seems most especially to have perplexed them, was their relinquishment of that worship of God whereunto they had been so zealously addicted. That this would prove grievous unto them, our Saviour had before intimated, Matt. xxiv. 30. Hence were they so slow in their obedience unto that heavenly oracle, although excited with the remembrance of what befell Lot's wife in the like tergiversation. Nay, as is likely from this Epistle, many of them who had made profession of the gospel, rather than they would now utterly forego their old way of worship, deserted the faith, and, cleaving to their unbelieving countrymen, perished in their apostasy; whom our apostle in an especial manner forewarns of their inevitable and sore destruction, by that fire of God's indignation which was shortly to "devour the adversaries," to whom they associated themselves, chap. x. 25-31. 11. This was the time wherein this Epistle was written; this the condition of the Hebrews unto whom it was written, both in respect of their political and ecclesiastical estate. Paul, who had an inexpressible zeal and overflowing affection for his countrymen, being now in Italy, considering the present condition of their affairs;-how pertinaciously they adhered to Mosaical institutions; how near the approach of their utter abolition was; how backward, during that frame of spirit, they would be to save themselves, by fleeing from the midst of that perishing generation; what danger they were in to forego the profession of the gospel, when it could not be retained without a relinquishment of their former divine service and ceremonies,— writes this Epistle unto them, wherein he strikes at the very root of all their dangers and distresses. For, whereas all the danger of their abode in Jerusalem and Judea, and so of falling in the destruction of the city and people; all the fears the apostle had of their apostasy into Judaism; all their own disconsolations in reference unto their flight and departure,―arose from their adherence unto and zeal for the law of Moses; by declaring unto them the nature, use, end, and expiration of his ordinances and institutions, he utterly removes and takes away the ground and occasion of all the evils mentioned. This was the season wherein this Epistle was written, and these some of the principal occasions (though it had other reasons also, as we shall see afterwards) of its writing; and I no way doubt (though particular events of those days are buried in oblivion) but that, through His grace who moved and directed the apostle unto, and in, the writing of it, it was made signally effectual towards the professing Hebrews, both to free them from that yoke of bondage wherein they had been detained, and to prepare them with cheerfulness unto the observation of evangelical worship, leaving their countrymen to perish in their sin and unbelief. NOTE ON EXERCITATION III. BY THE EDITOR. Ir is generally agreed that the Epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Mill, Wetstein, Tillemont, Calmet, and Lardner, hold that it was written in the year 63. Basnage, like Owen, is in favour of an earlier date, and ascribes it to A.D. 61. The most recent authority, Dr Davidson, remarks, "If the letter was written by Paul, it could only have proceeded from him during the first two years of his imprisonment noticed at the close of the Acts. It preceded the Second to Timothy, A.D. 62 or 63. It was thus composed in Italy, according to chap. xiii. 24, and in accordance as well with the subscription of many MSS. drò 'Iraxias, as that of others, Ρώμης. But there is a difficulty in supposing that οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας would have been employed by the author if he were at Rome,-a difficulty which we cannot satisfactorily solve." EXERCITATION IV. THE LANGUAGE WHEREIN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS WAS 1. Of the language wherein this Epistle was originally written-Supposed to be the Hebrew. 2. Grounds of that supposition disproved. 3. Not translated by Clemens. 4. Written in Greek-Arguments for the proof thereof. 5. Of citations out of the LXX. 1. BECAUSE this Epistle was written to the Hebrews, most of the ancients 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 Jerome: 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 unto 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, hath been already removed out of the way, so that it cannot be allowed to be a foundation unto any other supposition. 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 than he was in the Greek, whereunto originally he was a stranger, learning it, as Jerome supposeth, upon his conversion. But a man may modestly say unto all this, Oudev yes. 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 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, 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 itself, and constant confession of the Roman church. And Erasmus says well on Rom. i. 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 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 itself, that, as a learned man hath proved by sundry testimonies out of their most ancient writings, it was called the vulgar amongst 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. i., they add a reason of it, ¬¬ "D; it was because of traitors, lest they should betray their brethren, and none understand them. But as this is contrary unto 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, Jo sephus, and others among themselves. And though Josephus affirms, Antiq., lib. xx. cap. xi., that the study of the elegance of tongues was of no great reckoning amongst them, yet he grants that they were studied by all sorts of men. Nor doth this pretended decree of prohibition concern our times, it being made, as they say, Mishn. Tit. בפולמוסין של טיטוס גזרו שלא ילמד אדם :Sota., in the last wars of Titus ;—" 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 Asmoneans long before, prohibiting the study of the Grecian philosophy. So that this pretence is destitute of all colour, 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 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 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 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 paronomasias, that have no countenance given unto them by any thing in the Hebrew tongue; such as that, for instance, chap. v. 8, "Eμadev ȧø' valev,—from the like expressions whereunto in the story of Susanna, ver. 55, 56, Ὑπὸ σχίνον, σχίσει σε μέσον, and ver. 59, 'Υπὸ πpivox, πpioas σe μérov, it is well proved that it was written originally in the Greek language. (3.) The rendering of a constantly by diathan (of which more afterwards) is of the same importance. (4.) The words concerning Melchisedec, king of Salem, chap. vii. 2, prove the same: Πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, ὅ ἐστι βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης. Had the Epistle been written in Hebrew, what need this punveía? That P is, being interpreted, and so also is it that TT , is a strange kind of interpretation; ohy he is Diby ab. When John reports the words of Mary, 'Pac ឌ Couví, and adds of his own, ö Xéyerai, didάoxaλe, “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 author is founded on 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 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 Testament 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 supposition 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. Eusebius says, "Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and, according to report, either Luke or Clement" (i.e., of Rome) "translated it," Euseb. iii. 38. Jerome remarks, 66 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, Euthalius, Primasius, Johannes Damascenus, Ecumenius, and Theophylact. The principal reasons for believing that the Epistle extant is merely the Greek translation of an Aramæan 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 amalgamation. Some considerations, in addition to what are noticed by Owen, have been deemed of force in support of a Greek original. |