2. Others regard Luxn as the assistant whose services were employed. ‘That the composition is not Paul’s Dr Davidson argues, because ‘the tone is elevated, rhetorical, calm, unlike the fiery force of Panl’s manner. ‘There is polish, care, elezance.—No trace of the apostle’s characteristic manner appears. Besides, would it not be anomalous, that the apostle himself should adopt a purer Greek and higher style of writing in an Epistle addressed to the Jewish Christians in Palestine ?—We are thus brought to the position that it did not receive its present form from Paul. It is better Greek than his.—The style and diction of the Epistle resemble Luke’s in the Acts more nearly than any other part of the New Testament. ‘The likeness between the style of our Epistle and that of Luke’s writings is by no means such as to show identity of author- ship. ‘The reasons are strong for maintaining that Paul was the author, and that Luke did not translate it from one language to another. Yet this does not militate against the notion that Luke had a part in putting the thoughts and words of Paul into their present form. What was the nature of the service he rendered, it is impossible to dis- cover.”
This theory was proposed by Origen, on the ground, to use his own words, that “ the Epistle is purer Greek in the texture of its style.” “I would say,” he adds, “that the sentiments are the apostle’s, but the language and the composition belong to some one who committed to writing what the apostle said, and as it were reduced to commentaries the things spoken by his master.”
Serious objections impede. the reception of this theory :—1. It leaves altogether un- defined the relation between Paul and his supposed assistant, the functions neither of amanuensis, nor reporter, nor translator, nor editor, serving to account for the peculi- arity of diction which has led to the suggestion of the theory. 2. It proves too much; for the qualities specified as indicating the difference between this Hpistle and the known writings of Paul relate to idiosyncrasies of character in thought and feeling, which foreign aid in the mere composition of the Epistle cannot explain. If Luke so little interfered with the tenor of the thinking that his services did not even involve transla- tion, what he did for it could not account for the sustained calmness of the discussion, and the absence of that fiery Vividness of conception and appeal which are conceived to be the “nodus’’ rendering Luke necessary as the only ‘vindex” capable of resolving it. If Luke did for the Epistle what is esteemed a service adequate to explain its special phenomena, he is entitled to the full honours of its literary parentage. 8. ‘This view supposes the possibility of separating thought from language, ascribing the former to one author and the latter to another, in a way which creates a difficulty greater than that to meet which the theory is invented. 4, There is no greater anomaly in sup- posing that Paul himself polished his own sentences more carefully in writing to the Hebrew Christians, than in the supposition that he employed another to do it. And, lastly, is difference of style, the only real and valid ground on which adventitious help is claimed for the apostle in the preparation of this inspired document, a sufficient reason to be very anxious in pressing such a theory ? In common literature, very remarkable differences in the style of the same author in different works might be mentioned. Paul wrote the Epistle, it is believed, at an advanced period of his course, and after he had mingled for years with multitudes who spoke the language in the utmost purity of that age; and with the advantage of leisure for the composition of the Epistle, his mind rising to a kindred and congenial elevation with the theme of which he treats,—the surpassing glories of his Lord and Saviour,—and borrowing a hue of peculiar solemnity from his own anticipated doom as a martyr for the truth, he might infuse a tone of dignity into his very language enough to vindicate the Epistle as implicitly and entirely his own.
96 TIME WHEN THE [ EXERC. II.
EXERCITATION IIL.
THE TIME [AND OCCASION ] OF THE WRITING OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
1. The time of the writing of this Epistle to the Hebrews—The use of the right stating thereof. 2. After his release out of prison—Before the death of James —Before the Second [Epistle] of Peter. 3. The time of Paul’s coming to Rome. 4. The condition of the affairs of the Jews at that time. 5. The
‘martyrdom of James. 6. By whom reported. 7. State of the churches of the Hebrews. 8. Constant in the observation of Mogaical institutions. 9. Warned to leave Jerusalem. 10. That warning what, and how given—Causes of their unwillingness so to do. 11. The occasion and success of this Epistle.
1. THAT was not amiss observed of old by Chrysostom, Preefat. in Com. ad Hpist. ad Rom., that a due observation of the time and sea- son wherein the epistles of Paul were written doth give great light into the understanding of many passages in them. This Baronius, ad an. 55, n. 42, well confirms by an instance of their mistake who suppose the shipwreck of Paul at Melita, Acts xxvii., to have been that mentioned by him, 2 Cor. xi. 25, when he was “a night and a day in the deep,” that epistle being written some years before his sailing towards Rome. And we may well apply this observation to this Epistle unto the Hebrews. A discovery of the time and season wherein it was written will both free us from sundry mistakes and also give us some light into the occasion and design of it. This, therefore, we shall now inquire into.