if we may judge from the authors, who have written on the subject, 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 greateft 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 prayer, both in Palestine and in the Eastern Afia, and it was understood by every man of education.

of

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »