Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews

§ 2 That which alone is added to give countenance unto this Opinion, is that which we mentioned at the entrance of this Discourse; namely, that the Apostle writing unto 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, then he was in the Greek, whereunto Originally he was a stranger, learning it as Hierom supposeth upon his Conversion. But a man may modestly say unto all this, [Greek or Hebrew]. Every thing in this pretended Reason, of that which indeed never was, is so far from Certainty, that indeed it is beneath all probability.

§ 2 That which alone is added to give countenance unto this Opinion, is that which we mentioned at the entrance of this Discourse; namely, that the Apostle writing unto 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, then he was in the Greek, whereunto Originally he was a stranger, learning it as Hierom supposeth upon his Conversion. But a man may modestly say unto all this, 〈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, whence comes it 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, whence 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 unto the Hebrews, to write in their own Language, why did he not also write in Latin unto 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 it self, and constant confession of the Roman Church: And Erasmus says well on Rom. 1.7. Coarguendus vel ridendus magis error eorum, qui putant Paulum Romanis linguâ Romanâ scripsisle. The error of them is to be reproved, or rather laughed at, who suppose Paul to have written unto 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 amongst 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 unto. (5.) The Epistle was written for the Use of all the Hebrews in their several dispersions, especially that in the East, as Peter witnesseth, they being all alike concerned in the matter of it, though not so immediately as those in Judea and Jerusalem. Now unto 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 Judea its self, that as a Learned man hath proved by sundry Testimonies out of their most ancient writings, it was called the Vulgar amongst them.