The Language of the Epistle to the Hebrews as Bearing upon Its ...

LANGUAGE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
7
and v'roo-rpewo are favorite words with S. Luke. The former occurs
in his writings 34 times, is not found at all in Heb., is used by S. Paul
i times, and only 4 times elsewhere; the latter is used by S. Luke
31 times, and elsewhere is used only once in Heb., once by S. Paul,
and once by S. Mark. On the other hand, KaTEpyCdOlOLa is a Pauline
word (21 times), never used in Heb., and but 3 times elsewhere
(Jas. 2, Pet. i). The use of the comparatives Kpetlro-wv and 7rXtov
with the superlative 7rXto-iros on the contrary is far more common in
Heb. The comparative numbers are: for Kpetacawv Heb. I50;
S. Luke, o; S. Paul, 7 (he also uses the adverb Kpeiacrov once); all
others, 2. For 7rXewv, 7rXeioros,
Heb. 46; S. Luke, 42; S. Paul, 19;
all others, I 7.
I do not recall any other words of this kind, the usage of which
affects the point. The inferences to be drawn from this examination,
if any, are somewhat contradictory. They certainly do not point to
the authorship of this epistle by either S. Luke or S. Paul 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 now time to consider those particles, adverbs, and prepositions
which bring out the habits of expression of each writer. While it is
not proposed to enter into points of grammatical construction any
farther than they are necessarily involved in the use of these words;
yet in considering them, it is well to bear in mind that there is a
striking similarity of grammatical construction between S. Luke and
the Ep. to the Heb. Every one in the study of the N. T. grammars
must have observed how often reference is made to this fact. Buttmann,
e.g. (? I30, p. I42),1 remarks in regard to a certain construction,
" the language of the N. T. however, especially that of Luke and of
the Ep. to the Heb., is not so far removed from the ordinary Greek
as not to avail itself of this advantage." Again, he speaks of another
classical construction (? I44, p. 299) as having " in the N. T. in the
case of XavOdvetv and its associated verbs almost completely disappeared,
only a few instances of it being adducible (almost exclusively
from Luke and the Ep. to the Heb.)." Again, speaking
of /uv ... 8e, he says, "In the use of these two particles the N. T.
writers, especially Luke, the author of the Ep. to the Heb., and
Paul, are by no means unpractised." Similar observations are
frequent. Delitzsch has collected in his commentary on the epistle
1 Buttmann's Gram. of N. T. Greek, translatedr etc., by J. H. Thayer.