Textus Receptus of the original is the same: " Vengeance is mine ; I will recompense, saith the
INTRODUCTION.
When we come to details, there are two passages which have been thought to favor a Pauline authorship.
'There is a quotation in Heb. x. 30, which, it is alleged, agrees precisely with the same quotation in Rom. xii. 19, but differs from either the Hebrew or the Greek of Deut. xxxii.
35.
The A. V. makes a slight variation in language between Romans and Hebrews, but the Textus Receptus of the original is the same:
" Vengeance is mine ; I will recompense, saith the Lord."
Now the LXX reads, "In the day of vengeance I will recompense"; the Hebrew, "mine [are] vengeance and recompense."
If, however, we examine any critical text, we shall find that the clause "saith the Lord," is rejected as a gloss in this Epistle, while undisputed in Romans, thus constituting a difference between them.
It is still true, however, that they both differ in the same way from the Hebrew and the LXX.
'This might be a difficulty were it not that the quotation as it is in this Epistle is found exactly in the Targum, and from that had probably passed into familiar use.
Everywhere else the author of Hebrews quotes very closely from the LXX, and from that in what is known as its Alexandrine form, while St. Paul uses the Vatican text, quotes. far more loosely, and often follows the Hebrew rather than the Greek.
The other passage really gives no clear indication at all, and as far as it goes, is rather at variance with Pauline authorship.
In xii. 23 the writer says, '" Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty ; with whom, (if he come shortly,) I will see you."
It is of course possible that Timothy may have been imprisoned, at Rome or elsewhere, when St. Paul was with him ; but as far as we know the history of the two, it seems unlikely.
The passage might quite as well have been written by almost any of the companions of St. Paul who were also associated with Timothy.
When now, enquiry is made as to the indications to be found in the choice of words and construction of sentences, there is certainly room for some difference of opinion.
Delitzsch has endeavored throughout his commentary on this Epistle to show that there is such a striking similarity between it and the writings of St. Luke as to favor decidedly the view that it was written by him; Liinemann, on the other hand, in the introduction to his commentary, has collected the instances of Delitzsch and remarks upon them, "So soon as we separate therefrom that which is not exclusively peculiar to Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews ; so soon as we also put out of the account that which Luke has only taken up out of the sources employed by him, and cease to lay any weight upon isolated expressions and turns of discourse which were the common property either of the Greek language in general, or of the later Greek in particu-
q lar, and are only accidentally present in Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews, — there is nothing whatever left of an actual affinity, such as must of necessity admit of being traced out between the works of the same author.''
The fact seems to be that there is between these two writers as compared with the other New Testament writers a certain similarity, not so much of particular words and constructions, as of the general cast, both of the phraseology and the structure of the sentences ; but that this similarity arises, not from the identity of the writers, but from the fact. that both wrote in somewhat better Greek than is found in the rest of the New Testament.
The grammars of the New Testament Greek continually refer to the fact, that certain classical constructions are found only, or at least more frequently, in these writers than elsewhere.
But this does not prove more than that the author of this Epistle, as might easily have been the case with several of the companions of St. Paul, like St. Luke, was more accustomed to classical Greek usage than most of the earliest Christian writers.
An examination of the vocabulary of this Epistle in comparison with that of St. Paul, St.
Luke, and the other New Testament writers will throw some light upon the question.
In another place' I have made such an examination with some care, and will here give a summary of its results.
It is to be borne in mind that this Epistle is much shorter than the collective writings. of St. Paul, or St. Luke, or of the other New Testament writers taken together.
By a careful 1 Fournal of the Soc. of Bibl. Literature and Exegests for June, 1887, pp. 1-27.
INTRODUCTION.
estimate of the actual length of these four groups it is found that, taking the longest as the standard, in order to determine the relative use of any word in them, it is necessary to multiply the number of its occurrences in St. Luke by 1.57, in St. Paul by 1.86,in Hebrews by 11.56.
The results may in many instances prove fallacious.
Any writer may use a word several times, even in a short passage, which he would not have used again had his writing been greatly extended ; or he may not use a particular word once in twenty pages, when he will employ it several times in the twenty-first.
Such facts must be borne in mind, but the above process seems to be the only means of making a comparative statement in figures; and when it is applied to a large number of words, and especially to whole groups of words which correspond to certain classes of ideas, the general result must have a decided bearing upon the question of authorship.
It has often been noticed that the number of words peculiar to any New Testament writer is an index of the number freely at his command.
Peculiar words, it is true, are often required by peculiarity of subject, and may sometimes be what is called accidental.
Still, when the number of them in any writer is unusually large, the fact has its value, and such words do abound in the writings of St. Luke and in the Epistle to the Hebrews above all others...
No great importance perhaps should be attached to this point; yet as it is often brought forward, the exact facts should be ascertained.
Excluding words occurring only in quotations from the LXX (which can have no bearing upon the characteristics of the writer), and also excluding words which depend on doubtful readings, the number of words found in the New Testament only in the Gospel of St.
Luke is 249, in the Acts 414, in both taken together 724; the similar number in the much shorter Epistle to the Hebrews is 147, while even the Apocalypse, with all its peculiar subjects and imagery, has but 116, and none of the other books (except Matthew 114) reach as high as roo.
This suggests that the writer of this Epistle was like St. Luke in having at his command a peculiarly rich vocabulary.
But if the facts be looked at in another way, and the comparative length of the various books taken into consideration, a different result is reached.
St. Luke's Gospel has one peculiar word to every 9.76 lines; Acts, one to every 5.77; Hebrews, one to 4.45; but 1 Timothy has one to every three lines; 2 Timothy, one to 3.22; Titus, one to 2.97; James, one to 3.5 ; and so on with several of the shorter epistles.
The result of such statistics appears to depend much upon how they are manipulated.
Nevertheless, in no book of nearly equal, or of greater length, is the proportion so large as in this Epistle, except in the Acts.
If the writings of various authors be taken collectively, — St. Luke has 724 peculiar words = 1 to every
6.66 lines.
St. Paul has 777 peculiar words = 1 to every 5.25 lines.
Hebrews has 147 peculiar words = 1 to every 4.45 lines.
St. John has 244 peculiar words = 1 to every 13.46 lines.
All others taken together have 378 peculiar words = 1 to every 11.38 lines.
On the whole, then, the first impression of every reader is confirmed: St. Paul, St. Luke, and the author of Hebrews are alike distinguished from the other New Testament writers by the comparative richness of their vocabulary ; yet, in view of the peculiar subjects treated in this Epistle, this fact has less significance than it might be entitled to under other circumstances.
Another question may be asked of the same kind.
May not some indication of authorship be found in the number and character of the words common only to the Hebrews with St. Paul, with St. Luke, and with the other writers respectively?
'There are 34 words common to St.
Luke and Hebrews, and found nowhere else; to St. Paul and Hebrews, 46 ; to all others and Hebrews, 28.
Or, proportioning these numbers to the length of the several books, common to Luke and Hebrews, 53.5 ; to St. Paul and Hebrews, 85.56 ; to other writers and Hebrews, 28 ; or nearly twice as many common to Hebrews with St. Luke, and more than three times as many
| See Thayer's Grimm's N. T. Lexicon, Appendix iv. pp. 698-710, for lists of words peculiar to each New Testament writer.
INTRODUCTION.
common to Hebrews with St. Paul, as there are common to Hebrews with other writers.
This examination tends like the other, but much more strongly, to connect this Epistle both with St.
Luke and St. Paul, but especially with the latter.
It falls in with the vacillating opinion of Origen, already given, and with his report of the current traditions of his time.
But much more important than the mere numerical statement, is the character of some of these words, used in common by these writers and by no others.
Most of them, indeed, have nothing characteristic, and many are used but once by each of the writers, and that apparently without any special design.
There are several, however, worthy of more consideration.
The noun xataravors and the verb xatrazavw, which might be expected to be common enough, are used only in Luke and Hebrews, the noun once in Luke, eight times in Hebrews; the verb
11 times in Luke, three times in Hebrews; or together, 12 times and 11 times.
The noun péroxos is used once in Luke, five times in Hebrews, and nowhere else, while the verb pereyw is used five times by St. Paul, three times in Hebrews, and by no other writer.
Avar/@euor occurs three times in Luke, twice in Hebrews, and nowhere else.
Xvvavrdw is used four times in Luke, twice in Hebrews, and not elsewhere.
The word for star in Greek has either form, dorpov or éoryjp, and both are common in the LXX; but the former is used exclusively by St. Luke
(three times) and also in Hebrews, where, however, it occurs but once; but dorjp is used exclusively by all the other New Testament writers, by St. Paul three times, by others
times.
On the other hand, évde/xvype occurs twice in Hebrews, nine times in St. Paul, and in no other writer.
The verb evapeoréw (occurring three times) is peculiar to Hebrews, as is also the adverb evapéorews, while the adjective edapeoros occurs once in Hebrews, and seven times in St. Paul, being found nowhere else in the New Testament.
The striking adverb édama€, not found in any other New Testament writer, occurs three times in Hebrews and twice in St. Paul.
The verb Aerovyéw with the nouns Aerovyia and Aerovpyds and the adjective AerovpyiKds, though common enough in the LXX, and apparently sufficiently often called for, are used in the New
Testament only by St. Luke, St. Paul, and in Hebrews.
The verb occurs once in each of them ; Aecrovpyia is used once by St. Luke, three times by St. Paul, twice in Hebrews; Aerovpyos three times by St. Paul, twice in Hebrews ; while the adjective occurs only once in the last ; z.e. taking the whole group together, it is employed twice by St. Luke, seven times by St. Paul, and six times in Hebrews, and' never elsewhere.
The much more important word peoirys is used only in St. Paul and Hebrews, three times in each.
The same is true of 6uoAoyia, a word which might have been expected more frequently.
There seems to be nothing peculiar about éveidéopos which yet happens to be found only in St. Paul (three times) and in Hebrews (twice).
The words qratdeca, and zratdevrys also occur only in these writers, the former four times, the latter once in St.
Paul ; the former twice, the latter once in Hebrews ; or together, five times and three times.
We are surprised to find such a word as zAnpodopia only in these writers, in each of them twice.
'The remarkable word taedcracis, afterwards in another sense of so much importance theologically, is found only in these writers, in St. Paul three times, in Hebrews twice.
The results of this comparison have a positive value, unless they can be, at least in some good degree, paralleled by words common to Hebrews and the other New Testament writers.
I do not find this to be the case.
There seem to be but two words common only to Hebrews and to any of them occurring more than once in each.
One of these is the purely accidental word ~Bdopu0s, used twice in Hebrews, and seven times elsewhere (five times in Revelation) ; and the other is the more important word Bamriocpds (always in the plural = purifying ablutions) used twice each in Mark and Hebrews.
Whatever value, therefore, there may be in this examination of common words, it is much increased by the almost entire absence of any such relation between this Epistle and the other writings of the New Testament.
It certainly points, as far as it goes, to some sort of relation between the three writers, St. Luke, St. Paul, and the author of Hebrews, and especially between the two last.
INTRODUCTION.
We now turn to common words of wider range which yet have something in their usage tending to show the style of the writer.
The verb épyouox with its compounds dm'-, ém'-, é&-, cic-, kat-, wap-, and mpoo-, is naturally more common in narrative.
Making allowance for this, we are surprised at its relative frequency in Hebrews and infrequency in the Pauline Epistles, while the word is in such common use as to make this difference significant.
The proportionate numbers are :
Hebrews, 519; St Luke, 656; St. Paul, 169; all others, 708.
For the particular compound eicépxouar, the same numbers are: Hebrews, 196; St. Luke, 133; St. Paul, 7; all others, gr.
While it is relatively much the most frequent in Hebrews, it is yet common in St. Luke, but almost entirely avoided by St. Paul.
AapBavw with its compounds ém-, rapa-, and izo-, have a similar variable usage.
They are all relatively much more frequent in Hebrews than elsewhere, less common in St. Luke, and still less so in St. Paul; taking the simple verb and its compounds separately, St. Luke alone uses that with to (four times actually, or relatively, six times), and almost entirely avoids that with mapa, and St. Paul, like the other writers, that with émi; while Hebrews uses them all (except tro) with peculiar frequency.
The proportionate numbers are : — HEBREWS.
ST. LUKE.
ST. PAUL.
ALL OTHERS.
JUS SCALAR AN
Sales Sie nS Le)
Ratz ve Tone err nestles, CY FO
Tapa-.
«6 +» «»« «
UROD GE Ne ed ee mmen
— — (otansean.."
9.03260
The verbs employed for vegues¢ or prayer are numerous, and their employment by the different writers varies much.
The following list of their relative frequency shows the principal facts : — HEBREWS.
ST. LUKE.
ST. PAUL.
ALL OTHERS.
Rises Se LT
COT ee a se
— — Ce Se
— — tT kt anne a Ae
— oo CE eats Tah a tS a
ROOT MGs!
te Mas ee I
Hequae See UL CP
CEUUILED Vo
ess os TT
EDOTHU ts Le) ee
EUY DAE et rn ee ty
botale ems totes,
While St. Matthew habitually designates heavenly things by the p/wra/ (gen. or dat.) of otpayés, and is somewhat followed by the other writers, the author of Hebrews and St. Paul employ these forms very little, and are almost alone in availing themselves of the compound adjective érovpdvws for the same purpose.
St. Luke uses this word only once ; Hebrews, six times ; St. Paul, twelve times; all others, twice.
On the other hand, the simple ovpdvos is not used at all in Hebrews and St. Paul, but occurs twice in St. Luke, and four times elsewhere.
The words Aadetv and Aéyew are both common enough, and the distinction between them is well recognized.
The point to be noticed is the frequency of their use relatively to each other.
Hebrews uses them in the proportion of 1: 2; St. Paul the same; St. Luke, 1: 34; all others,
1:7 nearly.
St. Luke here varies considerably from Hebrews and St. Paul, but far less than the others.
INTRODUCTION.
The Hebraistic rpdcwrov, so frequent in the LXX, is found but once in Hebrews, and then in an allusion to the LXX ; but curiously occurs 27 times in St. Luke, as many in St. Paul, and in all others 22.
So also pyya is a common enough word ; but in its Hebraistic sense, corresponding to dabar, a thing, the subject-matter of speech or command, its use is confined to St. Luke, and it does not occur either in Hebrews or elsewhere.
Both trdapyw and troorpédw are favorite words with St. Luke.
The former occurs in his writings 34 times, is not found at all in Hebrews ; is used by St. Paul 11 times, and only four times elsewhere ; the latter is used by St. Luke 31 times, and elsewhere only once each in Hebrews, St. Paul, and St. Mark.
Karepydlopa is a Pauline word (21 times), never used in Hebrews, and but three times elsewhere (Jas. 2, Pet. 1).
On the other hand, the use of the comparatives xpetoowy and mwAciwv, with the superlative zAcicros, is far more common in Hebrews. The comparative numbers are : for kpeioowv, Hebrews, 150; St.
Luke, o; St. Paul, 7 (he also used the adverb xpetooov once); all others, 2.
For wAewy mAcioros, Heb. 46; St. Luke, 42; St. Paul, 19; all others, 17.
I do not recall any other words of this kind, the usage of which affects our enquiry. Such inferences as may be drawn from this examination are somewhat contradictory.
They certainly do not point to the author of this Epistle as either St. Paul or St. Luke, as they might be expected to do if such were the fact.
There are some striking similarities of diction ; but the differences are, at least, quite as important.
It is time now to turn to those adverbs, particles and prepositions, which bring out the grammatical form in which a writer is accustomed to clothe his ideas.
But before speaking of these, mention must be made of one grammatical form peculiarly characteristic of the nicety and subtlety of thought of the classic Greek writers
— the optative mood.
This subject has been investigated by Dr. Harman with great care.
He finds that this mode is used in the whole New Testament 66 times, 32 of them in the Pauline Epistles, 28 in the writings of St. Luke, once in Hebrews, and five times in all other writers.
"In nearly all the cases in which the optative occurs in the New Testament it is used to express a wish or prayer, except in the writings of Luke."
"In the Zprste to the Hebrews we find one instance of the optative, xaraptica, 'May
God make you perfect' (xili. 21).
This is presumptive proof that an Alexandrian did not write this Epistle, as it is not likely that the use of this mode in but one instance would have satisfied his fine Greek taste.''?
The usage of the particles, adverbs and prepositions, require so much detail that only a summary can here be given with a reference to the paper on the " Language of the Epistles to the Hebrews," already mentioned.
The particles wey and 8€ would naturally be more common in narrative; but as between Hebrews, St. Paul, and the other Epistles, they are relatively most frequent in Hebrews.
The same is true of the conjunction re, which is more common in St. Luke and St. Paul than in other
New Testament writers.
The adversative é\Aa is common enough everywhere, not even the shortest epistle being without more than one instance of its use.
St. Luke and Hebrews employ it very much more seldom ; but again, St. Luke uses it far less than Hebrews.
The three writers, St. Luke, St. Paul, and the author of Hebrews, are distinguished from the other writers by the (comparatively) sparing use of ay and éay, but of the three, St. Luke employs it most, and St.
Paul least.
Hebrews alone uses édvrep, but never édv wy, which is employed in St. Luke with moderate freedom, by St. Paul twice as often, and still more frequently by the other writers.
In the case of 80, St. Paul uses it relatively only half as often as Hebrews, but three times as often as St. Luke, and the last more than twice as often as the other writers.
In the use of dor, a much less common word, there is a less difference, but still a marked one and in the same order.
1 "The Optative Mode in Hellenistic Greek," by Prof. H. M. Harman, D.D., LL.D.
Journal of Soc. of Bibl. Lit. and Exegesis, Dec. 1886, p. 10.
INTRODUCTION.
The pronouns of the first and second person are used, as might be expected, most abundantly by St. Paul; but Hebrews is singularly shy of them.
This fact has been noticed and an explanation offered on the ground that the work has more the character of a treatise than of a personal epistle ; but this explains too much, since these personal pronouns, though relatively infrequent, are still very common in our epistle.
The author was not disposed to bring forward the personality of either himself or his hearers.
St. Paul, on the contrary, used these pronouns more than twice as often as our author, and indeed far more frequently than any other New Testament writer.
The case of the third person of the pronoun is peculiar, since its frequent redundant use is one of the marked characteristics of the New Testament diction; yet St. Paul uses it less than half as often as Hebrews.
'The same is true of the demonstrative éxefvos ; but in the use of the reflective éavrds, St. Paul is largely in excess.
The difference in the use of these pronouns between Hebrews and St. Luke is not very great ; but, in regard to the two first particularly, the difference from the other writers is marked, and St. Paul's usage of all of them is very different.
On the other hand, in the use of ovros, Hebrews is strongly separated from St. Luke and less so from St. Paul.
The words aAAnAwv, aAdXos, Erepos, Tis (interrog.), and ris (indef.) have marked peculiarities in their frequency of employment by the different writers, but it is enough to instance here dAXos, employed oftener by St. Paul than by St. Luke and Hebrews put together, and yet by the other writers collectively twice as often as by him; and €repos used with exactly the same frequency by St. Luke and St. Paul, less than one quarter as often by other writers, but far oftener in Hebrews than in any of them.
So also with éxaoros, rowotros, and tocotros: they are all used with exactly the same frequency in Hebrews ; but while the first is used by St. Paul much oftener, the last is used only one-fourteenth as often.
'The usage of St. Luke is markedly different from that of either.
Further and more detailed examination of words of this class would be out of place here.
Suffice it to say that such an examination shows a marked individuality in the usage of the several writers ; and it is to be remembered that Hebrews, Acts, and the latter Epistles of St. Paul must have been written with no great interval of time between them.
The same things are true in whatever way we test the forms of expression of these writers.
If we take the particle «i with its various combinations «i kai, ef px, elye, i O& py, ei py TE, Et TrEp, el Tas, «i Te, et TUs, we shall find that only the first two of these combinations occur in Hebrews at all, and those only once each, while all of them are found in the Pauline Epistles, and all but three of them in the writings of St. Luke.
The whole group together is used more than twice as often by St. Paul as by any other writer.
Adverbs of space are very sparingly used by St. Paul, with an approach to equality between Hebrews and St. Luke, but twice as often by other writers.
In the various particles and adverbs of negation, there do not seem to be, on the whole, very noticeable peculiarities, although padecs and ydé occur but once each in Hebrews, while the former is everywhere else common, and the latter also in St. Paul and other writers, though less frequent in St. Luke.
But the word xwpis is frequent enough in Hebrews to be considered characteristic, is used far less by St. Paul, only once by St. Luke, and comparatively seldom by other writers.
Iddw is quite rare in St. Luke, equally common in Hebrews and St. Paul, and a little less so in the other writers.
The use of 7 is very rare in Hebrews whether as a disjunctive conjunction, or as a term of comparison.
In the latter sense it occurs but once, and in the former only four times, two of which are in quotations from the LXX, and a third in a more than doubtful reading.
In all the other New Testament writers it is very common, but most of all in St. Paul.
In the use of maAAov, however, though St. Paul still exceeds, Hebrews most nearly approaches his usage.
The causal é7eé is five times as frequent in Hebrews as in St. Paul, and yet four times more frequent in his writings than in the
INTRODUCTION.
others, and is still less common in St. Luke than in them.
The word zds is used but once in Hebrews (interrogatively), while it is common enough everywhere else.
Both wa and oru are used very often by St. Paul and the other writers, and much more sparingly in Hebrews ; but St.
Luke uses fva much less than half as often as Hebrews, while he employs 67. much more than half as often again.
The un-Attic particle xaws, the adverbs ovrws, woe, womep, and the conjunction ware, are all appropriate to trains of reasoning, but their usage in the different writers, particularly in the three we are especially considering, is very various.
The same may be said of the prepositions, among which ovv is never used in Hebrews (except in composition), while it is employed much oftener by St. Luke than by St. Paul or any other writer.
It may be thought that all this examination — still tedious, though much condensed —is not worth the trouble.
It goes to show, what has always been noticed by every reader, that the style of this Epistle is unlike that of St. Paul; but if it show, as it seems to do quite as clearly, that it is unlike that of St. Luke as well, something has been gained.
It makes it at least improbable that St. Luke wrote the Epistle to give expression to the ideas of St. Paul.
It remains to examine some words of another class.
There are many words and groups of words so peculiarly appropriated to certain ideas or shades of thought, that the use or non-use of them becomes a fair index of the habitual tone of thought of the writer.
If he use them frequently, the phase of truth which they represent must have been prominent in his mind ; or if he seldom employ them, then that aspect of truth was not the predominant one from his point of view.
Such words or groups of words may be of different degrees of importance ; but even those of inferior significance help to complete the picture of the writer's mental habits, and it is therefore well to examine all that are at all characteristic.
As the force of the evidence from these words can only be brought out by a more careful examination of them, I venture to copy some pages of the paper referred to above.
The group dyaraw, aya, and dyaryros is noteworthy.
'They are very common in the Pauline writings, but are rare both in St. Luke and in Hebrews.
In fact only one of them, dyamnros, occurs at all in the Acts, and none of them are ever used by St. Luke except in recording the words of others.
So also of the Hebrews.
Of the five instances of their use, two are in quotations from the LXX.
'They are common enough in other writers, but are especial favorites of St. John.
Of the 154 instances in " other writers," 10g are in St. John, so that the words may be called Pauline and Johannean.
Their rarity in St. Luke and Hebrews may be partly explained by the fact that éydmn is an exclusively biblical word, and that dyamdw also is used in a higher sense in the sacred than in profane writings.
Still they were common words in the Christian community, and they mark a distinction in thought between St. Luke and Hebrews on the one side, and St. Paul and the rest of the New Testament on the other.
The actual number of instances of their use is : Hebrews, 5 times ; St. Luke, 15 ; St. Paul, 135 ; all others (John, 109), 154; but if we exclude from the enumeration all quotations from the LXX, and all record of the words of others, the numbers become : Hebrews, 3 ; St. Luke, 0 ; St. Paul, 132 ; all others (John, 43), 87.
The comparison is too obvious to call for proportionate numbers.
As an appendix to this group it may be mentioned that ¢uAew never occurs in Hebrews, is used only twice by St. Luke, twice by St. Paul, and 21 times elsewhere, 15 of which are in St. John.
A word especially appropriate to Hebrews, and one which might have been expected there very often, ay:acpos, occurs but once, while it is used eight times by St. Paul, and is not found in the rest of the New Testament.
On the other hand, afua, which we might have expected frequently in St. Paul as well as in Hebrews, is very common in the latter and not at all so in the former. Proportionate numbers are : Hebrews, 231 times ; St. Luke, 31; St. Paul, 24 ; all others, 44.
Here, from the nature of the writings, we may not be surprised at the commonness of the word in Hebrews ; but its comparative rarity in St. Paul is remarkable.
His subjects led to it, and had it come to his mind as readily as it did to that of the author of Hebrews, it must have occurred. in his writings much oftener.
INTRODUCTION.
The group of words, dA7Gea, ddyOys, dXyOuvds, ddynOHs, and' ddnbevw, which we are accustomed to consider peculiarly Johannean, is also very frequent in St. Paul, but comparatively rare in St.
Luke and Hebrews.
The actual numbers are: Hebrews, 4 (dAyOu0s three times, dArOewa once) ; St. Luke, 12; St. Paul, 55 ; all others, 114 (of which St. John, gs).
Of the group doGeveia, doOevéw, doBévnua, and dobevys, only two occur in Hebrews
— écbevela (four times) and doGevys (once).
The actual occurrences of the whole together are: Hebrews, 5 times ; St. Luke, 15 ; St. Paul, 43; all others, 21 ; or proportionately, Hebrews, 58 ; St. Luke, 23 ;
St. Paul, 90; all others, 21.
This is evidently an especially Pauline class of words.
The words of opposite signification, BéBatos, BeBarow, BeBaiwous, — very infrequent in the LXX,— do not occur at all in St. Luke, and are relatively far more frequent in Hebrews than anywhere else.
'The proportionate numbers are: Hebrews, g2 times; St. Luke, 0; St. Paul, rs ; elsewhere, 3.
Evidently St. Paul preferred to dwell upon weakness, the author of Hebrews upon strength.
There is a similar contrast between the verb éArfZw and the noun édAm/s on the one hand, and the verb érayyéAAowat and the noun ézayyeAéa on the other.
KAnpovopéw, kAynpovopia, and KAxnpovepos are most common in Hebrews.
The proportionate numbers are : — HEBREWS.
ST. LUKE.
ST. PAUL.
ALL OTHERS,
éAmi~w and éAmis glist Pe we LOG
IO érayyeAAopoe and Lahn Sale aes
KAnpovopew, KANpovopia, KAypovosos .
PROOe CCM Enno he yee
zy It is plain that while the author of Hebrews dwelt much more upon the brightness of the future than any other writer, he preferred to speak of it in the light of promise and of tnheritance, while it rested in St. Paul's mind more as a hofe.
'This is the more noteworthy because the ideas of sonship and of adoption are very common in St. Paul.
He alone uses the word vioGecia five times.
The words 7jmépa and onpepoy are curiously infrequent in a writer of the present urgency of St. Paul, and are relatively most common in St. Luke and Hebrews, but most so in the last.
In proportion the numbers are: Hebrews, 278 ; St. Luke, 207; St. Paul, 100; all others, 153.
That is, Hebrews uses them nearly three times as often as St. Paul.
The names for God and for our Lord are used by the various writers with much difference, and with an evident preference in each of them for his own accustomed word.
The PR ere ate numbers (which can take no note of periphrases) are as follows : —
HEBREWS.
ST. LUKE.
ST. PAUL.
ALL OTHERS.
eds "an oh tani gael eld aie SS oR Ah ara By
IO16
CE TROT OW as el ten sk OS
TCO re ae ee a Un on LO
OU eee ee ei scine wet LS O
In all cases St. Paul uses these words most freely (about twice as often as anybody else), except that in the case of "Incots he is exceeded by " other writers" as a result of the large amount of narrative contained in them. eds is used in Hebrews next in frequency to St. Paul, but with a long interval between them, and very much more often than elsewhere.
Kuptos is used least frequently in Hebrews, while "Iycots and Xpuicros are employed there, one with exactly the same frequency as the other, though St. Luke, St. Paul, and the other writers employ them very unequally, one preferring one and another the other.
The use of these words is so much a matter of habit, habit alike of writing and of mode of thinking, that these go far to differentiate the writers.