§ 5. The language in which it was written.

This is a vexed and still unsettled question, and it does not seem to be pos sible to determine it with any considerable degree of certainty. Critics of the ablest name have been divided on it, and what is remarkable, have appealed to the same arguments to prove exactly opposite opinions-one class arguing that the style of the epistle is such as to prove that it was written in Hebrew, and the other appealing to the same proofs to demonstrate that it was written in Greek. Among those who have supposed that it was written in Hebrew are the following, viz. :-Some of the Fathers-as Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, John Damascenus, Theophylact; and among the moderns, Micha elis has been the most strenuous defender of this opinion. This opinion was also held by the late Dr. James P. Wilson, who says, "It was probably written in the vulgar language of the Jews;" that is, in that mixture of Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldee, which was usually spoken in the time of the Saviour, and which was known as the Syro-Chaldaic.

On the other hand, the great body of critics have supposed it was written in the Greek language. This was the opinion of Fabricius, Lightfoot, Whitby, Beausobre, Capellus, Basnage, Mill, and others, and is also the opinion of Lardner, Hug, Stuart, and perhaps of most modern critics. These opinions may be seen examined at length in Michaelis' Introduction, Hug, Stuart, and Lardner.

The arguments in support of the opinion that it was written in Hebrew are, briefly, the following: (1.) The testimony of the Fathers. Thus Clement of Alexandria says, "Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and Luke carefully translated it into Greek." Jerome says, “Paul as a Hebrew wrote to the Hebrews in Hebrew-Scripserat ut Hebræus Hebræis Hebraicè ;" and then he adds, "this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was made diverse in this way from that of Paul's." (2.) The fact that it was written for the use of the Hebrews, who spoke the Hebrew, or the Talmudic language, is alleged as a reason for sup posing that it must have been written in that language. (3.) It is alleged by Michaelis, that the style of the Greek, as we now have it, is far more pure and classical than Paul elsewhere employs, and that hence it is to be inferred that it was translated by some one who was master of the Greek language. On this, however, the most eminent critics disagree. (4.) It is alleged by Michaelis, that the quotations in the epistle, as we have it, are made from the Septuagint, and that they are foreign to the purpose which the writer had in view as they are now quoted, whereas they are exactly in point as they stand in the Hebrew. Hence he infers that the original Hebrew was quoted by the author, and that the translator used the common version at hand instead of making an exact translation for himself. Of the fact alleged here, however, there may be good ground to raise a question; and if it were so, it would not prove that the writer might not have used the common and accredited translation, though less to his purpose than the original. Of the fact, moreover, to which Michaelis here refers, Prof. Stuart says, "He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls a wrong translation which wears the appearance of any considerable probability." The only instance urged by Michaelis which seems to me to be plausible is Heb. i. 7. These are the principal arguments which have been urged in favour of the opinion that this epistle was written in the Hebrew language. They are evidently not conclusive The only argument of any considerable weight is the testimony of some of the Fathers, and it may be doubted whether they gave this as a matter o

historic fact or only as a matter of opinion. See Hug's Introduction, § 144. It is morally certain that in one respect their statement cannot be true. They state that it was translated by Luke; but it is capable of the clearest proof that it was not translated by Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, since there is the most remarkable dissimilarity in the style.

On the other hand there are alleged in favour of the opinion that it was written in Greek the following considerations, viz. :

(1.) The fact that we have no Hebrew original. If it was written in Hebrew, the original was early lost. None of the Fathers say that they had seen it; ; none quote it. All the copies that we have are in Greek. If it was written in Hebrew, and the original was destroyed, it must have been at a very early period, and it is remarkable that no one should have mentioned the fact or alluded to it. Besides, it is scarcely conceivable that the original should have so soon perished, and that the translation should have altogether taken its place. If it was addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine, the same reason which made it proper that it should have been written in Hebrew would have led them to retain it in that language, and we might have supposed that Origen, or Eusebius, or Jerome, who lived there, or Ephrem the Syrian, would have adverted to the fact that there was there a Hebrew original. The Jews were remarkable for retaining their sacred books in the language in which they were written, and if this were written in Hebrew it is difficult to account for the fact that it was so soon suffered to perish.

(2.) The presumption—a presumption amounting to almost a moral cer tainty-is, that an apostle writing to the Christians in Palestine would write in Greek. This presumption is based on the following circumstances: (a) The fact that all the other books of the New Testament were written in Greek, unless the gospel by Matthew be an exception. (b) This occurred in cases where it would seem to have been as improbable as it was that one writing to the Hebrews should use that language. For instance, Paul wrote to the church in Rome in the Greek language, though the Latin language was that which was in universal use there. (c) The Greek was a common language in the East. It seems to have been familiarly spoken, and to have been commonly understood. (d) Like the other books of the New Testament, this epistle does not appear to have been intended to be confined to the Hebrews only. The writings of the apostles were regarded as the property of the church at large. Those writings would be copied and spread abroad. The Greck was a far better language for such a purpose than the Hebrew. It was polished and elegant; was adapted to the purpose of discoursing on moral subjects; was fitted to express delicate shades of thought, and was the language which was best understood by the world at large. (e) It was the language which Paul would naturally use unless there was a strong reason for his employing the Hebrew. Though he was able to speak in Hebrew (Acts xxi. 40), yet he had spent his early days in Tarsus, where the Greek was the vernacular tongue, and it was probably that which he had first learned. Besides this, when this epistle was written he had been absent from Palestine about twenty-five years, and in all that time he had been there but a few days. He had been where the Greek language was universally spoken. He had been among Jews who spoke that language. It was the language used in their synagogues, and Paul had addressed them in it. After thus preaching, conversing, and writing in that language for twenty-five years, is it any wonder that he should prefer writing in it; that he should naturally do it; and is it not to be presumed that he would do it in this case? These

presumptions are so strong that they ought to be allowed to settle a question of this kind unless there is positive proof to the contrary.

(3.) There is internal proof that it was written in the Greek language. The evidence of this kind consists in the fact that the writer bases an argument on the meaning and force of Greek words, which could not have occurred had he written in Hebrew. Instances of this kind are such as these. (a) In ch. ii. he applies a passage from Ps. viii. to prove that the Son of God must have had a human nature, which was to be exalted above the angels, and placed at the head of the creation. The passage is, "Thou hast made him a little while inferior to the angels." Ch. ii. 7, margin. In the Hebrew, in Ps. viii. 5, the word rendered angels, is —Elohim—God ; and the sense of angels attached to that word, though it may sometimes occur, is so unusual, that an argument would not have been built on the Hebrew. (b) In ch. vii. 1, the writer has explained the name Melchizedek, and translated it king of Salem-telling what it is in Greek-a thing which would not have been done had he written in Hebrew, where the word was well understood. It is possible, indeed, that a translator might have done this, but the explanation seems to be interwoven with the discourse itself, and to constitute a part of the argument. (c) In ch. ix. 16, 17, there is an argument on the meaning of the word covenant—diadýên-which could not have occurred had the epistle been in Hebrew. It is founded on the double meaning that word—denoting both a covenant and a testament, or will. The Hebrew word-'-Berith-has no such double signification. It means covenant only, and is never used in the sense of the word will, or testament. The proper translation of that word would be ovvdýкn—synthēkē—but the translators of the Septuagint uniformly used the former-diaýкn—-diathēkē—–—–—– and on this word the argument of the apostle is based. This could not have been done by a translator; it must have been by the original author, for it is incorporated into the argument. (d) In ch. x. 3-9, the author shows that Christ came to make an atonement for sin, and that in order to this it was necessary that he should have a human body. This he shows was not only necessary, but was predicted. In doing this, he appeals to Ps. xl. 6—“ Å body hast thou prepared for me." But the Hebrew here is, " Mine ears hast thou opened." This passage would have been much less pertinent than the other form-"a body hast thou prepared me ;"—and indeed it is not easy to see how it would bear at all on the object in view. See ver. 10. But in the Septuagint the phrase stands as he quotes it"a body hast thou prepared for me;" a fact which demonstrates, whatever difficulties there may be about the principle on which he makes the quotation, that the epistle was written in Greek. It may be added, that it has nothing of the appearance of a translation. It is not stiff, forced, or constrained in style, as translations usually are. It is impassioned, free, flowing, full of animation, life and colouring, and has all the appearance of being an original composition. So clear have these considerations appeared, that the great body of critics now concur in the opinion that the epistle was originally written in Greek.

§ 6. The design and general argument of the Epistle.

The general purpose of this epistle is, to preserve those to whom it was sent from the danger of apostasy. Their danger on this subject did not arise so much from persecution, as from the circumstances that were fitted to attract them again to the Jewish religion. The temple, it is supposed, and indeed it is evident, was still standing. The morning and evening sacrifice was still

offered. The splendid rites of that imposing re.igion were still observed. The authority of the law was undisputed. Moses was a lawgiver, sent from God, and no one doubted that the Jewish form of religion had been instituted by their fathers in conformity with the direction of God. Their religion had been founded amidst remarkable manifestations of the Deity-in flames, and smoke, and thunder; it had been communicated by the ministration of angels; it had on its side and in its favour all the venerableness and sanction of a remote antiquity; and it commended itself by the pomp of its ritual, and by the splendour of its ceremonies. On the other hand, the new form of religion had little or nothing of this to commend it. It was of recent origin. It was founded by the Man of Nazareth, who had been trained up in their own land, and who had been a carpenter, and who had had no extraordinary advantages of education. Its rites were few and simple. It had no splendid temple service; none of the pomp and pageantry, the music and the magnificence of the ancient religion. It had no splendid array of priests in magnificent vestments, and it had not been imparted by the ministry of angels. Fishermen were its ministers; and by the body of the nation it was regarded as a schism, or heresy, that enlisted in its favour only the most humble and lowly of the people.

In these circumstances, how natural was it for the enemies of the gospel in Judea, to contrast the two forms of religion, and how keenly would Christians there feel it! All that was said of the antiquity and the divine origin of the Jewish religion they knew and admitted; all that was said of its splendour and magnificence they saw; and all that was said of the humble origin of their own religion they were constrained to admit also. Their danger was not that arising from persecution. It was that of being affected by considerations like these, and of relapsing again into the religion of their fathers, and of apostatizing from the gospel; and it was a danger which beset no other part of the Christian world.

To meet and counteract this danger was the design of this epistle. Accordingly the writer contrasts the two religions in all the great points on which the minds of Christians in Judea would be likely to be affected, and shows the superiority of the Christian religion over the Jewish in every respect, and especially in the points that had so much attracted their attention, and affected their hearts. He begins by showing that the Author of the Christian religion was superior in rank to any and all who had ever delivered the word of God to man. He was superior to the prophets, and even to the angels. He was over all things, and all things were subject to him. There was, therefore, a special reason why they should listen to him, and obey his commands. Ch. i., ii. He was superior to Moses, the great Jewish lawgiver, whom they venerated so much, and on whom they so much prided themselves. Ch. iii. Having shown that the Great Founder of the Christian religion was superior to the prophets, to Moses, and to the angels, the writer proceeds to show that the Christian religion was characterized by having a High Priest superior to that of the Jews, and of whom the Jewish high priest was but a type and emblem. He shows that all the rites of the ancient religion, splendid as they were, were also but types, and were to vanish away -for they had had their fulfilment in the realities of the Christian faith. He shows that the Christian's High Priest derived his origin and his rank from a more venerable antiquity than the Jewish high priest did-for he went back to Melchizedek, who lived long before Aaron, and that he had far superior dignity from the fact that he had entered into the Holy of Holies in heaven. The Jewish High Priest entered once a year into the Most Holv

2*

place in the temple; the Great High Priest of the Christian faith had entered into the Most Holy place-of which that was but the type and emblem-into heaven. In short, whatever there was of dignity and honour in the Jewish faith had more than its counterpart in the Christian religion; and while the Christian religion was permanent, that was fading. The rites of the Jewish system, magnificent as they were, were designed to be temporary. They were mere types and shadows of things to come. They had their fulfilment in Christianity. That had an Author more exalted in rank by far than the author of the Jewish system; it had a High Priest more elevated and enduring; it had rites which brought men nearer to God; it was the substance of what in the temple service was type and shadow. By considerations such as these the author of this epistle endeavours to preserve them from apostasy. Why should they go back? Why should they return to a less perfect system? Why go back from the substance to the shadow? Why turn away from the true sacrifice to the type and emblem? Why linger around the earthly tabernacle, and contemplate the high priest there, while they had a more perfect and glorious High Priest, who had entered into the heavens ? And why should they turn away from the only perfect sacrifice—the great offering made for transgression-and go back to the bloody rites which were to be renewed every day? And why forsake the perfect system-the system that was to endure for ever—for that which was soon to vanish away? The author of this epistle is very careful to assure them that if they thus apostatized, there could be no hope for them. If they now rejected the sacrifice of the Son of God, there was no other sacrifice for sin. That was the last great sacrifice for the sins of men. It was designed to close all bloody offerings. It was not to be repeated. If that was rejected, there was no other. The Jewish rites were soon to pass away; and even if they were not, they could not cleanse the conscience from sin. Persecuted then though they might be; reviled, ridiculed, opposed, yet they should not abandon their Christian hope, for it was their all; they should not neglect him who spake to them from heaven, for in dignity, rank, and authority, he far surpassed all who in former times had made known the will of God to men.

This epistle, therefore, occupies a most important place in the book of reve lation, and without it that book would be incomplete. It is the most fuli explanation which we have of the meaning of the Jewish institutions. In the epistle to the Romans we have a system of religious doctrine, and particularly a defence of the great doctrine of justification by faith. Important doctrines are discussed in the other epistles; but there was something wanted that would show the meaning of the Jewish rites and ceremonies, and their connexion with the Christian scheme; something which would show us how the one was preparatory to the other; and I may add, something that would restrain the imagination in endeavouring to show how the one was designed to introduce the other. The one was a system of types and shadows. But on nothing is the human mind more prone to wander than on the subject of emblems and analogics. This has been shown abundantly in the experience of the Christian church, from the time of Origen to the present. Systems of divinity, commentaries, and sermons, have shown everywhere how prone men of ardent imaginations have been to find types in everything pertaining to the ancient economy; to discover hidden meanings in every ceremony; and to regard every pin and hook and instrument of the tabernacle as designed to inculcate some truth, and to shadow forth some fact or doctrine of the Christian revelation. It was desirable to have one book that should tell how that is; to fetter down the imagination and bind it by seve. 6