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 unto the Hebrews? To what end, then, was it written in He- brew, 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 unto 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 itself, 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 pro- per, as its own copiousness, propriety of phrase and expression, with freedom from savouring of the Hebraisms of an orzgenal in that lan- guage, do manifest. (2.) It abounds with Greek elegancies and paro- nomasias, that have no countenance given unto them by any thing in the Hebrew tongue; such as that, for instance, chap. v. 8, ”"Ewadev ag’ dy érabsy,—from the like expressions whereunto in the story of Susanna, ver. 55, 56, ‘Yad oxi, oxice: os wéoov, and ver. 59, ‘Yad xpivor, apioos ot recov, it is well proved that it was written origi- nally in the Greek language. (8.) The rendering of 12 constantly by 6:a44x (of which more afterwards) is of the same importance. (4:) The words concerning Melchisedec, king of Salem, chap. vii. 2, prove the same: Ipéirov wiv Epnvevdmevos Bacireds Osxosoobvys, excirae 08 xa) Bax oIAEds Sard, 6 gors Baoireds eipgyns. Had the Epistle been written in Hebrew, what need this épunveta? That passan is, being interpreted, ARTS P, is a strange kind of interpretation; and so also is it that
SECT.3-5. | SUBSIDIARY NOTE. 105
boys 7p is piby 720. When John reports the words of Mary, ‘P«é- Covv/, and adds of his own, 6 Aéyerau, diddoxare, “that is to say, Master,” John xx. 16, doth any man doubt but that he wrote in Greek, and therefore so rendered her Syriac 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 au- thor is founded on the interpretation of those words which he gives us. It appears, then, that as the assertion that this Epistle was writ- ten in Hebrew is altogether groundless,—and 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 itself of its being originally written in the language wherein it is still extant, and those such as few other books of the New Tes- tament can afford concerning themselves, should the same question be made about them.
5. Moreover, in the confirmation of our persuasion, 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 to 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 sup- position which deserves a further examination, we shall refer it unto its own place and season, which ensues.
SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION IV. BY THE EDITOR.
On the point discussed in the previous Exercitation, a difference of an early date exists among critics. Clement of Alexandria held.that “ Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke carefully translated it into Greek,” Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 14. Husebius says, “‘ Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and, according to report, either Luke or Clement”’ (¢.¢., of Rome) ‘translated it,” Euseb. iii. 38. Jerome remarks, “He had written as a Hebrew to Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue,” and “this Epistle was translated into Greek ; so that the colouring of the style was made different in this way from that of Paul's.” The following fathers may be named as holding the same opinion,—Theodoret, Huthalius, Primasius, Johannes Damascenus, (Zcumenius, and Theophylact.
The principal reasons for believing that the Epistle extant is merely the Greek translation of an Aramean original are, first, the difference of style in it from the rest of Paul’s epistles, but this point has been considered already in the subsidiary note to the second Exercitation; and, secondly, that Hebrews are addressed, to whom their native tongue would be more acceptable. But the Greek tongue, by the time this Epistle was written, had obtained great currency in Palestine. Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed, the system of Judaism was verging on abolition, and the Jewish’ Christians were to be blended with their Gentile brethren of the faith. The employ- ment of the Greek tongue in the inspired writings tended to facilitate the happy amal- gaination.