there has been a difference of opinion among critics, both in ancient
and modern times. Clement of Alexandria says that St. Paul wrote to the
Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that St. Luke carefully translated
it into Greek. Eusebius in the same manner says, that Paul wrote to the
Hebrews in his vernacular language, and that, according to report,
either Luke or Clement translated it. So Jerom, also, _scripserat ut
Hebræus Hebræis Hebraicè_; [as a Hebrew he had written to the Hebrews in
Hebrew;] and then he adds that this epistle was translated into Greek,
so that the colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from
that of St. Paul’s. Of the same opinion, in respect to this, was
Clement, of Alexandria; and Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that
the thoughts contained in the epistle were St. Paul’s, while the diction
or costume of it must be attributed to the person who wrote down the
sentiments of the Apostle. By the Hebrew language, no one can reasonably
doubt, that these fathers meant the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken
in the days of the Apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, which had long
ceased to be a vernacular language. It is quite plain also, that these
fathers were led to the conclusion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was
originally written in the dialect of Palestine, from their belief, so
universal in ancient times, of its having been addressed to some church,
or to the churches, in that country. It was very natural to draw such a
conclusion; for would not an epistle addressed to Hebrews in all
probability be more acceptable, if written in their own vernacular
language? Moreover, St. Paul was well acquainted with that language, for
he was brought up at Jerusalem, and “at the feet of Gamaliel;” and when
he had visited that city, he had addressed the Jewish multitude, who
were excited against him, in their native tongue, Acts xxii, 1, 2. Why
should it not be supposed, that if, as is probable, this epistle was
originally directed to Palestine, it was written in the dialect of that
country? So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned;
although other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not
appear to have coincided in opinion with those to whom I have just
referred. Among the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to
defend the same opinion; and particularly Michaëlis, who has discussed
the subject quite at length, in his introduction to this epistle. I do
not think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. To my own mind
they appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are built on an
exegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, if admitted, would deduce a
very strange meaning from the words of the epistle. Yet, assuming such a
meaning, he thence concludes, that the original writer must have
expressed a different idea, and that the translator mistook his meaning.
He then undertakes to conjecture what the original Hebrew must have
been. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from considerations
wholly _à priori_; as if these were admissible in a question of mere
fact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls _wrong
translation_, which wears the appearance of any considerable
probability. On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well
acquainted with the Aramean language, who has gone through with the New
Testament, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of
translation from Aramean documents, confesses, that, in respect to this
epistle, he finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an
Aramean original, and no marks that there ever was such an original.
This testimony is of considerable importance in respect to the question
before us, as it comes from a critic who spent many years on the study
of that which is most intimately connected with the very subject under
consideration, namely, the detection of the Aramean originals of the
various parts of the New Testament.
(4.) The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original are deduced
from two sources: That Hebrews are addressed in our epistle, to whom the
Hebrew language would have been more acceptable and intelligible, and
many of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, certainly could not
read it: That the diversity of style in the Epistle to the Hebrews is so
great, when compared with that of St. Paul’s epistles, that, unless we
suppose the Greek costume did in fact come from another hand, we must be
led to the conclusion that St. Paul did not write it. Both of these
topics have been already discussed. I merely add here, therefore, that
in case the writer of the epistle designed it should have a wide
circulation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogether the most
feasible method of accomplishing this. Beside, if St. Paul did address
it to the church at Cæsarea, it is altogether probable that he wrote in
Greek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even if he did
not, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew; for in every
considerable place in Palestine, there were more or less who understood
the Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last position established
beyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug’s “Introduction to the New
Testament,” vol. ii, pp. 32–50. When St. Paul wrote to the Romans, he
did not write in Latin; yet there was no difficulty in making his
epistle understood, for the knowledge of Greek was very common in Rome.
If St. Paul understood the Latin language, which is no where affirmed,
and he had not resided when he wrote this epistle, in any of the
countries where it was commonly used, still he understood Greek so much
better that he would of course prefer writing in it. For a similar
reason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as more probable,
that he would write the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Greek language. At
the time of writing it, he had been abroad twenty-five years at least,
in Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during all that period,
only a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every where saw, spoke Greek,
not Hebrew. In Greek he preached and conversed. Is it any wonder, then,
that, after twenty-five years’ incessant labour or preaching,
conversing, and writing, in this language, he should have preferred
writing in it? Indeed, can it be probable, that, under circumstances
like these, he still possessed an equal facility of writing in his
native dialect of Palestine? I cannot think it strange, therefore, that
although the Epistle to the Hebrews was in all probability directed to
some part of Palestine, yet it was written by St. Paul in Greek, and not
in Hebrew. But, whatever may be the estimation put upon arguments of
this nature, there are internal marks of its having been originally
composed in Greek, which cannot well be overlooked.
HEBRON, one of the most ancient cities in the world; for it was built
seven years before Zoan, the capital of Lower Egypt, Numbers xiii, 22.
Now, as the Egyptians gloried much in the antiquity of their cities, and
their country was indeed one of the first that was peopled after the
dispersion of Babel, it may be from hence concluded that it was one of
the most ancient. Some think it was founded by Arba, one of the oldest
giants in Palestine; for which reason it was called Kirjath-arba, or
Arba’s city, Joshua xiv, 15; which name was afterward changed to that of
Hebron, Joshua xv, 13. Arba was the father of Anak; and from Anak the
giants, called Anakim, took their name, who were still dwelling at
Hebron when Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. When it was first
called Hebron, is uncertain; some think, not till it was conquered by
Caleb, and that he called it so from his son of that name. But Calmet is
of opinion that the name of Hebron is more ancient; and that Caleb, to
do honour to his son, named him after this ancient and celebrated place.
Hebron was situated upon an eminence, twenty miles southward from
Jerusalem, and twenty miles north from Beersheba. Abraham, Sarah, and
Isaac were buried near Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, or the double
cave, which Abraham bought of Ephron, Genesis xxiii, 7–9. Hebron was the
allotment of Judah. The Lord assigned it for the inheritance of Caleb,
Joshua xiv, 13; x, 3, 23, 37. Joshua first took Hebron, and killed the
king, whose name was Hoham. But afterward Caleb again made a conquest of
it, assisted by the troops of his tribe, and the valour of Othniel,
Judges i, 12, 13. It was appointed to be a dwelling for priests, and
declared to be a city of refuge, Joshua xxi, 13. David, after the death
of Saul, fixed the seat of his government there, 2 Sam. ii, 2–5. At
Hebron, Absalom began his rebellion, 2 Sam. xv, 7, 8, &c. During the
captivity of Babylon, the Edomites having invaded the southern parts of
Judea, made themselves masters of Hebron; hence Josephus sometimes makes
it a part of Edom. Here Zacharias and Elizabeth are believed to have
dwelt; and it is supposed to have been the birth place of John the
Baptist. Hebron is now called El Khalil; though not a town of large
dimensions, it has a considerable population. According to Ali Bey, it
contains about four hundred families of Arabs; but he does not notice
either the Jews, who are numerous, or the Turks. He describes it as
situated on the slope of a mountain, and having a strong castle.
Provisions, he says, are abundant, and there is a considerable number of
shops. The streets are winding, and the houses unusually high. The
country is well cultivated, to a considerable extent. Hebron is computed
to be twenty-seven miles south-west of Jerusalem.
HEIFER, a young cow, used in sacrifice at the temple, Num. xix, 1–10.
Moses and Aaron were instructed to deliver the divine command to the
children of Israel that they should procure “a red heifer, without
spot,” that is, one that was entirely red, without one spot of any other
colour; “free from blemish, and on which the yoke had never yet come,”
that is, which had never yet been employed in ploughing the ground or in
any other work; for according to the common sense of all mankind, those
animals which had been made to serve other uses, became unfit to be
offered to God,--a sentiment which we find in Homer and other Heathen
writers. The animal was to be delivered to the priest, who was to lead
her forth out of the camp, and there to slay her: the priest was then to
take of the blood with his finger, and sprinkle it seven times before
the tabernacle, and afterward to burn the carcass: then to take cedar
wood and hyssop, and scarlet wood, and cast them into the flames. The
ashes were to be gathered up, and preserved in a secure and clean place,
for the use of the congregation, by the sprinkling of which ashes in
water, it became a water of separation, by means of which a typical or
ceremonial purification for sin was effected, Heb. ix, 13.
HELIOPOLIS. See ON.
HELL. This is a Saxon word, which is derived from a verb which signifies
_to hide_ or _conceal_. A late eminent Biblical critic, Dr. Campbell,
has investigated this subject with his usual accuracy; and the following
is the substance of his remarks. In the Hebrew Scriptures the word
_sheol_ frequently occurs, and uniformly, he thinks, denotes the state
of the dead in general, without regard to the virtuous or vicious
characters of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating
that word, the LXX have almost invariably used the Greek term ἅιδης,
_hades_, which means the receptacle of the dead, and ought rarely to
have been translated _hell_, in the sense in which we now use it,
namely, as the place of torment. To denote this latter object, the New
Testament writers always make use of the Greek word γέεννα, which is
compounded of two Hebrew words, _Ge Hinnom_, that is, “The Valley of
Hinnom,” a place near Jerusalem, in which children were cruelly
sacrificed by fire to Moloch, the idol of the Ammonites, 2 Chron.
xxxiii, 6. This place was also called _Tophet_, 2 Kings xxiii, 10,
alluding, as is supposed, to the noise of drums, (_toph_ signifying a
drum,) there raised to drown the cries of helpless infants. As in
process of time this place came to be considered an emblem of hell, or
the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a
future state, the name _Tophet_ came gradually to be used in this sense,
and at length to be confined to it. In this sense, also, the word
_gehenna_, a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New
Testament, where it occurs about a dozen times. The confusion that has
arisen on this subject has been occasioned not only by our English
translators having rendered the Hebrew word _sheol_ and the Greek word
_gehenna_ frequently by the term _hell_; but the Greek word _hades_,
which occurs eleven times in the New Testament, is, in every instance,
except one, translated by the same English word, which it ought never to
have been. In the following passages of the Old Testament it seems,
however, that a future world of wo is expressed by _sheol_: “They,” the
wicked, “spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to
_sheol_,” Job xxi, 13. “The wicked shall be turned into _sheol_, and all
the nations that forget God,” Psalm ix, 17, 18. “Her feet go down to
death, her steps take hold on _sheol_,” Prov. v, 5. “But he knoweth not
that the ghosts are there, and that her guests are in the depths of
sheol,” Prov. ix, 18. “Thou shalt beat him with a rod, and shalt deliver
his soul from _sheol_,” Prov. xxiii, 14. Thus, as Stuart observes, in
his “Essay on Future Punishment,” while the Old Testament employs
_sheol_, in most cases to designate the grave, the region of the dead,
the place of departed spirits, it employs it also, in some cases, to
designate along with this idea the adjunct one of the place of misery,
place of punishment, region of wo]. In this respect it accords fully
with the New Testament use of _hades_. For though _hades_ signifies the
grave, and often the invisible region of separate spirits, without
reference to their condition, yet, in Luke xvi, 23, “In hades ἐν τῷ ᾅδη,
he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,” it is clearly used for a
place and condition of misery. The word _hell_ is also used by our
translators for _gehenna_, which means the world of future punishment,
“How shall ye escape the damnation of hell, κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης?“
HELL, _Gates of_. See GATES.
HELLENISTS. On this appellation, Dr. Jennings observes, There is a very
remarkable appellation which the Apostle Paul, after glorying in his
being “of the stock of Israel, and of the tribe of Benjamin,” applies to
himself, namely, that he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” Phil. iii, 5. By
this expression Godwin understands a Hebrew both by father’s and
mother’s side. But if this be all that the phrase imports, there seems
to be very little occasion for the Apostle’s using it immediately after
having declared, that he was “of the stock of Israel, and the tribe of
Benjamin;” which, on Godwin’s supposition, is the same as a Hebrew of
the Hebrews; for the Jews were not allowed to marry out of their own
nation; or if they sometimes married proselytes, yet their number was
comparatively so small among them, especially while they were under
oppression, as they were at that time by the Romans, that methinks Paul
would hardly have mentioned it as a distinguishing privilege and honour,
that neither of his parents were proselytes. It is therefore a much more
probable sense, that a Hebrew of the Hebrews signifies a Hebrew both by
nation and language, which multitudes of Abraham’s posterity, in those
days, were not; or one of the Hebrew Jews, who performed their public
worship in the Hebrew tongue; for such were reckoned more honourable
than the Hellenistic Jews, who in their dispersion having, in a manner,
lost the Hebrew, used the Greek language _in sacris_, and read the
Scripture out of the Septuagint version. We meet with this distinction
among the converted Jews, in the Acts of the Apostles: “In those days,
when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring
of the Grecians or Hellenists against the Hebrews,” Acts vi, 1. This is
what St. Paul probably meant by his being a Hebrew, as distinguished
from an Israelite: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So
am I,” 2 Corinthians xi, 22. In one sense, these were convertible terms,
both signifying Jews by nation and religion; but in the sense just
mentioned, there were many, in those days, who were Israelites, but not
Hebrews. St. Paul was both, not only an Israelite by birth, but a
Hebrew, and not a Hellenistic Jew. Godwin expresses himself
inaccurately, when he says that those who lived in Palestine, and who,
as using the Hebrew text in their public worship, were opposed to the
Ἑλληνιϛαί, are called Hebrews, or Jews. For, though Hebrew and Jew are
convertible terms, when opposed to Gentiles, as denoting the seed of
Abraham, and professors of the Mosaic religion, see Jer. xxxiv, 9; yet,
as opposed to the Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, they are not convertible terms, there being
Hebrew Jews and Hellenistic Jews; for it is said, that when “they, who
were scattered by the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled
into several countries, preaching the word to none but Jews only,” yet
they spoke, ϖρος τοὺς Ἑλληνιϛὰς, to the Hellenists or Grecians, Acts xi,
19, 20. In order to confirm the sense which is here given of the word
Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, in opposition to the appellation Hebrews, it is proper we
should take notice of the distinction between the Ἕλληνες and Ἑλληνιϛαὶ.
The former were Greeks by nation, and as such distinguished from Jews,
Acts xvi, 1; xix, 10; and the Greek empire having been rendered by
Alexander in a manner universal, and their language being then the most
common and general, the appellation Greeks is sometimes given to the
whole Heathen world, or to all who were not Jews, Rom. i, 16; ii, 9.
These Greeks, called Ἑλληνικοὶ by Josephus, are always styled Ἕελληνες
in the New Testament. On which account Grotius, understanding by the
Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, or “Grecians, to whom some of those who were dispersed on the
persecution which arose about Stephen, preached the Lord Jesus,” Acts
xi, 19, 20, Greeks by nation, concludes there is a mistake in the text,
and alters it according to the Syriac and Vulgate versions: “_Certè
legendum_,” [it ought certainly to be read,] saith he, “ϖρος τοὺς
Ἕλληνας.” So indeed the Alexandrian manuscript reads, but it is
supported by no other copy. And this is decisive against it--that from
the words immediately preceding, it is evident that these Grecians were
by nation Jews, and not Greeks; it being expressly said, that those who
were scattered on the persecution “preached the Gospel to the Jews
only.” As for the Ἕλληνες, or Greeks mentioned in St. John’s Gospel, as
being come to Jerusalem at the passover to worship in the temple, John
xii, 20, and likewise those mentioned in the Acts, as worshipping along
with the Jews in the synagogues, Acts xiv, 1; xviii, 4; they were
doubtless Greeks by birth and nation, yet proselytes to the Jewish
religion. There is a distinction made between Jews and proselytes, Acts
ii, 10; but none between Hebrews and proselytes, because a proselyte
might be either a Hebrew or a Hellenist, according to the language in
which he performed public worship. That the Hellenists or Grecians, were
Jews, is farther argued from the account we have, that when at Jerusalem
St. Paul “disputed against the Grecians, they went about to slay him,”
Acts ix, 29, as the Jews at Damascus had done before, Acts ix, 23. Now
had these Grecians been strangers of a different nation, it cannot be
imagined they durst have attempted to kill a Jew, among his own
countrymen, in the capital, and without a formal accusation of him
before any of their tribunals. Upon the whole, the Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, or
Grecians being Jews who used the Greek tongue in their sacred exercises,
the Hebrew Jews and Grecian Jews were distinguished in those days, in
like manner as the Portuguese and Dutch Jews are among us, not so much
by the place of their birth, (many being born in England, others
abroad,) as by the language they use in their public prayers and
sermons.