Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews

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 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 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 Transla•••n 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 unto t••m by any thing in the Hebrew Tongue; such as that for instance, Chap. 5. v. 8. [Greek or Hebrew]; from the like Expressions whereunto in the story of Susanna, v. 55, 56. [Greek or Hebrew], and v. 59. [Greek or Hebrew] It is well proved that it was w••tten Originally in the Greek Language. (3.) The rendering of [Greek or Hebrew] constantly by [Greek or Hebrew]; of which more afterwards, is of the same importance. (4.) The Words concerning Melchizedek King of Salem, Chap. 7.11. prove the same, [Greek or Hebrew]. Had the Epistle been written in Hebrew what need this [Greek or Hebrew]. That [Greek or Hebrew] is being interpreted [Greek or Hebrew] is a strange kind of Interpretation; and so also is it, that [Greek or Hebrew] is [Greek or Hebrew]. When John reports the Words of Mary [Greek or Hebrew], and adds of his own [Greek or Hebrew], that is to say, Master, Chap. 20. v. 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 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;