books of the Old Testament; and even some parts of those are in Chaldee.
The Hebrew appears to be the most ancient of all the languages in the
world; at least it is so with regard to us, who know of no older. Dr.
Sharpe adopts the opinion, that the Hebrew was the original language;
not indeed that the Hebrew is the unvaried language of our first
parents, but that it was the general language of men at the dispersion;
and, however it might have been improved and altered from the first
speech of our first parents, it was the original of all the languages,
or almost all the languages, rather dialects, that have since arisen in
the world. Arguments have also been deduced from the nature and genius
of the Hebrew language, in order to prove that it was the original
language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of
which it is composed are short, and admit of very little flexion. The
names of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental
circumstances, &c. The compounds are few, and inartificially conjoined;
and it is less burdened with those artificial affixes which distinguish
other cognate dialects, such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian,
Phenician, &c.
The period, from the age of Moses to that of David, has been considered
the golden age of the Hebrew language, which declined in purity from
that time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, having received several
foreign words, particularly Aramean, from the commercial and political
intercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and
Babylonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Hebrew
language. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and the
Babylonish captivity, the purity of the language was neglected, and so
many foreign words were introduced into it, that this period has not
inaptly been designated its iron age. During the seventy years’
captivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely lost
their native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change from
their adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries where they
had resided, that afterward, on their return from exile, they spoke a
dialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On this account it was,
that, when the Scriptures were read, it was found necessary to interpret
them to the people in the Chaldean language; as, when Ezra the scribe
brought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation, the
Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the law,
because “they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly, and gave
the sense, and caused them to understand the reading,” Nehem. viii, 8.
Some time after the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be
spoken altogether; though it continued to be cultivated and studied by
the priests and Levites, as a learned language, that they might be
enabled to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it
appears from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general
contents and tenor: this last mentioned period has been called the
leaden age of the language.
The present Hebrew characters, or letters, are twenty-two in number, and
of a square form; but the antiquity of these letters is a point that has
been most severely contested by many learned men. From a passage in
Eusebius’s Chronicle, and another in St. Jerom, it was inferred by
Joseph Scaliger, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church,
transcribed the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square
letters of the Chaldeans; and that this was done for the use of those
Jews who, being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than
that of the people among whom they had been educated. Consequently, the
old character, which we call the Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This
opinion Scaliger supported by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as
from rabbinical writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such
characters were adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of
this point is to be found in the ancient Hebrew coins, which were struck
before the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten
tribes. The characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same
with the modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their
forms, occasioned by the depredations of time.
HEBREWS, sometimes called Israelites, from their progenitor, Jacob,
surnamed Israel, and in modern times Jews, as the descendants of Judah,
the name of this leading tribe being given to all. See JEWS.
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE. Though the genuineness of this epistle has been
disputed both in ancient and modern times, its antiquity has never been
questioned. It is generally allowed that there are references to it,
although the author is not mentioned, in the remaining works of Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr; and that it contains, as
was first noticed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, internal evidence of
having been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, Heb. viii, 4;
ix, 25; x, 11, 37; xiii, 10. The earliest writer now extant who quotes
this epistle as the work of St. Paul is Clement of Alexandria, toward
the end of the second century; but, as he ascribes it to St. Paul
repeatedly and without hesitation, we may conclude that in his time no
doubt had been entertained upon the subject, or, at least, that the
common tradition of the church attributed it to St. Paul. Clement is
followed by Origen, by Dionysius and Alexander, both bishops of
Alexandria, by Ambrose, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerom,
Chrysostom, and Cyril, all of whom consider this epistle as written by
St. Paul; and it is also ascribed to him in the ancient Syriac version,
supposed to have been made at the end of the first century. Eusebius
says, “Of St. Paul there are fourteen epistles manifest and well known;
but yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, urging for their
opinion that it is contradicted by the church of the Romans, as not
being St. Paul’s.” In Dr. Lardner we find the following remark: “It is
evident that this epistle was generally received in ancient times by
those Christians who used the Greek language, and lived in the eastern
parts of the Roman empire.” And in another place he says, “It was
received as an epistle of St. Paul by many Latin writers in the fourth,
fifth, and sixth centuries.” The earlier Latin writers take no notice of
this epistle, except Tertullian, who ascribes it to Barnabas. It
appears, indeed, from the following expression of Jerom, that this
epistle was not generally received as canonical Scripture by the Latin
church in his time: “_Licet eam Latina consuetudo inter canonicas
Scripturas non recipiat_.” [Although the usage of the Latin church does
not receive it among the canonical Scriptures.] The same thing is
mentioned in other parts of his works. But many individuals of the Latin
church acknowledged it to be written by St. Paul, as Jerom himself,
Ambrose, Hilary, and Philaster; and the persons who doubted its
genuineness were those the least likely to have been acquainted with the
epistle at an early period, from the nature of its contents not being so
interesting to the Latin churches, which consisted almost entirely of
Gentile Christians, ignorant, probably, of the Mosaic law, and holding
but little intercourse with Jews.
2. The moderns, who, upon grounds of internal evidence, contend against
the genuineness of this epistle, rest principally upon the two following
arguments, the omission of the writer’s name, and the superior elegance
of the style in which it is written. It is indeed certain that all the
acknowledged epistles of St. Paul begin with a salutation in his own
name, and that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is nothing of that
kind; but this omission can scarcely be considered as conclusive against
positive testimony. St. Paul might have reasons for departing, upon this
occasion, from his usual mode of salutation, which we at this distant
period cannot discover. Some have imagined that he omitted his name,
because he knew that it would not have much weight with the Hebrew
Christians, to whom he was in general obnoxious, on account of his zeal
in converting the Gentiles, and in maintaining that the observance of
the Mosaic law was not essential to salvation: it is, however, clear,
that the persons to whom this epistle was addressed knew from whom it
came, as the writer refers to some acts of kindness which he had
received from them, and also expresses a hope of seeing them soon,
Hebrews x, 34; xiii, 18, 19, 23. As to the other argument, it must be
owned that there does not appear to be such superiority in the style of
this epistle, as should lead to the conclusion that it was not written
by St. Paul. Those who have thought differently have mentioned Barnabas,
St. Luke, and Clement, as authors or translators of this epistle. The
opinion of Jerom was, that the sentiments are the Apostle’s, but the
language and composition that of some one else, who committed to writing
the Apostle’s sense, and, as it were, reduced into commentaries the
things spoken by his master. Dr. Lardner says, “My conjecture is, that
St. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great
master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the Apostle’s
sentiments in his own elegant Greek; but who this assistant of the
Apostle was, is altogether unknown.” But surely the writings of St.
Paul, like those of other authors, may not all have the same precise
degree of merit; and if, upon a careful perusal and comparison, it
should be thought that the Epistle to the Hebrews is written with
greater elegance than the acknowledged compositions of this Apostle; it
should also be remembered that the apparent design and contents of this
epistle suggest the idea of more studied composition, and yet, that
there is nothing in it which amounts to a marked difference of style: on
the other hand, there is the same concise, abrupt, and elliptical mode
of expression, and it contains many phrases and sentiments which are
found in no part of Scripture, except in St. Paul’s Epistles. We may
farther observe, that the manner in which Timothy is mentioned in this
epistle makes it probable that it was written by St. Paul. Compare Heb.
xiii, 23, with 2 Cor. i, 1, and Col. i, 1. It was certainly written by a
person who had suffered imprisonment in the cause of Christianity; and
this is known to have been the case of St. Paul, but of no other person
to whom this epistle has been attributed. Upon the whole, both the
external and internal evidence appear to preponderate so greatly in
favour of St. Paul’s being the author of this epistle, that it cannot
but be considered as written by that Apostle.
3. “They of Italy salute you,” is the only expression in the epistle
which can assist us in determining from whence it was written. The Greek
words are, οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας which should have been translated, “Those
from Italy salute you;” and the only inference to be drawn from them
seems to be, that St. Paul, when he wrote this epistle, was at a place
where some Italian converts were. This inference is not incompatible
with the common opinion, that this epistle was written from Rome, and
therefore we consider it as written from that city. It is supposed to
have been written toward the end of St. Paul’s first imprisonment at
Rome, or immediately after it, because the Apostle expresses an
intention of visiting the Hebrews shortly: we therefore place the date
of this epistle in the year 63.
4. Clement, of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Jerom, thought that this
epistle was originally written in the Hebrew language; but all the other
ancient fathers who have mentioned this subject speak of the Greek as
the original work; and as no one pretends to have seen this epistle in
Hebrew, as there are no internal marks of the Greek being a translation,
and as we know that the Greek language was at this time very generally
understood at Jerusalem, we may accede to the more common opinion, both
among the ancients and moderns, and consider the present Greek as the
original text. It is no small satisfaction to reflect, that those who
have denied either the genuineness or the originality of this epistle
have always supposed it to have been written or translated by some
fellow labourer or assistant of St. Paul, and that almost every one
admits that it carries with it the sanction and authority of the
inspired Apostle.
5. There has been some little doubt concerning the persons to whom this
epistle was addressed; but by far the most general and most probable
opinion is, that it was written to those Christians of Judea who had
been converted to the Gospel from Judaism. That it was written,
notwithstanding its general title, to the Christians of one certain
place or country, is evident from the following passages: “I beseech you
the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner,” Heb.
xiii, 19. “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with
whom, if he come shortly, I will see you,” Heb. xiii, 23. And it appears
from the following passage in the Acts, “When the number of the
disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians
against the Hebrews,” Acts vi, 1, that certain persons were at this time
known at Jerusalem by the name of Hebrews. They seem to have been native
Jews, inhabitants of Judea, the language of which country was Hebrew,
and therefore they were called Hebrews, in contradistinction to those
Jews who, residing commonly in other countries, although they
occasionally came to Jerusalem, used the Greek language, and were
therefore called Grecians.
6. The general design of this epistle was to confirm the Jewish
Christians in the faith and practice of the Gospel, which they might be
in danger of deserting, either through the persuasion or persecution of
the unbelieving Jews, who were very numerous and powerful in Judea. We
may naturally suppose, that the zealous adherents to the law would
insist upon the majesty and glory which attended its first promulgation,
upon the distinguished character of their legislator, Moses, and upon
the divine authority of the ancient Scriptures; and they might likewise
urge the humiliation and death of Christ as an argument against the
truth of his religion. To obviate the impression which any reasoning of
this sort might make upon the converts to Christianity, the writer of
this epistle begins with declaring to the Hebrews, that the same God who
had formerly, upon a variety of occasions, spoken to their fathers by
means of his prophets, had now sent his only Son for the purpose of
revealing his will; he then describes, in most sublime language, the
dignity of the person of Christ, Heb. i; and thence infers the duty of
obeying his commands, the divine authority of which was established by
the performance of miracles, and by the gifts of the Holy Ghost; he
points out the necessity of Christ’s incarnation and passion, Heb. ii;
he shows the superiority of Christ to Moses, and warns the Hebrews
against the sin of unbelief, Heb. iii; he exhorts to steadfastness in
the profession of the Gospel, and gives an animated description of
Christ as our high priest, Heb. iv-vii; he shows that the Levitical
priesthood and the old covenant were abolished by the priesthood of
Christ, and by the new covenant, Heb. viii; he points out the efficacy
of the ceremonies and sacrifices of the law, and the sufficiency of the
atonement made by the sacrifice of Christ, Heb. ix, x; he fully explains
the nature, merit, and effects of faith, Heb. xi; and in the last two
chapters he gives a variety of exhortations and admonitions, all
calculated to encourage the Hebrews to bear with patience and constancy
any trials to which they might be exposed. He concludes with the
valedictory benediction usual in St. Paul’s Epistles: “Grace be with you
all. Amen.” The most important articles of our faith are explained, and
the most material objections to the Gospel are answered with great
force, in this celebrated epistle. The arguments used in it, as being
addressed to persons who had been educated in the Jewish religion, are
principally taken from the ancient Scriptures; and the connection
between former revelations and the Gospel of Christ, is pointed out in
the most perspicuous and satisfactory manner.
7. In addition, it may be observed, that Mr. Stuart, an American critic,
has published an ample investigation of several of the points referred
to in the above remarks, and the following are the _results_:--
(1.) As to the place in which the persons lived to whom the epistle is
addressed, I have now examined all the objections against the opinion,
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Palestine, which I have
met with, and which seem to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve
attention. I am unable to perceive that they are very weighty; and
surely they come quite short of being conclusive. On the other hand, the
positive proof, I acknowledge, is only of a circumstantial nature, and
falls short of the weight which direct and unequivocal testimony in the
epistle itself would possess. But uniting the whole of it together;
considering the intimate knowledge of Jewish rites, the strong
attachment to their ritual, and the special danger of defection from
Christianity in consequence of it, which the whole texture of the
epistle necessarily supposes, and combining these things with the other
circumstances above discussed, I cannot resist the impression, that the
universal opinion of the ancient church respecting the persons to whom
this epistle was addressed, was well founded, being built upon early
tradition and the contents of the epistle; and that the doubts and
difficulties thrown in the way by modern and recent critics, are not of
sufficient importance to justify us in relinquishing the belief that
Palestine Christians were addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews.
Thousands of facts, pertaining to criticism and to history, are believed
and treated as realities, which have less support than the opinion that
has now been examined.
(2.) As to the author, we now come to the result of this investigation.
In the Egyptian and eastern churches, there were, it is probable, at a
pretty early period, some who had doubts whether St. Paul wrote the
Epistle to the Hebrews; but no considerable person or party is
definitely known to us, who entertained these doubts; and it is
manifest, from Origen and Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter,
any important opposition to the general and constant tradition of the
church, that Paul did write it. Not a single witness of any considerable
respectability is named, who has given his voice, in this part of the
church, for the negative of the question which we are considering. What
Jerom avers, appears to be strictly true, namely, _Ab ecclesiis orientis
et ab omnibus retrò ecclesiasticis Græci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi
Apostoli Pauli suscipi_. In the western churches a diversity of opinion
prevailed; although the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can
be adduced, is not great. Yet the concessions of Jerom and Augustine
leave no room to doubt the fact, that the predominant opinion of the
western churches, in their times, was in the negative. In early times,
we have seen that the case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his
epistle, and when the old Latin version was brought into circulation.
What produced a change of opinion in the west, we are left to
conjecture. The scanty critical and literary records of those times
afford us no means for tracing the history of it. But this is far from
being a singular case. Many other changes in the opinions of the
churches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as little
able to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. Storr has endeavoured
to show, that Marcion occasioned this revolution, when he came from the
east to Rome, and brought with him a collection of the sacred books, in
which the Epistle to the Hebrews was omitted. But it is very improbable,
that an extravagant man, excommunicated by the Roman church itself,
should have produced such a revolution there in sentiment. Others have
with more probability, attributed it to the zealous disputes at Rome
against the Montanist party, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was
supposed particularly to favour. The Montanists strenuously opposed the
reception again into the bosom of the church of those persons who had so
lapsed as to make defection from the Christian faith. The passages in
Heb. vi, 4–8, and x, 26–31, at least seem strongly to favour the views
which they maintained. The church at Rome carried the dispute against
the Montanists very high; and Ernesti and many other critics have been
led to believe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected
by them, because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. As a
matter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical
evidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this
subject, it must be allowed as not improbable, that the Epistle to the
Hebrews may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Roman church.
Many such instances might be produced from the history of the church.
The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern
sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it
stood opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many
of the oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the
Chiliasts, who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that
Luther himself rejected the Epistle of James, because he viewed it as
thwarting his favourite notions of justification; yea, that he went so
far as to give it the appellation of _epistola straminea_? [an epistle
of straw.] It cannot be at all strange, then, that the Romish church,
exceedingly imbittered by the dispute with the Montanists, should have
gradually come to call in question the apostolic origin of the epistle;
because it was to their adversaries a favourite source of appeal, and
because, unlike St. Paul’s other epistles, it was anonymous. That all,
even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin of our
epistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a very active
part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of
such an origin, or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. But whatever
might have been the cause that the epistle in question was pretty
generally rejected by the churches of the west, the fact that it was so
cannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, from the
latter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, seem
to have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as St. Paul’s;
although there were some among them who did receive it. It remains,
then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and compared. The
early testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most important. And
there seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as general and as
uniform for the first century after the apostolic age as in respect to
many other books of the New Testament; and more so, than in respect to
several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that the weight of evidence from
tradition is altogether preponderant in favour of the opinion, that St.
Paul was the author of our epistle.