19—23.
ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς. πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους.
ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. ἀμήν.
3 , , ‘ ς ε “- ΟῚ 24. ᾿Ασπάσασθε πάντας τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν, καὶ 4 youp. μῶν, ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας.
25.
Πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐγράφη ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας διὰ Τιμοθέου.
ἴπ them. The form of expression is that which is ordinarily used to denote natives of a place, as in Luke xxiii. 50; John i. 44, xi. 1; Acts xvii. 13, etc. Winer says (p. 785): ‘‘a critical argument as to the place at which the Epistle was written should never have been founded on these words”. Vaughan is certainly wrong in saying that the more natural suggestion of the words would be that the writer is
himself in Italy and speaks of the Italian Christians surrounding him. The more natural suggestion, on the contrary, is that the writer is absent from Italy and is writing to it and that therefore the native Italians who happen to be with him join him in the salutations he sends to their compatriots.
The Epistle closes with one of the usual formulae, ‘‘ Grace be with you all”.
I. AurHorsHip AND Date.—§ 1. External Data. That parts, at all events, of this Epistle were known and cited by very early Church writers seems certain. It is, however, precarious to build too much upon the fact that similarities of thought and expression are found between this Epistle and other early writings. Such similarities do not necessarily prove anything more than that the thought-move- ments of the times were exercising the minds of many thinkers and writers. If, that is to say, it is found that various writings belonging to the early ages of Christianity contain thoughts, words, and even sentences which are also seen to occur in this Epistle, it would be arbitrary to assume that this fact necessarily proved the influence of the latter upon the former, or vice-versa; and it would, moreover, be dangerous to use this assumption as a basis upon which to found conclusions regarding the date and authorship of the Epistle. We are far from denying that the similarities referred to may denote indebtedness on the part of the writer of our Epistle to the writings. in question, or vice versa—as, for example, in the case of Sirach— but in such cases there must be no doubt as to whether the parti- cular writing is earlier or later than our Epistle. A concrete example will make our meaning clear. Some writers regard the similarity of language between the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and St. Yames as evidence that the latter influenced the former, and this is regarded as evidence in favour of an early date of our Epistle. Thus Lightfoot (Galatians, p. 320, note), says that the language of the writer of the Testaments on the subject of the law of God is “ formed on the model of the Epistle of St. James,” and he refers to Ewald, who makes a similar remark; again, on p. 221, note, he says in reference to this pseudepigraph: “On the whole, however, the language in the moral and didactic portions takes its colour from the Epistle of St. James”. So, too, Mayor (The Epistle of St. fames, p. iv.) speaks of the writer of this work as one “ who seems to have: been much influenced by the teaching and example of St. James,”
and a large number of quotations are given to prove this contention. VOL. IV. 25