to its style. I appeal to every man's feelings who reads it, and ask, Are
there, in the whole book of God, any warnings so awful as here, and
expressed with such mighty energy ? Are there any threats of punish-
ment for unbelief, so tremendous and impassioned as those in this
epistle ?
Then, as to " every thing being arranged in such exact order," as they
aver, " conclusion following conclusion, all in the manner of a good
rhetorician ;" the instances above produced, and which might easily be
increased, of enthymemes, and suspended construction, exactly in the
manner of Paul, may help to judge of this. Moreover, let any one make
the attempt to translate this epistle into his own vernacular language,
and he will then see whether all is so well rounded and perspicuous, as
these critics represent it to be. I find ellipsis as frequent here, as in
Paul's acknowledged writings. Any good translation, that exhibits the
supply of these ellipses, and marks them by the common mode in which
they are printed, demonstrates this to the eye. Hebraism I find here, as
well and as often as in Paul. In short, I cannot but feel, in reading the
epistle to the Hebrews, that the writer has reached the very summit of
eloquence, and energy, and vivid representation, in many passages of his
composition ; and I am constrained to make a similar acknowledgment,
in respect to many passages of the known epistles of Paul. I cannot per-
ceive any striking diversity in regard to these characteristics.
To what cause, now, can it be attributed, that feelings so very differ-
ent, in respect to the character of the style, should arise in the minds of
men, when they read the epistle in question ? Two reasons for this, I
apprehend, may be given. The first and principal one is, that the main
topics of this epistle are so diverse from those generally treated of in the
acknowledged epistles of Paul, that they required, of course and from
necessity, a variety of words, phrases, and ideas, that either are not
common, or are riot at all to be found in his other epistles. This I regard
as chiefly the ground of the judgment which has so often been passed
in respect to dissimilarity of style. The other is, that one comes to the
reading of this epistle, with his feelings impressed by the circumstance,
156 $ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT.
that there is a want of direct evidence about the author ; and conse-
quently so tuned, as to be strongly agitated by any thing, which may
seem to increase or diminish the probability that Paul was the author
of it. That the doctrinal views, contained in this epistle, have made many
willing to get rid of its canonical authority, if it could be done, is not by
any means improbable. After all, however, in a question where there
is such a difference of sentiment in regard to style, among those who are
capable of judging, the appeal must be made, and can be made, only to
actual comparison. Such an appeal I have endeavoured to make. To
array mere feeling or apprehension, arising from the perusal of the
epistle, against actual comparison, can never be to judge by making use
of the best means of judging. Origen's authority, in this case, cannot
go far with any one who chooses to examine and decide for himself.
Origen, with all his talents and learning, was far enough from being a
Cicero or a Quintilian, in respect to taste and nice discernment of differ-
ences of style. He makes assertions equally confident, in other cases, that
will not bear the test of examination ; and assertions, too, that have respect
to the Greek language, his mother tongue. For example, he says that
the want of the article before deog, in John i. 1, proves that the writer
cannot have meant to designate the supreme God by this word. Now,
whether the supreme God be meant, or not, can never be determined by
such a rule ; for it is usual, in the Greek language, that the predicate
of a proposition should be without the article, while the subject com-
monly has it. Moreover, in the very same chapter, Oeog stands without
the article, in more than one instance, incontrovertibly, for the supreme
God; e. g. in verses 6. 12, 13. 18. Whether Origen's opinion, then,
about the style of the epistle to the Hebrews, is well founded or not, is
a proper subject of examination. The result of comparison has shown,
that in respect to sentiment, phraseology, and diction, the epistle is
filled with the peculiarities of Paul. I doubt whether any one of Paul's
acknowledged epistles, compared with the others, will supply more, or
more exact resemblances.
I know, indeed, that no critic can be argued out of feelings of this
sort in respect to style. But he may reasonably be called upon to state
the ground of those feelings ; specially so, when he asserts, with a con-
fidence which is intended to influence others, that the style of the epistle
to the Hebrews cannot be Paul's.
(5.) But Bertholdt has made the appeal to fact. He has produced
words and expressions which, he says, " are not Pauline, and which
26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 157
serve satisfactorily to show, that Paul could not have written the epistle
to the Hebrews." 1 proceed to examine them.
(a) In Hebrews xiii. 7. 17. 24, the word rjyovfievoi is used for
teachers ; Paul every where employs the word iao-/ca\oi for this pur-
pose," p. 2937.
The allegation, that Paul every where uses the word SiSaffKaXoi to
designate teachers, is far from being correct. He uses, besides this, the
words Trpeff(3uTpog, 1 Tim. v. 1. 17. 19 ; Tit. i. 5 ; tVfVicoTroe, Acts xx. 28 ;
Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 7 ; TTOI^V, Eph. iv. 11. Very natural for
Paul it must have been, to apply a variety of appellations to Christian
ministers, which would correspond with those applied to religious teachers
in the Jewish synagogues. These were W1B, pastor, leader, guide,
prefect ; -^POD, leader, guide ; T3J, ruler, prefect ; and ^K, guide,
director. What could be more natural, then, than for Paul, when
writing to Hebrews, to call the teachers in their churches r/yov/^evot, which
corresponds quite well with all of the above appellations, that they had
been accustomed to give to their religious teachers ? Besides, the argu-
ment of Bertholdt, if admitted, would prove too much. The same mode
of reasoning must lead us to conclude, that those epistles, in which
Christian teachers are called eTrtcrKoiroi, cannot be reckoned as Paul's,
because SttiaffKaXoi is not used instead of tTrtV/coTrot. The same may be
said, in respect to the use of the words Troi^iveg and Trpeo-^yrepoi. The
consequence would be, that several of Paul's now acknowledged epistles
could not be ascribed to him. But who, that knows the variety of
appellations employed to designate teachers in the Jewish synagogues,
can attribute any critical weight to the fact, that such a variety of Greek
terms is used, corresponding with the Hebrew appellations that were
familiar to those whom our author addressed ? And of all these Greek
names of pastors, certainly, none better corresponds with the Hebrew
ones, than the word {jyovptvot, employed in our epistle.
It may be added, too, that Paul employed a term here, not at all
unique ; for the same appellation is given to teachers, in Luke xxii. 26 ;
Acts xiv. 12 ; xv. 22.
(b) " In the epistle to the Hebrews, Kare'xeiv j@f/3cuW is used for
holding fast, Heb. iii. 6. 14 ; and rare'xet* 7 aK\ivrj, in Heb. x. 23 ; while
Paul uses only fcar / x' simply, 1 Cor. xi. 2 ; xv. 2 ; 1 Thess. v. 21."
On examination, I find the verb jcare'xw, in the sense of holding fast,
carefully retaining, to be exclusively Pauline. This word, then, affords
an argument, to establish a conclusion , the reverse of that for which it is
158 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT.
tdduced by Bertholdt. The addition of faflaiav or uK\ivij is evidently
for the purpose merely of intensity ; just as we may join an adverb to a
verb for this purpose, or we may refrain from the use of it^and still
employ the same verb simply in the same sense. What could be more
natural, now, than for the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to employ
words of intensity, while in the state of strongly excited feeling in
which he wrote ?
(c) " In the epistle to the Hebrews, we find EIQ TO StnvtKec, vii. 3, and
elc TO TrarTtXeg, vii. 25, used to designate the idea of for ever ; while
Paul always uses tig rout alwrae"
Our author also employs alwv, in the epistle to the Hebrews, no less
than nine times in the like way ; viz. i. 8 ; v. 6 ; vi. 20 ; vii. 17. 21.
24. 28; xiii. 8. 21. Is it a matter of wonder, then, that he should
sometimes employ other words for the same purpose, which were syno-
nymous ; specially, if those words belonged both to common and to
Hebrew Greek ? Such is the fact, in respect to both the words in ques-
tion. Adji/crec is used by ^Elian, Var. Hist. i. 19 ; by Appian, Bell.
Civ. i. p. 682; Heliod. Ethiop. i. p. 25. Lucian, V. H. i. 19; by
Symmachus, translator of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, Ps. xlviii.
15. IlavreXec is used by ./Elian, vii. 2 ; xii. 20 ; by Josephus, Antiq. vi.
2, 3 ; and by Luke, xiii. 11.
But whether the sense of the word TravrfXee, in Heb. vii. 25, is for
ever, may be doubted. Its etymology would lead to the sense of pror-
sus, omnino, i. e. entirely, altogether, thoroughly ; and so, many critics
have construed it. Such is clearly the meaning of Tran-eXwc, e. g. Jos.
Antiq. iv. 6, 5 ; 2 Mace. iii. 12. 31; vii. 40; and so Bretschneider
construes c TO TravreXee, in Heb. vii. 25, in his recent Lexicon.
But supposing it does mean for ever, in the case before us, can the
argument, derived from the employment of such synonymes with elg rove
aluvag, as belong to common and to Hebrew Greek, be of any validity
to show that Paul could not have written our epistle ?
(d) " Atwj'te, in the sense of universe, is used only in the epistle to
the Hebrews, i. 2 ; xi. 3. Paul employs other terms to designate the
same idea, such as ra Trajra, &c."
Paul, in the phrase rf fiaai\el TWV alwvuv, 1 Tim. i. 17, has employed
the word in the same sense as it is used in the epistle to the Hebrews ;
and, as the use of the word mwv, in such a sense is limited to Paul and
to our epistle, so far as the New Testament is concerned, it would seem
to prove the reverse of what Bertholdt has adduced it to establish.
26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOI.DT. 159
(e) " The word vtyng is always used by Paul, in the restricted sense
of irlffTig etQ 'Iriaovv Xpurrbv ; in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is employed
in a much wider latitude."
So Bertholdt, p. 2939 ; and to the same purpose Eichhorn Einlet. p.
462. This objection has been repeated, greatly magnified, and dwelt
upon, by Schulz, Brief an die Hebraer, p. 112, seq. ; and by Seyffarth,
de Epist. ad Heb. indole, 33. These latter writers represent Tri'oric,
when used by Paul, as always having reference to Christ or the Chris-
tian religion, as such ; whereas iricmg, in our epistle, relates, they aver,
only to God or to things future, and means a firm confidence in the de-
clarations of God respecting them ; a sense in which, as they think, Paul
never employs the word.
I have united the objections and views of these writers under one
head, in order to save the repetition of this subject. It deserves an
attentive consideration.
There can be no doubt that Paul, in a multitude of cases, employs
iriffTig to designate belief in Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer. He
often employs it to designate that state of mind, which trusts in his
propitiatory sacrifice or blood as the means of salvation, in opposition to
any trust or confidence in our own merit as the ground of acceptance.
But to aver, that the author of our epistle does not disclose similar views
in regard to the nature and importance of faith or belief in Christ,
seems to be quite contrary to the whole tenor of the epistle. What is
the object of the whole ? Plainly, to prevent apostacy, i. e. renunciation
of belief in Christ. But why is such a renunciation criminal and dan-
gerous? Because Christ is of infinite dignity, and because, when
belief in his blood is renounced, " there remaineth no further sacrifice
for sin." To what purpose is the awful example of the effects of unbe-
lief, proposed in chapter iii., except to warn the Hebrews against
renouncing belief in Christ ? To what purpose are the parallels drawn,
in chapter iii. x., between Christ and Moses; Christ and Melchise-
dek ; and also between the great High Priest of the Christian religion,
and the Jewish priests ; between the sacrifice offered by the former, and
the sacrifices made by the latter but for the sake of warning the Hebrews
against renouncing their faith in Christ ? Plainly for no other purpose.
All the warnings, reproofs, and tremendous denunciations in the epistle,
converge to the same point ; they all have a bearing upon the same spe-
cific object.
160 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT.
In respect to the allegation, that faith, in our epistle, is employed
to denote belief or confidence in the declarations of God, specially with
regard to the objects of a future world ; this is true. But it is true,
also, that Paul, in his acknowledged epistles, employs it in a similar
manner. E. g. in Rom. iv. 17 23, Paul represents Abraham, under the
most unpromising circumstances, as believing that God would raise up
from him, already vtrtKp&ptrov, a numerous progeny. This belief he
represents as an act of faith, eTriarevfff. p.fj affdrjvrjffag TTJ iriarei ov
rp airicrriq. TrXrjpo^oprjdelg iXoyiffdrj 7^ 'A/3paa/z [r] iriffris] flc
On the other hand, our epistle, xi. 8, seq., represents
Abraham as going out from his country, and sojourning in a strange land,
tr'tffTf.1. By faith, also he obtained a son, even when he was vevcKpwpl-
rot;, xi. 12, from whom a numerous progeny was to spring. Both these
accounts characterise this whole transaction in the same way. Both
describe the same acts as being faith, on the part of Abraham. Both
describe his physical state, by calling him reveK-pw^te^ov. Both treat the
whole transaction as a rare instance of the power of faith, and appeal to
it as an example most worthy of imitation. Surely here is something
different from discrepancy of views in these writers. Is there not a
coincidence, which is altogether striking, both in the manner and lan-
guage of the epistles ?
But there are other circumstances in the account of Abraham, which,
deserve distinct notice. Paul, in Rom, iv. 17, seq., represents Abraham
as believing the divine assurance, that he should become the father of
many nations ; the assurance of that God, " who restoreth the dead to
life, and calleth things that are not, into being." In this expression,
the apostle evidently refers to the belief which Abraham entertained,
that, in case he offered up Isaac as a sacrifice, God could and would
raise him from the dead, or call another son into being, from whom a
numerous progeny should descend.
So in Heb. xi. 17, seq., the writer represents Abraham as offering up
Isaac, in faith that God was able to raise him from the dead, from
whence, as it were, he did obtain him, i. e. Isaac sprung from one
apparently vtvtKpwuivog, ver. 12. In both cases the writers have charac-
terised the state of Abraham's rnind, on this occasion, by representing it
as faith, i-n-iffrevire, Triarei. In both, they disclose the same specific
views of the point on which the faith of Abraham rested, and they cha-
racterise it in the same way.
I 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 161
Is not here a minute coincidence of thought, expression, and manner
of representing faith, which creates strong presumption in favour of the
opinion, that the writer in both cases was the same person.
Again, in Heb. xi., Noah is represented as being divinely admonished
respecting future occurrences, and as preparing an ark for his safety, in
consequence of his faith in the admonition which he had received.
The writer, then, proceeds to say, that by this act, he became an heir,
rij Kara irtew ^iKaioarvvrjQ, of that justification which is by faith ; the
very expression, and the very idea, which Paul so often repeats in his
acknowledged epistles, viz. those to the Romans and Galatians. What
other writer of the New Testament, except Paul, has employed such an
expression ?
It is true, indeed, that the author of our epistle does represent faith,
in Heb. xi., as confidence in the declarations of God respecting future
things. But it is equally true, that this was the view of it which he was
naturally led to present, from the circumstances of the case before him.
His appeal was to the worthies of former days, as examples of belief.
Belief in what ? Not in Christianity surely, which had not then been
revealed. Could the writer, when characterizing the actual nature of
their faith, represent it as a belief in that which was not yet disclosed to
them ? Surely not ; but he must represent, and does represent it, as a
belief in what God had disclosed to them. The nature of the case
rendered it impossible that their faith should be represented in any
other light than this.
Just so Paul, in Rom. iv., represents the faith of Abraham as justify-
ing faith, and appeals to it in proof of the fact, that faith is a means of
justification. Yet not a word is said there of Abraham's belief in Christ.
In what respect does this case differ from that of all the examples cited
in Heb. xi. ? Rather, is there not a sameness of principle in the two
instances of faith ? Both respect future things depending on the promise
of God ; neither have any special reference to Christ.
The truth is, thai faith, in its generic nature, is belief, or confidence
in the promises or revelations of God. Now, whether these respect
things future, things of another world, or things past, or the nature,
character, offices, and work of the Messiah, faith receives them all.
Faith, therefore, in the ancients, who gave entire credit to what was
revealed to them, was the same principle as faith in him who believes in
Christ, because Christ is proposed to him. Circumstances only make any
apparent difference in the case. The disposition is always the same.
M
162 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT.
That Paul thought thus of this subject, is clear enough from the
example of Abraham, which he cites as a signal instance of justifying
faith, in Rom. iv. But, besides this, we have other proof that Paul has
not always represented faith as having reference only to Christ, but also
represented it, as it commonly appears in our epistle. So 2 Cor. v. 7,
We walk by faith, and not by sight, i. e. we live as those who confide
or believe in the realities of a future world, not like those who regard
only visible objects. So too, in 1 Cor. xiii. 13. In 1 Thess. i. 8, we
have ty Triple VJJL&V fj trpoQ TQV Gfov ; 1 Cor. xii. 9, TrtVie iv raj etvrw irvevpart.
So in 1 Cor. xiii. 2 ; 2 Cor. iv, 13 ; Eph. vi. 16 ; 1 Thess. v. 8, and in
many other passages, faith has a variety of meanings, and is not limited
to belief in Christ only.
I am unable to see, therefore, why this argument should be so strenu-
ously urged, as it is by Schulz and others, and relied upon as so decisive.
I can see no other difference between the faith of our epistle, and that
which the writings of Paul present, than what the nature of the examples
to which our author appealed necessarily requires. When Paul makes
a like appeal, he treats the subject in the same way, Rom. iv. And
nothing can be farther from correctness, than to aver that Paul always
employs TTI-IQ in the sense of Christianity, believing on Christ. Merely
opening a Greek lexicon or concordance, on the word TrtVtc, is ample
refutation of this assertion. Paul employs the word, in all the latitude
which is elsewhere given it in the New Testament ; and that embraces
a great variety of specific significations, nearly all of which range
themselves under the general idea of confidence in the divine decla-
rations.
That it is the great object of our epistle to inculcate belief in Christ,
and to warn the Hebrews against unbelief, I suppose will not be denied.
What foundation, then, can Schulz have for saying, that " the Pauline
idea of belief is altogether foreign to this writer?" Above all, how
could he add, " A sentence, like the Pauline one, o OVK ex TriVewf, apapria
7i, would sound strange enough in the epistle to the Hebrews." Yet,
strange as it may seem, in Heb. ix. 6, we have, j(wpls e T
On the whole, the representation of faith, in our epistle, as it respects
the case of Abraham and Noah, is not only exactly the same as that of
Paul's, but, in the mode of representation, are found such strong resem-
olances, as to afford no inconsiderable ground for supposing that the
writer of both must have been the same person.
26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 163
(f) " Sapmoff, in the sense of transient, temporary, is used only in
the epistle to the Hebrews."
But, first, this is a disputed reading. Not to rely on this, however,
ffctpKiKoe in the sense of weak, imperfect, is common in Paul ; a sense
substantially the same with the one demanded here. Bretschneider
renders it, in Heb. vii. 16, ad naturam animalem spec tans ; which is a
usual sense, but not admissible here, on account of the antithesis, >/c
aicaraXvTov. Let it be, then, an a7ra Xcyo/uevov as to sense here ; are
there not such in nearly all of Paul's epistles ? E. g. eov<na, 1 Cor.
xi. 10, in the sense of veil; in 1 Cor. ix. 12, in the sense of property ;
and so of many other words.
(g) " The phrase ofcov/u'vi) /ue'XXov<ra, Heb. ii. 5, for the Christian
dispensation, is no where found in Paul's acknowledged epistles, in
which he always employs aiu>v /ie'XXwy."
But are not oiKovfjerrj and cuwv employed as synonymes in the New
Testament ? Both correspond to the Heb. DTIJ7. Besides, in Heb. vi. 5,
this very phrase, mwv /^'XXwv, is employed by the writer in the sense of
Christian dispensation. Must the same writer always employ the very
same phraseology, when he has a choise of synomymous words ?
Besides, it is not true that Paul uses the phrase alw jut'XXwv for the
Christian dispensation. Once only does he employ it, Eph. i. 21, and
then simply in the sense of future world.
(h) " But where is Christ called a High Priest and an Apostle,
except in Heb. iii. 1.? It cannot be imagined, that the reverence
which the apostles bore to their Master, would permit them to call him
an apostle."
As to the appellation apxtcpcvc, nothing could be more natural, than
for the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to apply this to Christ. He
labours to prove, that Christianity has a preference over Judaism in all
respects; that, consequently, it has a High-priest exalted above the
Jewish one. How could the writer avoid calling Christ a High Priest ?
If Paul has no where done this in his acknowledged epistles, it may be
for the obvious reason, that he has no where drawn such a comparison
in them.
In respect to aTrooroXoe, Wetstein has shown, on John ix. 7, that one
of the names which the Jews applied to their expected Messiah, was
ny$ , i. e. sent, apostle. Besides, a common name of a prefect of
the Jewish synagogue, was TOSH TVbu), aTrooroXoc TTJQ emcXifr/ac ; in the
Apocalypse, ayyeXos rfje eKKXricriag. Now, the object of the writer,
M2
i64 V 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT.
in Heb. iii. 1, seq. is, to compare Christ as appointed over the household
of God, with Moses in a similar office. Since then fT6$ meant curator
adis saercey cedituus, and such an office was the very object of compa-
rison, nothing can be more natural, than that our author should have
named Christ Hv^ i. e. ctTrooroXoe. See Comm. on Heb. iii. 1.
And why should it be considered as incompatible with that reverence
which Paul had for Christ, that he should call him airoffroXoQ ? The same
Paul, in Rom. xv. 8, calls Jesus Christ $LO.KOVOV TTJQ TrepiropfiQ. Is SIUKOVOQ,
SL more honorable appellation than aTrooroXoe? Or because Paul calls
Christ SiaicovoG in this case, are we to draw the inference, that he did not
write the epistle to the Romans, since this word is nowhere else applied
by him in this manner ? Such a conclusion would be of the same nature,
and of the same validity, as that which Bertholdt has drawn from the
use of a.Tr6crTo\oQ and ap^tepeve in the epistle to the Hebrews.
Thus much for words an$ phrases. Bertholdt next brings forward
sentiments in the epistle to the Hebrews, which are diverse, he says, from
Paul's, if not in opposition to them.
(1.) " In Heb. x. 25, seq., the speedy coming of Christ is mentioned ;
and so it is often by Paul. But in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is