Exercitation 4

Of the Language wherein this Epistle was Originally written. Supposed to be the Hebrew. Grounds of that Supposition. Disproved. Not translated by Clemens. Written in Greek. Arguments for the proof thereof. Of Citations out of the LXX.

§ 1 Because this Epistle was written to the Hebrews, most of the Antients granted that it was written in Hebrew. Clemens Alexandrinus was the first who asserted it; after whom Origen gave it countenance, from whom Eusebius received it, and from him Hierom, which is the most ordinary progression of old reports. The main reason which induced them to embrace this persuasion, was a desire to free the Epistle from an exception against its being written by Paul; taken from the dissimilitude of the style used in it, to that of his other Epistles. This being once admitted, though causelessly, they could think of no better answer, than that this supposed difference of style, arose from the translation of this Epistle, which by the Apostle himself was first written in Hebrew. Clemens Romanus is the person generally fixed on as the author of this translation; though some do faintly intimate that Luke the Evangelist might possibly be the man that did it. But this objection from the diversity of style, which alone begat this persuasion, has been already removed out of the way, so that it cannot be allowed to be a foundation to any other supposition.

§ 2 That which alone is added to give countenance to this opinion, is that which we mentioned at the entrance of this discourse; namely, that the Apostle writing to the Hebrews, he did it in their own native language, which being also his own, it is no wonder, if he were more copious and elegant in it, than he was in the Greek, whereunto originally he was a stranger, learning it as Hierom supposes upon his conversion. But a man may modestly say to all this, [in non-Latin alphabet]. Every thing in this pretended reason, of that which indeed never was, is so far from certainty, that indeed it is beneath all probability.

For (1.) If this Epistle was written originally in Hebrew, from where comes it to pass, that no copy of it in that language, was ever read, seen, or heard of, by the most diligent collectors of all fragments of antiquity in the primitive times? Had ever any such thing been extant, from where came it in particular that Origen, that prodigy of industry and learning, should be able to attain no knowledge or report of it? (2.) If it were incumbent on Paul writing to the Hebrews, to write in their own language, why did he not also write in Latin to the Romans? That he did so indeed Gratian affirms, but without pretence of proof or witness, contrary to the testimony of all antiquity, the evidence of the thing itself, and constant confession of the Roman Church. And Erasmus says well on (Romans 1:7): Coarguendus vel ridendus magis error eorum, qui putant Paulum Romanis linguâ Romanâ scripsisse. The error of them is to be reproved, or rather laughed at, who suppose Paul to have written to the Romans in the Latin tongue. (3.) It is most unduly supposed that the Hebrew tongue was then the vulgar common language of the Jews, when it was known only to the learned among them, and a corrupt Syriac was the common dialect of the people even at Jerusalem. (4.) It is as unduly averred, that the Hebrew was the mother tongue of Paul himself, or that he was ignorant of the Greek, seeing he was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, where that was the language that he was brought up in, and to. (5.) The Epistle was written for the use of all the Hebrews in their several dispersions, especially that in the East, as Peter witnesses, they being all alike concerned in the matter of it, though not so immediately as those in Judaea and Jerusalem. Now to those the Greek language from the days of the Macedonian Empire, had been in vulgar use, and continued so to be. (6.) The Greek tongue was so well known and so much used in Judaea itself, that as a learned man has proved by sundry testimonies out of their most ancient writings, it was called the vulgar among them.

I know among the Rabbins there is mention of a prohibition of learning the Greek tongue; and in the Jerusalem Talmud itself, Tit. Peah. cap. 1. they add a reason of it; [in non-Latin alphabet], it was because of traitors, lest they should betray their brethren, and none understand them. But as this is contrary to what themselves teach about the knowledge of tongues, required in those who were to be chosen into the Sanhedrim, so it is sufficiently disproved by the instances of the translators of the Bible, Jesus Syrachides, Philo, Josephus, and others among themselves. And though Josephus affirm, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 9. that the study of the elegance of tongues was of no great reckoning among them, yet he grants that they were studied by all sorts of men. Nor does this pretended decree of prohibition concern our times, it being made as they say, Mishn. tit. Sota; in the last wars of Titus, [in non-Latin alphabet] in the wars of Titus they decreed, that no man should teach his son the Greek language. For it must be distinguished from the decree of the Hasmonaeans long before, prohibiting the study of the Graecian philosophy. So that this pretence is destitute of all color, being made up of many vain and evidently false suppositions. § 3

Again the Epistle is said to be translated by Clemens, but where, or when, we are not informed. Was this done in Italy before it was sent to the Hebrews? To what end then was it written in Hebrew, when it was not to be used but in Greek? Was it sent in Hebrew before the supposed translation? In what language was it communicated to others by them who first received it? Clemens was never in the East to translate it. And if all the first copies of it were dispersed in Hebrew, how came they to be so utterly lost, as that no report or tradition of them, or any one of them did ever remain? Besides if it were translated by Clemens in the West, and that translation alone preserved, how came it to pass, that it was so well known and generally received in the East, before the Western Churches admitted of it? This tradition therefore is also every way groundless and improbable. § 4

Besides there want not evidences in the Epistle its self, proving it to be originally written in the language wherein it is yet extant. I shall only point at the heads of them, for this matter deserves no long discourse. (1.) The style of it throughout manifests it to be no translation; at least it is impossible it should be one exact and proper, as its own copiousness, propriety of phrase and expression, with freedom from savouring of the Hebraisms of an original in that language, do manifest. (2.) It abounds with Greek elegancies and Paranomosia's, that have no countenance given to t[illegible]m by any thing in the Hebrew tongue; such as that for instance, Chap. 5. v. 8. [in non-Latin alphabet]; from the like expressions whereunto in the story of Susanna, v. 55, 56. [in non-Latin alphabet], and v. 59. [in non-Latin alphabet] It is well proved that it was w[illegible]tten originally in the Greek language. (3.) The rendring of [in non-Latin alphabet] constantly by [in non-Latin alphabet]; of which more afterwards, is of the same importance. (4.) The words concerning Melchisedech King of Salem, Chap. 7.11. prove the same, [in non-Latin alphabet]. Had the Epistle been written in Hebrew what need this [in non-Latin alphabet]. That [in non-Latin alphabet] is being interpreted [in non-Latin alphabet] is a strange kind of interpretation; and so also is it, that [in non-Latin alphabet] is [in non-Latin alphabet]. When John reports the words of Mary [in non-Latin alphabet], and adds of his own [in non-Latin alphabet], that is to say, Master, Chap. 20. v. 16. does any man doubt but that he wrote in Greek, and therefore so rendred her Syriack expression? And is not the same evident concerning our Apostle from the interpretation that he gives of those Hebrew words? And it is in vain to reply, that these words were added by the Translator, seeing the very argument of the Author is founded in the interpretation of those words which he gives us. It appears then, that as the assertion, that this Epistle was written in Hebrew, is altogether groundless, and that it arose from many false suppositions, which render it more incredible, than if it made use of no pretence at all; so there want not evidences from the Epistle its self of its being originally written in the language wherein it is still extant; and those such as few other books of the New Testament can afford concerning themselves, should the same question be made about them.

Moreover, in the confirmation of our perswasion, it is by some added, that the testimonies made use of in this Epistle out of the Old Testament, are taken out of the translation of the LXX. and that sometimes the stress of the argument taken from them, relies on somewhat peculiar in that version, which was not possible to have been done, had it been written originally in Hebrew. But because this assertion contains other difficulties in it, and is built on a supposition which deserves a farther examination, we shall refer it to its own place and season, which ensues.