HEATHEN

HEBREW LANGUAGE

7
Heberites

in Nu.

2645

The clan is called the

Jastrow

The form

Jer. 486-for which

read

(implied in

most naturally

as

a

‘broken plural’ of

Lag.

Barth’s view of it

as

a

sing. adjectival form

is

likely. ‘Tamarisk’ is the rendering of

in Jer.

1 7 6

of Aq. in Jer.176 (in 486

and

of Vg.

;

Tg. has in the former place

edible

thistle but in the other takes

to be a proper

(so

Pesh.

renders by

root

in both places.

T h e plant intended i s almost certainly

a

juniper,

as

that is the meaning of

Ar.

a n d the most likely

sort is, according t o Tristram

the

L.,

or

Savin.

This tree abounds o n the

rocks above Petra, where

as

Robinson

(BR

2

says,

it grows t o

the

height of

I O

or

feet, a n d hangs upon

t h e rocks even

to t h e summit of the cliffs a n d needles.

Its gloomy stunted appearance, with its scale-like leaves

pressed close to its gnarled stem, and cropped close by the wild

goats,

great force to the contrast suggested by the

Tristram adds ‘There is no true heath in Palestine

Lower

Hooker states that this particular

plant is still called

by the Arabs.

[The

or juniper, has been found in

I

S.

20

41

(crit. emend.), where David is said to have sat down

a

juniper tree, while Jonathan shot arrows at three prominent

rocks near. The passage gains in picturesqueness.

i n

should be

;

was originally

and intended

as

a correction of

see Che.

Bib. and cp

See also A

ROER

.

N.

M.

HEATHEN

Therendering

is

plainly

wrong i n

AV of Lev.

2544

2 6 4 5 ,

but is admissible when

or

is

used of nations whose religion is

neither Jewish,

nor Jewish-Christian, nor Christian,

with consciousness of this fact.

Cp Sanderson

Abimelech, an heathen-man, who

not the knowledge of the true God of heaven to direct him

.

Caxton, Pref. to Malory’s

‘in

places

and

Possibly the Gothic original of ‘heathen’may he

traced to Armenian

an adaptation of Gk.

though

stem-vowel seems to have been assimilated to

‘heath’ (Murray,

Dict.).

O n

the various Hebrew conceptions of

a

heaven

as

the abode of supernatural beings a n d (later)

of

the risen dead,

see

E

SCHATOLOGY

, a n d c p

E

ARTH

AND WORLD,

E

ARTH

[F

O

U

R

QUARTERS], PARADISE.

The usual Hebrew term is

not dual ;

I

but

is used also by

to

render

Ps.

77

18

(RV, whirlwind,’ see W

INDS

), and

37

(KV

‘sky’).

In the N T besides

the

only feature which calls for remark is the reference

to

a belief in

a

plurality

of

heavens

Eph.

1 3

26

3

IO,

etc.),

probably due to Persian influence ; see especially Charles,

of

Enoch,

See

E

LEMENTS

,

2.

etc.).

See

S

ACRIFICE

,

a n d c p

T

AXATION

AND

T

RIBUTE

.

HEBEL

Josh.

n.

HEBER

but

in

Nu.

[BAL] ;

see

N

AMES

,

70).

I

.

The

husband of

JAEL

.

a n d head

of a

Kenite

sept which separated from the main body of

the tribe

(see K

ENITES

), a n d in the course of its nomadic wander-

ings went

as

far north a s

a

certain sacred tree near

(see Z

AANAIM

,

T

HE P L A I N OF)

Judg.

411

[B])

17

In

Judg.

[A])

he has

been introduced b y a glossator.

( A s .

c p

connects

with

Kina, mentioned in the

Pap.

Anastasi, a n d apparently

E.

of Megiddo

(see

Jensen,

Z A

a n d c p A

MALEK

).

T h u s

there

is

an

apparent

coincidence between Heber of

K i n a , a n d the eponym of the neighbouring tribe of

(see

2

below)..

The eponym of an Asherite clan ; Gen. 46

17

Nu.

and

I

Ch.

See

HEAVEN.

HEAVENLY BODIES

Pet.

3

HEAVE OFFERING

See

JETHRO.

Of the

Arab. Gram.,

connects this name with the Habiri of the Amarna tablets (cp

his view on

11

;

so

also

Hommel,

A N T , 235

260

n. This is

See

A clan in Judah the ‘father’ of Socoh

( I

A Benjamite

Ch.

8

;

I

Ch.

5

I

Ch.

8

Lk.

3 35.

I .

See E

BER

(3).

See E

BER

(4).

See

E

BER

(I).

A clan in

the ‘father’ of Socoh

See

I

.

A Benjamite

Ch.

8

;

I

Ch.

5

See E

BER

I

Ch.

8

Lk.

3 35.

See E

BER

See

E

BER

(I).

Ch. 4

HEBREW

T h e name

Hebrew

Gr.

is

a

transcription of

the Aramaic equivalent of the original O T
word

pl.

which is the

proper

name of the people who also

bore the collective name of

Israel

or

Children of Israel

Israel).

The

name of Israel with its sacred

associations in t h e patriarchal history is that

which

the

OT

writers prefer

to

designate their nation

a n d

this circumstance, combined with

the fact that the term

Hebrews is frequently employed where foreigners a r e

as

speaking

or spoken

to

Ex.

26

I

S.

Gen.

Ex.

has led t o the conjecture that

the name of Hebrews (men from the

other

side,

of

the Euphrates)

was

originally given

to

the descendants

of Abraham b y their Canaanite neighbours, a n d con-
tinued to

be

the usual designation of the Israelites among

foreigners, just

as

the Magyars

are

known t o other

Europeans

as

Hungarians (foreigners), a s

we

call the

High-Dutch Germans (warriors),

or

as t h e Greeks gave

the

name of

to

the people that called them-

selves

A

closer view of the case, does not

confirm this conjecture.

[Stade’s theory however,-that the Israelites were called

Hebrews, after

passage of the Jordan, in contradistinction

to

the other West- Jordanic peoples, though connected with a

historical theory not borne out by the (later) Israelite tradition

-is still maintained by its author,

Akad.

p

IIO.

As

to the Habiri of Am. Tal, Wi.

defends

view that the people so-called

nomads from the other side of the Jordan, such as the Suti

or

pre-Aramaic

the Syrian desert. These nomads were

the

‘Hebrews.

But cp Hommel,

Nor has the word Hebrew been hitherto found in the early

monuments of other Eastern nations [unless indeed the Habiri

of the Am. Tab., who give such trouble to

of Jeru-

salem, may be identified with the Hebrews-a theory which in

its

newer form deserves consideration]. The identification pro-

posed by Chabas which finds the Hebrews in the hieroglyphic

Apuriu is more than

whereas the name of Israel

appears

on

the stone of Mesha, king of Moab

7), and perhaps

has been deciphered

Assyrian monuments.5

[On

the

of this name in an old Egyptian inscription, see E

XODUS

The

form

is, in the language of Semitic gram-

marians,

a

relative noun, presupposing

the

word ‘Eber

a s the name of

the tribe, place,

or

common ancestor,

from whom

the Hebrews are designated.

Accordingly we find Eber as a nation side by side with Assyria

in the

poetical passage Nu. 24

24,

and Eber as ancestor

of the Hebrews in the genealogical lists of Gen.

Here we

must distinguish two

According to Gen.

11

(and Gen.

Eber is the great-grandson of Shem through Arphaxad

and the ancestor of Terah through Peleg Reu Serug and

These are not to be taken as the names

men.

Several of them are designations of places or districts near the

upper waters of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and among other

circumstances the place at the head of the series assigned to the

district of

(see, however,

through

which

a

migration from Ararat to the lands occupied by

Semites in historical times would first pass, suggests the prob-

ability that the genealogy is

not

even meant to exhibit

a

table

See

For these forms we may compare the way in which the river

Hebrew

is dealt with in the following articles:-

H

ISTORICAL

L

IT

., P

ROPHETICAL

L

IT

., L

AW

On the labours of the

3

See especially Ces.

Gesch.

der

;

4

See E

GYPT

,

;

I .

Schr.,

defends this not undisputed reading;

See b e Goeje in

T,

243

and We. in

is in one place transliterated

and in another

P

OETICAL

L

IT

.

L

IT

.,

E

PISTOLARY

L

IT

.

Masoretes see W

RITING

, T

EXT

.

more recently

in Riehm’s

A

HAB

4.

’76, p.

395.

HEBREW

LANGUAGE

of ethnological affinities, but rather. presents

a

geographical

sketch of the supposed early movements of the Hehrews who

are personified under the name of Eher. If this is

so,

can

hardly venture to assert (with some scholars) that the author of

the list (the Priestly Writer) extended the name of Hehrews to

all descendants of

The case is different with another (doubtless older) record

of

which a fragment seems

to

be preserved in Gen.

Here there is no intermediate link between Shem and Eber.

Sons

of

Shem and

sons

of Eher appear to be co-extensive ideas,

and to the latter are reckoned

only the descendants of Peleg

(Aramzeans, Israelites,

Arabs, etc.), hut also the

South Arabian tribes of Joktan.

As to the etymological origin

of

the name of Hebrews

we have

an early statement in Gen.

1413,

where

renders Abram the Hebrew [see Di.] by

6

‘

the crosser.

Grammatically more accurate while resting

on

the same ety-

mology is the rendering of

‘the man from

the

side’ of the Euphrates,

is thb explanation of

Jewish tradition (Ber.

R.,

and Rashi); cp Ew.

( E T

1284).

however, ‘takes

in the Arabic sense

of

a river

hank and makes

Hebrews ‘dwellers in a land of rivers’

goes well with Peleg (watercourse)

as

i n

Arabia we have the district

so

named because

is

furrowed by waters (Sprenger,

By the Hebrew language we understand the ancient

tongue of the Hebrews in Canaan-the language in

which the

OT

is composed, with the ex-

ception

of

the Aramaic passages

10

I

T

Ezra

Dan.

We

d o

not find, however, that this language

was

called Hebrew by those who spoke it.

I t

is

the

Zip-

Canaan

(Is.

or,

as

spoken in

southern Palestine,

K.

Is.

Neh.

T h e later

Jews call it the

tongue

in contrast t o the

profane

Aramaic dialect (com-

monly though improperly enough called Syro-Chaldaic)

which long before the time

of

Christ had superseded

the old language

as

the vernacular of the Jews.

This

change had already taken place at the time when the

in Hebrew

first occurs (Prologue

t o

Sirach) and both in the Apocrypha and in the

N T

t h e ambiguous term,

the language after those

who used it, often denotes the contemporary vernacular,
not the obsolete idiom of the OT.

T h e other sense,

however, was admissible

Rev.

and

so

fre-

quently in Josephus), and naturally became the prevalent
one among Christian writers who had little occasion t o
speak of anything but the

OT

See

A

RAMAIC

L

A

NGUAG

E

.

Hebrew is a language of the group which, since

horn, has generally been

as Semitic, the affinities

of the several members

of

which are

so

close that they may fairly be compared
with

a

sub-group of the Indo-Germanic

family-for example, with the Teutonic languages.

T h e fundamental unity of the Semitic vocabulary is

easily observed from the absence of compounds (except
i n proper names) and from the fact that

all

words are derived from their roots in definite patterns

(measures)

as regular

as

those of grammatical inflection.

T h e roots regularly consist

of three consonants (seldom

four

or

five), the accompanying vowels having n o

radical

but shifting according to grammatical

rules to express various embodiments of the root

idea.

T h e triliteral roots are substantially

to the

whole Semitic group, subject to certain consonantal per-

mutations, of which the most important are strikingly

The Terahites, according

to

other testimonies, are Aramzeans

22

Dt.

j);

but the Priestly Writer, who cannot be

pre-exilic, makes Aram a separate offshoot of Shem, having

nothing to do with Eber (Gen.

Cp Jerome,

Quest.

on the passage, and Theodoret,

The term ‘Hebrew

to have originated with

the Grreks or Hellenists. Philo however calls the languageof

the OT Chaldee

(De

2

Jerome on Dan.

the use of the expression

language in the

see

Berliner,

(Berlin,

Cp

HEBREW

LANGUAGE

analogous

to

those laid down by Grimm for the Teutonic

languages.

There are in Arabic four aspirated dentals, which in Hebrew

and Assyrian are regularly represented

sibilants, as follows

:-

Arabic

A

I

.

Ar.

In most of the

dialects the

first

three of these sounds

are represented by

and

respectively, while the fourth

is usually changed

into

the guttural sound

But it would

appear from recent discoveries that in very ancient times some

a t least of the Aramaic dialects approximated to the Hebrew and

Assyrian as regards the treatment of the first three sounds, and
changed the fourth into (cp

beginning, and see

below,

Derivation from the roots and inflection proceed partly

by the reduplication of root letters and the addition

of

certain preformatives and afformatives
(more rarely by the insertion

of formative

consonants in the body of the root), partly

by modifications of the vowels with which the radicals
are pronounced.

I n its origin almost every root ex-

presses something that can be grasped by the senses.

The mechanism

which words are formed from the root is

adapted to present sensible notions in

a

variety of nuances and

in all possible embodiments and connections,

so

that there are

regular forms to express in a single word the intensity, the

repetition, the production of the root idea-the place, the instru-

ment, the time of its occurrence, and

so

forth. Thus the ex-

pression of intellectual ideas is necessarily metaphorical, almost

every word being capable of

a

material sense,

or

a t least con-

veying the distinct suggestion of some sensible notion. For

example, the names of passions depict their physiological ex-

pression ;

‘

to confer honour’ means also

‘

to make heavy,’ and

so

on.
T h e same concrete character, the same

to convey purely abstract thoughts without

a substratum

appealing to the senses, appears in the grammatical
structure

of the Semitic tongues.

This is

to

be seen, for example in the absence

of

the neuter

gender, in the extreme paucity

particles in the scanty pro-

vision for the subordination of propositions

’

which deprives the

Semitic style of all involved periods and

it to

a

succession

of short sentences linked by the simple copula and.

T h e fundamental element

of

these languages is the

noun, and in the fundamental type

of sentence the

predicate is

a noun

set down without any copula and

therefore without distinction of past, present, or future
time.

T h e finite verb is developed from nominal forms

(participial or infinitive), and is equally without dis-
tinction

of time.

Instead of tenses we find two forms,

the perfect and the imperfect, which are used according

as

the speaker contemplates the verbal action as

a

thing

complete or

as

conditional, imperfect, or in process.

It lies in the nature of this distinction that the imperfect alone

bas moods. In their later stages the languages seek to supply

the lack of tenses by circumlocutions with a substantive verb and

participles.

Other notable features (common to the Semitic

tongues) are the use of appended suffixes to denote the
possessive pronouns with

a substantive, or the accusative

of

a

personal pronoun with a verb, and the expression

of the genitive relation by what is called construction
or annexation, the governing noun being placed im-
mediately before the genitive,

if possible, slightly

shortened in pronunciation

so

that the two words may

run together

as

one idea.

A characteristic

of

the later stages of the languages

the

resolution of this relation into a prepositional clause.

These and other peculiarities are sufficient to establish

the original unity

of the group, and entitle us to postu-

late an original language from which all the Semitic
dialects have sprung.

Of

the relation of this language to other linguistic stems,

especially to the Indo-Germanic

on

the

E.

and the North-

African languages

on

the W. we cannot yet speak with certainty

:

but it appears that the present system of

roots has

grown out of an earlier

system which,

so

far as it can

be reconstructed, must form the

of

scientific inquiry

into

the ultimate affinities of the Semitic

4

[See Cook Aramaic

Renan,

sketches the history of

Noteworthy are the remarks

of

On survivals from the

stage,

research

in

this direction.

Lagarde,

see

96.

1986

HEBREW LANGUAGE

Before the rise of comparative philology it was

a

familiar opinion that Hebrewwas the original
speech of mankind.

Taken

from

the Jews, and as already expressed

in the Palestinian Targum

on

Gen.

11

I

,

this opinion drew its

main support from etymologies and other data in the earlier

chapters of Genesis, which, however, were as plausibly turned

by Syriac writers in favour

of

their own

Till recent times many excellent scholars (including

Ewald) claimed for Hebrew the greatest relative antiquity
among Semitic tongues.

I t

is now, however, generally

recognised that in grammatical structure the Arabic,
shut up within its native deserts till the epoch of Islam,
preserved much more of the original Semitic forms than
either Hebrew or Aramaic.

In its richer vocalisation in the possession of distinct case

in the use for

nouns of the

which

in the northern dialect has passed through (originally

as

in Egyptian Arabic) into a mere vowel

in

the more extensive

range of passive and modal forms, and

other refinements

of

inflection Arabic represents no later development

but

the

original

and primitive subtlety

of

Semitic

as

appears not only from fragmentary survivals

in

the other

but also from an examination of the process of decay which

brought the spoken Arabic

of

the present day into a grammatical

condition closely parallel to

OT Hebrew.

Whilst Arabic

is

in many respects the elder brother,

it is not the parent of Hebrew or Aramaic.

Each

member of the group had

an independent development

from

a

stage prior to any existing language, though it

would seem that Hebrew did not branch

off

from

Aramaic

so

soon as from Arabic, whilst in its later

stages it came under direct Aramaic influence.

[On the relation which Hebrew bears to the other Semitic

languages, see Wright,

.

Driver,

Tenses

and

N

art. Semitic Languages

in

published

separately

in

German, with some additions

(Die

T h e Hebrew spoken by the Israelites

in

Canaan was

separated only by very minor differences (like those of

our provincial dialects) from the speech of

neighbouring tribes.

W e know this

so far

as the Moabite language is concerned from

the stone

of Mesha and the indications furnished by

proper names, as well a s the acknowledged affinity of
Israel with these tribes, make the same thing probable

in

the case of Ammon and Edom.

More remarkable

is

the fact that the

a n d Canaanites, with whom

the Israelites acknowledged

no

brotherhood, spoke a

language which, a t least

as

written, differs but little from

biblical Hebrew.

This observation has been

in

support of the very old idea that the Hebrews originally
spoke Aramaic, and changed their language in Canaan.
An exacter study of the Phcenician inscriptions, how-
ever, shows differences from Hebrew which suffice to

constitute

a

distinct dialect, and combine with other

indications to favour the view that the descendants of
Abraham brought their Hebrew idiom with them.

I n

this connection it

is

important to observe that the old

Assyrian, which preceded Aramaic in regions with which
the book of Genesis connects the origins of Abraham, is

Theodoret

(Quest.

in

11)

and others cited

by Assemani

Bib. Or.

same

Conversely Jacob

of Sarug concedes the priority of Hebrew (see ZDMG

The

whose language is in many points older than either,

yield priority to Hebrew (Ahulfeda,

H A

or

t o

Syriac (Tabari

Abu 'Isa

i n

Ahulfeda,

the language of

race

which they owed their first knowledge

of

letters.

That the case endings in classical Arabic are survivals of a

system of inflection can

be doubted. It does

not necessarily follow, however, that

in

the primitive Semitic

language these terminations were used for precisely the same pur-

poses as in Arabic. Moreover, the three Arabic case-endings

commonly called by European scholars the nominative, genitive,

and accusative, do not by any means correspond exactly, as re-
gards their usage, to the respective cases in the Indo-European

languages that is

to

say, the Arabic language sometimes employs

the accusative where we should, on logical grounds, have ex-
pected the nominative and

vice

These apparent anomalies

are probably relics

of

a time when the use

of

the case-endings

was determined by principles which differed,

t o

a considerable

extent, from those known

t o

the Arabic grammarians.

'the

Jews (Rab in

HEBREW LANGUAGE

in many respects closely akin to

[Certain

inscriptions, moreover, recently discovered a t Zenjirli,

in

the extreme N. of Syria, are written in a dialect which

exhibits many striking points of resemblance to Hebrew,
although it would seem,

on

the whole, to belong to the

Aramaic branch.

As

the origin of Hebrew is lost in the obscurity that

hangs over the early movements of the Semitic tribes,

so

we

know very little of the changes which the language

underwent in Canaan. T h e existence of local differences
of speech is proved by Judg.

1 2 6 ;

but the attempt to

make out in the

O T

records

a

Northern and

a

dialect, or even besides these

a

third dialect for

Simeonites of the extreme

has led to

no

certain

results.

In

generalitmaybesaid that

text supplies

inadequate data for studying the history of the language.
Semitic writing, especially

a purely consonantal text

such

as

the

O T

originally was, gives a n imperfect picture

of the very grammatical and phonetic details most likely
to vary dialectically or in course of time.

The later punctuation (including the notation of vowels

:

see below,

$3

g,

and W

RITING

) and even many things in the

present consonantal text, represent the formal pronunciation

of

the Synagogue as it took shape after Hebrew became a

dead language-for even

has often a more primitive

pronunciation

of

proper names (cp

$3

This modern

system being applied to all parts of the OT alike, many

archaisms were obliterated

or

disguised, and the earlier and

later writings

resent in the received text a grammatical

uniformity

is

certainly not original.

It

true that

occasional consonantal forms inconsistent with the accompany-

ing vowels have survived-especially in the books least read

the Jews-and appear in the light of comparative grammar

as

indications

of

more primitive forms. These sporadic survivals

show that the correction of obsolete forms was not carried

through with perfect consistency; but it is never safe

t o

argue as if we possessed the original form

of

the texts

W

RITING

).

T h e chief historical changes in the Hebrew language

which we can still trace are due t o Aramaic influence.

T h e Northern Israelites were in
Immediate contact with
populations and some Aramaic loan-

words were used, a t least in Northern Israel, from

a

very early date.

At the time of Hezekiah Aramaic

seems t o have been the usual language of diplomacy
spoken

by

the statesmen of Judah and Assyria alike

( 2

K.

After the fall of Samaria the Hebrew

population

of

Northern Israel was partly deported,

their place being taken by new colonists, most of whom
probably had Aramaic as their mother-tongue.

It

is

not therefore surprising that even in the language

of

increasing signs of Aramaic influence appear

before the

T h e fall of the Jewish kingdom

accelerated the decay of Hebrew

as a

spoken language.

N o t indeed that those of the people who were trans-
ported forgot their own tongue

in

their new home,

as

older scholars supposed

on

the basis of Jewish tradition

:

the exilic and post-exilic prophets do not write in

a

lifeless tongue.

Hebrew was still the language of

Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah

( 1 3 2 4 )

in the

middle

of the fifth century

After the fall

of

Jerusalem, however, the petty Jewish people were
in daily intercourse with

a

surrounding

See Stade's essay on the relation of Phcenician and Hebrew

with

ZDMG,

29

also the latter's article, Sprache, hebraische,

in

5

One of these inscriptions, set up by Panarnmii, king

of

Ya'di, probably dates from the ninth

or

the beginning of the

eighth century

Two other inscriptions set up by a king

named

belong

to

the latter half of the eighth cen-

tury. See

A

RAMAIC

L

ANGUAGE

,

$3

in

addition to the works

on the subject which are

specified the reader

consult

Lidzbarski's

der

On the difficulty

of

drawing precise inferences from this

narrative see Marq.

pp.

Bottch.

d . kebr.

('66).

5

,Details in Ryssel De

sic,

the most

collection ofmaterialssince Gesenius,

Gesch. der

An argument

to

the contrary drawn by Jewish interpreters

from Neh.

88

rests on false exegesis.

1988

HEBREW LANGUAGE

population, and the Aramaic tongue, which was the
official language of the western provinces of the Persian
empire, began to take rank

as

the recognised medium

of polite intercourse and letters even among the tribes
of Arabic blood-the Nabataeans-whose inscriptions in
the

are written in Aramaic.

Thus Hebrew

as

a

spoken language gradually yielded to its more power-

ful neighbour, and the style of the latest

O T

writers

is

not only full of Aramaic words and forms but

also

largely coloured with Aramaic idioms, whilst their

Hebrew has lost the force and freedom of

a

living

tongue (Ecclesiastes, Esther, some Psalms, Daniel).

Chronicler no longer thoroughly understood

Old Hebrew sources from which he worked, while for
the latest part of his history he used

a

Jewish Aramaic

document, part of which he incorporated in the book of

Ezra.

Long before the time of Christ Hebrew

was the

exclusive property of scholars.

About

zoo

B.

Jesus the son of Sirach (Ben

a

Palestinian Jew, composed in Hebrew the famous

treatise known in the West

as

Ecclesiasticus.

A

large

portion of the original text has .recently come to light,
unfortunately in a mutilated condition.

Though Ben

uses

a

considerable number of late ‘words, mostly

borrowed from the Aramaic, the general character of
his Hebrew style is decidedly purer and more classical
than that of some parts of the

O T

Ecclesiastes),

and ‘it is specially to be noted that the recovered frag-
ments,

as

far

as

is known at present, contain not

a

single word derived from the Greek.

See

E

CC

LESI

-

ASTICUS.

Several other books of the Apocrypha appear to be

translated from Hebrew originals- Judith,

I

the last according t o the express
mony

of

Jerome.

I t is certain that the

OT

canon contains elements

as

late

as

the epoch of national revival under the Maccabees
(Daniel, certain Psalms), for Hebrew was the language
of religion

as well

as

of scholarship.

As for the

scholars, they affected not only to write but

also

t o

speak in Hebrew

they could not resist the influence

of the Aramaic vernacular, and indeed made no attempt
t o imitate the classical models of the OT, which neither
furnished the necessary terminology for the new ideas
with which they operated, nor offered in its forms
constructions

a

suitable vehicle for their favourite pro-

cesses of legal dialectic. Thus was developed

a

new

scholastic Hebrew, thelanguage of the wise’
preserving some genuine old Hebrew words

happen

not to be found in the

OT,

and supplying some new

necessities of expression by legitimate developments of
germs that lay in the classical idiom, but thoroughly inter-
penetrated with foreign elements, and

as

little

fit

for

higher literary purposes

as

the Latin of the mediaeval

schoolmen. T h e chief monument of this dialect is the
body of traditional law called the Mishna, which is
formed of materials of various dates,

was collected

in its present form about the close

of

the second century

A.D.

(see

L

AW

L

ITERATURE

).

[A

remarkable feature in the Hebrew of the Mishna

is the large use made of Greek and even of Latin words.

That these words were actually current among the Jews of

the period and are

not

mere literary embellishments (as

some-

times the case with Greek words used by Syriac authors) appears

from the fact that they often present themselves in strangely

distorted forms-the result of popular mispronunciation.]

T h e doctors

of

the subsequent period still retained

some fluency

the use of Hebrew; but the mass of

their teaching preserved

the

is

The language of the Mishna has been described by Geiger,

’45);

L.

Die

der

and

(Vienna,

J. H.

(Vienna, ‘67).

HEBREWS, EPISTLE

During the Talmudic period nothing was done for

the grammatical study of

old language but there

was

a traditional pronunciation for the

synagogue, and a traditional interpretation

of the sacred text.

T h e earliest

of Jewish interpretation is the Septuagint

but the final form of traditional exegesis is embodied in
the

or Aramaic paraphrases, especially

in the

more literal Targnms of Onkelos and Jonathan, which
are often cited by the Talmudic doctors.

Many things

in the language of the O T were already obscure,

and

the meaning of words

was

discussed in the schools,

sometimes by the aid of legitimate analogies from
living dialects,’ but more often by fantastic etymological
devices such

as

the

or use

of analogies from

shorthand.

T h e invention and application of means for preserving

the traditional text and indicating the traditional pro-
nunciation are spoken of elsewhere (see W

RITI

N

G

,

T

EXT

).

T h e old traditional scholarship declined, however, till

the tenth century, when a revival

of Hebrew study under

the influence of Mohammedan learning took place among
the Arabic-speaking Jews (Saadia of the

ben Sarug,

Then, early in theeleventh

century, came the acknowledged fathers of mediaeval
Jewish philology,-

the grammarian Judah surnamed

discoverer of the system

of triliteral

and the lexicographer

ibn

(Rabbi Jonah), who made excellent use of Arabic

analogies

as

well

as of

the traditional

A succession

of

scholars continued their work, of whom

the most famous are Abraham ben

of

Toledo, suknamed

Ihn Ezra-also written

a

man

of

great

originality and freedom

of

view Solomon

of

Troyes,

called Rashi

and some-

times by error

of

‘luna’)-(died

whose writings are

a

storehouse

of

traditional lore

;

and David

of

Narbonne, called Radak

whose comment-

aries,’ grammar, and lexicon exercised an enormous and lasting

influence.

Our

own authorised version bears the stamp of

Kimhi on every page.

In the later Middle Ages Jewish learning was cramped

by a narrow Talmudical orthodoxy but a succession
of scholars held their ground till

and others

of his age transmitted the torch to the Christian uni-
versities.

now in preparation, will for English

readers give an adequate account of the Jewish scholars and

their

work.

The portion dealing with Philology will be

tributed by Prof.

F.

Moore.]

W.

R.

A.

B.

HEBREWS

(

Gen.

40

etc. See above a n d

c p

I

SRAEL

,

I

.

HEBREWS

(EPISTLE).

T h e

N T

writing

usually

known under the name of the Epistle to the Hebrews,

or, less correctly, as the Epistle of

the

apostle to the Hebrews, bears in

oldest

MSS

no other title than the words

W H , etc.], ‘ T o the Hebrews.’ This brief heading

embraces the whole information

as to the origin of the

epistle

on which Christian tradition is unanimous.

Everything else-the authorship, the address, the date

-was unknown or disputed in the early church, and
continues

to form matter of dispute

the present day.

As far back

as

the latter part of the second century, how-

ever, the destination

of the epistle

‘

to the Hebrews’

[though it cannot be proved for Rome at

so early a

was acknowledged alike in Alexandria, where it

was ascribed to Paul, and in Carthage, where it passed
by the name of Barnabas

and there is no indication

that it ever circulated under another title. At the same

See B. Rash

26

Del. on Ps.

and

The connecting link between the Masoretes and the gram-

marians

is

ben Mosheh hen Asher, whose

has been published by Baer and

’79).

3

See his

Two

edited by Nutt, London,

4

His Book

Arabic, edited by Neubauer, Oxford.,

HEBREWS,

EPISTLE

time we must not suppose,

as

has sometimes bcen

supposed, that the anthor prefixed these words to his
original manuscript.

T h e title says no more than that

the readers addressed were Christians of Jewish extrac-
tion, and this would be no sufficient-address for a n
epistolary writing

directed to a definite circle of

readers,

local church or group of churches to whose

history repeated reference is made, and with which the
author had personal relations

(13

23).

The original

address, which according to custom must have stood

on

t h e outside of the folded letter, was probably never

copied, and the universal prevalence of the present title,

which tells no more than can be gathered

(as

a

hypo-

thesis) from the epistle itself, seems to indicate that
when the book first passed from local into general
circulation its history had already been forgotten.

With this it agrees that the early Roman church,--

where the epistle was known about the end of the first

century, and where indeed the first
traces of the use of it occur (Clement,
and

nothing

to contribute to the auestion of author-

ship and origin except the negative opinion that the
book is not by Paul.

Caius and the Muratorian fragment reckon but thirteen

epistles of Paul ; Hippolytus (like his master

of Lyons)

knew our book and declared that it was not Pauline.

T h e earliest positive traditions

of authorship to which

we can point belong t o Africa and Egypt, where,

as we

have already seen, divergent views were

by the

end of the second century.

I.

T h e African tradition

preserved by

(De

but certainly

not invented by him, ascribes the epistle t o Barnabas.

Direct apostolic authority is not therefore claimed for it ; but

it

has the weight due

to

one who learned from and taught with

the apostles,’ and we are told that it had more currency among;

the churches than ‘that apocryphal shepherd of the adulterers

(the Shepherd of Hermas). This tradition of the African church

holds a singularly isolated position. Later writers appear

to

know it

from Tertullian,

it

soon

became obsolete,

to

be

revived for

a

moment after the Reformation by the Scottish

theologian Cameron, and then again in our own century

the

German critics, among whom a t present it is the favourite view

[see below,

4,

2.

Very different

is

the history

of

the Egyptian

tradition, which can be traced back as far as

a teacher

of the Alexandrian Clement, presumably

(Euseb.

This

‘

blessed’presbyter,’ as Clement calls him sought to

explain why Paul did

not

name himself as usual

the head of

the epistle, and found the reason in the modesty

of

the author,

who in addressing the Hebrews was going beyond his

apostle to the Gentiles.’ Clement himself takes it for

granted that an epistle to the Hebrews must have been written

Hebrew, and supposes that Luke translated it for the Greeks.

Thus far there is no sign that the Pauline authorship

was ever questioned in Alexandria, and from the time

of

Origen the opinion that Paul wrote the epistle became
more and more prevalent in the East.

rests

on

the same tradition, which he refers

to

‘the

ancient men ;

but he knows that the tradition is not common

to

all

churches. H e feels that the language is

though

the admirable thoughts are

not

second

to

those of the unques-

tioned apostolic writings. Thus he is led to the view that the

ideas were orally set forth by Paul, but that the language,

arrangement,

some features of the exposition are the work

of a disciple. According to some, this disciple was Clement of

Rome

;

others [Clement and his school] named

; but

truth says Origen is known

to

God alone (Eus.

625

cp

338).

I t is

surprising’that

of the traditio; had less

influence than the broad fact that Origen accepted the book as

of Pauline authority.

I n the West this view was still far from established in

the fourth century but it gained ground steadily, and,
indeed, the necessity for revising the received view could

not be qnestioned when men began to look a t the facts
of the case.

Even those who, like Jerome and Augustine, knew the

of

tradition were unwilling

to

press an opposite view

;

and

in the fifth

the Paulineauthorship wasacceptedat Rome,

and practically throughout Christendom,

not

to be again disputed

till the revival of letters and the rise of a more critical spirit.

I t was Erasmus who indicated the imminent change

of

opinion.

HEBREWS, EPISTLE

Erasmus brings out with great force the vacillation

of

tradition

and the dissimilarity of the epistle from

style and thoughts

of

Paul in his concluding annotation

on

the hook. He ventures

the conjecture, based

on

a passage of his favourite Jerome, that

Clement of Rome was the real author. Luther (who suggests

Apollos) and Calvin (who thinks of Luke or Clement) followed

with the decisive argument that Paul who lays such stress

on

the fact that his gospel was

not

to

by man but was

by direct revelation (Gal.

1

could

not

have written Heb.

where the author classes himself among those who received

the message of salvation from the personal disciples of the Lord

on the evidence of the miracles which confirmed their word.

T h e force of tradition seemed already broken

but

the wave of reaction which

so

soon overwhelmed the

freer tendencies of the first reformers, brought back the
old view.

Protestant orthodoxy again accepted Paul as

the author, and dissentient voices were seldom heard till
the revival of free biblical

in the eighteenth

century.

As

criticism strengthened its arguments, theo-

logians began to learn that the denial of tradition in-
volves no danger to faith, and at the present moment,
scarcely any sound scholar will be found to accept Paul

as

the direct author of the epistle, though such a

modified view

as

was suggested by Origen still claims

adherents among the lovers

of

compromise with

tradition.

T h e arguments against the Alexandrian tradition are

in fact conclusive.

It

is probably unfair to hamper that tradition with Clement’s

notion that the book is a translation from the Hebrew. This

monstroushypothesisreceived

its

3.

Not

Paul.

absurdum

the attempt of J. H. R.

Biesenthal

to

reconstruct the Hebrew text

( D a s

des

an

die

etc.,

78).

Just as little, however,

can

Greek be from Paul’s pen.

T h e

character of the style, alike in the

words used and in the structure of the sentences, strikes
every scholar

as

it struck Origen and Erasmus.

The theological ideas

are cast in

a

different mould

;

and the leading conception of the

high-priesthood of Christ which is

no

mere occasional

but a central point in

author’s conception of

finds

its

nearest analogy

not

in the Pauline epistles but in John

17

The Old Testament is cited after the Alexandrian transla-

tion more exactly and exclusively than is the custom of

Paul,

and that even where the Hebrew original is divergent. Nor is

this an accidental circumstance.

There

every appearance

that the author was

a

Hellenist whose learning did not embrace

a

knowledge of the Hebrew text, and who derived his metaphysic

and allegorical method from the Alexandrian rather than the

Palestinian

T h e force of these arguments can be brought

out

only

by the accumulation of a multitude of details too tedious
for this place but the evidence from the few personal
indications contained in the epistle

is

easily grasped and

not less powerful.

The type of thought is quite unique.

The

from

which appeared decisive

to

Luther

and Calvin, has been referred

to

already

Again, we read

in

that

writer is absent from

church which he

addresses but hopes

to

be speedily restored to them.

This

is

not to be understood as implying that the epistle

was written in prison, for

1323

shows that the author is master

of

his

own

The plain sense is that the author’s home is with the

church addressed, but that he is at present absent, and
begs their prayers for

a

speedy return.

T h e external

authority of the Alexandrian tradition can have no
weight against such difficulties.

If that tradition was

original and continuous, the long ignorance of the

church and the opposite tradition of Africa are

inexplicable.

No

tradition, however, was more likely

to arise in circles where the epistle was valued and its

forgotten.

In spite

of

its divergences from the

For

the

Alexandrian elements in the

consult

list

of

n.

‘75).

A

large mass of valuable material is

J. B. Carpzov’s

Sacra

in

a d

ex

A

(Helmstadt

[Von

Soden

(Handcomm.

4)

gives addi-

tional

of

dependence

on

Philo, and proves the literary

influence also of the Wisdom of Solomon; cp Plumptre in

Expositor,

ser.

i.

I n

10 34

the true reading is not of me in my bonds,’ but

them that were in bonds’

The

false reading, which was that of Clement of Alexandria, is

probably connected with the tradition that Paul was the author.

HEBREWS, EPISTLE

standard of Pauline authorship, the book has manifest

Pauline affinities,

and

can hardly have originated beyond

the

circle, to which it is referred, not only

by

the author's friendship with Timothy

but also

by

many unquestionable echoes of the Pauline theology,
and even

by

distinct allusions to passages in Paul's

epistles.

I n a n uncritical age these features might easily suggest

Paul

as

the author of

a book which [doubtless, because

its Pauline origin was universally believed in Alexandria]
took its place in

MSS

immediately after the recognised

epistles of that apostle, and contained nothing in its
title to distinguish it from the preceding books with
similar headings, ' T o the Romans,'

' T o

the Cor-

inthians,' and the

A similar history,

as Zahn has

pointed out, attaches to the so-called second epistle of
Clement to the Corinthians.

When we see that the tradition which names Paul

as

author does not

an

authentic historical basis. we

are necessarily carried o n

to

deny historical

authority t o the subsidiary conjectures or
traditions which speak of Luke a n d

Clement of Rome.

The history of the Alexandrian tradition shows that these

names were brought in merely to lessen the

attaching

to

the view that Paul wrote

book exactly

as

we have it.

T h e name of Lnke seems to be

a

conjecture of the

Alexandrian Clement, for it

has n o place in the tradition

received from his master.

Some had

mentioned one and some the other God alone knows the truth.

We

no

to think more'highly of these suggestions

than Origen did. Indeed no Protestant scholar now proposes

the name of

extant epistle to the Corinthians

shows his familiarity

the epistle

to

the Hebrews, and at the

same time excludes the idea that he composed it. The name of

Luke has still partisans-Delitzsch carefully collected linguistic

between our epistle and

Lucan writings

57

; ET,

'68-'70).

The arguments of Delitzsch are generally met

with the objection that

author must have been a born

Jew,

which from his standpoint and culture is in the highest degree

probable, though not perhaps absolutely certain. In any case

we cannot suppose that Luke wrote the epistle on Paul's com-

mission, or that the work is substantially the apostle's for such

a

theory takes

no

account of the strongly-marked individuality of

the

in thought and method as well as expression.

T h e theory that Luke

was

the independent author

of

the epistle (Grotius a n d others) has

n o right

to

appeal

t o 'antiquity, and

stand entirely on the very

inadequate grounds of internal probability afforded

by

language a n d style.

If Alexandria fail us, can we suppose that Africa

preserved the original tradition? This is

a difficult

question.

T h e intrinsic objections to authorship

by

Barnabas

are not important.

The so-called Epistle of

was not written by our

author ;

but then it is admittedly not hy Barnahas. The superior

elegance of the style of our epistle

as

compared with that of

Paul is not inconsistent with Acts

14

nor is there, as we shall

see presently, any real force in the once favourite objection that

the ordinances of the temple are described with less accuracy

than might be looked for in Barnabas, a Levite and one who had

resided in Jerusalem (see

On the other hand, it is hard

to believe that the

account of the authorship of our book

was preserved only in Africa, and in a tradition

so

isolated that

Tertullian seems

to

he its only independent witness. How could

Africa know this thing and Rome be ignorant? Zahn, who is

the 'latest exponent of the Barnabas hypothesis, argues that in

the West, where the so-called epistle of Barnabas was long

unknown, there was nothing to suggest

idea of Barnabas

as

an author; that the true tradition might perish the more readily

attaches no importance to either name.

An unambiguous proof that our author had read'the epistle

to

the Romans seems

to

lie in

This is the one OT

citation of the epistle which does not follow the LXX

32

35)

but

it

is word for word from Rom.

[The proof is

however, conclusive. Dependence on Romans cannot be shown

elsewhere in the epistle and this particular citation is found

exactly as it is in

Further signs of dependence on

Romans and Corinthians (which require sifting) have been

collected by Holtzmann

see also Hilgenfeld's

The order of EV

is that of the Latin Church, the oldest Greek codices placing it

before

pastoral epistles. The Latin order, which expresses

the original uncertainty of

Pauline tradition, was formerly

current even in the East.

1993

The place of the epistle in MSS varies.

HEBREWS,

EPISTLE

in other parts

of

the church after the name of Barnabas

been falsely attached

to

another epistle dealing with the typology

of.

ceremonial law and finally that the false epistle

of

Barnabas which was first

so

in Alexandria may there

have

off

the true title of the epistle to the Hebrews after

the latter

was

ascribed

to

Paul. That is

not

plausible, and it is

more likely that an epistle which calls itself

(Heb.

was ascribed to the

(Acts

436)

in

the same way as

Ps. 127

was ascribed

to

'the beloved

of the Lord'

(z

Sam.

12243)

from the allusion 'in

than

that this coincidence of

affords a confirmation of the

Barnabas hypothesis.

I n short, the whole tradition

as

to the epistle is too

uncertain to offer much support to any theory of author-
ship, and if the name of Barnabas is to be accepted,

it

must stand

mainly

o n internal evidence,

See further

below,

Being thus thrown back on what the

epistle itself can tell us, we must look a t
the first readers, with whom,

as we have

already seen, the author stood in very
close relations.

Until comparatively recently there

was

a

general

agreement among scholars that the church addressed
was composed of Hebrews, or Christians of Jewish
birth.

We

are not, however, entitled to take this

simply on the authority of the title, which is hardly
more than

a

reflection of the impression produced

on an

early copyist-an impression the justice

of

which is now seen to b e more than doubtful.

I t is

plain, indeed, that the writer

is

a t one with his readers

in approaching all Christian truth through the OT.

He and they alike are accustomed to

Christianity a s a

continuous development

of

Judaism, in which the benefits of

Christ's death

to the ancient people

of

God and supply

the shortcomings of the old dispensation (49

9

13

With

all the weight that is laid on the superiority of Christianity, the

religion

of

finality, over Mosaism, the dispensation which

brought nothing to its goal, the sphere

of

the two dispensations

is throughout treated as identical.

This, however,

is

n o less the position

of

Paul

and

of

Acts.

Not only Jews by birth, but Gentiles

also, are

reckoned

as

belonging to the people of God, children of

Abraham, heirs of the promise,

as

soon

as

they

believers in Christ.

The OT is the book

of

this the true

of

God

: it is the

original record of the promises which

been fulfilled

to

it

in

Christ and

institutions of the Old Covenant equally with

the histories of the ancient people are types for Christian times.

T h e difference between Paul a n d the author

of our

epistle is only one of temperament.

With respect to

the two stages, Paul brings into bolder prominence the
differences, the incompatibilities, which render compro-
mise impossible, a n d compel

a

man

either to abide in

the one or to make the decisive forward step to the
other.

Our author,

on

the other hand, lays stress

rather on their common features, with the object

of

pointing out the advance they show from the imperfect
to the perfect.

Moreover,

as

a n Alexandrian,

he

is

bolder in the freedom, rendered possible

by

the

allegorising method, with which he adapts

OT

pre-

scriptions to N T times.

In

the same degree in which

our

author comes behind

Paul

in originality a n d

force of character does he rely in

a more academic a n d

thoroughgoing manner on the absolute a n d supreme
authority of the

O T

for Gentile Christians also.

T h e whole tendency of the epistle, however, is against

the theory that it was originally addressed

to

Jewish

Christians.

T h a t the readers were in

no danger

of relapsing into participation

in the Jewish sacrifices, that the tenor

of the epistle in like manner forbids the assumption
that they had consistently followed the ceremonial
observances that had their centre in the temple ritual,
has been shown conclusively

by

the original author

of

the present article.

Nowhere is any warning raised

against taking part in the worship

of

the temple, against

the retention of circumcision, or against separation from

of the present article have undergone very consider-

able revision the view that the epistle was originally addressed

to

Jewish

being here abandoned.]

REBREWS, EPISTLE

those who are not Jews.

Nor could any such warning

b e necessary in the case

of readers who

so

plainly were

a t one with the author of the epistle with regard to the
Alexandrian allegorizing methods.

Robertson Smith

concedes that at least their ritualism seems to have been
rather theoretical than practical, and goes

to say-and

with truth- that among men of this type (of the Hellen-
istic Diaspora and

of such

a

habit

of thought as enabled

them readily to sympathise with the typological method
of our author) there was no great danger of a relapse
into practical ceremonialism. They would rather be
akin to the school of Judaism characterised by Philo

(De

16,

ed. Mangey,

who neglected

the observance of the ceremonial laws because they took
them as symbols of ideal things.

Over and above all this, however, we learn quite

clearly from the admonitions of the letter itself, what

were the dangers that threatened its readers.

Its theoretical expositions constantly end in exhortations to

hold fast to the end their confession, their confidence, the firm

convictions with which they had begun their Christian life, to

draw near with boldness to the throne of grace in full assurance

of

faith, to serve God acceptably, earnestly

to

seek

an

entrance

into rest and

so

forth. On the usual assumption that the

readers

Jewish Christians who were in danger of going

back to Judaism, these are precisely the objects which they
would have hoped to realise

taking this step. The exhorta-

tions expressed in such terms

as

these would not have been

a p

riate to their case.

does this hold good of the negative precepts of the

epistle.

Assnmin that they had thoughts of returning to

how

they have felt themselves touched by

a

warning not

to

depart from the living God

(3

not

to

reject

‘

him that is from heaven

12

not to despise

so

great salvation

3),

not to sin willingly

(10 26)

not to tread

under foot the Son of God, not to reckon

of

the

covenant an unholy thing, not to do despite to the spirit of grace

How could they be expostulated with as if their pro-

posed action proceeded from

(3

4

11

), or

from an evil

heart of unbelief

(3

or

as if they were being hardened in the

deceitfulness of sin

(3

or in danger from regard to outward

show,

and

from

How could

O T (Dt.

29

figure of the root of bitterness

or,

still more,

that of Esau (12

appeal to them?

Such expressions as these can refer only t o an open

apostasy from Christianity out of very unworthy motives,
and if applied to a proposed return t o Judaism on re-
ligious motives working

upon

a pious but unenlightened

conscience would be harsh, unreasonable, and tactless.
The reproaches would seem

so

unjust to the person

addressed as to lose all their force.

Further, the remonstrance in

would even be

absolutely meaningless, for the points there named are

for

the most part positions that are common to Jews

and Christians, and none of them touches upon what

is

distinctive of Christianity a s contrasted with Judaism.

Nowhere does

our

author speak

a

word of warning against

participation in heathen sacrifices. As causes of the apostasy that

i s

feared, no prominence is given nor

is any mention made

of any inclination to legalism. Indeed it was

exact opposite

of this that was the temptation of the Israelites in the wilderness

with whom the readers are compared

(3

13).

Apart from the

references to moral infirmity

12 3

the only positive fault

that theauthor mentionsin connection with the lesson drawn from

his doctrine to use with diligence the specifically Christian way

of

access to God

(10

is

a

disposition to neglect the privileges

of social worship

(1025).

This again is plainly connected, not

with an inclination to return

the

but with

a

re-

laxation of the zeal and patience of the

of

their Chris-

tian profession

(6

+$

I

$),

associated with

a

less firm

hold than they once had of the essentials of Christian faith,

a

less clear vision of the heavenly hope of their calling

(3

4

5

T h e writer fears lest his readers fall away not merely

from the higher standpoint of Christianity into
practices, but from all faith in God and judgment and

immortality

What, in fact, threatens to alienate the readers

of

t h e epistle from Christianity is the character

of

the out-

ward circumstances

which they are placed.

In this

their case resembles that of Israel in the wilderness.
This comes clearly into view in the second part of the
epistle, in which the theological arguments are practi-
cally applied.

At the very outset of this second part

we learn that

the readers have been passing through sore persecutions. How

HEBREWS,

EPISTLE

long these have lasted is not said hut the present attitude of

the readers is different from what it had been.

they had

kept steadfast

;

hut now their endurance threatens to give way;

they are

danger of casting away their confidence. In chap.

11

they are pointed to the examples of a faith that triumphed over

every obstacle, and exhorted to

a

similar conflict, even

blood,

as Jesus has gone before

as the beginner

and ender of faith

(12

The writer grants that their cir-

cumstances are such as niay well make hands listless and knees

feeble and souls weary and faint

3

6

but

proper

course is to take all this as

to remember the

persecuted and imprisoned with true fellow-feeling

(13 3), to

find

strength in recalling the memory

of

their departed teachers

(13

to go forth

in the allegorising

style of

epistle, to quit the world (see below)-with

Jesus,

bearing his reproach

(13 13).

Now it is quite true that troubles

of

the kind indicated

might very well tend to tempt back to Judaism those
who, originally Jews, had experienced on account

of

their Christianity persecution that contrasted with the
religious freedom they had enjoyed as Jews.

In that

case, however, their Jewish character would certainly
have appeared otherwise also -which,

we have seen,

is not the case-or the theoretical ground-work on
which the hortatory part proceeds must have aimed a t
depreciating the Jewish religion and bringing it into
irreconcilable antithesis to the Christian.

This is

certainly not the tenor of chaps.

1-10.

On the contrary,

the close connection of Christianity with the old
Covenant, and the high significance of the latter, is
elaborated in every way; it is

so

at the very outset

(1

I

) ,

and again in 22

and elsewhere.

The

in chaps.

7-10

is

not intended

to

prove the abro-

gation

it assumes it and proceeds

it

as

an

acknowledged fact: The elaborate description of the OT sacri-

ficial system in

9

10

is

at

no

point accompanied

with

a

warning against participation in it. The author draws

conclusions

as

to

the glory of the new covenant from the signi-

ficant ordinances of the old, which are regarded as shadows of

the other ; but his argumentation has not for its aim the desire

to detach the readers from Judaism any more than has Philo’s

of proving from the O T the truth of his philosophy and

ethics, which he regards as constituting its kernel.

T h e author knows no better way to prove the truth

of

Christianity than simply by showing that it

is

in

every respect the complete fulfilment of all that was
prefigured and promised in the

OT,

the record of the

pre-Christian revelation of God.

This manner of using the

OT

in argument must not,

however, be held to imply on the part

of

the readers

a

previous acquaintance with the

OT,

such as would

have been possible only in the case of Jews.

A

similar

line of argument is addressed in Gal.

3f:

Cor.

3

to the Pauline, and admittedly Gentile, Christian com-
munities of Galatia and Corinth

Philo also, addressing

pagan readers, takes all his proofs from the

OT.

T h e view that those originally addressed in the epistle

were Jewish Christians, although supported by the
ancient tradition implied in its superscription, must thus
be given

up.

With this, the difficult problem of finding

a local habitation for such

a

community disappears.

T h e following are the hypotheses as to the place

of

abode of the readers of the epistle that have been

offered.

I

.

T o some writers ‘the

emphatic all in

13

2 4 ,

the admonitions

have suggested the possibility

that the Hebrews addressed were but part, a somewhat
discontented part, of a larger community in which Gentile
elements had a considerable place.

This appears

a

strained conclusion (Phil.

I

Thes.

distinctly

contrary to the general tone of the epistle, which moves
altogether outside of the antithesis between Jewish and
Gentile Christianity.

W e must think not

of

a party but

of a church, apd such a church can be sought only in
Palestine, or in one of the great centres of the Jewish
dispersion.

T h a t the epistle was addressed to Palestine, or more

specifically to Jerusalem, has been a prevalent opinion
from the time of Clement

of

Alexandria, mainly because

it was assumed that the word Hebrews must naturally
mean Jews whose mother-tongue was Aramaic.

The

HEBREWS, EPISTLE

term has this restricted sense, however, only when
put in contrast to Hellenists.

I n itself, according to

ordinary usage, it simply denotes Jews by race, and in
Christian writings especially Jewish Christians.

There are several things in the epistle that seem to

exclude Palestine, and

all Jerusalem.

The Hel-

lenistic culture of the writer and the language in which
he writes furnish one argument.

Then the most

marked proof of Christian love and zeal in the church
addressed was that they had ever been assiduous in
ministering to the saints

This expression may

conceivably have

a

general sense

(

I

Cor.

16

?) but it

is far more likely that it has the specific

which

it generally bears in the

the collection of alms

for the church, in Jerusalem.

At

any rate

it

was

clearly

understood in the first age of Chris-

tianity

that

the

church took alms and did not give them

receiving

in

temporal things

an

acknowledgment for the

things they had

In fact the great

weight laid

the epistles

of

Paul on this-the

manifesta-

tion of

the

catholicity of the church then possible (Gal.

2

alone

explains

the emphasis with which

our

author cites this

one

proof

of Christian feeling.

Again, the expressions in

already referred t o imply

that the readers

not include in their number direct

disciples of Jesus, but had been brought to Christ by
the words and miracles of apostolic missionaries now
dead

( 1 3 7 ) .

This conversion, as it appears from

1032,

was a thing of pre-

cise date immediately followed by persecution (note the

Accordingly we cannot suppose those

addressed

to

represent a

second

generation

in the

Palestinian

Church we

are

referred to some part

of

Diaspora.

Against these difficulties-

which have led some of

the defenders of the Palestinian address, a s Grimm
(who, in Hilgenfeld‘s

proposes Jamnia)

and

(New

Testament Commentary

English

Readers,

vol.

to give up Jerusalem altogether,

whilst others, as Riehm, suppose that the Hellenists

of

Jerusalem (Acts

61)

a r e primarily addressed [and

B.

Weiss thinks of the epistle as having been

a circular to

Palestine generally]-it is commonly urged that the

readers are exposed to peculiar danger from the per-
secutions and solicitations of unbelieving Jews, that
they a r e in danger

of

relapsing into participation in the

Jewish sacrifices, or even that they appear to have never
ceased to follow the ceremonial observances that had
their centre in the temple ritual.

The capital argument for this is drawn from

13

where the

exhortation

to

go forth to Jesus without the camp

as

an

injunction

to

renounce fellowship with the synagogue and with

the ceremonies and ritual of Judaism. This exegesis however

rests on

a

false view of the context which does

and expresses by

a

figure

that

Christians

(as

the priests

of

the new covenant) have

no

temporal advantage to expect

their participation

in

the sacrifice of Christ, but must he content

to share his reproach, renouncing this earthly country for the

heavenly kingdom (cp

11

25-27

with

13

14

Phil.

3

Altogether, this view of the situation of the first

readers of the epistle appears distorted or exaggerated.

It is obvious

that

our Hebrews were familiar with the

law,

and had a high regard for the ordinances of temple worship.

I n

particular

it

appears that they had

not

fully understood how

the mediatorial functions

of

the OT

were

superseded hy

the

mediatorship of Christ. Their ritualism, however, seems

to

have been rather theoretical

than

practical. Had they been

actually entangled in the daily practice of superseded ordin-

ances,

the author, whose insight into the true worth of these

ordinances is clear, and whose personal relations to the Pauline

circle

are

obvious, could hardly have been

so

nearly one of

themselves

as

appears in

13

19,

and at any

rate

could not have

failed

to

give an express precept

on

the subject. On the con-

trary, he is in thorough sympathy with

the

type of doctrine on

which their

was

formed

(13

the easy way in which he

touches on the

meats

and drinks

divers washings’ of

Judaism seems

to

show

that on this head he could count

on

carrying

his

readers along with him

;

and

13

hardly refers

to

sacrifices

or

to Levitical

laws

of

clean and unclean but rather

to

some such

form

of

5

4)

as is spoken

Rom.

[or,

still more

probably,

to

the question discussed in

1

Cor.

8-10,

about

of meat that has been offered

to

idols].

Nowhere does our author speak

a

warning against

participation in sacrifices; nowhere does he touch on
the burning questions that divided the Pharisaic Chris-
tians

of

Jerusalem from the converts

of

Paul.

HEBREWS, EPISTLE

This accordingly has led other critics t o think

of

Hofmann

one or other of the centres of the Diaspora.

suggests

Ravenna

but Rome and -Alexandria are the

places for and against which most has been said.

One

argument for Alexandria on which great stress has been
laid must certainly be dismissed.

Wieseler

(

den

combining the argu-

ments against

a

Palestinian address with the impression,

which we have seen to be without sufficient foundation,

that the readers lived in the neighbourhood of

a

Jewish

temple, seeks them among the Egyptian Jews who
frequented the schisniatical temple of Leontopolis.
See

O

F.

Wieseler tries

to

show that in his description of the temple and

the functions of the high priests

our

author

diverges from

the

pattern and follows peculiarities of the Egyptian

temple. This argument, however,

rests

on a

series

of improb-

able

assumptions. The supposed peculiarities of

temple

are proved

arbitrary exegesis from passages of Philo, who

apparently never thought of that temple

at

all.

Nor can it be

that it had ever such

a

reputation

as

to play the part

which Wieseler assigns to it.

Moreover, our author‘s supposed ignorance of the

Jerusalem ritual

is

not made out.

I n

the true text of

10

the high priest is not mentioned and

in

7 2 7

the phrase

does not mean ‘daily,’

‘on

every appointed day,’ that

I

S

,

ever again and again.

It is more difficult to understand why in

the golden

that

is,

the censer or incense-altar,-for the usage

of

the word does not determine which

is

meant,-is assigned

to

the Holy of Holies. A passage from the almost contemporary

Baruch

see ed. Charles, p.

however to

which Harnack has directed attention

‘76,

similarly connects the censer with the

Holies, and

seems to

show that

author here proceeds

on a

current

opinion and has

not

simply made

a

For Alexandria no further arguments can be adduced.

T h e use in chap.

11

of

2

Macc., a n Egyptian Apocryphon

[and of the Book of Wisdom, perhaps also of Philo‘s
writings], and the general. sympathy of the argument
with Alexandrian thought, can a t best be adduced

as

proving something with regard to the writer, but not
with regard to the readers.

Against Alexandria, on the

other hand, is the whole history of the epistle.

It was

in

Rome that it first became known; in Alexandria,

when evidence of its presence there becomes forthcoming
during the last third

of the second century, men have

ceased to be aware that Paul

is

not its author.

If,

however, the original recipients

of

the epistle were not

Jewish Christians (above,

there

is

no need to

think of Alexandria, which presented itself to men’s
minds only in the search for

a

place where

a community

of Jewish Christians might be conceived to have existed.

Among Continental scholars the disposition a t present

is to favour the Roman address.

I t is true that

as

long

as

the Jewish character

of

the

addressees is maintained there is

a meat deal to be said

against regarding Rome

as

their home.

I n that case one must, to begin with,
assume that, even in the post-Pauline

period, either the Roman church consisted mainly

of

believers who had been born Jews (which even for the

Pauline period

is

justly called in question by the most

recent investigators), or that, assuming the Roman
church t o have, been

a

mired one, the letter was

originally directed to

a

Jewish section of the Roman

Christians.

This

is

not quite plausible, especially since

we

find in the epistle no trace of the division of parties

alluded to by Paul in his epistle from Rome to the
Philippians.

As soon, however,

as

the Gentile character

of the

addressees is conceded, everything else fits
with the

that the epistle was directed to

Dar

an

die

Gottingen,

The

word in Baruch

is

To

the passages

cited by Harnack

to

establish for this

word

the sense of censer,

not incense altar, may be added Bar

Ali,

ed. Hoffmann, No.

2578;

Barhebr.

Ezek.

8

(Pesh. and Syr.

Hex.).

HEBREWS,

EPISTLE

Rome, where it was read as early

as

in the days of

The salutation

those of Italy’ ( o t

:

1324)

permits the inference that not

only the entourage of the writer, but also thereaders,
had some relations with Italy.

As the writer, as well

as

‘those of Italy,’ is away from his own home, it

is

not too much to infer that

are in the same

that both the writer and those who join in the salutation
have their home in Italy.

T h e Roman church had,

as

presupposed

of the readers here, received the gospel

through intermediary persons.

From the beginning

also it had had to suffer persecution.

T h e atrocities

of Nero had been confined to Rome.

Chap.

could

apply very specially to Peter and Paul.

If it be thought

that the same episode is referred to in

the word

(

made

a

gazing-stock

would he intended

t o be taken literally.

I

Cor.

49,

however, leaves room

also for

a

less literal meaning.

There

is

much t o he

said for the view that there were two persecutions, in
the midst of the second of which the readers a t present
are, although

as

yet there has been no actual shedding

of blood ( c p

Soden,

vi.

).

On

this assumption we should have to think, if Rome

be the place, of the reign of

(others suggest

that of Trajan).

T h e many coincidences between our

epistle and that to the Romans are explained most
easily in this way.

T h a t Hippolytus

no

longer has

knowledge about the author of the letter

is

n o

objection t o the view at present being set forth.

T h e

address of the epistle was doubtless lost soon after it
had been received.

It would not take long

for

the

name of the writer also t o drop into oblivion, especially
when the church was passing through such troublous
times.

I t is impossible to tell whether the writer’s hope

of one day revisiting the afflicted church was
renlised.

It has generally been argued that the epistle to the

Hebrews, which describes the temple services in the

present tense, must necessarily have been
written before they ceased to be performed.

I t has been shown in the most conclusive manner, how-
ever, from the

use of the present tense in

Rabbinical writers as

a s in Josephus and elsewhere,

that this argument goes for nothing-especially

as our

Alexandrian theologian is dealing, not with external facts,
but with truths which continue valid whether the temple
h e standing

or

not-and the most recent writers, since

Holtzmann’s discussion

of

the subject in Schenkel’s

admit that the epistle

may have been written after the fall of the temple.

If

this

be

so

it can hardly be questioned that the most

natural view

of the apostle’s argument, as it comes to a

point in such passages

as

8

is

that the disappear-

ance of the obsolete ritual of the old covenant is no
blow to Christian faith, because in Christ ascended into
glory the Church possesses in heavenly verity all that
the old ritual presented in mere earthly symbol.

It

was the ruin of the Jewish state and worship that com-
pelled Christianity to find what is offered

our

epistle

-a

theory

of

the disappearance of the old dispensation

in the new.

For attempts to determine the date

of

the epistle

more precisely, see the close of the preceding section.

T h e author shows himself fully aware of the in-

tellectual movements of the Christianity of his time

11.

Literary

and

theological

character.

(so

far a s these are k n o w n t o

us). H e is

acquainted with the theology, and with
some of the letters, of

he shares

Paul’s view that the followers of Christ

are the people of God, the true successors

of

the people

freed

from all the external

ordinances imposed upon the latter in the OT.

Within

the Christian community he recognises no distinction
between Jew and Gentile.

T h e whole problem

as

t o

these distinctions has for him disappeared.

In

seeking

to arrive

at

an intelligent view

of

the Christian

HEBREWS, EPISTLE

ion, and a t

a

right appreciation of the relation of the

Covenant to the Old, from which it proceeded and

n which it passed through ’Its initial stages, he follows

path entirely his own, and shows himself to be an

thinker in no way dependent

on

Paul.

I

Peter,

Ephesians, and the writings of

show closer

rffinities with his epistle.

Their authors seem all t o

been influenced by him ;

or

at least they move in

he same sphere-a region of thought which he alone,

iowever, has systematically surveyed and

is

to set

orth with classical exactness.

T h e movement of

Christianity which finds its highest expression

n the Fourth Gospel and

I

John is only the ripest fruit

a

growth to the maturing of which his way of looking

things contributed most, next to Paul.

T h e epistle

Clement of Rome shows his dominating influence

io

less, though in

a

much more mechanical w a y ; the

is the shadow of the other.

T h e author

is

the most cultured of all the primitive

writers, with the possible exception of Luke.’

He

has

a

rich vocabulary at his command, and

it

great skill.

His

epistle

is

full of rhetoric, and has

.he character of an urgent address more than of

a

etter.

Cp

E

PISTOLARY

L

ITERATURE

.

The epistle is constructed in accordance with the

rules of

the

ater

Greek rhetoric

:

13

with

nent

of

the

I

-

10

;

deducing

the

conclusions and pressing them home.

T h e writer

is

master of the Greek OT, down to minute

and has thoughtfully and intelligently considered

.he Jewish ritual system.

H e is acquainted with

Hellenistic literature (Wisdom of Solomon cp

3,

n.

I

)

and, whether as

a

diligent disciple

or

as an independent

ntellectual kinsman of Philo, understands the Alex-

andrian method

of

literal facts and appreci-

ating their significance.

His main interest, however,

s in religion, not in mere speculation, although in

mediacy of experience and in spiritual depth he cannot

with Paul.

Although we may not know his

we have what

better,

a

piece of spiritual self-portraiture by his

hand-one

of

the most precious possessions of

Christendom,

a

picture full

of character, clearly and

finely drawn.

Perhaps the eye

of

Luther was not

mistaken in reading the signature

as

that

of

Apollos

all that we know of Apollos-his origin, his in-
dividuality, his relation to Paul-admirably agrees
with the self-portraiture of this anonymous writer.

This Apollos-or whoever he

he-was the leader

of

those Alexandrian thinkers whose vocation it was t o

present Christianity in such

a form

as

would admit

of

its

being appropriated by the ancient world of culture, but
who a t the

time, as the process went on, exceeding

their vocation,

so

involved the simple religious kernel

in speculations that interest was more and more con-
centrated

on this until a t last-must

it

be said?-the

kernel was lost sight of and disappeared.

For this last

result, however, Apollos cannot he held responsible
on the contrary, in universal history he has the noble
distinction of having been the first to lead Alexandria

to Bethlehem.

A

full

account

of

the older literature

will

be

found in

Delitzsch’s

Commentary;

and

in the great

work

of

Bleek

(Der

die

12.

Cornmentar:

Abth. I.,

Berlin,

’28

;

Ahth.

’36,

which has formed the basis

for

all subse-

quent

work

on

the

epistle,

and

is an

indispensable storehouse

of

material for the student.

Bleek’s

ultimate

views on

the

exposi-

tion of the book may be gathered from the briefer posthumous

work edited hv

T o

the recent com-

mentaries

in

the

of

the article may be added those

of

(‘50;

ET, Edinburgh,

(‘50,

ET,

Ldneinann

(Gottmgen

‘ 6 7 ) ;

H.

B.

’Weiss

in

Meyer’s

A.

B.

Dav’dson

For the doctrine

of

the epistle the most

elaborate

is

Riehm’s very

useful

des

; with which,

in

addition to

the

general works on N T theology

by

Weiss, Reuss,

HEBRON

HEBRON

remained Jewish (cp Neh.

until it was seized by

the Edomites in their movement northwards (see

I t was recovered again by Judas the Maccabee

(

I

Macc.

Ant.

86).

During the great

it was taken by Simon Giorides, but was recaptured and
burnt by Cerealis, an officer of Vespasian

(Jos.

A place of such importance could not be without its

traditions, and in the patriarchal representations we

9 7 9 ) .

Stevens and others the reader may compare

deer

(Bonn,

chap.

9

’73, ‘go),

(Berlin,

and (for the latest advocate of Barnabas)

Ayles,

Destination,

Date, and

the

the

Hebrews

An excellent summary of the present state of

the critical questions hearing on the epistle is given by Zahn

the art. Hebraerbrief’ in PREP).

[Harnack

die Adresse

den Verfasser des

accepts the results of Zahn

2

as

decisive,

that the epistle was addressed

to a

small circle of Christians (a

within a large

and complex Christian community-the Roman-and most in-

geniously argues that the author of the epistle was Prisca, the

wife of

HEBRON

‘league’ [BDB],

[BAL]),

one of the oldest and most important cities of

S.

Jndah,

supposed to have been founded seven years before

(Nu.

see

is the mod.

(see

below), situated about midway between Beer-sheba and
Jerusalem.

According

t o Josh.

15

13

it was taken by C

ALEB

who

overthrew its three chieftains

( I ) ,

S

HESHAI

,

and

T

ALMAI

[

I

]

(see

and changed its name from

to Hebron.

This move may probably form part of

the

‘

Calebite migration from

in

to the

N., fragmentary notices of which may be discovered in

JE

(see

i., 6

Since other

clans besides Caleb shared in this move (see

K

ENITES

), one is tempted to conjecture that

the new name

of Kirjath-arba was derived from the

confederation of these allies.

R.

s.

Little is known of the history of Hebron.

On this view the immigrants were of

origin a supposi-

tion which may illuminate some obscure details

the

archal legends which centre around Hebron (see

If,

too, our interpretation

of

the genealogy in

I

Ch.

he correct (see

we actually possess

a

record

of a marriage alliance ’with older inhabitants of the district.

The identification

of Hebron with the

in the lists of Rameses III.,

suggested by Sayce

632

39,

333

cp

is most

improbable (cp Moore,

Judg.

24

nor

we obliged

to

con

the name with the

of the Am. Tab., who overran

Canaan in the fourteenth century

B

.C.

On the other band it

is just possible that

(the earlier name of

is no other than the

mentioned in the same

Under David Hebron attained considerable promi-

nence.

H e had already been on friendly terms with

its inhabitants (cp

I

S.

30

and on his departure from

Z

IKLAG

he made it his royal city and the base of his

operations against Jerusalem

S.

see D

AVID

,

6).

Here he is said to have reigned for seven years, his
position being rendered secure by alliances with the sur-

rounding districts (cp D

AVID

, §

col.

T h e con-

quest and occupation

of Jerusalem gave the opportunity

for those who had chafed under David‘s rule to revolt.
Absalom, who had spent some time a t the court of his
grandfather Talmai in

made Hebron

his centre, and was supported by such prominent

S.

officers a s Ahithophel (cp G

ILOH

) and

T h e result of the rebellion is well known, and
a t

a

later time- another revolt occurred, the whole

of

this district supported the king

S.

see

S

HEBA

Hebron was fortified by

Ch.

and

Josepbus says

9 7 )

that it was founded

Memphis and was

years old.

Cp Caleb’s expedition

to

Hebron in the oldest account of

the story of the spies

13); see Bacon,

Hebron appears, appropriately enough, in the Calebite

genealogical lists

(

I

Ch.

2 42).

So Hommel,

A H T

n.

3 ;

see, however, R

EHOBOTH

.

The view that the name

’?)

is derived

from the circumstance

that

four patriarchs (Abraham Isaac

Jacob, and Adam) were buried here, or that the town

into four

was formerly the case with the mod.

el-

12 487

speaks of seven quarters)-

he mentioned here.

4

The name is identical with that of one of the

‘sons

of Anak’

Earlier than this we can scarcely ascend.

ex

from Hebron.

The view adopted above rests upon the belief

(a)

that S.

13-20

has been heavily redacted;

that the rebellion of

find it closely connected with the figure
of A

BRAHAM

A

His sori.

however (see I

SAAC

,

to the

more southerly district, and though the ‘vale of Hebron

once associated with Jacob (Gen.

it is probable that either the text is corrupt (see

3,

where Beeroth is proposed cp also

E

PHRATH

,

I

) ,

or else Hebron has been inserted by a harmonising

Nor does the cycle of Samson-legends con-

tain any perfectly safe reference t o Hebron, for in Judg.

we should very possibly read

But what better expression of Hebron’s

sanctity

could there be than Abraham’s altar (Gen.

J ) , or

than the cave

of M

ACHPELAH

where Abraham

and

were said to have been buried ; or than t h e

ancient oaks (rather oak

connected with the name

of M

A M R E

? Accordingly we find Hebron recognised

in the time of David a s pre-eminently the holy city

of

S.

5 3

Hehron gave its name

to

a

family of

(see next art.

and cp

G

ENEALOGIES

$ 7

and makes it

a

city of

(Josh.

21

and

it

to

Aaron

(

I

Ch.

G

55

Later

tradition believed that Caleb‘s conquest

of

was due to the initiative of Joshua (Josh.

15

or

inconsistently made its capture part

of

a great

S.

Palestinian

campaign in which Joshua took the leading part (Josh.

10

see

J

OSHUA

.

From the time of Josephus onwards the traditional

tombs

of the patriarchs

the great attraction

of

Hebron, and the name Castle of
ham from being applied to these struc-
tures by an easy transition w-as applied

to the city itself till in the time

of the crusades the

names of Hebron and Castle

of Abraham were used

interchangeably.

Hence since Abraham

is

known

among the Mohammedans a s

the friend

of God,’ their name for Hebron is ‘ t h e town of the
friend

of

God,’ or briefly

The modern

lies low down on the sloping sides of

a

narrow valley,

to

the W. of which

the hill

Rumeideh

lay

the ancient Hebron. Still farther to the

W.

is the traditional

‘oak of Abraham’ (see M

AMRE

).

To

the E. of the

is the

the probable scene of the murder

of

Abner (see

W

ELL

O

F

).

The environs are very fertile. Vineyards

and plantationsof fruit-trees, chiefly olive-trees, cover the valleys

and arable grounds and it has therefore

customary

to

seek

for

in the neighbourhood (for another view see

N

EGEB

). The chief antiquities of the place consist of ruins

of ancient walls on the hill Rumeideh, two large reservoirs

and B.

latter of which has

been identified with the pool

in

S. 412-and the

famous

which, tradition states, encloses the grave

of

Machpelah. On the sites of Hebron see

pp.

and on the contents, etc., of the

see Conder,

PEFQ, ’82,

p.

Pal.,

3

cp

2

79-86.

A.

C.

I

.

b. Kohath,

b.

(Ex.

Nu.

I

Ch.

eponym of the

Hebronites

[BAFL]

Nu.

[A],

I

Ch.

[BAL]

or B n e Hebron

(

I

Ch.

;

Hebron

(see precedingart.,

a Levitical city. According t o

Absalom happened early in David‘s reign (cp

I

),

previ-

ous

to

his wars

S.

8

cp

and

( c )

that the revolt

of S

HEBA

I

)

has

appended to the rebellion

(see

164

So

Kue.

( H e x .

n.

7)

Kautzsch-Socin

The redactor

Jadob cp Gen.

above.

3

Note that in

I

K. 3

4

(Ant.

2

reads Hebron’

In Judg.

1

IO

the deed is ascribed to Judah

Moore,

for Gibeon (see

a d

2002

HEBRON

I

both Hashabiah and Jerijah were Hebronite

Levites. T h e latter’s name and position

is

substantiated

by

but the enumeration of the four Levitical

subdivisions in

2 6 2 3

suggests that

as

applied to

Hashabiah

30)

is simply

a blunder for

(to the

Amramites), or

( t o the Uzzielites) ; observe that

in

the Izharites are mentioned.’

In

I

Ch.

2

42 Hebron figures in the Calebite genealogy.

See H

EBRON

i.,

I

,

HEBRON,

RV

Josh.

a n error

for

i.).

HEDGE.

I

.

T h e word for

a

thorn-hedge is

see B

RIAR

,

6

; Mic.

;

differs)

or

see below; Is.

5

and

are frequently rendered

‘hedge’ in

RV substitutes ‘fence’

in

all

except in

Ps.

‘hedge’

is

retained, and in

I

Ch.

where

21

is given.

3.

(‘hedge’ in Mt.

2133

Mk.

Lk.

1423,

‘parti-

tion’ in Eph.

2

is

rendering

of

also of

in

Ps. 623

and of

in

8940

Nah.

317.

keeper of the harem of Ahasuerus

Esth.

2 8

[BKALP],

;

in

called

(so

Ba., Ginsb.)

RV

H

EGAI

(BAKL om.

).

T h e name is probably Persian

Rodiger compares

the name of a courtier of

Xerxes (Ctesias,

24).

Marq.

Fund.

71,

however, noticing that in

2 3

Esth.

has

and in

identifies the name with B

IGVAI

A. C.

See A

GRICULTURE

,

5.

In

14

[A]),

GAZ

[Pesh.]), the

keeper of the concubines

would appear

t o be

a

different personage, although

reads

thus identifying him with

HEIFER.

See generally C

ATTLE

.

The EV rendering of

in Nu.

etc.,

In

for the ritual of the ‘red heifer’

see

C

L

EAN

,

Gen.

Judg.

14

Jer.

4620

Hos. 10

; cp

Dt.

21 3

I

S.

Is.

and see

3.

Heb.

9

(referring to Nu.

19

cp Tob.

1 5 ,

and

see C

ALF

, G

OLDEN

,

n.

I

.

HELAH

[A]),

a

wife

of

A

SHHUR

, the

father of Tekoa

I

Ch. 4

5 7

5

v.

7,

in v.

17

after

are misplaced variants),

a

place ‘beyond the river‘

W.

of the Euphrates),

near which the Syrians under Hadadezer are said to
have been defeated by David

;

probably Aleppo, the Halman of the Assyrian

Inscriptions.

seems t o have read the name in

Ezek.

[BAQ]), and assuming this to be

correct we might infer that

lay between

territory

of

Damascus and that of Hamath, probably

not far from

which is mentioned just

before. This may have been the view of the translator

of

in Ezekiel but it would be hasty to assume its

correctness.

T h e place associated with the traditional

defeat of the Syrians (see D

AVID

,

8 6)

must have been

If we omit the parenthesis in

v.

(‘even of the Hebronites

. . .

Gilead

’),

the close similarity between

and

becomes

very striking.

Jos.

(Ant.

6

following L but misunderstanding the

expression

makes

the name of the Syrian

king.

In

the parallel passage

I

Ch.

19

is omitted

in

;

but

in

v.

it has been corrupted into

(‘unto them’) and also

repeated in

(the latter is omitted, how-

ever, by L and the Gr. of the

2003

HELED

some famous and ancient city.

Such

a

place was

Aleppo, which is mentioned in Egyptian records
between

and

B

.c.,

and by Shalmaneser

11.

B

.c.),

t o whom it surrendered without a siege,

whereupon Shalmaneser sacrificed to Dadda the god of
Halman.

(So G. Hoffm.,

Phon.

39

Sayce,

Peters,

1 7 7 . )

‘ f a t ’

[A],

a Canaanite town within the

nominal territory of Asher (Judg.

and Josh.

emended text, see H

ALI

).

Schrader

( K A T ,

ad

cp

and Delitzsch

284) compare the

of the Prism inscription of Sennacherib, and,

with Moore, we cannot doubt that they are right.

is

a

town mentioned with

Bit-zitti, Sariptu,

Akzibi. and Akko, and, to

judge from the order

of the names, must have lain

between Sariptu (Zarephath) and

(see H

OSAH

).

If

we may

that

and Helbah are

variations of the same name, this Assyrian inscription
gives

us

reason to think that

is nearer thecorrect

T.

C.

form than

T. K.

C.

the wine of which is noticed by Ezekiel

(27

18)

as one of

the articles exported from Damascus to Tyre, is
the present Halbiin

13

m.

of Damascus in the

E.

offshoots of Antilibanus.

whose antiquity

is indicated by the Greek inscriptions found in it, lies a t

the top of the fertile

of the same name, the

upper end of which not only bears the marks of ancient
vineyard terraces, but also still has the vine

as

its staple

produce, and is famed for producing the best grapes in
the country (Porter,

Five

Years

in

).

A n inscription of Nebuchadrezzar

(IR.

c p J

A V A N

,

speaks of the dedication of wine from ‘ ( t h e

country of) Hi-il-bu-nim’ and another Assyrian list of
wines

44) includes the wine of Hil-bu-nu.

Strabo

(15 735)

describes the Syrian wine from

as

drunk in

the court

of

Persia. The

of

Ptol. v.

15

is hardly

the

same place (see

COT

2

Cp further

Del. Pur.

281,

Waddington,

25,526.

G. A. S.

HELCHIAR,

[BAL]),

I

Esd.

H

ILKIAH

.

HELDAI

[probably to be vocalised

or

Huldai; cp readings below, and

or

perhaps more correctly

‘weasel’

cp

again H

ULDAH

, and note the

form

(rather

Holed) below, also the Sab. name

in D H M

35)

otherwise we might explain ‘long-lived’

see

N

AMES

,

I

.

b.

the Netophathite, one

of

David‘s heroes, in Ch.

one of his twelve captains

(

I

Ch.

[B],

[A],

The name also appears under the

shortened form

(

I

Ch.

om.

H E L E D

One of a deputation of Babylonian Jews, temp.

see

(Zech.

610,

[Vg.] ; in

v.

14, by an error

or

which

misunderstands

[Aq.

Theod.],

[Pesh. in both]).

See

HELED

I

Ch.

There is a place

of

this name in

3

Macc.

4

four

from Alexandria (Strabo).

XBAOA

and

XOAAA

apparently originate from

XOAOA

and

is probably the correct vocalisation

here.

3

v.

I

O

,

;

In

v.

14

Symm.

apparently read

See

I.

2004

HELEK

HELEK

a Manassite and Gileadite clan

[A],

Nu.

patronymic

Nu.

2 6 3 0

L

IKHI

.

A name in a genealogy of

is represented by

HELLENISM

HELKATH

' p o r t i o n ' ? Josh.

[A],

[B],

[A],

once,

error,

I

[L]), a n unidentified Asherite locality.

T h e

name, if correct, is virtually identical with the forms

etc.

district

'),

which occur

no fewer

eight times in Shishaks list ( W M M

As.

be noted that Josh.

is the oldest of the

passages cited (Addis), and that it does not describe

a

boundary,

but consists onlyof

a

list of

Most probably it should be

emended'

'And the territory of their inheritance

as

in

41)

was Helbah (see H

ALI

), etc.,' unless indeed

we

to be

H

ELKATH

-

HAZZURIM

).

P

in Josh.

21

31

may have had the text before

in

a

corrupt

form. That the Asherite list

is composite and frag-

mentary is shown by Addis (Doc.

1

cp

21).

S. A. C.

(

TU

N

[BAL]), the scene

of

theencounter between

the men of Joab and Abner

( 2

S.

216).

Whatever its

meaning may be, Budde

Sa.

and Lohr

(Sam.

129,

n.

I

)

plausibly see in

14-16

a typical

explanation of a name which has become corrupt

and enigmatical.

Observe further that the skirmish has

no obvious bearing upon the rest of the chapter, since
Joab's words in

27

refer not hither (as

suggests),

to

26

(cp Driver, ad

It would be

unreasonable to assume that Abner's invitation
was the sole cause of the fight

a

battle would surely

have ensued between the contending parties under any
circumstances.

Moreover, a s Budde has observed,

v.

follows immediately upon

13 a,

and therefore it is quite

possible that the original scene of the skirmish was neither
at Gibeon, nor even in its neighbourhood.

' W h i c h is

in Gibeon

(

6)

may well be

a

gloss

a

later writer knew, of course, that Gibeon was not

destitute

of

pools (see Jer.

41

With regard to the name, most moderns follow Schlensner, and

read

'n

(after

cp Dr.,

ad

Against this, however,

see H.

P. Smith, who (with Thenius) points

'n

'there is

no question of

or

hut of determined

enemies'

(cp

for

Est.

7 6

It is also

possible to read

'field of the reapers'

or

'field

men of

see

But

in ch.

2

we may plausibly distinguish

(a) a

fragmentary account

of

a

against Ahner and all Israel, the scene of which

is Gibeon

1 3 a

.

.

.

and

(6)

a narrative wherein

Abner is

orted by

only

18-24; cp.

Now in

(6)

24

finds Abner at the hill

of

Adummim, before the

Zeboim

(on

text, see

(retaining the MI'

;

cp

is connected with Josh.

and that it lay in the neighhourhood of the

(see

If

so,

the vanquished followers of Abner

fled from Gilgal along

the ascent of Adummim

to

their homes

in Benjamin.

A. C.

HELKIAS

[BAL]),

I

Esd.

Ch.

HELL,

an unfortunate and misleading rendering of

the Heb.

etym. cp Jastrow,

560

cp H

ADES

) for which the

and

(wholly)

In the N T 'hell' renders

(

I

)

(Mt.

11 23

the derivative of

Pet.

T

ARTARUS

),

and

(3)

(Mt.

etc., see

See generally E

SCHATOLOGY

.

T h e writer of the article G

ENTILES

closes with

a reference to the epoch-making declaration

of Paul that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek'

identification with

NE.

of

is

extremely improbable.

Hence

'from Helkath'

incorrect.

3

v.

16a

may imply

a

reading

It

is therefore conceivable that the 'field of blades

3 5 8 ,

H

ILKIAH

.

HELLENISM.

With respect to the

first suggestion above

it

may

be noticed that if

is Ass. and

Aram. rather than Heb.. the use of

itself is equally note-

&&

d .

v. 32

the name is

I

)

.

A Babylonian Jew, temp. Zerubhabel (Zech.

miswritten for

H

ELDAI

cp H

ELDAI

,

Naphtali (Josh.

however, does not look much like a place-name hence

5

regards

as

part

of

the name. The text is corrupt, and

suggests

read

has arisen

out of a dittographed

the letters of which were trans-

posed and partly corrupted.

'

From Heleph' should therefore

he

and the derivation of

from

place-name Heleph

'

abandoned.

.T.

K. C.

HELEZ

probably should be

a n

abbreviated name,

[God] has delivered,'

5

50

I

.

The Pelonite or

(

I

Ch.

Ch.

1127

2326,

[B, precedes],

A Jerahmeelite

(

I

Ch.

Cp

i.).

HELI.

I

.

ancestor of Ezra

Esd.

1

I

) ,

see E

LI

.

[Ti.

the father of Joseph, Mary's husband

Lk.

(called Jacob in Mt.

See G

ENE

!

ALOGIES

The commentators have misunderstood

a

Tal-

mudic passage (Jer. Talm.

to mean that Miriam or

Mary was known as

'daughter of Eli.' The mistake

is

set right by G. A. Cooke,

Expos.,

Oct.

HELIAS

[ed. Bensly]),

4

Esd.

AV RV

E

LIJAH

.

HELIODORUS

but

37

and

so

in

8,

and

T h e chancellor

(6

of Seleucus

Philopator, whom he murdered, and hoped in vain to

succeed (App.

45 ; cp Liv.

4 1 2 4 )

2

Macc.

41.

T h e picturesque story of the horse with the

terrible rider dashing into the temple precinct, and
trampling the sacrilegious officer of

Syrian king

under foot, is well known Dante in poetry

20113)

and Raphael on the walls of the Vatican have

given it fresh life.

According t o the author of the

so-called 4 Macc., who turns the story t o account for
edification, it was

,

I

]

who attempted

to

plunder the Jewish temple.

The story may have a historical kernel Jason of Cyprus was

often well informed (see M

ACCABEES

, S

ECOND

,

3).

We know

that the priests of Delphi, when

treasures were threatened

by Xerxes, knew how to protect them

8

cp also

the

story in

T h a t Heliodorus was the

chancellor'

(RV

see

2

Macc.

3

Macc.

and cp

I

Macc.

Macc.

3 7

similarly Polyb., Jos.) and not the

treasurer

(AV

with Cod.

19,

etc., for

is shown by an inscription in which Heliodorus,

son of

of Antioch, the

(or intimate

friend, cp

of King Seleucus Philopator, is

described as

There is also another inscription referring to

same

Heliodorus who is according to

and Deissmann, the

Heliodorus)

of

story. If

so,

Heliodorus deserved

a

better fate than to be immortalised as a

of temples.

Let

us

leave the name of the author of the attempted outrage

uncertain. See Deissmann,

HELIOPOLIS.

See

O

N

.

HELKAI

from

head of the

priestly B'ne Meraioth (or Meremoth) in the time of the
priest

(see

E

ZRA

11

),

Neh.

12 15

om.,

worthy (see F

IELD

,

3).

4

See

Perhaps another

legend.

See the revisers' preface.

HELLENISM

HELLENISM

(Gal.

How this distinction of ‘Jew and Greek’

arose, he has himself partly indicated how far it is

an

absolute one, has to be considered in the present

References to the Greeks are not wholly wanting in

the OT.

Thus J

AVAN

is the Heb. term for the

Ionians

generally; in Zechariah

and Daniel it even stands for the
Macedonian world-empire.

In

Is.

speaks of the Syrians of the East and

the Greeks of the West

as

destroyers

of

Israel ;

but in the original

it is Aram and the Philistines-a fact that shows that the

translator lived in the days of the

when the Greeks

were the chief danger for’ the Jewish people. The

too, of Jer.

16

27 (50)

is due to

a

standing of the Hebrew, which is naturally to be ascribed to

a

period when the thought of the sword

of

the Greeks was often

present to the Jews.

Of

the O T Apocrypha, the books

of

the Maccabees

manifest intimate acquaintance with the Greeks.

Thus

I

Macc.

with the statement that Alexander the

Macedonian defeated

and reigned over Greece in his

stead, while the Macedonian empire

is

in

I

Macc.

called

armies raised by the Syrian king are called

Greek in

Macc.

and by Greek cities in

Macc.

68

are

meant Macedonian colonies. With Greece proper, however

the Jews were not unacquainted. We find references to

and Spartans in Macc.

6

I

9

Macc.

12-14,

and a long list of

Greek cities in

I

Macc.

nay, according to

I

Macc.

126,

Jonathan the Hasmonaan greets the Spartans, whose alliance he

seeks against the Syrians, as brothers.

T h e name Greeks,’ however, now acquires

a

special

sense in the mouth

of Jews

:

the inhabitants of

a city

are distinguished in

2

Macc.

4 3 6

into

Jews and Greeks (cp

11

3 3 8 )

Greek is equivalent

to anti- Jewish,

heathen

Macc.

69

and

in

2

Macc.

4 1 3

Hellenism is parallel to

( R V ‘alien religion’),

as

summing up all that

a

Jew

could attain only by abandoning the principles

of

his

fathers

(2

Macc.

6 2 4

185).

Hellenism thus no longer denotes what

is

characteristic

of

the Greek people or makes use of their language, but what

represents heathen as opposed to Jewish religion and morals,

and promotes heathen error. The idolatry that confronted the

Jews of Palestine and more than ever those of the Diaspora was

now always in Greek forms; for the Greek kingdoms

of

the

included almost the whole world and a t least in the

cities, had with wonderful rapidity

civilisation

as

well

as

for the Greek language an unquestioned supremacy.

and heathenism was

a

danger to Israel only in

so

far as there

behind it Greek civil power and Greek life. Hence

it

is natural

that it soon became

even for those who themselves

spoke Greek, to oppose anything

as

hurtful if only it was Greek,

and to identify Greek with anti-Jewish.

I n the N T we see completed the development by

which Greeks

was substituted for ‘gentiles,’

and mankind was divided, from the most

important, the religious, point of view, into Jews and
Greeks. T h e original meaning

of

the word, however,

is

not yet quite forgotten.

(Acts

21

37

Jn.

19

Rev.

9

cp.

the interpolation

Lk.

2338)

mean simply ‘in the Greek

language’ ;

and Acts

20

makes Paul

from Macedonia

into Greece, thus using

‘

Greece in the older sense, whilst Luke

himself is no less at home in these matters than the apostle of

the Gentiles.

When too in Rom.

114

Paul

calls himself

a

debtor to Greeks and barbarians, to wise and foolish, he is

following a classical usage

and even in Col.

3

11

where to

Greek and Jew are added

and Scythian,

we

seem to

have a n echo of the same usage (see B

ARBARIAN

).

I n

Col.

3

however, alongside of the antithesis of

Greek and Jew, we have that of uncircumcised and Jew,
and

so

we find, almost everywhere in Paul, ‘Greek’

used

as

a

name for uncircumcised, no doubt representing

a

terminology already prevailing in the Jewish world.
Even Titus, though

a

Christian, is reckoned to the Greeks as

being uncircumcised (Gal.

2 3,

cp Rom.

1

2

10

I

Cor.

124

1213).

similar is the usage in Acts where the

most characteristic passages are

16 13

174

and, as by

‘

Greek women’ in Bercea

(17

we are to understand heathens,

so

also in the story of the

(Mk.

7

26).

Thus in the N T the distinction between ‘Jews and

Greeks

is

used in exactly the same sense

as

the Jewish

distinction between heathen

Israelites,’

as

nations

chosen people

respectively. Cp Wisd.

15

and many passages in the

N T

Mk.

2007

Lk. 21

Rom.

I

Tim.

Rev.

The adjective

‘heathen’ (Mt.

18

17

3 Jn.

7 ) .

and.

Paul’s

phrase live

as

do the nations

[Gal.

2

are used to

a life regardless of the prescrip-

tions of the Jewish law.

I t is significant, however, for

the standpoint of

Paul

that he uses both ‘nations’

Greeks

even

of

Christians, if

they are of heathen origin.

The same man who in

I

Cor. 5

I

treats the

as

a

community

separated from his readers by

a

great gulf and reminds

in

I

Cor.

122

of the time when they

writes,

to

the Roman church, ‘ I speak to you that

(Rom.

11

cp Gal.

2

14

Eph.

3

I

)

.

The same man who divides

(

I

Cor.

10

32)

into the three classes Jews Greeks and

Christians (church of God), divides the

(I

into

Greeks,

an

apparent inconsistency that is to be

explained in his case only by the fact that for him circumcision

and uncircumcision, Jew and Greek, had really ceased to exist

alongside of the ‘new creature’ (Gal.

328

56

6

and it was

only by

a

sort of accommodation to the imperfect conditions

of the present that such distinctions could any longer be re-
garded.

T h e Fourth Gospel occupies an exceptional position

it never once mentions the

and five times applies

the term

to the Jews. Thrice indeed it mentions

the

but in one passage

(12

they are men

who had gone up to the feast

of

a t Jerusalem,

and in the other

(7

35

not only are they the supposed

objects

of

Jesus’ teaching, but in the beginning of the

verse the Diaspora of the Greeks’ are the goal of

a

tour

to

be made by him.

It is therefore most probable-

that in this gospel

are Greek-speaking Jews

living in Greek cities, called elsewhere Hellenists
Acts 6

I

).

In Acts

9

11

is

a

variant

for Hellenists.

T h a t to almost

all the writers of the Hebrew

O T

Greek was a n unknown

will hardly

questioned by any one.

Daniel is the

only book that has adopted one or
Greek words in Aramaic

( 3

5

7

see D

A N I E L

I I

). Even the

parts of the O T that are later than

Daniel were still in some cases (such as

I

Macc.

Ecclus. and Psalms of Sol.

)

written in Hebrew ; though

to secure a wider circulation they had, like the already
canonised books,

to

be. translated into Greek.

Greek, however, was certainly the common language-

of

the men

who

wrote

2 ,

3,

and 4 Macc. and Wisd.

of

Sol.

T h e Jews settled outside of Palestine lost

almost completely their original tongue, and used Greek
even in religious worship

and the Hellenistic litera-

ture that sprang up between

2 5 0

B. C.

and

A.

,

which had its most famous representatives in Philo.
and Josephus, and was in no sense confined to Alexandria.
and its neighbourhood, is Greek in language, only with

a

Semitic flavour.

(See H

ISTORICAL

LIT.,

22).

Indeed, had not

a

reaction against the Hellenising-

tendency begun after the catastrophe of

70

Hebrew-

would then perhaps have succumbed to Greek even in.
Palestine and amongst its theologians. T o suppose,
however

(as,

G. B.

supposes, because of Mk.

7

Jn.

7 3 5

12

that Jesus used the Greek language.

is quite out of the question, although a s

a

Galilean,

belonging to

a

province where language

very much.

mixed, he must have understood some Greek words,
and in particular must have been able, like other Pales-
tinians, to read Greek inscriptions on coins (Mt.

22

).

T h e earliest notes on his history may have been

the.

Aramaic dialect that he himself used but none of our
four gospels is

a

translation from Aramaic.

Although

they make use in part of such translations, they have.
all been written from the first in Greek, and the author
of the Third gospel,

as

of Acts, may have been

a

born

Greek who knew no Hebrew.

T h e epistles of

N T

and all originally Greek.

Biesenthal

des

a n

‘76) stands.

in recent times in venturing to deny this in the.

case

of

the eminently smoothly written epistle to

Hebrews (cp H

EBREWS

,

the Apocalypse,,

2008

HELLENISM

HELLENISM

notwithstanding the abundance of its Hebraistic defects

.of style, cannot have had

a Hebrew original.

T h e necessary consequence of the employment of the

Greek language was that the influence of the Greek

spirit and of Greek forms of thought
made itself felt.

Even parts of the

version of the O T marked by grbss literality

of rendering d o not fail to betray this influence.

How much more plainly must it reveal itself in the
originally Greek writings of Jewish or Christian origin
Involuntarily the Jews appropriated from the rich

vocabulary of the Greek language expressions for
conceptions that would always have lain beyond the
scope of Hebrew.

There is,

no

Hebrew word corresponding to

and most of the compounds of

;

or for

and

or for

and

(see

On the other hand, old Greek expressions acquire new

significations corresponding to Jewish conceptions such

as

and

This linguistic change the most important stage

of

which is

reached in Paul, begins

the oldest parts of the LXX (cp

J.

Freudenthal, Die

die

der

Macc.]

;

E. Hatch,

Essays

in

Greek ’8

.

A Deissmann ‘Beitr.

Sprachgesch.

der griecbischen

T h e increasing prevalence

of

the Greek language may

b e convenientiy seen in the abundance of Greek proper
names even amongst Jews of Palestine.

In

times sprang up the custom of giving Hebrew

names

a

Greek form, Eliakim,

becoming

(see

and N

AMES

,

86);

then we find

of

a

Greek and

a

Hebrew name as in Saul-Paul

;

and then,

as

in the

case of at least two of the original apostles, Philip and Andrew,

we have pure Greek names. That

so

authoritative a court as

the chief council a t Jerusalem was for the Jews, could from

about

B.C.

bear the official name of

only a t

a

later day hebraised into Sanhedrin, is specially

for

the hold that the Greek language had acquired even a t the

headquarters of Hebrew life.

T h e spread of the Greek language brought with it

a

spread of Greek civilization nay, the latter sometimes

led the way.

the

OT

Apocrypha,

more fully in the N T , we have

abundant evidence how dependent life

in all phases was on Greek custom and

institu-

tions.

Greek coins

as the talent mina and drachma

seded the

old

Hebrew

;

like the

the

and the

meet us in

Nor is

in the case of measures of length and

capacity, and this

also

already in the LXX

;

the chronological

system

of

their Greek neighbours

also

exerted its influence on

the Jews. The latter were well acquainted, too, with the military

affairs of the Greeks : mention is made

of

rams

Macc.

12

Ps.

Sol.

2

I

,

alongside of ‘engines of war’) and spearmen

-even

( z

Macc.

chiliarchs are not yet

displaced

Roman institutions accommodated

to

Greek usage,

such as

for cohort (Acts 10

I

21

31 27

I

cp

Macc.

12

Judith 14

In accordance with Greek tastes

we find inns conducted by

an

inn-keeper (Lk. 10

here and

there over the country

;

Greek luxury has invented the side-

board of Simon

I

Macc.

15

32)

and the

of Holofernes

Judith 16

;

and even

the humble handkerchief

Lk.

reached

Palestine through the Greeks.

shows how in

clothing, too, Greek usage, such as the wearing

of

broad-brimmed

hats

was contending with long-established custom

(see C

AP

). The

as musical instrument (Judith

8

cp Ex.

15

and

of torture

Macc.

of Greek origin, as was the well-known cymbal of

I

Cor.

I

.

In the description of forcible attempts at Hellenising

under

(2

Macc.

4

cp

I

Macc.

1

4

Macc.

4

great indignation is expressed at the founding of

a

gymnasium and

an

within the holy city (cp

C

AP

). Here the priests betook themselves to dancing in

the palaestra and to throwing the discus (see D

ISCUS

),

practices almost

as

abominable in the eyes of the writer

as

taking part in the Dionysos festival

(2

Macc.

6

7)

or

the games a t Tyre, when

a

sacrifice was offered to

Heracles.

T h e N T writers, however, do not show the

same sensitiveness. Rev.

7

describes the saints in

figurative language borrowed from the prize fights of

65

the Greeks, and

so

Paul

is not unwilling to connect

Christian ideas with the proceedings on the race-course
or in the circus, and to draw his illustrations from such
sources.

Nowhere else can he have become acquainted with the

prize-runnersand boxers

Cor.

he setsaspatterns

for his readers

;

and the figurative description

of

the Christian

life as a race or

a

contest is a special favourite

5

7 Phil.

1 3 0 2

in which respect later writers have

followed his example (Heb. 12

I

Tim.

2 5 4 7

I

Tim.

4

I

O

6

Even the sanguinary spectacles

of

the amphitheatre are

so

familiar

to

him that he calls an unusually violent encounter

with

an

Ephesian

a

(I

Cor.

15

According

to

he was even willing to enter the Ephesian

theatre although

to

be sure not for artistic gratification. In

I

Cor.

he declares that his fate has made him a spectacle

for angels and men (cp Heb. 10

33)

; and in

4

6

we have the word

similarly used.

There must be deep reasons for the fact that a t the

very time when Pharisaism was

so

passionately combat-

ing the popular amusements of the Greeks, and when it
hardly forgave even its patron Agrippa I. his
building in Berytus, Paul the Christian, brought np in
Tarsus and labouring among Greeks, speaks of those
amusements, when occasion offers, quite ingenuously

as

something morally inoffensive. At least it was nowhere
necessary in the N T to sound any warning of danger
threatening in that direction.

Much more important than all this is the question

that remains.

W h a t did the Jewish or the Christian

writings appropriatk from Greek thought?
How far have the

philosophy,

and religion of the Greeks influenced those

of

the O T

or the

N T ?

In the Hebrew

parts of the O T this influence must certainly not be
ratedvery high. Only in the case of

(Eccies.)

is the question important.

Cornill,

regards it as certain

42)

that the mind

of

this author, who could

b u t

imperfectly combine radical

with his ancestral religious faith, became, as it were,

simply intoxicated under the stimulation of Hellenic thought.

Wellhausen is more guarded in confining himself

;

230

n. ;

237 n.)

to ‘undefined and general influences

that

have reached the Preacher from Greek philosophy.

In reality we can no more prove any direct acquaint-

ance on his part with, say, the system of Heraclitus or
with Epicureanism (cp Tyler, Plumptre, Pfleiderer),
than with Greek literature generally.

Whatever may

t o have

a

Hellenic ring in his thought or his

allusions, such

as

the individualistic idea of the soul of

man, may very well belong to the age in which he
lived (cp E

CCLESIAS

T

ES

,

I

O

).

I n the

LXX,

including the Apocrypha, traces

of

Greek

philosophy are more frequent

but

as a

rule they are

not

of

such

a

kind that we should venture to explain

them in any other way than in the case of Ecclesiastes.
T h e tendency of the

LXX

t o avoid anthropomorphic ex-

pressions

‘see the salvation

for ‘see

Is. 3811 ; c p Ex.

the use

of

the divine name

‘existing one’ (Jer. 1413

c p

Ex.

the

mention of the sons of the Titans3 and giants (Judith

1 6

6

the way in which

a

divine power is spoken of

as

encompassing the holy place, and God

its

and

(2

Macc.

features betray the

influence of the philosophic and religious ideas

of

Hellenism.

Anything, however, like real acquaintance

with these founded

on

actual study, we have no right

to affirm.

Wisd. Sol. and

4

Macc. are a n exception.

I n the

latter this appears in the very opening words.

Notwithstanding that

4

Macc. sings the praisesofan imperturb-

ability peculiarly Jewish the familiarity of the writer with Greek

philosophy is

apparent.

He knows the Greek

cardinal virtues he makes use of the Stoic phrase

‘to

live in

(8

26,

he actually quotes from a Greek

Stoic

; see the

Freudenthal cited above,

4).

[But see

[It is possible,

that

is really a corruption of

in Aq. and Sym.

of

the interjection

which represents

32

3

The Titans appear also in

of

S.

5

18

2010

HELLENISM

HELLENISM

It is in Wisd. Sol., however, that the Hellenistic

colouring becomes most prominent when we compare it
with Ecclus.

In fact Wisd. Sol.

at effecting a

reconciliation between Greek philosophy and the
religious spirit represented in the OT.

Just as its con-

ception of the deity and the supplementary conceptions
of Wisdom and Logos, almost counting as personifica-
tions mediating between God and the world, show
Platonic influences

so are its ethics and psychology

set forth under the forms of the popular philosophy of
the age.

According to

8

7

wisdom teaches the four cardinal virtues

;

in

place

of a

creation out of nothing we have the assumption of

an,,

original substance

;

the body is viewed as

a

prison-for the soul

the latter as pre-existent and immortal, life

a trust

from

all

ideas derived from Hellenism.

Before turning our attention t o the N T we must lay

emphasis upon the fact that this absorption of Hellenic

elements by Jewish thought, even in
Palestine, reaches much further than can
be shown from writings that could in any

sense be called biblical, and that much in the

N T

and

early Christianity can be explained only on this supposi-
tion.

Those Jews who, from the third century

thought to diffuse Jewish piety by means of Greek
verses, whether attributed to Orphens or to the Sibyl
(see A

POCALYPTIC

,

or t o Hystaspes, combined

with prose writers like Philo, to break a way for the
freeing of Jewish life and thought from its exclusiveness,
and

so

helped to bring about the conditions necessary

for its more complete reformation.

T h e ideas of Satan

and demons, of the kingdom of heaven and of the world,
of hell and the life of the blest, which lie ready made in
the N T , if they naturally rested on

a thoroughly Jewish

basis, were not without contributions from Greek theo-
logy (cp

E

SCHATOLOGY

,

and the several articles).

So

Essenism can be understood only when regarded a s
a blending of Jewish and Greek ideas (cp

E

SSE

N

ES

),

and the gnosis of the later Jews, older than Christianity
though it was, even surrendered to Hellenism.

Ac-

cordingly the possibility must, to begin with, be kept
in view, that N T writers have been influenced by ideas
originating in such ways.

At the present time, however, there is more danger

of

overestimating than of underestimating the Hellen-

istic elements in later Judaism and the
earliest stages

of

Christianity.

Books,

for

example, like Winckler’s

Der

des

or M. Friedlander’s

generalise from certain perfectly just observations in
this direction in

a most unguarded manner; not

a

single idea derived from a Greek source can be attri-
buted to Jesus, and it may almost be regarded as the
strongest evidence of the trustworthiness of the Synoptic
account of him that, in respect of their contents, they
too know of no approach to Hellenism.

Such parallels

t o the Synoptic speeches of Jesus a s have been hunted
out in Greek-or Latin -writers are accidental con-
sonances.

Still more un-Hellenic

in

both subject and spirit

is

the Apocalypse of John yet it is not improbable that
the mysterious

of the dragon pursuing a woman

with child (ch.

1 2 )

is to be traced ultimately to the

Greek myth of the Pythic dragon and the pregnant

(see

A.

Dieterich,

In the case of Paul, contact with the Greek world

unquestionably goes deeper.

the church

historian

(circa

felt justified

( 3 1 6 )

in

crediting the apostle with a knowledge of

numerous sayings of the Greek classical writers, relying
in

so doing on

I

Cor. 1533 Tit.

T h e

metrical form of the passages in question is indeed
enough to show that they are drawn from the poetical
literature of the Greeks, and a s a matter of fact Acts

has been found in Aratus and the Stoic Cleanthes,

Tit,

in Epimenides and Callimachus,

I

Cor.

33

in

2011

Menander and Euripides.

If, however, the Pastoral

Epistles are the work of an unknown writer about

A.

Tit.

proves nothing regarding the culture

of P a u l ; whilst Acts

17

is in no sense a stenographic

report of a speech of Paul in Athens it is the historian
that puts it in the mouth of his h e r o ; and that this
writer is a Greek

of

no mean culture, whose memory

could have supplied him with still other quotations

of

like nature, is already clear on other grounds.

Hence

there remains only

I

Cor.

1533.

Here, however, there

is

no

introductory formula, and it is at least doubtful

whether Paul in using the verse knew whence it

it

is not by such means that an acquaintance of Paul with
Greek literature can be established.

If, according to

Acts

Paul discussed in Athens with Epicnreans

and Stoics, this does not prove that he had read their
writings. When,

the

and the Roman

Citizen,

treats the account in

Acts

17,

of how Paul a t Athens forthwith adopted the

Socratic method

of

free discussion in the Agora, and

became for the time an Athenian, a s evidence that Paul
had, at least in part, the same ‘education’ as those
Athenians, this may be too rash a conclusion what we
really have here is the author of Acts showing his
knowledge, his

‘education,’ and his

own

fine

historical feeling.

Those go too

far on the other side, however, who,

like Hausrath

(Der

would

deny Paul any influence from the Greek learning that
surrounded him at Tarsus from his youth up.

W e

know only that writing presented difficulties for him,
not simply or particularly writing in Greek.

T h e

absence of real quotations from Greek authors in what
he has written, shows not, ‘ t h a t , apart from the
Apocrypha, Paul had never had a Greek book in his
hand,’ but simply that Christ had become t o him all in
all, and that he would allow nothing but words of God
a place in his heart and on his lips.

H e may very well

have been trained in the Greek schools even

if his

style has little grace to show’ few Jewish Greeks,
even when their Greek school education’ is beyond
question (Philo, Josephus), can surpass him in grace
or even in power over the language.

T h e fact itself

that Paul was acquainted with the O T in the Greek
translation of the

LXX,

and knew much of this version

by heart, counts for something here; and the very
probable points of contact between him and Philo
Col.

permit

us

to conclude that he had made

himself acquainted also with other books written in
Greek; he

have had a vernacular knowledge of

both Greek

Aramaic, and received both a Jewish

and a Greek

How far this education, which he certainly after his

conversion did not care to extend, wrought as a leaven
in the formulation of that magnificent system

of

thought

by which he songht to fuse together Judaism and the
Gospel, it is hard to say.

His universalism, his cosmo-

politanism, his doctrine of freedom, notwithstanding
cognate ideas and expressions in Greek literature, need
not have been derived thence, or at least may have

bcen only suggested there: they are the outcome of
hi’s struggle to effect an adjustment between what

he

inherited and what he himself experienced.

If

he mentions and correctly uses allegories and types

although this

a

plant that flourished on Greek

it was not there

that

he

made its acquaintance but in his Jewish schools

of

theology.

Other features

of

between his ideas and those

of

Greek philosophers may have reached him through the same

channel.

In the main, however, Paul is original, and cannot

be understood

on

any other supposition. T h e ascetic,

unworldly character

of

his ethic corresponds to the

temper of the age he lived i n ;

so also the proneness

to the mysterious, and the high estimate of knowledge,
and of the intellectual element in religion, is common to
him with his whole environment.

Hence there remain,

2012

HELMET

as representing the direct influence of Hellenism on his
theology, only minor secondary features.

T h e denomi-

nation, however, of the good as

(Rom.

Cor.

Gal.

6 9

I

Thess.

the emphasis

laid on virtue

Phil.

the classification

of

nian a s pneumatic, psychic, and sarcic, the glorifica-
tion of the Stoic moderation

Phil.

such features are no accidental points of contact
between Paul and Greek thought; and the appeal

to

nature itself' and its teachings

(

I

Cor.

11

c p the

frequent

against nature,' or

according to nature

has a specifically Greek sound.

Notwithstanding all

this, however, we are never able t o detect any traces of
direct borrowing from Greek literature.

Paul may

have acquired what he had through intercourse with
Greeks or even through the medium of the Alexandrian
religious philosophy (cp,

Lightfoot,

Paul's

preparation for the ministry,' in

Essays,

Hicks,

Paul and Hellenism,' in

et

41-14

Nor is there anything essentially different in the case

of the N T books that stand closely related to Paul.

HEMAN

W e feel that we have moved more out

a Hebrew into a Greek atmosphere
the Pastoral

in Hebrews-

which is

doubt dependent'

form and in

contents on the Alexandrians

1 3

in

the Catholic Epistles the Epistle of James, even if, with
Spitta, we should class it with the Jewish writings, must
have had for its author

a

man with a Greek education.

It was a born Greek that wrote Acts.

If his Hellenic

character does not find very marked expression it is
merely due to the nature

of

his w o r k ; no pure Jew

would have uttered the almost pantheistic-sounding
sentence, ' i n God we live and move and have our
being'

In the Fourth Gospel, finally, the

influence of Greek philosophy is incontestable.

Not

only is the Logos, which plays

so important a part in

the prologue

(1

1 - 1 8 ) ,

of Greek origin ; the gnosticising

tendency of John, his enthusiasm for ' t h e truth'
(without genitive), his dualism (God and the world
almost treated as absolute antithesis), his predilection
for abstractions, compel

us to regard the author, Jew

by birth a s he certainly was, a s strongly under the
influence of Hellenic ideas.

Here again, however, we

must leave open the possibility that these Greek
elements reached him through the Jewish Alexandrian
philosophy; just a s little can his Logos theory have
originated independently

of Philo, a s the figure

of

the

Paraclete in chaps.

14-16

(see

La

doctrine

Logos

dans

Paris,

Cp

W e must conclude with the following guarded thesis.

There is in the circle of ideas in the N T , in addition t o

J

OHN

[SON

O F

31.

what

is

new, and what is taken over

from Judaism, much that is Greek

hut

whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or
borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed a t
a complete fusion of Hellenism and Judaism, is, in the
most important cases, not to be determined

and

primitive Christianity as a whole stands considerably
nearer to the Hebrew world than to the Greek.

Cp E. Hatch,

The

Greek Ideas and Usages on

the Christian Church,

A.

F.

'34

; C. 'Siegfried, Philo

'70,

esp. p.

Die Lehre

Logos in

der

72

H.

de la

alexandrine,

Holtzmann,

der

N T

'97.

A. J.

-T. K.

C.

HELMET

or

The pronunciation with initial

k

is sustained

the Aramaic

form of the word

We may perhaps compare the word

'cup,'

Ar.

occurs

in

I

S.

and Ezek.

(? sed

whereas we

find

in

I

S.

17

5

Is.

59 17 Jer. 46 4 Ezek.

27

I

O

Ch.

26 14.

equivalent

a

designation which is not found

in

the classical period, hut is not infrequent in

Helmets made of bronze were worn by distinguished

men and leaders in war (as Goliath and David,

I

but we can infer from Jer. 464 and

Ch. 2614

that helmets- probably

of

leather or felt-were worn

also by the ordinary warrior.

I t is impossible to

determine the precise material or form, yet it is
probable that the helmet of the common Israelite
soldier consisted simply

of a solid cap adorned perhaps

with horse-hair tassels a s well a s with

a

prolonged flap

or cheek-piece t o cover the side of the face or ears.
Max Muller

(As.

384) gives copious illustrations of the various

forms of helmets and caps worn by the Bedouin,
Syrian, and Hittite warriors.

T h e Hittite head-gear

was mostly a round and flat covering with prolonga-
tions at the side and at the back of the head, sometimes
surmounted by

a

tassel.

Frequently there is

a band

tied behind the ear and back of the head and passing
round the forehead in front of the cap (see the figures in

the LXX therefore was

guided probably by

a

right instinct in selecting t h e

term

a s the most apt term to designate

kind of head-gear which covered not only the head but
also

a

portion of the cheek and neck.

Probably the

kings and nobles, in order t o distinguish their persons
a s leaders, wore a taller'covering made of bronze like
that of the Egyptian monarchs.

Among the Hittites,

however, the head-covering of the leaders was often
considerably broader a t the top than a t the base.

See

As.

Eur.

361.

On the other hand, the helmet worn by the Assyrians

and Babylonians was loftier than that which was i n
vogue among the Syrians and Hittites and was pointed
a t the summit.

There was also

a side piece for the

protection of the ears (see illustrations,

G

REAVES

),

resembling the

flaps

or

cheek-pieces

of the ancient Greeks.

The Cypriote helmet figured in Warre-Cornish's

Concise

Dict.

Greek

and Roman

p. 79, fig.

presents a close

analogy.

For the different forms of Greek helmet the reader is

referred

the article Arms

in that work. The

Greek helmet presented varieties and complications

of detail, a s

well as adornment in the form of crests, altogether unknown
among the plainer and more modest accoutrements

of Egypt

and Western Asia.

T h e helmet, like the coat of mail, is metaphorically

employed by the writer of Is.

59

the helmet desig-

nating salvation, an image which is borrowed by Paul
(Eph.

6

17

I

Thess.

5

8).

HELON

a

Zebu-

(Nu.

HELPER

Jn.

1416

EV

C

OMFORTER

,

See

P

ARACLETE

.

[BADEL]), b. Seir the

Horite (Gen.

called in

I

Ch.

H

OMAM

Probably with

(cp Vg.

we should read

(see below).

HEMAN

[BAL]), one of the three

sons of M

AHOL

who were renowned for their

I

K.

[B],

[A]).

T h e

name appears again

I

Ch. 26

[B]) among

the sons of the Judahite Zerah.

T h e same legendary

personage, however, is intended

the clan of Zerah was

Edornite before it became Judahite (see Gen.
Possibly (as

S.

A.

Cook suggests) the name H e m a n '

may be identified with the Edomite

probably, however,

and E

THAN

,

are

corrupt forms of

T

EMAN

,

one of the oldest

iistricts of Edom, sometimes used poetically

as

a

for Edom.

T h e whole force of the passage

' I

K.

depends on this.

In post-exilic times Heman, like Ethan, gives his

to one of the guilds of singers (see P

SALMS

).

to'the Chronicler he took part in the

of the temple

Ch.

RV

c p

I

Ch.

1641

256

B]).

A levitical genealogy

is

produced for

2014

C p

T

URBAN

.

C.

W.

See M

AHOL

.

HEMATH

HEPHER

641,

however, suggests

:

cp

and see A

BIDAN

hut the

analogy of most of the other names in the list suggests that the

is

not radical),

a

Horite clan-name (Gen. 36

06

[ADL],

[El); in

I

Ch.

apparently by

a

scribe’s error,

AV

See

HEMLOCK.

For

(

I

)

Hos.

see G

ALL

,

I

and for

Am.

6

see W

ORMWOOD

.

HEN

Mt.

Lk.

Ti.]). See

HEN

one of the Babylonian Jewish delegates,

temp.

(Zech.

6

has

;

so

also

for the kindness of the

son

of Zephaniah.

The

in disorder. Read probably, ‘Joshua the son

o f

Z.

(We.). See

HENA

an imaginary name which, through a

scribe’s error, has found

its

way into the Rabshakeh’s

message to Hezekiah

( 2

K.

[A),

T h e text stands thus,

‘Where i s .

. .

the king

of

Sepharvaim, of Hena, and

Ivvah?’ (RV).

Underlying this is a witty editorial

suggestion that the existence of cities called

and nry

respectively has passed out

of

mind

Ps.

96

for

clearly means ‘ h e has driven away and over-

turned’

(so

Tg., Sym.).

T o look

out for names re-

sembling Hena and Ivvah

is

waste of time.

The

context further makes it plain that only one city was
mentioned.

Either

or

therefore be omitted,

and a comparison of

K.

shows that

is the

superfluous word.

Probably

was

for

[BKA, note confusions

of

A

and

below]). A Levitical name (see below),

the peculiarity of which requires notice. T h e name
may be corrupt,

if

so, an easy emendation would be

a not unnatural name for a

however

68, n. 4) and

BDB

explain

as

‘favour of

(so

also

cp Ph.

T h e bearer of the name

is a Levite, mentioned

as

the father of

list

of wall-

builders (see N

E H E M I A H

, §

I

E

ZRA

§§

16

[

I

],

Neh.

[BK],

[L]), also

as a signatory to the covenant

i.,

7),

Neh.

[A],

[L]).

The name occurs

F

OWLS

,

or rather (see

for

T.

C.

once again in the difficult passage Ezra

on which

see Ryle,

ad

[B],

[L]).

Ezra39 it is best, perhaps, instead of

to

read

the corruption would arise through

a

misunderstanding of the name Bani

(as

in

etc.),

helped by the

As regards

it

is clear that the concluding words are out of place (cp

I

Esd.

557

and see M

ADIABUN

),

and supported by Neh.

[IO]

it

he suggested that

was

a

marginal gloss

to

Bani

on being taken into :he text, was rounded off by the

addition of the words

S.

A.

C.

HENOCH

[BAL]).

I

. I

Ch.

AV,

HEPHER

A

Canaanite

mentioned between Tappuah and Aphek

Cp

RV

I

).

I

Ch.

133,

AV,

RV H

ANOCH

(

I

).

in Sharon (see

3);

Josh.

12 17

[L]).

end.

Compare

also

K.

18

34

(om. B,

ava

[A], L differs) Is.

36

Ch.

32

om.

2

Ezra39 Neh. 109

The manner in which the

name-lists in

have been compiled

the harmonising

labours of the earliest scribes will

for the circumstance

that such

a

familiar name could ever have gone astray.

Not only does one expect

with

the analogy

of

and

but such

a

Levitical name is unlooked

for the case of

is different.

4

or

cp Neh.

128,

also

743

(see B

ANI

,

and

12 24

(see

2016

he becomes the grandson of Samuel, and traces

his origin to Kohath, son of

(see G

ENEALOGIES

7

In this connection it may be remarked

that Samuel himself

is represented in

I

S.

1

I

as

grand-

son

of Jeroham,

a

shortened form of J

ERAHMEEL

3

cp J

EROHAM

,

I

) .

T h e double heading of Ps.

88

assigns that psalm first to the sons

of

Korah and then

to Heman

[A])

the

Heman was

indeed, according to

I

Ch. 2 6 , a Zarhite

but this made him of the tribe of Judah

as

a singer he

was a Korahite.

There

is

thus a confusion of two

representations implied in this heading.

In

I

Ch.

once in

w. 4) a

little section full

of difficulty, is devoted to Heman. H e is called the ‘king’s

seer’

like his ancestor Samuel, hut

also

like Asaph and

Jeduthun), and is said

to

have had fourteen sons and three

The difficulty lies in the words which follow the

king’s seer,’ and in the closing names in the list of

sons.

These are as follows

Romamti-ezer, Joshbekashah,

Mallothi, . Hothir, Mahazioth

long ago suggested that these

names might be

so

rendered

as

to

form, in

a

couplet,-‘

I have given great and majestic help, I

have spoken in abundance oracles.’ One word

he

omitted

;

later scholars have sought to repair his omission by

rendering

‘ t o

him that sat in distress (see

also

N

AMES

,

The theory was plausible

as

long

as

it

was supposed that the

Chronicler was in the habit of framing uncommon names in the

interest of edification. Now however, that the evidence for

this supposition is beginning

’to

break down elsewhere we are

bound to be more strict in criticising Ewald’s

It

is

safe

to

maintain not only that the rendering is extremely un-

natural, hut that the clause produced by combining the

four names is execrable Hebrew. This objection cannot he raised

against the reading proposed by

in lieu

of

‘Hananiah,

Hanani, Eliathah,’

‘Have pity

upon me, 0

have pity upon me; thou art my God’

we must ask, How comes such a passage

to

he introduced

here, even

as a

marginal note?

Eliathah’ is no doubt

an

impossible name hut

is

there no better theory to account for it?

Certainly there is

a

better one. Josbbekashah

and

Mahazioth

are corruptions of the

same

word, and

Mallothi

and Hothir

are corrupt fragments

of

i t .

Again and again we find different corruptions of the same

word side

by

side, and this is the case here or rather, there

a r e two words in construction, viz.,

As for

and Romamti-ezer, the former is miswritten for Gedaliah

the latter for

a

dittographed Jerimoth

and

a

variant to

in

Gedaliah was introduced

a

correction of the corrupt Eliathah

Hanani’ really

a

dittographed Hananiah,

is

to

be omitted. In

(‘to lift up the horn’

!)

is

for

‘to

praise his compassion.’ ‘All these ’-viz.,

Mattaniah,

Shebuel (Samuel

?),

Jerimoth

?),

Hanani,

the

sons of

Heman, the king’s seer (who pro-

phesied?) with words

of

God

to

praise his compassion. God

gave

to

Heman seven

sons and three daughters.’ The

seven sons are called, quite correctly

‘sons

of

Korah’

kashah etc.!),

members

of

the Korahite

This is

a

sign

the Chronicler draws here from

a

source

Ch.

and

205,

n.

[A],

[L]),

‘ t h e father of the

of

Rechab

(

I

Ch.

2

Elsewhere Jonadab is the

‘

father of the Rechabites, and

if

any one can dispute

this title with

it

is

Hobab, ‘ t h e father-in-law of

Moses.’

The Chronicler must have known of Hobab; and

so

he

must mean Hobab. The easiest solution of the problem is
suppose that

is

a

fragment of

‘father-in-law of

Moses,’ and to see in this

a n

to

the phrase in Judg.

1

See

J

ONADAB

,

and on the Kenite connection see

I n

I

Ch.

4

the

‘Recah’) appear among the Calebites (pointed

out

by Meyer,

which

to

agree with the notice in

I

55.

HEMATH

Am.

AV,

RV

T.

K .

c.

HEMATH,

MB

C

H

M

A

T.

C.

HEMDAN

desirable

77

Gray

Klostermann, who identifies Heman and

sees here

a

-coincidence with Job

42

(taking

as

a

672

(‘63).

See,

B

EZALEEL

,

4

6

260.

HEPHER

HERES,

THE ASCENT

O F

Greek name for

king

of the city), whence the Greek Melikertes (see

Roscher,

Lex.,

See B

AAL

,

6,

HERD

Ex.

Gen.

See C

ATTLE

,

6.

HERES, CITY OF,

or,

C

ITY

OF

D

ESTRUCTION

,

SO

Pesh.)

or,

OF T H E

S

UN

,

E V second margin

so

Symm., Vg.,

Talm.,

I

I O

a,

Saad.

a n d some Heb.

or,

‘city of righteousness’

Theod., may be either

or

T h e name which was to be given a t

a

day to one of five cities in Egypt, where Hebrew

would b e spoken a n d t h e Jewish religion practised

(Is.

19

18).

Opinion

is

much divided

as

to the reading of the name,

a n d

as

to

the

date of the section to which the clause

containing the name belongs.

Some critics (Dillmann,

Guthe) even hold that the clause is

a

later addition to

the section this, however, seems a n unnecessary refine-
ment of criticism, suggested by

a wish to push the date

of the rest of the chapter a s high u p

as

possible.

Considering that there is nothing in

vv.

that is

decidedly favourable, a n d much that is adverse, to the
authorship of Isaiah, a n d that the section only becomes
fully intelligible in the light of the history of the Greek
period, ‘it is best t o interpret

as

the translation of

a

fact of history into the language of prophecy.

T h e

meaning of the verse seems

to b e that early in the

Greek period there were to be in Egypt colonies
of Jewish worshippers

of

among whom the

‘language of Canaan‘ was not exchanged for Greek,

a n d that one of them would be settled in the city of

Heres,

or

(shall we say?) of Heres.

Probably Heres,

not Heres, is the right reading; it is
the city of the Sun-god, that is meant-the city which
before the foundation of Alexandria was perhaps best
known to the Jews (see O

N

). T h e rare word

is

preferred to

(contrast Jeremiah‘s procedure, if

Beth-shemesh in Jer.

4 3 1 3

is correct). T h e reading

Heres

destruction) is no doubt a n intentional

alteration of Heres

(a

few MSS even read

anathema),

just

as

Timnath-heres (Judg.

is

altered

into Timnath-serah in Josh.

19

24

reading ‘city of Zedek‘

‘city of righteousness’),

though it is defended by Geiger

Bredenk., Guthe,

and half accepted by Dillmann, is very improbable, and may seem

to have arisen

out

of

a

desire for a distinct prediction of

temple

of

at

Leontopolis (see Jos.

A n t .

3

I

) .

will then

mean ‘legal correctness’ (cp

Ps.

the

was not at first regarded with dislike in Palestine. But

suggests the possibility that

is

a

later addition

to

which

arose

of letters

A district in Judah

(?)

which fell into Solomon’s

See B

EN

-

HESED

,

fecture,

I

K.

name in the

Chronicler’s list of

heroes,

I

Ch.

1136.

T h e

passage is plainly corrupt see

E

LIPHELET

,

T h e founder,

or

eponym, of

a

Gileadite clan, who is variously described

as

the son

(Josh.

J E ,

[L])

and

as

the great-grandson of

Manasseh (Nu.

2 6 3 2

36

T h e clan

itself is called the

Hepherites

o

[BAFL];

Nu.

2 6 3 2 )

or

sons

of Hepher (Josh.

3.

The eponym of a family

of Judah,

called the son of

(I

Ch. 46).

HEPHZIBAR

usually ‘ i n

is

m y

delight,’

but analogy favours Smend‘s

rendering, in whom is delight

see, however,

I

).

I

.

The mother

of

King Manasseh,

K.

21

I

[A]

The

form

suggests

that

he

a

deliberate distortion1 of the name

He

of

either of Baal, or of

a

’The Chronicler

Ch.

33

I

)

passes over Manasseh‘s

mother.

The symbolical name of restored Zion, Is.

6 2 4

;

cp

Mal. 3

Here, too, the reading

seems preferable

is the

‘husband’ who

’delights’ in his bride Zion

5 ;

see

[BAFL]).

T.

K.

C.- S.

A.

C.

HERALD

appears three times in N T

as

the

rendering of

for which E V

has

‘preacher’

(I

Ti.

1

T

I

Pet.

means simply

‘ t o proclaim

see,

Jon.

35

Mt.

See

M

INISTRY

.

In

represents the

EV, ‘herald,’

of Dan.

On

the probable philological connection of

(Dan. 5-29

Aph. ; ‘made proclamation’) with

87

see

on

Dan.

529;

Kau.,

des

NO. GGA,

’84, p.

also occurs in

Gen.

41 43

(see

Ecclus.

20

4

Macc. 64.

HERBS.

I

.

‘that which is green,’

‘a

garden

of

herbs,’

I

K.

21

A dinner (AV Che cp

Ass.

‘to

eat ;

‘

portion of herbs)

15

z.

‘herbage,’ including grasses and cereals, Gen.

etc.

3

and

4.

and

See G

RASS

.

and 6.

K. 439

had just ‘come down to

time of famine and sent

a

man

to

gather

‘herbs’ or

vegetables for a pottage. The Talmud

6) explains

by the word

. which means colewort

Royle

‘Oroth’), indeed, insists

that the

must have been the fruit of some lant for which

the so-called wild gourds (EV) might have

mistaken.

This, however, is not at all clear. The man spoken of in the

story need not have confined himself to colewort. If he found

a

cucumber,

or

what he thought to be such, he would not reject

it. See G

OURDS

, W

I

LD

.

I n Is.

26

‘dew

of herbs’),

correct, means ‘dew of lights’

dew of

light

’).

See D

EW

,

6.

But

suggests

‘their heal-

ing’ (see

And in Is.

18 4

rendering of

(as

‘upon

isgenerally abandoned

gives ‘in sunshine.’

But the text probably needs emendation (see V

INE

).

7.

in

grass

Heb.

6

7.

8.

and

in

‘herbs,‘ Mt.

For

Ex.

128,

see B

ITTER

H

ERBS

.

HERCULES,

[VA]), mentioned only in

2

Macc.

4

connection with the games held in his

honour a t Tyre, for which

JASON

sent

300

drachmas of

T h e contest was held every fifth

year, and was probably based upon the Olympic games
(cp further Schur.

2

Hercules was the

A rendering of various Hebrew terms.

13

32.

T. K.

C .

Or an abbreviated form.

According

to

Polyb.

31

20,

Arr. Alex.

2

24

it was custom-

ary

for

the colonies to send embassies

to

Tyre in honour of

their deity.

2017

in fact suggests

or

On the

questions see

further Che.

p.

revision of

and

To recapitulate

fantastic theories which have small claim on consideration would

lead the reader away

main point (on which cp

P

LACE

, 9,

T.

K. C.

HERES, THE ASCENT OF.

So

RV, in Judg.

8

to define the

road

which Gideon took in returning to

Succoth from the battlefield.

R V partly follows certain

versions, which read

for

( M T ) . This, however, is not enough; we d o not
expect

a

place-name here.

(Symm., ’I’heod.)

would be

a

slight improvement.

‘he devoted the host to destruction,’-originally a marginal

correction of

is in fact

a

weak

Most

probably, however, the

true

reading is

(v.

end).

So

especially

1

no.

122,

where for

parallel

Gr. has

;

cp Baethg.

The Oxford MS has distinctly

Derenbourg,

however emends

into

and conjectures that Saad. gave

the

sense of crushing

37).

On

the supposed reading

(in the

edition), see Del.

on

Isaiah,

HERES, MOUNT

expression (cp

Jos.

6 5,

For the form of the

correction cp

I

K.

5

where the last

two

words are

a

cor-

rection of

a

preceding word see

F

OWL

F

ATTED

.

readings are

omitting

an accidental repetition],

(reading

Symm.

.

.

.

opov,

Theod.

. . .

(see Field with

quotation from Jerome

in the note), Vg.

Tg.

fore sunrise.'

T.

K.

C.

HERES, MOUNT

Mentioned with

Aijalon and

a s still occupied by the Amorites,

Judg.

Almost certainly

is

a

scribe's error for

so

that we should read

-

heres

Budde in his commentary overlooks this, but makes
the valuable suggestion that Ir-heres, Har-heres
and B

ETH

-

SHEMESH

I

]

may all be identified with

Bit-Ninib in the district

of

Jerusalem'

(Am.

Tal.

If this be

so

may be right and we can

connect Heres with the gate Harsith of Jer.

W e

even go further and suggest

as

a

possibility that

was originally vocalised differently

was

a

Hebraised form of

a

synonym of the

god

Ninib (worshipped a t Bit-Ninib), who is primarily the
fierce morning

sun

(see Jensen,

458).

(an anachronism,

see M

YRTLE

); cod.

58

(mg.

cp

Moore.

reads

Conder mentions the ruins of

Harith in the

vale

of

Aijalon.

Cp

T. K.

C.

[L]),

an

Asaphite Levite

I

Ch.

The name has no prefixed to it Vg. therefore gives car.

most improbably. A comparison of Neh.

11

(crit. emend.) shows that

(not

in the list in

Neh.) should be

the leader in the song of praise.'

The

should have stood after 'Mattaniah

. . .

son of

Asaph.

T. K. C.

HERETIC, SECT.

Heresy and sect

in E V both represent

For heresy' in AV see Acts

24

for

'heresies

I

Cor. 11

Gal.

5

Pet. 2

I

.

For 'sect see

17

15

5

5

26

5

28

and mg. of

I

Cor.

gives ' a sect' in Act;

24

14

'heresy

;

'factions in

I

Cor.

11

mg.

.

'

parties

Gal.

5

mg. ; 'sects' in

Pet.

2

I

mg. Both

give

heretical' for

in Tit.

3

IO

'factious.

shall treat afpeurs (heresy) and

(heretical)

here, from

a

phraseological and exegetical point of

see further H

ELLENISM

,

occurs several times in the

(see,

Lev. 22

I

Macc.

830)

neither in the LXX nor

in

classical

writers (but see

In the O T

means

'free choice'

but in classical literature it has

also,

in pre-Christian times, the more specialised sense of

freely chosen opinion.'

Thus

is

equivalent to 'the Platonic philosophy

Platonism.

Only

a

short step was needed to designate the holders

-in the aggregate-of such a n opinion also

as

a

though, of course, without any flavour of censure,
merely in the sense

of

a

school or party.

It is in this

sense

of the word that Josephus

(Ant.

171)

describes the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes

as

the three

of

the Jews

since

who had different opinions concerning human

actions.'

Following the same usage, Acts

5

speaks

of the

of the Sadducees and

155

of that of

the Pharisees, whilst in

24514

is employed

to denote the followers of Christ-this last, it is true,
only in the mouths

of

unbelieving Jews.

Wherever in

the first century of Christianity, whether in Jerusalem or
in Rome, Jewish believers in the Messiah made their
appearance, and rallied to their freely chosen ideal with

a

zeal and

a claim of separateness recalling in some

respects the manner of the Essenes, they would neces-
sarily appear to their fellow-Jews in the light of

a

new

T h e accent of superciliousness which we note

when Paul's accusers a t

speak of him a s

a

HERESY, HERETIC, SECT

leader of the

of the Nazarenes does

not lie

the word

but

on the genitive

'of the Nazarenes,' the deluded followers of the false

Messiah

despised Galilee (see N

AZARETH

).

If,

on the other hand, Paul in

in his answer t o

substitutes the word

'way,'

'

doctrine,'

religion,' for

it is not because the latter word

is in itself

a

name of reproach, but because he regards

himself

as

representing, not

a new

there-

fore, a t best, only

a portion of the people of God-but

the nation

of

Israel

as

a

whole

in so far

as

it can claim

this name.

In the genuine Pauline epistles the word

is

met with twice : in Gal.

5

where in the list

of the

works of the flesh' it is enumerated between

divisions

and

'),

and in

I

Cor.

where it is used

as

synonymous with

The new religion inscribed on its banner the

'All ye are one in Christ Jesus,' and accordingly

regarded with the liveliest aversion any breaking-up into,
narrower circles, and every tendency to give prominence
to individual opinions

of

the school.

This spirit had

already asserted itself to such an extent that the
or divergent views, the existence of which to a Greek
philosopher would probably have betokened a fresh a n d
vigorous intellectual life, were deprecated

as

manifesta-

tions of grave and most disquieting import.

I t is only

in

a tone

of bitter irony that the apostle

(

I

Cor.

11

says there must needs be

(or factions) among

the Corinthians,

order that they who are

among them may be made manifest.'

Here he has in

view only those factions turning on personal questions
which were

so specially conspicuous in the church life of

Corinth- not false doctrines or the formation of sects
occasioned by

For these there is

as yet n o

word with the force of

a

technicus,

otherwise

Paul,

who (especially in Galatia and in

had

a

hard enough battle to fight against false teachers, would
assuredly have made use of it somewhere in that con-
nection.

T o him

is hateful just

as

schism

and faction

are-in other words,

only

as

interfering with that oneness amongst the

members which is

so

essential to the existence of

Christianity.

In

the post-apostolic age,

as

early

as

the time

of

and Justin,

as

a result of the catholic tendencies

of the period, the word
came the

terminus

for hetero-

doxy or 'heresy '- for all doctrine

that departs from

true faith, a s well

as

for t h e

company

of

the maintainers of such doctrine.

Those

who held to the church found it impossible to think

of

such departures

as

having their origin in anything

but arbitrary self-will, the church being by revelation in
possession of the entire truth attainable in the present

Hence

definition

(De

doctrinse, hsereses

Grseca voce ex

interpretatione electionis qua quis sive a d
sive a d suscipiendas eas utitur.'

T h e word has

already reached this stage in

Pet.

2

I

where there is

a

prediction of false teachers who shall bring in

destructive heresies

reason

of

which the

of

(cp Acts

2414)

shall be evil

spoken of.

Whether

be taken here in the

sense of 'separations' or in that of 'sects or (better
-note

of

incorrect doctrines they are,

in the mind of this writer,

and

as

such,

renders 'After the

Way

which they call

a

sect,

so

serve

I the God

of

fathers,'

serve the same God

as

my

accusers,

according to

a

form

of

religion

Judg.

2

Jer.

32 39)

which is simpler and

than theirs.' Jesus of

Nazareth, in other words, is a reformer of Judaism,

a

restore:

of

the

primitive religion of Israel. The 'sect of the Nazarenes

deserves toleration by the Romans

as

belonging to the

great Jewish body.]

Chrys.

2020

HERETH

HERMON

something abominable, a work of falsehood; and the
additional word

is simply the expression of

his belief that hell, or everlasting destruction

(

‘sects of perdition’) is their destined end.

In like

manner also Tit.

3

enjoins that a factions man

is to be shunned if

a

repeated effort

to bring him to a better state of mind has failed; in
that case he is

an irreclaimable sinner, self-condemned

cp

E

XCOMMUNICATION

.

This employment of a n

adjective

shows merely (cp

Just.

So)

how firmly, even a t that early

date, the idea of all that is ungodly and against the
church had attached itself to the word

a n idea

which, further heightened by the distinction drawn
between heresy and schism, remains to this day insepar-
ably bound up with it in ecclesiastical phraseology.

On the New Heb. term

the origin and exact

references of which are disputed, hut which many

Schechter,

Studies

render

H.

der

Talmud

Der

Mono-

(‘98)

; Schiirer,

TLZ,

24

(‘99).

A.

RV,

[Ti. W H ] , an abbreviated name)

is one of five-Hermes being another- who with the
brethren that are with them’ are saluted in Rom.
(cp R

OMANS

,

4 ,

I O).

They seem to have been heads

of Christian households, or perhaps class-leaders of
some sort.

The names Hermas and Hermes occur twice in inscriptions

belonging

to

the province of Asia (the former in

2

2826,

the latter in

2

2747 2825).

In the lists of the seventy

apostles by the Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo

Hermas figures as bishop of Philippi.

No

one any longer

sup-

poses

that

he was the author of the

Shepherd

Hermas,

the date of which is about

though from Origen (in

a d

onwards

have expressed this view,

and accordingly have given that allegorical work

a

place among

the writings of the apostolical fathers or immediate disciples of

the apostles.

Against this view see

Dict.

and

Lipsius’

‘

Hermas,’

Lex.

3

HERMES

is

one of five who are

mentioned together in

(cp R

OMANS

,

4,

The name is of frequent occurrence among slaves, especially

members of the imperial household of the first century. In
Pseudo-Dorothens and Pseudo-Hippolytus Hermes

called

bishop of

Cp

HERMOGENES

[Ti. W H ] ) is men-

tioned in

2

Tim.

‘

All that are in Asia turned

away from

of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.’

Nothing is really known of him, though the list of the
seventy disciples of our Lord by the Pseudo-Dorotheus
of Tyre

(

Bonn ed.

makes him bishop

of Megara, while in the apocryphal

Acts

of

and

he appears (with Demas)

as a hypocritical

traveller of Paul.

A

certain Hermogenes,

a

magician, figures largely along with

his disciple

in the Apocryphal

the names are obviously borrowed from Tim.

2

and the

story is

a

commonplace narrative of magical wonders (see

Lipsius,

3

HERMON

‘belonging to, or connected with,

a sanctuary,’

[BAFL]), the great mountain-

buttress of Antilibanus ; cp S

E N I R

,

S

ION

.

‘Mount Hermon’

in

in

5

I

‘Baal-hermon and

Senir’); Hermon’ alone in Josh. 113

Cant. 48

(where Senir and Hermon are combined). In Judg. 3 we
find Mount Baal-hermon’ but comparing Josh.

11

(where

‘.Baal-gad in the valley of the Lebanon

at

the foot of

Mt.

Hermon’ appears

as

the N. boundary of Israel), Budde rightly

reads ‘the Hittites that dwelt from Baal-gad which is at the

foot

of Mt. Hermon

to

the approach

to

Hamath (cp

also

Josh.

As the ideal N. houndarv of Israel Mt. Hermon

I O ) .

1.

References.

1333,

in Dt.38 (cp Josh.

5)

The poetical references to Hermon are not very many

;

and

those which apparently

need careful testing.

42

6

(‘the Hermons’ RV, AV H

ERMONITES

) is considered under

M

IZ

A

R

H

ILL

O F

89

under T

ABOR

(i.) Ps. 133 3 under

I

In the first two of these

. -

are not genuine.

That Ezekiel (275) should prefer the name ‘Senir’

to

that

of

‘Hermon’ is remarkable; hut we must remember that the O T

passages in which ‘Hermon’ occurs do not (unless Judg.33 he

an exception) represent a t all an early period.

In the N T Hermon is not mentioned

neither

is

Lebanon and Gerizim is only referred to in John 4

as

this mountain.’ I t would be delightful to think that

Hermon was the high mountain of the
scene ; but though,

as

Stanley

(SP

399) remarks,

‘

upon its southern slopes there must be many a point
where the disciples could be taken “ a p a r t by them-
selves,’” and Keim

sees no

difficulty in supposing that the narrator thought of one
of the spurs of Hermon, good reason has been urged by
Weiss for placing the scene in Christ’s usual haunts in
the NW. of the Sea of Galilee

W e have still to notice a strange reference to Hermon

in the Book of Enoch

where the wicked angels are

said to have descended in the days of
Jared

descent

’)

on the summit of Mt.

Hermon, and to have called it Hermon, because of the

oaths which they had sworn upon it.

This

a

proof

of the persistent sacredness of Mt. Hermon, and reminds

us

of the statement of Philo

of

Byblus that the giants

were named after the mountains of Syria- Casion

(Mt.

Antilibanus (Hermon) and

A

notable temple on the summit

is

referred to by Eusebius and

( O S

a s the seat of pagan worship, and recent exploration has
confirmed this statement.

Not only have the ruins of

many Roman temples been discovered round the base
and sides of the mountain, but

also on its highest crag

there are the traces of an open-air sanctuary, and close
by on the plateau is an underground chamber, hewn in
the rock, perhaps a

Mount Hermon has in fact three craggy summits,

which rise out

of

a

plateau

hence it is usual to explain

the plural noun

Hermonim

in

Ps.

426

‘Mount,’ which is

a

Hebraistic expression,

in this phrase

a

range

of

mountains, stretching from SW. to

NE.,

and separated

from Antilibanus by a ravine in the N.

Its modern

names are

‘ t h e mountain of the

haired) old man,’ and

d

the snow

mountain.’

T h e latter agrees with the appellation

found in the Targum

and is specially suitable,

Hermon being widely visible in Palestine. I t is rare for
the snow to disappear entirely, and hence,

as a

rule,

snow from Hermon is still, a s in Jerome’s time (note

on

Prov.

25

used for cooling drinks in the hot weather.

Hermon is

9166

feet above the sea-level. As one

approaches it from the

S.,

it seems to swell

up

like

a

vast dome but it is also visible in the Jordan Valley
nearly

as

far south

as

Jericho.

T h e lower part of the

mountain, says

consists of

sandstone,

which appears also in the Lebanon.

The upper part is

‘ a very rugged and barren dome of hard grey fossiliferous

dolomitic limestone.

Snow and frost combined have

produced ‘ a sort

of shingle which covers the higher

slopes between the rocks and pinnacles of the
side.’ Conder and Tristram give pleasing descriptions
of the vegetation on the lower slopes both the fauna
and the flora present a remarkable contrast to those

of

the Jordan Valley, at the foot of the mountain.

On the

N. and the W . slopes are vineyards and orchards, which,
however, are liable to visits from Syrian bears.

On

the

the main source of the Jordan bursts from its cavern

(see

7). T h e oak and the poplar are the

chief trees on the lower slopes higher up, the Aleppo
pine is conspicuous.

Nor must we forget the

dew of Hermon.’

So

abundant is the moisture of the

night-mist on Hermon that those who encamp there

Conder, in Smith’s

2022

2021