Encyclopaedia Biblica/Hazelelponi-Hemam

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



RV Hazzelelponi (^is^n ; ecHAeBBcoN [B], ecnAAeAcpooN [A], AceAA<t>ooNei [L]), sister of JEZREEL, ISHMA, and IDBASH \uq v ] (i Ch.4 3 ).

One of the oddest names in Chronicles, mentioned in con nection with (the Judahite) Jezreel, Ktam, and (probably) Hur b. Judah (i Ch. 43). Olshausen (Lehrb. d. htbr. Spr. 618) explains, 'Give shade, thou who lookest upon me' ; Curtis (in Hastings, DB 2 128 a) the Zelelponites. Neither view com mends itself. <ji3 (.ponf) is a duplication of 133 (J>enu) in < ?N U9 (Penuel) which follows : ^^n is miswritten for ^N^n, Halasel, the true original of W?!O BEZALEEL [q.v.]. Possibly Halasel is the full name of is^n Halusa (better known to usas ZIKLAG). The name would correspond to Jerahmeel (see REHOBOTH, JERAHMEEL). T. K. C.


or the middle Hazer ("!> , Ezek. 47 16 RV, AV HAZAR-HATTICON [q.v.].


(Dnvrj, ACHAcoS [B], ACHpcoG [AFL]). AV s mistake, derived from <@, for villages (so RV Dt.223). See AVVIM.


(JTnmn; ACHpcoG [BAFL] ; in Dt. li translated AyAcoN [BAFL]), an unknown locality mentioned in Nu. 11.35 12 16 8817 / Dt. 1 1. See WANDERING, 7.


(")FI |Vvn) Gen. 14 7 AV, RV HAZAZON-TAMAR.


(^Tn, 32 prob. =JAHAZIEL [q.v.}, El sees ; eiemA [B], AZIHA [AL]), a Gershonite Levite, temp. David (i Ch. 23 9).


(Ifn, AZAY [ADL]), Nahor s fifth son (Gen. 2222). The name resembles Ass. Hazu (=-lTri), which was a mountain region of volcanic conical hills (so Fr. Del. ) in N. Arabia (KB 2 131). See Buz.


("lin; ACCOp[BAFL]; ASOR], like HEZRON (q.v. }, is a name corresponding, probably, not to the Ar. hisdr ( fort ) but to hazira ( sheep-fold, cp CATTLE, 6 n. 5), an enclosure of thorny branches or of stone. The name Hazor or Hazar occurs frequently as a place-name in the pastoral Negeb, the region of the Hezronites nomads who dwelt within such en closures (cp HEZRON). The phrase the kingdoms of Hazor (Jer. 4928 30 33 ; i] av\ri [BNAQ]) is a collec tive term for the region of the settled Arabs in the S. or E. of Palestine (cp Jer. 2634 Is. 42n) ; cp the Ar. hddir used (in the plur. ) of the settled Arabs living in towns and villages as contrasted with the purely nomad Arabs (cp Rob. BR 1305 and Doughty, Ar. Des. 1274).

i. The Hazor of king JABIN (q.v. ) lay near the waters of Merom, not far from Kedesh (Jos. 11 and [ B acrofj., L acr<ru>p] 12 19 Judg. 42 17 i S. 12g; aaup, -pos Jos. Ant. v. 5 i xiii. 5 6/1 ). Its identification is doubt ful. Wilson and Guerin think of the Tell Harreh, SE. of Kedesh, where there are extensive ruins. Conder and others prefer Jebel Hadlreh ( Mt. of the sheep-fold ; cp the plain Merj-Hadlrehj, a little to the W. of Deshun, about three quarters of an hour S. from Kedesh (cp Baed. , 262). On the whole, Robinson s identification with the Tell Khureibeh, 1680 ft. above sea-level, z\ m. S. from Kedesh, seems the most suitable ; but no ruins have as yet been discovered there.

As hudara. (-t~tt) it seems to be mentioned on the old Egyptian list s ofThotmes and the papyrus Anastasi (WMM As. u. Eur. 173), and its importance in the forrteenth century is perhaps revealed by the Amarna Tablets, where the king of Hasura or Hazura is mentioned several times ; it had smaller cfependent towns, and its king is mentioned with the king of Sidon (from which Petrie infers that a Hazor n m. SE. of Tyre is meant). 1

In Jos. 19s6 (P) Hazor appears as a fenced city and is allotted to Naphtali. Its inhabitants were carried off by Tiglath-pileser (2 K. 1629). It is mentioned in i Mace. 1167 (AV NASOR, vatrup [VA], oo-wp [N]) and is the ASER, RV ASHER, of Tob. la (affTjp [BA] affffrjp [X]).

1 Syria and Egypt, 94 173.

Whether the Hazor fortified by Solomon was really the northern one seems doubtful ( i K. 9 15 om. BL, ecrep [A] ; in 1023, awovp [B], -5 [L], om. A; HESER [Vg.]). Although followed by Megiddo its mention with Gezer and localities in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem does not inspire confidence, and both Jer. and Eus. (0S( 2 > 97 10, assure; 227 34 affaovp) actually locate it in Judah. This position seems more natural, and in < s addition to i K. 2(35? affffovp [BA], acrovd [L]) Hazor and the other places are followed immediately by Beth-horon and Baalath. Which Hazor is meant, however, is uncertain. Jer. and Eus. speak of a Judsean Aser (OS 92 19 220 93 ) between Ashkelon and Ashdod ; and an Asor on the borders of the former is by them (erroneously?) identi fied with HAZOR-HADATTAH. Perhaps Solomon s Hazor is the same as no. 3 below. Megiddo seems to be a corruption 1 of MIGDAL-GAD [y.v.~\, unless for Hazor, Megiddo, we should read HAZAR-GADDAH [?..].

2. A locality in Benjamin mentioned between Ana- niah (Beit Hanina?) and Ramah ( Neh. 11 33 N c - a " inf - L, om. BX*A). One might plausibly identify it with the ruins of Hazzur near Beit Hanina (PEFMm. 8114). The mention of Zeboim, however, between Hadid and Neballat (v. 34) makes it possible that Hazor may mean BAAL-HAZOR (inn Vja 2 S. 1823 [3ai\acrup [B], /3eXXa. [A], /3a<reXX. [L]), which in its turn is defined as being beside EPHRAIM [q.v., ii.]. This is Tell Asur a hill i hour NE. from Bethel (which place is mentioned in Neh. 11 31) and lies ENE. of Jifna (i.e. OPHNI) ; cp Buhl, Pal. 177. See ESORA.

3. A town in the Negeb of Judah mentioned between Kedesh and Ithnan (Josh. 1623 acrop [iwvaiv] [B], acrwp [L.], om. A) ; Buhl (I.e. 182) identifies with Hudere, E. from Hebron and NE. from Ma ln. Cp below.

4. Another Hazor, alternatively called j visn n vip (KERIOTH-HEZRON, RV; AV read as two) is enumerated in the same group (Josh. 1625 7r6\ets afftpuv [B], ?r6Xis -ju. [A], 7r6Xis ecrpw/* [L]) and is identified by Buhl with mod. Karyaten S. of Main, the place whence Judas per- . haps derived his designation Iscariot (but see JUDAS).

The modern form of Hazor survives in the Negeb in the forms Hadira, a mount S. of Kurnub, and a well, el-Huderd, in et-Tth (cp ~Rob. BR 1 223). See HAZOR-HADATTAH. s. A. C.


(so RV ; nrnn "n./.*. [Aram.] New Hazor, 1 Accop THN K<MNHN [L ; om. BA], ASOR NOVA [Vg. ]), a place on the Edomite border of Judah (Josh. 15 25).

An Aramaic adjective, however, in this region is so strange that the reading must be questioned (Di.). nmn s probably a miswritten form of nvip which follows ; Hadattah should be omitted. AV gives, And Hazor, Hadattah. Eus. and Jer. (OS 21731 90s)" place this Hazor too far N., viz., on the borders of Ashkelon, towards the E. See HAZOR, i. T. K. C.

1 In i K. 9 15(10 23) the readings are /j.ay&&lt;a [A], paSiav [B] (cp meda.ni, OSP) 140 34), payeSSia [L] ; in 2 35 /iayau [B], -So> [AL].

2 A possible connection with MAKKEDAH may also be suggested.


rt), i Ch. 4 3 RV. AV HAZELELPONI.


is the equivalent in OT of N~I, rot, and in Aram, parts of Dan. of K>K~I, res, and in NT of K6(t><5iAH- In i Ch. 10 10 EV also gives head for nSj7ii, gulgoleth. This passage furnishes a good starting- point for our survey of some of the ideas connected by the Hebrews with the head. rta^J (gulgoleth) does not really mean head. The Chronicler misunderstood i S. 31 10.

The first part of the verse, relative to Saul s armour, is a parenthesis, and probably a gloss, but seemed to the Chronicler to be the beginning of a statement respecting the trophies carried off by the Philistines. If this view was correct there was no choice but to emend 1JV13 his body into IPlSjVa his skull, in spite of the fact that, according to usage, it was not merely the skull, but the whole head of an enemy, that was the victor s trophy.

A critical translation of Chronicles would therefore have to render, in 1 Ch. 10 10, and they stuck up his skull in the house of Dagon. Why the head was chosen as a trophy (Judg. 7 25 i S. 17 54 57 31 9 2 S. 4 7 20 2i/. 2 K. 106_^) may at first seem to need no investigation; was not the severed head a convincing proof of death ? It may have become no more than this when the grim narrative in 2 K. 106^ was written. \Yhen, however, we read of the Australians that one of the trophies which they carry home after killing an enemy is the kidney fat, and that this is kept by the assassin to lubricate himself, because he thinks that thus he acquires the strength of his victim, 1 we begin to suspect that there is something more than we at first supposed in the custom of decapitating a dead enemy. What is it, then ? It is the idea that the head is a special seat of life (which accounts for the phrase to swear by the head, Ml. 636). Hence among the Iranians the head of a victim was dedicated to Haoma, in order that the life, represented by the head, might return to its divine giver. That was not indeed the usage of the Egyptians or of the Hebrews. Yet both peoples had a reverence for the head. There are twenty-two vessels in the head which draw the spirits into it, and send them thence to all parts of the body, is the assertion of the Ebers Papyrus (Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 216), and shows what the feeling of the Egyptians was.

It is true Herodotus (2 39, quoted by WRS, Rel. Sem. (2) 379) states that the head of a sacrificial victim was not offered on the altar, but sold to Greek traders, or thrown into the Nile ; but this is opposed to the clear evidence of the Egyptian monu ments. 2

The Hebrews, too, doubtless offered the head, among the other chief parts of the body, upon the altar, and there is considerable improbability (see DOVE S DUNG, col. 1130) in the statement in the MT of 2 K. 625 that heads of asses were eaten during a great famine in Samaria, first, because ass s flesh was forbidden food, and next, because the dried head of any animal being used by the Semites as an amulet, it was not natural for them to eat the head. 3 (The eating of the head of the paschal lamb was an exception. ) It is also probable that there is a sense of the sacredness of the head in the statement of i S. 17 54 and iCh. lOio respecting the head of Goliath and the skull of Saul respectively. In the former passage the MT tells us that David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem (c^srrv), but this anachronism is probably an error of the scribes (Che. Exp. T. 10522 [ 99]); the true reading is to Saul (^KB* 1 ?). Saul who had not stirred from his place could not regard the head of Goliath as a trophy ; but he may have valued it greatly as a supertiatural guardian or amulet. And so in iCh. lOio even the Chronicler feels that the skull (representing the head) of Saul may well have been affixed as a sacred object to the wall of a Philistine temple. Possibly we may connect his statement with the view certainly held in Talmudic times that a mummified human head (tlraphim) or even a human skull ( ob), could give the knowledge of the future. 4

Among the various idioms in which the head finds a place a few may be mentioned.

(1) To lift up the head, when spoken of another, most naturally means to raise to honour (see e.g. Gen. 40 13 2 K. 2o 27). In Gen. 40 19, however, it means to take off the head as a punishment. It is one of those plays on words in which Hebrew writers delight.

(2) Yah we will take away thy master from thy head (2 K. 2 3 5 EV) alludes to the customary position of pupils at the feet of their teacher (cp Acts 22 3).

1 VVRS Rel. Sem. (2) 380.

2 See Rawlinson, Herodotus, 271. WRS Rel. Sem. (2), 381.

4 For the references see Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. 2660 ff.\ Selden, De Dis Syris, 59; Levy, NHll B, s.v.

(3) They shoot out the lip, they shake the head (Ps.22 7 [8]) may strike us as a strange combination of phrases. With the Hebrews, however, shaking the head is a sign of mockery (cp Ps. 44i4 [15], 2K. 19 21), though it may also be a gesture of sympathy (Job 164).

(4) Thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head (Prov. 25 22) would most naturally mean, Thou shalt take vengeance upon him by destroying him 1 (Gen. 1924, P S - H 6 [7]). Of course, this does not suit the context, nor can ,-tnn mean anything but fetch, or carry away. Hence the text must be out of order. Read, for (so) thou wilt quench coals of fire 2 (i.e. evil passions, Ecclus. 8 10). Certainly the reference to the head can be well spared ; the ethical gain is considerable.

In a Zend scripture we read, after an exhortation to charity on the ground that the Law begs for charity in the person of thy brethren who beg for bread, Ever will that bread be burning coal upon thy head (Vistasp Vast, 36, in [Oxford] Zendavesta, part ii., by Darmesteter, 338). The burning coal on the head seems to be a figurative expression for the vengeance imprecated on him who refuses the bread of alms. If so, it suggests what the MT of Prov. 25 220. ought to mean. On the phrase to cover the head, etc. (in mourning), see MOURNING. T. K. C.


For (i) D^tf p. kitfurim, Is. 820 AV (RV sashes ); see GIRDLE, 4, ; and for (2) 13K, cipher, i K. 2038 41 RV (AV ashes ), see TURBAN, 2.


i. RV for H^app, migbadh, the priestly bonnet of AV (Ex. 2840 etc.). See MITRE, i. 2. RV for IKS, peer, in Is.3 20 (AV bonnet ), Ezek. 24 17 (AV tire ). See TURBAN, 2. 3. EV for Ki Sapis, i Esd. 36 ; see CROWN.


( j? or 3IP, on the distribution of which respectively in OT writings see Briggs, Kohut Memorial Studies, 94-105 ( 97); KApAlA)- 3 There are some interesting varieties in the biblical use of the term heart. Primarily the heart is the seat and principle of vitality, for the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 17 n), and the receptacle of the blood is the heart.

Hence the expressions, let your heart live (Ps. 22 26 [27]) ; it reaches to thy heart (Jer. 4 18 ; cp v. 10 to the soul ) ; the whole heart is faint (Is. 15).

Heart and flesh (iw) combined designate the whole inner and outer man (as in Ass. feru and libbit) ; see Ps. 169 7326 (cp ESCHATOLOGY) ; and for heart in the sense of inner man note the phrase so frequent in Dt. (e.g., 429), with all the heart and with all the soul.

More special meanings are the following :

(a) The seat of the appetites, emotions, and passions ; see, e.g., Ps. 104 15 Dt. 196 i K. 838 Is. 3029.

(If) Mind, intellect, purpose, memory; so men of heart = men of understanding, Job 34 10 34 ; all the wickedness which thine heart ( = thy mind) is privy to, i K. 2 44 E V ; wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, i K. 4 29 EV ; it is in his heart (i.e. purpose) to destroy, Is. 10 7 ; the heart (purpose) of Pharaoh was changed, Ex. 14s; David laid up these words in his heart, i.e. in his memory, i S. 21 12 (cp Lk. 2 1951). So Ps. 31 12 [13], a dead man out of heart would mean a dead man, forgotten, if the Hebrew text were correct.

(c) Consciousness, conscience, character. So Prov. 14 10 (a fine passage even in EV ; but intermeddleth with its joy strikes a false note, for even a stranger feels some sympathy with simple human joys), where read

A heart that feels its deep vexation
Cannot intermingle with the joy of a stranger. 4

Hitzig would give the sense of consciousness to the word heart in the well-known phrase a clean heart, Ps. 51 10 [12]. He supports this by a reference to Prov. 22 i la ; a clear conscious ness i.e. , a joyous temper would then be the boon sought for by the speaker. But the reference is not tenable, for in the passage referred to enables us to restore an all-important word which has been lost viz., Yahwe. A human king may be partial to joyous-hearted subjects, but Yahwe loves those whose conscience, or moral character, is spotless ; dyamf (cuptos 6<ri a5 KapSi as.

1 Toy (Prov. 468) still adheres to the traditional view that the pang of contrition is meant. But what unsophisticated Jewish reader could so have interpreted the words?

2 rtaan nm K ; N"Srn <3.

3 Lazarus (Etkik d. Judenthums [ 98], 231) notes that Talm. K3? has a narrower reference than the biblical 37 ? and desig nates the inward disposition as distinguished from external acts.

4 In b read, with Chajes, rnj/JV X 1 ? TT nncra. Deep sorrow incapacitates a man for sympathy with the joys of others. Frankenberg reads jilt ( v/3pi) for "11 ; but the result is not simple enough for a proverb.

As to Ps. 51 10 [12], the true sense of this religiously important passage is shown by Ezek. 11 ig/. 1831 36 26 f. , where a new heart, or a heart of flesh, is the organ of that new life which Israel is to lead in the ideal age. A clean heart is therefore a pure conscience and character. The consciousness of being free from guilt had often been possessed by the early Israelites tem porarily as a consequence of the due performance of ritual forms ; but the future Israelites would possess it permanently, because they would have a moral organ which would guard them against displeasing their righteous and holy God.

Such a clean heart is otherwise described as a steadfast spirit (R Vmg. ; cp Ps. 78 8 37, EV a right spirit ) by which the Psalmist must mean a steady impulse towards all that is good. For the sense of conscience see also Job 276, EV my heart doth not reproach me (?), and especially i K. 838 where EV s rendering, every man the plague of his own heart," should rather be every man a stroke in (lit. of) his own conscience. 1 The idea is that God not only strikes the body or the possessions of a sinner, but forcibly touches his heart, or conscience, with conviction of sin (see Klo., Ki.).

In the books admitted into the Heb. canon (for the Apocrypha cp Wisd. 7 n Ecclus. 42 18 [K]) has the proper Greek term for conscience, ffweiSricris, only once viz. in Eccles. 10 20, where the Hebrew text has the late word jno- 1 It is, however, common in NT, though it occurs only once in the Gospels (Jn. 89 in a disputed section). For the sense of character, see also Jer. 12s, Thou hast tried my heart ; Ps. 7 9 [10] i Thess. 24.

Here we find ourselves on the line of progress to NT religion. The Pauline epistles give the heart a central position in the moral nature of man. It has the power of immediate perception of the spiritual truths revealed by God s spirit. God, we are told, has shone in the hearts of Christians to give the light of the knowledge of the divine glory (2 Cor. 46) ; we even meet with the strange expression the eyes of your heart (Eph. 1x8). Here the heart is in fact almost a Hebraistic synonym for that reason or understanding (vovs or didvoia) which is the responsive element in man to the divine spirit (cp GNOSIS, 5). The germ of this representa tion, however, is to be found in the teaching of Jesus. 1 Happy are the pure in heart, for they will see God (Mt. 58). Indeed, the entire Sermon on the Mount im presses the necessity of keeping the heart pure and in constant contact with God and with heavenly things as the condition of pure morality. This again is but the clearer expression of the OT view that it is affinity of character that brings a man near to God ; and that the moral and spiritual life which produces character is seated in the innermost part of man i. e. , in his heart. T. K. c.

1 y-|g, however, in Eccles., I.e., is probably corrupt; Perles reads T]VXD3, on thy couch.

2 The same form occurs as an adj. = naked in Ps. 102 17 [18] ; but cp Che. Ps.W RV m e- tamarisk ( ar dr, TlTll?; 2 AfPlQ- MYRIKH, Jer. 176 48 6f). The Heb. word may be connected with sJ~Tty, signifying nakedness, and so point to the stunted appearance of the plant (see below).


For (i) PIK, ah (ecXARA I arula), Jer. Z22S.;(2)-\V3,kiyy3r, Zech. 126 RV pan (of fire) (SoAdj, caminuni) ; (3) "IpID, nwked, Ps. 102 3 [4] (<piryioi / , cremium, i.e., dry wood), RV firebrand ; plur. HplD> vtokfde, Is. 33 14, EV burnings, see COAL, 3.

Lev. 6 9 [2] is difficult (see below) ; RV on the hearth, RVmg. on its firewood ; neither is right. The small Q proceeds from an ancient corrector (cp the small j in Is. 44 14) and (as in Is. I.e.) is conjectural. Read "Bp*n"7y, on the fire (see 4) ; the letters nip n were accidently misarranged as rnpV> and a corrector changed < into Q (suggested by SS).

4- ""P T i yakftd, Is. 30i4t (BKAQP om., a l. [see Field] Kavcrrpa, incendiiini) ; the fire burning on the hearth.

On the hearth of God, Is. 29 i (RVmg.), see ALTAR, ARIEL; on the cakes upon the hearth of Gen. 186 see BREAD, 2 (a) ; on the hearthstones of Ezek. 4043 (AV">g-) see HOOK, 7.


The form iiro fr, ~\V\~\y in Jer. 486 for which BNAQ re ad ~fnj} (implied in ovos aypios) is most naturally explained as a broken plural of ar dr^ (Hitz. Jes. 201, Lag. Sent. 130); Barth s view of it as a sing, adjectival form (NB 160) is less likely. Tamarisk is the rendering of BNAQ in Jer. 176 (d-ypio/xvpi io) [BNAOJ), of Aq. in Jer. 176 (in 486 juvpt ici)) and of Vg. ; Tg. has in the former place NjV21DJ7 = < * A f>, edible thistle, but in the other takes aro er to be a proper name (so Sym. aporjp) ; Pesh. simply renders by root in both places.

The plant intended is almost certainly a juniper, as that is the meaning of Ar. ardr, and the most likely sort is, according to Tristram (NHD 358), the Juni- perus Sabina L. , or Savin. This tree abounds on the rocks above Petra, where as Robinson (BR 2.y&] says, it grows to the height of 10 or 15 feet, and hangs upon the rocks even to the summit of the cliffs and needles.

Its gloomy stunted appearance, with its scale-like leaves pressed close to its gnarled stem, and cropped close by the wild goats, gives great force to the contrast suggested by the prophet. Tristram adds, There is no true heath in Palestine S. of the Lower Lebanon. Hooker states that this particular plant is still called ar ar by the Arabs. See also AKOER.

[The ardr, or juniper, has been found in i S. 20 19 f. 41, (crit. emend.), where David is said to have sat down beside a juniper tree, while Jonathan shot arrows at three prominent rocks near. The passage gains in picturesqueness. (ms D sn in v. 20 should be D"JS ; ms was originally DHS, and intended as a correction of jysn : see Che. Crit. Bib. and cp EZEL.)]

N. M.


(D ijl ; e9NH)- The rendering is plainly wrong in AV of Lev. 2644 2645, but is admissible when goyim or ZOvr) is used of nations whose religion is neither Jewish, nor Jewish -Christian, nor Christian, with consciousness of this fact.

cp Sanderson (1627), 'Abimelech, an heathen-man, who had not the knowledge of the true God of heaven to direct him' ; Caxton, Pref. to Malory's Arthur (1485), 'in al places crysten and hethen'. Possibly the Gothic original of heathen may be traced to Armenian het anos, an adaptation of Gk. fdvos, though the stem-vowel seems to have been assimilated to Gothic haiyi heath (Murray, New Eng. Diet.). See GENTII.E, 2.


On the various Hebrew conceptions of a heaven as the abode of supernatural beings and (later) of the risen dead, see ESCHATOLOGY, and cp EARTH AND WORLD, EARTH [FOUR QUARTERS], PARADISE.

The usual Hebrew term is DT!tt> (plur., not dual ; ovpacos), but heaven is used also by AV to render 7373 Ps. 77 i8[ig] (RV, whirlwind, see WINDS), and pro? Ps. sOe [7] 37 [38] (RV sky ). In the NT besides ovpavos and eiroupapiot the only feature which calls for remark is the reference to a belief in a plurality of heavens (rd tirovpavia., Eph. l32o263io, etc.), probably due to Persian influence ; see especially Charles, Secrets of Enoch, xxx-xlvii.

1 Of the {ormfa dlil (Wright s Arab. Gram., 305).


(croixeiA). 2 Pet. 3 10 12 RV "S- See ELEMENTS, 2.


(TO-Tiri, primitia; ; Ex. 29 27, etc. ). See SACRIFICE, and cp TAXATION AND TRIBUTE.


, Josh. 1929 RV m *- See AHLAB, n.


(inn, but in Nu. 26 4 5 ; X <*Bep [BAL] ; see NAMES, 70).

i. The husband of JAEL (q-v. ), and head of a Kenite sept which separated from the main body of the tribe (see KENITES), and in the course of its nomadic wander ings went as far north as a certain sacred tree near Kedesh (see ZAANAIM, THE PLAIN OF) ; Judg. 4n (ol TrXijcrioj [B]) 1721. In Judg. 624 (xaXe/3 [A]) he has been introduced by a glossator. WMM (As. ti. Eur. 174, cp 193) connects <yp with Kina, mentioned in the Pap. Anastasi, and apparently situated E. of Megiddo (see Jensen, Z A 10 355 f., and cp AMALEK). Thus there is an apparent coincidence between Heber of Kina, and the eponym of the neighbouring tribe of Asher (see 2 below). See ENGANNIM, JETHRO.

2. The eponym of an Asherite clan; Gen. 4(5 17 (P) (xoj3u>p [A], -/3oA [Z>], -/Sop [L]); Nu. 2645 (xP*P [BAFL]); and i Ch. "t^if. (yaftep [B v. 31], iexo/fcp [LJ). The clan is called the Heberttes in Nu. 26 45 ("nnrr ; xo/M ) [BAFL]). Jastrow connects this name with the Habiri of the Amarna tablets (cp his view on MAI.CHIEL, g.v.) \JBL 11 ns^fl, Ylbiff. ; so also Hommel, AHT, 235 260 n. This is problematical. See ASHER, i.

3. A clan in Judah, the father of Socoh (i Ch. 4 18 : aStiaa [B], a/3ep [AL]). 1 See SOCOH, i.

4. A Benjamite (i Ch. 8 17 ; a/Sop [BA], a/3tp [L]).

5. i Ch. 613. See EBER (3).

6. i Ch. 8 22. See EBER (4).

7. Lk. 3 35. See EBER (i). S- A . c


1. Name 'Hebrew'.[edit]

The name Hebrew (Lat. Hebraus ; Gr. eBp&lOc) is a transcription of ebrdya, the Aramaic equivalent of the original OT Hebrew 6 word ^^ ibr pl. 'ibrim', which is the proper gentilic name of the people who also bore the collective name of Israel or Children of Israel (B'ne Israel). The name of Israel with its sacred associations in the patriarchal history is that by which the OT writers prefer to designate their nation ; and this circumstance, combined with the fact that the term Hebrews is frequently employed where foreigners are introduced as speaking or spoken to (e.g. , Ex. 26 i S. 469 Gen. 40is Ex. 3i8), has led to the conjecture that the name of Hebrews (men from the other side, scil. of the Euphrates) was originally given to the descendants of Abraham by their Canaanite neighbours, and con tinued to be the usual designation of the Israelites among foreigners, just as the Magyars are known to other Europeans as Hungarians (foreigners), as we call the High- Dutch Germans (warriors), or as the Greeks gave the name of Phoenicians to the people that called them selves Canaanites. 3 A closer view of the case, does not confirm this conjecture.

[Stade s theory, however, that the Israelites were called Hebrews, after their passage of the Jordan, in contradistinction to the other West- Jordamc peoples, though connected with a historical theory not borne out by the (later) Israelite tradition is still maintained by its author, Akad. Rcden, 99, p. no. As to the Habiri of Am. Tab.,Wi. (Kohut Memorial Studies, 604^; cp GI\i%ff.) defends the view that the people so-called are nomads from the other side of the Jordan, such as the Suti or pre- Aramaic Redawins of the Syrian desert. These nomads were the earlier Hebrews. But cp Hommel, AHT, vyiff., 258^] 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 Abd-hiba 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 doubtful, 4 whereas the name of Israel appears on the stone of Mesha, king of Moab (/. 7), and perhaps has been deciphered on Assyrian monuments. 5 [On the occur rence of this name in an old Egyptian inscription, see EXODUS i-, 2, 9.]

The form ibrl is, in the language of Semitic gram marians, a relative noun, presupposing the word Eber as the name of the tribe, place, or common ancestor, from whom the Hebrews are designated. See EBER.

Accordingly we find Eber as a nation side by side with Assyria in the obscure poetical passage Nu. 24 24, and Eber as ancestor of the Hebrews in the genealogical lists of Gen. \Qf. Here we must distinguish two records. 6 According to Gen 11 (and Gen. 1024) Eber is the great-grandson of Shem through Arphaxad, and the ancestor of Terah through Peleg, Reu, Serug, and Nahor. These are not to be taken as the names of individual 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 Arrapachitis (see, however, ARPHAXAD), through which a migration from Ararat to the lands occupied by the Semites in historical times would first pass, suggests the prob ability that the genealogy is not even meant to exhibit a table of ethnological affinities, but rather presents a geographical sketch of the supposed early movements of the Hebrews, who are personified under the name of Kber. If this is so, we can hardly venture to assert (with some scholars) that the author of the list (the Priestly Writer) extended the name of Hebrews to all descendants of Terah.l

The case is different with another (doubtless older) record of which a fragment seems to be preserved in Gen. 10 21 25-30. Here there is no intermediate link between Shem and Eber. Sons of Shem and sons of Eber appear to be co-extensive ideas, and to the latter are reckoned not only the descendants of Peleg (Aramaeans, Israelites, Ishmaelite Arabs, etc.), but also the South Arabian tribes of Joktan.

As to the etymological origin of the name of Hebrews we have an early statement in Gen. 14 13, where <ADL renders Abram the Hebrew [see Di.] by 6 irepaTt)*, the crosser. 2

Grammatically more accurate, while resting on the same ety mology, is the rendering of Aquila, 6 TrepaiVqs, the man from the other side of the Euphrates, which is the explanation of Jewish tradition (/>Vr. /?., and Rashi) ; cp Ew. <5/( 3 ) 1 407 f. (ET, 1 284).

Steiner, however, takes eber in the Arabic sense of a river bank, and makes the Hebrews dwellers in a land of rivers (Bib. -Lex. 2613). This goes well with Peleg (watercourse), as in Arabia we have the district Falag, so named because it is furrowed by waters (Sprenger, Geog. Arab. 234). Cp EBER.

1 For these forms we may compare the way in which the river "linn is in one place transliterated x<*/3<op and in another a/3tp.

2 Hebrew literature is dealt with in the following articles: POETICAL LIT., HISTORICAL LIT., PROPHETICAL LIT., LAW LIT., WISDOM LIT., EPISTOLARY LIT. On the labours of the Massoretes see WRITING, TEXT.

3 See especially Ges. Gescli. der htb. Sfrache u. Sclirift, t)f. ; more recently Kautzsch in Riehm s HWB.

4 See EGYPT, 61 ; EPHKAIM, i.

8 Schr., KG 359 536 ( 78), defends this not undisputed reading; cp AHAB, 4.

6 See De Goeje in Th.T, 70, p. 243 ; and We. in Jahrbb. f. D. Tkeol., 76, p. 395.

2. Name 'Hebrew language'.[edit]

By the 'Hebrew language' we understand the ancient tongue of the Hebrews in Canaan the language in which the OT is composed, with the exception of the Aramaic passages (Jer. 10:11 Ezra 4 8 6 18 7 I2 26 Dan 2:4-7:28) " We do not find, however, that this language was called Hebrew by those who spoke it. It is the lip i.e. speech of Canaan (Is. 19 18), or, as spoken in southern Palestine, jvii.v, Jewish (2 K. 1826 [|| Is. 36 n] Neh. 1824). The later Jews call it the holy tongue (nth enpn) in contrast to 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 expression in Hebrew (e/Spai or*) first occurs (Prologue to Sirach) ; and both in the Apocrypha and in the NT the ambiguous term, naming the language after those who used it, often denotes the contemporary vernacular, not the obsolete idiom of the OT. The other sense, however, was admissible (e.g., Rev. 9n, and so fre quently in Josephus), and naturally became the prevalent one among Christian writers who had little occasion to speak of anything but the OT Hebrew. 3 See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE.

1 The Terahites, according to other testimonies, are Aramaeans (Gen. 22 2 o/ ; Dt. 26 3) ; but the Priestly Writer, who cannot be pre-exilic, makes Aram a separate offshoot of Shem, having nothing to do with Eber (Gen. 10 22^).

, 2 9^rl erome Qu<*st- ffebr., on the passage, and Theodoret, Qu. LXI. in Gen.

3 The term Hebrew language seems to have originated with the Greeks or Hellenists. Philo, however, calls the language of

3. Semitic languages.[edit]

Hebrew is a language of the group which, since Eichhorn, has generally been known 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.

The fundamental unity of the Semitic vocabulary is easily observed from the absence of compounds (except in proper names) and from the fact that almost all words are derived from their roots in definite patterns (measures] as regular as those of grammatical inflection. The roots regularly consist of three consonants (seldom four or five), the accompanying vowels having no radical value, but shifting according to grammatical rules to express various embodiments of the root idea.

The triliteral roots are substantially common to the whole Semitic group, subject to certain consonantal per mutations, of which the most important are strikingly 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 by sibilants, as follows :

Arabic th = Hebrew- Assyrian sh; Ar. dh =Heb.-Ass. z; Ar. s =Heb.-Ass. ss; Ar. dd =Heb.-Ass. ss.

In most of the Aramaic dialects the first three of these sounds are represented by t, d, and tt respectively, while the fourth is usually changed into the guttural sound y. But it would appear from recent discoveries that in very ancient times some at 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 n (cp ARAMAIC, 2, beginning, and see below, 6).i

4. Their inflection.[edit]

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. In its origin almost every root expresses something that can be grasped by the senses.

The mechanism by 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 at least con veying the distinct suggestion of some sensible notion. For example, the names of passions depict their physiological ex pression j to confer honour means also to make heavy, and so on.

The same concrete character, the same inadequacy 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 of particles, in the scanty pro vision for the subordination of propositions, which deprives the Semitic style of all involved periods and reduces it to a succession of short sentences linked by the simple copula and.

The 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. The 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 has 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, and, 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 is 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 triliteral roots has grown out of an earlier biliteral system which, so far as it can be reconstructed, must form the basis of scientific inquiry into the ultimate affinities of the Semitic group. 2

1 [See Cook, Aramaic Glossary, s. j, jj, p, .]

2 Renan, Hist, des Langues Sent., sketches the history of research in this direction. Noteworthy are the remarks of Lagarde, Symmicfa, 121. On survivals from the biliteral stage, see Nold. Mand. Gram. 96.

5. Age of Hebrew.[edit]

Before the rise of comparative philology it was a familiar opinion that Hebrew was 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 tongue. 1

Till recent times many excellent scholars (including Ewald) claimed for Hebrew the greatest relative antiquity among Semitic tongues. It 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 endings, 2 in the use for feminine nouns of the afformative t, which in the northern dialect has passed through h (originally audible as in Egyptian Arabic) into a mere vowel, in the more extensive range of passive and modal forms, and in other refinements of inflection, Arabic represents no later development, but the original wealth and primitive subtlety of Semitic speech, as appears not only from fragmentary survivals in the other dialects, but also from an examination of the process of decay which has brought the spoken Arabic of the present day into a grammatical condition closely parallel to the 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, Co>np. Grant. ; Driver, Tenses (.App. iii.); and N pldeke s art. Semitic Languages in EBW, published separately in German, with some additions (Die sent. Sprachen, 87 ;< 2 ), 99)-]

1 Theodoret (Qutest. in Gen. 11), Barhebrseus, and others cited by Assemani, Bib. Or. iii. 1314. The same opinion appears among the Babylonian Jews (Rab in Synh. 38^). Conversely, Jacob of Sarug concedes the priority of Hebrew (see ZDMG 25 520). The Arabs, whose language is in many points older than either, yield priority to Hebrew(Abulfeda, HA 18), or to Syriac (Tabari, 1 220; Abu Isa in Abulfeda, 148), the language of the race to which they owed their first knowledge of letters.

- That the case endings in classical Arabic are survivals of a very ancient system of inflection can hardly 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 versil. These apparent anomalies are probably relics of a time when the use of the case-endings was determined by principles which differed, to a considerable extent, from those known to the Arabic grammarians.

6. Earliest Hebrew.[edit]

The 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. We know this so far as the Moabite language is concerned from the stone of Mesha ; and the indications furnished by proper names, as well as 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 Phoenicians and Canaanites, with whom the Israelites acknowledged no brotherhood, spoke a language which, at least as written, differs but little from biblical Hebrew. This observation has been used in support of the very old idea that the Hebrews originally spoke Aramaic, and changed their language in Canaan. An exacter study of the Phoenician 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. In 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 in many respects closely akin to Hebrew. 1 [Certain inscriptions, moreover, recently discovered at 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. 2 ]

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. The existence of local differences of speech is proved by Judg. 126 ; 3 but the attempt to make out in the OT records a Northern and a Judaean dialect, or even besides these a third dialect for the Simeonites of the extreme S. 4 has led to no certain results. I n general it may be said that the OT text supplies inadequate data for studying the history of the language. Semitic writing, especially a purely consonantal text such as the OT originally was, gives an 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, 9, and WRITING) 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 NAMES, $f.). This modern system being applied to all parts of the OT alike, many archaisms were obliterated or disguised, and the earlier and later writings present in the received text a grammatical uniformity which is certainly not original. It is true that occasional consonantal forms inconsistent with the accompany ing vowels have survived especially in the books least read by 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 to argue as if we possessed the original form of the texts (cp WRITING).

1 See Stade s essay on the relation of Phoenician and Hebrew, Morgenlandische Forschungen ( 75), with Noldeke s criticism, ZDMG, 29325; also the latter s article, Sprache, hebraische, in BL, 6362^".

2 One of these inscriptions, set up by Panammu, king of Ya di, probably dates from the ninth or the beginning of the eighth century B.C. Two other inscriptions set up by a king named Bar-Rekiib, belong to the latter half of the eighth cen tury. See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE, 2 ; in addition to the works on the subject which are there specified, the reader may consult Lidzbarski s Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik (Wei mar, 98), p. 440/

3 On the difficulty of drawing precise inferences from this narrative see Marq. ZATIW&, pp. 151-155.

4 Bottch. Lehrb. d. hebr. Sprache, \T.T,/. ( 66).

5 Details in Ryssel, De Elohistte Pentateuchi Sermonc (Leip- sic, 78), the most important collection of materials since Gesenius, Gesch. der hebr. Spr. u. Schrift(t^).

6 An argument to the contrary drawn by Jewish interpreters from Neh. Ss rests on false exegesis.

7. Hebrew yields to Aramaic.[edit]

The chief historical changes in the Hebrew language which we can still trace are due to Aramaic influence. The Northern Israelites were in immediate contact with Aramaean populations and some Aramaic loan words were used, at least in Northern Israel, from a very early date. At the time of Hezekiah Aramaic seems to have been the usual language of diplomacy spoken by the statesmen of Judah and Assyria alike (2 K. 1826). 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 Judaea increasing signs of Aramaic influence appear before the Exile. 8 The fall of the Jewish kingdom accelerated the decay of Hebrew as a spoken language. Not 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 (1824) in the middle of the fifth century B.C. 6 After the fall of Jerusalem, however, the petty Jewish people were in daily intercourse with a surrounding Aramaean 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 Nabatceans whose inscriptions in the Hauran are written in Aramaic. Thus Hebrew as a spoken language gradually yielded to its more power ful neighbour, and the style of the latest OT 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). The Chronicler no longer thoroughly understood the 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 200 B.C., Jesus the son of Sirach (Ben Slra), 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 Slra 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 OT (e.g. , 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 ECCLESI ASTICUS.

8. Scholastic Hebrew.[edit]

Several other books of the Apocrypha appear to be translated from Hebrew originals - Judith, i Macc. - the last according to the express testimony of Jerome. It 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 to speak in Hebrew ; but they could not resist the influence of the Aramaic vernacular, and indeed made no attempt to 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 and constructions a suitable vehicle for their favourite pro cesses of legal dialectic. Thus was developed a new scholastic Hebrew, the language of the wise (o Djn pvh), preserving some genuine old Hebrew words which 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. The chief monument of this dialect is the body of traditional law called the Mishna, which is formed of materials of various dates, but was collected in its present form about the close of the second century A.D. (see LAW LITERATURE).

[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 is 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.]

The doctors of the subsequent period still retained some fluency in the use of Hebrew ; but the mass of their teaching preserved in the Gemara is Aramaic. 1

The language of the Mishna has been described by Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebnch zu.- Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau, 45); L. Dukes, Die Sprache der Mischna (F.sslingen. "46) and Zur rabbinischen Sprachkunde (Vienna, 51); J. H. Weiss, Mish- fat L shdn ham-Mishna (Vienna, 67).

1 See ^ashzx^ieAggadaderbcibyloniscltenAmoraer^lrtt- burg, 79), for many illustrations of the Hebrew scholarship of the Gemarists.

9. Grammatical study[edit]

During the Talmudic period nothing was done for the grammatical study of the old language ; but there was a traditional pronunciation for the synagogue, and a traditional interpretation of the sacred text. The earliest monument of Jewish interpretation is the Septuagint ; but the final form of traditional exegesis is embodied in the Targums or Aramaic paraphrases, especially in the more literal Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, which are often cited by the Talmudic doctors. Many things in the language of the OT were already obscure, and the meaning of words was discussed in the schools, sometimes by the aid of legitimate analogies from living dialects, 1 but more often by fantastic etymological devices such as the Notarikon, or use of analogies from shorthand.

The invention and application of means for preserving the traditional text and indicating the traditional pro nunciation are spoken of elsewhere (see WRITING, TEXT).

The 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 Fayyum, Menahem ben Sarug, etc. ). 2 Then, early in the eleventh century, came the acknowledged fathers of mediaeval Jewish philology, the grammarian Judah surnamed Hayyug, discoverer of the system of triliteral roots, 3 and the lexicographer Abulwalld Mervvan ibn Ganah (Rabbi Jonah), who made excellent use of Arabic analogies as well as of the traditional material. 4

A succession of able scholars continued their work, of whom the most famous are Abraham ben Mei r of Toledo, surnamed Ibn Ezra also written Aben Ezra (1092-1167), a man of great originality and freedom of view ; Solomon Isaaki of Troyes, called Rashi (i.e., R[abbenu] Sh[elomoh] Y[ishaki]) and some times by error Jarchi i.e., of Lunel (HT> Muna ) (died 1105), whose writings are a storehouse of traditional lore ; and David Kjmhi of Narbonne, called Radak (circ. 1200), 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 Elias Levita and others of his age transmitted the torch to the Christian uni versities.

[The Jewish Encyclopedia, 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 con tributed by Prof. G. F. Moore.] W. R. S. A. A. B.

1 See B. Rosh hash-Shana, 26 b ; Del. on Ps. 5623124] and Is. 1423-

2 The connecting link between the Massoretes and the gram marians is Rabbi Aaron ben Mosheh ben Asher, whose Dikdukt hat-Tamim has been published by Baer and Strack (Leips. 79).

3 See his Two Treatises, edited by Nutt, London, 70.

4 His Book of Roots, in Arabic, edited by Neubauer, Oxford, 1875.


(D r ai?n), Gen. 40 15 etc. See above and cp ISRAEL, i.


1. Title.[edit]

The NT writing usually known under the name of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or, less correctly, as the Epistle of Paul the apostle to the Hebrews, bears in the oldest MSS no other title than the words npOC eBpMOyc [so Ti. WH , etc. ], 'To 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 in 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 date] 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 time we must not suppose, as has sometimes been supposed, that the author prefixed these words to his original manuscript. The title says no more than that the readers addressed were Christians of Jewish extrac tion, and this would be no sufficient address for an epistolary writing (1822) directed to a definite circle of readers, a local church or group of churches to whose history repeated reference is made, and with which the author had personal relations (181923). The original address, which according to custom must have stood on the 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.

2. Authorship: history of opinions[edit]

With this it agrees that the early Roman church - where the epistle was known about the end of the first century where indeed the first traces of the use of it occur (Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas) - had nothing to contribute to the question of authorship 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 Irenaeus of Lyons) knew our book and declared that it was not Pauline.

The earliest positive traditions of authorship to which we can point belong to Africa and Egypt, where, as we have already seen, divergent views were current by the end of the second century, i. The African tradition preserved by Tertullian (De Pudicitia, 20), but certainly not invented by him, ascribes the epistle to 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 only from Tertullian, and 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 by the German critics, among whom at present it is the favourite view [see below, 4, n].

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 Pantaenus (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 614).

This blessed presbyter, as Clement calls him, sought to explain why Paul did not name himself as usual at the head of the epistle, and found the reason in the modesty of the author, who, in addressing the Hebrews, was going beyond his commis sion as apostle to the Gentiles. Clement himself takes it for granted that an epistle to the Hebrews must have been written in 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.

Origen rests on the same tradition, which he refers to the ancient men ; but he knows that the tradition is not common to all churches. He feels that the language is un-Pauline, 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, and 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 Luke ; but the truth, says Origen, is known to God alone (Eus. 625, cp 838). It is not surprising that these limitations of the tradition 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 questioned when men began to look at the facts of the case.

Even those who, like Jerome and Augustine, knew the varia tions of tradition, were unwilling to press an opposite view ; and in the fifth century the Pauline authorship was accepted at Rome, and practically throughout C iristendom, not to be again disputed till the revival of letters and the rise of a more critical spirit.

It was Erasmus who indicated the imminent change of opinion.

Erasmus brings out with great force the vacillation of tradition and the dissimilarity of the epistle from the style and thoughts of Paul in his concluding annotation on the book. 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 taught to him by man but was by direct revelation (Gal. 1 nyC), could not have written Heb. Z$f. 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.

The 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 criticism 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.

The arguments against the Alexandrian tradition are in fact conclusive.

3. Not by Paul.[edit]

It is probably unfair to hamper that tradition with Clement's notion that the book is a translation from the Hebrew. This monstrous hypothesis received its reductio ad absurdum in the attempt of J. H. R. Biesenthal to reconstruct the Hebrew text (Das Trostschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Hcbriier, kritisch iviederhergestellt, etc., 78). Just as little, however, can the Greek be from Paul's pen.

The un-Pauline 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 type of thought is quite unique. The theological ideas are cast in a different mould ; and the leading conception of the high-priesthood of Christ, which is no mere occasional thought but a central point in the author s conception of Christianity, finds its nearest analogy not in the Pauline epistles but in John 17 19. 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 is 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 schools. 1

The 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 argument from 23_/T, which appeared decisive to Luther and Calvin, has been referred to already ( 2). Again, we read in 13ig that the writer is absent from the church which he addresses, but hopes to be speedily restored to them. This expression is not to be understood as implying that the epistle was written in prison, for 1823 shows that the author is master of his own movements. 2

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. The 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 Roman 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 origin forgotten. In spite of its divergences from the standard of Pauline authorship, the book has manifest Pauline affinities, and can hardly have originated beyond the Pauline circle, to which it is referred, not only by the author s friendship with Timothy (1823), but also by many unquestionable echoes of the Pauline theology, and even by distinct allusions to passages iu Paul s epistles.

In an 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, To the Romans, To the Cor inthians, and the like. 2 A similar history, as Zahn has pointed out, attaches to the so-called second epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

1 For the Alexandrian elements in the epistle, consult the list of passages in Hilgenfeld s Einleitung 384, n. (Leipsic, 75). A large mass of valuable material is collected in J. B. Carpzov s Sacm Exercitafioties in Ef>. ad Heb. ex Phi lone Alexandrine (Helmstadt, 1750). [Von Soden (Handcomm. 4) gives addi tional instances of dependence on Philo, and proves the literary influence also of the Wisdom of Solomon ; cp Plumptre in Expositor, ist ser. vol. i. ( 74).]

2 In 1034 the true reading is not of me in my bonds, but on them that were in bonds (TOI? iea^iiois or/peTraflrja aTe). The false reading, which was that of Clement of Alexandria, is probably connected with the tradition that Paul was the author.

4. Other suggestions.[edit]

When we see that the tradition which names Paul as author does not possess an authentic historical basis, we are necessarily carried on to deny historical authority to the subsidiary conjectures or traditions which speak of Luke and Clement of Rome.

The history of the Alexandrian tradition shows that these names were brought in merely to lessen the difficulties attaching to the view that Paul wrote the book exactly as we have it.

The name of Luke seems to be a conjecture of the Alexandrian Clement, for it has no place in the tradition received from his master.

Origen attaches no importance to either name. Some had mentioned one, and some the other ; God alone knows the truth. We have no reason to think more highly of these suggestions than Origen did. Indeed, no Protestant scholar now proposes the name of Clement, whose extant epistle to the Corinthians shows his familiarity with 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 parallels between our epistle and the Lucan writings (Comm. 57 ; ET, 68- 7o). The arguments of Delitzsch are generally met with the objection that our 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 book in thought and method as well as expression.

The theory that Luke was the independent author of the epistle (Grotius and others) has no right to appeal to antiquity, and must stand entirely on the very inadequate grounds of internal probability afforded by language and style.

If Alexandria fail us, can we suppose that Africa preserved the original tradition? This is a difficult question. The intrinsic objections to authorship by Barnabas are not important.

The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was not written by our author ; but then it is admittedly not by Barnabas. The superior elegance of the style of pur epistle as compared with that of Paul is not inconsistent with Acts 14 12 ; 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 below, 8). On the other hand, it is hard to believe that the correct account of the authorship of our book was preserved only in Africa, and in a tradition so isolated that Tertullian seems to be 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 the idea of Barnabas as an author ; that the true tradition might perish the more readily in other parts of the church after the name of Barnabas had been falsely attached to another epistle dealing with the typology of the ceremonial law ; and finally, that the false epistle of Barnabas, which was first so named in Alexandria, may there have carried 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 Ao-yos TrapaxA/jcreajs (Heb. 1822) was ascribed to the uibs 7rapaJcA.7j<Teios (Acts 436) in the same way as Ps. 127 was ascribed to Solomon, the beloved of the Lord (2 Sam. 12z4yC), from the allusion in 1272, than that this coincidence of expression affords a confirmation of the Barnabas hypothesis.

In 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 on internal evidence. See further below, 11.

1 An unambiguous proof that our author had read the epistle to the Romans seems to lie in 1030. This is the one OT citation of the epistle which does not follow the LXX (Dt. 8235) ; but it is word for word from Rom. 12 19. [The proof is not, however, conclusive. Dependence on Romans cannot be shown elsewhere in the epistle, and this particular citation is found exactly as it is in Onkelos.] Further signs of dependence on Romans and Corinthians (which require sifting) have been collected by Holtzmann (Einl. 332) ; see also Hilgenfeld s Zt. 9 4 /

2 The place of the epistle in MSS varies. The order of EV is that of the Latin Church, the oldest Greek codices placing it before the pastoral epistles. The Latin order, which expresses the original uncertainty of the Pauline tradition, was formerly current even in the East.

5. Original readers : use of OT.[edit]

Being thus thrown back on what the original epistle itself can tell us we must look at 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 be more than doubtful. It is plain, indeed, that the writer is at one with his readers in approaching all Christian truth through the OT.

He and they alike are accustomed to regard Christianity as a continuous development of Judaism, in which the benefits of Christ s death belong to the ancient people of God and supply the shortcomings of the old dispensation (49 9 15 13 12). 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 no 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 become believers in Christ.

The OT is the book of this the true people of God ; it is the original record of the promises which have been fulfilled to it in Christ ; and the institutions of the Old Covenant equally with the histories of the ancient people are types for Christian times.

The difference between Paul and 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, and 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 an Alexandrian, he is bolder in the freedom, rendered possible by the allegorising method, with which he adapts OT pre scriptions to NT times. In the same degree in which our author comes behind Paul in originality and force of character does he rely in a more academic and thoroughgoing manner on the absolute and supreme authority of the OT for Gentile Christians also.

1 [ 5-9 of the present article have undergone very considerable revision, the view that the epistle was originally addressed to Jewish Christians being here abandoned.]

6. Not Jewish Christian.[edit]

The whole tendency of the epistle, however, is against the theory that it was originally addressed to Jewish Christians. That 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 those who are not Jews. Nor could any such warning be necessary in the case of readers who so plainly were at 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 on 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 Migr. Abr. 16, ed. Mangey, 1450), 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 were Jewish Christians who were in danger of going back to Judaism, these are precisely the objects which they would have hoped to realise by taking this step. The exhorta tions expressed in such terms as these would not have been appropriate to their case.

btill more does this hold good of the negative precepts of the epistle. Assuming that they had thoughts of returning to Judaism, how could they have felt themselves touched by a warning not to depart from the living God (3 12), not to reject him that is from heaven (TOI/ an- ovpavtav, 12 25), not to despise so great salvation (2 3), not to sin willingly (10 26), not to tread under foot the Son of God, not to reckon the blood of the covenant an unholy thins;, not to do despite to the spirit of grace (10 2g)? How could they be expostulated with as if their pro posed action proceeded from an-ei tfeia (3 18 4 n), or from an evil heart of unbelief (;i 12), or as if they were being hardened in the deceitfulness of sin (3 13), or in danger from regard to outward show, and from clinging sin (12 i)? How could the OT (Dt. 29 18 [17]) figure of the root of bitterness (12 15), or, still more, that of Esau (12 16), appeal to them ?

Such expressions as these can refer only to an open apostasy from Christianity out of very unworthy motives, and if applied to a proposed return to 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 6 1 f. 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 as contrasted with Judaism.

Nowhere does our author speak a word of warning against participation in heathen sacrifices. As causes of the apostasy that is feared, no prominence is given nor indeed is any mention made of any inclination to legalism. Indeed it was the exact opposite of this that was the temptation of the Israelites in the wilderness with whom the readers are compared (3 i-4 13). Apart from the references to moral infirmity in 12 13, the only positive fault that the author mentions in connection with the lesson drawn from his doctrine to use with diligence the specifically Christian way of access to God (10 19 f.) is a disposition to neglect the privileges of social worship (10 25). This, again, is plainly connected, not with an inclination to return to the synagogue, but with a re laxation of the zeal and patience of the first days of their Chris tian profession (f>i,f. 1032^7 V2if.), 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 12 4 n 6 12).

The writer fears lest his readers fall away not merely from the higher standpoint of Christianity into Judaising practices, but from all faith in God and judgment and immortality (812 6i/!).

What, in fact, threatens to alienate the readers of the epistle from Christianity is the character of the out ward circumstances in 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 (10 32-34) we learn that the readers have been passing through sore persecutions. How long these have lasted is not said ; but the present attitude of the readers is different from what it had been. Once they had kept steadfast ; but now their endurance threatens to give way ; they are in danger of casting away their conhdence. In chap. 11 they are pointed to the examples of a faith that triumphed over every obstacle, and exhorted to a similar conflict, even unto blood, inasmuch as Jesus has gone before them as the beginner and ender of faith (12 if,). The writer grants that their cir cumstances are such as may well make hands listless and knees feeble and souls weary and faint (12 3 12^ 612); but the proper course is to take all this as irau&cia (124-11), to remember the persecuted and imprisoned with true fellow-feeling (13 3), to find strength in recalling the memory of their departed teachers (187), to go forth eftu TTJ? 7r<xp/i/3oATJs i.e., in the allegorising style of the 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, as we have seen, is not the case or the theoretical ground-work on which the hortatory part proceeds must have aimed at 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 (li), and again in 2a 82-6 and elsewhere.

The argument in chaps. 7-10 is not intended to prove the abro gation of the law ; it assumes it and proceeds upon it as an acknowledged fact. The elaborate description of the OT sacri ficial system in 8 1-5 9 i-io 10 1-3 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 manner of proving from the OT the truth of his philosophy and ethics, which he regards as constituting its kernel.

The 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. zCor.Ziof. 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.

The 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.

7. At Jerusalem ?[edit]

The following are the hypotheses as to the place of abode of the readers of the epistle that have been offered. i. To some writers the emphatic 'all' in 1824, the admonitions in 10:25, 18:17, 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. 421 iThes. 626), distinctly contrary to the general tone of the epistle, which moves altogether outside of the antithesis between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. We must think not of a party but of a church, and such a church can be sought only in Palestine, or in one of the great centres of the Jewish dispersion.

That 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 term has this restricted sense, however, only when put in contrast to Hellenists. In 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 above 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 (610). This expression may conceivably have a general sense (i Cor. 16 15?) ; but it is far more likely that it has the specific meaning which it generally bears in the NT viz. , 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 Judaean church took alms and did not give them, receiving in temporal things an acknowledgment for the spiritual things they had imparted (Rom. 15 27). In fact, the great weight laid in the epistles of Paul on this the only manifesta tion of the catholicity of the church then possible (Gal. 2 10) alone explains the emphasis with which our author cites this one proof of Christian feeling.

Again, the expressions in 2s already referred to imply that the readers did 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 (13 7).

This conversion, as it appears from 1032, was a thing of pre cise date immediately followed by persecution (note the aorists <j>ioTi<T0fi>Tfs virefj.fLva.Tf). Accordingly we cannot suppose those addressed to represent a second generation in the Palestinian Churcli ; we are referred to some part of the Diaspora.

Against these difficulties which have led some of the defenders of the Palestinian address, as Grimm (who, in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschr., 70, proposes Jamnia) and Moulton (New Testament Commentary for English headers, vol. iii. , 79) to g ve U P Jerusalem altogether, whilst others, as Riehm, suppose that the Hellenists of Jerusalem (Acts 6 1) are 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 are 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 13, where the exhortation to go forth to Jesus without the camp is taken 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 not include v. 9, and expresses by a figure that Christians (as the priests of the new covenant) have no temporal advantage to expect by their participation in the sacrifice of Christ, but must be content to share his reproach, renouncing this earthly country for the heavenly kingdom (cp 11 16 25-27 with 13 14 Phil. 3 20).

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. In particular it appears that they had not fully understood how the mediatorial functions of the OT were superseded by 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 church was formed (13 7) ; the easy way in which he touches on the meats and drinks and divers washings of Judaism seems to show that on this head he could count on carrying his readers along with him ; and 13 9 hardly refers to sacrifices or to Levitical laws of clean and unclean, but rather to some such form of asceticism (cp 5 4) as is spoken of in Rom. 14 [or, still more probably, to the question discussed in 1 Cor. 8-10, about the eating 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.

8. Alexandria.[edit]

2. This accordingly has led other critics to think of one or other of the centres of the Diaspora. Hofmann suggests Antioch ; Ewald. 1 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 ( Untersuch- ung uber den Hebrderbrief, 2 [ 61]), 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 schismatical temple of Leontopolis. See HERKS, CITY OF.

Wieseler tries to show that in his description of the temple and the functions of the high priests our author diverges from the Judaan pattern and follows peculiarities of the Egyptian temple. This argument, however, rests on a series of improb able assumptions. The supposed peculiarities of Onias s temple are proved by arbitrary exegesis from passages of Philo, who apparently never thought of that temple at all. Nor can it be shown 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.

In the true text of 10 n the high priest is not mentioned, and in 727 the phrase Kaff rfficpav does not mean daily, but on every appointed day," that is, ever again and again.

It is more difficult to understand why in 94 the golden 0uju.io.njpi.oi , 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 Apocalypse of Baruch (6 7, see ed. Charles, p. 168), however, to which Harnack has directed attention (St. Kr., 76, p. 572^), similarly connects the censer with the Holy of Holies, and seems to show that our author here proceeds on a current opinion and has not simply made a slip. 2

For Alexandria no further arguments can be adduced. The use in chap. 11 of 2 Mace. , an 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 at 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, f,f. ) 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.

1 Das Sendschreiben an die Hebriier und Jakotus Rund- schreiben, iibersctzt und erkliirt, Gottingen, 70.

2 The Syriac word in Baruch is Plrma.. To the passages cited by Harnack to establish for this word the sense of censer, not incense altar, may be added Bar AH, ed. Hoffmann, No. 2578; Barhebr. Citron. Eccl. 507; Ezek. 811 (Pesh. and Syr. Hex.).

9. Probably Rome.[edit]

Among Continental scholars the disposition at present is to favour the Roman address.

It is true that as long as the Jewish character of the addressees is maintained there is a great deal to be said against regarding Rome as their home. In 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 to have been a mixed 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 admirably with the assumption that the epistle was directed to Rome, where it was read as early as in the days of Clem. Rom. The salutation by those of Italy (oi curb rfjs IraXlas: 1824) permits the inference that not only the entourage of the writer, but also the readers, 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 both are in the same case that both the writer and those who join in the salutation have their home in Italy. The 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. The atrocities of Nero had been confined to Rome. Chap. 13? could apply very specially to Peter and Paul. If it be thought that the same episode is referred to in 1033, the word 6fa.Tpi!>/j.fi>oi ( made a gazing-stock ) would be intended to be taken literally, i Cor. 4 9, however, leaves room also for a less literal meaning. There is much to be said for the view that there were two persecutions, in the midst of the second of which the readers at present are, although as yet there has been no actual shedding of blood (cp Von Soden, Hebr. vi. ).

On this assumption we should have to think, if Rome be the place, of the reign of Domitian (others suggest that of Trajan). The many coincidences between our epistle and that to the Romans are explained most easily in this way. That Hippolytus no longer has any knowledge about the author of the letter is no objection to the view at present being set forth. The 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 to drop into oblivion, especially when the church was passing through such troublous times. It is impossible to tell whether the writer s hope of one day revisiting the afflicted church was ever realised.

10. Date.[edit]

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. It has been shown in the most conclusive manner, how ever, from the similar use of the present tense in Rabbinical writers as well as 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 be standing or not and the most recent writers, since Holtzmann s discussion of the subject in Schenkel s /libel- Lexikon, 2623 f., generally 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 813 9g, 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 in 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.

11. Literary and theological character.[edit]

The author shows himself fully aware of the intellectual movements of the Christianity of his time (so far as these are known to us). He is acquainted with the theology, and with some of the letters, of Paul ; he shares Paul's view that the followers of Christ are the people of God, the true successors of the people Israel, but 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. The whole problem as to these distinctions has for him disappeared. In seeking to arrive at an intelligent view of the Christian redemp- tion, and at a right appreciation of the relation of the New Covenant to the Old, from which it proceeded and in which it passed through its initial stages, he follows a path entirely his own, and shows himself to be an original thinker in no way dependent on Paul, i Peter, Ephesians, and the writings of Luke show closer affinities with his epistle. Their authors seem all to have been influenced by him ; or at least they move in the same sphere a region of thought which he alone, however, has systematically surveyed and is able to set forth with classical exactness. The movement of primitive Christianity which finds its highest expression in the Fourth Gospel and i John is only the ripest fruit of a growth to the maturing of which his way of looking at things contributed most, next to Paul. The epistle of Clement of Rome shows his dominating influence no less, though in a much more mechanical way ; the one is the shadow of the other.

The author is the most cultured of all the primitive Christian writers, with the possible exception of Luke. He has a rich vocabulary at his command, and uses it with great skill. His epistle is full of rhetoric, and has the character of an urgent address more than of a letter. Cp EPISTOLARY LITERATURE.

The epistle is constructed in accordance with the rules of the later Greek rhetoric : 1 1-4 13, Trpooi /uuov jrpbs evvotav with state ment of the n-poflecris; 414-620, 6ijyT)<ris Trpbs Tn8avoTT\ra ; 7 i- 10 18, ajroSeifis irpbs nt idut ; 1619-1821 en-iXoyo?, deducing the practical conclusions and pressing them home.

The writer is master of the Greek OT, down to minute details, and has thoughtfully and intelligently considered the Jewish ritual system. He is acquainted with Hellenistic literature (Wisdom of Solomon ; cp 3, n. i) and, whether as a diligent disciple or as an independent intellectual kinsman of Philo, understands the Alex andrian method of spiritualising literal facts and appreci ating their significance. His main interest, however, is in religion, not in mere speculation, although in im mediacy of experience and in spiritual depth he cannot compare with Paul.

Although we may not know his name, we have what is better, a piece of spiritual self-portraiture by his own 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 may be - was the leader of those Alexandrian thinkers whose vocation it was to present Christianity in such a form as would admit of its being appropriated by the ancient world of culture, but who at the same 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 at last must it be said ? the kernel was lost sight of and disappeared. For this last result, however, Apollos cannot be held responsible ; on the contrary, in universal history he has the noble distinction of having been the first to lead Alexandria to Bethlehem.

12. Literature.[edit]

A full account of the older literature will be found in Delitzsch's Commentary; and in the great work of Bleek (Der Brief an die Hebrtier erldutert durch Einleitung, Uebersetzung, und fortlaufenden Contmentar: Abth. I., Versuch eincr vollstandigen Einleitung, Berlin, 28; Abth. II., Ueberseizuiig und Commcntar, 36, 40), which has formed the basis for all subsequent work on the epistle, and is an indispensable storehouse of material for the student. Bleek s ultimate views on the exposition of the book may be gathered from the briefer posthumous work edited by Windrath (Elberfeld, 68). To the recent commentaries cited in the course of the article may be added those of Ebrard ( 50; ET, Edinburgh, 53); Tholuck(3) ( 50, ET, Edinburgh, "42) ; Liinemann (>) (Gottingen, 67) ; H. Kurtz (Mitau, 69); B. Weiss in Meyer s Comm.; Westcottl 2 ) ( 92); A. B. Davidson ( 82). For the doctrine of the epistle the most elaborate work is Riehm s very useful Lehrbegrijf des Hebrder- briefs (Ludwigsburg, s^- sg) , with which, in addition to the general works on NT theology by Weiss, Reuss, Beyschlag, Stevens, and others, the reader may compare Ritschl s Ent- stehung der Altkatholischen KircheP), 159 f. (Bonn, 57), Pfleiderer s Paulinismus, chap. 9 (Leipsic, 73, <yo),Urchristen- t/iunt (Berlin, (-), 87), and (for the latest advocate of Barnabas) Ayles, Destination, Date, ami Authorship of the Ep. to the Hebrews ( 99). An excellent summary of the present state of the critical questions bearing on the epistle is given by Zahn in the art. Hebraerbrief in PRE$). w. K. S.-H. v. S.

[Harnack ( Probabilia iib. die Adresse u. den Verfasser des H. -briefs, 1 ZNTW\ 16 ff. [1900]) accepts the results of Zahn (Einl. 2 no ff.) as decisive, viz. that the epistle was addressed to a small circle of Christians (a H ausgemeinde) 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 Aquila. See PRISCA.]


(I Vpn, league [BDB], X eBpo>N [BAL]), one of the oldest and most important cities of S. Judah, supposed to have been founded seven years before Tanis (Nu. 1822, see ZoAN), 1 is the mod. el-Halll (see below), situated about midway between Beer-sheba and Jerusalem.

1. History.[edit]

Little is known of the history of Hebron. According to Josh. 15i3/. it was taken by CALEB [q.v. , 2], who overthrew its three chieftains AHIMAN ( i ), SHESHAI and TALMAI [i] (see ANAKIM), and changed its name from Kirjath-arba (yanx-nnp) to Hebron. This move may probably form part of the Calebite migration from Kadesh in Musri to the N. , fragmentary notices of which may be discovered in JE (see EXODUS i. , 6 ; KADESH i. , 3). 2 Since other clans besides Caleb shared in this move (see JERAHMEEL, KENITES), one is tempted to conjecture that the new name of Kirjath-arba was derived from the confederation of these allies.

On this view the immigrants were of Misrite origin, a supposi tion which may illuminate some obscure details in the patri archal legends which centre around Hebron (see MIZRAIM, 2 b). If, too, our interpretation of the genealogy in i Ch. 234^ be correct (see JARHA, SHESHAN), we actually possess a record of a marriage alliance with older inhabitants of the district.

Karlier than this we can scarcely ascend. The identification of Hebron with the Khibur in the lists of Rameses III., suggested by Sayce (RPP) 6 32 39, HCM 333, cp 336 f.), is most improbable (cp Moore, Judg. 24 n.), nor are we obliged to con nect the name with the Habiri of the Am. Tab., who overran Canaan in the fourteenth century B.C. On the other hand, it is just possible that K irjath- Arba (the earlier name of Hebron) is no other than the Rubfite mentioned in the same records. 3

Under David Hebron attained considerable promi nence. He had already been on friendly terms with its inhabitants (cp i S. 30 31), and on his departure from ZIKLAG he made it his royal city and the base of his operations against Jerusalem (2 S. 2 1-3; see DAVID, 6). Here he is said to have reigned for seven years, his position being rendered secure by alliances with the sur rounding districts (cp DAVID, n, col. 1032). The 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 at the court of his grandfather Talmai 4 in GESHUR (q.v. , 2), made Hebron his centre, and was supported by such prominent S. Judcean officers as Ahithophel (cp GILOH) and Amasa. The result of the rebellion is well known, and when at a later time another revolt occurred, the whole of this district supported the king (2 S. 202; see SHEBA Pl,l]).

Hebron was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch. 11 10), and remained Jewish (cp Neh. 11:25) until it was seized by the Edomites in their movement northwards (see EDOM, 9). It was recovered again by Judas the Maccabee (i Mace. 665 Jos. Ant. xii. 86). During the great war it was taken by Simon Giorides, but was recaptured and burnt by Cerealis, an officer of Vespasian (Jos. BJ iv. 979).

1 Josephus says (BJ iv. 9 7) that it was founded before Memphis and was 2300 years old.

2 Cp Caleb s expedition to Hebron in the oldest account of the story of the spies (Nu. 13) ; see Bacon, Trip. Trad. Ex. 77 ff- Hebron appears, appropriately enough, in the Calebite genealogical lists (i Ch. 2 42).

3 So Hommel, AHT 231, n. 3; see, however, REHOBOTH. The view that the name Kirjath-arba ( city- four ?) is derived from the circumstance that four patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam) were buried here, or that the town was divided into four quarters as was formerly the case with the mod. el- Haiti (ZDMG 12 487 ; Baed.P) 135 speaks of seven quarters) may be mentioned here.

4 The name is identical with that of one of the sons of Anak expelled from Hebron.

The view adopted above rests upon the belief (a) that 2 S. 13-20 has been heavily redacted ; (b) that the rebellion of Absalom happened early in David s reign (cp JOAB, i), previ ous to his wars (2 S. 8 10 ; cp SHOBI); and (c) that the revolt of SHEBA (ii., i) has been artificially appended to the rebellion (see A J S L GisqS. 164 i66_/f. [1900]).

2. Traditions.[edit]

A place of such importance could not be without its traditions, and in the patriarchal representations we find it closely connected with the figure of ABRAHAM (q.v. , 4 [i.]). His son, however (see ISAAC, 5, end), belongs rather to the more southerly district, and though the vale of Hebron (iron ppj?) is once associated with Jacob (Gen. 37 14), it is probable that either the text is corrupt (see JOSEPH, ii- 1 3. where Beeroth is proposed ; cp also EPHRATH, i), or else Hebron has been inserted by a harmonising redactor. 1 Nor does the cycle of Samson-legends con tain any perfectly safe reference to Hebron, for in Judg. 163 we should very possibly read SHARUHEN [q. v.~\. But what better expression of Hebron s primaeval sanctity could there be than Abraham s altar (Gen. 13i8, J), or than the cave of MACHPELAH \q. v. ] where Abraham and Isaac 2 were said to have been buried ; or than the ancient oaks (rather oak ) connected with the name of MAMRE? Accordingly we find Hebron recognised in the time of David as pre-eminently the holy city of Judah 3 ( 2 S. 5 3 15 7 ).

Hebron gave its name to a family of Levites (see next art., and cp GENEALOGIES i., 7 [v.]), and P makes it a city of refuge (Josh. 21 13), and assigns it to the b'ne Aaron (i Ch. 55 [40]).

Later generalising tradition believed that Caleb's conquest of Hebron 4 was due to the initiative of Joshua (Josh. 15 13), or inconsistently made its capture part of a great S. Palestinian campaign in which Joshua took the leading part (Josh. 10 jf.) ; see JOSHUA.

3. Modern town.[edit]

From the time of Josephus onwards the traditional tombs of the patriarchs formed the great attraction of Hebron, and the name Castle of Abra ham from being applied to these struc tures by an easy transition was 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 as Haiti Allah, the friend of God, their name for Hebron is the town of the friend of God, or briefly el-Halll.

The modern town lies low down on the sloping sides of a narrow valley, to the W. of which on the hill Rumtideh lay the ancient Hebron. Still farther to the W. is the traditional oak of Abraham (see MAMRE). To the E. of the hill is the A in Sara, the probable scene of the murder of Abner (see SIRAH, WELL OF). The environs are very fertile. Vineyards and plantations of fruit-trees, chiefly olive-trees, cover the valleys and arable grounds, and it has therefore been customary to seek for ESHCOL [q.v., i] in the neighbourhood (for another view see NEGEH). The chief antiquities of the place consist of ruins of ancient walls on the hill Rumeideh, two large reservoirs (Birket el-Kazzazin and B. es-Suhan) the latter of which has been identified with the pool mentioned in 2 S. 4 12 and the famous Haram which, tradition states, encloses the grave of Machpelah. On the sites of Hebron see PEFQ, 81, pp. 266-271, and on the contents, etc., of the Haram see Conder, PEFQ, 82, p. \^T=-Survey ofW. Pal., Memoirs, 3 333^; cp Tentwork, 2 79-86. S. A. C.

1 So Kue. (Hex. 13, n. 7), Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger.

2 The redactor includes Jacob ; cp Gen. 3V 14 above.

3 Note that in i K. 3 4 Josephus (Ant. viii. 2 i) reads Hebron for Gibeon (see GIBEON, 2).

4 In Judg. 1 10 the deed is ascribed to Judah ; but see Moore, ad loc.


(| n?n ; yeBpcON [BADFL]).

i. b. Kohath, b. Levi (Ex. 618 [P], Nu. 8.19 [P], i Ch. 6i8[3]23i2),eponym of the Hebronites CO pnn 6 xe/3/w>(e)t(s) [BAFL] ; Nu. 827 [P], 26 58 [P] xe/3pw [A], i Ch. 2623, x e Ppw [BAL] 3 o /. ) or B ne Hebron ( i Ch. 1592819) ; see GENEALOGIESI. , 7(v. ). Hebron (see preceding art. , 2 ) was a Levitical city. According to i Ch.26so/. both Hashabiah and Jerijah were Hebronite Levites. The latter s name and position is substantiated by 23 19 ; but the enumeration of the four Levitical subdivisions in 26 23 suggests that Troth as applied to Hashabiah (v. 30) is simply a blunder for DTDj (to the Amramites), or Wj (to the Uzzielites) ; observe that in v. 29 the Izharites are mentioned. 1

2. In iCh. 242 Hebron figures in the Calebite genealogy. See HEBRON i., i, n. 2. S. A. C.


RV EBRON (p2tf), Josh. 19:28, an error for ABDON (q.v. , i. ).


i. The word for a thorn-hedge is !"D-1Dp, mesiikah (|| pin, heiiek, see BRIAR, 6; Mic. "4!; differs) or rtSlB p, mesukkah , (f>pay/j.6t (\\ VI3, gader, see below ; Is. 5st). See AGRICULTURE, 5.

2. T13, gdder, and mi3, gederah, are frequently rendered hedge in AV ; RV substitutes fence in all cases, except in Ps. 8S4o, where hedge is retained, and in iCh. 423, where GEDERAH [q.v., 2] is given.

3. <payiu.ds ( hedge in Mt. 21.33 Mk. 12 i Lk. 1423, parti tion in Eph. 214) is (B s rendering of naiB O > als of TJJ in Nu. 2224 Ezra9g Ps. 623 [4] 8012(13] Prov. 2431 Eccl. 108, and of nVU in Ps. 8940 [41] Nah. 817.


C JH), keeper of the harem of Ahasuerus (D^ ari -Ipb>,~ Esth. 28 [-A., [BXAL/3], v. 15 [BX c - a L|3]) ; in v. 3 called &OH (so Ba., Ginsb. ) Hege, RV 1 "*, RV HEGAI (BANL om. ). The name is probably Persian; Rodiger compares H-ytas, the name of a courtier of Xerxes (Ctesias, Pers. 24).

Marq. Fund. 71, however, noticing that in 23 Esth. L a has ycuyaiou and in ib. 8 /Souycuos, identifies the name with BIGVAI


In w. 14 (Feu [BS c - a L/3], Taios [N*], Te [A]), SHAASHGAZ (livyv, susagazi [Vg. ], sangalgsir [Pesh. ]), the keeper of the concubines (D Bto^ BH nc tr), would appear to be a different personage, although @ B X L reads 7<u[os], thus identifying him with Hegai.


See generally CATTLE.

The EV rendering of (i) mD, pdrdh, in Nu. 19 2 5, etc., Hos. 4 16. In Nu. I.e. for the ritual of the red heifer (ms H3TX, parah adummdh) see CLEAN, 17.

2. tnjyi fgl&h, Gen. 15g Judg. 14i8 Jer. 4620 Hos. lOn; cp 1p3 rhiy< eglatk bdkdr, Dt. 21 3 iS. 102 Is. 7 21, and see EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH.

3. Sd^xaAis, Heb. 9 13 (referring to Nu. 19 2), cp Tob. 1 5, and see CALF, GOLDEN, 2, n. i.


(nK?n ; A.AA.A, [A]), a wife of ASHHUR, the father of Tekoa ; i Ch. 4 5 7 (v. 5, auSa [B], cXaa [L] ; v. 7, Aoafias [B*], 60. [Bb], ( \ ea [L]). See NAARAH.


(D^H ; in v. 17 nipxSn, Kre HO^n ; AjAAM [BA], of which X&A&MA.K [B], x&AA&MA [L], inserted in v. 16 after roy TTOTAMOY. are misplaced variants), 2 a place beyond the river (i.e. , W. of the Euphrates), near which the Syrians under Hadadezer are said to have been defeated by David (28. 10i6/. 3 ; xAAdAMA [L]); probably Aleppo, the Halman of the Assyrian inscriptions. (5 seems to have read the name in Ezek. 47 16 (r)\[f]ia/j, [BAQ]), and assuming this to be correct we might infer that Helam lay between the territory of Damascus and that of Hamath, probably not far from SiBRAiM [f.z/.], which is mentioned just before. This may, have been the view of the translator of (5 in Ezekiel ; but it would be hasty to assume its correctness. The place associated with the traditional defeat of the Syrians (see DAVID, 8t>) must have been some famous and ancient city. Such a place was Aleppo, which is mentioned in Egyptian records between 2000 and 1000 B.C., and by Shalmaneser II. (860-824 B - c - ) to whom it surrendered without a siege, whereupon Shalmaneser sacrificed to Dadda the god of Halman. (So G. Hoffm. , Phon. Inschr. 39 ; Sayce, Crit. Man. 314 ; Peters, Nippur, 1 77.) T. K. C.

1 If we omit the parenthesis in v. 31 ( even of the Hebronites . . . Gilead ), the close similarity between 300: and 320. becomes very striking.

2 Jos. (Ant. vii. 6 3), following L but misunderstanding the expression r ov Svpop, makes Xanana.? the name of the Syrian king.

3 In the parallel passage i Ch. 19 Q^>ri is omitted in v. 16 ; but in v. 17 it has been corrupted into Dn ^N ( unto them ) and also (corruptly) repeated in DTP^M "PSTI ( tne latter is omitted, how ever, by L and the Gr. of the Compl. Polyg.),


(na pn, fat ; cp AHLAB; xeBA& IB], CXeAlAN * [A], eAB& [L]), a Canaanite town within the nominal territory of Asher (Judg. 131, and Josh. 1925 emended text, see HALI). Schrader (KAT, ad loc. ; cp JTBIgof.) and Delitzsch (Par. 284) compare the Mahalliba of the Prism inscription of Sennacherib, and, with Moore, we cannot doubt that they are right. Mahalliba is a Phoenician town mentioned with Sidon, Bit-zitti, Sariptu, Usu, Akzibi, and Akko, and, to judge from the order of the names, must have lain between Sariptu (Zarephath) and Usu (see HOSAH). If we may assume that AHLAB (q.v. ) and Helbah are variations of the same name, this Assyrian inscription gives us reason to think that Helbah is nearer the correct form than Ahlab. T. K. c.


(|ia!?n, X eABo>[N] [BQ], X eBpo)N [A]). the wine of which is noticed by Ezekiel (27 18) as one of the articles exported from Damascus to Tyre, is surely the present Halbun 13 m. NNW. of Damascus in the E. offshoots of Antilibanus. Halbun, whose antiquity is indicated by the Greek inscriptions found in it, lies at the top of the fertile wady 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 Damascus, 1 323^). An inscription of Nebuchadrezzar (I/?. 65, cp JAVAN, i^) speaks of the dedication of wine from (the country of) Hi-il-bu-nim and another Assyrian list of wines (II. R. 44) includes the wine of Hil-bu-nu.

Strabo (15 735) describes the Syrian wine from Halubon, olvov i< Svpi as TOV Xa\vfl<ai>iov as drunk in the court of Persia. The XaAvjSuii- of Ptol. v. 1617 is hardly the same place (see COT 2i2i). Cp further ZDPVZyj, Del. Par. 281, Waddington, Inscr. 25, 526. G. A. S.

1 There is a place of this name in 3 Macc. 4 n, four schoene from Alexandria (Strabo).

2 XOAOAand XOAAA apparently originate fromXOAOA and XOAAA i.e., "in which is probably the correct vocalisation here.

3 V. jo, -riav apxovTuiv [BNAQV]; ^.14, TOi? \monevovaiv [BNAQl ], rots nofjLfvov<riv , Auir. avrov [B a -b]. In v. 14 Symm. apparently read cSh (r<p opojvTi cvviri/ia).


AV Helchias (xeAK(e)ioy [BAL]), i Esd. 8i = Ezra 7i, HILKIAH.


C^pn [probably to be vocalised Holdai or Huldai ; cp readings below, and HULDAH], or perhaps more correctly T?n, Holed, weasel ; cp again HULDAH, and note the form HELED (rather Holed) below, also the Sab. name TTI, in DHM Ep. Denk. 35) ; otherwise we might explain long-lived ; see NAMES, 67 f.

1. b. Baanah the Netophathite, one of David s heroes, in Ch. one of his twelve captains (i Ch. 27 15, x^ fia [K], -Sai [A], oA6ia [L], HOLDAI [Vg.]). The name also appears under the shortened form HEI.ED (i Ch. 1130, iSn, x^aoS [B], \oo8fi [N],2 CAO[ A], OA. [L], HELED [Vg.]), and thecorrupt HELEB (2 S. 23 29, aSn om. B, oAa [A], aAAav [L], HELED [Vg.]).

2. One of a deputation of Babylonian Jews, temp. Zerubbabel, see JOSIAH 2, ZERUBBABEL (Zech. 610, oASo. [Aq.], HOLDAI [Vg.] ; in v. 14, by an error ( "I became D or C), HELEM, D?n, which <& misunderstands 3 ; eAe/u. [Aq. Theod.], helem [Vg.], [Pesh. in both]).


P^n), 2 S.2320. See HELDAI, i.


(*vO), i Ch. 11 30. See HELDAI, i.


(p/H), a Manassite and Gileadite clan (Josh. 172, K eAez[B], <J>eAeK[A], eA. [L] ; Nu. 26 3 o, XeAep [B], -eK [AL], -ex [F] ; patronymic *p?nn, Helekite, Nu. 26 3 o (xeAepei [B], -ei [AFL]). Cp LIKHI.


(D?n). I. A name in a genealogy of ASHER (q.v., 4 ii. and n. ) (i Ch. 7 35).

VHN Q^rrj31 is represented by KOU /3aAaa/x aieA^oi auToO [B], cat vio? eAcm a.S. av. [A], al viol tacrouA a&e\<f>ov av. [L]. In v. 32 the name is HOTHAM (q.v., i).

2. A Babylonian Jew, temp. Zerubbabel (Zech. 614, TOIS ijroiu.eVovo-u [BKAQr]), miswritten for HELDAI ; cp HELDAI, 2.


(ifaj ; MOoA^M [B], M eAed> [A], MeeAe4>tL]), a place-name (?) in Naphtali (Josh. 1933t). rj^n. however, does not look much like a place-name ; hence regards D as part of the name. The text is corrupt, and <ES B suggests the (probable) remedy. r SJ-JD ( B read nSriD) has arisen out of a dittographed 0723, the letters of which were trans- posed, and partly corrupted. 'From Heleph' should therefore be omitted, and the derivation of ALPHAEUS (y.v.) from 'the place-name Heleph' abandoned. X. K. C.


(fVn, pn probably should be }4>n, an abbreviated name, [God] has delivered, 50 ; X6AAHC [BKAL]).

1. The Pelonite or PALTITE [?.v.] (i Ch. 27 10, x^o"^ 1 )? [B] ;

1 Ch. 1127, eAArjs [L] ; 2 S. 2826, <reAAr)s [B, -s precedes], eAAr)s [A], X aAAT,s [L]).

2. A Jerahmeelite (i Ch. 239, oAAaf [L]). Cp Elusa (BERED i.).


i. (/= /./) ancestor of Ezra (4 Esd. 1 1), see ELI.

2. (ijAei [Ti. WHJ) the father of Joseph, Mary s husband, according to Lk. 823 (called Jacob in Mt. 1 16). See GENE ALOGIES ii. The commentators have misunderstood a Tal- mudic passage (Jer. Talm. Chag. n b) to mean that Miriam or Mary was known as > 7 y rrOi daughter of Eli. The mistake is set right by G. A. Cooke, Expos., Oct. 95, 316^


(HELI AS [ed. Bensly]), 4 Esd. 7 39 AV ; RV ELIJAH.


(HA[e]ioAu>poC t y A] ; but in 87 lAioAcopOC [V*], and so v in w. 8, 13, and 5i8). The chancellor (6 iirl ruv Trpay/j-driiiv) of Seleucus IV., Philopator, whom he murdered, and hoped in vain to succeed (App. Syr. 45; cp Liv. 4124); 2 Mace. 3 1- 4 1. The picturesque story of the horse with the terrible rider dashing into the temple precinct, and trampling the sacrilegious officer of the Syrian king under foot, is well known ; Dante in poetry (Purgat. 20113) and Raphael on the walls of the Vatican have given it fresh life. According to the author of the so-called 4 Mace. , who turns the story to account for edification, it was APOLLONIUS [q.v. , i] who attempted to plunder the Jewish temple.

The story may have a historical kernel ; Jason of Cyprus was often well informed (see MACCABEES, SECOND, 3). We know that the priests of Delphi, when their treasures were threatened by Xerxes, knew how to protect them (Herod. 837^) ; cp also the story in Paus. 1023.

That Heliodorus was the chancellor (RV; see

2 Mace. 10 ii 132 3 Mace. 7i ; and cp i Mace. 832 2 Mace. 87 1823; similarly Polyk. , Jos.) and not the treasurer (AV ^pr;/idra;v with Cod. 19, etc., for irpay- /j.d.Tui ) is shown by an inscription in which Heliodorus, son of ^schylus, of Antioch, the crvvrpofios (or intimate friend, cp MANAEN) of King Seleucus Philopator, is described as ^wl TWV Trpa[y/j,dTuv] TfTay/jitvov.

There is also another inscription referring to the same Heliodorus, who is, according to Homolle and Deissmann, the Heliodorus of the Jewish story. If so, Heliodorus deserved a better fate than to be immortalised as a robber of temples. Let us leave the name of the author of the attempted outrage uncertain. See Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 171-75 ( 95).


See ON.


(*gfo abbrev. from Hilkiah), head of the priestly B ne Meraioth (or Meremoth) in the time of the high- priest Joiakim (see EZRA ii., 66, ii), Neh. 12is (BN*A om., eAxat [ N c.a mg. inf.], xe xias [L]).


(np?n, portion ? Josh. 1925. eAeKe9 [B], xeAKAe [A], A. [L] ; or ngfo, ib. 21 31, X eAKAT [B], 06AKA.9 [A], x&A. t L ])- once - b y a textual error, HUKOK (pP in, I Ch. 660 [75], IKAK [B], IAK. [A a ], 6.KWK [L]), an unidentified Asherite locality. 1 The name, if correct, is virtually identical with the forms hakaru, hnkrua, etc. ( district ), which occur no fewer than eight times in Shishak's list (WMM As. u. Eur. 170 / ).

It is to be noted that Josh. 18:25 is the oldest of the three passages cited (Addis), and that it does not describe a boundary, but consists only of a list of towns. 2 Most probably it should be emended thus : 'And the territory of their inheritance (7133 DJlWlJi as in v - 4 1 ) was Helbah (see HALI), etc.," unless indeed we suppose the name to be incomplete (cp. HELKATH-HAZZURIM). P in Josh. 21 31 may have had the text before him in a corrupt form. That the Asherite list (19 24^) is composite and frag mentary is shown by Addis (Doc. Hex., 1 230 ; cp REHOB [i, 2]).

S. A. C.


(Dn-Vn n^H, MepicrcoN emBOYAooN [BAL]}, the scene of the encounter between the men of Joab and Abner (28. 2i6). Whatever its meaning may be, Budde (Ki. Sa. 240) and Lohr (Sam. 129, n. i) plausibly see in w. 14-16 a typical etymolo gising 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 v. 27 refer not hither (as RV m e- suggests), but to v. 26 (cp Driver, ad loc. ). It would be unreasonable to assume that Abner's invitation (v. 14) was the sole cause of the fight ; a battle would surely have ensued between the contending parties under any circumstances. Moreover, as Budde has observed, v. 17 follows immediately upon v. 13 a, and therefore it is quite possible that the original scene of the skirmish was neither at Gibeon, nor even in its neighbourhood. Which is in Gibeon (pjnja ntfx) ( = i6t>) may well be a gloss; a later writer knew, of course, that Gibeon was not destitute of pools (see Jer. 41 12^).

With regard to the name, most moderns follow Schleusner, and read D l sn n (after , cp Dr., ad loc.). Against this, however, see H. P. Smith, who (with Thenius) points D "]i n n ; there is no question of plotters or Hers -in --wait, but of determined enemies (cp eTri jSouAos for "IX, Est. 76 [x c - am ^-])- It is also possible to read D lsnn n> field of the reapers ; or D .lsnn n field of the men of Hazor (pr nomads ? see HAZOR). S But in ch. 2 we may plausibly distinguish (a) a fragmentary account of a battle against Abner and all Israel, the scene of which is Gibeon (12, 130; . . . 17, 28 f.\ and (b) a narrative wherein Abner is supported by Benjamites only (13^-16, 18-24 1 cp- 25, 2ga, 31).* Now in (l>), i>. 24 finds Abner at the hill of Adummim, before the valley of Zeboim (on text, see GIBEAH, 2 [6]). It is therefore conceivable that the field of blades (retaining the MT ; cp RVms-) is connected with Josh, bzf., 5 and that it lay in the neighbourhood of the Gibean-ha araioth (see GIBEAH, 2i). If so, the vanquished followers of Abner fled from Gilgal along by the ascent of Adummim to their homes in Benjamin. s. A. C.


(xeAK[e]iAC [BAL]), i Esd. 18 = 2 Ch. 358, HlLKIAH.


an unfortunate and misleading rendering of the Heb. 'se'ol' (71X12, on etym. cp Jastrow, Bab.-Ass. Rel. 560 ; <P aSrjs cp HADES), for which the RV (partially) 6 and Amer. Ver s. (wholly) substitute SHEOL. In the NT hell renders (i) oSrjs (Mt. 11 23 etc.) ; (2) the derivative of raprapos (2 Pet. 24f RVroff. TARTARUS), and (3) ytevva. (Mt. 622 etc., see GEHENNA, HINNO.M). See generally ESCHATOLOGY.

1 Guerin s identification with Yerka, 8J NE. of Acco, is extremely improbable.

2 Hence <B B s from Helkath is incorrect.

3 v. i6a may imply a reading D ~ltn. With respect to the first suggestion above it may be noticed that if N/I^H is Ass. and Aram, rather than Heb., the use of np"?n itself is equally note worthy (see FIELD, 3).

  • See AJSL, 1900, p. 148 _#

8 Perhaps another aetiological legend.

8 See the revisers preface.


The writer of the article GENTILES closes with a reference to the epoch-making declaration of Paul that in Christ there is neither 'Jew nor Greek' (Gal. 828). 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 article.

1. Greeks in the OT.[edit]

References to the Greeks are not wholly wanting in the OT. Thus JAVAN (q.v. ) is the Heb. term for the Ionians and Greeks generally; in Zechariah and Daniel it even stands for the Graeco-Macedonian world-empire.

In Is. 9 12 [n] <8"NAQ 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 Diadoche when the Greeks were the chief danger for the Jewish people. The >xa^aipa t\\r)viicrj, too, of Jer. 26(46) 16 27 (50) 16, is due to a misunder 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 OT Apocrypha, the books of the Maccabees manifest intimate acquaintance with the Greeks.

Thus i Mace, begins with the statement that Alexander the Macedonian defeated Uarius and reigned over Greece in his stead, while the Macedonian empire is in i Mace. 1 10 called |3a<nAeia E\\rjv<av ; armies raised by the Syrian king are called Greek in 2 Mace. 132, and by Greek cities in 2 Mace. 6s are meant Macedonian colonies. With Greece proper, however, the Jews were not unacquainted. We find references to Athenians and Spartans in 2 Mace. (3 1 9 15 i Mace. 12-14, and a long list of Greek cities in i Mace. 1623; nay, according to i Mace. 126, Jonathan the Hasmonacan greets the Spartans, whose alliance he seeks against the Syrians, as brothers.

2. Secondary application of name.[edit]

The name Greeks, however, now acquires a special sense in the mouth of Jews : the inhabitants of a city are distinguished in 2 Macc. 4:36 into abdication of Jews and Greeks (cp lla 3 Macc 3s8) ; 'Greek' is equivalent to anti- Jewish, heathen (2 Mace. 4 1015 69 1124) ; and in 2 Macc. 4 13 Hellenism is parallel to aXXcx^iAicryUos (RV alien religion ), as summing up all that a Jew could attain only by abandoning the principles of his fathers (2 Mace. 624 4 Mace. 18s).

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 Diadochi included almost the whole world, and, at least in the cities, had with wonderful rapidity secured for Greek civilisation as well as for the Greek language an unquestioned supremacy ; and heathenism was a danger to Israel only in so far as there lay behind it Greek civil power and Greek life. Hence it is natural that it soon became customary, even for those who themselves spoke Greek, to oppose anything as hurtful if only it was Greek, and to identify Greek with anti-Jewish.

In the NT we see completed the development by which Greeks ("EXX^ves) was substituted for gentiles, AXX60u\ot, and mankind was divided, from the most important, the religious, point of view, into Jews and Greeks. The original meaning of the word, however, is not yet quite forgotten.

EAATJVKTTi, ev Tp eAATji/iicjj (Acts 21 37 Jn. 19 20 Rev. 9 n, cp. the interpolation in Lk. 23 38) mean simply in the Greek language ; and Acts 20 2 makes Paul journey 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. 1 14 Paul calls himself a debtor to Greeks and barbarians, to wise and foolish, he is following a classical usage; and even in Col. 3n whereto Greek and Jew are added barbarian and Scythian, we seem to have an echo of the same usage (see BARBARIAN).

In Col. 3 ii, 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. 23, cp Rom. 1 16 2 10 10 12 i Cor. 1 24 12 13). Quite similar is the usage in Acts where the most characteristic passages are 1613 174 184; and, as by Greek women in Bercea (17 12) we are to understand heathens, so also in the story of the Syrophcenician (Mk. 7 26).

Thus in the NT the distinction between Jews and Greeks is used in exactly the same sense as the Jewish distinction between heathen and Israelites, as nations (tQfrj) and chosen people (Xo.6s) respectively. Cp Wisd. 15 14/. , a^d many passages in the NT (e.g. , Mt. 10s Mk. 10:33 Lk. 21 24 Acts 26 23 Rom. 829 i Tim. 3i6 Rev. 1619). The adjective tOt/ucbs, heathen (Mt. 18 17 3 Jn. 7), and Paul s phrase live as do the nations (tOviK&s frji> [Gal. 2 14]), are used to describe a life regardless of the prescrip tions of the Jewish law. It is significant, however, for the standpoint of Paul that he uses both nations ((6vri) and Greeks ("EXXr/ves) even of Christians, if they are of heathen origin.

The same man who in i Cor. 5 i treats the t6vr\ as a community separated from his readers by a great gulf, and reminds them in i Cor. 122 of the time when they were etfirj, writes, e.g., to the Roman church, I speak to you that are Gentiles (Rom. 11 13, cp Gal. 2 12 14 Eph. 3 i). The same man who divides mankind (i Cor. 1032) into the three classes, Jews, Greeks, and Christians (church of God), divides the called (i Cor. 1 24) into Jews and 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. 828 56 6 15), 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.

The Fourth Gospel occupies an exceptional position ; it never once mentions the HGvij [ethne], and five times applies the term (Ovos [ethnos] to the Jews. Thrice indeed it mentions the "EXXTjpes ; but in one passage (12 20) they are men who had gone up to the feast of passover at 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 "EXXiji ej [ellenos] are Greek-speaking Jews living in Greek cities, called elsewhere Hellenists (cp Acts 6 i). In Acts 9 29 11 20 also "EXXr/ves is a variant for Hellenists.

3. Jews' acquaintance with Greek language.[edit]

That to almost all the writers of the Hebrew OT Greek was an unknown language, will hardly be questioned by any one. Daniel is the only book that has adopted one or two Greek words in Aramaic form (3 5 7 10 15 ; see DANIEL ii. , 1 1). Even the parts of the OT that are later than Daniel were still in some cases (such as i Mace. 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 Mace, and Wisd. of Sol. The 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 250 B.C. and 100 A.D. , 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 HISTORICAL LIT., 20 22). Indeed, had not a reaction against the Hellenising tendency begun after the catastrophe of 70 A. D. , Hebrew would then perhaps have succumbed to Greek even in Palestine and amongst its theologians. To suppose, however (as, e.g. , G. B. Winer supposes, because of Mk. 724 Jn. 7 35 122o), that Jesus used the Greek language is quite out of the question, although as a Galilean, belonging to a province where language was 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 20 f. ). The earliest notes on his history may have been in 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. The epistles of NT are one and all originally Greek. Biesenthal (Das Trost- schreiben des Ap. Paulus an die Hebriier, 76) stands alone in recent times in venturing to deny this in the case of the eminently smoothly written epistle to the Hebrews (cp HEBREWS, n). Even the Apocalypse, notwithstanding the abundance of its Hebraistic defects of style, cannot have had a Hebrew original.

4. Greek ideas.[edit]

The 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 Greek version of the OT marked by gross literality of rendering do 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, e.g. , no Hebrew word corresponding to <j>i\c<To<f>ia, i^iAooTop yi a and most of the compounds of $i Aos ; or for <r;rep- /xoAoyos and oAoicAijpos ; or for aijavairia. and a.<t>6a.p<ria. (see IMMORTALITY).

On the other hand, old Greek expressions acquire new signitications corresponding to Jewish conceptions such as SiKaioavvrj and Trams.

This linguistic change, the most important stage of which is reached in Paul, begins with the oldest parts of the LXX (cp J. Freudenthal, Die Fl. Joscpltus beigelcgte Schrift iiber die Herrschaftder Vemunft [4 Mace.] 26 f. [ 69] ; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 89 ; A Deissmann, Beitr. z. Sprachgesch. der griechischen Bibel in Bibelstudien, 55-168 [ 95]).

The increasing prevalence of the Greek language may be conveniently seen in the abundance of Greek proper names even amongst Jews of Palestine.

In Maccabajan times sprang up the custom of giving Hebrew names a Greek form, Eliakim, e.g., becoming Alcimus (see ALCIMUS, and NAMES, 86) ; then we find combinations o f 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 at Jerusalem was for the Jews, could from about 130 B.C. bear the official name of avv&piov, only at a later day hebraised into Sanhednn, is specially significant for the hold that the Greek language had acquired even at the headquarters of Hebrew life.

5. Greek civilisation.[edit]

The spread of the Greek language brought with it a spread of Greek civilisation ; nay, the latter sometimes led the way. In the OT Apocrypha, but more fully in the NT, we have abundant evidence how dependent life in all phases was on Greek custom and Greek institutions.

Greek coins such as the talent, mina, and drachma super seded the old Hebrew ; even Roman coins like the as, the qiiadrans, and the denarius meet us in Hellenised forms. Nor is it otherwise 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 (icpios) (2 Macc. 12 15 Ps. Sol. 2 i, alongside of engines of war ) and spearmen even Sopvfiopia. (2 Macc. 3 28) and chiliarchs are not yet displaced by Roman institutions accommodated to Greek usage, such as trn-eipa for cohort (Acts 10 i 2131 27 i; cp 2 Mace. 823 1^2022 Judith 14 u). In accordance with Greek tastes we find inns conducted by an inn-keeper (Lk. 10 34 f.), here and there over the country ; Greek luxury has invented the side board of Simon (KV\LKI.OI i.q. icvkticeiov, i Mace. 15 32) and the mosquito-net of Holofernes (xui/oiirioi , Judith 10 19); and even the humble handkerchief crovSapiov (e.g. Lk. l J2o) reached Palestine through the Greeks. 2 Mace. 4 12 shows how in clothing, too, Greek usage, such as the wearing of broad-brimmed hats (TreYao-os), was contending with long-established custom (see CAP). The tympanon, both as musical instrument (Judith 3 7, cp Ex. 15 20 (B) and as instrument of torture (2 Macc. 19), was of Greek origin, as was the well-known cymbal of i Cor. 13 i.

In the description of forcible attempts at Hellenising under Epiphanes (2 Mace. 4 ; cp i Mace. 1 14 4 Mace. 4 20), great indignation is expressed at the founding of a gymnasium and an ephebeion within the holy city (cp CAP). Here the priests betook themselves to dancing in the palaestra and to throwing the discus (see Discus), practices almost as abominable in the eyes of the writer as taking part in the Dionysos festival (2 Mace. (17) or the gnmes at Tyre, when a sacrifice was offered to Heracles. The NT writers, however, do not show the same sensitiveness. Rev. 7 9 describes the saints in figurative language borrowed from the prize fights of 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-runners and boxers whom in i Cor. 9 24-27 he sets as patterns for his readers ; and the figurative description of the Christian life as a race or a contest is a special favourite with him (e.g. Gal.2257 Phil. 1 30 2 16), in which respect later writers have followed his example (Heb. 12 i 2 Tim. 25 47 i Tim. 4 10 6 12). Even the sanguinary spectacles of the amphitheatre are so familiar to him that he calls an unusually violent encounter with an Ephesian mob a &np>.oii.a.\tlv (i Cor. 15 32).! According to Acts 19 29-31 he was even willing to enter the Ephesian theatre, although to be sure not for artistic gratification. In i Cor. 4 9 he declares that his fate has made him a spectacle (SeaTpof) for angels and men (cp Heb. 10 33) ; and in 4 Mace. 6 17 we have the word Spa^a similarly used.

There must be deep reasons for the fact that at 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 theatre- building in Berytus, Paul the Christian, brought up 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 NT to sound any warning of danger threatening in that direction.

6. Greek thought in OT.[edit]

Much more important than all this is the question that remains. What did the Jewish or the Christian writings appropriate from Greek thought ? How far have the literature, philosophy, and religion of the Greeks influenced those of the OT or the NT? In the Hebrew parts of the OT this influence must certainly not be rated very high. Only in the case of Koheleth (Eccles. ) is the question important.

Cornill, e.g., regards it as certain (Einl. 42) that the mind of this author, who could but imperfectly combine radical pessimism with his ancestral religious faith, became, as it were, simply intoxicated under the stimulation of Hellenic thought. Wellhausen is more guarded in confining himself (7/C( J ) 196 n. ; ( 2 ), 230 n. ; (*), 237 n.) to undefined and general influences that may 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 HeraclTtus or with Epicureanism (cp Tyler, Plumptre, Pfleiderer), than with Greek literature generally. Whatever may seem to 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 ECCLESIASTES, 10).

In 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. The tendency of the LXX to avoid anthropomorphic ex pressions (e.g. , see the salvation of God for see YahweV Is. 38 ii ; cp Ex. 24io), the use of the divine name existing one (Jer. 14 13 39[32]i; ; 2 cp Ex. 814 ), the mention of the sons of the Titans 3 and giants (Judith 16 6 [8], the way in which a divine power is spoken of as encompassing the holy place, and God as its ewbirT-qs and /3oi7#6s (2 Mace. 838 /.) such 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 an exception. In the latter this appears in the very opening words.

Notwithstanding that 4 Macc, sings the praises of an imperturb ability peculiarly Jewish, the familiarity of the writer with Greek philosophy is everywhere apparent. He knows the Greek cardinal virtues, he makes use of the Stoic phrase to live in arapafia (826, fierd arapafias), he actually quotes from a Greek Stoic writer (7 22 ; see the work of Freudenthal cited above, 4).

It is in Wisd. Sol. , however, that the Hellenistic colouring becomes most prominent when we compare it with Ecclus. In fact Wisd. Sol. aims 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 God all ideas derived from Hellenism.

1 [But see M Giffert, Apostolic Age, 280.]

2 [It is possible, however, that 6 lav is really a corruption of the interjection 0> which represents a,1N in Aq. and Sym. of 32 17.]

3 The Titans appear also in of 2 S. 5 18 22.

7. In other writings.[edit]

Before turning our attention to the NT 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 NT and early Christianity can be explained only on this supposition. Those Jews who, from the third century B.C., thought to diffuse Jewish piety by means of Greek verses, whether attributed to Orpheus or to the Sibyl (see APOCALYPTIC, 86^), or to 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. The 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 NT, if they naturally rested on a thoroughly Jewish basis, were not without contributions from Greek theo logy (cp ESCHATOLOGY, and the several articles). So Essenism can be understood only when regarded as a blending of Jewish and Greek ideas (cp ESSENES), 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 NT writers have been influenced by ideas originating in such ways.

8. In the NT.[edit]

At the present time, however, there is more danger of overestimating than of underestimating the Hellenistic elements in later Judaism and the earliest stages of Christianity. Books, for example, like Winckler s Der Stoicismus eine Wurzel des Christenthums ( 78), or M. Friedlander's Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Christenthums ( 94), 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 attributed 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 to the Synoptic speeches of Jesus as have been hunted out in Greek or Latin writers are accidental consonances.

Still more un-Hellenic in both subject and spirit is the Apocalypse of John ; yet it is not improbable that the mysterious figure of the dragon pursuing a woman with child (ch. 12) is to be traced ultimately to the Greek myth of the Pythic dragon and the pregnant Leto (see A. Dieterich, Abraxas, 119 f. [ 91]).

9. Paul.[edit]

In the case of Paul, contact with the Greek world unquestionably goes deeper. Socrates the church historian (circa 440) felt justified (3i6) in crediting the apostle with a knowledge of numerous sayings of the Greek classical writers, relying in so doing on Actsl7a8 i Cor. 1633 Tit. 1 12. The metrical form of the passages in question is indeed enough to show that they are drawn from the poetical literature of the Greeks, and as a matter of fact Acts 17 28 has been found in Aratus and the Stoic Cleanthes, Tit. liz in Epimenides and Callimachus, i Cor. 1633 in Menander and Euripides. If, however, the Pastoral Epistles are the work of an unknown writer about 100 A. u. , Tit. Ii2 proves nothing regarding the culture of Paul ; 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 hero ; 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. 1633. Here, however, there is no introductory formula, and it is at least doubtful whether Paul in using the verse knew whence it came ; it is not by such means that an acquaintance of Paul with Greek literature can be established. If, according to Actsl7i8_/i, Paul discussed in Athens with Epicureans and Stoics, this does not prove that he had read their writings. When, e.g. , Ramsay (St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 237 ft [ 95]) treats the account in Acts 17, of how Paul at Athens forthwith adopted the Socratic method of free discussion in the Agora, and became for the time an Athenian, as 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 own knowledge, his own education, and his own fine historical feeling.

Those go too far on the other side, however, who, like Hausrath (Der Apostel Paulus, 11 ff.^jz]), would deny Paul any influence from the Greek learning that surrounded him at Tarsus from his youth up. We know only that writing presented difficulties for him, not simply or particularly writing in Greek. The absence of real quotations from Greek authors in what he has written, shows not, that, apart from the Apocrypha, Paul had never had a Greek book in his hand, but simply that Christ had become to him all in all, and that he would allow nothing but words of God a place in his heart and on his lips.. He 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. The fact itself that Paul was acquainted with the OT 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 (e.g. , Col. lis/. ) permit us to conclude that he had made himself acquainted also with other books written in Greek ; he must have had a vernacular knowledge of both Greek and Aramaic, and received both a Jewish and a Greek education.

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 sought 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 been only suggested there ; they are the outcome of his struggle to effect an adjustment between what he inherited and what he himself experienced.

If, e.g., he mentions and correctly uses allegories and types drawn from names (i Cor.lOen Gal. 424), although this was a plant that flourished on Greek soil, it was not there that he made its acquaintance, but in his Jewish schools of theology. Other features of resemblance 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. The ascetic, unworldly character of his ethic corresponds to the temper of the age he lived in ; 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, as representing the direct influence of Hellenism on his theology, only minor secondary features. The denomi nation, however, of the good as TO KaXov (Rom. 7i82t 2 Cor. 13? Gal. 4i8 69 iThess. 621), the emphasis laid on virtue (d/jerij ; Phil. 48), the classification of man as pneumatic, psychic, and sarcic, the glorifica tion of the Stoic moderation (avrapKeia ; Phil. 4 n); such features are no accidental points of contact between Paul and Greek thought ; and the appeal to nature itself and its teachings (i Cor. 1114; cp the frequent against nature, or according to nature ) has a specifically Greek sound. Notwithstanding all this, however, we are never able to 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, e.g. , Lightfoot, St. Paul s preparation for the ministry, in Biblical F.ssays, \<)<)ff. [ 93]; Hicks, St. Paul and Hellenism, in Studia Biblica et Kccles. 4 1-14 [ 96]).

10. Remaining parts of NT.[edit]

Nor is there anything essentially different in the case of the NT books that stand closely related to Paul. We feel that we have moved more out of a Hebrew into a Greek atmosphere in the Pastoral Epistles, in Hebrews which is beyond doubt dependent both in form and in contents on the Alexandrians (e.g. , 131814) and 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. Tt 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 work ; no pure Jew would have uttered the almost pantheistic -sounding sentence, in God we live and move and have our being (1723). 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 (Ii-i8), of Greek origin ; the gnosticising tendency of John, his enthusiasm for the truth (svithout 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 as he certainly was, as 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 as little can his Logos theory have originated independently of Philo, as the figure of the Paraclete in chaps. 14-16 (see J. ReVille, La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrieme Evangile,. Paris, 81). Cp JOHN [SON OK ZEBEDEE], 31.

11. Result.[edit]

We must conclude with the following guarded thesis. There is in the circle of ideas in the NT, in addition to what is new, and what is taken over from Judaism, much that is Greek ; but whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed at 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 K. Hatch, 1 lie Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages on the Christian Church, 90 ; A. F. Diihne, Gesch. Darstellung Jer jud.-a.lex. Rel.-philosophie, 34; C. Siegfried, Philo Ton Alexandr., 70, esp. p. 303 ff. ; M. Heinze, Die Lehre votn Logos in tier griech. Philosophic, 72 ; H. Bois, Essai sur les vrigines de la philosophic Judeo - alexandrine, 90; H. J. Holtzmann, I.ehrbuch tier NT Theol., 97. A. J. -T. K. C.


(koba\ 173 lp. or koba , 17313).

The pronunciation with initial k is sustained by the Aramaic form of the word Kfibil a. We may perhaps compare the word kiMa atk, cup, Ass. Kabtttu, Ar. hub at. KoM occurs in i S. 1738 and Kzek. 8894 (? see (B arid Cornill), whereas we find jniS in i S. 17 5 Is. 59 17 Jer. 40 4 Ezek. 27 10 2 Ch. 26 14. 0*8 equivalent is ireptice<f>aAai a, a designation which is not found in the classical period, but is not infrequent in Polybius.

Helmets made of bronze were worn by distinguished men and leaders in war (as Goliath and David, i S. 17s 38) I but we can infer from Jer. 464 and 2 Ch. 2614 that helmets probably of leather or felt were worn also by the ordinary warrior. It 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 as well as with a prolonged flap or cheek-piece to cover the side of the face or ears. Max Muller (As. it. Eur. 302^ 325^ 361 ff. 375-378 380 f. 384) gives copious illustrations of the various forms of helmets and caps worn by the Bedouin, Syrian, and Hittite warriors. The 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 As. 11. Eur. pp. 232, 323) ; the LXX therefore was guided probably by a right instinct in selecting the term 7repiKe</>aXeua as the most apt term to designate a 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 to distinguish their persons as 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 at the top than at the base. See As. u. Eur. p. 361.

On the other hand, the helmet worn by the Assyrians and Babylonians was loftier than that which was in vogue among the Syrians and Hittites and was pointed at the summit. There was also a side piece for the protection of the ears (see illustrations, s. v. GREAVES), resembling the <f>d\apa, flaps or cheek-pieces (wapa- yva6ides), of the ancient Greeks.

The Cypriote helmet figured in Warre-Cornish s Concise Diet, of Greek and Roman Antiqq., p. 79, fig. 158, presents a close analogy. For the different forms of Greek helmet the reader is referred to the article Arms and Armour in that work. The Greek helmet presented varieties and complications of detail, as well as adornment in the form of crests, altogether unknown among the plainer and more modest accoutrements of Egypt and Western Asia.

The helmet, like the coat of mail, is metaphorically employed by the writer of Is. 59 17, the helmet desig nating salvation, an image which is borrowed by Paul (Eph. 617 i Thess. 58). Cp TURBAN. o. c. w.


(^ri; XAIAOON [BAF], X A- [L]), a Zebulunite (Nu. 1 9 2? 72429 10 16 [P]).




(DDTl. AIMAN [BADEL]), b. Seir the Horite (Gen. 8622), called in i Ch. 139 HOMAM (DDin, HMAN [L]). Probably with (5 (cp Vg. HEMAN in Gen. ) we should read HEMAN (see below).