existing copies of the Old Testament, he carefully noted all the
alterations which he discovered; and for the information of those who
might consult his work, he made use of the following marks: 1. Where any
passages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew,
he designated them by an _obelus_ =÷= with two bold points =:= annexed.
This mark was also used to denote words not extant in the Hebrew, but
added by the Septuagint translators, either for the sake of elegance, or
for the purpose of illustrating the sense. 2. To passages wanting in the
copies of the Septuagint, and supplied by himself from the other Greek
versions, he prefixed an asterisk ASTERISK with two bold points =:= also
annexed, in order that his additions might be immediately perceived.
These supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerom, were for the
most part taken from Theodotion’s translation; not unfrequently from
that of Aquila; sometimes, though rarely, from the version of Symmachus;
and sometimes from two or three together. But, in every case, the
initial letter of each translator’s name was placed immediately after
the asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplementary passage
was taken. And in lieu of the very erroneous Septuagint version of
Daniel, Theodotion’s translation of that book was inserted entire. 3.
Farther: not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were supplied
by Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed, but also where that
version does not appear accurately to express the Hebrew original,
having noted the former reading with an _obelus_ =:=, he added the
correct rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk
subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the _lemniscus_ and
_hypolemniscus_, two other marks used by Origen, there is so great a
difference of opinion among learned men, that it is difficult to
determine what they were. Dr. Owen, after Montfaucon, supposes them to
have been marks of better and more accurate renderings. These several
marks of distinction have been carefully observed, so far as they have
been recovered from various quarters, in the very accurate edition of
the Septuagint commenced by our learned countryman, Dr. Holmes, and
continued by his able successor, the Rev. J. Parsons, B. D.
For nearly fifty years was Origen’s stupendous work buried in a corner
of the city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great expense of
transcribing forty or fifty volumes, which far exceeded the means of
private individuals; and here, perhaps, it might have perished in
oblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphilus had not discovered it, and deposited
it in the library of Pamphilus the martyr at Cæsarea, where Jerome saw
it about the middle of the fourth century. As we have no account
whatever of Origen’s autograph after this time, it is most probable that
it perished in the year 653, on the capture of that city by the Arabs;
and a few imperfect fragments, collected from manuscripts of the
Septuagint and the catenæ of the Greek fathers, are all that now remain
of a work, which, in the present improved state of sacred literature,
would most eminently have assisted in the interpretation and criticism
of the Old Testament. The Syro-Estrangelo translation of Origen’s
edition of the Greek Septuagint was executed in the former part of the
seventh century; the author of it is not known. This version exactly
corresponds with the text of the Septuagint, especially in those
passages in which the latter differs from the Hebrew. A manuscript of
this translation is in the Ambrosian library at Milan; it contains the
_obelus_ and other marks of Origen’s Hexapla; and a subscription at the
end states it to have been literally translated from the Greek copy,
corrected by Eusebius himself, with the assistance of Pamphilus, from
the books of Origen, which were deposited in the library at Cæsarea.
From this version Norberg edited the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel
in 1787; and Bugati, the book of Daniel, 1788.
HEZEKIAH, king of Judah, was the son of Ahaz, and born in the year of
the world 3251. At the age of five-and-twenty he succeeded his father in
the government of the kingdom of Judah, and reigned twenty-nine years in
Jerusalem, namely, from the year of the world 3277 to 3306, 2 Kings
xviii, 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxix, 1. The reign of his father Ahaz had been
most unpropitious for his subjects. A war had raged between the kingdoms
of Israel and Judah, in which Pekah, king of Israel, overthrew the army
of Ahaz, destroying a hundred and twenty thousand of his men; after
which he carried away two hundred thousand women and children as
captives into his own country: they were, however, released and sent
home again, at the remonstrance of the Prophet Oded. As idolatry had
been established in Jerusalem and throughout Judea, by the command of
Ahaz, and the service of the temple either intermitted, or converted
into an idolatrous worship, the first object of his son Hezekiah, on his
accession to the throne, was to restore the legal worship of God, both
in Jerusalem and throughout Judea. He cleansed and repaired the temple,
and held a solemn passover. He improved the city, repaired the
fortifications, erected magazines of all sorts, and built a new
aqueduct. In the fourth year of his reign, Salmanezer, king of Assyria,
invaded the kingdom of Israel, took Samaria, and carried away the ten
tribes into captivity, replacing them by different people sent from his
own country. But Hezekiah was not deterred by this alarming example from
refusing to pay that tribute to the Assyrians which had been imposed on
Ahaz: this brought on the invasion of Sennacherib, in the fourteenth
year of the reign of Hezekiah, of which we have a very particular
account in the writings of the Prophet Isaiah, who was then living,
Isaiah xxxvi.
Immediately after the termination of this war, Hezekiah “was sick unto
death,” owing, as the sacred historian strongly intimates, to his heart
being improperly elevated on occasion of this miraculous deliverance,
and not sufficiently acknowledging the hand of God in it, 2 Kings xx;
Isaiah xxxviii. Isaiah was sent to bid him set his house in order, for
he should die and not live. Hezekiah had instant recourse to God by
prayer and supplications for his recovery; and the prophet had scarcely
proceeded out of the threshold, when the Lord commanded him to return to
Hezekiah, and to say to him, “Thus saith the Lord, I have heard thy
prayer, and I have seen thy tears: I will heal thee: on the third day
thou shalt go up to the house of the Lord, and I will add unto thy days
fifteen years.” And to confirm to him the certainty of all these tokens
of the divine regard, the shadow of the sun on the dial of Ahaz, at his
request, went backward ten degrees. After his recovery, he composed an
ode of thanksgiving to the God of all his mercies, which the Prophet
Isaiah has recorded in his writings, Isaiah xxxviii, 10, 11. Yet, as an
instance of human fickleness and frailty, we find Hezekiah, with all his
excellencies, again forgetting himself, and incurring the divine
displeasure. The king of Babylon having been informed of his sickness
and recovery, sent ambassadors to congratulate him on his restoration:
an honour with which the heart of Hezekiah was greatly elated; and, to
testify his gratitude, he made a pompous display to them of all his
treasures, his spices, and his rich vessels; and concealed from them
nothing that was in his palace. In all this the pride of Hezekiah was
gratified; and to humble him, Isaiah was sent to declare to him that his
conduct was displeasing to God, and that a time should come when all the
treasures of which he had made so vain a display should be removed to
Babylon, and even his sons be made eunuchs to serve in the palace of the
king of Babylon. Hezekiah bowed submissively to the will of God, and
acknowledged the divine goodness toward him, in ordaining peace and
truth to continue during the remainder of his reign. He accordingly
passed the latter years of his life in tranquillity, and contributed
greatly to the prosperity of his people and kingdom. He died in the year
of the world 3306, leaving behind him a son, Manasseh, who succeeded him
in the throne: a son every way unworthy of such a father.
HIDDEKEL. See EDEN.
HIGH PLACES. The prophets reproach the Israelites for nothing with more
zeal than for worshipping upon the high places. The destroying of these
high places is a commendation given only to few princes in Scripture;
and many, though zealous for the observance of the law, had not courage
to prevent the people from sacrificing upon these eminences. Before the
temple was built, the high places were not absolutely contrary to the
law, provided God only was there adored, and not idols. They seem to
have been tolerated under the judges; and Samuel offered sacrifices in
several places where the ark was not present. Even in David’s time they
sacrificed to the Lord at Shiloh, Jerusalem, and Gibeon. But after the
temple was built at Jerusalem, and the ark had a fixed settlement, it
was no longer allowed to sacrifice out of Jerusalem. The high places
were much frequented in the kingdom of Israel. The people sometimes went
upon those mountains which had been sanctified by the presence of
patriarchs and prophets, and by appearances of God, to worship the true
God there. This worship was lawful, except as to its being exercised
where the Lord had not chosen. But they frequently adored idols upon
these hills, and committed a thousand abominations in groves, and caves,
and tents; and hence arose the zeal of pious kings and prophets to
suppress the high places. Dr. Prideaux thinks it probable that the
_proseuchæ_, open courts, built like those in which the people prayed at
the tabernacle and the temple, were the same as those called high places
in the Old Testament. His reason is, that the _proseuchæ_ had groves in
or near them, in the same manner as the high places.
HIN, הין, a liquid measure, as of oil, or of wine, Exodus xxix, 40; xxx,
24; Lev. xxiii. According to Josephus, it contained two Attic _congii_,
and was therefore the sixth part of an ephah. He says that they offered
with an ox half a hin of oil; in English measure, six pints, twenty-five
thousand five hundred and ninety-eight solid inches. With a ram they
offered the third part of a hin, or three pints, ten thousand four
hundred and sixty-nine solid inches: with a lamb, the fourth part of a
hin, or two pints, fifteen thousand and seventy-one solid inches.
HIND, אילה, Gen. xlix, 21; 2 Sam. xxii, 34; Job xxxix, 1; Psalm xviii,
33; xxix, 9; Prov. v, 19; Cant. ii, 7; iii, 5; Jer. xiv, 5; Hab. iii,
19; the mate or female of the stag. It is a lovely creature, and of an
elegant shape. It is noted for its swiftness and the sureness of its
step as it jumps among the rocks. David and Habakkuk both allude to this
character of the hind. “The Lord maketh my feet like hinds’ feet, and
causeth me to stand on the high places,” Psalm xviii, 33; Hab. iii, 19.
The circumstance of their standing on the high places or mountains is
applied to these animals by Xenophon. Our translators make Jacob,
prophesying of the tribe of Naphtali, say, “Naphtali is a hind let
loose: he giveth goodly words,” Gen. xlix, 21. There is a difficulty and
incoherence here which the learned Bochart removes by altering a little
the punctuation of the original; and it then reads, “Naphtali is a
spreading tree, shooting forth beautiful branches.” This, indeed,
renders the simile uniform; but another critic has remarked that “the
allusion to a tree seems to be purposely reserved by the venerable
patriarch for his son Joseph, who is compared to the boughs of a tree;
and the repetition of the idea in reference to Naphtali is every way
unlikely. Beside,” he adds, “the word rendered ‘let loose,’ imports an
active motion, not like that of the branches of a tree, which, however
freely they wave, are yet attached to the parent stock; but an emission,
a dismission, or sending forth to a distance: in the present case, a
roaming, roaming at liberty. The verb ‘he giveth’ may denote shooting
forth. It is used of production, as of the earth, which shoots forth,
yields, its increase, Lev. xxvi, 4. The word rendered ‘goodly’ signifies
_noble_, _grand_, _majestic_; and the noun translated ‘words’ radically
signifies _divergences_, what is spread forth.” For these reasons he
proposes to read the passage, “Naphtali is a deer roaming at liberty; he
shooteth forth spreading branches,” or “majestic antlers.” Here the
distinction of imagery is preserved, and the fecundity of the tribe and
the fertility of their lot intimated. In our version of Psalm xxix, 9,
we read, “The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve, and
discovereth the forests.” Mr. Merrick, in an ingenious note on the
place, attempts to justify the rendering; but Bishop Lowth, in his
“Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews,” observes that this
agrees very little with the rest of the imagery, either in nature or
dignity; and that he does not feel himself persuaded, even by the
reasonings of the learned Bochart on this subject: whereas the oak,
struck with lightning, admirably agrees with the context. The Syriac
seems, for אילות, _hinds_, to have read אלות, _oaks_, or rather,
perhaps, _terebinths_. The passage may be thus versified:--
“Hark! his voice in thunder breaks,
And the lofty mountain quakes;
Mighty trees the tempests tear,
And lay the spreading forests bare!”
HINNOM, VALLEY OF, called also Tophet, and by the Greeks Gehenna, a
small valley on the south-east of Jerusalem, at the foot of Mount Zion,
where the Canaanites, and afterward the Israelites, sacrificed their
children to the idol Moloch, by making them “pass through the fire,” or
burning them. To drown the shrieks of the victims thus inhumanly
sacrificed, musical instruments, called in the Hebrew _tuph_, tympana or
timbrels, were played; whence the spot derived the name of Tophet. _Ge
Hinnom_, or “The Valley of Hinnom,” from which the Greeks framed their
Gehenna, is sometimes used in Scripture to denote hell or hell fire. See
HELL.
HIRAM, king of Tyre, and son of Abibal, is mentioned by profane authors
as distinguished for his magnificence, and for adorning the city of
Tyre. When David was acknowledged king by all Israel, Hiram sent
ambassadors with artificers, and cedar, to build his palace. Hiram also
sent ambassadors to Solomon, to congratulate him on his accession to the
crown Solomon desired of him timber and stones for building the temple,
with labourers. These Hiram promised, provided Solomon would furnish him
with corn and oil. The two princes lived on the best terms with each
other.
HIRELING. Moses requires that the hireling should be paid as soon as his
work is over: “The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee
all night unto the morning,” Lev. xix, 19. A hireling’s days or year is
a kind of proverb, signifying a full year, without abating any thing of
it: “His days are like the days of a hireling,” Job vii, 1; the days of
man are like those of a hireling; as nothing is deducted from them, so
nothing, likewise is added to them. And again: “Till he shall accomplish
as a hireling his day,” Job xiv, 6; to the time of death, which he waits
for as the hireling for the end of the day. The following passage from
Morier’s Travels in Persia, illustrates one of our Lord’s parables: “The
most conspicuous building in Hamadan is the Mesjid Jumah, a large mosque
now falling into decay, and before it a maidan or square, which serves
as a market place. Here we observed, every morning before the sun rose,
that a numerous band of peasants were collected with spades in their
hands, waiting, as they informed us, to be hired for the day to work in
the surrounding fields. This custom, which I have never seen in any
other part of Asia, forcibly struck me as a most happy illustration of
our Saviour’s parable of the labourers in the vineyard in Matt. xx;
particularly when, passing by the same place late in the day, we still
found others standing idle, and remembered his words, ‘Why stand ye here
all the day idle?’ as most applicable to their situation; for in putting
the very same question to them, they answered us, ‘Because no man hath
hired us.’”
HITTITES, the descendants of Heth, Gen. xv, 20.
HIVITES, a people descended from Canaan, Gen. x, 17. They are also
mentioned, Deut. ii, 23. The inhabitants of Shechem, and the Gibeonites,
were Hivites, Joshua xi, 19; Gen. xxxiv, 2. Mr. Bryant supposes the
Hivites to be the same as the Ophites, or ancient worshippers of the sun
under the figure of a serpent; which was, in all probability, the deity
worshipped at Baal-Hermon.
HOLY GHOST, the third person in the Trinity. The orthodox doctrine is,
that as Christ is God by an eternal _filiation_, so the Spirit is God by
_procession_ from the Father and the Son. “And I believe in the Holy
Ghost,” says the Nicene Creed, “the Lord and Giver of life, who
_proceedeth_ from the Father and the Son, who, with the Father and the
Son together, is worshipped and glorified.” And with this agrees the
Athanasian Creed, “The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but _proceeding_.” In the
Articles of the English church it is thus expressed: “The Holy Ghost,
_proceeding_ from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty,
and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.” The Latin
church introduced the term _spiration_, from _spiro_, “to breathe,” to
denote the manner of this procession: on which Dr. Owen remarks, “As the
vital breath of a man has a continual emanation from him, and yet is
never separated utterly from his person, or forsaketh him, so doth the
Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine
emanation, still abiding one with them.” On this refined view little can
be said which has clear Scriptural authority; and yet the very term by
which the Third Person in the Trinity is designated, _Wind_ or _Breath_,
may, as to the Third Person, be designed, like the term _Son_ applied to
the Second, to convey, though imperfectly, some intimation of that
manner of being by which both are distinguished from each other, and
from the Father; and it was a remarkable action of our Lord, and one
certainly which does not discountenance this idea, that when he imparted
the Holy Ghost to his disciples, “He _breathed_ on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” John xx, 22.
2. But, whatever we may think as to the doctrine of _spiration_, the
_procession_ of the Holy Ghost rests on more direct Scriptural
authority, and is thus stated by Bishop Pearson: “Now this procession of
the Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly in
relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. 1. It
is expressly said, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, as
our Saviour testifieth, ‘When the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth
from the Father, he shall testify of me,’ John xv, 26. And this is also
evident from what hath been already asserted; for being the Father and
the Spirit are the same God, and, being so the same in the unity of the
nature of God, are yet distinct in the personality, one of them must
have the same nature from the other; and because the Father hath been
already shown to have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it
from him. 2. Though it be not expressly spoken in the Scripture, that
the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and Son, yet the substance of
the same truth is virtually contained there; because those very
expressions which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the
Father, for that reason, because he proceedeth from the Father, are also
spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son; and therefore there
must be the same reason presupposed in reference to the Son, which is
expressed in reference to the Father. Because the Spirit proceedeth from
the Father, therefore it is called ‘the Spirit of God,’ and ‘the Spirit
of the Father.’ ‘It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you,’ Matt. x, 20. For by the language of the Apostle,
‘the Spirit of God’ is the Spirit which is of God, saying, ‘The things
of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. And we have received not
the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God,’ 1 Cor. ii, 11,
12. Now the same Spirit is also called ‘the Spirit of the Son:’ for
‘because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our
hearts,’ Gal. iv, 6. ‘The Spirit of Christ:’ ‘Now if any man have not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,’ Romans viii, 9; ‘Even the
Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets,’ 1 Peter i, 11. ‘The Spirit
of Jesus Christ,’ as the Apostle speaks: ‘I know that this shall turn to
my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus
Christ,’ Phil. i, 19. If then the Holy Ghost be called ‘the Spirit of
the Father,’ because he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that,
being called also ‘the Spirit of the Son,’ he proceedeth also from the
Son. Again: because the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, he is
therefore sent by the Father, as from him who hath, by the original
communication, a right of mission; as, ‘the Comforter, which is the Holy
Ghost, whom the Father will send,’ John xiv, 26. But the same Spirit
which is sent by the Father, is also sent by the Son, as he saith, ‘When
the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you.’ Therefore the Son
hath the same right of mission with the Father, and consequently must be
acknowledged to have communicated the same essence. The Father is never
sent by the Son, because he received not the Godhead from him; but the
Father sendeth the Son, because he communicated the Godhead to him: in
the same manner, neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by the Holy
Spirit; because neither of them received the divine nature from the
Spirit: but both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, because
the divine nature, common to the Father and the Son, was communicated by
them both to the Holy Ghost. As therefore the Scriptures declare
expressly, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father; so do they also
virtually teach, that he proceedeth from the Son.”
3. Arius regarded the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created by
Christ, κτίσμα κτίϛματος, _the creature of a creature_. Some time
afterward, his personality was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was
considered as the _exerted energy_ of God. This appears to have been the
notion of Socinus, and, with occasional modifications, has been adopted
by his followers. They sometimes regard him as an attribute; and at
others, resolve the passages in which he is spoken of into a
periphrasis, or circumlocution, for God himself; or, to express both in
one, into a figure of speech.