the Epi/lle to the H E. B a E VV s 13gà Prttterl noneunderftand them. But as this is contrary unto what themfelves reach about the Knowledgeof required in thofe who were to be chofen into the Sanbedrim, foit is fufficiently difprovedby the in(lances of the Tranflators of the Bible, Je!itrSyracbider, Philo, Jofepiius, and others among themfelves: And though Jofphur affirm, Antiq. lib: zo. cap. 9. that the Study of the Elegance ofTongues was of no great reckoning amongft them, yet he grants that they wereftudiedby all forts of men: Nor doth this pretendedDecreeof probibitionconcern Our times, it being made as they fay, Mi/lin. tit. Sota in the loft Wars of Pro, 1-1131+ U1 nts C7t3 'ì5V7 1113 t71Ln'tt 5111 17173'1191 In the Wars ofTitus they decreed, that no man fhauld teach bis Son the; Greek Language. For it midibe diftinguithed frorn the Decree of theHafmomeans long before, prohibi- ting the Study of the GrecianPhiloJdphy. So that this pretence is deftitute of all co- lour, beingMade up of many vain and evidently falfefuppoftions. Againthe Epiftle is Paid to be tranßated by Clemens, but where, or when, we are not informed. Was this done in Italybefore it was Centunto the Hebrews? to what end then was it written in Hebrew, when it was not to be ufed but hi Greek? was it fent in Hebrew Before the fuppofed Tranflation ? in what Language was it com- municated unto othersbythem who heft received it ? Clemenswas never in the Eaff to tranflate it. And if all the hull Copies of it were difperved in Hebrew, bow came they to be fo utterly loll, as that noReportor Tradition of them, orany one of them didever remain ; Betides if it were tranílated by Clemens in the Welt, and that Tránffa- aion alone preferved, how came it 'opals, that it was fo well known and generally re- ceived in the Ealt, before the WeßernChurches admitted of it; This Tradition there: fore isalfo every way groundlefs and improbable. Betides there want not Evidences in the Epiffle its felf proving it to be Originally written in the Language wherein it is yetextant. I !hall only point at the Heads of them, for this matter delèrves no long Difcourfe: ( t.) The Style of it throughout *vandals it to be noTranflation; át leaft it it impolfible it thould be one exaét and proper, as its owncopioufnefsi proprietyofPhrafe and Eüpreffion; with freedom from . favouring of the Hebraifinr of an Original in that Language, do manifelt. (2; ) It abounds with GreekEletancies and Paranomófia's, that have no countenance given unto them by any thing in the Hebrew Tongue ; fuch as that for intlance, Chap. 5. v.8. itkeOev ä® [yV f+aio , from the like Expreflions whereunto in the fort' of Sufanna, v. 55, 56. ízri rocv, gríae es pioor, and v.59. ílait 40ve1,, wriaai at pioáv It iswell proved that it was written Originafy in 'the GreekLanguage. . (3. ) The rendringof rom conttantly by d,ueí,an ; ofwhich wore afterwards, isof thefame importance. (4.) The Words concerning Melchifedech King ofSalem,Chap. 7. I r. .prove thefame,. zpm -ele tar, inutih - llivOì5 ßaoau4 d'imit,oútns ineria 5 xj ßaor%£Vr .rr'ene. Had the Epiftle been written in Hebrew what need this itmuvia. That 11Y 'eta is being interpreted TS `gyp is a ftrangekind ofInterpretation ; and fo alfo is it, that ayty Tyre is p1yt11 ta. When 'John reports the Words ofMary paßgerì, and adds of his own a riyeva, AlAiricatit, that it to fay,Matter, Chap..zo. v. r6. Doth any mandoubt but that he wrote in Greek, and thereforefo rendredherSyriackExpreflìon ? and is not the fame evident concerning our Apottle from the interpretation that he gives of thofeHebrew. Words ? And it is in vain to reply, that thefe words were added by theTranßator, feeing the very Arga7 ment of the Author is founded in theInterpretationofthofe words which he gives us. It appears then, that as the Affertion, that thisEpiltle was written in Hebrew, isaltoge- ther groundlefs, and that itarofe from many falfe fuppofitions, which render it more incredible, than if it made ufe of nopretenceat all ; fo there want not Evidences from the Epiltle its felf of its beingOriginallywritten in the Language wherein it is trill ex- tant ; and thofe fuch as few other Books of the New Tefiament calf afford concerning themfelves, fhouldthe fameQueftion bemade about them. Moreover,in theConfirmation of our perfwafion, it is by forne added, that theTe- ftimonies madeufe of in thisEpiltle out of the Old Teftament , are taken out of the Tranflation of the LAX and that fometimes the ftrcfs of the Argument taken from them, relies on fomewhat peculiar in that Verfion, which wasnot poffible to havebeen .done,had it been writtenOriginally inHebrew. But becaufe thisAffertion contains other difficulties in it, .and is built on afuppofttionwhich defèrvesafarther examination, we (hallrefer it unto its ownplace and feafon, whichetafues. Exercitatio 45 3, 4.4 4.5.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=